U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–843 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

SCHOOL VIOLENCE: WHAT IS BEING DONE TO

COMBAT SCHOOL VIOLENCE? WHAT SHOULD

BE DONE?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 20, 1999

Serial No. 106–111

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEPHEN HORN, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia

DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

BOB BARR, Georgia

DAN MILLER, Florida

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

DOUG OSE, California

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

DAVID A. KASS, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian

CARLA J. MARTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

BOB BARR, Georgia

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

DOUG OSE, California

PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

JIM TURNER, Texas

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

SHARON PINKERTON, Deputy Staff Director

STEVE DILLINGHAM, Special Counsel

AMY DAVENPORT, Clerk

CHERRI BRANSON, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on May 20, 1999 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Chavez, Nelba, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;

and William Modzeleski, Director, Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, Department of Education .................................................................. 10

Condon, Charlie, attorney general, State of South Carolina; Gary L.

Walker, vice president, National District Attorneys Association; and

Reuben Greenberg, police chief, Charleston, SC ........................................ 68

Dwyer, Kevin, president elect, National Association of School Psychologists; and James Baker, executive director, Institute for Legislative

Action, National Rifle Association ............................................................... 150

Gallagher, Jan, president elect, American School Counselor Association;

Bill Hall, superintendent, Volusia County Schools, Florida; Gary M.

Fields, superintendent, Zion-Benton Township High School, Illinois;

Clarence Cain, teacher, Crisis Resource, Maury Elementary, Alexandria, VA; Anthony Snead, officer, Brag Corps, George Mason Elementary School; and Jeffrey Schurott, officer, Brag Corps, George Mason

Elementary School ........................................................................................ 112

Sherman, Lawrence, chair, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland ........................................................................ 99

Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by:

Baker, James, executive director, Institute for Legislative Action, National Rifle Association:

Information concerning salaries ............................................................... 206

NRA’s education and training programs ................................................. 202

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 191

Cain, Clarence, teacher, Crisis Resource, Maury Elementary, Alexandria,

VA, prepared statement of ........................................................................... 142

Chavez, Nelba, Administrator, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

Information concerning allocation of funds ............................................. 44

Information concerning FTEs ................................................................... 61

Organizational chart ................................................................................. 63

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 13

Condon, Charlie, attorney general, State of South Carolina, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 71

Dwyer, Kevin, president elect, National Association of School Psychologists, prepared statement of ......................................................................... 154

Fields, Gary M., superintendent, Zion-Benton Township High School, Illinois, prepared statement of .......................................................................... 133

Gallagher, Jan, president elect, American School Counselor Association,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 115

Greenberg, Reuben, police chief, Charleston, SC, prepared statement of ... 91

Hall, Bill, superintendent, Volusia County Schools, Florida, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 126

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 8

Modzeleski, William, Director, Safe and Drug Free Schools Program,

Department of Education:

Information concerning grants ................................................................. 48

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32

Sherman, Lawrence, chair, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, prepared statement of ................................. 101

Page

IV

Letters, statements, et cetera, submitted for the record by—Continued

Walker, Gary L., vice president, National District Attorneys Association,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 77

(1)

SCHOOL VIOLENCE: WHAT IS BEING DONE TO

COMBAT SCHOOL VIOLENCE? WHAT

SHOULD BE DONE?

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY,

AND HUMAN RESOURCES,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:13 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Mica, Barr, Souder, Hutchinson, Ose,

Sanford, Mink, Towns, Cummings, Kucinich, and Tierney.

Staff present: Sharon Pinkerton, deputy staff director; Steve

Dillingham, special counsel; Amy Davenport, clerk; Cherri

Branson, minority counsel, and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk.

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to call this meeting of the

House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human

Resources to order.

The topic of our hearing this morning is ‘‘School Violence: What

is Being Done to Combat School Violence? What Should be Done?’’

I am going to give an opening statement first, as an order of procedure. Then we will hear from the ranking member and other

members on the topic before us. Finally, we will hear from four

panels of witnesses.

I actually wrote this opening statement before this morning’s

news. I said in my opening sentence, ‘‘School violence, a recurring

problem, has dominated the news in recent weeks,’’ and maybe now

I should edit it to say ‘‘School violence, a recurring problem dominates the news even today with yet another tragic act of violence

in Atlanta, GA.’’ As we begin the hearing this morning, our

thoughts and prayers are with that community, and those affected

by this senseless violence.

While student deaths receive the most media attention, the Department of Justice Bureau of Justice statistics tells us that thousands of violent crimes occur everyday in, and near our schools.

In 1996, approximately 225,000 non-fatal, serious crimes occurred at schools, and about 671,000 away from schools. The tragic

events at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO and its aftermath have riveted our national attention on this pressing and perplexing issue. Needless acts of violence are always reprehensible,

but vicious and multiple killings in our schools that take the lives

2

of our innocent children are among the most tragic and

heartwrenching events imaginable. I am thankful that my children

have completed their high school education without having experienced such violence.

School violence at all levels is an issue that Congress has a responsibility to address. We are obligated to determine what more

can be done to protect children of all ages, particularly from acts

of violence associated with our schools.

Our subcommittee today is exercising its oversight responsibility

over the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and

Human Services, and the Department of Education. I don’t think

there is another subcommittee in Congress that has such broad authority, so our role is very important as it covers many of these

Federal agencies that deal with the problems of violence in our

education system.

Every member of this panel is committed to ensuring that our

Federal, State, and local officials and groups are working together

to confront a national problem. Clearly, those on the front line in

preventing youth violence in our schools and communities have valuable experiences and insight as to what is being done and what

should be done to combat school violence. My colleague and the

ranking member of this subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink, has joined me in calling for a hearing on this critical issue. She was one of those who originally called for Congress’

investigation and a review of what is going on and I commend her

for that.

We have included a number of panelists here today at both the

request of the minority and the majority because we realize that

combating school crime and identifying effective preventative measures to lessen violence in our schools is not a partisan issue. I do

recognize, however, that members and those testifying here today

may have different opinions regarding how best to accomplish the

shared goal of preventing school violence, and we look forward to

learning more about these ideas and opinions. I am especially

pleased that we have many representatives of our State and local

schools, law enforcement, and prosecution communities who are involved with these very serious issues every day.

Today, our Federal Government has a number of Federal programs and agencies that spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer

dollars to address the problem of school violence. It is an especially

important matter for this subcommittee that our Federal programs

provide the targeted and effective assistance that is needed by our

States, our cities, and our local communities and schools.

We will learn, today, that the Department of Health and Human

Resources has vast resources and personnel dedicated to our Nation’s mental health needs. The Substance Abuse and Mental Administration is a component of HHS and is responsible for providing leadership and assistance to States and our communities in

meeting the mental health needs of our Nation. It is clear that

mental health aspects of school violence are particularly significant. What is it that leads a student to commit or even consider

such heinous acts? And if we know some of the psychological factors associated with these violent behaviors, what are we doing

about it? Do our Federal programs accomplish their goals effiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63843.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
3

ciently and effectively? Is the Federal Government helping or hurting with these programs and policies? Every dollar dedicated to

this very significant and terrible problem must be put to maximum

use and problems and inefficiencies must be remedied.

Another Federal department over which we have oversight responsibility is the Department of Education. A component of the

Department, which has direct responsibility for combating school

violence through educational initiatives, is the Safe and Drug Free

Schools Program. We must not forget the strong relationship between drug abuse and violent behavior, whether or not drug abuse

is directly linked with the most recent tragic events or not. The

prevention of drug abuse goes hand in hand with crime prevention

and the reinforcement of lawful and responsible behaviors. Are

Federal agencies, particularly the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, maximizing available resources in these efforts?

Many questions have been raised in the past about program effectiveness and accountability. Is there evidence that promised improvements have been made? If not, then why? This program has

a substantial budget of more than $566 million this year alone—

over half a billion—and has spent an estimated $6 billion since

1986. Has this been a wise investment?

We will hear about some of the changes that have been attempted as well as new programs that are being instituted, such

as the Safe Schools, Healthy Students initiative. Do these initiatives represent the best knowledge and employ the very best practices? Are they efficient and effective? Are they sufficiently targeting the most critical needs? Do States and local communities have

ample discretion to tailor the resources to their particular needs?

Another issue that we will discuss today is an issue many people

single out as being a major concern, which is violence in our

schools from weapons. Our role today as an oversight subcommittee

for the Department of Justice requires us to also ask a key question: Is the Justice Department vigorously enforcing the firearm

laws we have had on the books for the last 6 years? Why is it that

Congress passed a law in 1994 criminalizing gun possession by juveniles, and there have been only 13 cases prosecuted in the last

2 years? There have been 11 prosecutions for illegal transfer of

guns to juveniles—that is only 11 prosecutions. This seems to me

to be a serious lapse in the Department of Justice’s commitment to

this issue.

I am particularly concerned that our request to have a representative of the Department of Justice come and testify about what

they are doing has been turned down, but I have talked to the

ranking member. We are not going to subpoena that witness today,

but we will give the Department of Justice an opportunity in the

near future to come and respond to some of these questions.

What we may not consider today is a more fundamental question: Are guns, bombs, violent movies and other such influences

causing the problem or has our system of values, morals, faith,

family structure and failed role models brought about these problems? Hopefully, this hearing will provide us with insight as to

what the Federal Government is doing to address the problems of

Columbine, Jonesboro, Paducah, and, today, Atlanta.

4

I want to take this opportunity to thank our panelists from various States and communities and schools who will share their experience and insight with our subcommittee. I know that the introduction into our schools of sworn human resource officers, skilled

counselors, and alternative learning approaches for at-risk students

can play a very important and significant role in a school’s ability

to combat and prevent aberrant behaviors and acts of violence.

I also realize that sometimes too much is expected of our teachers and schools and that parents, families and churches are primarily responsible for instilling the values we want our children to

share. I hope that the approaches that we are employing foster and

supplement our families and religious institutions rather than conflict with them.

Specifically, I would like this hearing to examine the following

issues: first, are our Federal programs operating efficiently and effectively in combating school violence and are needed improvements being made? Second, what promising approaches are being

pursued in our States and communities and schools? What, if anything, should Congress do to facilitate or reinforce these efforts?

Third, what is the current state of our knowledge of this complex

and often perplexing issue, and what is being done to learn more

about factors that contribute to school violence? And I have added

a fourth thing that I would like to address either in this subcommittee hearing or in additional hearings that we will conduct.

Are we able to keep the law up to date with technology? I added

this because I received a copy of this from one of my staffers who

does work with the Internet and handles all of our computer operations, and he pulled up this anarchist’s cookbook, and it is pages

and pages of instruction about how to make a bomb or explosive

devices. And, so my fourth question today, is has the law kept up

with technology, and what do we need to do in that regard?

So, with these and other questions, again, on a morning when we

have experienced another tragedy of school violence, I am pleased

to yield to our ranking member, Mrs. Mink, the gentlelady from

Hawaii, for her opening statement.

Mrs. MINK. I thank the chairman for yielding me time and for

agreeing to call the hearing.

This is a topic that probably, if we had convened before Littleton,

may not have brought the attention of so many individuals. However, after the tragic occurrences in Colorado and again this morning being reminded that it is a continuing crisis erupting in our

schools, it is extremely timely that this committee, having oversight responsibility, take a serious look at what the Federal Government can do, what it is doing or could do better, or what it

should not be doing? And I think it is very appropriate that we

begin today with an examination of this very, very serious topic.

I do not believe that it is for members of this subcommittee or

even of the full committee or of Congress to try to come up with

specific ways in which we can assure the country that these events

are not going to happen. I think that is beyond our capacity and

beyond the capacity, really, of school superintendents or principals

or community leaders. To look around for blame and leveling accusations of failures or inaction by officials that have responsibility

is not the mission of this oversight committee.

5

Our search today in calling this vast array of witnesses is to sincerely make an attempt to examine what, in these individuals’ perspectives, who are all experts—experienced leaders who work in

the field of education or in the field of research in these matters

having to do with violence in our society—what they think the role

of the Congress and the Federal Government might be.

I think this is a State and local responsibility, something that

the schools, themselves, have to deal with, and I don’t—as one

member of this subcommittee and of the Congress—propose in any

way to issue more mandates or more laws that will dictate policy.

I think it is something that the individual schools and local districts have to come up with. But, at the same time, I do believe the

Federal Government has a unique responsibility to examine what

is there in terms of assistance on the State and local level and

what further things the Federal Government might do. It is in this

area that I think we have a profound responsibility to make an

honest search to see that these incidents occurring in our schools

do not happen.

Of course, if we took guns away and made sure that guns never

had entry into our schools, that would eliminate this type of violence, but I think it goes far beyond just doing a physical examination for guns. It goes to the whole psychology of our youth and

what we can do as responsible leaders and legislators to try to help

our youngsters deal with their internal conflicts, their psychological

problems, their anger, their hate, or whatever it is that motivates

them to this type of criminal behavior.

I would like to take, also, this opportunity to research the programs that Congress has already enacted and funded to see whether they are working, to see whether we can expand them, whether

we should move in other directions. So, our oversight responsibilities are very expansive, and I hope that we will pursue this inquiry with the diligence which is required.

Given the announcement of the shootings in Atlanta, we have a

huge impending crisis, and I wondered out loud as I heard this

story come over the television this morning, if it would not be wise

for our schools to shut down the remainder of the school year—

there is only a couple of weeks, in fact, in some places, days left—

in order to calm the environment? I have absolutely no doubt that

young people simulate what they see and hear, and no one can direct my thinking otherwise. That is the power of television and the

power of the gruesome stories that we see nightly. So, perhaps, to

calm the situation and make sure this thing doesn’t repeat itself

in the next several days and weeks and before the end of the school

year, this might be a serious alternative that could be considered.

Undoubtedly, the Federal Government and the Congress has a

leadership responsibility, and we are here today as a subcommittee

to begin the process of determining what it is that we should, not

as mandates but as leaders, to try to pave the way toward solutions that lead to prevention, which is my primary objective. Is it

school counselors? What sort of things can we do to improve the

ability of school administrators to deal with the problem and to try

to counsel the parents and the community and the students affected to lead them away from the temptation of violence of this

sort?

6

So, I commend the Chair of this subcommittee for taking the lead

and embarking upon this very, very important and crucial examination of school violence, and I hope that we will conclude these

meetings with some very meaningful suggestions that we can make

to the Government, to the Congress, itself, to appropriators who

fund the programs that we determine to be important and helpful.

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady and yield now to the gentleman

from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson, for an opening statement.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman and ranking member, I am just

delighted that you are conducting this hearing. I think it is extraordinarily important. We, in Arkansas, certainly understand the

tragedy of school violence with the shooting that occurred in

Jonesboro. It is an issue that concerns our Nation, each of our

States, and, as a parent of teenagers, it certainly reaches deep into

the heart of every American. And, so I am grateful for this hearing.

There are no easy answers, but we have to address it; we have to

hear from people; we have to hear from teenagers, teachers, and

others. I am pleased with this hearing and look forward to the testimony of the panelists today and to participating in the hearing.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman.

I now recognize for an opening statement, the gentleman from

New York, Mr. Towns.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me

thank you and also the ranking committee chairperson, Mrs. Mink,

for holding this hearing today.

I think this is a very timely hearing; no question about that. But

I think that Congresswoman Mink touched upon it—that for some

reason we think blame is a solution to the problem. Well, blame

is not a solution to this problem. I think we have to stop and look

at where we are, at what we are doing. We continue to cut out various programs and then expect not to have any problems.

Years ago, we had a lot of intramural programs; we had afterschool programs—we had a debating society; we had varsity as well

as junior varsity—and all these activities gave young people a

sense of value. They felt they were involved in something; they

were involved in the community, but now they seem to be disconnected. We continue to move in this direction not recognizing that

we are not saving money in the long run and we are hurting people

in a lot of ways. So, I think that we now have to stop and take a

very serious look at where we are and say, ‘‘Wait a minute, what

we are doing is just not working.’’ We have problems. Let us now

go back and do some of the things we have done in the past. Sure,

a person might not be able to make the varsity team, but that

doesn’t mean they should not be involved in something. Also, there

is no law that says that the school should shut down at three

o’clock and nobody should be allowed in it. I think that the activities could go on in many, many ways. I think if we had strong debating teams, then maybe a lot of the fights that take place would

not occur, because they would be able to talk them out and they

would have the kind of skills that would enable this. I think all of

these things need to be seriously examined before we start doing

all kinds of crazy things to address school violence.

7

The last thing that I think is a very serious issue, is toy guns.

We need to take a look at those toy guns that look like guns and

begin to say ‘‘Look, we need to get rid of them.’’ We need to take

a position and take a position on that now. We have too many

young people being killed just for the fact they had a toy gun in

their hand. We need recognize that police officers today, in this atmosphere and climate, are not going to interview anybody before

they make a decision to shoot. They are not going to say, ‘‘Is your

gun a toy or is your gun real?’’ They are not going to do that. They

are going to shoot, and then after that, the issue will come up that

it was only a toy gun and he or she was only 13 or only 14 or only

15.

So, I think we need to look at all these things. The errors that

we can correct, the errors that we can do something about we

should do something about. And those errors that we can’t do anything about, then that is different, but the point is that we have

not even tried in the way that I feel that we should try.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think you are on the right track by bringing

in the experts and letting us talk with them and try to get some

information and ideas about how we should move and where we

should move and recognize the fact that sometimes when we eliminate a program we don’t save much. Sometimes, when we eliminate a program, we save money here, but we spend it on the back

end, and I think that we need to be very, very concerned about

that.

