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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–972 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–563 

NEW STRATEGIES FOR COMBATING VIOLENT 

CRIME: DRAWING LESSONS FROM RECENT EXPERIENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 

Serial No. J–110–116 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Republican Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 29 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 52 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 3 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 4 

WITNESSES 

Blumstein, Alfred, Professor, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and 

Management, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ........... 6 

Esserman, Dean M., Colonel, Chief of Police, Providence Police Department, 

Providence, Rhode Island .................................................................................... 11 

Kelling, George L., Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers Newark 

University ............................................................................................................. 16 

Summey, James, Reverend, English Road Baptist Church, High Point, North 

Carolina ................................................................................................................ 14 

Travis, Jeremy, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York, New York ............................................................. 8 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Blumstein, Alfred, Professor, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and 

Management, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, statement ...................................................................................................................... 31 

Esserman, Dean M., Colonel, Chief of Police, Providence Police Department, 

Providence, Rhode Island, statement and attachments .................................... 38 

Kelling, George L., Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers Newark 

University, statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Rosenfeld, Richard, Curators Professor and Director of the Ph.D. Program, 

and Brian Oliver, Ph.D. Student, Department of Criminology and Criminal 

Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, joint statement ...................................................................................................................... 66 

Summey, James, Reverend, English Road Baptist Church, High Point, North 

Carolina, statement ............................................................................................. 90 

Travis, Jeremy, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York, New York, statement and chart ........................ 94 

(1) 

NEW STRATEGIES FOR COMBATING VIOLENT 

CRIME: DRAWING LESSONS FROM RECENT 

EXPERIENCE 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

SD–562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, and Specter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. The Committee will come to 

order. 

Today the Committee turns to the critical issue of violent crime. 

While we saw a great reduction in violent crime in the 1990s, that 

seems to have suddenly stalled. 

The rate of homicide per person in the United States is nearly 

six times that of Germany, four times greater than Great Britain 

or Canada—and I watch that in Canada because my home is less 

than an hour’s drive from the Canadian border. Since 2000, the 

number of murders and armed robberies has remained nearly unchanged across the Nation. 

But the statistics do not tell the whole story. Nationwide trends 

no longer effectively explain what is truly happened in our cities 

and towns. Too many communities have seen a resurgence of violent crimes, and one such community is Rutland, Vermont. Senator 

Specter and I went up last spring to hold a hearing there to study 

that city’s effective responses to a disturbing spike in violent crime, 

and picked Rutland because we are just not used to violent crime 

in Vermont. And there we had had a sudden spike of it. I again 

want to publicly thank Senator Specter for taking the time to come 

up to Rutland. 

Now, some communities have seen declines in violent crimes 

since 2000, and some major cities, like New York, that have the resources to try out new strategies, they are reporting historically 

low crime rates. I want to look behind the national statistics and 

trends. I want to know about new community-based strategies that 

have proven to be more substantial than ever, or they could well 

lead to another era of substantial crime reduction. 

2 

I know Senator Biden, the former Chairman of this Committee, 

he knows these issues very well. He has been at the forefront of 

these crime-fighting issues, with his leadership in writing and 

passing legislation to create and fund the COPS program and other 

innovative programs saw a drop in violent crime we saw through 

the 1990s. And I appreciate Senator Specter calling him a leader 

on crime control. He has long supported Senator Biden’s efforts. 

Of course, we are fortunate in this Committee to have Senator 

Specter with his own experience as a prosecutor and Senator 

Whitehouse with his experience as a prosecutor. 

Violent crime statistics are a new disturbing dilemma. The rates 

of incarceration over the past 8 years has spiked to levels once 

thought unimaginable. We imprison more than 2.3 million adults 

in America. That is more than any other Nation in the world. For 

the first time ever, 1 every 100 adult men in America is in prison 

or in jail. The rates are even more startling for certain minorities. 

For Hispanics, 1 out of every 36 men is locked up; African-Americans, 1 out of every 15. Black men between the ages of 20 and 34, 

it is 1 out of every 9. And if simply locking people up was the answer, that would be very simple. But we lock them up and crime 

does not drop. In fact, in places where we have locked up the most 

offenders, crime continues to cripple our communities, particularly 

in poor and minority neighborhoods. 

I have always felt when I was prosecutor that this had to be 

something all of us had to get a handle on. But most veteran police 

chiefs will tell you, as Los Angeles Police Chief Bill Bratton told 

this Committee earlier this year, you just cannot arrest your way 

out of a problem. We can have real success in combating violent 

crimes if we focus on our communities. Supported by the COPS 

program, during the last administration we saw community policing do a great deal. And new community initiatives have focused 

on combating youth violence. I think of High Point, North Carolina, 

where the local police had all but written off the West End. For 

decades, it was dominated by drugs and prostitution, but in 2002, 

they decided on a new approach building on earlier models proven 

successful in the Boston Cease Fire initiative. And I remember 

Senator Kennedy, a valued and the most senior member of this 

Committee, telling us over and over again to look at what they are 

doing with Cease Fire and how effective it was. Instead of just 

doing more sweeps and arresting the usual suspects, police met 

with local community leaders, clergy, service providers, united all 

the parts of the community to attack the problem together. 

One of our witnesses, Reverend Summey, who is here, is going 

to tell us the results are clear. Within weeks, drug dealers and 

prostitutes were gone from the street. Crime fell by more than 50 

percent. Five years later, it is still down. 

Now, it involved more than just the police making arrests. We 

cannot make the mistake of thinking this is simply a problem for 

the police. The police will do their job. But it needs the community, 

it needs the business community, families, educators, religious 

leaders. All have got to work on doing this and have a real spirit 

of unity. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

3 

So I am not telling these witnesses anything they do not know, 

and I notice we have been joined by Congressman Kennedy of 

Rhode Island. He has a wonderful first name, Congressman Patrick 

Kennedy. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I have known and admired him for so many 

years. I am delighted to have him here. And I see, Colonel, you 

know him, and I assume you know him in your professional capacity, not because he has been one of those miscreants you might 

have back in Rhode Island. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Specter? 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you 

for convening this hearing on this very important subject with a 

very distinguished array of witnesses who are here today. 

I have long believed that we could cut violent crime very substantially if we did a few things. One is to incarcerate career criminals for life, and the second facet is to have realistic rehabilitation 

for those who go to jail but who are going to be released. 

When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, I found the recidivists were the big problem, the robbers and the burglars. And one 

of the first bills I introduced, which ultimately became law after 

having help from Senator Thurmond and Senator Leahy and others, was the armed career criminal bill, which provides the life sentence in the Federal system. It is 15 years to life for criminals who 

commit three major offenses. 

The issue of realistic rehabilitation, we all know and understand 

that it takes tremendous resources to have a starting point of detoxification, since we know that 70 percent of those arrested have 

either a drug or alcohol problem, and then training, education, literacy training to start with, and then education, so they do not go 

through the revolving door, the recidivist problem. And we know 

that they are going to be released unless they are career criminals 

and have life sentences. But that takes resources, which we have 

never been willing to commit. 

The cost of crime is really incalculable. Some people put it at 

$500 billion, or half a trillion dollars. I frankly think that is low. 

And if it is accurate, it does not cover the pain and suffering or loss 

of life or the terror which grips cities and communities where 

awaiting some strange sound at night worrying about burglars or 

where you walk down the streets even in the biggest cities with 

very substantial police control. 

More recently, a number of us have banded together to try to get 

mentoring. We find that there is a resurgence of crime problems 

from young people who come from one-parent families, and even 

then the mother is working and there is no guidance. And if we can 

provide a surrogate parent, something could be done. And we have 

appropriated very substantial sums of money to try to promote the 

mentoring issue. So these are issues which we really need to tackle 

in a much more determined way than we have so far. 

4 

I regret that I will not be able to stay to hear the witnesses, but 

I have staff here and I will review the transcript. I want to pay 

special note to Dr. Alfred Blumstein, a 40-year veteran of criminal 

law expertise from Carnegie Mellon, and the other very distinguished witnesses I know have a great deal to contribute on this 

subject. 

As you may know, I have multiple obligations. Right now the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is meeting. Senator Leahy is a 

member of that Committee as well, so we will split up, Patrick, and 

you cover the important stuff, and I will go down and try to make 

a contribution on Defense Appropriations. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. It is a 

time with many conflicts. Fortunately, we have the staffs of all the 

Senators, appropriate Senators here. 

Senator SPECTER. Patrick, one addendum to your comment about 

Rutland. I think that hearing in Rutland that this Committee had 

was a very important hearing because it focused on small communities. And too often we think of crime as a big-city problem. And 

it is nice to have the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in your 

State because he can give a little extra attention. I used to do that 

for Pennsylvania. Maybe I will again someday. 

