U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–124 PDF 2003

INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO PREVENTING

CRIME AND REHABILITATING YOUTH AND

ADULT OFFENDERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 22, 2002

Serial No. 107–165

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

DAVE WELDON, Florida

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JAMES C. WILSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN L. MICA, Florida,

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

DOUG OSE, California

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

DAVE WELDON, Florida

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

JANICE D. SCHAKOWKY, Illinois

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

CHRISTOPHER A. DONESA, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

AMY ADAIR HORTON, Professional Staff Member

CONN CARROLL, Clerk

JULIAN A. HAYWOOD, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 22, 2002 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Curie, Charles, Administrator, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration ............................................................................... 9

Deary, Kevin, president and executive director, Boys and Girls Club

of Greater Goshen; Alisa Stovall, education coordinator, Deer Run

Academy; Matthew P. Schomburg, Wayne Township trustee; Mark

Terrell, CEO, Lifeline Youth and Family Services, Inc.; and Glynn

Hines, Fort Wayne city councilman ............................................................ 59

Surbeck, John F., judge, re-entry court initiative, Allen Superior Court,

Criminal Division; Frances C. Gull, judge, drug court, Allen Superior

Court, Criminal Division; and David C. Bonfiglio, judge, Elkhart Superior Court VI .................................................................................................. 27

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Bonfiglio, David C., judge, Elkhart Superior Court VI, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 39

Curie, Charles, Administrator, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration, prepared statement of ........................................ 13

Deary, Kevin, president and executive director, Boys and Girls Club

of Greater Goshen, prepared statement of .................................................. 62

Gull, Frances C., judge, drug court, Allen Superior Court, Criminal Division, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 32

Hines, Glynn, Fort Wayne city councilman, prepared statement of ............ 91

Schomburg, Matthew P., Wayne Township trustee, information concerning Twenty-first Century Scholars .............................................................. 76

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 4

Stovall, Alisa, education coordinator, Deer Run Academy, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 68

Terrell, Mark, CEO, Lifeline Youth and Family Services, Inc., prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 82

(1)

INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO PREVENTING

CRIME AND REHABILITATING YOUTH AND

ADULT OFFENDERS

FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY AND

HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Fort Wayne, IN.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1 p.m., at Ivy Tech

Auditorium, 3800 North Anthony Boulevard, Fort Wayne, IN, Hon.

Mark E. Souder (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Souder, Cummings and Davis.

Staff present: Conn Carroll, clerk; Christopher A. Donesa, staff

director and chief counsel; Amy Adair Horton, deputy staff director;

and Julian A. Haywood, minority counsel.

Mr. SOUDER. If everybody could take their seats. Subcommittee

will now come to order. I’m honored to chair this hearing today for

multiple reasons. Foremost is the fact we’ve been able to gather so

many quality professionals from local communities, courts and government, to Federal officials for this hearing.

It’s a privilege to welcome Administrator Charles Curie of the

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

[SAMHSA], who happens to actually be a native of this area, from

DeKalb County to be exact. The Department of Health and Human

Services, through SAMHSA, provides the majority of Federal funding for drug abuse treatment, prevention and education programs

in the United States.

With an estimated 26 million Americans presently addicted to

drugs and/or alcohol, costs to our community are skyrocketing. The

cost of both drug and alcohol addiction to society, including costs

for health care, substance abuse prevention and treatment, preventing and fighting substance-related crime and lost resources resulting from reduced worker productivity or death, was estimated

at an astounding $246 billion for 1998.

Administrator Curie will testify about the administration’s initiative to prevent drug abuse and treat drug users. He will also testify

about Federal funds flowing to Indiana for drug abuse treatment,

prevention and education programs, as well as drug abuse trends

in northeast Indiana.

I am also honored and pleased to welcome two of my congressional colleagues to northeast Indiana today. Congressman Elijah

Cummings of Baltimore, who is a ranking member of this subVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:27 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85124.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
2

committee, and Congressman Danny Davis of Chicago, who has

been a leader in the House of Representatives on the issue of reentry of ex-offenders to communities.

Finally, I want to thank all of our distinguished witnesses, many

of whom have changed their busy schedules in order to accommodate this hearing. The subcommittee will greatly benefit from your

testimony this afternoon.

For quite some time, I’ve been hoping to have the opportunity to

showcase the exemplary programs that have grown from the grassroots in northeast Indiana. This region has proven to be a prolific

environment for innovative crime control programs, initiatives that

provide pre- and post-adjudication services for high-risk youth and

adult and juvenile offenders. Such programs span a wide variety of

services, including adult re-entry and drug courts; juvenile mentoring, educational attainment and character programs; alternative

schools; anti-drug programs; and partnerships between law—local

law enforcement and neighborhood communities. Those of us from

this area have reason to be very proud of our community’s leadership in providing narrowly targeted services to juvenile and at-risk

populations.

Of the local programs highlighted at this hearing, some funding

flows through various Federal grant programs, including the Department of Education’s GEAR UP program, the Corporation for

National Service’s Americorps program, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the Department of Justice’s Community-Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program. I am interested in learning how

the Federal Government can provide monetary and other assistance to local communities who are on the front lines of crime control.

Another reason for my distinct pleasure in hosting this hearing

is that some of the local initiatives highlighted today are linked to

legislation I have closely worked on in Washington. As a member

of the House Education Committee, I have worked on juvenile justice legislation, the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities

Act, and GEAR UP, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for

Undergraduate Programs. Since 1996, the Education Committee

has annually considered juvenile justice bills. I worked heavily last

year on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which contained the Safe and Drug Free Schools title. This is the Federal

Government’s major initiative to prevent drug abuse and violence

in and around schools. And, in 1998, I worked with Congressman

Chaka Fattah, who is not here, to create—I was a major Republican sponsor to create the GEAR UP program. GEAR UP seeks to

increase disadvantaged students’ secondary school completion and

post-secondary enrollment by providing school—support services

and by assuring students of the availability of financial aid to meet

college costs.

As Congress continues to consider crime control legislation, it is

important that we learn about grassroots programs that are effective in addressing specific adult and juvenile justice issues. Some

of these initiatives may be fortified with the Federal grant money;

others may not. The central questions are what we can—what can

we learn from these programs and how can the Federal officials encourage and champion programs like we see here in this area.

3

Just several weeks ago, I was with Congressman Cummings in

Baltimore. We focused particularly on drug treatment, in which

he’s been a leader in, but also the drug courts, which has been very

important here in northeast Indiana, and—and where I’ve been on

the forum multiple times advocating the drug courts and we’re

going to hear more about that today.

And Congressman Davis is a champion on re-entry programs,

which Judge Surbeck will be talking about our challenges here in

northeast Indiana. I supported his legislation. One of the most difficult problems we have in—in cities like the size of Fort Wayne

and especially in our smaller towns is where do you find transitional housing, where do you find people who are willing to employ

people, retrain them, because, if we don’t do those kinds of things,

it is difficult to see how we cannot just accelerate the pace of crime

and problems in our communities. And we have two of the most innovative Members of Congress here today and it’s a great honor to

welcome them here to Fort Wayne.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

4

5

6

7

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I

want to thank you and—sincerely for inviting me to your congressional district and for holding this very important hearing in Fort

Wayne today. I’m certainly very pleased to have Congressman

Danny Davis, a member of our subcommittee, with us.

Just 2 weeks ago, as you stated, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee held a similar hearing in my home district of Baltimore City,

and you were able to see and hear what the Federal Government,

the State and local agencies and the private sector organizations

are doing to combat the terrible problem of drug abuse and addiction in Baltimore. In Baltimore, as you are well aware, with a population of some 665,000, it is estimated that we have 65,000 addicts, plus. I thought it was important for you and for the Congress

to know about the remarkable progress that Baltimore has made

in reducing drug use and related crime and health problems by expanding access to effective drug treatment.

Today’s hearing gives me a similar opportunity to see what the

public and private sector are doing in northeast Indiana to prevent

crime and to rehabilitate youth and adult offenders in your community. Here, as in Baltimore, the initiative and creativity that

spawns effective solutions often begins at the grassroots level

among the very people who are directly affected in their own communities. Clearly, I affirm the Federal Government has played, and

must continue to play an active role in supporting many such efforts in Baltimore and northeastern Indiana and around the country. It is important for us, as Federal legislators, to learn about and

to talk about local success stories so that we can replicate them

across our great Nation.

The work of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration is a primary source of Federal support for drug

treatment and research programs around the country. So I’m very

glad that SAMHSA’s administrator, Charles Curie, appears here

with us today. I’m happy, too, Mr. Chairman, that Congressman

Danny Davis, who has spent phenomenal amounts of time addressing the issue of re-entry is here with us, too. For he brings a lot

of the insight. So often what happens is that people say, Put—

when people run into drug problems, they say, Put him in jail and

throw away the key. Well, the fact is is that people are going to

come back into our communities and, as we’ve found in Baltimore,

so often they return to the same corners, to the same house and

to the same people and, next thing you know, we have a revolving

door. And, so, that—for that reason, it is so important that we address re-entry.

The problem with crime in America is very complex, but its connection to drug abuse and addiction is clear and easily understood.

Recently, the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy,

John Walters, paid a visit to Baltimore City, and we were able to

sit down and talk with a number of residents in a highly successful

drug treatment facility there called the Turk House. During that

exchange, we conducted our own miniature survey of among 12 recovering addicts and learned that, on the average—and listen to

this—that, on the average, each of them spent more than $100 a

8

day to support their drug addiction and all of them—all of the 12

were unemployed.

During the subcommittee’s recent field hearing in Baltimore

City, Police Commissioner Edward Norris testified that 8 percent

of homicides in Baltimore and an even greater percentage of property crimes, which are far more prevalent, are drug-related. Certain crimes may be beyond our government to prevent, Mr. Chairman, but we can do something about drug-related crime if only we

could get people to stop using drugs. Baltimore’s experience proves

that. We simply cannot solve either the drug problem or the crime

problem simply through incarceration, and that is why I’m such a

strong supporter of drug courts, which use the coercive power of

criminal—of the criminal justice system to get substance abusers

the treatment that they need. Still, drug and alcohol abuse are not

the only recursus of criminality. Child abuse and neglect, substandard living conditions and many other factors can help make

a criminal out of someone who might otherwise flourish and contribute as a productive citizen. And, so, our criminal justice system

must become flexible enough to identify and treat underlying problems when offenders enter the system for the first time. Often, as

we know, that is very—that is very early in an offender’s life, so

juvenile justice programs, including juvenile family courts, are critical. For juveniles and adults alike, if we simply punish without actually correcting what’s wrong with the individual, the cycle of

abuse, addiction and criminal behavior will quickly take hold.

As Representative Davis clearly understands, we must also deal

with those who are already incarcerated and who are or will be returning from prison to society. Sending offenders away for longer

periods of time may ease the pain of victims and others in the community, but it only defers the pain these offenders will visit upon

future victims if they are not prepared to be law-abiding, self-sufficient citizens when their sentences are up. We simply must do

more to ensure that, when an offender is released, he or she is

equipped to function as a healthy, self-sustaining and productive

citizen, parent, spouse and employee.

Based on the written testimony I’ve seen, some, if not all, of

these ideas have already been put to work on the State and local

level in the Fort Worth area, and I—and I look forward to hearing

how various justice programs are working and what lessons our

witnesses can offer to communities across the country, including

how the Federal Government has been helpful to date and how it

can be even a better partner in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Now, I’d like to recognize my friend, Mr. Davis, who’s my friend

not just because he represents the Chicago White Sox, for those of

you who know I’ve been a White Sox fan for many years, but he’s

been a great leader and Congressman, Congressman Danny Davis.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I’m waiting until next year. And I meant to

say—And I meant to say Fort Wayne.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me

first of all commend you and ranking member Elijah Cummings for

the outstanding leadership that you’ve both shown in this area of

drug use abuse and trying to find ways to correct problems that

9

exist. It is my feeling that’s one of the most pernicious and most

threatening of all the problems facing our society, is that of drug

use and abuse, which becomes an integral part of what happens

with and within our criminal justice system. As you have already

noted, many of the individuals who are caught up in criminal justice activity find it being spurred and generated by the use of

mind-altering drugs. Once they lose control of the direction of their

lives, then it becomes a very empty situation for them; therefore,

I commend you for the efforts to take in-depth looks at these

issues.

The Justice Department has predicted that more than 630 thousand people will be released from our prisons and jails this year

with the same thing happening next year and the next year and,

unfortunately, many of these individuals—most of them are returning in worse shape than they were in when they were first incarcerated. Half of them or almost half will find themselves caught up

again within a period of 3 years. And, so, therefore, we must, as

Representative Cummings has indicated, find a way to provide

more resources, more opportunity and to help not only those individuals, because, as we help them, we are really helping ourselves.

That’s why we take the position that, when we help an ex-offender

become a productive member of society, we help a whole community realize its own potential. And, so, I’m pleased to be here today

in Fort Wayne, look forward to the discussions that will take place

and certainly want to add my welcome to Administrator Curie and

look forward to his testimony.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

Before proceeding, I would like to take care of a couple of procedural matters. First, that I have consent that all Members have 5

legislative days to submit written statements and questions to the

hearing record and any answers to written questions provided by

the witnesses also be included in the record. Without objection, so

ordered.

Second, I ask to have consent that all exhibits, documents and

other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses may be

included in the hearing record and all Members will be permitted

to provide extended remarks. Without objection, it’s so ordered.

We are an oversight committee and it is our standard practice

to ask all our witnesses to testify under oath. So, if you could

stand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that the witness answered in

the affirmative.

It’s a great honor to have you here to initiate our hearing today,

and I’ll now ask you, as administrator of this important and the

most important drug treatment agency, to outline some of your accomplishments and goals.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES CURIE, ADMINISTRATOR, THE SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Mr. CURIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the opportunity to be here today for broad reasons. One of you mentioned

10

this does represent my hometown district, and I know my parents

are pleased I’m able to come home for a visit on this particular

trip, but, also, professionally, I appreciate the work you, Mr. Chairman, have done on this and as well as Congressman Cummings

and Congressman Davis, to further the education of the public

around substance abuse, which hopefully I’ll be able to elaborate on

here. I do request that my written testimony, which I’m submitting, be made part of the record.

And I do also appreciate the fact you clarified in your opening

statement and one amendment I’d like to make to that written testimony is it had me down as a native of Noble County. I’m a native

of DeKalb County. My staff understands that now as we move

ahead. And I think the—what occurred is my good friend, Judge

Michael Kramer, came from Noble County to visit me in my office

and we talked about northeastern Indiana. So I think my staff got

a little confused with that, but I am a native of DeKalb County.