Thank you very much for holding this hearing, and I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

8

9

10

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman and now would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Nelba

Chavez, Federal Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services. Our second witness is Mr. William

Modzeleski, Director of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program

for the Department of Education. Both of these witnesses, as I said,

oversee Federal programs dealing with this issue for which we already spend hundreds of millions of dollars. I see that we have

more than two there—I did well in math—is anyone else going to

testify? OK, we are not going to have anyone else testify.

This is an investigation and oversight panel of Congress, and we

do swear in all of our witnesses. So, could I ask the two witnesses

to stand, please.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. The witnesses answered in the affirmative. I would

like to welcome both of you today. We are anxious to hear what you

are doing and your perspective on this important issue.

I might say that normally we have a 5-minute rule, but we will

extend that, since we only have two in this panel. However, if you

have lengthy statements or other documents you would like to be

made part of the record, we will do that upon request.

So, with that, I would like to, again, welcome you and recognize,

first, Dr. Nelba Chevez, Administrator of Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration, also known as SAMHSA,

at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Welcome,

and you are recognized.

STATEMENTS OF NELBA CHAVEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; AND WILLIAM MODZELESKI, DIRECTOR, SAFE AND

DRUG FREE SCHOOLS PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Dr. CHAVEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your leadership and to also thank the

other members of the committee for your commitment to the very,

very serious problems that we are facing.

I have an oral testimony, but I also have written testimony that

I would like to enter for the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, the complete statement will be

made part of the record.

Dr. CHAVEZ. Thank you. I also want to introduce Dr. Bernie

Arons who is to my left. He is the Director of the Center for Mental

Health Services, and, Dr. Karol Kumpfer, who is the Director for

the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. They will be available

for any further questions that you may have.

Let me just start out by saying that we are here today because

we care deeply about America’s future. A month ago—and, again,

like you, Mr. Chairman, I put this together a few days ago, so I

am talking about a month ago—there was a chilling message about

the future that stunned all of us. That was the day two students

in Littleton, CO opened fire, killing classmates in cold blood. This

morning, we heard about the shootings in Atlanta. Similar horrors

11

around the country have become as familiar on the news as random drive-by shootings. A poll of American adolescents revealed

that 47 percent of teens believe their schools are becoming more

violent. In addition to being perpetrators and victims of violence,

children are also harmed by being witness to violence. Children’s

exposure to violence and maltreatment is significantly associated

with increased depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder,

anger, greater alcohol and drug use, and lower school attainment.

It would be inaccurate and misleading to claim that any single influence leads to violence, whether it is abuse, emotional and behavior problems, peer pressure, alcohol and drug use, lack of parental

guidance, or pro-violence or drug use media messages. These and

a host of other influences are involved. Our Nation’s children, adolescents, families, and communities clearly have multiple needs,

and they deserve comprehensive solutions.

We are here to discuss what we, in the Federal Government, can

and must do to turn our commitment into progress for our children.

We have already pulled together research which outlines the course

to take in the short and the long term. The findings are complex

but not surprising. Children exposed to drugs, family conflicts, academic failure, and whose friends or peers engage in anti-social behaviors are at risk for negative and violent outcomes. Conversely,

we know children can be protected from these risks. Even more so

than risk factors, protective factors can have impact for the rest of

their lives in helping them overcome adversity.

Just yesterday, we released findings from one of our prevention

programs. We found, in successful programs, protective factors

start with meaningful contact with adults who convey positive expectations. Our children all need opportunities to become involved,

and they need support in building interpersonal skills. Our comprehensive evaluations also show that programs must be flexible.

Interventions that work take into account the emotional and cognitive level of the children and the developmental tasks appropriate for different ages.

As we look at the multiple challenges faced by our children, perhaps the most troubling observation is that until they are diagnosed with a serious mental problem, become addicted or involved

in the criminal justice system or worse, there is no system and very

few services available in this country that identify and intervene

with children and families before problems occur.

Increasingly, we have become aware of the multitude of problems

that children in adolescence face. For example, today, one in five

children in adolescence in this country have a serious emotional or

behavioral problem, yet 60 percent of them do not receive the treatment they need. If we wait until children turn to crime, drugs, or

enter the juvenile justice system, we all pay the price. We pay the

price in suicide, child abuse, addiction, violence.

Two initiatives at SAMHSA look at the whole child within the

context of the family and the community. Through these and other

prevention programs, we are working to address the needs of our

children earlier on. First, in partnership with the Departments of

Education and Justice, we announced the Safe Schools, Healthy

Students initiative just last month. This collaborative effort will

provide 50 school districts throughout the United States with tools

12

to develop and implement comprehensive, community-wide strategies for creating safe and drug free schools and for promoting

healthy childhood development; meaning physically and mentally

healthy. Second, we will soon announce the funding of initiatives

to help expand school-based programs and raise awareness about

mental health services for children.

At SAMHSA, we are working to support the President and your

vision for American youth. We know the protections we can offer

are stronger than the risks our children encounter. We know we

must act quickly, but we must act wisely.

I would like to close with the words of Tito, an ex-gang member.

He says, ‘‘Kids can walk around trouble if there is someplace to

walk to and someone to walk with.’’ He is telling us that we all

have remarkable potential; our job is to open the door. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Chavez follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony, we will hold questions

until the other witnesses have testified.

I will now recognize Mr. Modzeleski, Director of the Safe and

Drug Free Schools Program in the Department of Education.

Mr. MODZELESKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,

Madam Vicechairman and members of the committee. I would like

to enter my complete testimony into the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. MODZELESKI. Thank you very much. On behalf of Secretary

Riley, I want to say that I am very pleased to testify before this

committee this morning.

We feel that the Department of Education has a key role in helping to prevent school crime and violence. The Department of Education has been at the forefront of supporting schools with resources for drug and violence prevention activities and assisting

schools in ensuring that every child has the opportunity to go to

school and every teacher has the opportunity to teach in school

without being threatened, bullied, robbed, attacked, pressured to

buy illicit drugs, or present among other students using illicit

drugs.

We are, however, not alone in these efforts. Working very closely

with us every step of the way are our colleagues from a host of

agencies within the Departments of Justice, Health and Human

Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Our work with these other

agencies reflects a partnership approach to creating safe and drug

free school environments, an approach we would like to see every

community in this country adopt. We believe success in creating

safe schools is contingent upon our ability to forge linkages at all

levels of government, to share resources and ideas, and to work together for the common good of our children and youth.

As you are aware, 1 month ago, two young men walked into Columbine High School in Littleton, CO and several hours of random

shooting changed the perspective of many people in this country

about the relative safety of our schools. The tragedy at Columbine,

coming approximately 1 year after a string of other school incidents

where there were multiple victims, and this morning’s shootings at

Heritage High School in Rockdale County, GA, gave many the impression that our schools, regardless of where they are located, are

places where neither teachers nor students are safe. Perception,

however, is not reality. While there are some schools in this country where students and teachers fall victim to crime and violence,

data collected by the Departments of Justice and Education and

the Center for Disease Control show that schools remain safe

places, safer than many of the communities in which the students

come from, and safer than many of the homes in which they live.

The report issued by the Departments of Education and Justice,

in October 1998, the Annual Report on School Safety, provides

some evidence of this. It shows that 90 percent of public schools report no incidents of serious violent crime, and less than half—43

percent—of schools reported no crime at all. Children age 12 to 18

are twice as likely to be a victim of a serious violent crime in the

community as they are in school, and, overall, over the past 5

years, school crime, generally, has decreased. In 1996 and 1997,

29

while 6,093 students were expelled for bringing a firearm to school,

preliminary data for the 1997–1998 school year indicate that this

number is decreasing.

I may also note that despite recent high visibility incidents in the

last 2 years, school-associated violent deaths remain extremely rare

events. Fewer than 1 percent of all the homicides and suicides

among school age children happen at school, on the way to school,

or at school-sponsored functions. The study conducted for the 1992–

1993 and 1993–1994 school years by the Departments of Education,

Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control found that in a 2-year

period, 63 students, age 5 through 19, were murdered at school,

and 13 committed suicide at school. Firearms were responsible for

77 percent of the total number of school-associated violent deaths.

The victims and offenders tended to be young—the median ages

were 16 and 17 respectively—and male—82 and 95 percent respectively. And that has occurred in communities of all sizes in 25 different States.

Furthermore, preliminary data from the joint Department of

Education, Centers for Disease Control study indicate that the

number of students who are homicide or suicide victims in schools

has been gradually decreasing since 1992, even though the number

of multiple homicide events has been increasing.

Even though data related to school crime and violence indicate

that schools remain among the safest places for children and

youth-to-be, we should not be satisfied. We can do better. We can

create schools where every child can learn, and every teacher can

teach without being threatened or victimized. However, in order to

do so, we will have to overcome a series of obstacles that confront

many schools. We are working diligently to this by developing

strategies to assist schools in collecting and utilizing sound objective data for program planning and decisionmaking; by identifying

and encouraging all schools to implement research-based programs;

by viewing school safety and drug prevention efforts in a broader,

more comprehensive context of violence and drug prevention efforts

and not used in isolation with other prevention efforts or other

things happening in schools; by finding a better way to target resources, schools and communities and needs; and by assisting

schools to ensure that all students are connected to an adult in

school and all students are provided a range of opportunities that

afford them the opportunity to achieve their fullest.

We are doing this in a collaborative fashion through a number

of means: through the development and dissemination of a range

of publications, such as the Early Warning Guide, which, hopefully,

Kevin Dwyer will talk about from one of the other panels; through

improved information collection, analysis and dissemination, such

as our Annual Report on School Safety; through expanded technical

assistance opportunities, such as in the area of school safety, with

the joint Department of Education OJJDP efforts; through targeted

training and topics, such as conflict resolution and hate crimes;

through the identification of exemplary programs and exemplary

schools by our expert panel on Safe, Disciplined, and Drug Free

Schools; through linkage of the Department of Education efforts,

such as the 21st century learning centers; through the development

of discretionary programs which provide resources to hire persons

30

who assist middle schools, identify the most common sense strategies available for these schools; and, as Dr. Chavez said, through

the development and support of an initiative entitled Safe Schools,

Healthy Students.

I would like to say one thing about this initiative—it signals a

clear change in the way that we are approaching and addressing

the problem of school violence. Rather than provide schools and

communities with funds to address a portion or single element of

the problem they face and provide funds independent of what other

agencies do, we have designed a program which will provide funds

to local education agencies to develop comprehensive program approaches to school safety. Schools will have to develop a plan which

addresses six elements necessary for the creation of a safe school,

including school security, mental health services, and drug and violence prevention programs.

Last, I would like to quickly mention our proposal to overhaul

the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. Our reauthorization proposal for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, which will be

submitted tomorrow, will make significant changes to the effectiveness of the program. The proposal will balance local flexibility with

greater accountability; it will emphasize the implementation of

high quality research-based programs that are consistent with the

principles of effectiveness; it will strengthen program accountability requiring recipients of funds to adopt outcome-based performance indicators in a comprehensive, safe and drug free school plan;

it will help local education agencies respond to violent and traumatic crises by establishing the School Emergency Response to Violence Program.

This program would authorize the Secretary to provide rapid assistance to school districts that have experienced violent or other

traumatic crises that have disrupted the learning environment. It

will require that students found in possession of a firearm in school

be evaluated to determine if they pose an imminent threat of harm

to themselves or others. Other provisions of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act we propose would highlight that each

State submit information in its annual report card, including information regarding incidents of school violence, drug and alcohol

abuse, and the number of instances in which a student has possessed a firearm in school. Further, it would require districts to

have and to enforce on an equitable and consistent basis, firm

school discipline policies. We think adoption of these changes will

go a long way to improving the quality and effectiveness of drug

and violence prevention programs in schools.

In closing, I would like to state that creating safe and drug free

schools may be a difficult but not impossible task. We, at all levels,

have done a lot to ensure that all students and all teachers have

the opportunity to go to schools that are safe, disciplined, and drug

free, but we clearly recognize that there is a lot more than needs

to be done. We must be willing to tackle difficult questions, such

as how to limit youth access to guns, and we must do it in a nonpartisan fashion. We stand ready to work with this committee on

identifying and implementing strategies that will make our schools

stronger and safer.

31

Mr. Chairman, one final comment, and that is to clarify in your

opening statement the fact that the Gun Free Schools Act, which

was passed in 1994, is part of the Elementary and Secondary

Schools Act. That particular provision of the law did not criminalize the carrying of firearms. It required all States to adopt policies

which, one, require the expulsion of all students found to have

brought a firearm to school, and, two, to report these incidents to

appropriate law enforcement officials, which in most jurisdictions

are the local police or sheriff. They are the ones who are making

the determination as to what should be done with an individual

possessing a firearm.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Modzeleski follows:]

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Mr. MICA. I thank you for your testimony. In fact, I thank both

of our witnesses.

We do have a vote, and I think we have got about 6 or 7 minutes

left in the vote, so we will recess this subcommittee hearing until

11:15. I will ask our witnesses to come back at that time, and we

will begin questions. Thank you; we are in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. MICA. I would like to call the subcommittee back to order.

We have heard from our first two witnesses. They have described

some of the Federal programs that deal with the topic at hand. The

problem of school violence.

I would like to start the first round of questioning, if I may, by

directing a couple of questions to the Director of our Safe and Drug

Free School Programs—is it Modzeleski?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. I want to pronounce it correctly. Sir, I am afraid that

if I told the folks that you spent how much? Is it $566 million?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. Is that your amount—$566 million for Safe and Drug

Free Schools, and parents were grading the report card for the

agency right now, you would probably be getting a ‘‘D’’ or an ‘‘F.’’

I think the perception out there is that we are not addressing the

problem, and it appears we are spending significant amounts of

money. Was it you that testified that there is another program that

is going to be introduced or you have an announcement coming?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. And when is that?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Either today or tomorrow.

Mr. MICA. And can you tell us the details of it?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Yes, sir, very much so. Let me first say that

it is not the Department of Education that is spending in 1998 over

$550 million on State grants. For the most part, these are funds

that go to the State education agencies and, in turn, go down to

the local education agencies, and the local education agencies are

making determinations and decisions about how to spend these dollars with a great deal of flexibility. So, decisions regarding what

programs to place in schools, what activities to engage in, are being

made at the local level. They are not being made at the Federal

level.

The entire Elementary and Secondary Schools Act will be submitted for reauthorization, as I said, either later today or tomorrow. The President will set up the entire bill, and that will start

a process both here in the House as well as in the Senate on reauthorizing the entire bill. Title IV of that bill is the Safe and Drug

Free Schools Act, and that contains provisions for overhauling the

Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. What it will do is that, No.

1, we are attempting to balance the flexibility with greater accountability to improve the quality of programs that are funded at the

local level while continuing to ensure that decisions made about

what programs to adopt, what programs to place in schools, are decisions made at the local level, not in the State Capitol nor in

Washington.

Two, is it strengthens the Guns Free Schools Act by requiring

that anybody who is found to be in possession of a firearm or someVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63843.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
41

body who brings a firearm to school will have to go through a mental health assessment to determine whether or not that person

poses a threat to himself or to others.

Three, it adds a provision that will provide funds for recovery to

schools, such as Columbine or Springfield, OR, last year, that have

had tragedies.

It also sets up a provision in other titles, specifically title XI

which will require that schools not only have school discipline policies but that those school discipline policies be developed with parents and students, that they be enforced in an equitable basis, and

also that schools, school districts and the States have report cards

and that the report cards contain information not only on firearms

but also on other incidents of serious violent crimes that occur in

the school.

Mr. MICA. It is my understanding that prior to 1998, there was

actually more money in the program. Is that correct?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Yes, sir. Yes, there was.

Mr. MICA. I guess there was an outcry of criticism as to how

moneys for the State schools program was being expended. The

criticisms were—paying for a clown act, magic shows, a new Pontiac Grand Prix, a holiday awareness campaign, encounter seminars at a tourist retreat. I guess you got a lot of heat from Congress about how the money was spent, so there was a cutback.

There is an array of other programs—the camera is rolling, and I

don’t want to get into a description of all of them here—but they

arguable were not promoting safe schools. I guess there was quite

a bit of criticism, and that is one reason why some of these funds

got cut. Is that correct?

Mr. MODZELESKI. It is one of the reasons why. It wasn’t the sole

reason why, and, also, again—

Mr. MICA. If it wasn’t the reason why, what has been done to

make certain that these expenditures for which you were criticized,

or your program was criticized, are not reccurring? Have we taken

care of these problems?

Mr. MODZELESKI. We think we have. I think that there have

been several steps. One, again, to ensure that the steps that we

have taken are codified. In our reauthorization proposal, you are

going to see significant steps to improve the accountability of the

Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. Second, in July of last year,

we issued what is called the Principles of Effectiveness. What we

require now from every school district receiving funds from the

Safe and Drug Free Schools Program is that they do four things:

one is that they conduct an assessment of their problems, so, clearly, they have a better understanding of what is happening in the

school and programs are based upon that assessment, not upon

guesswork or not upon what an individual says. Two, we are asking every school district in this country to work with the community to develop measurable goals and objectives so we know exactly

where they are. Three, we are asking every school district that uses

Safe and Drugs Schools Program dollars to ensure those dollars are

being used for research-based programs. And, four, we are asking

every school district to ensure through a periodic evaluation, that

the goals and objectives they have set out—not what the Federal

Government established—but the goals and objectives are actually

42

met, and that if the goals and objectives aren’t met, that the program be either altered or eliminated.

Mr. MICA. How many people do we have administering this program?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Approximately 25, sir.