Chairman LEAHY. I will come join you. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, you already have, Pat. But that was a 

very important hearing, and you should have seen the turnout. If 

we had a proportionate turnout, we would have to put this in the 

basketball arena, but the place was mobbed. People were really interested to see what the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was 

going to do. And it was symbolic of the terrible problem which grips 

the whole country, not just the big cities. 

Thank you again. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. I appreciate that. Again, as we 

know, especially in small towns, we are used to not locking our 

doors. We are used to not worrying about things. And when violence hits and people get shot and knifed and killed, it is doubly 

shocking. 

Senator Whitehouse, I know that you have a constituent—well, 

now you have two constituents here, but did you want to say something before we begin? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would be very, very 

proud to have the chance to introduce and say a few words about 

Colonel Esserman, who is the Chief of Police of our capital city of 

Providence, and I suspect that his presence here is what has attracted my colleague and the senior member of our delegation Patrick Kennedy here. We are very honored to have Representative 

Kennedy with us, and, of course, I am keenly aware that I am sitting next to his father’s seat here, and I am looking forward to having him back in January, as he promised. 

He has been a lawyer, he has been a prosecutor, he has been 

general counsel to police agencies. He was the assistant chief in 

New Haven, the chief of the New York MTA Metro North DepartVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:06 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 044972 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\44972.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

ment, the chief of the Stamford, Connecticut, Police Department. 

And then he came to the city of Providence. And I had been the 

U.S. Attorney for Rhode Island, I had been the Attorney General. 

I had had intense, as you can imagine, Mr. Chairman, relations 

with the Providence Police Department. And it would be fair and 

probably an understatement to describe the time as a troubled police department. Cars were unaccounted for. Kilo bricks of cocaine 

mysteriously disappeared, and then as mysteriously reappeared. 

Gold and jewelry from the evidence impound went missing. Promotion exams were provided in advance to favored members of the 

department. Civil rights and criminal prosecutions were as likely 

to be brought against members of the Providence Police Department as with members of the Providence Police Department, and 

politics ruled throughout the department. And it was a challenging 

atmosphere. I have many friends in the Providence Police Department who had the extraordinary patience and courage to hang in 

there through these very dark years. And Chief Esserman’s arrival 

brought an end to that period of darkness. He demanded political 

independence and received it from a bright new reform Mayor, 

David Cicilline, and began the work of restoring the Providence Police Department. 

And I can tell you firsthand from my friends on the force who 

hung in there how relieved and gratified they are to be able to represent a department that they are now proud of. I can tell you that 

this is a man who sees his work as a police officer in the larger 

context of the social fabric in which the police operate, in the larger 

context of the human nature of the people with whom the police 

must deal, and in the larger context of the community structure 

that supports police law enforcement efforts. And he has been extremely successful in all those ways. And it is not just talk. It is 

real results. 

I have a list that shows some of the successes that have occurred 

in Providence in the last 5 years under his watch: murder rate 

down 39 percent; rape down 64 percent; robbery down 30 percent; 

aggravated assault down 17 percent; burglary down 21 percent; 

motor vehicle theft down 44 percent; larceny down 28 percent; 

14,000 major crimes in 2002; now under 10,000 in 2007. 

So it is proof that when you go about police work in a sensible 

way, when you do it right, you get real results. And as I think all 

of our witnesses know, these accomplishments were done against 

a tide in which the numbers had been increasing across the country in the same period, in large part because of very bad policy 

choices made by the Bush administration to emphasize on homeland security with vast resources, a new, entirely unmanageable 

Federal Department, billions of dollars poured all over the country 

for improbable vehicles and things like that—all while hometown 

security was being sacrificed. And at least in Rhode Island, as important as homeland security is, the hometown security of 5,000 

less crimes in our capital city will make a larger difference in the 

lives of real families than some small police department have a 

$250,000 radiation-proof astronaut recovery vehicle, or whatever it 

is that they have been getting. 

Cops on the streets and a sensible relationship with the community is the key, and Chief Esserman has produced real results with 

6 

that strategy, and I am very proud to welcome him to this Committee. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. And I also 

understand that the Chief makes it a point to periodically walk a 

beat himself. I commend you for that. 

Dr. Alfred Blumstein is the J. Erik Jonsson Professor of Urban 

Systems and Operations Research, former Dean of the H. John 

Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie 

Mellon, award-winning researcher and author in the field of criminology. He was recently awarded the 2007 Stockholm Prize in 

Criminology; served as Past President of the American Society of 

Criminology; served as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Commission 

on Crime and Delinquency, the State’s criminal justice planning 

agency; served on the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing; a 

bachelor’s degree in engineering and physics and a doctorate in operations research from Cornell. 

I can see why Senator Specter wanted to welcome you here. 

Please go ahead with your testimony. I am going to ask each one 

of you to speak, and then we are going to ask some questions. 

STATEMENT OF ALFRED BLUMSTEIN, PROFESSOR, H. JOHN 

HEINZ III SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, 

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. BLUMSTEIN. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. I am very 

honored to be before this Committee, which has had this wonderful 

record of trying to bring intelligence, rationality, thoughtfulness, 

and care to the whole issue of crime and criminal justice. 

What I want to do is focus first on some of the crime trends that 

we have seen and use that to highlight some of the lessons learned. 

In my testimony, I have a graph of murder and robbery rates in 

the United States, and I have some spare copies if anyone needs 

them. What we saw was a peak in about 1980, which was very 

much of a demographic phenomenon. Crime rates came down rather sharply after that, and were going to continue coming down 

until crack made its appearance in the early 1980s. And then we 

saw major efforts at trying to deal with the crack problem by locking people up to a massive degree. Unfortunately, the market was 

resilient and recruited replacements for those people that were 

taken off the street. 

It is easy to think of the pathological rapist being taken off the 

street, and when that happens his crimes are also taken off the 

street with him. That’s an incapacitation. 

When we take the drug seller off, a replacement can easily come 

in. The reason crime started going up in 1985 was that those replacements were young kids, and they had to carry guns, and they 

were far less restrained and far more dangerous than the people 

they replaced. And they were tightly networked with each other. 

So, one of the unintended consequences of that massive incarceration of crack dealers was the recruitment of replacements and rising crime, so that we had about a 25-percent increase in violence 

between 1985 when those replacements started to come in until a 

peak in about 1993. 

7 

Then it became evident that crack was pretty dangerous, unpleasant, undesirable, and so we saw a major turndown in new 

users of crack, and so we saw a major reduction in the 1990s of 

about over 40 percent in both murder and robbery, which are the 

two best measured crimes of violence and certainly the two most 

serious ones. 

In 2000, the rates flattened out. This flat trend in murder and 

robbery has persisted within a percent or two since 2000 until 

2007. Now, that does not mean that the entire Nation is flat, but 

it means that there were real national trends in demography and 

in crack markets. But what we are seeing now is individual city 

phenomena, much more local rather than responding to big national trends. Some cities have been going up, some have been coming down, some down and up, others up and down. So it is much 

more a local phenomenon, and that is where the help is needed at 

this point. 

There is a lot of learning going on in some cities. There is a lot 

of experimentation going on. And it is clear that there are opportunities to tap into the developing knowledge. And it strikes me that 

it would be very desirable for the Congress to encourage the Office 

of Justice Programs to build an evaluation center that will evaluate 

some of these trends and accompany that with a technical assistance function that will go out to the cities that are seeing spurts 

of violence. 

When we see the spurts, it is often one of two cases. One is new 

violence associated with drug markets, since drug markets typically resolve their disputes by violence because they cannot go to 

the courts. What we see is a major return from prison of some of 

the former drug dealers, and often they generate violence by their 

demand to regain their territory. 

A second major factor when we see a spurt is what Elijah Anderson talks about in his book ‘‘Code of the Street,’’ where he studied 

the inner-city areas. He finds that most people there are decent 

people, but then there are what he calls the ‘‘street people’’. They 

have little prospect for the future, they see little opportunity for 

themselves; and all they see is the opportunity to engage in violence especially if someone disrespects them. If we could only do 

something to shape those folks up, opportunities abound there. 

What we need is a major focus on—in addition to this technical 

assistance, we have got to build some capability for the future 

through research, statistics, and development, and we have the opportunity to do that through the National Institute of Justice and 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That has been lying fallow for the 

past administration, and there is a real need for building some 

knowledge about how to control violence better, and to do that requires building their budget. They have under $50 million for the 

whole criminal justice system. Contrast that with the National Institute of Dental Research, which has almost $400 million to deal 

with dental issues. 