Also have roots here through having been a graduate of Huntington College. And then Congressman Davis and I were just comparing notes. Being an alumnus of the University of Chicago and we

were able to talk about common social work around there.

Also, Congressman Cummings, if I might, I’d also like to note

your continued efforts to reduce the availability of drugs and increase access to care. And I want to apologize for not having been

able to be at the Baltimore hearing. I was—my attention that day

was directed toward Chairman Regula and the Appropriation Subcommittee, my budget. So I had that priority facing me that day.

I’d like to also indicate that, with my visit here in Fort Wayne,

I arrived yesterday and had an opportunity to see first-hand the

inner-workings of the re-entry court under Judge Surbeck, and I

just want to say that I not only had a chance to see he and his

staff in action and the work of Executive Director Sheila Hudson

preparing for that court, but I was able to sit in on a night court

session last night. And I thought it represented an excellent model

of accountability, but also recognition of what the members of this

committee have already articulated in terms of the underlying

issue of substance abuse and addictive disease and how that contributes to the cycle of crime, but how we can also address this

issue through treatment, at the same time holding people accountable and really work to restoring individuals to come to a life of

dignity and full participation in the community. And I think Fort

Wayne doing this basically proves grassroots movement in terms of

using the dollars that were already here to accomplish that is a

great testimony and I do believe that it will serve as a model as

we look to fund other programs in corroborating with the Department of Justice to see that this type of model can be available

throughout the country.

It is SAMHSA’s mission to fully develop the Federal Government’s ability to target substance abuse and mental health services

to the people most in need and to translate research in these areas

more effectively and more rapidly in the general health care system. The Agency’s work has shown that prevention, early intervention and treatment for mental and substance abuse disorders pay

off in reduced HIV/AIDS, crime, violence, suicide, homelessness, injuries and health care costs, as well as increase productivity, emVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:27 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85124.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
11

ployment and community participation. I might add that the focus

of this hearing also, I think, points out that good public health also

can translate to good public safety. I—the comment that was made,

I believe by Congressman Cummings, the statistic of 630,000 individuals leaving the correctional facilities throughout this country

point out that if individuals still have an underlying addiction disorder that’s not been addressed, they’re going to be—continue to be

a prisoner of that addiction disease and the revolving door will continue to spin.

The President’s proposed budget for 2003 includes an additional $127 million for substance abuse. It’s a continuation of the President’s promise to reduce the treatment gap. It includes an additional $60 million for the substance abuse prevention treatment

block grant that will bring several contributions directly to the

State to $1.785 billion. If the President’s budget is approved, Indiana, for example, will receive $33,632,000. Janet Corson, who is

the director of the Indiana agency, is responsible for the block

grants funds and we pledge our continued work with her to see

that these funds are used effectively. The President also has proposed increasing $67 million for com- petitive grants. This year, Indiana is receiving an additional $4.7

million in competitive grants in addition to the block grants.

I encourage these programs also in this district to apply for Targeted Capacity Expansion grants. The next application is due May

10th, and these funds provide support to local communities to address substance abuse treatment issues in their area, whether it’s

Oxycontin, methamphetamine abuse or services for adolescents, in

particular, adolescents in the criminal justice system.

We support and expect to expand also our State Incentive Grant Program, which Indiana is a recipient of about $21⁄2 million.

Eighty-five percent of these funds are required to go to local communities for prevention activities. SAMHSA will also help local

communities by identifying programs and models that work so they

can be replicated in different communities with different populations. We do this through treatment and prevention improvement

protocols for substance abuse issues and common and technical assistance.

I also wanted to point out two other things real quickly; the need

to focus in our systems on care of co-occurring mental illness in

substance abuse disorders. We are finding in our service delivery

system as high as 60 percent of individuals being served by the

drug and alcohol system, as well as mental health have co-occurring disorders which are not being fully treated, and I view this as

an area that we need to address so that we are assuring that we’re

maximizing the public dollar in the first place. Because, if we treat

the substance abuse issue without treating the underlying mental

illness, people are going to continue to self-medicate and come right

back in that system. The same is true with treatment of mental illness. Without dealing with the recovery around the addiction,

again we are not fully treating those individuals.

And the other point I would like to make is our system needs to

be thinking about giving people life in the community. Whether we

talk to prisoners coming out of the criminal justice system who

have a substance abuse disorder or whether we’re talking to indiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:27 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85124.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
12

viduals coming out of the State hospitals with mental illnesses, I

think that there’s been scientific surveys done on this and, in my

own experience in just sitting down and speaking with these individuals, you ask them what they need to succeed. They don’t talk

about, I need a psychologist to follow me around or a licensed drug

counselor to follow me around or a case manager. They talk beyond

treatment. To make it in the community, they say, I need a job,

a decent place to live, and I translated a date on the weekends, but

significant emotional relationships and family and friends to be

part of the community and to be accepted. We have failed in our

system if we don’t do that.

I’d like to end with a quote from Douglas McArthur, who is not

known as a mental health advocate or a drug and alcohol substance abuse advocate, but he spoke the truth when he said, ‘‘In

the central place of every heart is a recording chamber. So long as

we receive the message of beauty, hope, cheer and courage, so long

are you young. When the wires are all down and your heart is covered with the small pessimisms and the act of cynicism, then and

only then are you grown old.’’

And these words of McArthur are true in the person trapped by

addictions, the person devastated by mood swings and the person

distracted by the voices are people who become more and more isolated. They may get in trouble with the criminal justice system, become more isolated. The wires are truly down. This then tells us

that we need to be about not only bringing the wires up, seeing

that treatment takes hold, recognizing that coerced treatment does

work in prisons, but once treatment does take hold, we must do everything in our capacity to assure messages are sent to that central

place of the heart, messages of beauty, hope, cheer and courage and

help people gain a life, including a job, a descent place to live and

significant relationships.

So that’s what we need to be about in the system. I look forward

to working with you and accomplishing that.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony and once

again for coming.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Curie follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Mr. SOUDER. What do you see as the major trend that you’ll be

addressing in this next year? Co-occurrence is an interesting angle,

one that hasn’t been talked about enough, but, clearly, people who

abuse drugs and alcohol have usually some other kind of problem

that led into them. I’d be interested in that, or if there are particular programs. Clearly, we’re seeing a rise in methamphetamines in

many parts of the country, of Oxycontin, of Ecstasy.

Do you tailor any of your treatment ranks around trends of a

given area? Are you looking for innovative programs that address

certain types, or is it more comprehensive presence than that?

Mr. CURIE. I’ll answer the first part of the question and then the

second.

In terms of our priorities we’ll be addressing this year, you are

exactly right, co-occurring is a No. 1 priority that we will be addressing. I think it is SAMSHA’s responsibility to take a lead on

that important field, identify, in collaboration with providers, academic institutes, the research institutes and in the national institutes for health what models really do work in terms of integrative

treatment models to treat people that have co-occurring disorders.

And another reason that we’re focused on that area as a priority

is 80 percent—while 80 percent of the individuals in the criminal

justice system typically across the country—when I was in Pennsylvania as commissioner of mental health there, we did a review of

the State prisons there. Eighty percent of the individuals in the

State prison system had a drug and alcohol issue, over 50 percent

were under the influence at the time of arrest, 10 to 12 percent had

a serious mental illness diagnosis and 90 percent of those individuals had a co-occurring substance abuse problem. So that tells us

right there where we need to put our priorities in treatment. And

we do track trends across the country around Oxycontin, around

methamphetamines, Ecstasy, the club drugs and what we’re finding is that new drugs seem to emerge in cycles and many times

emerge in different geographic regions of the country and then

spread across the country, and we do try to follow that. We find

that there’s typically the same type of intervention and, both in

terms of prevention and treatment, are—can address.

Even though there are different drugs, the same underlying dynamics are at play. So, what we do is try to identify those drugs

and determine are there some tailored approaches we may need to

take. We think that’s why we need to have an ongoing approach

to assure access to care and be addressing that club drug issue, in

particular, as well as issues of—that arise in various localities.

Mr. SOUDER. And a co-occurrence question. Do you see different

patterns of drug and alcohol abuse depending upon the mental

health problem? Do you see it as something that is more common

with the mental health problem that you’ve identified, or is it—

does it get greater as you get older? Are some more identified with

youth and adult? Could you give us a couple of examples of that,

because, working on this for some time, there are obviously many

variations of this——

Mr. CURIE. Sure.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. But what would be a couple of examples?

Mr. CURIE. No. That—that’s an excellent question.

21

What we have found is a typical pattern has been that there’s

an onset of serious emotional disturbance or a mental illness in an

individual in their teens years—adolescent teen years. We call it

kind of the 5-year window of opportunity to address it if it’s identified early on. If it’s not addressed, those individuals are at very

high risk of beginning to abuse substances, not only because of perhaps it’s something that’s experimented with as teens, but also it

begins to be a way of self-medicating the underlying bipolar disorder, for example, and they have both manic phases, as well as

depressive phases. The drugs temporarily take an edge off of those

symptoms and, so, they begin to get into a cycle.

We find that if we address the mental illness early on appropriately with appropriate treatment and appropriate prescribed

medication, that what begins to happen is you can avert the substance abuse from occurring. So that’s one typical cycle that can

occur. The other thing that can occur is a long-term use of drugs

can begin to have an impact organically on the brain and begin to

also address—you begin to see some fatalities around a mental illness. But, typically, what we’re finding is more along the lines of

a self-medication that occurs.

Mr. SOUDER. Do you see much difference—and, if you can follow

this up, if you can give me a preliminary of differences—in ethnic

and income backgrounds and the drug and alcohol abuse related to

mental health? In other words, would economic questions or other

pressures be greater in an urban center and some of the other

mental health questions be more suburban, or is it kind of uniform

across the board, different kinds of patterns, such as Hispanics,

say, from African Americans from Europeans from Asians?

Mr. CURIE. I’m not aware that we have necessarily been able to

isolate it in terms of being able to say that it’s—there’s great variation depending on ethnicity. I think it’s more of a general—a

trend. In fact, I would say, if you turn the clock back 5 years ago

and before—and I remember early in my career, we used to talk

about whole morbidity, people with co-occurring mental illness and

substance abuse as if it was a small speciality population. Today,

again, we’re seeing about 60 percent of the individuals in our system have some sort of co-occurring issue.

So it’s not a specialty population; it’s more the norm. And the

concern that we have is that we’re spending block grant dollars,

we’re spending dollars on treatment and, if we’re not treating the

whole disorder, then people with a concern go, if we’re treating a

new disorder, are we going to need more money? Are we going to

be wasting our—wasting money? My feeling is we’re currently

wasting dollars by not treating the co-occurring issue up front, not

identifying it early on, not identifying it through assessment.

So it’s a pop-—we know more today than we ever have before,

and I think part of what you just outlined in the question is we

need to pursue in terms of what are the differences of urban versus

rural suburban, as well as ethnicity.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Dr. Curie, how much of SAMHSA’s grant moneys was treatment

for persons through the criminal justice system?

22

Mr. CURIE. I may not have that readily available. I do know that

we have several grants and several partnerships that we have with

the Department of Justice. At this point, I can give you that—I can

give you some representative figure. I know, currently, we have $8

million that we have contributed to the re-entry program, which

the Fort Wayne model’s being a basis for that, and we’re looking

to make awards across all 50 States in collaboration with the Department of Justice, Department of Labor, HUD, as well as the Department of Education, to address all the needs of individuals as

they’re coming out of the criminal justice system into the community in a collaborative way.

So those are some of the newest dollars we’re putting in there.

We have made criminal justice issues a priority—a stated priority

of SAMSHA’s budget for this year. And for 2003 and for 2004, it’s

one of the proposals actually right now of beginning to redistribute

some of our current funding to line up with that, because I’m a

firm believer that we have missed out if we have not collaborated

with justice to maximize—to maximize. Justice is responsible for

treatment within the walls, but we need to make sure that the

bridge is there and that we have treatment and ongoing supports

once the individuals are outside the walls in order for them to realize a life in the community.

Mr. CUMMINGS. The—when you—when we—you know, it’s interesting. This is—I mean, I’ve heard a lot of testimony with regard

to drug treatment, but this is the first time I’ve heard about this

co-occurring. That’s the first time I heard of it. This is amazing. I

mean, I knew it, but I never heard anybody really talk about it.

And I was just wondering, does—is this something that SAMHSA

has sort of now said, we got it and this is something we’re gonna

just work on, or was this something that SAMHSA pretty much

had long before you even got there and just never talked about it?

You follow me?

Mr. CURIE. Yeah. I understand.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Because I think it’s a very—I mean, that is a

very important point.

Mr. CURIE. There have been some efforts within some of

SAMHSA’s staff to begin with operation address co-occurring, but

SAMHSA, as an overall agency, has never stated it as a major

overall priority.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Right.

Mr. CURIE. And we are—Congress requested that SAMHSA address co-occurring and a report was due in October, which I’ve very

pleased with, but this is a major priority that we’ve established in

the last few months since I’ve come aboard. Because, again, we

know more today than we ever have before and the data, I think,

is very compelling that we need to make sure our systems of care

are addressing the real issues that are at play in the people that

are in our system already.

Mr. CUMMINGS. It has been estimated, I think, that about 1.4—

1.3 million people need treatment, but only about 800,000 are getting treatment and I’m just wondering, first of all, do you believe

that there should be treatment on demand?

Mr. CURIE. Do I believe there should be treatment on demand?

I believe people should have, when they’re—especially when they’re

23

ready for it, because we do know denial is a major issue around addictive disorders. So, when someone is ready to receive treatment,

we need to make sure that we have the access to care when they’re

ready to receive it.

So I think we do need to and I think the President is committed

to addressing that treatment gap issue, but what we’ve found in

the Lake Tahoe survey is that there were about 3.9 million individuals who have a substance abuse disorder based on the response

to the survey. Out of that, there were about 381,000 individuals

who recognized they had a drug and alcohol problem or issue. Out

of that number, 129,000 recognized they had an issue, tried to seek

treatment, could not find it. And, so, that is the population we’re

going to be working with States with these additional dollars that

the President has put in the budget to try and establish a plan by

State to especially address that issue or that population of individuals who know they have a problem, but were unable to obtain

treatment. We think that’s a major gap that needs to be filled as

quickly as possible.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you think, Dr. Curie, that the public is getting it? That is, you know, just a moment ago, I talked about Director Walters’ visit and how 12 people talked about a $100 a day

habit, plus, with no jobs. And, you know, sometimes we wonder—

I wonder whether the public understands how all of this is

interrelated——

Mr. CURIE. Uh-huh.

Mr. CUMMINGS [continuing]. And how the quality of life—their

quality of life is affected. I mean, do you get the feeling that the

public understands that it has a commitment to making the

changes and——

Mr. CURIE. I think——

Mr. CUMMINGS [continuing]. The different resources for it to address it?