Mr. MICA. That is the total in Washington?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. OK. You gave some statistics. It was interesting the

way they were presented, and I am not sure—maybe you could

clarify for me—you said 43 percent of the schools reported no

crime?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. Does that mean that 57 percent, more than a majority,

experienced some incident of crime?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Some incident of crime; yes, sir. I should also

say that one of the statistics—and if you would allow me, I would

love to put the 1998 report into the record.

Mr. MICA. I would be glad to do that. Without objection, so ordered.

[NOTE.—The 1998 Annual Report on School Safety may be found

in subcommitee files.]

Mr. MICA. Is that statistic for elementary, secondary—what

schools?

Mr. MODZELESKI. For all three levels, sir.

Mr. MICA. For all three levels.

Mr. MODZELESKI. And it also includes serious crime as well as

serious, non-violent crimes, such as theft, which is the largest

crime that occurs in schools today.

Mr. MICA. But over a majority of our schools had some reported

incident of crime?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Some incident of crime, including less serious

crimes, such as theft.

Mr. MICA. In your recommendations that are coming out tomorrow, you talked about the law that was passed some time ago dealing with guns and schools. Is there a proposal to Federalize this

as a criminal act in what is being proposed tomorrow?

Mr. MODZELESKI. No, there is not, sir.

Mr. MICA. OK. Dr. Chevez, you oversee our Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration at the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services. How much does your agency spend

annually?

Dr. CHAVEZ. I am sorry, Mr.—

Mr. MICA. What is the total budget for your agency?

Dr. CHAVEZ. Our total agency budget for SAMHSA is approximately $2.5 billion. The majority of those dollars are in block

grants for substance abuse.

Mr. MICA. My question would be—and I know you have many

worthwhile substance abuse programs—is there any way for you to

give the subcommittee an estimate of what percentage of dollars

might be directed toward the question of school violence or problems? I don’t know if that is possible, but maybe you could give us

some idea of what level of funds you think are going toward those

programs that deal with this problem?

43

Dr. CHAVEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to submit a

detailed report to you and to the committee.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, we will make that part of the

record.

[The information referred to follows:]

44

45

Mr. MICA. We are trying to get some handle on the dollars that

are being spent and how they are being spent. I thought you gave

some interesting statistics. You said one in five children in our

schools have serious emotional or mental health problems. Was

that—I was trying to write it down; I failed my stenograph

course—was that what you said?

Dr. CHAVEZ. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Basically, what I

said—

Mr. MICA. And you said 60 percent are not having their mental

health or emotional problems addressed. Is that also correct?

Dr. CHAVEZ. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. One of the problems we have here is that it seems like

we have either an emotional or values or mental health problem

with students who aren’t conducting themselves in a normal fashion. In fact, a very abnormal fashion. As far as correcting that, do

you have any specific recommendations? And I know there have

been proposals, that is the first part of the question. The second

part is, the question about parity as far as coverage with insurance, health insurance, relating to mental health. I wonder if you

have any comments about what we should do in that regard? So,

there are two parts to the question if you could please respond.

Dr. CHAVEZ. Yes, thank you. Let me respond to the first part of

your question. What we are seeing—and I indicated that earlier—

is that children in adolescence, more and more, have a multitude

of problems, a multitude of needs, and this cuts across all segments

of society—all socio-economic groups as well as all racial and ethnic

groups. We are also seeing that we have got—as I indicated earlier,

approximately one in five children in this country that may have

a serious emotional problem and/or a behavioral problem. Most of

these children—60 percent—are not able to get the kind of services

they need. If you look at our funding, for example, our mental

health block grant under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services, the block grant is targeted for those individuals and for

children who have a serious emotional problem. We don’t really

have a system in this country, for example, where parents and

teachers can turn when they see a child in the classroom or in the

home experiencing some problems, either related to depression or

anti-social behavior, unless they have insurance. If they have insurance, in most instances, the insurance will not cover the kind

of treatment that they may need.

Your question about parity—yes, I strongly support mental

health parity as well as substance abuse parity, because, in the

long run—and we have several studies we have done in this area

where the cost is minimal—in the long run, I believe that it is very

cost effective.

Mr. MICA. I probably agree with you. I oversaw the—in two sessions of Congress, the Federal Employees with Health Benefit Program, and I think it only cost about $18 million to provide 9 million people with that benefit. Instead, the administration proposed

a series of mandates and regulations with no medical benefits—

that is another question; we won’t get into it at this hearing. But

I agree with your comments on parity as far as insurance and mental health.

46

Either of you, just a final question: Do we have in the agencies

and Departments, right now, some type of task force or some type

of activity to address what we have seen reccurring and the problems that we have? What are we doing right now in addition to—

you said you were coming forward with some recommendations—

but are we really looking at? I imagine we have studies and other

things about this, but are experts coming together and are we trying to focus in on this problem? Mr. Modzeleski.

Mr. MODZELESKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The answer is

clearly, yes. There are a variety of things happening, not only in

the Department of Education but in the Department of Justice, the

Department of Health and Human Services, and within the various

agencies within those large Departments. Both Dr. Chavez and myself mentioned the Safe Schools, Healthy Children Initiative. This

is a program whereby representatives from several Federal agencies meet on a regular basis to look at the type of strategy and program that is really needed to create not only safe schools but

healthy children. It is an effort and attempt to begin to combine

funds from not one agency, but funds from three agencies, in the

development of a comprehensive program designed to create safe

schools. So, its front end is on the prevention side.

Also, and again, I hope that Dr. Dwyer, later, talks about the

Early Warning Guide, because we have been working collaboratively with the Department of Justice, with the National Association of School Psychologists, and with a host of other groups and

organizations to identify the front end. What prevention efforts are

needed? What happens when you identify a child who has some

problems in school? Where do you refer that particular child? How

do you refer them? So, there are some efforts on the prevention

side.

Last, in the crisis or the response, what happens when a Littleton does occur, when a Springfield does occur? In the fiscal year

2000 budget for the Department of Education, there is $12 million

in there that would basically set up a revolving fund to help

schools recover from such disasters.

And, in my testimony, we outlined a whole series of prevention

and early intervention activities that we are engaged in. I am sure

that Dr. Chavez is engaged in a whole group of other activities. I

just want to say that these are not activities that we, alone, are

engaged in; this is a partnership. We have got to continue to look

at this as a partnership working collegially and cooperatively with

other agencies in the Federal Government.

Mr. MICA. Dr. Chavez.

Dr. CHAVEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are working in several areas. One, we have a prevention roundtable that has been established by Dr. Karol Kumpfer, the Director of our Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Basically, what they are doing is working

with not only agencies within the Federal Government but they

have also been very, very much involved in a coalition throughout

the United States, the Prevention Coalition.

In addition to that, we have been very much involved, through

our Center for Mental Health Services, in the incidents that have

occurred in Colorado as well as those in other communities.

Through the work of Dr. Arons and many of the other Federal

47

agencies, including working very closely with Mr. Modzeleski, we

have been addressing the issue. In fact, I want to say that we had

begun working on this long before this incident happened in Littleton. In the project I described earlier where we brought in all the

three major Federal agencies on that one project, that didn’t evolve,

in terms of the idea, from the Federal people; this was after having

focus groups with teachers, principals, students, and people

throughout the country. I think it is very important that we must

listen to what our young people are saying in terms of some of the

things they are feeling, some of the things they see as solutions to

these problems.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I would like to yield now to our ranking

member, Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to submit written questions to all

of the witnesses today.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered, and we will leave the

record open for at least 2 weeks.

Mrs. MINK. Two weeks, fine. Because there are so many questions on my mind that I think are relevant to this inquiry regarding violence.

What strikes me as being the most provocative of all the questions relating to the Columbine High School situation is the fact

that most of the witnesses that were interviewed following that incident stated that there was no drug abuse, no drugs evident in the

two young people. Nor was there, in terms of the teachers and

school principal and other officials that had contact with the two,

any indication that something like this was part of their intention.

Other than what was discovered after the fact on their website and

in various e-mails, there was no sign.

I am also struck by your statement, Dr. Modzeleski, that in 90

percent of the schools, there were really no reports of serious violent crimes, that we are talking about 10 percent of the schools

where these incidents happen. With the assets that the Congress

has provided you in this area of safe schools—the drug issue is separate, because I think that sometimes in the past we have concentrated our effort on the drug abuse issue. Today, we are trying

to see what we have done in the safe schools issue, if we can separate it out, and what I wanted to ask both of you is, of all the

grants, the programs that you have authorized, the funding that

you have allowed the State and local agencies to use, which, in

your opinion, have been the most productive in responding to the

type of situation that we found at Columbine?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Let me say that Jefferson County in Colorado

is the largest school district in Colorado; therefore, it receives the

most Safe and Drug Free Schools dollars. It receives more Safe and

Drug Free Schools than any other school district in Colorado.

Mrs. MINK. How much would that be?

Mr. MODZELESKI. I will get that for you, Madam Vice Chairman.

[The information referred to follows:]

48

49

Mr. MODZELESKI. I spent a couple days out in Littleton shortly

after the disaster trying to work through some mental health crisis

issues with them and trying to ensure that they had staff on board

to help reopen the school shortly after it happened. I was struck

by the fact that Jefferson County has one of the better Safe and

Drug Free Schools Programs in the State, not only in the State, I

think in country; very diligent—

Mrs. MINK. What did it do that you found better than others?

Mr. MODZELESKI. First of all, I think it really made an attempt

to connect children to institutions, connect children to schools. To

identify those children who are at risk of alcohol and drug use, and

really provide them with the services and support necessary to help

them along the path. I would also say that while this is a hearing

on school safety and school crime, I don’t think we could decouple

the issues of alcohol and drug use from school safety. Many of the

risk factors inherent in alcohol and drug use are the same risk factors inherent in violent behavior. I think we really need to find a

better way at the local agencies to deal with both issues and not

segregate the issues out. I think the fear that we have is that if

you begin to segregate the issues out, schools will focus only on one

issue and that is the issue of school safety to the disregard of the

other issue, which is alcohol and drug use when in many ways they

are linked together. We really need to find a way to get schools to

think about what the risk factors are that children possess, and

what are the protective factors that we can instill in schools, in

communities, and in homes that really protect against violence,

drug use, and other types of behavior which are unacceptable?

So, again, the issue of the dollars that local education agencies

receive are flexible dollars. The community really has a decision

whether they want to put those moneys into conflict resolution,

afterschool programs, peer mentoring programs, teen court programs, hiring of law enforcement officials, more metal detectors.

Hopefully, those decisions are not made in a vacuum and hopefully

those decisions are made with the help and support of teachers,

parents, administrators, and students, themselves.

Mrs. MINK. Dr. Chavez.

Dr. CHAVEZ. Thank you, Congresswoman—

Mrs. MINK. Before you answer, how much of your funding actually is directed to school situations, school-based situations, other

than the general issue of substance abuse and mental health?

Dr. CHAVEZ. Right now, we have $40 million that we are directing to school violence, but, as I said earlier, we have other dollars,

as well, but I do not have the breakdown. The majority of our

funding—

Mrs. MINK. Out of $2.5 billion, only $40 million to schools?

Dr. CHAVEZ. $40 million, that is correct. We have block grants,

which is a substantial amount of money, but, again, as Bill indicated with their block grant, our block grant goes directly to the

State. Once it reaches the State, the State makes the decisions—

Mrs. MINK. How much of that State money is directed to the

school-age population?

Dr. CHAVEZ. This is information that we do not have available.

When the State receives those dollars, they are free, in terms of the

50

flexibility of the block grant, to expend those dollars based on services that they—

Mrs. MINK. There is no requirement to report back or any requirement for accountability for funding?

Dr. CHAVEZ. The requirement to report back is a financial requirement, it is a fiscal requirement, which they do submit on an

annual basis, as the expenditures. In terms of whether the programs have been effective or not, they are not required to report

that. However, under our reauthorization, one of the things we are

asking for is that the block grants be based on performance measures, so that we will be—

Mrs. MINK. My question is not really on effectiveness or how effective or appropriate or whatever; it is just an accounting question

as to whether the funds that are block granted to States are going

to the schools and school-age children?

Dr. CHAVEZ. The States are required to submit financial information on how they expend those Federal dollars in relation to substance abuse, treatment, prevention, and mental health.

Mrs. MINK. So, you don’t really know who the end user is?

Dr. CHAVEZ. If the State reports that information as part of their

application, then, yes, we do, but in terms of being able to answer

the question: Do we know what percent of those dollars the State

is spending through their block grant on school violence? No, I do

not have that answer. We will try and get that answer for you, but,

again, this is something that we would have to go—it is not in our

statute in terms of those kinds of things that we are required to

ask the States, again, because of the flexibility that is there.

Mrs. MINK. One final question, if I may have this—even though

the red light is on. Under mental health services, are any of your

funds directed to deal with the children in the category that the

Education Department deals with under IDEA?

Dr. CHAVEZ. In our Center for Mental Health Services, we have

an appropriation of approximately $78 million for children’s mental

health, to provide comprehensive mental health services in communities for children that are seriously mentally ill. The requirement,

in terms of communities that are eligible to apply for this discretionary funding, is that they must develop a plan that includes the

schools, the juvenile justice system, and other social service agencies.

In the 6 years that this program has been in operation, we have

very positive outcomes to report. For example, children that are

part of this system have improved mentally in terms of their school

attendance, but also we have seen a reduction in the number of

children that have been institutionalized. Consequently, there have

been some dramatic savings to many of the communities in terms

of foster care, et cetera. So, yes, there is a direct relationship in

terms of our children’s mental health in working closely with the

schools. However, I must emphasize that the children that are eligible for this program must be children that have been diagnosed

as seriously mentally ill.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I would like to yield now to the gentleman

from Indiana, Mr. Souder.

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

51

First, I would like unanimous consent to put this chart in from

ONDCP regarding marijuana use being related to delinquent behavior and also aggressive behavior.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. SOUDER. Clearly, not every case of every shooting in the

country has drugs or alcohol involved. But, as we heard from Dr.

Kingly over in the Education Committee yesterday, it is clearly—

while not everybody who is on drugs carries a gun to school—it is

the best predictor of whether or not somebody is going to bring

guns to school. If, indeed, they started their drug abuse at an early

age or it is frequent, the odds soar and I think you are absolutely

right that they are interconnected.

I have a series of questions, and, hopefully, Mr. Modzeleski, as

we work through the Drug Free and Safe Schools section in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we can work together with

some of the details on targeting. You had some suggestions here on

specific things that you would like the States to submit, and I

would like to do some followup with that.

I want to make sure in my time here that I can pursue a question that has come up in a number of other areas, including our

juvenile justice, that I am concerned about. It is troubling to me,

from my religious perspective, how some of the difficult moral questions are being handled right now in trying to address the question

of hate crimes. Not only have we seen, in some of these schools, actual persecution and shooting of kids because of their religious

views, I am wondering whether or not you would have any objection if we continue to push to try to expand the definition to include those who have strong moral views. In particular, what I

want to pursue here is the difficulty of how to do conflict resolution

and reducing the tension where kids make judgments about others

that lead to both verbal or physical assault and then how not to,

in effect, offend the religious beliefs that are deeply held of other

people.

In particular, in this report, Preventing Youth Hate Crimes, in

the back of this, you refer to a number of webpages. The only State

webpage referred to in this booklet is Washington, in that program,

in part four on hate crimes, which you held up—you have a disclaimer saying you don’t agree with everything in each one. At the

same time, this is the only State one held up—this says what is

age appropriate at the elementary school level? And this clause

says, ‘‘A gay man is someone who loves another man best of all.

A lesbian woman is someone who loves another woman best of all.

Heterosexuals are people whose dearest love is of the other sex.

People are bisexual if they sometimes fall in love with a woman

and sometimes with a man.’’ And then, underlined, ‘‘people who

have always felt as if they were in the body of the wrong sex are

called transsexual. Some transsexual kids grow up and get sex

change operations and some don’t.’’

Now, the problem here is that many of us who have deeply held

moral views do not want—and part of the reason there is a public

reaction against public schools—and my kids have been in public

schools; I have gone through public schools; I still have kids in the

public schools—but this is the type of thing that would drive me

to pull out. If I found that my fifth grader—because this says eleVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63843.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
52

mentary school level—is being taught an amoral approach to

transsexual sex change operations rather than what I believe hate

crimes should be—it is something more like this: whether you feel

someone’s behavioral or sexual preference is right or wrong, you

don’t have the right to verbally assault them, verbally offend them,

physically assault them, because what is offensive is taking your

personal views out on somebody else.

That is the problem here, but in trying to teach tolerance, we

are, in effect, taking a neutral view on the behavior which is, in

effect, counter to what their parents or their church is teaching.

Furthermore, they can be taught that they are intolerant and

kids become intolerant of them, because they are merely stating

their view of what is right and wrong and what they have been

taught by their families. And, in fact, tolerance goes both directions. What is intolerable is to have you take offensive behavior, insulting behavior, or things that restrict other people as opposed to

having those beliefs, and this type of thing is expanding, and it is

particularly discouraging to me that it is expanding under programs that, while they have good goals, in fact, are very offensive

not only to me, personally—and it is offensive to me, personally. I

am not claiming this on behalf of other people; it is offensive to me

as a parent and as a christian, but also many, many parents are

voting with their feet and moving out of the schools because of this

type of thing, and I would like to hear some of your responses. This

is a difficult question.

Mr. MODZELESKI. It is a very difficult question, Congressman.

Thank you, and I appreciate your comments. As you stated, and I

would agree 100 percent, this is a very, very difficult question that

we are dealing with.