It is clear that we need a depoliticization of that research and 

statistics activity, and the Congress some years ago made the NIJ 

and BJS independent of the political environment in the Department of Justice. But in a surreptitious move in the PATRIOT Act, 

that independence was taken away. And so those agencies are no 

8 

longer independent, and more responsive to political pressures. I 

would encourage the Congress to deal with the need to maintain 

that integrity and independence as their program develops. 

I would, furthermore, encourage the Congress in this era, when 

we are at a crime rate situation that is lower than we have seen 

since the 1960s, to consider more fundamental efforts like getting 

at child development and other such issues. I would encourage the 

Congress to take seriously the need for bringing the technical capability that is showing up in various places out to the smaller cities 

that are seeing spurts in violence. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumstein appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I apologize for keeping you on the clock, but 

we also have a bill of mine on the floor, if Senator Whitehouse 

would help while I go back and forth. 

Jeremy Travis is President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. He worked for more than 

three decades on criminal justice issues in positions with the Justice Department and the New York City Police Department, now in 

academia. He has been a leader in and out of Government in developing new approaches to criminal justice policy. He served from 

1994 to 2000 as the Director of the National Institute of Justice at 

the Department of Justice. He promoted the Community-Oriented 

Policing Services, COPS program; Deputy Commissioner of Legal 

Matters for the New York Police Department; Chief Counsel for the 

Subcommittee on Criminal Justice in the House of Representatives, 

and many other things. Mr. Travis certainly knows his way around 

capital Hill. 

Good to have you here, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JEREMY TRAVIS, PRESIDENT, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW 

YORK, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Mr. TRAVIS. Thank you very much, Senator, members of the 

Committee. I am honored as well to be invited to offer some 

thoughts this morning as the Committee undertakes this important 

task of looking at violence in America, and I am very honored to 

be on such a distinguished panel. 

In my time before the Committee, I would like to offer three perspectives on the current state of violence in America and then offer 

three recommendations that might inform discussions as we now 

look forward to a new administration and a new Congress in the 

coming year. 

As the Chairman said at the outset, even though we have every 

reason to be pleased with the reduction in violence in America over 

the past 15 years, we have no reason to be complacent. On the contrary, I would like to offer as our beginning perspective an international perspective, again, underscored by the Chairman, that if 

we compare our rates of violence to those in developed countries, 

we see that the rates of homicide in America are four times the 

rates of homicide in England and Wales, and in my testimony I 

have provided other comparisons. This gives us, I think, reason to 

work much harder to bring crime rates down, and particularly to 

9 

focus on what is a distinguishing characteristic in America, which 

is the availability of illegal guns. 

As both the Chairman and Dr. Blumstein pointed out, we have 

a new phenomenon in the country, which is the second perspective, 

which is a divergence of trends at the local level from overall national trends. This has not been the case in the past, but we are 

seeing now in some cities violence rates are going up while in other 

cities they are going down quite dramatically. 

I offer two examples. If you look at the national data, between 

2005 and 2006 homicide rates increased slightly, by 1.8 percent; 

robbery rates increased slightly by 3 and 6 percent, respectively. 

But in those same years, we saw homicides decreasing by 25 percent in Dallas and 31 percent in Portland, yet increasing 23 percent in Philadelphia and 25 percent in Seattle. Similarly, robbery 

rates were essentially flat over those 2 years in New York and Los 

Angeles, but increased by 44 percent and 63 percent in Milwaukee 

and Oakland. 

We do not have a good understanding of why it is that the local 

trends are diverging in the ways that they are, and we need to 

have that understanding in order to develop a sound policy. 

I want to focus, however, on a third perspective on violence in 

America, which is for me the most instructive for the future policy 

directions of this Committee and the country. Crime, as you know, 

is concentrated in urban America, particularly in the poorest urban 

neighborhoods, which are typically communities of color. In those 

communities, violence is a daily fact of life. I will cite two illustrations that I think make this point quite vividly. 

A group of colleagues of mine in Rochester, New York, under the 

prior administration did work on reducing violence in that city and 

carried out an analysis by Professor John Klofas of the Rochester 

Institute of Technology, which found that violent crime was concentrated in a core urban area that he called the ‘‘high-crime crescent.’’ And my guess is we would find the same phenomenon in 

every urban jurisdiction. 

He then went on to calculate homicide rates in this part of Rochester and did the following analysis in my testimony comparing the 

overall homicide rate in the Nation, which was at the time 8 per 

100,000. He looked within the age group that is of interest, 15- to 

19-year-olds; it was triple that. He looked at men within that age 

group; it was quadruple that, it was 36 per 100,000. He looked at 

African-American males in that age group in Rochester; it was 264 

per 100,000. And for black males aged 15 to 19 in this high-crime 

crescent, the homicide rate was 520 per 100,000, or 65 times the 

national rate. 

So when talk about violence in America, we really do need to 

focus our attention on those communities where violence is most 

prevalent. 

A second example, this one from Cincinnati, this is an analysis 

conducted by my colleague, David Kennedy, and others at the University of Cincinnati. It looked at gang networks in Cincinnati and 

found that there were in that city 48 high-rate offending groups— 

you can call them ‘‘drug crews,’’ you can call them ‘‘gangs,’’ whatever-–48 high-rate offending groups with 1,100 members total. And 

these individuals, these groups, were involved either as offenders 

10 

and/or as victims in nearly three-quarters of the homicides in Cincinnati. 

So these studies from these two jurisdictions underscore for me 

the importance of drilling down deep to look at the phenomenon of 

violence as it is experienced at the street level and in communities 

around the country, and this for me is the central story of violence 

in America. 

Let me turn my attention then to looking toward the future and 

to make some recommendations, if I might, for activities that this 

Committee might carry out in the coming years. 

I have three categories of recommendations: one is for us to develop a much better understanding of the problem of violence in 

America; the second is to support proven interventions; and the 

third is to continue to test new ideas. 

If you look at other areas of social policy in America, we have, 

in fact, a very limited ability to track, analyze, and describe the 

phenomenon of violence. Our Uniform Crime Reports from the FBI 

are typically released months after the close of the year. The National Crime Victimization Survey, which struggles for appropriations from Congress each year, is a national survey that cannot 

capture local phenomena. And even the ADAM program that we established under the Clinton administration, which had a goal of 

looking at offender patterns in 75 cities, has been cut back from the 

35 we established to 10 today. So we have a very anemic capability 

to understand the phenomenon that is of interest to this Committee. 

So my first recommendation is that the new Congress work with 

experts in the field to establish a robust way of understanding and 

do research on local crime trends, and I have some recommendations in my testimony. 

The second recommendation is to support proven interventions, 

and I am particularly impressed with the work of Professor David 

Kennedy, who is now at John Jay, on developing what was referred 

to by the Chairman as the Boston Ceasefire project and referred to 

also in the Chairman’s opening statement by Operation—sorry, the 

High Point work that Reverend Summey will talk about. Here we 

have a proven intervention that has shown remarkable success. A 

couple examples. We do see reducing homicide in Indianapolis by 

a third; reducing homicide in neighborhoods in Chicago by 37 percent; and the work underway now in Cincinnati reducing homicide 

associated with those violent groups I alluded to by about half. 

So we have every reason to believe that there are some interventions that have proven successful. Work is also now underway in 

Providence under the leadership of Colonel Esserman. And it is, in 

my view, the obligation of the Federal Government to help spread 

those successful strategies to communities that are experiencing 

high rates of violence. Again, in my testimony I have offered some 

ways to do that. 

The second suggestion—or, rather, the third suggestion here is 

for the Federal Government, as Dr. Blumstein recommended, to 

continue to be the research and development arm, the capacity that 

the Nation needs to test new ideas, evaluate them rigorously, to 

help communities implement those that are proven to be successful, not to waste taxpayer dollars on frivolous ideas—and there are 

11 

far too many of them in our field—or pet projects that sometimes 

garner attention; rather, to be a serious, scientific enterprise on behalf of the country and to put the best minds of the country, whether in academia or in practice, to work trying to design and develop 

and test new approaches. If we do that, my expectation is that we 

can bring the rates of violence significantly lower than they are 

right now, and we could perhaps even approach those European 

levels that should be our aspiration. 

I thank you for your time and for your invitation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Travis appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, President Travis. 

Chairman Leahy has been called away to make a statement on 

the floor. As you can imagine, this is an unusually busy time. He 

will return. 

In the meantime, I think since I have already had the opportunity to give an introduction to Colonel Esserman, I will keep it 

short and simply call on him at this stage to share with us his testimony. Colonel Esserman, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL DEAN M. ESSERMAN, CHIEF OF POLICE, PROVIDENCE POLICE DEPARTMENT, PROVIDENCE, 

RHODE ISLAND 

Chief ESSERMAN. Thank you to the Chairman and to Senator 

Whitehouse. I wish my wife and children were here. What you said, 

they would not believe it. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Chief ESSERMAN. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before your Committee, and I sit here in front of you today as one 

of America’s police chiefs. I have been the police chief of Providence 

for 5–1/2 years, our State’s capital, the second largest city in New 

England and, unfortunately, one of the poorer cities in America— 

in fact, among the five poorest cities for children in America. And 

for too long we were also a city that saw too much violence, especially violence among our young, among our children; a city where 

too many children, our children, were being shot, too many were 

being arrested, and, too many were being buried. 