Mr. CURIE. I think we still have a ways to go before the public

fully gets it. I think, for example, when we talk about this issue,

especially the connection with the criminal justice system, a major

part of the education needs to be clarifying with the public that

we’re not talking here about the older notion of rehabing criminals;

we’re talking about individuals who have an addictive disease disorder that gets them in trouble with the law——

Mr. CUMMINGS. Uh-huh.

Mr. CURIE [continuing]. And that it’s a treatable disease and disorder. And that, once it’s treated and that person attains recovery,

then we need to assure that we’re facilitating and sustaining that

recovery. The person has some responsibility for themselves around

recovery; that’s what it’s about, but there are various model programs that show us that it really does work and that return back

into the criminal justice system is drastically reduced when you address substance abuse.

And, so, I think it’s—I think education of the public is going to

be critical in this process.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman.

You know, I think people have a tendency, Dr. Curie, to say

when they hear about a person, the kind of people you just talked

about, they say to themselves, you know, it should—he shouldn’t

24

have done it. You know, that serves him. He shouldn’t have gone

out and used that crack cocaine. And I was telling some people earlier that, in talking to recovering addicts in Baltimore, a lot of

them told me that something like crack cocaine, as soon as you use

it—and they say particularly with regard to women—this is not a

scientific survey I’ve done; this is talking to people—that it’s almost

instantaneous addiction.

And I just—and, so, when you say what you just said, when you

also have that group of people who are saying—the public saying,

well, that serves him right, they shouldn’t have gone out and done

that, I mean, that’s really a tough—it becomes a tougher sell.

Would you agree?

Mr. CURIE. Absolutely. And I think educating people on the results of programs, I think tracking the data, sort of called the reentry court here, for example, and it is going to be a great help,

but I think we are up against—I would agree with you.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Curie, let me thank you for your testimony.

You know, the more I’m looking at this—the issue and the more

I listen to discussions and, as we try and analyze and figure out

how much headway we’re making, I am trying to come up with a

definition of successful treatment. Would you share what the department might view as successful treatment?

Mr. CURIE. Yes, I would. And let me share that from a systems

perspective service first. We’ve been able to conclude that treatment reduces drug use and benefits society. We did a survey, a 5-

year study, that was conducted by our Centers for Substance Abuse

Treatment. And a total of 4,400 clients were—who received substance abuse treatment services from 78 programs were reviewed

and the result was the following—and this is how we would define

success in terms of outcome: 50 percent, there was a decrease in

drug/alcohol use 1 year after completing treatment compared to a

controlled group who did not receive treatment; 19 percent increase

in employment and income; 43 percent decrease in criminal activity; 43 percent decrease in homelessness; 53 percent decrease in alcohol and drug-related medical visits.

And, again, people who, when they are addicted, their medical

records typically are like this. And once they are recovered, their

medical records are a lot thinner. Fifty-six percent decrease in sexual encounters for money or drugs and 51 percent decrease in sexual encounters with an injection drug user.

Again, I think that indicates progress and success and shows

that treatment does work. And so, I think we need to focus on,

again, more than just not using drugs, but what type of life does

the person—are they able to have? And do they—do they get a job

or do they have day-to-day activities that they find meaningful?

Again, safety plays a role. Do they have meaningful relationships?

Those are the outcomes we need to be, I think, constantly looking

at to see if we’re succeeding.

Mr. DAVIS. Since we kind of noted these, we also know that the

vast majority of the individuals who are addicted and end up in the

criminal justice system now have two problems—one, they have an

25

addiction; two, they have a criminal record, which makes it more

difficult for them to obtain employment—is it a part of the Department’s effort to also help educate the general public to try and soften the difficulty so that ex-offenders or individuals who have been

addicted will have opportunities to work?

Mr. CURIE. Absolutely, that is a priority. Secretary Thompson

feels very strongly that we need to be collaborating with justice addressing an issue of what we would call a double stigma. You’re exactly right; people with an addictive disorder, there’s a stigma anyway against drug addiction, and you put a criminal justice record

on top of that and/or an ex-convict type of status, you’re talking

pretty heavy stigma.

So I think one of the efforts we can put forth is in educating the

public. I think it’s partly you pave a way for individuals, there’s

also prevention in one sense. So our education efforts should not

only be addressing with youth and young people the dangers of

drug and alcohol use in those efforts, but I think there needs to be

a general awareness campaign of a type of public safety. And I

think one way we can get at that is helping the public understand

that we’re talking more than just public health here; we’re talking

about if we can really make an impact on people cycling in and out

of the justice system. It’s an issue of also safer neighborhoods. And,

as you well know, it’s very easy to sell issues around getting tough

on crime and law and order. It’s tougher when you begin to overlay

that with a treatment, but if you tie it in and let folks know that

forced treatment in prison—you get a captive audience—does work,

and the indicators are that it does take hold, then we have a responsibility to assure that we’re giving support for recovery outside

of prison. And if we can demonstrate to the public that the neighborhoods that they live in are safer because of that, I think that’s

something that could get the attention of the public at large, as

well.

Mr. DAVIS. I appreciate that, because my question was generated, just last evening, my wife—and my wife is the president of

our local NAACP and they receive work opportunities from different companies, and she was reading one and we’re going

through it. And it stated very specifically that individuals who had

drug problems or who had had drug problems or who had had a

felony conviction pretty much need not apply.

Mr. CURIE. Yeah.

Mr. DAVIS. The job was a laboring position that required heavy

work and being outdoors. But, at the end of it, it simply said pretty

much that individuals with these two conditions need not apply.

Mr. CURIE. Well, I would add, Congressman, because I think

that, unfortunately, is not atypical; that’s why this initiative we

have with re-entry courts involving the Department of Labor is, I

think, going to be critical. And I think one way we can get at the

truth is if the Federal Government has true collaboration that gets

translated locally.

Mr. DAVIS. Yeah. I appreciate that and appreciate your comments, because, in the State of Illinois, for example, we have 57 job

titles that an ex-offender cannot hold. You can’t be a barber, you

can’t be a beautician, you can’t be a nail technician, you can’t work

around a school, you can’t work around a day care center, you can’t

26

work in a hospital. Even if you’re a janitor or a maintenance person or clearing the grounds, it does not matter; you are barred.

And, so, you wonder where are they going to work? Of course, in

many instances, they’re not going to work and they’re going to end

up back in the penitentiary.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I wondered, too, in your grant application, are you—do you have a way to measure these accountability

standards that you’ve put out? Is that going to be part of the grant

application?

Mr. CURIE. Yes. In fact, we do have an evaluative component

that, up front, we delineate in terms of what type of outcome we’re

going to be measuring.

Mr. SOUDER. That—I also wanted to comment in response to

Congressman Cummings’ question, that, hopefully, we can move

some legislation, because termination of insurance coverage is one

of the primary reasons people are booted out of an alcohol/drug

rehab program or even a mental health program. And Congressman Ramstad has introduced legislation in the House. Senator

Wellstone has several things in the Senate and it is very difficult,

because it’s potentially costly. We’re trying to work through that,

but I’ve worked with Congressman Ramstad in the House to try to

see if we can do that in a way that doesn’t cost people their total

health coverage and caps it at some limit. But we have to figure

out a way to cover that gap and, in some degree, your funding can

do it.

And we also need to look at the insurance industry and business

coverage, because, clearly, it’s one of the primary reasons for lost

work time for those who can get a job, is we can rehab them

while—before they lose that job through their insurance and we

can avoid some of the problems that Congressman Davis voiced.

And, last, that treatment is—and we talked when I took over the

subcommittee and Congressman Cummings became the ranking

Democrat on the committee about the need to continue to focus attention on treatment. It’s clear that we have to keep the nuisance

from coming in and prevention, but the large percentage of the

drug and alcohol problems in America are concentrated in an intense user population, and that’s what’s really been driving, as we

see around the world.

Yesterday, I met with some people who are trying to tackle the

problems of drug treatment in South America because, as we’ve

consumed more cocaine and heroin in the United States, they’ve

developed more production. They didn’t used to have the problem.

Now, each year, their percent’s small compared to our U.S. problem

that’s doubling, and our problems spread around the world.

Last fall, Congressman Cummings and I were in Rome. We met

with the King of Afganistan and that was one of our questions

there, because they’ve been exporting the heroin. As we met with

our embassy there and elsewhere we’re seeing these drugs from

around the world, our problem becomes interconnected. Unless we

can tackle the heavy consumers here and elsewhere, the problem

merely builds because people are going to supply as long as there’s

a market.

27

I thank you very much for being here today, for your dedication.

I’m sure we’ll be hearing from you as we do oversights to see how

your stated goals are actually being implemented through the next

year, because this is one of the toughest categories to challenge—

the toughest challenges we face in how to get accountability effectiveness with the amount of treatment dollars we have. And we’ll

be following up with that and also this co-dependency question.

That’s really the first time we’ve had that come out in a hearing

since I’ve been in Congress and appreciate you raising it today.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CURIE. Sure.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one other thing, Dr. Curie. I hope that you

will continue to stay on the practical road that you’re on. I think

when we’ve been in this political business, you know, for a long

time, you—you know, some people come along and they see things

for what they are and they come up with solutions to truly try to

get to the problem as opposed to just talking about it, and you

seem to be really on the road to the practical solution road. And,

you know, it’s really a breath of fresh air and I really do appreciate, you know, what you’re doing and I hope you will continue to,

you know, spread that practical word, because a lot of people that

I’m sure you well know are depending on you.

Mr. CURIE. Thank you very much, and I appreciate that.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

If the second panel could now come forward, Judge Surbeck,

Judge Gull and Judge Bonfiglio.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. Let the record show that all witnesses answered in

the affirmative.

As I mentioned, this is an oversight committee and we do this.

You’re now part of the favorite committee that’s done everything

on—from the travel office to Waco to the China investigations and,

because we, as a House committee that does oversight over community branch implementation and legislation, that’s why we go

through this process and appreciate you being willing to do that.

Judge Surbeck, who is the re-entry court initiative in the superior court criminal division and one of the certainly most innovative programs in America right now, and we look forward to hearing your testimony today.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN F. SURBECK, JUDGE, RE-ENTRY COURT

INITIATIVE, ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL DIVISION;

FRANCES C. GULL, JUDGE, DRUG COURT, ALLEN SUPERIOR

COURT, CRIMINAL DIVISION; AND DAVID C. BONFIGLIO,

JUDGE, ELKHART SUPERIOR COURT VI

Judge SURBECK. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity and privilege to be here to speak with you gentlemen today

and to provide this testimony.

I provided a brief overview. I’m not going to read that, but perhaps touch on some of the elements of it. About—just about 2 years

ago this time, spring of 2000, I received a call from Sheila Hudson,

our director of Community Corrections, who is, in fact, here in the

audience and who has been vital to the creation of re-entry court.

28

Sheila called me and said that she’d received a call from an old

friend of hers, Terry Donahue, who is an experienced advisor staff

person to the Department of Justice and that, at the request of our

mayor, had wanted to address the crime problems in Fort Wayne.

She had called me, saying that they wanted—wondered if I would

be interested in being involved; they thought it was important to

have a judicial perspective, and I certainly agreed.

That came in a very timely way. I had been a criminal defense

lawyer for about 16 years and had been on the bench for about 14

years. And, at that time, I was becoming quite frustrated with the

fact that I was seeing—at the end of 30 years, I was seeing three

generations of people through our system. The first generation, I

had represented as a criminal defense lawyer, the second generation would have—which would have come on the cusp, if you will,

I either represented or I sentenced as a judge early on in my career. And, now, I was seeing the third generation, and it didn’t

seem like anything that we were doing was making an impact.

It’s certainly very easy to just send people to jail, as I think you

gentlemen have discussed and you are all aware. On the other

hand, change of behavior is something else again entirely. We discussed how to approach this problem, the three of us—Terry and

Sheila and I—and arrived—after some brainstorming, had arrived

at the fact that returning offenders were a significant problem in

the community.

Literature that we reviewed at the time seemed to indicate that

about 63 percent of offenders returning from a Department of Corrections-type setting were re-offending within a year on either—as

a result—excuse me—were being returned to the penitentiary as a

result of either new offenses, re-offending or as a result of repeated

violations of technical rules and parole and probation. We decided

that if we could address that population and those return—that returning issue, that we could significantly address the crime problem as we saw it.

We went about designing a program based upon several—our design is nothing terribly new, other than being a new or innovative

combination of some existing concepts in justice, one of which is restorative justice. That is a coming concept that says that, instead

of dealing with the State and the offender in a crime, we need to

deal with not only the offender, but the victim of the community.

And only if we satisfactorily deal with all three of those parties do

we effectively deal with the crime.

Also, a relatively new judicial concept is part of the issue of problem-solving courts. Any number of the drug courts are one of them.

Other problem-solving courts would be, for instance, I think the

grand-daddy is considered the Manhattan—midtown Manhattan

court that provides services for offenders as opposed to putting offenders in jail, letting them stay a few days, dump them back out

and start the cycle again rather than providing treatment after assessment. And, of course, drug courts, if you will, are all familiar

with and, particularly, that part of drug courts in which the judge

plays a central role and is actively involved with offenders throughout the process opposed to—as opposed to just at one end.

So we put together the re-entry court, as I say, based upon three

concepts. We use the community corrections as a receiving point

29

from the Department of Corrections. They come into our system,

they are assessed, do a forensic evaluation. Based upon that evaluation, we create a re-integration plan of which is imposed by the

Court, Which will include things like jobs, places to live, counseling

for necessary issues and also provide some mentoring. In that area,

our faith-based community has been particularly effective in stepping up and taking that role to provide positive modeling for these

offenders, and it’s been quite effective. They appear before me on

a regular basis, similar to the drug court type of protocol.

We have a couple other things. I know that we’re short on time,

but a couple other things I do want to mention and that is that we

have done most of what we’re doing based upon a re-allocation of

resources as opposed to an application for large Federal grants

that, of course, tend to run out. And, when they run out, then everyone has a problem. Rather, we have, in partnership with the

Department—Indiana Department of Corrections, they have funded

our program through Community Corrections through the savings

that they are receiving from the folks that we take and, hopefully,

that we save from coming back. We are doing a thorough and intensive process impact evaluation over a period of 2 years. That’s

being conducted by Arizona State University and a Dr. Alan

Brown, who has served on a regular basis for the Justice Department in the past.

The other—the only other issue that I wanted to mention and in

your request and invitation to be here, and that was what the Federal Government could do. One of the things that we’re finding is

that there seems to be significant impediments, either statutory or

of a policy nature, that tends to prevent our offenders, our population, from receiving benefits to which they would appear to be entitled. That seems to be a policy-type thing, whether it be in job

placement, whether it be in public assistance/welfare sorts of programs and housing. There are various impediments to folks with

a felony history. Those are impediments that we need to remove in

order to provide assistance to these folks in order to effectively and

positively re-integrate these people back into the community. And

on that—it’s on that issue that I would ask your assistance.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much, and we’ll have questions

after we hear all the testimony.