Also, the Department of Justice, the administration is moving

forward with a bill which would expand hate crimes legislation to

cover issues such as you have mentioned regarding tolerance for

sexual behavior. So, that is going down on different track. But,

clearly, I think that in schools we have to be tolerant of people who

are different in any way, and I think that covers a broad definition

of hate crimes, tolerance because people are of a different race; tolerance of people who may be of a different religion; tolerance because they have different sexual beliefs or identities. I think that

tolerance covers a broad range of issues, and we should be teaching

tolerance—and this just isn’t in school; I mean, basically, broadly

speaking about tolerance.

I am a little bit—I guess I am a little bit confused that if we did

not teach tolerance about this particular issue, what would we be

doing in public schools? Should we be teaching children not to be

tolerant of somebody who expresses a different sexual belief? We

would be willing to work with you on that, but this is a very, very

difficult position.

We also clearly understand from data that has been submitted

and collected by the Department of Justice that the whole issue of

sexual identity and differences in sexual identity does lead to

fights, does lead to victimization on the part of those individuals

who have different sexual identities, and we have to deal with the

entire student body.

53

Mr. SOUDER. But why do you stress—when there are deep differences of opinions on something—why do you stress—because the

word ‘‘tolerance’’ here is actually used as almost an attitude-changing question as opposed to tolerance in the sense of different people

are allowed to live together even if they are wrong. In other words,

part of free speech in America says that even someone who, if they

don’t advocate violent action as a Nazi or a Communist, we let

them speak, but it doesn’t mean we have to say that tolerance

means that their behavior is OK.

I am not asking the schools to say that homosexual behavior or

transsexual operations or bisexual behavior is wrong; I am merely

trying to say that they shouldn’t be taking the position that it is

normal either. In other words, what schools should be teaching in

tolerance is that whatever that person’s position is, you don’t have

a right to go verbally assaulting them, making fun of them, physically assaulting them. But to then tell them ‘‘Oh, that is because

some people choose this and that’’ is entering into another realm

of it, and that is moral teaching.

Mr. MODZELESKI. I see what you mean.

Mr. SOUDER. And that is what a lot of us are troubled about. We

are trying to get to that, because I may have a strong view, but

I am not going to—I believe it is just as offensive to my belief to

persecute, to mock, to do any of that type of thing.

Mr. MODZELESKI. It was not the intention of that manual to do

that, Mr. Souder, not at all. It was basically, I think, to expand the

whole issue, as you mentioned, of tolerant views toward people, because they may be different.

Mr. SOUDER. Then we need to then work—because one of the extensions of this argument is, because you very eloquently pointed

out, kids are made fun of. There is no question that any sort of difference from the norm is harassed in school, whether you are short,

whether you don’t have designer clothes, and so on. What I am trying to encourage here is, as we look at the manuals and try to do

tolerance, that what we try to say is, we are not really going to

radically change that kids are going to torment each other in the

sense of changing, undergirding, things of normative behavior and

that we are not going to make everybody the same size and so on.

What we ought to teach them is regardless—what we have to teach

in tolerance is that in this country everybody is here. It doesn’t

mean we have to accept everybody’s behavior, but we have to learn

to live together, which is a different goal, quite frankly, than much

of what is in here, which is trying to change the attitude underneath that says whether a behavior is right or wrong, which is

really not the business of the school. It is the business of the parents and the church. What you want to teach is how to live together so we don’t become like the Balkans, and I would like to

work with that.

And I know I went over the 5-minutes, but I have a series of detailed questions on the drug issue and stuff, because we are looking

at whether to separate some of the Safe and Drug Free Schools,

whether we should drive the grants—some of the problems with

these school grants is they are so small when we get to a given

school, I want to look at some creative ways as we are going

through—

54

Mr. MODZELESKI. And we would love to do that and work with

you, Mr. Souder, on that issue, and the bill that will be coming forward to you very shortly expresses the administration views, but,

as I say, we are open to working with you. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. Those questions will be made part of the record, without objection.

I am pleased now to recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.

Cummings.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to

thank the witnesses for being here today. I have just listened to

Mr. Souder, and I am thinking about tolerance and looking at this

annual report on school safety, which was prepared jointly by the

Departments of Justice and Education, and it is very interesting,

and I just wanted to know your views on this—I am sure you are

familiar with it, Dr.—

Mr. MODZELESKI. Mr. Modzeleski.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Modzeleski. It says, under the category of creating a climate of tolerance, it says, ‘‘fostering and maintaining a safe

learning environment means creating a climate of tolerance in

which all students are comfortable and secure, particularly in adolescents who have strong needs to be accepted by their peers. However, because of stereotypes, ignorance, and intolerance, certain individuals and groups tend to be alienated from their fellow students. A source of conflict in many schools is the perceived or real

problem of bias and unfair treatment of students because of ethnicity, gender, race, social class, religion, disability, nationality,

sexual orientation, physical appearance, or some other factor both

by staff and peers. Schools can encourage students to be more accepting of diversity through schoolwide awareness campaigns, policies which prevent harassment and discrimination, and offering

support groups.’’

How do you feel about that?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Supportive, fully.

Mr. CUMMINGS. I do too.

Let me go to something that is just—first of all, I want to thank

you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing and certainly our ranking member.

I would venture to guess in my district, which is the inner city

of Baltimore, there are probably somewhere in the area of 50 to 75

black kids who are shot dead every year, every year; probably more

than that—teenagers, students not in school. And, you know, when

I look at the Columbine thing, I have a lot of sympathy, I really

do; it is wrenching, and it shocks the conscience. And when I go

in my neighborhoods and I talk to my constituents, they say, ‘‘I

wish somebody would scream and have it on national—international TV for our children and the funerals that we go to and the

coffins that we have to buy. We wish that someone would send

somebody into our schools, too, who can deal with the grief and the

pain.’’ And this is every year.

And, so I look here at—I was listening to Mr. Souder, and I

started thinking about some of the things that he talked about, and

I just find it very interesting when we are talking about—the statement that I read talks about alien Nation. When these young men

at Columbine—when they did their little research on these killVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63843.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
55

ers—and, by the way, these are our children, still. They once

played hopscotch and hide and go seek this is just a few years

later. They said one of the problems with these guys is they felt

alienated. They felt like they weren’t a part of anything. They also

suffered from something that is very, very unfortunate about our

society—they were racist. They hunted down that little black boy

and killed him, because he was black. They had a problem with

jocks; people who apparently tried to be good guys, good students,

probably good student government guys and girls—they wanted to

kill them. And then we talk about gun control; we talk about these

factors.

There is a lot that goes into what happened there, and I don’t

think it is easy to solve this problem. We have in our society where

we don’t have the Father Knows Best society anymore—where

mamma and daddy are at home, where mamma’s at home; daddy

works, comes home at 5 o’clock—it is not that way anymore. You

have parents who are struggling trying to make it, both in neighborhoods like Columbine and in the inner city of Baltimore. Only

in the inner city of Baltimore, usually, there is only one parent or

some grandparents that are barely making it.

And, so that leads me to this: we have a school—and I invite you

to come to the school with me—called Walbrook High School in

Baltimore, which is located in the inner city where when everybody

was running around putting up all these metal detectors, they were

taking them down.

Let me tell you about the principles, this is a young principal

who is about 40 years old. His name is Andrey Bundley, and, Mr.

Chairman, I invite you have him come speak to us, because he got

it; he gets it. What he has done is decided that it did not make

sense to distrust his students. This is an all black school—he said,

‘‘Look, we are going to create an environment of love, excellence,

respect, and humanity.’’ And, so he told the students, ‘‘Look, if

somebody brought a gun into your house, what would you do?’’ All

the students said, ‘‘We would do something. We would make sure

that mamma or somebody knew that there was a gun in the

house.’’ He said, ‘‘Well, this is your house. This school is your

house. You spend almost as much as time in this school as you do

your house.’’ So, there is no such thing in this school as a snitch,

because they get it. They get that they are trying to protect their

house. Most of their friends are in that school. They spend a lot of

time there. The school is basically a major part of their life. So,

that is No. 1.

They don’t have any discipline problems at this school. Why? Because they get it. And they have done something else, they make

sure that everybody understands that no matter what they are or

who they are, as long as they go by the rules, they are part of an

entire body. I am not going to alienate you because you are not a

jock. I am not going to alienate you because you do this or you do

that; we are all a part, and it is creating an atmosphere. But did

CBS News do anything on them? No.

All of the periodicals that I have seen on education here lately,

all I am seeing over and over again on education is how can we

buy more metal detectors? That is what you are hearing. The guy

was on the CBS News—on the news station last night, one of the

56

national news stations, he said, I can’t—the owner of one of these

metal detector companies said, ‘‘I can’t keep up with the orders.’’

Some kind of way we have got to get back to something called

parenting. That is what it is all about—parenting, making children

feel like they are part—sometimes I think what happens is that

we, as adults, forget what it is like to be a child. We get so busy

legislating and doing all of this that we forget the faces of children

and how children view life; how they feel when they are 13 years

old and they are fat and they are being left out of the baseball

games or they are not a part of it or they are not a part of any

organization, because there is no organization to be a part of.

And, so some kind of way, I think that when we begin to look

at these solutions, I want you to come to Walbrook High School.

Maybe we will get some cameras to watch these wonderful, beautiful, brilliant children as they come in and out of school feeling

safe. Because they know that they care about each other, and they

are not being biased or discriminating or alienating each other.

They have a principal who understands that some kind of way if

they are not getting it on the outside of school, he is trying to give

it to them on the inside of the school, and, guess what? What he

has discovered is that when they get it on the inside of the school,

they then take it out, back to their homes, and they are able to

teach, sometimes, their parents how to have this human element

that we are all one; we are all human beings, and we are all in

this world together. So, I invite you. I said all of that to give you

an invitation.

Mr. MODZELESKI. I would be delighted to take your invitation.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, I want you to do it soon, because the school

year—

Mr. MODZELESKI. Well, the school gets out—we will do it in the

next couple of weeks, I assure you.

Mr. CUMMINGS. Because the school year is getting ready to end,

and I am giving them an award, it is an award, and we all need

to do this—it is called the U-Turn Award. We are giving this, because I think we need to begin to highlight the great things about

our children instead of concentrating on the negative.

There are schools that are doing it right, and that is another suggestion is that we do more of that. If things are working somewhere where there are good parent relationships with schools and

whatever, we need to highlight those situations instead of getting

in this total war mentality, ‘‘Oh, I have got to watch out, and who

is going to come in with a gun?’’ I am not saying that we don’t need

to do those kinds of things, but we also need to be moving more

toward those schools that are doing it right. And, according to the

chairman, when he asked you a few questions, there are apparently

some schools—they may not be in the majority, but it sounds like

they may very well be—who are doing it right.

Mr. MODZELESKI. There are.

Mr. CUMMINGS. And, so, hopefully, we can highlight more of

them so that we can move to that, because these are still our kids;

they are our children. They come from all kinds of families; they

have all kinds of problems; they are dealing with things that most

of us never dealt with when we were coming up, and so I want to

57

thank you for taking me up on my invitation, and I am going to—

we will followup as soon as the hearing is over.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman from Maryland.

I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me followup on that for a second, because I thought that was

interesting. Does the Department of Education do anything in

terms of identifying best practices when it comes to—I use the

word ‘‘discipline,’’ because that is one that I saw in your remarks,

sir, but I think it is better stated here probably as ‘‘attitude?’’ Do

you go out and find schools that have somehow put together the

proper atmosphere or environment and get those as best practices;

find out how they do it and make that information available to

other schools?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Yes, we do. Let me just say, if I can take 30

seconds out and comment on Congressman Cummings, because I

do believe that an overwhelming majority—

Mr. TIERNEY. You are going to take my time to answer his question?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Well, because this gets to your point, too,

Congressman—

Mr. TIERNEY. I am only kidding; go ahead.

Mr. MODZELESKI [continuing]. Because an overwhelming majority

of students in this country are good students. An overwhelming

majority of students in this country don’t engage in crime. The

overwhelming majority of students in this country really are trying

to do a good job, and I think that we need to do a better job identifying those students, identifying those schools, identifying those

practices, and publishing and rewarding those kids.

Now, what do we do? We do a couple of things. One is, we have

a Drug Free Schools Recognition Program. This is a program where

we go out on a national basis and try to identify schools that have

exemplary drug prevention and violence prevention programs. We

just finished a competition about 3 weeks ago. Those programs

were site visited by fellow principals and teachers throughout the

country, and the results of that should be available within approximately a month.

Now, I will tell you that while we are moving in that direction

and while there are schools that are promising—they have great

drug prevention and great violence prevention programs—we are

not doing enough; we are not getting enough. We need to do a better job in identifying the schools that are doing a good job, because

we have over 15,000 school districts, over 100,000 schools in this

country, and we are scratching the surface on which schools are

doing a good job.

No. 2 is that we also have a panel called the expert panel, which

is not looking at schools, which is looking at programs—drug prevention and violence prevention programs—setting up objective criteria by which to measure those programs, and identifying which

programs meet that criteria from a research-based perspective. So,

we will have, by the end of this summer, a list of both what we

call promising as well as exemplary programs.

Mr. TIERNEY. And you will disseminate that?

58

Mr. MODZELESKI. We will disseminate it widely. I mean, again,

this gets back to the whole issue of accountability of the program,

the whole issue of improving the quality of the program. We have

to, we have a responsibility of identifying good schools, of identifying best practices, and getting that information out to as many

schools as possible.

Mr. TIERNEY. In your remarks, at least your written remarks, it

was indicated that even a bigger problem than crime or violence,

really, is discipline in schools. Is there a Federal role at all that

touches on that or where do you think that appropriately gets addressed and how?

Mr. MODZELESKI. It is hard to measure in an issue of magnitude

which is greater, which affects the learning environment? And I

think that as we look at the data, clearly, more schools have discipline problems than have crime problems. More schools have discipline problems on a regular basis. More schools have a few individuals who upset what goes on in the learning environment on a

regular basis, which are not criminal incidents but disciplinary

problems.

In the revised, or I should say, in the proposal, the administration’s proposal for revision of the Elementary and Secondary

Schools Act, in title XI, there is a school discipline issue where we

talk about all schools receiving elementary and secondary schools

funds shall develop strong, sound school discipline policies—and

getting back to a point—it also clearly states that these discipline

policies shall be enforced equitably, because very often they are not

enforced equitably.

So, it is not only the establishment of sound discipline policies,

because I harken to say that about 100 percent of schools in this

country today have discipline policies, but we need to do a better

job examining those policies; getting students and teachers involved in the development of those policies, and equitably enforcing

those policies.

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, in your Safe Schools, Healthy Student Initiative, you note that the grants are going to be—the applications are

going to be taken as early as June 1st. Has that been broadly noticed to the world here?

Mr. MODZELESKI. It has been broadly noticed to the world. We

are just completing a series of six audio conferences whereby we

are answering questions from the field. The announcement of that

particular program is on our website; it is on Dr. Chavez’ website;

it is on the Department of Justice website. You have mailings that

are going out from the Department of Education, the Department

of Health and Human Services as well as the Department of Justice. There has been an overwhelming response to this particular

program.

Mr. TIERNEY. What was the basis of the six criteria that you said

in order to have a plan qualify as comprehensive? Was that research? Was that—

Mr. MODZELESKI. It was really a careful examination of a lot of

research which exists. I am sure we could probably expand that a

little bit more, but one of the issues that we run into is that this

is the first time where we have combined a substantial amount of

funding into one partner trying to manage this program with one

59

application. And what we are saying to school districts, both suburban, rural, and Indian tribes, is that we want you to submit one

application—one application for mental health services, for early

childhood development, for school security programs, for a series of

programs and activities. And, really, what we are providing is a

continuum of services along a broad range starting with early

childhood development and ending up with a referral to mental

health services if that is found to be necessary.

Mr. TIERNEY. It is obviously going to mean that some of these

schools are going to have to bring on new personnel, particularly

in the counseling area. How do schools deal with the added expense

that is going to entail?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Dr. Chavez mentioned—and I don’t want to get

into her venue—that there was $40 million of SAMHSA dollars

which are going for mental health services for schools; $25 million

of that is in this overall pot. So, there will be money in this overall

pot for mental health services.

Mr. TIERNEY. And let me just finish, because I know the red light

is on—I was struck by the figures that 82, almost 83 percent of the

victims are males, and 95.6 percent of the offenders in violent situations are males. What are we doing to focus in on that aspect of

this problem?

Mr. MODZELESKI. This gets back to a whole lot of issues. It gets

back to the issue of really looking at this from a very broad-based

perspective. The figures and the data you have there are from the

1992–1993, 1993–1994 school years. The data from the last 2

school years are still coming in. We don’t know whether it is going

to be different or not. I don’t think the data for school crime are

much different from the data from overall crime. We do know that

young males are the most frequent purveyors of crime and violence,

and what we are really trying to do is get schools to have a better

understanding, through assessment processes, as to who some of

these individuals are and then to provide them with appropriate

services.

Some of this gets back to the mental health side where Dr. Chavez’ organization is involved. Some of this you will hear in the, I

think, the last panel where Dr. Dwyer talks about the early warning signs; identifying those students who may be at risk of problems and, without doing any harm to those individuals, making referrals to appropriate services in the community.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

Now, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr.

Hutchinson.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, hopefully, I

won’t take the entire allotted time, but I did have one area of inquiry.

Dr. Chavez, I was reading the introductory information that has

been provided. It is my understanding that your agency, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, has a

staff of approximately 600? Is that correct?