I am proud to say that the men and women of the Providence 

Police Department who I proudly represent today, known as ‘‘Providence’s Finest,’’ have started to make a difference, to turn the tide. 

For more than 5 years, crime has been going down in Providence. 

Led by an energetic and reform-minded Mayor, David Cicilline, the 

Providence Police Department has done more than transform its 

strategies and tactics. The department has undergone an extensive 

reengineering and has fundamentally changed the way it thinks 

about itself and its work. 

In the past, the department saw itself like many. Police were like 

armed referees who kept an authoritative distance—to the point of 

being almost anonymous—while trying to maintain order in a community that was not their own. 

In our reengineering efforts, we have adopted the lessons learned 

over the past two decades in American policing of what works. 

12 

First, we have embraced and instituted community policing, decentralizing the department, and dividing the city into neighborhood police districts. Each district has a community-donated neighborhood substation office and a commander accountable to the residents and to me. 

Second, the management tool adopted by the department to oversee our newly decentralized operations is weekly detective and 

command staff meetings driven by timely and accurate crime statistics—often known as the ‘‘New York City Compstat Model.’’ Accountability is emphasized by detective and patrol supervisors 

gathering weekly to review incidents, events, coordinate activities, 

and share critical information. Moreover, the department has embraced the important principles embodied in Professor Kelling’s 

work, well known as ‘‘Broken Windows.’’ We focus our resources on 

serious violent crimes and neighborhood quality-of-life offenses 

with equal efforts. 

We take great pride in Providence in studying, when necessary 

modifying, and implementing the best practices from across our 

Nation. Let me outline a few of our partnerships and problem-solving strategies that we believe have made the difference. 

The department formed a gun task force that specializes in conducting both short- and long-term investigations into illegal firearms possession, use, and trafficking. The gun task force works 

closely with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. For every gun arrest in Providence, a Providence Police detective and an ATF agent together interview the suspect. The department also partnered on a Project Safe Neighborhood Initiative 

with the United States Attorney’s Office and our Rhode Island Attorney General’s office focusing on the coordination and Federal 

prosecution of all eligible gun cases. 

The department partnered with the Rhode Island Local Initiative 

Support Corporation, known as LISC, to transform distressed 

neighborhoods into vibrant and healthy places. We work with our 

local community development corporations encouraging homeownership and providing capital investment for real estate projects. 

The Department partnered with the Institute for the Study and 

Practice of Nonviolence. Pursuing an initiative first born in Boston 

in the 1990s, as the Chairman referred to, institute staff known as 

‘‘street workers’’ are certified nonviolence trainers and veterans of 

life on the street—often former gang members, who teach the principles of nonviolence developed by Dr. Martin Luther King. Street 

workers intervene in potentially violent situations, offering mediation and conflict resolution services, and put themselves on the 

line in the neighborhoods every night. 

The department partnered with Family Service of Rhode Island, 

which is the oldest and largest nonprofit human service agency in 

Rhode Island, to replicate and enhance the Child DevelopmentCommunity Policing Program of Police and Mental Health Clinicians, first pioneered by the Yale Child Study Center and the New 

Haven, Connecticut Police Department in 1992. Every night social 

service clinicians ride with officers patrolling the streets of Providence and provide counseling and support services to those in immediate need. 

13 

The department partnered with the State Department of Probation and Parole, where these officers are now assigned to my neighborhood substations. Their caseload is specific to the police districts 

and their geography. They share information about returning inmates and hold meet-and-greet orientation meetings in the neighborhood every month. 

And finally, in 2006, the National and Rhode Island Urban 

Leagues approached the department about working together to implement a Drug Market Intervention Initiative in the Lockwood 

Plaza neighborhood of Providence. The Drug Market Intervention 

Initiative is based on the initial work of John Jay Professor David 

Kennedy, as mentioned by President Travis, which we unabashedly 

copied and which my colleague from High Point, North Carolina 

will speak about in a moment. The success achieved in Lochwood 

can be attributed to the department’s strong community partnerships and its ability to change its thought process, strategy, and 

structure. 

Many of the initiatives that I have outlined today, and others 

that time does not permit, were born from federally sponsored research and started with Federal grant funds from the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and, specifically, Project Safe Neighborhoods and Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grant funds, which have recently been eliminated or dramatically reduced in the last Federal budget. I ask you 

today to restore these needed funds. They make a difference. 

In closing, I sit here today speaking for my community and my 

children, nearly 26,000 of them in Providence. I believe that any 

American police chief worth his salt would tell you that the best 

way to fight crime is to invest in our children and to protect our 

children, their families, and their neighborhoods. Too many of our 

children in our inner cities are poor and are frightened of the violence around them. They have come to know the face of violence 

all too intimately, all too personally. These are our children. They 

are American children. I believe our Nation must not just protect 

our children at the borders from the threat of foreign attacks, but 

also protect our children from the violence within the communities 

where we live. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Esserman appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Colonel Esserman. 

Our next witness is Reverend James Summey, who has been the 

pastor of the English Road Baptist Church in High Point, North 

Carolina, since 1992. Reverend Summey has been an active community leader in High Point and a leading proponent of the community-based policing strategies that resulted in the elimination of 

a decades-old drug market that had long blighted his neighborhood. 

In 1999, Reverend Summey, along with several other local pastors, 

created West End Ministries, Incorporated, a nonprofit organization that provided a forum for community members to voice their 

concerns and suggestions for their neighborhood. Reverend 

Summey’s efforts were critical to the development of the strategies 

and approaches that led to a dramatic reduction in violence and 

drug activity in High Point. 

14 

Reverend Summey, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND JAMES SUMMEY, ENGLISH ROAD 

BAPTIST CHURCH, HIGH POINT, NORTH CAROLINA 

Reverend SUMMEY. Thank you, Senator. When I came to High 

Point in 1992, coming to the West End community, I had some 

background information about this semi-infamous part of High 

Point. But it really was not until I got there that I realized the 

magnitude of the violence as well as just every sort of way that a 

neighborhood could be oppressed by a social condition that was existing in this very concentrated part of town of approximately 1,400 

people. 

It was rather frustrating, to be quite honest, in regard to trying 

to even minister and work within the context socially of the area. 

The churches of the area were rather feeling oppressed as well. 

Making much of a long story a bit shorter for those who are listening today, it is very important to understand that the type of 

violence that we were seeing was very much related to the drug 

market that was going on. Every sort of vice that you could think 

of was happening right in front of the community’s residents, and 

the residents, as I have already stated, felt so oppressed that they 

were really not free to move about. The sense of community and 

neighborhood was basically vanquished because of the existing condition of the community. 

Efforts to go into the community and talk with people sometimes 

led to even greater suspicion because they were afraid to talk about 

their neighbor or what was going on. It was not until some of the 

pastors, as Senator Whitehouse just mentioned, got together and 

we started addressing in our conversations the situation at hand. 

We formed a committee of people to talk to. From that we engaged 

the city of High Point with their Community Development Department. With that we hosted a first meeting in the West End where 

117 people bravely came out after we went door to door and begged 

them to come and voice their concerns about the community. In so 

doing, we came up with three essentials of that community: Number one, the crime, the violence; number two, the condition of 

young people, youth walking the streets, no place to go, children 

under age, no parental guidance, and parents that were working 

late, and no one to look after the children after school; and, number 

three, just generally the community appearance of the West End. 

So we went to work on all of those areas. I will focus on the one 

that I was involved in with the crime. 

Getting feedback from the residents and finally working with the 

police more and more about how they went about doing their jobs 

was very comforting in a community conversation. However, the 

traditional ways of policing, the sweeps, the stings, whether it be 

about drugs or prostitution, or whatever, the shots still rang out. 

They could sweep the streets clean for a week or two, but only for 

it to startup again. The traditional methods that had been tried, 

and not so true maybe always, that had been going on for, you 

know, a couple of decades were not really working. 

It was not until 2004, January or February 2004, when I was introduced to David Kennedy, when he came to High Point and introduced this particular drug market intervention approach. The first 

15 

time I heard it, I thought it made complete sense, and that is not 

a promotion or anything. It really did, mainly because a community 

can embrace it, because it is absolutely fair. It involves the community actually taking on their situation where the perpetrators of violence are actually given a chance to turn their life around because 

the community, for the first time, is able to confront them and say, 

‘‘You know, we do not approve of what you are doing. We are tired 

of living scared, and we want you to stop it. And if you cannot stop 

it, then we are supporting the police to prosecute you and to do all 

that they can to stop what you are doing. However, if you are willing to turn your lives around, we will do all that we can to assist 

you, walk with you, stand with you as you make this turnabout to 

reclaim a life that is positive.’’ 