The next witness is Judge Frances C. Gull, the only superior

court and criminal division who’s running the drug courts. And let

me say, as I’d be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the long-term commitment of Judge Shiedberger, as well to the drug courts. This is

one of the most enthusiastically supported programs in Congress.

And we’ve had our fair battles—fair share of battles here in Allen

County with drug courts, but I have stood with this from the beginning on the House floor and here. I think expectations are on the

out-of-whack as far as how—how both Judge Surbeck’s program

and your program are suddenly going to change everybody, but if

we can’t make these kind of programs work, it’s not clear what can

work.

I appreciate my colleagues and others who stuck with this and

your willingness to lead the court now. She was one of our lead

deputy prosecutors and then elected judge, and it’s great to have

you here today to talk about the drug court. Thank you.

30

Judge GULL. Thank you, Congressman. I’m glad to be here. I’d

be remiss in not acknowledging that, in 1997, Judge Shiedberger

began the pilot drug court project for Allen County. Our drug court,

as most drug courts throughout the country, target nonviolent, substance-abusing offenders in the expectation that judicial intervention will interrupt the cycle of addiction and crime that you’ve

heard about—repeatedly heard about, I might add. This is a nationwide movement and it recognizes the importance of treatment

and acknowledges that treatment without accountability, as Mr.

Curry has indicated—or, Mr. Curie—excuse me—has indicated, is

ineffective. Though offenders are presented with the option of intensive drug treatment in lieu of incarceration or jail or prison, it’s

empowering the authority of court that is utilized to achieve what’s

intended to be a high degree of accountability. These offenders are

continually monitored with judicial supervision, mandatory drug

testing, programmic case management, surveillance and enforcement, intensive treatment and counseling, education, important

community stabilization and employment.

As I said, our drug court treatment program began in 1997 as

a pilot project. Further development was possible through a series

of funding initiatives. We’ve received modest appropriations from

city and county block grants, small grants from our local Allen

County Drug and Alcohol Consortium and a major grant from the

U.S. Department of Justice Drug Court Program Office, which was

impetus to get off of the pilot project and on to a major commitment by all three of the judges in Allen Superior Court Criminal

Division to support this program and to, again, target the nonviolent offenders.

The offenders are generally those charged with Class D felonies

for possession of a controlled substance or paraphernalia. The offenders enter a plea of guilty and charges are dismissed by the

prosecuting attorney after successful completion of the program.

The prosecuting attorney is the gate keeper, and I think in most

drug courts across the country, the prosecutor is the one that determines eligibility. The prosecutor is the one who agrees to put the

offenders into the program and is it the prosecutors who make the

recommendations to the Court if offenders are continually violating

treatment programs, not showing up or testing repeatedly dirty

and basically making a tremendous lack of progress. That is the

prosecutor that moves the Court to re-docket the offense and resume prosecution.

Our court has narrowly defined nonviolent offenders to exclude

individuals who have criminal records for sex offenses, those who

have a record of convictions for violent offenses, those individuals

who have outstanding detainer, warrants or past parole/probation

violations. It’s our belief that those offenders have indicated that

they’re not willing to change. And you’ve heard from Mr. Curie that

forced treatment can work and it does work, but there comes a

point where we have to, with limited resources, if somebody is

going to change, we can help them along that path, but we do have

limited resources, unfortunately.

Again, the prosecutor is our gatekeeper and there is a team approach. The prosecuting attorney reviews incarcerated defendants

pretty much immediately after they’ve been arrested. The goal is

31

to get them into the program within 72 hours. The offender is the

one that has the final say if he or she chooses to enter into the program. It’s an 18 to 36-month program with intensive treatment,

going from the traditional intensive outpatient and inpatient treatment. We offer and require as a part of the treatment plan that

individuals be assessed to find out what are their specific needs.

We then tailor a treatment program for their specific needs and

they go through phases of the program.

Their progress is monitored by case managers through the drug

court. They make weekly or biweekly or monthly appearances in

court to meet with the judge and to have the judge basically pat

them on the head and tell them that they’re doing well or to kick

them in the rear and indicate that they’re not doing well. Those individuals that just repeatedly indicate that they’re not willing to

make any kind of progress, the prosecutor has the option and oftentimes will re-docket those cases and resume prosecution. It’s the

carrot on the stick. The carrot in the case is going to be dismissed

and you’re not going to have a felony conviction. If you fail, the individual is charged with the felony conviction. So the carrot is you

must comply with the program, be successful, become a productive

member of society, support your children, get a job, obtain your

education, get a GED; those types of things, and, in result, you get

the charges dismissed.

National statistics from American University indicate that drug

courts are expanding across the country. As of March of this year,

there were 793 drug courts operating in the United States. These

programs have enrolled 200,000 individuals in treatment and rehabilitation instead of incarceration. The estimated number of graduates from those programs is 74,000 with, currently, 77,000 individuals enrolled in drug courts across the country. Our programs

have, approximately, 300 participants; 131 of those participants

successfully completed the program and graduated as of December

of last year. These are successful people who broke the cycle of

crime that was committed to support the addictions and these are

people that, once again, are productive members of society.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Judge Gull follows:]

32

33

34

35

36

Mr. SOUDER. We will next hear from Judge Bonfiglio from the

Elkhart County. Fort Wayne is basically 200,000 people with another 100,000 in the county. Elkhart County is—Goshen is about

an hour and-a-half northwest from here. There, the largest city is

Elkhart, which is about 50,000, Goshen is maybe 30 and then lots

of rural area.

So we’re going to hear from some of the witnesses in the second

panel, too, about the mix out of urban and rural. So he’s got a particular challenge, also a tremendous increase in Hispanic population, probably the most in the State of Indiana, other that East

Chicago.

It’s an honor to have you here with us today and look forward

to hearing your testimony.

Judge BONFIGLIO. Thank you very much. In my written testimony, I focused on my nearly 16-year experience on the bench

hearing cases of abuse, neglect and delinquency. In brief, I’d like—

I would observe that most of the times, our juvenile courts function

like the emergency room of a hospital. That is, a horrible accident

occurs and the patient needs life-saving and very expensive services. To prevent the accident saves lives and enormous human and

financial costs. The same is true with the lives of children. To prevent the problem is cost-effective and saves human suffering.

In juvenile court, most of the children who come through the

door with severe problems have been created through the—through

what’s occurred to them, neglect and abuse. To prevent delinquency, we must prevent the abuse and neglect of the child. Secondary prevention is certainly possible if, when children who are

abused and neglected come to our attention, they receive effective

and comprehensive treatment. Every child that acts out delinquently in the school and the community is not a victim of abuse

or neglect, but there is a very high correlation between the two.

Other children are at risk because of the influence of illegal

drugs, criminal gangs and violence in their environment in which

they live. It’s been my personal experience that 80 to 90 percent

of all the cases that I heard involved alcohol and drug abuse in

some manner. The most effective tool I found in successfully fighting the most serious of these problems is the drug court and

Judges Gull and Surbeck have given you certainly views of the

kinds of things that are going on in the re-entry courts and the

drug courts. What is different in the juvenile court in our community is the development of the residential program. That is, we use

intensive cognitive behavioral approaches. We actually put kids

into residential treatment.

We started in 1998 and—1997, and we started in 1998 and we’ve

actually seen in 1999 and 2000 a slight decrease in the number of

felonies that the prosecutor filed in our juvenile court, and I attribute that to the particular drug court offenders that were successfully treated in that period of time. It’s only when the community as a whole perceives that it has a joint say with the justice

system that delinquency prevention and successful intervention can

be accomplished.

A majority of prevention occurs at the hands of community organizations. The court, as well as other parts of the criminal justice

system should collaborate with community organizations to help

37

prevent delinquent behavior. The goal of collaboration between the

court and the community agencies is the creation of what I would

call continuing care for children and families. In most communities,

and it’s in our community, competition for finding and bringing

conflicts in overlapping programs. Over—it’s important to establish

a culture of collaboration with the agency directors and staff and

civic and government leaders and the courts can influence and help

create that culture.

One of the best accomplishments we’ve had in our community is

the creation of a concept called Wraparound. This intervention

method works for both prevention and intervention and it works in

any age of a person, from a child to an adult. The essential elements of the Wraparound plan are built on family strength, forming a child and family team that includes family, friends, church

members and the necessary professionals. In other words, the natural support system, plus the professional that needs to be involved.

If the natural support system doesn’t exist, then we help the family

create one.

To intervene early in children’s lives at the first sign of trouble

is also an essential piece, but well planned programs take into consideration the use of development—developmental issues can be

successful at any age. Our youth agencies, including at our schools,

our churches and local government, are the proper tools to prevent

delinquency. And one of the best agencies to represent here today

in our community, Kevin Deary will be speaking to you shortly.

The ingredient that makes for successful prevention programs, I

believe, are connecting the child with another human being, such

as an adult with another person that—that can communicate with

them on a personal and human level, providing life skills training

for children, presenting and providing parenting skills for parents,

as well as providing recreational and social activities.

Healthy Communities and Healthy Youth-Forty Development Assets Intiative addresses these points and more. The assets are positive building blocks that young people need to grow up healthyprincipled and caring individuals. And, in Allen County, you have

a great example in Judge Pratt, that has taken a leadership role

in helping establish developmental assets in this community.

The juvenile and family court is an excellent place to make the

connection between children and family. When children or their

parents enter the justice system for any reason, if it be delinquency, if it includes marriage and adoption, there should be a

short assessment to determine what their needs might be and what

community interventions could help them. A unified family court

hears all the cases involving the children and has sufficient resources to address those needs. Establishing mediation and dissolution marriage cases and seminars for divorcing parents are really

steps in the right direction.

I believe, to be successful as a community and as a Nation, and

controlling crime and improving all our lives, it really comes

through addressing the needs of children. I’ve seen the children,

and the children before me for many years, their hearts and minds,

that they had great talents and gifts, and we tried to help them

become healthy, well-functioning, contributing members of society.

38

I think it’s all our responsibility to do that, and it was certainly my

pleasure when I was on the juvenile court bench to participate in

that. And I thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Judge Bonfiglio follows:]

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Mr. SOUDER. Judge Surbeck, if you and Sheila, to the extent that

you haven’t already done so, if we can, for our hearing record, have

a detailed outline of the programs you’re working with and some

of the things that you outlined. I know you have a longer statement, but I want, because it’s a—kind of an innovative combination

of projects, if you can give us some of the materials.

Judge SURBECK. Sheila and I will meet next week and we’ll put

together a packet of materials for you. I apologize for not having

that all together today for you.

Mr. SOUDER. Well, that—as you know, this is a very short presentation, and the way we do this is field questions, anyway. But

the key thing is we’re building a hearing book, too, that we can

refer back to and relook——

Judge SURBECK. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOUDER [continuing]. At in the different places that I want

to commend you on, on pursuing the concept of restorative justice.

I know that this has been a big thing with prison fellowship and

it’s a big part of the healing process. And I think it’s encouraging

to see that, in the justice system, we’re—we’re looking toward a

creative solution to that, as well as mentoring.

Could you outline a little bit for us, because, in trying to figure

out how to make these programs work better, it’s always helpful

to understand what stumbling blocks there are. Just like in the

drug court, just because there’s stumbling blocks doesn’t mean the

problem is within drug courts; the thing is how can we make them

more effective. And have you had difficulty finding mentors and is

it hard to match the people up? And what is the reaction of the

people who have had the criminal act against them? Many people

may be very forgiving. Are others not?

Could you go through a little bit of some of your being at the cutting edge of some of this type of thing in a systematic way.

Judge SURBECK. I can’t give you a good final answer on any of

those things. They are all things that we are working on and working with. I’ve been very fortunate to have several pastors who

stepped up right away and were willing to create a mentoring program. As I understand—well, not as I understand. It is a fact that

one of those pastors secured COPS grant through the COPS program, a Federal program, and has trained mentors. He was originally assigned to be an acquaintance sort of thing between pastors

and the police department. Apparently, once he was done with

that, his graduate pastors said, Well, now that we’ve graduated,

what are we going to do? So the next thing was to move on to this

mentoring project. We’ve launched that in January. We’re still

working with it.

One of the things we wanted to be very careful about was that

mentors be safe; and, therefore, we have provided specific additional training for mentors and we are working along in that process. We have struggled a bit with communications. We are not, in

the criminal justice system, perhaps we’re not used to working with

the lay system and the lay system is not used to working with us,

but we’ve worked along. As we’ve had problems, everyone’s been

willing to put them on the table and figure out how to deal with

them. And we’re working along to get that done.

51

I have found that the mentoring is absolutely essential. During

the period of time that we were developing the formal mentoring

program, there was another pastor who stepped up and said, look,

there’s a void here and it needs to be filled and I know you’re going

to fill it formally soon, but it needs to be filled now. And, as a result, he’s been in my courtroom every Friday morning with several

members of his congregation and he has started a family support

program of his own, which has been very effective. And those two

organizations together have been phenomenal.

Mr. SOUDER. You mentioned also about the impediments. One of

the problems I’d like you to elaborate on that a little bit, when I

did a controversial drug testing amendment, more on implementation, but the substance of it relates to probably some of the impediments that you’re talking about. Because originally—when the bill

was originally drafted, if you committed a drug crime and lost your

loan, we added that if you went through a drug—if you took a drug

test—if you went through a treatment program with drug testing,

you could get it back. And the question is how do we build in an

accountability and prevention thing? Because many of the—what I

assume your impediments are, we’re saying, if this and this happens, you’re not eligible for a government grant. And we want to

make sure that there is a consequence of people’s actions, yet that

we also have a forgiveness component and that can’t be spiritual

in nature, even though I believe in spiritual changes change people’s lives; that is an effective representative way to do it.

So what would be some proxies that we could use to remove impediments? Would drug testing be part of that? Would a period of

time? Would a—that you’ve gone through a program and then gone

through a period of probation? Because, clearly, what Congressman

Davis and Congressman Cummings are talking about and we all

know we have these and, at the same time, the general public

wants an accountability. And how can we build in a forgiveness—

a measure of forgiveness and accountability simultaneously?