Dr. CHAVEZ. That is correct.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And that your agency was created in 1992?

Dr. CHAVEZ. That is correct.

60

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And, so, obviously, you had zero employees in

1992, and there are 600 now, and the responsibility is to administer a Federal Block Grant Program to the States?

Dr. CHAVEZ. That is one of our responsibilities.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. And a Federal block grant—I mean, the whole

idea of a block grant is that it is passed along to the State without

extraordinary Federal strings? Is that correct?

Dr. CHAVEZ. Well, it is a little bit more than that, but—can I correct something? Although we were created as a separate agency in

1992, SAMHSA’s activities had been part of ADAMHA, which provided alcohol, drug, and mental health services. In 1992, the Congress decided to take NIDA, NIAAA, NIMH and put it under NIH

and take the, at that time, the prevention, the treatment, and the

mental health services programs that were within ADAMHA and

create a separate agency’s AMHSA. The primary focus was on the

service part and looking at the development and the implementation of the research.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. How has the staff level grown in recent years?

Dr. CHAVEZ. Actually, that is a very good question, because it has

not grown. In fact, right now, we are having tremendous problems

in terms of trying to administer many of the programs because of

a reduction in our work force.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Well, in 1992, obviously, you didn’t exist prior

to 1992. You were created in 1992, and you are saying that a number of different programs were combined? Is that correct?

Dr. CHAVEZ. That is correct. A number of programs were combined, and in the combination of those programs that created

SAMHSA, many of those employees worked for NIMH; many of

them worked for NIDA and NIAAA.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. How many did you start with in 1992, with a

combination of those programs versus the 600 today?

Dr. CHAVEZ. I believe it was about 700 in 1992.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Could you get me the information on that?

Dr. CHAVEZ. I certainly can.

[The information referred to follows:]

61

62

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I know I am catching you cold on that, perhaps, and I would like to have an organizational chart for your

present circumstance and then compare that to 1992. I mean, you

ought to be applauded if you combined front office functions and reduced the number of employees, but it is still—I mean, I just don’t

understand, quite frankly. Six hundred employees sounds like an

extraordinary number to administer a Block Grant Program, and

I understand you have other responsibilities, but I either need to

be educated or we need to look at it very closely. It seems like

there is a lot of the money that should be going to the States to

support these programs that is consumed at the staff level, the administrative level.

Dr. CHAVEZ. Yes, I would be very happy to provide that information for you, and I would like to also mention that in 1996—in looking at SAMHSA and some of the programs there, we reduced from

22 offices in the administrative area to 7 offices, and that was

working very closely with Chairman Porter. So, we do have all that

information; we will be very happy to supply you with that, because, as I indicated earlier, while 600 may seem a lot if you are

just looking at a block grant, there are many other responsibilities

that are a part of that. So, I would be very happy to submit that.

[The information referred to follows:]

63

64

65

66

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will look forward to that information.

Dr. CHAVEZ. Thank you.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. MICA. Thank the gentleman.

Now, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.

Barr.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Modzeleski, in your written remarks here—and I think I

have been informed also in your oral comments—you talk about the

role of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. What

do they have to do with this?

Mr. MODZELESKI. We have been working with the Federal Emergency Management Association on trying to develop a response, a

FEMA-like response to crises such as occurred in Springfield, Paducah, Pearl. These are crises which are not Presidentially declared disasters but nevertheless affect the school system, and

what we are trying to do is develop a response to enable those

school systems to recover from rather tragic—

Mr. BARR. And you think you can do this by studying how the

Government responds to tornados? I mean, isn’t dealing with the

causes of violence in our schools, our families, our communities,

and our businesses somewhat different from dealing with natural

disasters?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Well, the answer—yes, we do think we can resolve this by looking at how a Government agency responds to tornados.

Mr. BARR. Well, then maybe that is why we are not meeting tremendous success. Maybe you ought to look at this as a people problem, not as a natural disaster problem.

Mr. MODZELESKI. Let me explain, the FEMA-like response is not

related to the prevention aspect. This is a very small part.

Mr. BARR. I know.

Mr. MODZELESKI. This is the after effects.

Mr. BARR. FEMA is not a responsive aid. They are not a preventive agency; you are.

Mr. MODZELESKI. Each of the districts—

Mr. BARR. What does FEMA have to do with trying to resolve

problems of violence in our schools?

Mr. MODZELESKI. We are basically looking at how FEMA responds to crises, how FEMA responds to disasters. Each one of the

disasters, be it a tornado or natural disaster or the crises such as

Springfield result in sufficient impact on the student population.

Jamon Kent who is the superintendent of schools in Springfield,

OR has said that his schools probably will not be restored to teaching and learning as they were prior to the incident a year ago without adequate resources and services in the area of mental health

services, mental health crisis counseling for both students and

teachers. And SERVE, the program which is in the—

Mr. BARR. Are we witnessing school violence because there aren’t

enough counselors?

Mr. MODZELESKI. We may.

Mr. BARR. Really?

Mr. MODZELESKI. We may.

67

Mr. BARR. Maybe that is also why we are not seeing tremendous

success. Do you think that is—because we don’t have enough grief

counselors, that is the reason why we are seeing violence in

schools?

Mr. MODZELESKI. Well, there is a need for grief counselors and

mental health crisis counselors. I think that there has been sufficient testimony between various House committees and Senate

committees where there are people, experts—much more expert

than I—that say there definitely needs to be a better interconnection and a better relationship between schools and mental health

crisis counseling, and we do need more counselors in schools.

Mr. BARR. Well, I suppose we can have a lot more counselors, but

I don’t think that is going to really get at the root problems, and,

again, my impression has always been that FEMA is a reactive

agency. After there has been a natural disaster, something over

which mankind has no control, they go in and provide assistance,

organizational skills to respond to an emergency that has already

occurred—a natural disaster. I think, perhaps, if you all started

looking at the problems of violence in our schools, not as a natural

disaster that is beyond our control and look at yourself as a reactive agency, which is the model that FEMA provides and necessarily has to provide, maybe we would see more success. How

many school murders committed with weapons took place in 1955?

Mr. MODZELESKI. We don’t have that information.

Mr. BARR. How about 1960?

Mr. MODZELESKI. That information is not available. If I could

just comment on the collection of data—

Mr. BARR. I mean, it is nice to go back a couple of years and say,

‘‘Gee, there are more or less of this category of violence than there

were a few years ago,’’ but I suspect that if one looks at a longer

term trend, that there might be some things that are a little bit

more revealing than just looking and trying to make the current

situation look favorable by looking at 1991 or 1992 or whatnot, and

I don’t think that the solutions are going to be terribly simplistic.

Dr. Chavez, do you have any comments on this? Do you see particular enlightenment being provided by your work through FEMA?

Dr. CHAVEZ. Mr. Barr, that was a good very question in terms

of the issues that you have raised. You are talking about the prevention as being a first line of defense, and we agree that that is

very critical. However, when there are traumatic events—for example, a traumatic event might be a tornado, hurricane, et cetera, and

the impact that has not only on children but also in terms of families and communities, that becomes very important in terms of the

kinds of intervention that one must be involved in when there is

a traumatic event.

For example, our Center for Mental Health Services was very

much involved when Hurrican Andrew struck Miami. We have

been very much involved in many of these other FEMA-associated

incidents in that we have brought in the mental health component

after the fact for the trauma that exists. In addition to that, we

have been able to do some very effective programming in terms of

prevention.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I recommend that your next panel include somebody from FEMA. They might be able to help us solve

68

the problem of school violence. I mean, this is amazing that we look

to FEMA as the model for solving the problems of school violence.

Dr. CHAVEZ. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, may I please respond to

that if there is time?

Mr. BARR. I yield back.

Mr. MICA. The gentleman yields back.

I think we covered all the panelists. I would like to—we have

gone on for almost 2 hours with this panel or more, and I do thank

you. I think we have raised as many questions as we may have had

answered.

We will, as I said, keep the record open, without objection, for

2 weeks, and we will be submitting additional questions on some

of the programs and activities and other concerns from the members of the panel.

So, with that, I would like to excuse both of our first two witnesses in this first panel and call our second panel which are State

and local officials.

We have the Honorable Charlie Condon, attorney general of the

State of South Carolina, the Honorable Gary L. Walker, vice president of the National District Attorneys Association, and Chief Reuben Greenberg, the police chief of Charleston, SC.

As I mentioned, this is an investigations and oversight panel of

Congress. We do swear in our witnesses, which I will do in a moment. Also, if you have lengthy statements or additional information you would like to have made part of the record, we will do

that. We would like you to try to keep your comments, if you could,

to about 5 minutes. We are running a bit behind, but we do want

everyone to have an adequate opportunity to participate.

So, with that, welcome, our three panelists. If you will remain

standing, and I will swear you in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. Thank you, and the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Welcome again, and I am pleased to recognize, first, the attorney general, the Honorable Charlie Condon. Welcome, and you

are recognized.

STATEMENTS OF CHARLIE CONDON, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; GARY L. WALKER, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION; AND

REUBEN GREENBERG, POLICE CHIEF, CHARLESTON, SC

Mr. CONDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly a pleasure to be here.

I want to say, first, that I was, like I am sure you were, dismayed to hear about the shootings over in Georgia, but I was

equally dismayed, really, to see the proposals that the Clinton administration made yesterday relative to school crime. They are proposing mandates and directives that I think are a recipe for disaster; not that they are not good ideas. In fact, in South Carolina, we

are in the process or have already put into practice these ideas, but

to have a single cookie cutter approach from the Federal Government, I think, will not work.

I hope I don’t get hissed out of this room, but as I am sure some

do recognize—I hope they recognize—under our system of Government, the general government is the State government, and the

69

Federal Government is supposed to be the Government of limited

power. We are a Nation of 50 general governments and 1 limited

Government, not the other way around. Each individual State possesses the power to protect the safety of its citizens, whether that

means the streets of the inner city, the neighborhoods of the suburbs or the classroom or the halls of our schools.

Now, in this time when school violence is uppermost in our

minds, what we need from the Federal Government are resources

and support, not mandates and directives. In short, Washington,

DC, can no better serve as the principal of Irmo High School in

Lexington County, SC than it can walk the beat of a Charleston

Street. The problem of school crime, which affects South Carolina

differently from Florida and California, cannot be micromanaged

from Washington, DC. Indeed, within the Palmetto State, South

Carolina, different communities require different approaches. The

same cookie cutter approach by the Federal Government to the

school violence problem is most certainly a recipe for disaster.

Now what does this mean specifically with respect to school violence? I must say, I was astounded to hear some of the figures that

were bandied about by the first panel in terms of what is being

spent today. I really do want to look into how those funds are being

spent in South Carolina, particularly from what has been appropriated, and then from the standpoint as to what gets to the field.

I am assuming that in our State—it is a middle range population

State—we must have millions and millions of dollars annually coming from the Federal Government for school safety. And I really

want to see how those are being spent.

But I do think you can help us with this: if you truly have the

block grant made—and that is, as I understand what block grants

are supposed to be, they are basically funds sent to the States to

be spent without strings attached—that will work very, very well.

We need funds to put school resource officers in every high school

and middle school in South Carolina. Most importantly, we need

Federal dollars to help us make sure that we have prosecutors both

at the State and local level to prosecute school crime.

In my view, what will work best with respect to the problem of

school crime is the one approach that has always succeeded when

we follow it, and it is this: it is tough, hard-nosed prosecutions of

those who threaten the safety of our schools. While, certainly, resources, such as guidance counselors and psychologists, play an important role in assisting our students, the bottom line is that our

schools are not different from society in general. If anything,

schools, like our homes and places of worship, should be the safest

places in our society. No serious offense should go unpunished.

Now, there are and will always be certain students bound and

determined to commit serious crimes which prevent the others

from learning. I do think it is much, much worse today for a variety of other factors I want to allude to. For these offenders, the

three P’s instead of the three R’s are appropriate—prosecution,

punishment, and, when necessary, prison.

We are putting this no-nonsense approach to work in South

Carolina right now. As the chief prosecutor of my State, I have

banned plea bargaining for all serious school crimes. Every school

crime is now required to be reported to the attorney general’s ofVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63843.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
70

fice. My office has a school crime prosecutor with strict instructions

to followup on school crimes to see that our policy of zero tolerance

is followed.

We have also implemented a program, which I have stolen from

my good friend, Chief Greenberg, to make sure that we get these

guns out of the schools in South Carolina with a toll-free tip line—

1–877-SEE A GUN. A simple concept: confidential, toll-free, with

a $100 reward for guns and explosive devices. We have in place a

youth mentoring program. We have joined with the Governor of

South Carolina, Governor Hodges, and the superintendent of education to co-chair a State summit on school violence.

I am also a big believer in prevention, and we are implementing

a comprehensive approach to prevention strategies that are attached to this testimony.

But, in short—as I am pleased to see that you have already recognized the problem to some extent—the problem of school crime

can never be solved by Washington, DC. Washington can help provide the resources and then really just get out of the way and let

us do our jobs. In the end, no government—neither Federal, State,

nor local—can alone diffuse the ticking time bomb with school violence.

As always, the willingness of every person to be responsible for

the consequences of his or her actions must serve as the foundation. Each parent—I want to emphasize parent—each mother and

father, each student, each family, indeed, each citizen must take

responsibility to shatter the culture of violence which today threatens our schools.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Condon follows:]

71

72

73

74

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

I would like to recognize the Honorable Gary L. Walker, vice

president of the National District Attorneys Association.

Mr. WALKER. Good afternoon. I would like to introduce myself.

I am the elected prosecutor in Marquette County, MI. I want to

thank you on behalf of the National District Attorneys Association.

Mr. MICA. Excuse me, Mr. Walker, could you pull that mic up as

close as possible?

Mr. WALKER. OK. I want to thank you on behalf of the National

District Attorney’s Association for the opportunity to give our perspective on youth violence and crime in this country. I would also,

Mr. Chairman, like to enter into the record some more lengthy

written remarks.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. WALKER. And I also have for the panel some copies of the

National District Attorneys policy positions on youth crime and violence.

Mr. MICA. That also will be included, without objection.

Mr. WALKER. I have served the people in Marquette County as

their prosecutor for the last 25 years. I am currently a vice president of NDAA, and I co-Chair the juvenile justice committee for

that association. The views I express today represent the views of

that association and of local prosecutors across the country.

So that you can place my comments in perspective, let me give

you a brief description of my jurisdiction. Marquette County is located in Michigan’s upper peninsula on the shores of Lake Superior. It is a rural area. We have a population, according to the last

census, of approximately 70,000 people. The county encompasses

1,800 square miles, so it is a little larger than the State of Rhode

Island. We do not experience a crime rate which is comparable

with large urban areas, but juvenile crime is still a major concern.

Last year, four middle school students brought a hand gun to

school with the stated purpose of stealing a teacher’s car and driving to Canada and committing further armed robberies along the

way. Fortunately, the teacher, when confronted by the student with

a gun who demanded his car keys, disarmed him, and no one was

injured.

Last year, we had 12 students who were expelled for bringing

weapons to school campuses. Just since the tragedy in Littleton,

CO, we have experienced instances of threats made by school students which specifically refer to that tragedy and promise similar

violence.

I can also report that my discussions with prosecutors across the

country indicate that copy cat behavior is common, if not epidemic.

Last weekend, four students, ages 12, 13, and 14, were arrested in

Port Huron, a community approximately 60 miles from Detroit.

The arrest thwarted a plan to bring weapons to a school assembly

and then open fire with the avowed purpose of creating more harm,

more death than Littleton, CO. We are all aware, of course, of the

tragedy in Atlanta last night. School violence is not simply, however, the recent tragedies that we have seen; it has been going on—

as I think several of the panel members have indicated—for some

time.

75

Immediately after the incident in Columbine, our community,

law enforcement, school officials, and representatives of our local

media met to examine the situation. Unfortunately, our conclusion

is that ‘‘It can’t happen here,’’ is not a realistic appraisal. We are

attempting to put together a program designed to involve schoolchildren in monitoring their own behavior and that of their peers.

We hope to provide the children with a sense of ownership and control in their school environment and enlist their aid in the prevention of anti-social behavior in their schools.

It is inevitable that society look for answers in the wake of these

tragedies. There is enough blame to go around—guns, music, video

games, movies, parents, schools, the Internet, and according to one

article in the Wall Street Journal, the courts are responsible. It

strikes me that there has been an obvious omission. The perpetrators of these horrible crimes are responsible. Society should, and

indeed must, express a sense of moral outrage at the individuals

who committed these acts. While it is necessary to search for the

causes, we must not excuse the behavior.

‘‘I am depraved on account of I am deprived,’’ goes that song from

West Side Story. If we expect our children to become morally

grounded, it is necessary that we demand accountability for immoral and anti-social behavior. While we search for answers, we

must condemn in the strongest ways possible the behavior, and demand individual accountability and responsibility. It is important

that we not overlook the fact that these types of violent crimes

warrant strong and swift response by our criminal justice system.

The NDAA recognizes and supports the long-standing tradition

in our country of the States adopting and managing their own

criminal laws and juvenile justice systems. We concur entirely with

the attorney general from South Carolina. Perhaps the most important thing that the Federal Government can do in addressing juvenile violent crime is to provide adequate funding for programs

aimed at crime prevention.

The NDAA believes very strongly that funding proven crime prevention initiatives is necessary. Programs proven to keep kids from

becoming criminals in the first place are some of the most powerful

weapons in law enforcement’s arsenal against crime. Such programs include those aimed at providing early child care, preventing

child abuse and neglect, and ensuring that the quality of child care

in afterschool activities is available for America’s youth.