So working together with many resources within the city of High 

Point, particularly an organization known as the High Point Community Against Violence, resources that we garnered together, 

working with, of course, our district attorney, the Middle District 

of North Carolina U.S. Attorney’s Office, and, of course, the High 

Point Police Department, with an incredible partnership of community folks, as well as the police and prosecutors working together, 

we confronted these individuals from the West End community on 

May 18, 2004. And I can tell you, since May 18, 2004, it has been 

nearly night and day difference. 

The 10 years before May 18, 2004, the West End led the community of High Point in homicides and all sorts of gun and physical 

violence. Since May 18, 2004, we have not had one homicide, nearly 

no incidents of gun crime, because we have actually confronted the 

perpetrators of the violence, we have worked with them, continued 

to maintain what we said we would do by honesty and truthfulness. Community relations are at an all-time high. Social relations, 

race relations have all been improved because of this. Children now 

can walk the streets. They can walk to church. They can walk to 

school. They can go down to the local store, get a soda pop. It is 

a night and day incredible difference, and I am so grateful for the 

opportunity to share this with you. 

One thing I can say—and, Senator Whitehouse, you said it very 

well in your remarks earlier—is that, you know, I am not so sure 

this is the answer, but it is a major answer, and it should be implemented. I am very grateful to the Bureau of Justice Assistance for 

how they have been able to take this all around the country to introduce it to quadrants of the United States, to police and prosecutors over the past year and a half. And they have done a tremendous job of getting the word out about this particular method. 

But I would love to see the Senate and, of course, the Congress, 

all the factors of Government, to incorporate this method, support 

it, and allow this to be an option to all of the prosecutors and police 

chiefs of America and to back it up with your seals of approval because you guys have researched it very well. And to go ahead and 

reflect on what you said, this is certainly an answer to hometown 

security, Senator, and I agree 100 percent with what you said on 

that. 

So this is something that really works. I am on the ground with 

it. I know the before and the after, and I support it wholeheartedly, 

and I am so grateful for the High Point Police Department having 

16 

the courage as well as the diligence to see this through. It has now 

revolutionized four different distinct areas of High Point, North 

Carolina, and all these residents in these four distinct areas are 

likewise enjoying some of the new senses of freedom that this particular method has brought. 

Thank you for listening to me. 

[The prepared statement of Reverend Summey appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Reverend Summey. It sounds 

like it took some courage on the part of the community. 

Reverend SUMMEY. Absolutely. 

Chairman LEAHY. As well as on the part of the police department, and it is really a very, very impressive story. It makes me 

think that when you look at crime fighting in our media, on television and the movies, you always see the same old paradigm reenacted, and it is law enforcement rushing to a crime after the fact. 

It is laying down the chalk lines. It is trying to figure out who did 

it, prosecuting them, and throwing them in jail—which is fine and 

necessary. But a story like you have told I think is equally capable 

of stirring the public because of that sense of community courage, 

and I hope that the media begins to see entertainment opportunities in stories like yours and not just in the stories that they focus 

on in the law enforcement context. 

Our next witness is Dr. George Kelling, a professor at the School 

of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University and a senior fellow at the 

Manhattan Institute. Professor Kelling is a leading scholar in 

criminal justice policy and helped develop the Broken Windows policy implemented in New York City in the 1980s and 1990s. Professor Kelling has previously acted as research fellow and executive 

director of the Criminal Justice Policy and Management Program 

at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Professor Kelling began his career as a child care counselor and probation officer in Minnesota. 

Welcome, Professor Kelling. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE L. KELLING, PROFESSOR, SCHOOL 

OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, RUTGERS NEWARK UNIVERSITY, 

NEWARK, NEW JERSEY 

Mr. KELLING. Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to 

meet with you. Please understand my somewhat casual attire. I 

was invited to testify as I was on my way to a bicycling trip in my 

home State of Wisconsin and did not have a chance to return to 

my New Hampshire home for more appropriate clothing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You look fine. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KELLING. Nonetheless, during the last 5 years, I have 

worked on the ground in six cities: Newark, Los Angeles, Denver, 

Boston, Milwaukee, and Allentown. In Newark, homicide is down 

in comparison to 2007 by 40 percent; in Los Angeles, 9 percent— 

a 2-year decline of 23 percent; Milwaukee, 30 percent; Boston, 13 

percent; and Denver, 22 percent. Allentown’s homicide rate has 

held steady, but our efforts have just begun there. In these cities 

I have worked with political and community leaders, citizens in 

neighborhoods, public and private agencies, and police officials 

17 

ranging from chiefs to line police officers. Two common threads run 

through my experiences in each of these cities: first, the need for 

leadership; and, second, a shift in approach on the part of all concerned from reacting to crime after it happens to ‘‘stopping the next 

crime.’’ 

The sources of leadership in addressing crime problems vary 

from community to community: In some locations it is political; in 

others, police; in others, both; in yet others, a mix of private and 

public agencies. These leaders understood that the reactive model 

of crime control had failed miserably and that they had to take political and organizational risks to field effective violence prevention. 

In the following, I will describe briefly what I consider to be the 

basic methods of crime prevention. Second, I will revisit the experience of New York City, a city enjoying crime declines that arguably 

are unparalleled in history and from which I believe there is much 

to learn. There is much I will not discuss that relates to crime prevention and reduction: the need for social, spiritual, recreational, 

and educational services; employment; family assistance and support; and others. My focus instead will be on five proximate measures that most communities could move to immediately. None are 

very ‘‘sexy’’ or even new, but conceiving, implementing, and sustaining the programmatic forms they take can be complicated, depending on the agency, its resources, and the shape of the problems. 

One, increase the ‘‘felt’’ presence of capable guardians. Starting 

with police but moving on to prosecution, probation, and parole, 

other governmental agencies, and even the courts, we must increase the real presence of each in neighborhoods. For police this 

means getting out of their cars, walking, riding bicycles, meeting 

with citizens, and in other ways becoming an active neighborhood 

presence. In prosecution, it would mean having community prosecutors meet regularly with citizens in neighborhoods to understand their problems and devise solutions. I could give examples 

for other disciplines as well. 

Two, persuade people, especially the young, to behave. Law enforcement agencies and others involved in crime reduction efforts 

need to think beyond formal measures. Among the most fundamental and successful tactics is persuasion. We have heard about 

that from Reverend Summey alongside of us. Persuading people 

can range from simply ‘‘talking to them’’ to complicated programs 

that link active law enforcement with persuasive ways of communicating with young people on the verge of serious trouble. Both 

John Jay College Professor David Kennedy and University of Illinois Chicago Campus Professor Gary Slutkin have developed model 

programs to persuade people, especially violence-prone youths, to 

back off. Kennedy focuses on persuasive efforts by law enforcement 

officials themselves while Slutkin’s program uses reformed young 

people, especially reformed gang members. 

Three, restore order. I am, of course, referring here to an idea 

that I helped develop: ‘‘Broken Windows.’’ Put simply, Broken Windows argues that for a community to be safe and prosperous, minimal levels of order must be established and maintained. It is no secret that Broken Windows has come under considerable academic 

criticism. Certainly, a Broken Windows approach—that is, aggresVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:06 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 044972 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\44972.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
18 

sive ‘‘paying attention’’ to minor offenses and disorderly behavior— 

can be done inappropriately. Yet every city in which I have worked 

that has achieved substantial crime reduction has also paid careful 

attention to maintaining order—and with considerable success. 

Four, solve problems. Until recently, police and other criminal 

justice agencies have treated violent acts as independent incidents 

rather than symptoms of problems with both history and future. 

Right now the effects on communities have been disastrous. While 

we certainly want police and other agencies, especially prosecutors, 

to be concerned about individual cases and offenders, they need to 

be equally concerned about the community problems that such 

cases represent and create. 

Five, when formal measures are appropriate, enforce the law 

swiftly and fairly. I will not say much about this here. Let me summarize, however, by noting that a small population of offenders is 

busily nominating itself for incarceration by repeatedly committing 

both minor and serious offenses. For this group, we should have no 

reluctance to imprison them for extended periods of time. Unfortunately, however, there are at least two problems: first, in the absence of other preventive measures, incarceration has been overused; and, second, law enforcement has been applied so capriciously that it often fails to serve as a deterrent or to persuade the 

‘‘wannabees’’ and other youths at the edge. 