Judge SURBECK. I cannot, at this point, provide you with recommendations for specifics. The one thing I did note as you were

speaking, one of the suggestions that you had was probation. The

problem is my folks don’t have that luxury of the population I’m

dealing with. They’re coming out of the penitentiary and they need

services now. And I understand and—and don’t misunderstand I’m

not being critical of the impediments that were placed there. They

were placed there for good reason and with thoughtfulness. We are

finding, however, at this point, that is counterproductive. For a

long time, we thought that simply putting people in jail would

make a difference. We are learning that it does not. Some people

need to be put in jail for a very long time. The public needs to be

protected from them in that fashion. Most of the other folks are

going to come out sooner or later and, when they come out, as

pointed out by one of the Congressmen, I believe Congressman

Davis, that, frequently, they’re coming out in worse shape than

they went in. That’s not to condemn the entire prison system, but

rather to acknowledge the fact that, when they come out, these

folks are going to need services and we need to find a way to provide those services. And we’re finding that perhaps the impediVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:27 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85124.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
52

ments that we thought were productive at the time they were imposed are perhaps counterproductive, at least with this population.

The other issue, I guess, I’m dealing with, and we’ve begun working with at the State level with FSSA and have had progresses

from the Federal level from agencies involved in this re-entry initiative that’s been created as a partnership between, I believe led

by the Justice Department and including Labor, HHS, Education

and HUD. And I believe through that focus, we need to develop

some criteria for waivers of these impediments for this population,

whether it be that these folks are involved specifically in a re-entry

program; that, on that basis, they should be waived or on some

other—I’m not sure what the criteria are yet.

Mr. SOUDER. And that may be sufficient. And if I could take 1

more minute here, that’s a very—I mean, it’s like a drug court, basically.

Judge SURBECK. Yes.

Mr. SOUDER. As long as you’re overseeing an individual and

there’s an accountability if they violate. We’ve been doing a lot of

border hearings and looking at how we can both facilitate Congress

and try to catch terrorists and people buying drugs from coming

across our borders. And we’ve come up with that mandate of looking at implementing and administration’s about to announce a fast

pass clearance for people who are regular users of the border, but

what we’ve seen is some people then take that advantage of not

having the checks to abuse it. The largest drug bust in the Montreal/New York border was actually somebody that had been precleared.

And, so, we’ve talked about having an extra punishment or there

needs to be an accountability. And if you abuse the generosity of

the general public and say, look. OK. We’ll waive this because

you’re in a program, there also has to be a tough accountability if

you abuse the generosity. Almost like you get a second chance or

a third chance or a fourth chance, there needs to be some kind of

accountability.

I look forward to working with you, because this is one of the big

challenges we have because it was one thing to lock them up 5 or

10 years ago when we went through that wave. Now what do we

do?

Judge SURBECK. Right.

Mr. SOUDER. And our intentions are correct, but implementing is

difficult.

Judge SURBECK. Getting these people back in a positive way is

a goal. In the meantime, the other goal is to protect the community

and the process. And, therefore, the concerns that you’ve indicated

are very well placed.

Mr. CUMMINGS. First of all, I want to thank all of you for being

here. And we all have a common desire, and that is to address this

drug problem effectively and efficiently. And I think this has been

some of the most meaningful testimony that I’ve heard and I’ve

been in Congress now for 6 years.

I wanted to go to you, Judge Surbeck. I’m going to have some followup questions I have put in writing. We just don’t have time here

today. But I think if anything comes out of this, it’s that you all

get it. I mean, it’s because you and I’m not trying to be funny. You

53

all see the life. You all see it. I mean, a lot of people read about

it in the newspaper, they see clips of it on the six o’clock news, but

you see the tragedies that come across your—you know, I’m a lawyer. I was a defense lawyer before I came to Congress. So you see

it—you see it every day.

And you also see that—you also seem to get that you just don’t

throw away the key and throw them away, because the key—somehow it opens—the door’s going to get opened and they’re going to

come back. And I was just wondering, Judge, when you—as an active person, I’ve never heard of this, that you have an agreement,

whether it’s formal or whatever, with the Department of Corrections because there’s some savings based on what you do. And you

know how these agencies are; they don’t want to give up a dime.

They don’t—everybody’s got their little turf and I know that’s even

how it is in Maryland. And I’m just wondering how do you get

there?

I mean, when, you know, you say to the agency, Look. You’re

going to save money. And I think you almost—it seems like you

would have to actually be able to show them, you know, You’re

going to save, you know, $1 million. So they say, OK. Fine. We’ll

give you a hundred, thousand and that. Because I’m just wondering

how you—how do you all get there. What is—I mean, is that done

in legislation, done by the government, done by—how does that

work?

Judge SURBECK. It’s worked on a real personal level. I had for

a very long time a very good relationship with officials at the Indiana Department of Corrections. Similarly, our at Community Corrections office, and Sheila Hudson has had an excellent reputation—excellent relationship, No. 1, and No. 2, a very excellent relation-—or reputation in dealing with the offenders in this county.

And, as a result of those relationships, we were able to go to them.

Community Corrections is funded by the Department of Corrections. It’s the community-based alternative section. So they’re

State-funded in the first place. Between our respective relationships with the Department of Corrections’ officials, we were able to

go to them and present them with a plan to bring offenders back

through an established agency, Community Corrections, with the

supervision of an established judge, both of whom they apparently

respect. They were willing to say, That sounds like a good idea and

we’ll go with you for a while. We’ll do a pilot with you.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And, Judge Gull, how much time does that take?

I mean, when you all are supervising these—the people in the program. Say that you see them, I think you said sometimes once or

twice a week. Seems like that would take quite a bit of time for

a judge.

Judge GULL. It does.

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK.

Judge GULL. Uh——

Mr. CUMMINGS. And is that a part of a docket, like in the mornings on a Wednesday——

Judge GULL. Yes.

Mr. CUMMINGS [continuing]. Or the mornings on a——

Judge GULL. Yes. It’s Tuesday afternoon. All day Tuesday afternoon. And it’s not just the in-court meetings with the offenders; it’s

54

the administrative things that happen behind the scenes to ensure

that the in-court process goes smoothly, where we had to enter into

agreement with treatment providers on how many of our client

they’ll accept, on the different types of treatment that they’ll provide.

We realized after a couple of years that we were not giving people financial counseling or consumer credit counseling, so we’ve

contracted that type of counseling out. It’s—the in-court time is the

easy time. It’s the out-court time that can get a little overwhelming

sometimes.

Mr. CUMMINGS. How are you all? Do you all—are you all assigned to these courts or do you volunteer? In other words, does the

chief judge say, You’re going to do this?

Judge GULL. I am the administrative judge of the division.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Oh. OK.

Judge GULL. And we have our A, B and C felonies, which are our

serious felonies—murder, rape and robbery—and I’m in that division. Judge Surbeck is in the D felony division right now, which is

prostitution and theft. And Judge Shiedberger handles the drug

cases that do not end up in the drug court intervention program.

And we rotate those so that we can get a little bit of a different

caseload every year.

Judge Surbeck began the re-entry initiative and has been doing

such a splendid job with it, that I decided administratively that he

would stay with the re-entry process and to keep it going.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, he certainly looks very excited about it.

Judge GULL. He is and he’s very good at it.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one other question. What percentage—I

mean, you may not have this figure—of the folks fail to do what

they’re supposed to do to stay in the program?

Judge GULL. In drug court?

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes.

Judge GULL. About a third.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And is there one common violation?

Judge GULL. Drug use.

Mr. CUMMINGS. OK.

Judge GULL. Drug use or criminal activity.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Uh-huh.

Judge GULL. We’ve had a couple of people that absconded, have

been AWOL for a while and they finally do get picked up, they’ve

been AWOL out on a binge. The biggest bulk of the people, however, choose not to go into the drug court program. We’ll screen an

individual who’s been charged with possession of marijuana,

they’re eligible, they meet all the criteria and they—we believe

they would be a very good risk candidate. We’re excited to be able

to offer them that opportunity, and they turn us down flat. And the

reason that they turn us down is they tell us they’d rather do the

time, the program’s too hard, it’s too much work. They would rather just take punishment, go and not have to deal with me on a

weekly basis or the case managers that they report to or the treatment providers or going to parenting classes, get a job.

I mean, it’s not an easy program. The people that graduate, we’re

tremendously proud of those people, because it’s hard. It’s very

hard.

55

Mr. SOUDER. OK. Can I ask a followup with that? When we were

in Baltimore 2 weeks ago, had a judge from the drug court, and I

asked her that question, because, in Fort Wayne, I knew that one

of our things is people turn the court down. They don’t—it’s not

voluntary.

Is that the difference, because we have a limited number of

spots? I mean, I understand why it’s more effective if it’s voluntary,

but, in their case, they didn’t allow the choice.

Judge GULL. I would really rather not give people the choice, but

I don’t have the staff and the resources.

Mr. SOUDER. It’s a dollar question.

Judge GULL. Yes. It’s totally financial. If I had six more case

managers, two high-risk case managers, I would capture virtually

all of the drug cases coming through. I’d also attempt to capture

people that do crimes to support their habits. Right now, it’s limited to possession. I’d like to get the prostitute that’s committing

acts of prostitution to support her habit. I’d like to get the thief

who’s stealing from Walmart to pawn the stuff on the street to support his or her habit. But, right now, I’ve only got three caseworkers, and that’s just not enough to handle the population of

people that’s out there.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just one last question, Judge Surbeck. The faithbased piece that—you know, I think when we talk about the community trying to help, I think that’s a—I think that’s a great idea.

And I’m just wondering—I mean, other than the examples you

cited to us, are there other pastors or priests or whoever coming

to you, saying, you know, I think we’d like to try to do something

to help some people?

I mean, it—and I guess the thing that’s just so interesting about

it and, as you were talking, I thought about the drug addicts that

I have known. And it’s almost like, in many instances, if they’re

still on drugs, it seems like you’re talking to a ghost of a person,

because it’s that you’re getting they’re not always honest and all

that, and it just seems like I would assume that a church—for a

church to take that on, some of their parishioners may be saying,

well, wait a minute. I don’t know whether we want to get into that.

We are—you know, we’re religious and everything.

But I was just wondering, do you see the number of people in the

religious community expressing an interest in trying to help?

Judge SURBECK. The simple answer to that is yes. I’ve been really impressed as these folks step up. I have—you know, I cited to

you, too, one formal program as well as another volunteer pastor,

if you will, but every Friday morning—I run re-entry court every

Friday morning. We run it out of the police station on Grape

Street, where they’ve provided us some space and built us a little

courtroom and, every morning, I have a minimum of four to six

pastors who are there. And they’re there, they listen and, as they

hear from the offender or sometimes from me a problem arising,

they’ll step up and say, Judge, let me talk to this fellow for just

a moment, and it’s amazing how they straighten things out.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

56

Judge Gull, what has been the law enforcement community’s reaction to the drug court?

Judge GULL. Financially, as you might imagine, they were kind

of skeptical, but once the program was explained to them, they’ve

been very supportive. Our chief of police has been very supportive,

our sheriff has been very supportive of the program.

Mr. DAVIS. That’s good, because I know that there are some law

enforcement people who kind of bemoan the fact that the same people that they arrested, you know, last month, they see them on the

streets or whatever. And I’ve heard that just in a number of times,

so I’m very pleased to hear that.

Judge Surbeck, you mentioned that, with the re-entry, housing

might—it is a problem. Do you find in many instances where you

have individuals who don’t have a place to go?

Judge SURBECK. Yes, sir. There’s a significant number of my offenders who come out who are homeless. They’re homeless for a

couple of different reasons. No. 1, they may have been homeless

when they committed a crime and were sentenced to the penitentiary.

There’s another large group, a group that I didn’t appreciate was

going to be there. Now, Ms. Hudson from Community Corrections

and Terry Donahue from the Department of Corrections continued

to tell me as we were brainstorming designing this thing that

they’re going to need housing. I kept saying, No. They can go home.

They’ll go home to their family. They come out of the prison, you

know, we see all this stuff on TV and that kind of stuff that makes

us feel warm and good that they’re going to go home. A lot of families don’t want them back. They’ve victimized their families just as

they victimized the community and the family doesn’t want them

back for that reason.

Some of them, the families, even if they’re marginal about letting

them home, they will not accept them. Well, we put everybody for

the first 6 months, we put them on electric monitoring, and they

are willing—family members who are willing to accept that clear

inconvenience. There is a significant inconvenience to electronic

monitoring about use of phones, use of computers, so on and so

forth; and, therefore, families are reluctant to have them back. So

we have a large number of homeless.

Mr. DAVIS. And you would agree that a place to stay is actually

a stabilizing factor in terms of trying to get people back and reacclimated.

Judge SURBECK. Oh, absolutely. Well, I think any one of us

know. I don’t know what I would do if I didn’t have a place to live,

let alone, you know, have—I don’t have a criminal history. I can’t

think of what I’d do if I didn’t have a home. And then, when you

add that to all the other problems these folks have.

Mr. DAVIS. I’m going to try and make sure that I send you a copy

of the legislation that Representative Souder mentioned earlier and

that I introduced 3 weeks ago, which attempts to get at that problem in terms of creating what we would call living situations where

individuals would, in fact—and we actually hope that, once passed,

we’d be able to build about 20,000 units over this year over a 5-

year period and create stable situations where individuals would

know. And we have a unique way we hope of doing it by using a

57

model of low-income—low-income housing tax credits so as not to

be talking about another program where we’re talking about big

grant moneys necessarily, but getting private developers to become

a part of it.

And, so, I will make sure that I——

Judge SURBECK. I would very much appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. DAVIS [continuing]. Get you a copy. The only other question

I have is we just had our primary elections on Tuesday and, of

course, a number of new judges were, in fact, for all practical purposes, elected, and I wish that we could send them here for a

judges training. And, so, I thank you very much for your testimony.

Judge SURBECK. Thank you very much.

Mr. SOUDER. Thanks. I want to mention a couple of things. One

is that one of the things that we ran into these housing questions

is we had an innovative program down near the police station

where it basically went under because one of the clients stole all

the equipment and financially sunk the project. And we may even

want to look at some kind of—you mentioned full housing—some

kind of insurance for those of who are willing to come into this type

of program, because it’s devastating when they lose any income or

their ability and they’re dealing with high-risk clients. And it—and,

often, very uncapitalized in the effort.

The other thing is is we have to address very difficult problems

of community reaction, but it has to be done. I mean, that—in Fort

Wayne, I’ve talked to many people who are on the street or moving

around, and we have many volunteer shelters, but not enough and

particularly in the areas where people are moving back to. And it

is a tremendous burden if we can’t figure out how to address these

problems.

Also wanted to ask one last question of Judge Bonfiglio. What—

the Wraparound concept is obviously the ideal way to go. It’s also

very expensive. Do you get a lot of private sector donations? Elkhart is an incredible giving community, a very interactive community. How much of the program you were talking about comes from

private sector versus public sector funds?

Judge BONFIGLIO. When we started Wraparound, our United

Way of Elkhart County, as well as the Community Foundation

helped get it off the ground to bring in the trainers to train our

probation staff office, our family and children staff, our court-appointed special advocates, but the real key in getting it continuing

and actually making it work on a day-to-day basis is our community mental health center.