The importance of those programs and their role in reducing

criminal behavior is supported by scientific research. We must do

everything we can in society to promote the positive assets of our

youth. There are far more good kids in this country who are positive role models in their communities than there are delinquents.

We must mobilize these youth to promote positive assets and use

these children as resources to help us identify problem kids in the

schools and communities.

There are no simple solutions to this problem. Traditional law

enforcement efforts must continue with new tools to deal with today’s violent juvenile criminals and to effectively deal with the nonviolent offenders before it is too late. Violent juvenile criminals

must be prosecuted and dealt with severely by our criminal justice

system. We must send a clear message that violence will not be tolVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63843.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
76

erated. However, the long-term solution requires that we step back

and look at the underlying causes of juvenile crime, and mobilize

everyone in this country to get involved and work together to address these issues.

Thank you for permitting me to appear and to express the views

of the National District Attorneys Association.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walker follows:]

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

I would like to recognize now Police Chief Greenberg from

Charleston, SC. Welcome, sir. You are recognized.

Mr. GREENBERG. Thank you. I want to thank the Subcommittee

on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources—

Mr. MICA. Chief Greenberg, you are going to have to pull one of

those up real close. Thank you, sir.

Mr. GREENBERG. Thank you. And I want to thank the chairman

for inviting me to be present here today.

I hope, this morning, to offer a suggestion or two that will help

to address the serious and growing problem of youth violence in

our country. We are all familiar with the problems that have occurred recently in Jonesboro, AR, Pearl, MS, Paducah, KT, Springfield, OR, Littleton, CO, and now in Georgia. These situations were

of such a massive nature and had such a devastating effect on

whole communities that almost everyone is aware of them. During

the past decade, however, significant violence has been felt in even

more communities around our country. There have been thousands

of instances where young people, especially young black men, have

been killed or seriously injured by other young men or teenagers

during altercations of one kind or another involving firearms.

While these deadly altercations have, for the most part, been on

a one-to-one basis—perpetrator and victim—the decade long and

cumulative effect of these incidents has had an even greater impact

on the everyday lives of our citizens. In many cases, there have

been victims who were not involved, and unintended victims but

who have, nonetheless, been killed or seriously injured during

these encounters. Many of the incidents have taken place in our

urban core areas whereas others, as in the case of the recent school

shootings, have occurred in suburban and rural areas.

A number of approaches designed to address these problems have

been proposed. Most of the approaches have focused on increasing

penalties for use or possession of firearms by young people. Other

approaches have targeted those who sell firearms to underage persons or those who leave firearms in places where they are unreasonably accessible to unauthorized persons.

There has been some degree of success achieved through these

means. We have shared in that success in Charleston where, as a

result of cooperation between school officials, law enforcement,

prosecutors, courts, and the business community, we have avoided

much of the violence that other communities have suffered.

It has become clear in our community that in order to curtail

school violence involving firearms, it is necessary to discourage people from bringing firearms onto school property. In other words, in

order to get the guns out of the schools, it is essential to get the

people with the guns out of the schools.

The Charleston County school district has adopted a zero tolerance policy against guns in the school environment. The school administration actively supports allied law enforcement efforts to rid

schools of guns and the people who possess them. The district immediately suspends student violators and recommends them for expulsion. In addition, in cooperation with the local Crime Stoppers

Program, an anti-illegal gun initiative dubbed ‘‘Gun Stoppers’’ operates to provide immediate rewards to those persons who anonyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63843.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
88

mously report the presence of firearms and the people who possess

them. Gun Stoppers provides, in many cases, immediate $100 rewards to persons who report illegal firearms. The money for this

program comes from three local civic-minded businessman interested in keeping firearms out of the hands of young people.

Most firearms on school grounds, and indeed other locations

where it is unlawful to possess firearms, are introduced by young

people who believe that the possession of a firearm on their person

provides them with a high level of social prestige that they can

enjoy amongst their fellow students. While these students may

sometimes claim that firearms are necessary for their safety, the

actual reason a firearm is carried to school is to obtain the peer social prestige of being tough and fearsome. In order to appear tough

and fearsome, they believe it necessary to show off their firearm as

often as possible. The more often the firearm is displayed, the more

prestige accrues to the person possessing the gun.

The Gun Stoppers Program offers a $100 reward in order to reduce the propensity to show off the firearm due to the fear of having someone report the gun possession to the school officials or to

the police. This reporting is confidential and in most cases the reward is immediate, often the same day that the illegal gun is located. Thus, the situation is changed to the extent that the more

the gun is displayed, the more likely someone will report the presence of the gun thereby seeking a reward. Consequently, showing

off the firearm, even to close friends, is likely to lead the illegal

firearm being seized and its possessor arrested. In short, the successful strategy has been to take the illegal gun possession, which

had been deemed to have been desirable, and transforming it into

something that is highly risky and undesirable. If it is too risky to

display a gun, there is little reason to have it.

The results of the Gun Stoppers Program in Charleston and the

surrounding five counties where it operates is that over 49 guns

have been confiscated and 50 arrests have been made for illegal

gun possession, primarily in schools. All of these guns were taken

into custody before they were fired. It is important to note that the

Gun Stoppers Program is not an anti-gun program; it is an antiillegal gun program.

While the vast majority of guns have been removed from the

school grounds and property, guns have also been removed from

playgrounds, street corners, bars and taverns. Not all persons who

have been arrested have been prosecuted. A 9-millimeter, fully

loaded handgun was reported in the possession of a 6-year old

while he was riding on a school bus. The 6-year old was not prosecuted, but we were still able to remove a gun off the school bus.

Removing guns from school buses is a good thing to happen, whether anyone goes to jail or not.

As a law enforcement officer, I have often wondered why some

school authorities have been so adamant about trying to maintain

in school juveniles guilty of possessing a gun in the school environment. I recognize that it is our society’s desire to provide an education to everyone. However, there must be some recognition that

not everyone can, in the final analysis, be educated if that person

creates an environment that markedly diminishes the security of

the entire school. Possessing a firearm in schools and playgrounds

89

must be viewed as representing the very front rank of danger to

larger communities. Those possessing such firearms should be denied the opportunity to victimize or threaten law-abiding society.

It has become clear in recent years that American society has

changed with regard to both its glorification and toleration of violence. Movies and visual images have become more and more violent. Actual incidents of violence have also become increasingly violent. Attacking the instruments of this violence—that is firearms,

bombs, and knives—is not the way to go toward reducing the problems of violence that face us. Indeed, it is doubtful that any implementation of external control measures can succeed in removing or

rescuing us from the danger that faces us. It is my belief that our

current problems must, in the end, be overwhelmed using internal

social controls that were once implemented by a host of societal influences, including the family, churches and synagogues, neighborhoods, youth organizations, and voluntary restraint by entertainment and literary sources in our society.

I believe that we can discourage increasing violence and disrespect for human life and each other in precisely the same way

that we have acted to encourage it. We must again seek to restrain

ourselves and shun the tendency to become more and more sensational in portraying actual and creative violence in our society. We

did not come to our present situation all at once. We lowered ourselves to it bit by bit over time. In a similar way, we can reverse

ourselves and move our society toward a more wholesome stance

that can again give us a society where positive and valued individual and community relationships can be fostered. Increased enforcement can help us start this process by halting our ‘‘anything

goes’’ approach to happiness and responsibility.

We should not be surprised that we have come upon the natural

consequences of our lack of restraint. Both action and inaction have

consequences. Guns are not new to American society; they have

been long with us. But guns do, however, exhibit some change.

They are more powerful and have greater capacity for destruction.

However, they still require a human being to activate them. What

has really changed is American society. We no longer interact with

one another nor respect each other in the ways we once did. It is

in this area that I believe we need to rededicate ourselves and our

communities.

Many schools in our country have regular full-time police officers

assigned for security purposes and to serve as resource officers.

One such police officer was assigned to Columbine High School in

Littleton, CO and was present when the killing spree there began.

This officer reportedly exchanged shots with the suspects in that

incident. I believe that it could be beneficial for some schools to

have such an officer present, not only to provide security but also

to interact with the students in a host of positive ways. Few

schools or law enforcement agencies can afford to bear the cost of

assigning officers to such duties. The Federal Government could assist schools by helping to provide funds for officers for school security and safety.

In our jurisdiction in Charleston, there has been a heightened

need for security in area schools primarily as a result of the news

of the Littleton, CO shootings and bombings. Several students

90

claiming to be preparing to bomb or shoot up their schools have

been arrested and charged with making terrorist threats. The presence of these school security and resource officers has been of considerable value in helping to ensure parents, school officials and

students a safe educational environment. The need for this kind of

safety assurance will undoubtedly continue long past the media interest in this headline story.

Mr. MICA. Chief, if you could begin to summarize—we are a little

bit over—I would appreciate it.

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes, sir. If I could have 40 seconds?

Mr. MICA. Oh, go ahead, just begin to summarize, if you could.

Mr. GREENBERG. Thank you. The school security officers can also

be assigned to perform protective roles in area parks and playgrounds during the summer when school is out, thereby permitting

the community to extend its protection beyond just the school itself

and reach other areas where children tend to gather and play.

One of the many negative influences affecting the educational environment is the diminishing role and influence that teachers and

principals exert in today’s schools. While teachers and principals

are expected to exercise increasing amounts of responsibility over

the educational environment, they are permitted less and less authority to act in reasonable and responsible ways.

Commentators have enumerated the many so-called warning

signs that were exhibited by the suspects in the Columbine shooting. However, had any school official acted to interfere or intervene

with respect to those warning signs, they most certainly would

have been subjected to allegations of bias, insensitivity, and even

overreacting in reference to them. The roles of school officials have

been so diluted that they dare not even refer to their students in

any way other than by using the most laudatory terminology. The

value of a student’s self-esteem is so highly regarded that even the

most remotely delivered statement suggesting a need for any improvement or reflection by a student is almost universally discouraged. Almost no teacher or administrative discretion and deference

remain or is appreciated. We can’t have it both ways. We cannot

hold them responsible while at the same time denying them the authority to act.

I want to thank the committee for its indulgence and attention.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenberg follows:]

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony, and I am going to add

Dr. Lawrence Sherman, Chair of the Department of Criminology

and Criminal Justice at the University of Maryland, to this panel,

and I will swear you in. I know you have a scheduling conflict.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. MICA. The answer is in the affirmative, and you are recognized, sir, for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE SHERMAN, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT

OF CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, UNIVERSITY OF

MARYLAND

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity today to urge the Committee on

Government Reform to reform three aspects of Federal legislation

with respect to school violence.

First, is to put crime prevention money where the crime is and

not just distribute it on the basis of population. Second, is to move

the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program away from programs that

don’t work and to invest in programs that do, specifically policing

in high crime hot spot areas where most children are at risk of

being murdered and seriously injured by gun violence. Third, to

launch a crash effort to determine whether large schools are causing youth violence all over the country by testing the expensive but

promising solution of shrinking schools of 2,000 and 3,000 students

down to 500, which may have been associated with Columbine and

some of the other killings.

Now, in relation to the first point, Mr. Cummings has already

suggested to you that the vast majority of children who are murdered are killed in inner city, concentrated poverty areas where

there is very little attention to the thousands of deaths that occur

in those places each year. That is also where the school violence

in this country, as reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is

concentrated.

If we look at how Federal aid gets allocated per homicide, what

we find is that low homicide jurisdictions, like the State of Vermont, are getting about $1 million in Federal aid per homicide,

whereas high homicide districts, such as Mr. Cummings’ in Baltimore, are getting about $5,000 per homicide, and I think it is difficult to justify spending 20 times more per homicide for citizens

in one part of the country than in another part of the country.

It is supposed to be dealing with a problem. The problem in the

case of violence against kids is that they are 44 times more likely

to be murdered per minute outside of school than they are in

school. So, that if we really wanted to make our children safe from

being murdered, we might want to move them all inside the schools

rather than be focused on the schools as the site of the murders.

Even though some rare events do happen and attract a lot more

attention, it is not the substantive focus of the problem.

The problem is, in the inner city poverty areas where are guns

are combined with hopelessness and where we have astronomically

high homicide rates in general, those can be dealt with under my

second proposal, which is to take the $550 million of Safe and Drug

Free Schools money and to redirect it away from bad decisionmaking by the 15,000 local education authorities in this country

100

that have wasted that money—$6 billion of it—since 1986 on programs like magicians, concerts, and lectures on how Dillon Thomas

killed himself by drinking too much at $500 a lecture. The waste

in that program is all the more regrettable because if that money

had been spent for additional police patrols in high crime hot spot

areas where demonstrated projects to get guns off the street have

reduced gun injury and homicide, if that money could be directed

in that way, I think that the Federal taxpayer would be getting a

lot more prevention of injury to children than we have gotten so

far for that $6 billion to date.

But, third, to relate it to the recent tragedy in Columbine, I

think it is also possible to take part of the Safe and Drug Free

Schools money and to invest it in a way that only the Federal Government can invest it. The $550 million is a drop in the bucket

compared to total Federal, State, and local funding for education in

this country, which is in the range of $300 billion a year. What we

don’t know in that spending is what price we are paying for the

alleged efficiency of having these very large high schools where

kids are anonymous, where cliques rule the school, much like the

cliques rule the prison, where the principal of the Columbine High

School had never even heard of the Trench Coat Mafia prior to the

shootings even though it had been in the yearbook the year before

this happened, which I think reflects the fact that he is dealing

with paperwork and administration and all of the red tape that is

involved in managing such a very large complex.

The research shows that a coherent school where the teachers

know the students and where the students feel a sense of identity

are places that have much lower levels of violence. We don’t know

whether size causes those lower levels of violence, but it is a reasonable hypothesis; all of the evidence is consistent with it. If we

were to take a school like Columbine and break it up into four or

five small schools, I think that we would find reduced levels of

alienation, of anger, and ultimately of violence. That might be the

policy that the Federal Government can help the local education

authorities in this country achieve.

I think, in summary, the fact is, we are spending enormous

amounts of money trying to prevent youth violence, and we are dissipating it in small amounts, and the majority of the school districts are getting less than $10,000 a year. You can’t do anything

meaningful with that money except what I call symbolic sport,

which is to say that we are spending money on the goal, but we

are not even doing anything that is showing evidence of affecting

the goal. It is rather like building a dam in somebody’s district by

getting the contract, talking about it, but then the dam never gets

built, and I am afraid that is the way most of the Federal money

spent for this purpose now is being allocated. If it was redirected

to policing or to critical research policy questions, like school size,

I think we would be getting a lot more bang for the buck.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:]

101

102

103

104

105

106

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I think we have had an opportunity to

hear from all of these four witnesses.

I just have one or two quick questions. Federalization of some of

the crimes that are attendant to school violence, what is your position on that, Mr. Attorney General?

Mr. CONDON. I would be very much against that. I do think when

you look at the proper role of the State versus the Federal Government, to Federalize, where would you start, really, and where

would it end? In my own mind, in my home State, with all due respect to the moneys that are spent on Federal courts, I can just see

these school thugs going through these great halls of marble and

mahogany and the system is not really handling them. I do think

if you can give us some resources in the State system, I really feel

like—I would like to hear his view—I think that is the way to go.

Mr. MICA. I think, Dr. Sherman—I don’t want to take any of the

words out of context—but we are saying that the dollars that we

have, try to expend them for enforcement and prevention and programs where they are needed where you have the highest incidents, and that is not being done now. Is that correct?

Mr. SHERMAN. That is absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. OK, and do you agree with that?

Mr. CONDON. Yes, yes. He is talking about what I had learned

in terms of so many Federal dollars being spent. As I understand

what he is saying in terms of—we are not talking about sending

the FBI into these school district—he is talking about block granting it and getting police officers on the streets, school resource officers, and things of that nature; excellent idea.

Mr. MICA. What do you think, Chief?

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes, I certainly would agree with that. As an

operating chief of police today after Littleton, CO, the thing that

people want is to feel assuredly safe in their own schools. In this

country, that has generally been the case, but even though we have

had no incidents in Charleston like this, people read the newspapers and see what is going on, and people simply don’t feel safe

in their school environments anymore. We have to react to that by

making it possible for them to feel safe, and we do that by adding

people who are trained to make them safe, to see to their safety

in that particular environment.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Finally, Mr. Walker, how do you feel about

the Federalization of these acts or crimes?

Mr. WALKER. With all due respect to the Federal Government,

which has some excellent assistant attorney generals and U.S. attorneys, the Federal system is simply not designed to handle youth

crimes. The last time that I checked, there was something like 200

secure beds available federally for juveniles. The States have handled it. I think the attorney general from South Carolina is correct.

I think that is the appropriate place legally. I also think it is the

appropriate place practically. I do not believe that should this Congress pass Federal legislation dealing with school violence, that it

will make a lot of difference. It will be symbolic, but I do not believe that it will be used effectively. I think the States are much

more effective in dealing with this kind of problem.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I would like to yield now to Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much.

107

The Department of Education spokesman earlier stated that in

90 percent of the schools, there are no incidents of serious youth

crimes leaving, therefore, the conclusion that in 10 percent of the

schools they do have incidents of serious crime.

Dr. Sherman points out that most of the crime affecting youth

in our society is in the inner cities. My question is, the formula and

the distribution of Federal funds under the Safe Schools Act is

done on the basis of distribution by population. What is your opinion, then, following Dr. Sherman’s comments, that that funding

that is now available be concentrated on the 10 percent of the

schools that have evidenced serious youth crime and concentrate

the dollars that we are allocating—some $500 million—to just

those areas and leave out the other 90 percent? Or is there any

merit in the idea that 90 percent of our schools have avoided the

serious problems because they have had some help, some support

from the Federal Government in the Safe Schools Act?