The primary question facing us now is: Once we have initially reduced violence in a neighborhood, how do we sustain those gains? 

I think that close examination of what happened in New York will 

help us answer this question. Let me summarize what I believe 

really happened in New York City. I will skip forward to a very 

brief summary statement that is explained in more detail in the 

document that I have submitted. 

I would explain both the steepness and persistence of the crime 

decline in New York City as resulting from the fervent pursuit by 

a critical mass of public and private agencies operating out of a 

congruent understanding of the nature of the problems and their 

solutions. Their self-interests included economic, neighborhood 

safety, the ability to provide services, and others. When joined by 

the NYPD, with its common understanding and its additional and 

unique capacities, the critical mass reached a tipping point. 

Summarizing, we now have a lot of knowledge about ways to prevent crime that, if assiduously applied, reduce violence. For violence reduction to be sustained, however, a common theory of action must activate a critical mass of community agencies and resources. Without such a common theory of action, cities and communities will pick away here and there at the edges, never really 

reaching the tipping point that New York City has. 

Two final comments. Both have to do with the fact that the war 

on terror and related assumptions that terror and common crimes 

are essentially different problems have resulted in the virtual gutting of the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the Community Oriented Policing Services, all in the 

name of terror prevention. These assumptions are not only faulty, 

they have been a disaster for localities. In fact, terrorists commit 

common crimes on their way toward terrorist acts and, in doing so, 

are vulnerable to action by local police. 

19 

Second, ongoing support for local law enforcement efforts is crucial to their future success. Their accomplishments in reducing 

crime during the last 10 to 12 years is a direct result of the research conducted during the last 40 years. This is not just a pitch 

for resources for research and other types of support from an academic. Every chief with whom I have worked over the past years 

would make the same claim. If we are to maintain, and improve 

on, our gains of the recent past, the Federal Government must 

view ongoing crime control research and support as equally essential to that needed for dental or medical problems. Both crime problems and terrorism in many senses are local problems and must be 

resolved locally. Locals, however, are in need of support. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelling appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Dr. Kelling. 

As I hear the testimony of all five of you, who are extraordinarily 

talented and committed individuals, it all makes perfect sense. But 

I also have a little sense of sort of deja-vu. I was the U.S. Attorney 

in Rhode Island from 1994 to 1998. David Kennedy worked with 

us in Rhode Island on crime prevention techniques. I then became 

the Attorney General. I opened community prosecutor offices. 

Throughout that period, we had the implementation of the COPS 

program and the advent of community policing theory. And here we 

are 8, 10, 12 years later, depending on which point you pick, and 

we are still having this discussion. 

My question to you is: When we seem to know this and when we 

seem to have known it for some time, what is it that is discouraging widespread adoption of these techniques by police chiefs and 

communities across the country? The payoff in terms of reduced 

crime, safer neighborhoods, improved property values, better sense 

of community and quality of life seems to be enough to provide a 

positive motivation to get there, and that suggests to me that there 

are some real institutional obstacles to these ideas that are now a 

decade old penetrating adequately and having their effect. What is 

your advice on that subject? Mr. Travis. 

Mr. TRAVIS. I will start. I think each of the witnesses today has 

commented on the absence of Federal leadership, the decline in 

Federal financial support, the need for more research, the need for 

more assistance to be provided to local communities. 

It is true—and I certainly agree with your opening statement— 

that we know a lot more than we have known historically about 

what to do, and this is a time when, in addition to doing research 

on new interventions, when there is a crying need, in my view, to 

take proven interventions and replicate them nationally. David 

Kennedy, whom you mentioned, is just overwhelmed with interest 

from jurisdictions around the country to provide some form of assistance or consultation. 

So, at a minimum, that is what is needed, is to take interventions that have been successful and the Federal role, in my view, 

should be to help jurisdictions with some attention to the integrity 

of the introduction of those interventions, to work with those jurisdictions to take proven strategies. 

20 

But the second point here is that this is much more than testing 

and implementing new ideas, and let me echo something that Professor Kelling said. What is needed here is to develop a culture of 

professionalism within the policing community so that this attention could be sustained over years. There are a number of communities that have tried this or tried that, it has been successful for 

a while, but it is not often that you have the type of sustained reduction in crime that we have seen in New York, that Colonel 

Esserman referred to, and that Reverend Summey referred to. That 

requires sustained managerial attention over time. 

So that is not a question of whether the intervention works or 

not. That is a question of whether there is political leadership and 

the ability, particularly within the police department, to sustain a 

regimen of professionalism and accountability. 

So we tend to move from new idea to new idea in our field too 

much, and there are a lot of—there has been a lot of research over 

the years, and now is the time to start, in my view, with providing 

Federal leadership and Federal resources to implementing proven 

interventions. 

Chief ESSERMAN. I would echo the President. We did not stay the 

course. My wife says that my greatest and only strength is that I 

am boring and that I think about the same thing every day—which 

is crime. 

We got a lot of things right, and we did not stay the course. And 

I look at it through the eyes of an American police chief and a patriot who loves my Nation and is proud to be here today. But this 

giant of a Nation that I love and that I think we all love really does 

strike me to be a cyclops with but one eye. And when we pivot as 

a giant of a Nation to look at another problem, we forget what we 

were looking at. And we pivoted, and we just did not stay the 

course. 

And it is remarkable to me that, as I watch the nightly news, 

as I did when I was a child at my parents’ legs watching it during 

the Vietnam War, and when I hear the body counts of our American soldiers, some of them police officers who are now serving in 

the national uniform overseas, and I hear about that body count, 

I do not hear about the American body count in the country. The 

American body count in our country is now approaching 50 murders every day. Sometimes that visits Providence or Boston or New 

York or High Point. But we are becoming a country with a murder 

rate that I find unacceptable. And this giant of a Nation knew 

what to do and started to do it. And I just think we did not stay 

the course. 

I think the communities of the Nation need help from Washington to stay focused and to stay the course. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Blumstein? 

Mr. BLUMSTEIN. I think part of the issue you raise is very much 

one of inertia, that cities are doing what they have always done 

One of the important roles of getting external interventions—we 

have seen some excellent police chiefs. Dean Esserman’s story was 

an excellent example of that, where innovative individuals, savvy 

individuals came in and brought new ideas and brought new approaches. But most places are merely continuing what they have 

been doing regardless. 

21 

One of the important roles of Federal opportunities and interventions is that it provides the opportunity for innovation. It provides 

an opportunity for transfer of knowledge, coming into places that 

have just been doing the same thing. So that the notion of technical 

assistance, the notion of bringing innovative approaches that have 

been used in some places into new places is really an important opportunity. And the stimulus for that comes from the Federal funding for the new opportunities. It serves to introduce these places 

to innovation and recognition, and that makes the Federal Government an important stimulus for all of that to happen. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Another area that I am interested in that 

I think, Dr. Kelling, you are— 

Mr. KELLING. I wonder if I could address the last issue. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Sure. 

Mr. KELLING. Right now I am working closely with Chief Ed 

Flynn in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. One of the biggest problems he 

faces there is the 911 system, and that is, the rapid response to 

calls for service. 

All the evidence demonstrates that 911 systems are enormously 

expensive, are very low payoff, and have led to the de-policing of 

city streets; that is, police have to be in their cars waiting for the 

next call for service; that is, ‘‘in service’’ means riding around. 

He is systematically attempting to decrease the amount of emphasis on rapidly responding to calls for service. He does so at 

great risk. There is a conventional wisdom that 911 is the great 

protector of citizens when the research demonstrates that it is not. 

Somehow what we have to find are ways to take on the conventional wisdom about what works and what does not work, and then 

give the police the flexibility to try things. 

The trouble is the special efforts, which really are built on the 

research and the work that we have talked about today, are always 

special efforts rather than the core competence of a police department. Because if you go to virtually any city in the United States, 

riding around in cars and rapidly responding to calls for service is 

what police business is about. And yet we know it has virtually 

no—very little payoff. And we squander police resources catering to 

the conventional wisdom. 

That is why I talked about the idea of leaders taking great political and organizational leadership, because if something goes drastically wrong in a call that was delayed deliberately by police policy, Chief Flynn is going to be having to face very critical press and 

a lot of political resistance. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The second question that I wanted to ask 

had to do with an observation that I could not help but note repeatedly during my years in law enforcement, and that is, we deploy 

vast resources on incarcerating people who are dangerous people 

and very often deserve to be incarcerated. I do not begrudge those 

resources. We also devote vast resources patrolling the general 

community and supporting the 911 system and being out there 

among the general population. But it strikes me that the highestrisk area is when you have those dangerous people from the incarceration system reemerging, reentering the general population. 