And, actually, many of our kids are from families that are eligible for Medicaid. And, so, we’re able to use local dollars and Medicaid dollars to really help fund the resources of the facilitators and

the people that actually go out and meet the families, create the

family and child teams. But what we found is that if you really

were concentrating on kids and therapeutic care and high-cost residential, because that’s where we had to begin because we had enormous deficits in our budget for that kind of care, if you can effectively wrap around service around a child, and it may not be their

birth family—it may be a foster home or a therapeutic foster

home—if you can take them out of that $200 or $300-a-day treatment facility, meet their needs in a better fashion with a WrapVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:27 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85124.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
58

around plan, that may cost you some money, but certainly not $200

or $300 a day. So we see a real saving in our residential care budget.

But, for the most part, the money comes from Medicaid, rehab

and our community mental health center to provide the program.

And we did have contributions from the private sector to get it

started. And one of the pieces of a Wraparound organization is to

have a contingency fund where, when you can’t go to any other

source in government to get something a family needs, you can go

to a fund for small kinds of things that a family may need to get

started on the Wraparound plan, and that’s the community money

from United Way and the community foundation.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just wanted to thank all of you for being here

today. And I just—as I listened to your testimony, I could not help

but say to myself, you know, it’s just so important. I’m just so glad

you took the time to come to be here today. We need to hear these

kinds of things. We need to talk to people on the front lines of dealing with these kinds of issues, and we really do appreciate you

being here.

I know, as judges, you’re used to asking the questions and not

having the people asking you questions and I know that, but we

do appreciate it.

The other thing that I hope is that—you all are truly the witnesses, because you are so—you’re close to the situation, and there

are a lot of people who I would imagine may not agree with what

you’re saying. And I’ve often said that if I, an African American,

sat where you sit and said the same thing that you’re saying, some

people would say, Oh. Here they go again. And I’m serious about

that. And I think that it takes all of us—all of us, black and white,

who see the problems, because it’s not a black problem, it’s not a

white problem. It’s—it has no borders. The drug has no borders

and I think that these are human problems, and I think that you

all have pointed that out very clearly here today. And, as I’ve often

said, we’re all walking wounded, every single one of us. And it

comes out clearly that you’re trying to rehabilitate—truly rehabilitate some lives so that the people can go back out into their communities and support their children and support their communities

and not be a burden on our society. And, so, as I said, I thank you

very much.

And to the others who will testify coming up, unfortunately, I

have to get back to Baltimore. I’ve got a 4:05 flight, but I’m sorry

to miss your testimony.

And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, because I think this is

one of the best hearings that I’ve participated in, and I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. And thanks to the second

panel and thank you for coming.

If the third panel could now come forward, Mr. Deary, the President and Executive of the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Goshen;

Ms. Alisa Stovall, the Education Coordinator of Deer Run Academy; the Honorable Matt Schomburg, the Wayne Township Trustee; Mr. Mark Terrell, CEO of Lifeline Youth and Family Services;

and the Honorable Glynn Hines, who’s the Fort Wayne City Councilman.

59

And if you could all stand, we need to do the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SOUDER. I want to thank all of you for coming and appreciate your staff. I’m looking forward to hearing your testimony and

we’ll insert all the full testimony into the record. And, as I said at

the beginning, each of you, too, also may have additional information you want to submit after you hear the questions and we may

do some followup written questions to make sure that our—our

record is comprehensive.

Mr. Deary, we’ll begin with you.

STATEMENTS OF KEVIN DEARY, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF GREATER GOSHEN;

ALISA STOVALL, EDUCATION COORDINATOR, DEER RUN

ACADEMY; MATTHEW P. SCHOMBURG, WAYNE TOWNSHIP

TRUSTEE; MARK TERRELL, CEO, LIFELINE YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, INC.; AND GLYNN HINES, FORT WAYNE CITY

COUNCILMAN

Mr. DEARY. It is, indeed, an honor and a pleasure to be here to

discuss what’s very near and dear to my heart, and that’s the children of our country. I appreciate Congress’s concern for the welfare

of our children and your interest in hearing from a diverse set of

practitioners here in northeast Indiana.

If you hear a eastern accent, I’m originally from Boston, Massachusetts, which may throw you off a little bit. I’ve been out in Indiana for about 8 years, and it’s truly a wonderful place to work and

to work with children. Most of my time has been spent in Boston,

Massachusetts and New England, and we’ve had tremendous

growth. We’ve been blessed with the boys and girls over the last

8 years. We’ve gone from serving 211 children to serving over

1,500. It was a privilege to be able to have Congressman Souder

come up and take a tour of our facility, and I wholeheartedly agree

that children are definitely our future.

It was important to us, as we began to look around at our community and began to identify some of the turf issues that were impacting how we outreach to the children and the fact that we

wouldn’t let go of those turf issues. One of the things that we made

and we were bound and determined to do was to outreach and

break down some of those fences and invite other services to join

with Boys and Girls Clubs so we could both co-program. So some

of the programs that we have at our Boys and Girls Club, we have

a Boy Scout Troop, a Girl Scout Troop, 4-H program, we have an

alternative program for middle school children who are academically and socially falling through the cracks. We work actively with

probation, with court services, mental health, we have that Wraparound process that is—that many times has meetings in our facility based on our children.

I was privileged to be able to work with the Honorable Judge

Bonfiglio and on being one of the first people to sit on that committee to establish some of the guidelines of the Wraparound process.

It was an honor and privilege to work with the case studies and

to work with the children to be able to see an active difference. And

if you take one thing—two things away today, Boys and Girls

Clubs make a difference. Reaching out to children of youth service

60

agencies, reaching out to children in a preventative force makes a

difference, and that Wraparound concept changes kids’ lives.

It was important for us and to be able to continue to do our outreach to measure the impact by seeing how many of our children

were actually graduating from high school, staying out of gangs.

Gang prevention has really taken hold, particularly in northern Indiana. When I first came here, there was a sense of denial that we

didn’t have a gang problem. Coming from the New England area

and coming from Boston and from southern New Hampshire and

being able to recognize that we, indeed, had a gang problem and

we needed to do something; we needed to put some prevention programs in place; we needed to make sure that we did gang prevention, as well as intervention. And the most effective and cost-effective way to prevent children from falling through the cracks of drug

and gang prevention is to keep them off the streets.

Time Magazine had an article several years ago—3 or 4 years

ago that said, ‘‘Do you know where your children are? It’s 4

o’clock—4 p.m.’’ More and more of our families—single-parent families are working one and two jobs, and children after school between the hours of 3 and 9 o’clock are the most at risk of falling

through the cracks. And making sure that we have positive alternatives for children, but most importantly making sure that we

have trained, loving, caring staff to inspire and enable all children,

particularly those from disadvantaged circumstances, how to become responsible citizens and leaders, which is our mission statement for Boys and Girls Clubs.

Boys and Girls Clubs across the country, there are 2,000 clubs

across the country serving 3 million children, and I’m blessed to be

able to work with just one of them. And, in Elkhart County, our

services have grown from one facility. We now have a second club

in Nappanee, Indiana, we’re opening a third one in Middlebury, Indiana and we just were blessed to be able to continue our outreach

to children. The key, though, is one of my favorite sayings when

we do prevention, ‘‘They’ll come in if it’s new. They’ll come back if

it’s you.’’ And so many times we want to have new and innovative

things that really don’t make a difference. We need to find and sustain funding for the programs that really make a difference, the

ones that stand out and change kids’ lives, and that’s through positive relationships between staff and children, and being there dayin and day-out where the children are, looking at all of the child,

looking at all of the family. The family court concept that Judge

Bonfiglio has put forward needs to take place. We have to look at

all of the child, including their family, their environment and how

much part of that impacts the life of a child throughout everything.

And, if I had to say there was one thing that hurts or holds back

a child, many of our children do not have hope. They just don’t

have hope. They don’t see a tomorrow, and drugs and gangs and

alcohol are just the symptomatic things that they use to mask all

that. They just don’t think they have any value and they think that

they have no hope. That is what prevention services should be addressing; not entertaining children, not recreating the children, but

reaching down and developing positive relationships with kids and

then giving them the life skills that they need, making sure they

understand that education is a priority; that you need to be eduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:27 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85124.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
61

cated. You need to have that to survive in life, and making sure

that we continue to have and sustain the programs that work.

So I thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to share

this, and I’m done. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Deary follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much, too, for helping mentor other

clubs that aren’t even in your jurisdiction. I know that Rockford

and Bluffton and the group over in Huntington have come up and

observed your efforts in Goshen, and it’s a tremendous example.

Mr. DEARY. Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Ms. Stovall.

Ms. STOVALL. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this

afternoon. It’s a passion of mine to talk about young people I work

with; however, I will tell you I’m much more comfortable with a

group of adjudicated youths than I am in your presence. So please

forgive me for that.

Deer Run is an alternative education program that was developed through the collaboration of East Allen County Schools and

the Allen County Superior Court, Family Relations Division, specifically Juvenile Probation. And we’re currently in our 4th year of

programming. The students from our corporation—five high

schools, actually—have—under supervision of court and on formal

probation, are actually eligible for attendance at the Deer Run

Academy, and both organizations, the school and the court, need to

agree on placement before they actually enroll the student.

In the past, students that were expelled from the high school did

not have options; they were out on the street, out in the community

until the time of their expulsion was over, but then they had options to return to schools. This program actually fills a large gap,

because what happens is these students are automatically placed

at risk once they’re not returning to school; and, two, for staying

in the court system and attached to it long-term. So, by serving as

an alternative to expulsion, we keep these students specifically attached to school, in school and then give them an opportunity to

develop some skills that will hopefully become life skills, skills like

communicating, thinking, problem-solving, persevering, working toward a common goal with other people; the skills for life. Skills

that will be beneficial to them when they return to a classroom, if

they return to a classroom, but, more importantly, skills for life.

And that is truly our focus.

The Deer Run program has four component pieces to it. We have

small group instruction, and the instruction is based on core academics. English, math, science, social studies are standard instruction. We have a Timberline Challenge Ropes course that we utilize

onsite. We also have the adventure/outdoor education programming

component. And then one of the strongest pieces is actually working with outside community partnerships outside of the classroom

and giving students an opportunity to go and work and learn someplace outside of the school or the traditional idea of school and also

bring back some skills that we can generalize and use again and

help them to use again in a more productive manner.

We truly want to provide them a nontraditional means of getting

an educational experience, and what we consider to be nontraditional, actually, is—if you’re looking at research, is best practices

for how students learn and how kids learn. Small is good. Students

learning with small groups, students getting individualized attention or small group instruction, students that are able to have

meaningful relationships with appropriate adults, instruction that’s

relevant—observably relevant to their lives, those are best pracVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:27 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85124.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
67

tices. That’s what we—that’s what we do. That’s what we attempt

to do with students.

I actually asked several of my students before I left social studies

class today what they would want you to know about Deer Run and

what we do and what we are. And it’s always interesting to hear

their response, but this is what they said: ‘‘You help us go from Ds

and Fs to As and Bs.’’ And the questions was ‘‘How come?’’.

‘‘Well, because you guys are here and you work with us right

now. It’s smaller here. There are fewer students in my class, and

I don’t feel lost. The teachers are right here to help you, and you

get to work at your own pace. You get to ask questions and not feel

stupid. You try to get us to think about the choices we make.’’

And these are words from those young people that we spend our

days with that are considered juvenile delinquents or adjudicated

youth. Their perceptions of Deer Run are our truest measure of effectiveness, and I truly believe that when a student transitions

back from our program—typically, they stay with us from when

they enter to the end of the school year. We followup with contacts,

we work with them through their next year away from Deer Run,

supporting them. Of the 95 students that have come through the

Deer Run program, at this time, 81 students have either completed

their course of instruction and graduated or they’ve returned to

some type of educational program and remain there. That’s encouraging.

I have a colleague that sent me a quote that I wanted to share

with you today. It comes from a book called Inviting School Success, and it says, ‘‘People in environments are never neutral. They

either summon or shun the development of human potential.’’ And

our ultimate goal at Deer Run Academy is to provide people an environment that can summon the human potential in these students

who have come from a variety of times and places and situations.

We’re not the be-all, end-all to every student; we’re a part of a continuum, hopefully a much larger continuum of options for that person that has some very real needs, and we gratefully step forward

and accept that challenge for our piece in this.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stovall follows:]

68

69

70

71

72

73

Mr. SOUDER. Almost said Matt. The Honorable Matthew

Schomburg. Appreciate your testimony.

Judge SCHOMBURG. Like I say, it’s an honor and a privilege to

be here today to provide a voice to people that—I guess you’d have

to be a township trustee to understand—people that typically don’t

have a voice that’s represented, and that’s the indigent community,

different things that I get invited to. In other words, the people

from this group that never have a representative there, other than

someone like a trustee, and it’s very frustrating for me, being a

trustee, and you’d have to live my life to understand that a lot of

the issues that are so important to this group of indigent people

never seem to get much in the way of publicity because those are

usually the issues communities don’t like to face a lot of the time.

So the opportunity to be here to talk about the Twenty-first Century Scholars program, a program to help get education for the people from this group, is just really and truly a great honor.

The Wayne Township Trustee’s office is the only government office in the State of Indiana that does host—and there’s 16 regional

sites, and it’s one of the 16 sites, and that’s the only one with a

government office. We try very hard to get support from everyone

within the community and we’re honored to have our mayor, Grant

Richards, be very supportive, as well as Congressman Souder.

They’ve both been essential projects to support this program to

help get students signed up for this program. I have a brochure

here that really sums up everything tremendously well about the

Scholars program and I’d like to pretty well glean my testimony

from this.

Post-secondary education is expensive and a major financial burden for many Indiana families. Every student deserves the opportunity to earn an education—a higher education. Twenty-first Century Scholars program makes college a reality for eligible Indiana

students and their families. In 1990, Indiana General Assembly

created the Twenty-first Century Scholars program to raise an education, the educational aspirations of below- and moderate-income

families.

Indiana, to create this program, used three sources of funding.

They use GEAR UP funding, which I thank Congressman Souder

for being so involved with, a State fund and also Americorps fund.

During the past 11 years, the Scholars program has enrolled nearly

70,000 Indiana eighth graders. Since 1995, more than 20,000 scholars have returned their pledges of good citizenship, and Twentyfirst Century Scholarships have been awarded to 16,050 scholars

today. That’s, approximately, 80 percent of all people that enroll in

this program get awarded scholarships.

Today, thousands of scholars are enrolled in colleges and, for

1998/1999 program year, the first scholar year in the scholars to

graduate from college, there were 450 graduates. In 2000 and 2001,

there were nearly 1,700 scholars from each college.