Would any of the three law enforcement people like to comment

on that? I know this is what Dr. Sherman said, but I would like

to have your comments.

Mr. WALKER. I am not so sure that Dr. Sherman is not correct.

I think for the Safe—if we are dealing with Safe School money and

the primary concern is money to our schools, it makes sense, I

think, to put meaningful money where the problems exist most. I

would, however, quickly add that it is my position, personally, as

a prosecutor of 25 years, and the position of the National District

Attorneys Association, that there is a not only a role for the Federal Government but I think a critical one in dealing with prevention, and prevention doesn’t mean giving money to a high school to

prevent violence. Prevention means dealing with young children—

people who are age zero to 2, zero to 6.

There are some proven programs that currently exist. The University of Colorado Center for Violence Prevention has published

an entire series that I would urge this panel to access. There are

programs that have—for example, the Early Childhood Nurse Visitation in Elmyra, NY. It is a 15-year longitudinal study. We put

home nurses in at-risk families. We reduced the number of delinquency referrals 15 years later for those children by 50 percent.

So, while I think that if you are dealing specifically with school

violence money, it, to me, only makes sense to place it where that

violence is occurring, but I think you need to step back. If you are

going to deal with the problem not as a band-aid but for a longterm solution, I think the way you deal with it is to prosecute it

now, because we must, and try to prevent it in the future.

Mr. CONDON. One observation I would make, too, is I would look

behind that definition of what they consider serious school crime,

because I have a hard time, based upon my experience, believing

that only 10 percent of the schools have serious crimes, not the

other 90 percent. I am assuming, within that definition, they exclude assaulting teachers; they exclude drug trafficking; they exclude bringing weapons to school, and I think you would have to

include those.

Mrs. MINK. Chief, do you have any comments?

Mr. GREENBERG. Yes, I believe that there are really two things.

It seems that we have a short-term solution—when I say short

108

term, I am talking about the next 5 or 6 years, probably no more

than 10 years—and then the long-term solution. A long-term solution, in my judgment, has to do with the schools, themselves, and

the kind authority and independence that schools, teachers, and

administrators are given to run schools. They had that authority

once in our country, and it just virtually disappeared. It has been

taken away from them bit by bit through a variety of different

means.

With respect to the police, we can have some immediate impact

upon safety in schools until other kinds of things our society needs

to do will finally be able to have an effect, including greater authority and independence for school officials.

At the same time, we have to change our society as to the kind

of violence, the kind of external stimuli the students and all of us

receive almost every day, if not constantly all the time. These

things are going to have to be addressed, as well. We can’t separate

what we see and what we hear from what people eventually are

going to do.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Barr, you are recognized.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for pulling together

this panel and to commend the four panelists. It has been very refreshing.

I had been somewhat rude, though, reading their statements as

they have been talking, but their statements are magnificent, because they reflect common sense, real life experiences, they are to

the point, and they are not bureaucratese. So, I haven’t been rude

not listening to you all—I have been—but I really have been reading your written presentations, and I really do appreciate them.

There is a lot of good information in here.

I appreciate a couple of things. For example, Mr. Condon, you

said both in your oral testimony as well as in your written statement that, ‘‘No serious offense in a school should go unpunished.’’

I must say parenthetically that that thought—not regarding

schools but certain other locations—crossed my mind during the

impeachment proceedings, unfortunately, but results don’t reflect

that crimes in certain places should go unpunished.

But you said that—the notion that you are talking about here I

think reflects the fact that people generally, and I suspect school

kids also, they do pay attention to what goes on in the world

around them. They do notice if people don’t get prosecuted for

crimes; that sends a certain message to them, I suspect. And that

is why I think you all are saying something very important, that

whether it is role models that we look at for our children or whether or not we, as adults, are consistent in enforcing the laws. These

things do have an impact on the thought process that goes through

our children. For example, when you talked, Mr. Condon, about

banning all plea bargaining for serious school crimes, apparently

you are serious about it.

I was very distressed, both as a former U.S. attorney as well as

a parent and as a legislator, to see, for example, that this current

administration, the current Attorney General, specifically changed

the policy of the prior Attorney General, Mr. Thornberg, who said

109

gun crimes are not to be plea bargained down. That was his specific directive to U.S. attorneys reflecting his view and the view of

the prior administration that serious gun offenses should not go

unpunished and that prosecution, punishment, and prison are the

three P’s of a policy. Then when Attorney General Reno came in,

there was a specific directive to U.S. attorneys to take the shackles

off. It said, basically, go ahead and start plea bargaining these

cases down.

We also see, I think, something important for people who are

concerned about prosecuting school crime, in particular, and the

lack of interest by the Federal Government—and I understand

what you are saying and agree with you also that the Federal Government prosecution of violent crimes should not be the tail wagging the dog. The point, though, that I am making here and I think

that you are also, is that if we do have Federal gun laws and Federal laws with regard to bringing firearms onto school property and

we don’t prosecute them, then that sends a certain message.

For example, in 1996, there were only four Federal prosecutions

of the Federal law prohibiting possession or discharge of a firearm

in a school zone. That shot up to five prosecutions in 1997 and

made a quantum leap to eight in 1998. And yet, that is completely

ignored by the President when he challenges this and talks about

thousands of cases of this.

If you could just comment briefly, maybe the rest of the panel if

you have a chance, on the need and the importance of consistency

in prosecution and the message that inconsistent leniency, for example, in Federal prosecution sends to our kids and our school administrators.

Mr. CONDON. I certainly agree with your comments. I am sure

you are aware of the work of the U.S. attorney in Richmond, VA

with Project Exile—

Mr. BARR. An excellent program. We are told that it is being—

tried to be deep-sixed by the attorney general.

Mr. CONDON. It does work. And, again, I am not against, and I

don’t think anyone here is against prevention strategies and all the

things that we need to be talking about, but at the end of the day

if someone commits a serious crime, there has to be accountability.

If there is not, word spreads that you can get away with it; it is

not so bad, and you lose all the deterrent value that is there. And

kids know—in talking to school children in our State, that is one

of the keys that we find in talking to them, that those that, frankly, break the rules or commit the crimes, there needs to be a very

serious sanction imposed.

Mr. BARR. I appreciate that.

Mr. Walker, I would like to commend you not only for your prosecutorial work but for your work with the National District Attorneys Association, and a former colleague of mine from my home

county, Todd County, Tom Sherrin, served I think with great distinction, as you do, as head of that organization.

Mr. WALKER. I know Tom very well. Mr. Barr, I would like to indicate that I think that the—clearly, the message has to be consistent; that if there is a crime, there needs to be accountability and

responsibility. If we don’t do that, I think we lose the entire purpose of the criminal justice system. However, I wonder—I know

110

that the numbers of Federal gun prosecutions are very, very low.

I have had several incidents in Marquette where guns have been

present in schools. My office has dealt with those, because in each

case those have been juveniles, and, frankly, the Federal system

simply does not have the ability to—

Mr. BARR. Excuse me, Mr. Walker. I have been very, very nicely

admonished by the chairman that we have votes on the floor, and

I know that we have one other member that might have a quick

question. I appreciate very much what you are saying. I am sorry

we don’t have the time to go into it as well as Chief Greenberg and

Dr. Sherman, I enjoyed your comments. I think they are very, very

appropriate, and if you all have any additional information, I would

welcome it both personally and I know the chairman would also,

to assist us in our work.

Mr. MICA. I would like to thank you. I appreciate your willingness to yield.

Mr. Tierney, you are recognized.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Barr,

and thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.

Mr. Condon, let me ask you, it seems to me from looking at your

testimony, that you are not particularly pleased with the Federal

Government money that comes together with any direction. Is that

a fair statement?

Mr. CONDON. Well, maybe you can educate me. I have dealt with

Federal grants and received Federal grants, and it seems to me

there are so many strings and paperwork attached that I think,

‘‘Gosh, do I want to do this?’’ I understand you have a block granting process.

Mr. TIERNEY. No, no, I hear what you are saying, I just wanted

to make that clear. I am looking and the information tells me that

South Carolina has run a surplus in its State budget this year?

And run a State surplus in the last couple years? Is that right? I

mean, you are there in South Carolina; I am not.

Mr. CONDON. I think South Carolina, like most States, is running

surpluses now.

Mr. TIERNEY. So, why don’t they spend their money on a particular need and just keep the Federal Government out of it altogether?

Mr. CONDON. Well, with all due respect to the Congressman, it

is our money, too, that you have got.

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, it is, but I am saying if you think that the

local folks could do a better job with it—that is surplus money—

then you people won’t have to pay as much in Federal taxes.

Mr. CONDON. Well, I would be in favor of tax cuts, but, as far

I can tell, it never happens up here, and since you are going to

spend it—aren’t you going to spend it?

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, I suspect that if there are needs, then we are

going to spend it, but you have got to tell me you can take care

of this particular need with your own money you have got sitting

around down there.

Mr. CONDON. Well, I think you all have got money sitting

around, with all due respect, and I—

Mr. TIERNEY. Let us just stay with the money that is sitting

around in South Carolina. You are going to have a surplus. Why

111

not apply that to an area where you think that the Federal strings

are too restrictive?

Mr. CONDON. Well, we are, in fact, arguing for that, and it is falling upon some deaf ears.

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, I hope you win.

Mr. CONDON. But if you don’t spend the money—

Mr. TIERNEY. Let me ask another question.

Mr. CONDON. If you don’t spend it, please reduce our taxes, but

if you do, what I am saying is send it to us—

Mr. TIERNEY. Well, I can tell you this: we will spend it where we

think it is going to do some good.

Mr. CONDON. Oh, I know you will.

Mr. TIERNEY. But it is interesting to know that if you have

money sitting around, I would like to hope that you might argue

that people would apply it someplace where you are having a problem taking the Federal grants.

Mr. CONDON. But, tell me, with the block grants—

Mr. TIERNEY. I am going to keep asking the questions, because

I have limited time, and we do have to vote.

Are any of you gentleman advocating that guns in schools are a

good thing?

Mr. WALKER. No, sir.

Mr. GREENBERG. Absolutely not.

Mr. TIERNEY. Why is that, if I can ask the Chief?

Mr. GREENBERG. Well, there is no legitimate function for guns in

the education environment—in secondary schools or other schools.

A place where alcohol is a chief item for sale, or a school or someplace like that, then guns should not be in the hands of anybody.

You might have an ROTC Program where people have rifles that

have been deactivated for ceremonial-type purposes and flag presentations and that type of thing, but other than simply the shape

of some of those types of weapons there is no reason why anybody

should have a gun. No student, no teacher, principal, or anybody

else should have a firearm in any kind of school environment.

Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Walker, do you have a comment on that, what

the danger of having guns in schools is?

Mr. WALKER. Well, obviously, guns are dangerous instruments.

We don’t have them in our schools; we don’t bring them into our

courtrooms; I doubt if you allow them in here.

Mr. TIERNEY. But we do allow them in our homes, I guess, is

that it?

Mr. WALKER. We do.

Mr. TIERNEY. I don’t have any other questions.

Mr. CONDON. There is one exception, of course, with the school

resource officers. Columbine wished they had a heavier gun—the

officer that was there.

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.

We are going to recess until 2 o’clock. We have three votes, which

will take a series of time. That will give folks an opportunity to refresh, get a bite to eat, and we will reconvene at 2 o’clock.

[Recess.]

Mr. MICA. I would like to call the Committee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources back to order.

112

I appreciate your patience. The votes lasted a little bit longer

than we expected and we hope to have some members join us, but

we do want to continue with our third panel.

Our third panel today consists of school administrators, teachers

and a representative of a school counseling association. So, we

would like to welcome those panelists.

Those panelists are, first of all, Ms. Jan Gallagher, president

elect of the American School Counselors Association; Mr. Bill Hall,

superintendent of the Volusia County Public Schools in Florida; Dr.

Gary M. Fields, superintendent of the Zion-Benton Township High

School in Illinois, and then Mr. Clarence Cain, teacher with Crisis,

a Resource Program in Maury Elementary School in Alexandria,

VA, and I think you have two assistants with you. Would you introduce those individuals, please, for the subcommittee?

Mr. CAIN. Yes, sir. On my immediate left, this is Anthony Snead

and then Jeffrey Schurott. They are officers of the BRAG Corps at

George Mason Elementary.

Mr. MICA. And are they going to testify, too?

Mr. CAIN. They are prepared to do so.

Mr. MICA. OK, well, we are going to have to swear them in and

the whole panel in. As you have seen, this is an investigation and

oversight subcommittee of Congress, and we do—to the young men,

we do administer an oath, and you have to tell the truth before this

panel of Congress and affirm it in public here.

But I would like to welcome all of our panelists, and when we

do testify, we will try to limit our time to 5 minutes, and you can—

as I informed the other panels—submit additional lengthy testimony or background information for the record.

If you would please stand and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. All of our witnesses answered in the affirmative, and

again I would like to welcome each of you and first recognize Ms.

Jan Gallagher, president elect of the American School Counselor

Association. Welcome, and you are recognized.

STATEMENTS OF JAN GALLAGHER, PRESIDENT ELECT, AMERICAN SCHOOL COUNSELOR ASSOCIATION; BILL HALL, SUPERINTENDENT, VOLUSIA COUNTY SCHOOLS, FLORIDA;

GARY M. FIELDS, SUPERINTENDENT, ZION-BENTON TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL, ILLINOIS; CLARENCE CAIN, TEACHER,

CRISIS RESOURCE, MAURY ELEMENTARY, ALEXANDRIA, VA;

ANTHONY SNEAD, OFFICER, BRAG CORPS, GEORGE MASON

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; AND JEFFREY SCHUROTT, OFFICER,

BRAG CORPS, GEORGE MASON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Ms. GALLAGHER. Good morning. I am Jan Gallagher, president

elect of the American School Counselor Association, and I ask that

my testimony be placed in the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, the entire statement will be made

part of the record.

Ms. GALLAGHER. First, let me say that all students have a fundamental and immutable right to attend school without the fear or

threat of violence, weapons, or gangs.

My opening statement is the official position of our association,

which represents the 90,000 professional school counselors across

113

the Nation. I firmly believe that we must make our schools safe.

I have 35 years of experience in an urban, low socio-economic, minority school district in San Antonio, TX in which we had to deal

with violence, weapons, and gangs. I know that there are ways to

prevent or lessen violence in our schools.

Example—I was trained in 1993 by the Department of Justice in

gang preventions and interventions, and, as a result of that training, we put into place an early identification procedure for parents

and teachers to help recognize the warning signs of troubled youth.

Five years ago, we established in our school district, a mandatory

16-hour family counseling program for students who were suspended or expelled from school. This program was for them and

their families, and over 700 families, to date, have been served. As

a result of this program, we have had no repeat offenders. District

drop out rates have been reduced; incidents of violence have been

severely curbed; and I have written a crisis manual that has been

used as a model in other school districts in Texas. I guess you could

say that I know violence up close and personal; and I know that

there are ways to combat it.

Safe schools are essential to an efficient and effective learning

environment and necessary for our quality schools. If there is a

threat to safety—when there is a threat to this safety due to the

rapid increase of violence, weapons in schools, and gangs in our

schools—then we need to provide a safe school environment recognized by parents, students, staff, administrators and other school

personnel, legislators, and the community-at-large.

Reactions to increased violence that you have seen in the past

few weeks have been strong. The cry is loud and clear—the situations must be prevented and schools must be the safe, peaceful environments they were intended to be. I can think of no better

trained or skilled group to assist and to be part of this prevention

program in violence than school counselors. School counselors have

the same Master’s level degree program for training as mental

health counselors in community agencies as well as having specialized courses on human development. We know and we believe that

early identification and intervention for troubled youth is essential.

We also know that there are things that can be done in the classroom. For example, ASCA, the American School Counselor Association, has partnered with State Farm Insurance and the National

Association for Elementary School Principals to produce ‘‘Creative

Differences.’’ This is a program that helps young students to understand and manage emotions, develop basic social skills and emotional tools for appropriated responses, and to learn and practice

productive and peaceful strategies for dealing with conflict. It allows them to build a community within their classroom, and

through the generosity of State Farm, this is free to any elementary school. Elementary school counselors team with classroom

teachers to help all young people deal with anger and frustration

appropriately. Some students will be identified as needing more

help in controlling their anger; and by working with parents, this

can be done in small group counseling sessions or in individual

counseling. Professional school counselors have the knowledge and

the skills to implement this program.

114

Of course, it would be a great world—it would be wonderful—if

all the children developed these skills in elementary school. However, we all know that the lessons of life are repeated at each developmental stage, and as children enter adolescence, they turn to

their peers for acceptance and support. An efficient strategy often

used by middle counselors at the middle school level is the training

of peer mediators. This is a proven, effective program to help diffuse potentially violent situations. Peer mediators are trained to

recognize situations which need to be referred to counselors. High

schools often continue peer mediation programs that began at the

middle school level, but they add programs, such as peer assistance

leadership. All of these, as Mr. Cummings spoke about, are programs that need to be highlighted and to be recognized as successful intervention strategies.

Today, we are here to question and examine the problem of violence in our schools. We are here to seek solutions, and the solutions aren’t a quick fix, but are solid developmental strategies that

should have a lasting effect. Realistically, there will be students

who get into trouble and who need additional help. Professional

school counselors working as team members with students, teachers, parents, administrators, other support personnel, and school

communities are the people who can do this. They are in-school

staff members who have the skills and training to assist in prevention and intervention; and they do this through developmental comprehensive counseling programs, which are designed to meet the

needs of all students so that they can peacefully and successfully

meet the challenges in our society.