And in that area where they are coming out and overlapping, I 

think as you all know, that is a high-priority area if you just think 

22 

of it in those terms. And yet the additional resources that we spend 

in that area are really negligible. We have struggled for years in 

Rhode Island to increase the probation presence. One of Chief 

Esserman’s initiatives has been to collocate probation folks and his 

community police officers. But that is being done still in a context 

in which the reentry of folks from incarcerative environments back 

into the general population is still an area that gets very little attention and very little funding. Probation is probably the thinnest 

spread area of law enforcement, far more than police and 911 coverage. And yet there is where the danger is. 

As we have shown in Providence, in work that started even before Chief Esserman, the focus of those folks is in fairly specific 

areas. They just bombard, when they are released, a very few 

neighborhoods and zip codes, and it creates an enormous social 

problem for that often distressed existing neighborhood now to 

have to cope with this additional problem that is highly disproportionate to more affluent neighborhoods and, therefore, often overlooked. 

Do you agree that that is a problem? And if so, what do you see 

to be the best ways to focus on the reentry problem? President 

Travis. 

Mr. TRAVIS. I will start off on that. This is a topic I have given 

a fair amount of thought to over the years, and we are aware, as 

the Chairman indicated in his opening statement, that we now 

have very high incarceration rates in America. Over the past 30 

years, we have nearly quintupled the per capita incarceration rate 

in our country and now have the distinction of having the highest 

incarceration rate in the world. 

Putting aside for a moment a debate about whether that is a 

wise investment of resources or not—and I think we have far too 

many people in prison—we also have this reality that we have neglected at our peril, which is that, except for people who die in prison, everybody we put in prison comes home at some point. We do 

not have exile in our country. And so we now have 700,000 people 

coming out of our State and Federal prisons each year. It used to 

be 150,000 20 years ago. We have 9 to 12 million people, depending 

on how you count them, coming out of our jails each year. And 

these individuals—and 90 percent of them men—are returning to 

a very small number of communities, and these are the same communities that we addressed before and I highlighted in my testimony that are also facing the burden of violent crime. 

There is an association, there is a connection between the phenomenon of reentry and violence in communities. Certainly it is felt 

by those communities that large numbers of their men are arrested, sent away for, on average now, close to 3 years, and return 

home disoriented, not ready to engage in work, often returning to 

habits that involved antisocial behavior and drug use and the like. 

And you are absolutely right, Senator, that the moment of release, 

the time when they come out of incarceration, according to the BJS 

data, presents the highest risk in terms of their returning to criminal behavior. And we do not assign our resources where that risk 

exists. 

So we have more people coming out of prison to a small number 

of neighborhoods. We have not increased the resources for the GovVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:06 Oct 31, 2008 Jkt 044972 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\44972.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
23 

ernment agencies that are supposed to be responsible for their safe 

return home, and they are returning home to highly violent communities and often reengaging in violence to settle scores or whatever. 

So part of a national antiviolence strategy, in my view, has to 

focus on this phenomenon, unprecedented in our history, of large 

numbers of men coming out of prison. And we have to start before 

they are released. We have to start while they are still in prison. 

Senator Specter talked about the need for programs and the like. 

We have also reduced our investment in drug treatment and education and the like. 

But the critical moment is exactly the moment that you highlighted, which is that moment when they leave the incarcerated 

status and return home, and that is the moment where we literally 

lose people. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Dr. Blumstein? 

Mr. BLUMSTEIN. Let me say something about addiction. The 

1980s and 1990s was a period when we saw lots of addiction to 

drugs. Part of my concern is the degree to which our legislative 

bodies became addicted to being punitive. It worked very well in 

terms of the public’s concern about crime, the public’s concern 

about drugs, and the public would cheer as they saw more and 

more punitive legislation coming through. That gave rise to this 

major growth of incarceration, particularly of drug offenders, which 

are now the single largest crime type in prison. 

As I tried to indicate in my testimony, that does not necessarily 

stop any transactions because, as long as the demand is there, you 

are going to get replacements. And it turned out that the replacements were far more threatening than the people they replaced. 

So we have got all of these people in prison coming out, and the 

prison experience could be rehabilitative, but it could also be 

criminogenic. In part, they have greater trouble getting jobs when 

they come out, and we all agree that their prior criminal record 

eventually becomes stale information. But no one has developed yet 

the idea of when it is sufficiently stale, and that is where some of 

my research is targeted. 

As Jeremy Travis pointed out, getting them before they leave 

and as soon as they get back into the community is absolutely critical, and making sure we make major investments in getting them 

back functioning as legitimate members of the society. But we also 

ought to deal with the addiction of the legislative bodies to start 

rethinking some of the legislation that is now encased in statute 

that is now ready to be rethought. The circumstances are now quite 

a bit different from what than they were when the public was 

clamoring for more punitiveness. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. [Presiding.] Thank you. 

As you know, Doctor, we finally passed the Second Chance Act 

facing filibusters and everything else, which will give us a start on 

that. But it is also like we will send billions and billions of dollars 

to countries with the intent to stop their cocaine coming here and 

close a blind eye to any human rights violations in those countries 

and saying we are fighting a war on drugs. With the billions upon 

billions dollars we spent to do that, the price of cocaine has not 

24 

come down on the street; the availability has not come down on the 

street. And we have not done anywhere near enough to stop the demand. We can stop any one country’s source—let’s assume we 

could—of cocaine and heroin, but if you do not stop the demand in 

the most affluent Nation on Earth, you are not going to stop—another country will take over. 

When we go from more of the macro into the micro, in reading 

some of the material for this, Reverend Summey, I was—am I pronouncing that correctly? Is it ‘‘Sum-me’’ or ‘‘Soo-me’’? 

Reverend SUMMEY. ‘‘Sum-me.’’ 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. You should hear all the pronunciations of my name, especially if you travel in Ireland where it goes 

from ‘‘Laff-ay,’’ ‘‘La-hay,’’ to ‘‘Lee-hee’’ and what not. But I think 

about High Point, North Carolina, a community-based—could you 

kind of give just a thumbnail? What was it like just a few years 

ago in the neighborhood around your church where your parishioners had to go? And what is it like today? And if you had to pick 

the two or three things that helped the most, what were they? 

Reverend SUMMEY. The empowerment of the community to know 

that they have a right to say that we do not want our community 

to be this way that was provided by a voice. You know, the church 

is doing some leadership, but mainly working with the city and us 

coming together and having a forum where people could talk. And 

they were really heard, and then a plan came up, as we have described, with David Kennedy’s plans. And when they realized that 

they could actually confront the actual people that were pinpointed 

that were the perpetrators of violence and the drug markets, and 

they realized that that could make a difference in their own lives, 

that they could finally get it out; second, that the criminal forces 

of the community had been going along thinking that because no 

one said something, it was approval. When they realized there was 

no approval there, it absolutely stymied them. And that was a 

great deterrent already for the community to say, ‘‘Stop it,’’ because 

they were reading their passivity as approval. 

The result of that, of course, was the lack of violence. The drug 

market on the corners and the crack houses literally shut down 

overnight, and that is not an exaggeration. There was none. It 

stopped, and as well as the other, you know, subsidiary vices— 

prostitution—just plummeted after that because there was not that 

combination of driving the area looking for crack cocaine, looking 

for girls or whatever. 

And so the community, when they saw the streets settle down 

and they did not have to worry about the intimidation factors and 

the fear factors, that power of being able to express right and 

wrong just absolutely liberated the community. 

Chairman LEAHY. By intimidation, give me an example. Say you 

are parents with a couple young kids in that area. What kind of 

intimidation were they facing? 

Reverend SUMMEY. Well, for one thing, the street corners and 

sidewalks are pretty well taken over by the drug dealers and the 

prostitutes, and the parents did not want to let the kids out. They 

did not want to them walking down the street or riding their bicycle. Plus, I literally saw and experienced some of it from the drug 

dealers, that they would literally say something to you, ‘‘What are 

25 

you looking at? Why are you hanging around here?’’ When doing 

some of the things I did as a minister in the community, I had personal threats made against me for even talking to some of the drug 

dealers and asking them to not be doing this. And the parents of 

the kids as well as some of the older residents of the city just felt 

fearful, and they stayed in their homes. 

Chairman LEAHY. That is amazing. Growing up in a small town 

in Vermont, as I did, and as my kids did, you hop on your bicycle, 

go on down and visit your friends, go play baseball in the 3 weeks 

of summer that we have in Vermont. I will probably catch heck 

from the Chamber of Commerce on that. But you know what I am 

saying, just being able to go visit friends and do normal kids’ 

things. 