The Twenty-first Century Scholars program is excited and encouraged by the accomplishments of the program and it’s seen a

steady increase in enrollment over the last 2 years. In fact, the

Scholars program reached a high point in the 2000/2001 program

year by enrolling 11,035 students. Seventy percent of the State’s elVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:27 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85124.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
74

igible eighth graders were included in that group, and that was an

increase of more than 1,100 students from the 1999/2000 year.

The program works by enrolling income-eligible students in the

Scholars program of who fulfill a pledge of good citizenship. And

these students are guaranteed the cost of eight semesters of college

tuition at any participating Indiana college or university. The

scholars take an actual pledge and the pledge is that they will

graduate from an Indiana high school with a college—or, a high

school diploma, will achieve a cumulative grade point average of at

least 2.0 on a four-point scale, and they will take a pledge not to

use illegal drugs, alcohol or commit any crime, they will apply for

admission to an Indiana college or university or technical school as

a high school senior and they will apply on time for State and Federal financial aid.

The benefit to the students and families are that the Scholars

program supports the parents and secondary schools in preparing

students to seek a higher education, offering 16 support sites statewide, and on our site is that in northeast Indiana; special Scholars

publications, which include career and educational information specific to the scholar’s year in school; a toll free hot line to answer

questions related to the Scholars program for higher education

training careers, colleges and financial aid; the Scholars—a Scholars Web site, www.scholars.indiana.edu, that offers information for

guidance counselors, regional support programs for both parents

and students.

All Scholars publications and the Twenty-first Century Scholars

applications are in English and in Spanish and are available on

this Web site. There’s a regional newsletter, there’s monitoring

support programs available at the participating Indiana colleges

and universities. And the first year Scholars program will accept

applications from eligible seventh and eighth graders, and that just

started this year. In the past, you had to be an eighth grader to

enroll and, this year, we took seventh and eighth grade students.

To qualify for the 2001/2002 year, students must be an Indiana

resident, an applicant and a scholarship recipient to be an Indiana—excuse me—an Indiana resident as an applicant and a scholarship recipient in terms of our residency as a parent/legal guardian; as a child, a US citizen or a legal resident, be involved in seventh or eighth grade at an Indiana school accredited through a performance-based accreditation and meet the following guidelines:

You have to be income-eligible, and it’s close to the free or reduced

school lunch program, which is for a household size between 21,479

up to a family of six for 43,827. And once a student becomes a

Scholar, an increase in family income will not affect the student’s

enrollment. They have to fulfill the Twenty-first Century Scholars

pledge.

And it’s an honor to have this program. We’ve seen a dramatic

increase involving students and we are working very hard at all

the different agencies and groups in the community to provide a

well-rounded atmosphere for the students that maybe don’t get all

75

of the advantages of other people that have—that don’t have the

limitations of income—an income-disadvantaged family would

have.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you for your testimony.

[The information referred to follows:]

76

77

78

79

80

Mr. SOUDER. The next witness is Mr. Mark Terrell of Lifeline

Youth and Family Services.

Mr. TERRELL. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak

today. Lifeline has been fulfilling its mission of changing hearts

and bringing hope to a generation at risk since 1968. I was actually

six at that point, so I wasn’t much involved with it at that time,

but, nonetheless, with the continuum care, it really consists of

three things: Prevention, intervention and active care, and we really believe that’s a special and unique thing that we have. Not only

do we work in prevention, which our goal is to keep people out of

the justice system, but, unfortunately, we also work with the kids

that actually are in the justice system that are referred to us for

probation, welfare, the Department of Corrections, and then

aftercare. We’re also following kids when they go home.

The thing that I wanted to highlight today is the fact that we

are a faith-based organization. We believe that’s extremely important in what we do, but we also believe it’s important that we

aren’t—we do not believe it’s important that we impose our belief

system on anyone; however, the people that work for us and the

things that we do are based on biblical principles. We think that’s

extremely important.

One of the—a program that I’d like to highlight today, because

we have a lot of different programs, but probably the one that is

probably the most near and dear to my heart really centers on

things that have happened in the last 4 or 5 years, the carnage

that we’ve seen in our public schools. Not only teachers and students have been killed, but the things in Paducah, Kentucky, the

things that have happened in Columbine. Those have touched all

of us. They’ve not touched just the inner city. In fact, they’ve

touched urban America, suburban America and it’s an incredible

thing. What’s happened, though, is that most of those cases that

I’ve read is that they—the solutions have been How many metal

detectors do we put in? What kinds of additional staff or security

do we add? The other thing is what dress code do we put on? Are

you allowed to wear a hat? Are you allowed to wear a backpack?

Those things are important and I don’t want to undermine those

things, but we really believe the critical issue comes down to what

is going on in the minds of the youth today. The definition of insanity says to do the same thing again and again and again and expect

a different result. We talk about something even simpler than that;

that is nothing changes, nothing changes. And we really believe

that, and the a combination of working with the things that we’ve

done in intervention in our group homes have really spurned a lot

of the things that we’re doing in the school system. We started a

program called the Center for Responsible Thinking in our group

homes, working with those that are from the Department of Corrections and probation. It’s been very, very successful and it’s out

of materials that were developed by a gentleman named Samuel

Yochelson who really thought about and did research with adult offenders. And his philosophy was that typical adult offenders or

adult criminals have one, two or more thinking errors. And his belief was if we can help them recognize their thinking errors, we

have an opportunity to change their behavior. We’ve adapted that

material over the last 10 years and it’s been exciting, but we—what

81

we really—the purpose was to do things in our group home and expand it from there.

Right now, we have—in the last 5 years, have been asked to

work in middle schools and high schools working with the most

challenging students that they have. It’s very typical for us to go

into a school and they say, here are our 20 worst kids. Go work

with them. I’m not sure I’d want to be the facilitator in that class,

but, nonetheless, it’s been extremely exciting to see the results and

the outcomes. What happens after that is that the schools came to

us and said, can you work with our parents? What we’re seeing is

that kids will learn this, they’ll go home, but the apple doesn’t fall

far from the tree. So we’ve developed a program that works with

the parents of these students. The next thing that came out of that

is, can you work with our young kids, and when we say, Young

kids? Yeah. With our 5-year-olds and our 6-year-olds that are 5 and

6-year-olds in our elementary schools. So we developed a program

to work with them. And last year, we worked with a young—a child

who was 5 years old who was in the school system already and had

60 referrals by the middle of the year. That’s one of the things that

we’re doing.

The other thing that we do is we’re also working with—we have

an office in Gary, where we’re actually taking this material and

working with the providers to help welfare recipients not only to

get a job, but to keep jobs and be responsible. We think that the

program that we have, Center for Responsible Thinking, is a phenomenal thing that combines the best of education, but also

changes the minds and the behavior of students. Samuel had what

I call an outstanding comment, and he said, that ‘‘Unless we

change the thinking of criminals, we simply produce more educated

criminals.’’ And, to me, that’s an extremely part—important part of

education and we’re excited about the collaboration we have with

the public school systems all over the State. We’re in 10 counties

now and have been asked to go beyond that.

The question was how should the Federal Government encourage

and promote effective grassroots programs, and my statement,

which is in the material that was provided—and I’ll just read

this—is, ‘‘Being a faith-based organization shouldn’t necessarily determine my inclusion or being included in Federal programs, or my

exclusion. My ability to provide services of excellence with quantifiable outcomes should be my basis for inclusion or, in some cases,

my exclusion from being a part of the solution.’’

My philosophy is that we are producing results, which I know

that we are, and we want to be a part of the solution. If we’re not,

take us out of the process. We—one of our core values of Lifeline

is to strive for excellence in everything and mediocrity in nothing,

and that is what we try to bring to the table every day.

And we’re excited that we could come here today and testify.

Thank you.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Terrell follows:]

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Mr. SOUDER. And our last witness for the day. Everybody voted

and, so, nobody wanted to follow Congressman Hines. He is our

clean-up batter for today, has been a leader in Stop the Madness

for much of the time and is developing the southeast neighborhood.

It’s a very creative faith-based initiative in government projects

and trying to rehab arguably the toughest area. Two of our three

lowest income census tracks in Indiana are in the central and

southeast areas.

And appreciate your leadership and look forward to your testimony.

Mr. HINES. Thank you for inviting me and, before Honorable Elijah Cummings left, I wanted to congratulate him and Maryland for

making it to his sweet 16, as well as Honorable Danny Davis of Illinois making the sweet 16 and obviously Indiana beating Duke

last night made us very proud to be here this afternoon. But, not

having said that, on behalf of the Board of Directors and the many

youth/adults served by Stop the Madness, Inc. Here in Fort Wayne,

it’s my distinct pleasure as a city father to welcome you to our fair

city. We are extremely pleased to have—that you have taken the

time to come and solicit input from the grassroots organizations,

such as Stop the Madness, Inc. And the many others.

Stop the Madness was established in 1992 as a faith-based organization By Pastor Ternae T. Jordan, the senior pastor of the

Greater Progressive Baptist Church, after his son, TJ, was shot in

the head by a stray bullet while innocently sitting in the YMCA

after taking piano lessons. TJ lived and graduated from Ball State

University last year with a degree in music and that bullet still

lodged in his head.

Pastor Jordan became totally committed to stopping the needless

madness of young people being shot and some even murdered due

to senseless acts of violence. The mission statement for Stop the

Madness is: ‘‘To reduce the madness of violent behavior for at-risk

youth through the development of programs designed to create discipline, self-awareness and personal empowerment.’’

We have four programs currently that are positively impacting

the lives of our youth and targeted adult populations.

First of all, there’s the PACE program, Parents and Children Excelling. It’s geared toward at-risk elementary and secondary schoolaged kids. We started off with secondary first and we found out,

as you did, that, actually, the problem is starting at a much earlier

age, and we’ve expanded it to the high schools now. But the mentoring program that we use is Dr. Harold Davis’s book, ‘‘Talks My

Father Never Had With Me’’, which is a guide for selected mentors

working with school-aged, at-risk male youth. Then his wife wrote

a book called ‘‘Talks My Mother Never Had With Me’’, Dr. Ollie

Watts Davis, which is a guide for mentors working with schoolaged, at-risk female youth.

This is the 6th year of the male initiative and the 2nd year for

the female initiative. And, with the cooperation of the local public

school systems, we were able to establish in-school mentoring programming that seeks personal empowerment as an option to expulsion and suspension. Our mentors are our paid staff and faithbased volunteers, who utilize the lunch hour or after-school time to

have open discussions, allowing for youth perspectives. Parents are

89

involved with a number of items, including field trips, academic

monitoring and support and child—parent/child relationship seminars.

The success of the program is measured by the amount of parental involvement with the child’s curriculum—curricular and extracurricular activities, the decrease in school disciplinary action and

the student’s academic progress.

Our recommendation to you is to contact Mr. Harold Davis—I

called him and told him I’d make the plug for him—at 217–356–

6239, because he has a structured mentoring program, which utilizes both the books of his wife and himself, and it works if properly followed. That program is funded by local foundation and corporate grants.

Then we have a Fathers and Families Initiative, which is primarily an outcome based on having fathers being more involved

with the child. We want to improve their parenting skills, the coparenting skills, and we have set up a number of workshops and

seminars that are convenient for the father and the child for training on relevant topics. The fathers are brought into the program

with the assistance of the court system through your—youth sports

activities and church outreach ministries. This program helps with

crime prevention by having fathers involved in the lives of their

child at an early age before the gang becomes the father figure in

their lives. We measure our success by increased number of quality

contacts by the father with his child on a weekly basis. Also, we

tally the planned functions, workshops and seminars attended by

both parents. This program is funded by the State of Indiana

grant.

And then, finally, the last two programs is the Value-Based

Initative, which is funded by the COPS program, and we have two

components to the Value-Based Initiative. One is the Value-Based

Intiative Academy, which is a 12-week classroom setting held at

the police station that has targeted adult, ministers and community leaders, and the goal is to improve police and community relations. We have, to date, had three academies with 120 enrollees.

And for 12 Monday nights from 6:30 to 9 p.m., the community leaders are allowed to meet with the police department and discuss and

share perspectives relating to either police work or community concerns. And there’s a pre-measurement—or, the measurement is

that there’s a pre- and a post-survey related to the perceptions of

policing policies.

And, finally, we had mentioned earlier by Judge Surbeck the

Value-Based Mentoring program where graduates of the academy

have stepped to the plate and said, We want to do more. So we

have ministers and lay people who are now volunteering on the—

with the courts with the re-entry courts to come and sit and talk

and work with the re-—returning offenders. And we currently have

40 men and women who are volunteering to work with those returning offenders. And that program, as I said earlier, is funded by

the COPS program and we’re seeing success at least in increasing

90

the relationship between the re-entry individual and the community.

And, with that, I thank you for inviting me to be here today.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hines follows:]

91

92

93

94

95

Mr. DAVIS. Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me just thank each one of you for your testimony. As a matter of fact, much of what you have experienced mirrors my own experiences, especially working with young people. My parents always told me that an ounce of prevention was worth much more

than a pound of cure, and it seems to me that’s exactly the modalities that all of you are using, which also, I suspect, contributes to

the fact that the problems you experience are not nearly as mammoth as those that people who live in areas where I live experience. I’m saying the numbers are very different and you’ve obviously had more success.

I have a cousin who is a member of your group, Doja Alan, who’s

the dean, I think. He’s been around that long.

Mr. DEARY. One of my mentors.

Mr. DAVIS. Well, I discovered that Doja and I were cousins about

5 years ago and it’s been a wonderful experience. I met him at a

family reunion and we both wanted to know why we were there,

and it turned out that members of our families were connected, and

we’ve just had a great relationship since then.

The question that I’ve asked in each instance, what can the Federal Government do? I mean, you’re obviously already doing things

and you’re doing them successfully to a real degree. What is it that

we can do as the Federal Government that would make what you

do more effective or more successful?

Mr. HINES. I’ll start, because you said something about legislation that you’re proposing for housing, and one of the things that

excited me in hearing that you’re taking a lead—And I’ve watched

you numerous times on C-Span. I appreciate the leadership that

you have in the house—is that, locally, as a city councilman, we’re

in a different act. We’re looking at legislation for tax credits as relates to the businesses who will want to higher individuals who

have previous records.

And then, second, we’re looking at the housing issue, and that

is how can we provide tax credits for in-field housing. As Congressman Souder has said, and my disagree, we have a lot of low income

and we have a lot of vacant lots and we want to take and put infield housing as an inducement in order to get living standards up,

as well as places for some of these returning offenders. And I appreciate whatever you’re doing to continue and to—if we need letters from us, we would love to get a letter-writing support going,

because we need whatever legislation can come to the communities

that will support additional housing.

Mr. DAVIS. A man after my own heart. Because—and oftentimes,

people think that when you propose things, you’re just kind of looking, but they’re actually born out of experiences. And one of the experiences we’re always looking at is the question of resources and

whether or not the resources can be made available. So, yeah, we

think this is sort of a creative way of doing it so as to not scare

anybody off and don’t get the thinking that, you know, we’re going

to break the bank.

But, also, we know that, unless we can help people to become

productive, then they’re costing us. For example, we spend far more

money in Illinois to incarcerate people than we do to educate them.

It costs us around $30,000 to keep a person in prison for a year.

96

We could send them to the University of Illinois for 10,000 or less,

and that would make a great deal of difference. They may never

win the sweet 16, but they do some other things.

Mr. DEARY. When I heard your question, Congressman Davis,

the first thing I thought of was what I would say accomplish—was

to accomplish when I was listening to a gentleman who was running a program at the University of Dallas—Fort Worth/Dallas,

Texas, and they wanted to do a gang prevention program. And

what they did is decided that they would partner with the Boys

and Girls Club, and the Boys and Girls Club traditionally went

from 3 to 9 p.m. at night. These are kids who traditionally are not

bad. Some of them are and some aren’t, but most aren’t, particularly addressing prevention, although they were very young, just on

the fences of maybe falling into a gap.

And there was a tremendous amount of Federal money put in

place to offer intervention programs at that same facility, and they

decided to bring the gang—active gang members in at 9:30, because they ran programs from 9:30 to midnight. There was a tremendous amount of money put in place from 9:30 to midnight.

Well, sure enough, the kids quit the Boys and Girls Club and

joined the gangs, because there was more stuff to do at 9:30 then

there was to do between 3 and 9, because they didn’t have arts and

crafts supplies, they didn’t have enough staff on place, they didn’t

have enough to do recreationally and they couldn’t afford the staffing. And I think, if there was anything, I think we all learned a

valuable lesson from that said there is much to be said with your

grandmother’s initial pound of prevention—or cure. An ounce of

prevention is much worth it. And they had to make some changes

there and put that money back into being the gatekeepers of fences

and keeping kids away from the gangs and still providing resources

to get kids out of the gangs and change their lives around and get

the prevention that the schools and they needed.

Mr. DAVIS. Let me ask one last question, if I could, Mr. Chairman.

How do we convince people that this type of intervention—I’m

saying it’s always been amazing to me during the time that I’ve

been involved in the public office and public life the difficulty of

convincing the general public that, if we make certain kinds of investments up front, that we get all of this return on the other end.

And that is far more cost-effective to help shape and create during

the early stages of one’s life than to be able to intervene successfully at the later stages. And, yet, we seem to have serious difficulty.

I mean, I see so many instances, for example, where the faithbased organization just got a little money. They wouldn’t need as

much, because there’s some other things that work there in terms

of people being driven by a certain sense of mission and will, in

fact, do things without as much resource, but they need enough to

coordinate and facilitate and keep things moving.

How can we convince the public more effectively?

Mr. TERRELL. I come from the business—a business background

before I joined the not-for-profit ranks, so I take a little different

perspective. I come with a business perspective and I think it’s

very, very important that we think like business people and comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:27 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\85124.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
97

municate to them in business terms. And, so often—I was with a

couple of businessmen the other day. They said, thank you very

much for talking in our terms. And, so often, we—I think, in social

services, we talk in a whole different language. I think, from the

political standpoint, we talk with a different language. I think it’s

very important that, as I have been in the social services, when I’ve

seen again the cost that it is for me to have a kid in one of my

group homes, it’s very, very expensive. It’s an expensive program

that’s $240 a day. Extremely expensive. And I see what it would

cost for us to do it the other way, and we need to somehow literally

put it in a fashion for business people to see the value. I mean, because I’ll be honest. Before I came, I didn’t see the value. I thought,

It’s another program, another handout, and you know what? My

tax dollars are already paying for it, and I’m not going to help.

My challenges that I have been trying to do for my agency is

communicating to them what the value is to them personally and

for them as a community. So that’s a suggestion.

Mr. DAVIS. Oh. Thank you.

Mr. HINES. I, too, came from the business background with banking and 20 years with Xerox Corp. marketing and sales. And, so,

I appreciate that view, but also from the faith-based initiative,

which is what we’re doing, with the Value-Based Initiative, we had

to get ministers who were saying, We didn’t want those people back

in our community for the re-entry. We don’t want those people. We

had to get them in the Value-Based Academy and walk through

what the reality is; that these people came from your community

and they’re going to return to your community. You have a responsibility.

So I think there’s multi-level initiatives that we need to look at

from a business perspective from the traditional social services

making that paradigm shift to where now it’s outcome-based and

being accountable and having measurements. I mean, also to the

faith-based, where we have, quite frankly, ministers step up to the

plate and say that their congregation has to be more responsible.

And what we’re finding with the faith-based people with the value

is that those volunteers that Judge Surbeck had a little difficulty—

he was sworn to testimony, but he had difficulty explaining, because the courts are having problems relinquishing control and the

ministers are having problems relinquishing control. So they’re trying to work through that, but everyone agrees that we need to

come together for commonality, so there’s more discussion and communication the more that we do of that in our respective entities.

One last comment. I promote the Twenty-first Century program,

so I think the other thing that we need to also be concerned with,

those of us that are in the field, is we can’t have that tunnel vision

and only look out for my program. If, in fact, the Boys and Girls

Club is an option that’s best for the youth, we’ve got to refer to

those agencies and we’ve got to communicate with one another

what’s being provided—what services, so that we can again broaden the base of support that our young people need.

Mr. DAVIS. If I could just—Ms. Stovall, I’m sure that Deer Run

is fairly expensive, but it’s a mandated program, right, by the

courts?

Ms. STOVALL. Yes.

98

Mr. DAVIS. And that the individuals are sent to—in transition,

back to another place once they’re ready.

Ms. STOVALL. Yes. That’s correct.

Mr. DAVIS. Part of the overall community.

Ms. STOVALL. Well, it—it’s kind of two-fold. In one way, the option is that we don’t have kids on the street with time on their

hands doing nothing, and it’s very practical to say, You know,

we’ve got these students in school. These kids are in school. They’re

attached to a program. They’re being monitored. They’re learning

skills to hopefully help change behavior, and that’s a strong piece.

The other side is the cost of incarcerating a young person, as you

were saying. You know, they could be in detention for a year for,

you know, $35,000 a year or they can be in school, where your tax

dollars are already providing the teachers’ salaries and probation

officers’, you know, salaries, and that’s a better return on the investment and it’s longer-term.

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This has been

most rewarding and enlightening for me. I thank you so much.

Mr. SOUDER. Thanks. And I want to reiterate to each of the witnesses. I want to make sure that our hearing book has not only

what you talked about today about the diversity of services from

Lifeline and if you have more from Deer Run and some of the other

things that you do in each of your organizations. Part of the goal

is to have increased awareness of the holistic approach to these different things and that what I’d like to just say here is we’ve got

to figure out how we can promote these in our community. And I

want to get this on the record so we can use this in our congressional work in Washington, as well, and, hopefully, we can see this

in other areas.

To give you a little bit of an idea why we did the mix here that

we did today, that’s what’s been apparent to me for a long time is

that, yes, you need to protect citizens by locking up people who are

endangering their lives, but that’s a short-term solution. And the

question is how do we do the interaction thing and provide what

Mr. Deary referred to as hope? Well, part of that’s the scholarship.

We say, Look. You try to keep it straight. You have a hope here,

because many kids simply do not believe, by the time they get to

junior high, particularly lower income and minorities, that they’re

going to have a chance. And what we’re saying is, we’ll give you

a chance, but here’s your responsibility.

And we have to—but we have to follow it up, and that’s why I

chose, along with a couple of other Republicans, to back the bill on

GEAR UP to publicize this. And it was not a pleasant battle in the

Education Committee, but, with different people like Mr. Davis,

Mr. Cummings, Mr. Ford, Mr. Meades and Mr. LaTourette, we’ve

been able to work together on a number of these type of initiatives,

because they aren’t partisan anymore than they are the city’s.

That—that’s what we know in Fort Wayne, is is that—and Reverend George and others have been leading the effort—is it’s not

just a matter of, OK. We put the police station in there. Now, you

need to gain control of the crime. You need to do neighborhood policing. You need to get control of the crack houses, but rather, hey,

what new homes need to be built? Where is the housing going to

come from? How are we going to do the transition?

99

Working on this campaign, we know if the tax rates go too high,

nobody can afford to live there. We need to have a holistic concept

as much as possible in approaching this. That—that’s one of the—

and there are inner-reactions in the Federal dollars in many of

these different programs. Lifeline was part of one of the earliest of

the community block grants. Our subcommittee not only does oversight, but we also provide the drug intervention in the community

and the drug initiative, where Judge Kramer was alluded to earlier

today. He’s been active up in Noble County, but Allen County was

the second group and Lifeline was a part of those communities’

anti-drug efforts and there’s amazing little footnotes in some of

what’s happening in our judicial system here in Allen County that

Judge Simms, Judge Pratt, Judge Schiedberger and I were all introduced to within a 2-year period. And the three of us are Republicans. Judge Pratt, Judge Simms and I were all very active conservative Republicans. Judge Simms has been the leader in the creation of Deer Run Academy. Judge Pratt is the character-building

of it that was referred to here today with some of the Elkhart programs. Judge Schiedberger was my vice Presidential candidate as

a Democrat when I was running as a Republican, and we ran a

team together out of IPFW.

This isn’t a partisan question. The question is what we’re dealing

with here, kids and families. We have to try to work together to

try to address it and we need to look at it holistically, and part of

that is in the education system for those higher-risk kids, like

those out of Deer Run, where volunteers have gave the money and

the land to create the area, where you meet the kids and you have

committed teachers who give up some of their regular career tracks

because they’re passionate about how to help the high-risk kids,

whether it’s with the future of college or it’s with the Wraparound

after school, and I think it’s exciting to see that.

The question is how can we educate the general community?

And, in return, you all have to keep track of how to keep it effective. It’s very easy to kind of become soft in some of the social areas

by saying, Oh. Anytime you talk to somebody, that’s helpful. And

that’s one of the biggest battles we face, I think. With Congressman Davis’s question, what we are trying to relate to you today is

two-fold; one is the discouragement among people that say, Well,

drug and alcohol problems are still great. The poor are always

going to be with us. We still have child abuse problems. We still

have rape. We still have murder. The bottom line of that, the question is how much can you manage and how many individual kids

can we reach to give them a fighting chance? Nobody can guarantee the results, but you all are working to give each family and kid

a fighting chance to have a different life. That’s No. 1.

And, second, we have false expectations in our society that if you

said, let’s do this program, life is going to change. We have to be

responsible, whether it’s drug court or whether it’s a different court

program or whether it’s SAMHSA. It’s time to say, look, do you

know that 6 percent of the people on drugs and alcohol have some

other kind of mental health problem? They are not going to be done

just like that in a 3-week program. And then there’s the kids in

gangs. There’s kids that have younger brothers and sisters and

none of them want to see them join. It’s something we don’t want

100

to see them get involved in and, yet, they do, unless we can keep

them from it.

So I want to thank you—each one of you, because our goal today

is to illustrate these interactions and I appreciate all the time you

took today and, most importantly, the work you’re doing. And you

can tell the volunteers in your program, the people who work for

you that often go unpaid, that don’t have health care that sacrifice

they’re time—And even if they are paid, they don’t get the same

benefits—thank them, too, on our behalf.

Judge SCHOMBURG. Before you close, I’d like to add one thing.

One of the pastors was talking about bringing people to the Lord

and he said, you know, for all of you that are here today that feel

like we need to be telling you get in there. We need to have more

caring people and less people that need to be cared for, I want to

share with you a moment that changed my life.

There was a young man that was in my office. And I used to do

hiring of all the inner-city kids in Fort Wayne. And the group of

people that I typically got were the people that no one wanted, because the jobs I hired for paid less than any other employer paid

and they were just really difficult, dirty, nasty jobs.

And, one day, I had a young man come in my office who had a

criminal record, and I don’t think I’ve ever come across anyone that

needed a job worse than this gentleman. And he was probably the

least prepared person I’ve ever seen come in for an interview, and

he broke my heart. I sat there and I looked at this man and

thought, Where is this man going to be—he was a very young

man—if someone doesn’t take the time? And I told him. I said,

young man, I want you to just relax because it’s my intention to

give you a job. I didn’t care if I got fired by my boss that day, because I was going to make sure this man got the job because of

how bad he needed it. And I decided to take the time to provide

what this man needed to make a transition in his life.

He had three kids. He was ready to be locked up for lack of support because he had no income. And, so, I helped him out. I talked

to him about the job that I had. He didn’t have any kind of a resume or anything together, and I explained to him, you know, that

I know this is going to be the last job you ever wanted, but, if you

don’t mind, the one thing I’d like to do for you is, if you don’t mind,

I’d like to share with you the things you’re going to need to get a

better job, because I know that this job isn’t going to do for you

what you need.

So I helped him put a resume together, I explained how he could

go about getting a better job, and we took the time. And that man

got a really good full-time job and ended up at the firm that employed him because one of the people he met with was a caregiver.

About a year ago, he looked me up and told me, You know, the

moment that you took for me made the biggest difference in my

life. He said, I’m not one of these people that has been with the

system. I’m paying my taxes, I’m supporting my kids and doing all

those things. And, you know, I just—it was that moment when he

was in my office, I wanted to find out who his parents were and

grab them and wring their necks, because I’ve never seen a child

in my life less prepared for life than this man.

101

And I think the most important thing about all these programs

and the things that were said here today that impressed me the

most were the things that talk about the time, and that’s one of

the things about the Twenty-first Century Scholars program that

has always really touched my heart, is that people involved in our

program take the time to hear whatever it is that kids are struggling with. And that’s the thing that’s needed to make the difference in these kids’ lives, because, you know, the simplest thing

is if one takes the time to take this pledge, it’s whatever it is and

it’s the barrier for that particular child. That’s the barrier that

you’re addressing. And these programs that are going to be the

most successful are the ones that give time more than anything

else.

So I just wanted to add that. I really appreciate being here. I’m

a Dodger fan today because of the White Sox.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. Thank you, Matt.

Thank you very much for all your testimony. Also wanted to

thank Amy Adair, of course, who put much of this together, who’s

a Fort Wayne native and the deputy staff director of the committee, our staff director, Chris Donesa, who’s also from Fort Wayne,

Conn and Tony and all the other staff who worked with this hearing, as well.

Thank you again, Congressman Davis, for his generosity in coming down here to Fort Wayne and each of you, the time you spent

and we look forward to some additional materials and followup

questions.

With that, the hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

Æ