Reverend SUMMEY. That did not happen, sir. Right. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Travis, this is something that worked in 

North Carolina. Are there things we can do at the Federal level to 

help with these kind of community-based initiatives? I know what 

Senator Specter and I found out when we went to Rutland, 

Vermont. We could bring them certain things, but we saw our community was basically saying enough is enough. And a mayor who— 

some were saying, you know, if we talk about this, maybe it will 

give us a bad image. He said, ‘‘We will talk about this, but it is 

not going to go away.’’ And they finally did it. As Senator Specter 

said, we had a very large hall. We figured we would fill about a 

quarter of it. And it was overflowing. They had people out in the 

hallways. Everybody had a view. I mean, these are from parents, 

teachers, religious leaders, business leaders, police, ex-addicts. We 

had everybody. 

I do not want to do what Dr. Blumstein has referred to, that 

somehow we can do a one-size-fits-all, ‘‘let’s lock them all up’’ kind 

of attitude. What do we do? What can we hand you from the Federal level? 

Mr. TRAVIS. Well, I agree that it would be a mistake to continue 

to pursue the ‘‘lock them up’’ attitude. That is not going to get us 

out of the situation that we now face. But I think there is a real 

hunger around the country for national leadership here to help 

communities around the country take proven strategies, such as 

those that have been referenced in this hearing, and help those jurisdictions figure out what it takes to implement those strategies. 

Yes, perhaps over time we could all sort of learn from each other, 

but this is an area where we stand on the verge, in my view, of 

a tipping point, where the police executives are ready, community 

leaders are ready, local elected officials—mayors and the like—are 

ready to implement some of these proven strategies. And what is 

required is a sustained effort over a number of years with appropriate Federal resources—and it is not a lot of money—to work 

with those communities to help them implement proven strategies 

and bring rates of violence down. It requires a very different way 

of doing business from what we have done historically. And the police profession over the years that I have observed it and been part 

of it is now led by some very thoughtful and innovative and, indeed, brave leaders who stand ready. And we have at the local 

level community leaders like Reverend Summey. 

26 

And the national role here is to convene people, to help develop 

the technical assistance and training packages, to help provide onthe-ground analytical support, to bring the research community 

into the development and design and testing of these strategies. 

And it is not hard. If we had in the health arena proven strategies 

around the country that reduced breast cancer or any form of serious health issue by 40 to 50 to 60 percent, the professions delivering public health would be obligated to start implementing those 

interventions for their patients. We are at the point where, in my 

view, we could start to think about crime policy in the same way. 

But it is not going to happen naturally. It is going to require a Federal role and a different type of a Federal role. 

Chairman LEAHY. But it is also going to require—you cannot 

have an idea and say, ‘‘What is my city government doing? What 

is my Federal Government doing?’’ I mean, they can put the tools 

there, but doesn’t it kind of involve everybody? 

Mr. TRAVIS. It definitely involves everybody. Crime policy is ultimately a State and local matter, and it is ultimately community 

matter. It requires families and—but there is a Federal role. The 

Federal role, in addition to the testing of ideas and doing the research—which I also advocate strongly. As the former Director of 

NIJ, I am here to say it is shameful what has happened to their 

budget. But here, when we are talking about what to do about violence and the great strides we have made over the past number of 

years in developing effective strategies, the Federal role is a leadership role in working with those communities to implement those 

interventions in a systematic way. 

Chairman LEAHY. And to at least make seed money available for 

people who want to do that. I think about Chief Esserman goes to 

school, reads to children, they see that the police officer is not the 

bad guy. Walk a beat, get to know people on that. I think that 

probably makes it very difficult, Chief, for some of the officers in 

your department saying that they are unwilling to go out and walk 

a beat or read to kids or spend time with them if the Chief has 

been doing it. 

I think I was an effective prosecutor, and I worry, though, about 

people who have not been involved in law enforcement and think 

there are simplistic answers, simply lock them up and throw the 

key away; this kid committed a crime, throw him in that old jail. 

There have to be better ways. There have to be ways to reach out 

to them. There have to be ways to have places for kids to go after 

school. But there has to be a community involvement, and that is 

why I asked Reverend Summey the questions I did. There is that 

old expression, ‘‘I have been down so long, it is beginning to look 

up.’’ But if you have a community that feels they are helpless and 

cannot do anything and it is always going to be this way, then 

somebody has got to hit the spark. 

We are going to have to wrap up here, but, Dr. Kelling, you 

wanted to add something in there? 

Mr. KELLING. Well, I just wanted to second what Jeremy said but 

take exception to one word that he used regarding the Federal role, 

and that is ‘‘leadership’’ because I do not really think the Federal 

Government can provide leadership. 

27 

If one analyzes all the ideas that have influenced and developed 

policing over the last 30 to 40 years, they have all developed locally. What we need is Federal support for local innovation and 

allow things to happen locally, because that is where all the excitement is. If you notice— 

Chairman LEAHY. The COPS program developed nationally. 

Mr. KELLING. It developed nationally, but the techniques that 

they use, the ideas of community policing, the ideas of pulling a 

lever, David Kennedy’s work, the ideas of Broken Windows, the 

ideas of problem solving all were developed by local police departments in collaboration with outsiders such as me and Jeremy, et 

cetera. So that the leadership, you see the leadership in terms of 

ideas coming locally in practice on the ground. 

The Federal role is important along all the lines that Jeremy described, but, again, I think we look for programmatic development 

on a local level and leadership on a local level. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Travis, did you want to respond to that? 

I am also going to place in the record a statement from Senator 

Biden and Senator Feingold, who have worked so hard on this. 

Go ahead, Mr. Travis. 

Mr. TRAVIS. Given that we are in the Senate, I will accept that 

friendly amendment from my colleague from New Jersey. The leadership that I spoke about from the Federal Government is really 

to support local activities. 

I would be remiss, Mr. Chairman, if I did not take this opportunity as well to commend the Senate for the enactment of the Second Chance Act, which I did provide some— 

Chairman LEAHY. It took a lot of work. 

Mr. TRAVIS. We were all surprised, both that it took long and 

then ultimately that it got done. And I know that you are providing 

leadership on getting funding for the Second Chance Act as well, 

which will make it a reality. So that is an important type of Federal leadership. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

I talked when we started, my nearest neighbor in Vermont is a 

half a mile away. It is my son and his wife. and their little 5-yearold will call up and say, ‘‘I am coming to do a sleepover.’’ And I 

had to ask, ‘‘Well, this is OK with your parents?’’ ‘‘Mommy, Daddy, 

Grandpa says I can come to a sleepover.’’ Or grandmother, if she 

is the one that answered. And she takes her teddy bear, and I was 

showing this to Senator Whitehouse in a picture, she just walks 

down this dirt road the half-mile herself, teddy bear under her 

arm. I hear Reverend Summey says there was a time when you 

would not let them go—not even half a mile. You would not let 

them go half a block away like that. 

Not every part of the country is going to be totally safe, but as 

a country, we have got to get back to that where our children can 

do that and our children can think of that and our children can believe that there is going to be a place for them in this country. 

They are going to face enough challenges as they grow up. 

Again, I would strongly suggest—you can have wonderful police 

officers, but don’t put all the burden on the police officers. It is not 

their responsibility. It is all our responsibility. 

28 

And, with that, unless you have something else, Senator 

Whitehouse, we will stand in recess. We will keep the record open. 

The reason for that, you get a chance to see what you said, and 

if you think, ‘‘I should have added...,’’ please do. We will keep it 

open for that. 

Thank you all very, very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.] 

29 


44972.001
30 


44972.002
31 


44972.003
32 


44972.004
33 


44972.005
34 


44972.006
35 


44972.007
36 


44972.008
37 


44972.009
38 


44972.010
39 


44972.011
40 


44972.012
41 


44972.013
42 


44972.014
43 


44972.015
44 


44972.016
45 


44972.017
46 


44972.018
47 


44972.019
48 


44972.020
49 


44972.021
50 


44972.022
51 


44972.023
52 


44972.024
53 


44972.025
54 


44972.026
55 


44972.027
56 


44972.028
57 


44972.029
58 


44972.030
59 


44972.031
60 


44972.032
61 


44972.033
62 


44972.034
63 


44972.035
64 


44972.036
65 


44972.037
66 


44972.038
67 


44972.039
68 


44972.040
69 


44972.041
70 


44972.042
71 


44972.043
72 


44972.044
73 


44972.045
74 


44972.046
75 


44972.047
76 


44972.048
77 


44972.049
78 


44972.050
79 


44972.051
80 


44972.052
81 


44972.053
82 


44972.054
83 


44972.055
84 


44972.056
85 


44972.057
86 


44972.058
87 


44972.059
88 


44972.060
89 


44972.061
90 


44972.062
91 


44972.063
92 


44972.064
93 


44972.065
94 


44972.066
95 


44972.067
96 


44972.068
97 


44972.069
98 


44972.070
99 


44972.071
100 


44972.072
101 


44972.073
102 

Æ 


44972.074