The problem is this: the national ratio of school counselors to students is 1 counselor to 513 students, and that is lucky in some

places. This is more than twice the recommended ratio of 1 to 250.

There are many elementary schools that have no counselors. Some

elementary counselors serve as many as five schools and thousands

of students. Secondary counselors are burdened often with administrative tasks, such as scheduling and achievement test administration. We need more school counselors, and we need to ensure that

they are providing direct services to students and not being used

in other ways.

Where will these counselors come from? Well, many of them are

right now in your classrooms teaching. They were cut from school

budgets as counselors, and some are there because there were no

counseling positions. Some are there because there is no economic

advantage to becoming a counselor. Certified school counselors who

have not been practicing will need staff development to upgrade

their skills. To meet the national demand, we will have to provide

training. There will need to be incentives to lure college graduates

into counselor preparation programs, particularly minorities. We

need to look for model programs that are successful, and we need

to replicate those, and we have to start now, because we can’t wait

for another Paducah, Jonesboro, Springfield, Littleton, or Atlanta.

The next tragedy may be in your hometown.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Gallagher follows:]

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. Our next witness is Bill Hall who is the superintendent of

schools in Volusia County, FL. I would like to, if I can, Superintendent Hall, go ahead and play the tape from Volusia County.

I think we have a tape that we wanted to play. [Videotape was played as follows:]

Every day, parents rely on school buses to take their children to and from school, but what should a safe ride be? It is now a violent fighting ground for many kids.

Of course, the most important issue facing our school systems is a quality education. But the challenge now seems to extend beyond the classroom and onto our roads and highways. Sterling Scott joins us now with a special report. Sterling. Tonight, we are going to show you a new side of life at school, a side that many of us have never seen before. For the past 2 months, News Center 6 has been investigating violence on school buses. It is a dangerous situation that not only endangers

the students but everyone on the roads and the passengers, as well. These yellow buses have been safely taking kids to and from school for years, but for some students, the journey has become trips of terror. Class was over for the

day, but one student still had another lesson to teach. Shane’s story: ‘‘He grabbed me by my throat and slammed me into a seat right next to him, and then he grabbed me out of the seat and threw me onto the floor

and just starting thumping on me and throwing my head against the floor.’’

Shane says the bus driver didn’t even try to stop the beating. ‘‘I don’t know why.

She just pulled over to the side and didn’t say anything.’’

Shane’s family believes the attack didn’t have to happen. The boy who beat Shane

was suspended earlier in the day for a previous bus incident and had threatened

Shane, but Silverson School officials sent the fifth grader home on the same bus.

Shane suffered permanent brain damage. Now, his father is suing the school board

for negligence.

‘‘You know, when I was a kid, I got picked on in school too, and I had the little

scuffles and whatever, but what has happened here is total brutality.’’

This is a typical example of a Volusia County school bus. You can see mounted

on the ceiling a camera which records all of the activity which takes place inside,

and down below, a locked metal box contains a recorder which turns on automatically when the school bus is cranked.

As police and EMS arrived, the bus system recorded yet another driver’s pleas for

help as fights broke out on her bus.

Former bus drivers and educators in central Florida say bus violence is growing

as fast as our population. We investigated further and found out that what happened to Shane was not an isolated incident.

Kimberly and her brother say they were repeatedly attacked on the bus. They say

the driver ignored the violence, and they watched as she turned the bus camera off.

‘‘I was getting on the bus. He came into the seat in front of me and started pushing

me.’’

‘‘So, the bus driver didn’t do anything to try to stop everything that was going

on?’’

‘‘No, she said she did, but she didn’t.’’

Kimberly’s mother pleaded for help with school officials, but the attacks continued

leaving her with one option. ‘‘I took my kids off the school bus 2 months out of the

last school year and just had to, basically, carpool them back and forth just to protect them.’’

Now, Kimberly is out of the public system and is being home-schooled.

‘‘I should be able to send my kids to school, and they should be able to come home

without being afraid of just simply riding a school bus.’’

School board officials agree. ‘‘We do not want to have that type of behavior on our

buses.’’ That is Volusia County School’s deputy superintendent, Tim Hewitt.

This is a situation that not only concerned the students and passengers on the

bus but everyone that shares the road as well, and while most bus drivers work to

maintain control are dangerous situations unavoidable? We will have more at 11.

Live in Volusia County, Sterling Scott, News Center 6.

[End of videotape.]

Mr. MICA. That is a quite remarkable piece I hadn’t seen before,

but I would like to again introduce the school superintendent from

one of the counties that I represent, Bill Hall. You are recognized,

sir.

122

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman Mica. It is an honor and a

privilege to be here to address this subcommittee.

First, let me address the tape that the audience and you have

just seen. We are not proud of those incidents, obviously, and we

try everything that we can to avoid them. For example, all of our

school buses—and there are 300 plus school buses—have video

cameras on them. Next year, we plan to add bus assistants to every

single bus.

In this particular situation, there is more to the story than what

has been told. However, we are under a lawsuit, I have to be careful what I say, so I am not going to say much more than this: that

incident could have been avoided if a different decision had been

made somewhere along the line not to let that student ride that

bus. That was a judgment call on the part of school officials. It is

one that I have made before as a former high school principal.

When you think you have things worked out. They are worked out

with counselors involved, others involved, but it turned out to be

a nasty situation, and it is one that we are not proud of.

Having said that, let me talk about violence in our schools. I

have a written statement that I would like to be entered into the

record and also my verbal comments.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, the entire statement will be made

part of the record.

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman Mica. Much has been said and

written in light of the tragic events of past weeks. I will therefore

keep my comments brief and share with you only what I consider

to be the essential elements for school safety being employed by the

Volusia County School District, in the State of Florida.

This fall, the Volusia County School District will open with approximately 60,000 students in 67 schools with over 8,000 employees. Although I feel that our schools are among the safest places

to be on a day-to-day basis, no school, public or private, in America

has been left untouched by the recent tragedy in Colorado. We

have seen the effects on our students, teachers, parents, and community. This event, coupled with other sudden acts of violence

across our country, remind us that no community can be complacent in its efforts to make schools safer.

Schools should be a safe haven free of violence and aggression for

students and teachers. Schools have an obligation to teach and assist in developing responsible adults. To do so, students and teachers must be provided a climate for learning, one free of the fear of

bullets and bombs. I propose to you this can only be accomplished

with considerable effort and support from parents and our communities. Our approach must be multi-faceted, focusing on enhanced

security and discipline. Without increasing our ability to identify

and support troubled and disconnected youth, ignores our ability as

adults to influence our children and to make a change in their behavior. This is not to say that there is no need for increased discipline and security. I am sure that the school districts across the

Nation are reassessing their preparedness for violent acts as we

are in Volusia County.

The Volusia County School District is currently involved in a district-wide safety and security certification process in order to ensure that each of the schools maintain a high level of security. In

123

this process, schools are required to meet a set of standards divided

into five categories covering student and staff protection and emergency situations. These standards were developed by the district’s

safety committee in concert with the Volusia County Sheriff’s Department.

Compliance with certification is a three-step process. Schools

must have a written procedure which adequately addresses the security standards. The appropriate staff must know the procedures,

and the school must be observed being in compliance with those

procedures. The process establishes a strong foundation on which

individual schools can build a safe and secure environment. Certification of compliance with the safety standards begins this fall for

all Volusia County schools, and, as a matter of fact, has already

begun.

In developing security plans, it becomes obvious that schools require a close working relationship with law enforcement agencies.

To further build on those relationships, our district staff participates in a statewide security organization. They also maintain

weekly meetings with supervisor personnel for the School Resource

Officer Program—and, by the way, we have school resource officers

in every middle and every high school in this country; that is 21

SROs in our school system. In these meetings, personnel assess the

risk individual students may pose as well as systemic issues.

Regarding school safety, there are issues with which Congress

can assist local school districts. Districts need greater flexibility regarding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or commonly known as IDEA. Currently, we have two separate systems

of discipline for those who would disrupt and threaten a safe and

orderly school environment. Students receiving special education

services pose no less a threat than any other student when they

demonstrate dangerous or disruptive behaviors. Where a non-special education student can be expelled for serious misconduct, consequences for special education students are greatly restricted,

even when weapons are involved.

Although, technically, a special education student can be expelled, districts cannot cease special education and related services

as defined by the student’s Individual Education Plan. The cost and

method of the individual delivery of such services prohibit many

districts from removing special education students who have committed serious threats to school safety.

And I am aware that Congress is dealing with this issue as I

speak, and there will be a vote on it at sometime in the future, and

I do not want to place special education in a different category or

say that it is something less than normal. I taught in special education for 2 years at the beginning of my career, and I have a special place in my heart for those students. However, we cannot have

two separate discipline systems, and that is what has currently

happened in every public school district across the Nation.

Safe schools must also have and use a full array of appropriate

support services for students with special learning and emotional

needs. These should be available in all schools and must be supplemented with services from other agencies, including mental health,

child welfare, juvenile justice, and local law enforcement. I cannot

124

stress enough, the community and the family must be partners in

creating and maintaining safe schools.

Predicting a violent act is extremely difficult due to complex

human variables. However, research has shown us that interventions are most effective when made early on and applied in a consistent manner. A number of professionals and publications have

identified early warning signs for troubled youth. Recognizing these

signs in our students is not a difficult task. However, most schools

are not equipped to provide complex interventions. These interventions are particularly important when parents or guardians appear

unconcerned with a child’s behavior or risk indicators. Therefore,

communities must come together to form coalitions to attack the

problem of school violence.

In Volusia County, we are inviting community agencies and professionals, community leaders, and other interested citizens to

meet with us to readdress and enhance our violence prevention

plan. In our violence prevention plan, we continue to reflect the

needs of teachers, students, families, and the community. The plan

will continue to outline how our schools’ faculty will recognize the

behavioral and emotional signs that indicate a student is in trouble

and what steps will be taken to assist the student. Our goal is to

have improved access to a team of specialists trained in evaluating

serious behavioral and academic concerns available to all schools.

A tracking mechanism must be in place to monitor the student’s

progress and to assure availability and followup for all identified

interventions. Classroom teachers will have the ability to consult

with team members when they have a concern about a particular

student.

Equally important, students must play an active role in the

school’s violence prevention program. We must break the code of silence which too often exists in our schools. Students should feel a

sense of responsibility to inform someone if they become aware of

another student who may carry out a violent act. They should not

feel as if they are telling on someone but rather as if they have the

responsibility to save others from injury or harm. Volusia County

has recently expanded its confidential telephone reporting system

in conjunction with the Sheriff’s Department and the community.

Our students must be encouraged to seek assistance from parents

or other trusted adults if they are experiencing intense feelings of

anger, fear, anxiety, or depression. Appropriate behavior and respect for others must be emphasized at all times by all staff members.

In closing, safe schools are places where there is strong leadership, a caring faculty, student and parent participation, and community involvement. With the absence of any one of these elements, we increase the odds for school violence. Keeping our children safe is a community-wide effort. Our common goal must be to

create and preserve an environment where students truly feel part

of our schools and of the greater community. Additional resources

and not realigned resources must be made available to achieve our

goals. We must try to keep students engaged and to reconnect with

125

those who feel isolated and distressed. This responsibility must be

assumed by all of us. Solutions to school violence cannot solely rest

with our schools. It is a societal problem.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

126

127

128

129

130

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

I am pleased now to recognize Dr. Gary M. Fields, superintendent of Zion-Benton Township High School in Illinois. Welcome.

Dr. FIELDS. Thank you. I also have submitted a comprehensive

paper.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, that will be made part of the

record.

Dr. FIELDS. My comments will be different from that paper.

I would like to tell you a story about a high school of 2,100 students north of Chicago that was troubled; 5 years ago, we began

a journey; 5 years ago, that journey was directed toward the basic

mission of our school being safe, drug free with a discipline environment conducive to learning. That was our foundation for our

academic improvement plan.

On April 21, I received telephone calls from three school board

members. All three of them said, ‘‘Thank you.’’ All three of them

said, ‘‘I didn’t agree we needed a full-time school resource officer.

I didn’t agree that we needed to bring drug-sniffing dogs into our

high school. I didn’t agree we needed a full-time safety coordinator,

but, now, seeing what is happening in the rest of the country,

thank you, because the plan that we have put in place in our high

school has really made a difference.’’

I am proud to say that we have not, in our high school of 2,100

students, made any significant changes since April 20, and the reason is, we recognized the issues that we had to address 5 years ago.

I am speaking to you as a superintendent or a high school principal

with 30 years of experience in Wisconsin, Washington State, and

Illinois. Our high school is very diverse. We have a number of kids

who come from a very urban environment; others who come from

suburban environments, but we are very, very different. And I am

also speaking to you probably as a little different type of superintendent, because my office is right outside of the cafeteria in our

high school, and in order for me to get out of my office, I have to

walk through students all day long. The principal and I both have

our offices in the same building with our 2,100 kids.

Thirty years ago, as a young high school principal in Wisconsin,

I began to learn that just about every serious issue with high

school students involved one common denominator—drugs. And, as

I speak, what we know is that one out of every three high school

students in this country is compromised by some use of a drug; one

out of every three. The drug is either causing the problem, it is aggravating the problem, or it is interfering with the solution.

And I would say to you also that in 30 years as a principal or

a superintendent, I have never prayed more; every night and every

morning and as I speak right now that something won’t happen in

my high school. In fact, if nothing else happened as a result of Columbine, it has brought prayer into the public schools. My faculty

prays every single day.

During the last 4 years, I have sat through 55 student expulsion

hearings with our board of education; 45 for marijuana offenses.

We have a true zero toleration policy, but we do not put students

on the street. We do force accountability. Students are expelled, but

they are allowed to come back under an Expulsion Abeyance Contract with only a portion of the expulsion being served. If it does

131

involve drugs—most often marijuana—they must then be drug tested at parental expense at least twice a month with the results

being released to the principal. I can probably tell you that we are

graduating from high school young people who are drug free as a

result of this policy, and it has made a difference in their lives.

But there is no one reason for this very difficult, complex situation. I personally believe marijuana is a key piece of the puzzle, if

one takes a look at all the research and all the experience. But

what we are all about is developing humane schools that are safe

and drug free.

And let me talk just briefly about the funding. Our 2,100 students, this year, are supported by $12 per student of Safe and Drug

Free Schools money, and next year we have been informed that

they will be supported by $8 per student of Safe and Drug Free

Schools money. That is the grant that we have written right now,

and we use all of that money to support our full-time school resource officer. And, so anything else that we are doing is a diversion of local taxpayer funds, and, yes, I am forced and we are

forced to write some competitive grants to get some limited dollars,

but the amount of time that it takes to write those grants is very,

very substantial.

Well, anyway, during the last 5 years, here is what has happened in our school. We have had 50 percent less student suspensions, 40 percent less fights, 56 percent less agitations to fight, 23

percent less tobacco violations, 36 percent less alcohol and drug

violations, 64 percent less afterschool detentions, and 45 percent

less in-school detentions. And this is because of the plan that we

put in place 5 years ago.

Why have we changed? The No. 1 reason is school board policy.

We have a very enlightened board. We have a superintendent and

a principal who absolutely will not compromise our commitment to

being safe and drug free. Second of all, our school improvement

plan, the goal of which is academic improvement, begins with us

being safe and drug free. And, as you know, one of our eight national goals is that schools would be safe and drug free with a disciplined environment conducive to learning. I would suggest to you

that is the umbrella goal for all of the others; and, in fact, the evidence indicates it is the goal we are least succeeding at in this

country. We put that umbrella over our school improvement plan.

I have heard today that we have to reduce student anonymity or

school size. Absolutely, this is true. However, I am not suggesting

every school in the country needs to do this. And, by the way, ours

is a very comfortable high school. I look forward to coming to school

every single day. I will take anyone through our building at any

time, but every student in our high school for 2 years and every

adult and every visitor wears an ID like this. We have not had a

student in the last 2 years run from an adult in our building because of the ID policy. When you get on the bus in the school morning, you can’t get on without your ID. The bus driver knows the

students from day one. Substitute teachers know the students, and

so the I.D. policy has really made a difference of eliminating anonymity.

Third, we have a very active student assistance program modeled

after employee assistance programs. We have had 500 students in

132

the last 4 years participate in one of our student support groups,

including anger management. Every one of our drug groups has

anger management involved, because they are inseparable.

Fifth, our staff. We have a full-time school resource officer and

full-time safety coordinator and have for 5 years. Also, we have had

extensive training for every one of our faculty members, for example, on gangs, and we put kids on gang prevention contracts. If

they display any signs or symbols, their parents are brought in,

and parents and kids sign a contract. Yes, we have kids in gangs,

but the evidence during the school day is non-existent.

Sixth, we have strong parent and community partnerships. We

have coalitions. We are into solutions, not blame. We have 50 members of our communities serving on the Coalition for Healthy Communities, of which I am the president. And also we have 1,100 of

our parents join our parent network and have their names published in our parent network directory with a commitment to communicate knowing where their kids are, what they are doing, and

who they are with. These partnerships are enormous.

And, I guess, No. 7 or 8—whatever that order is—it obviously involves leadership, and we don’t need any funds for leadership.

What we need is enlightened school administrators and school

board members. We need training programs to convince those in

leadership positions that there is no compromise. We will be safe

and drug free; we will keep this message in front of our kids, in

front our parents, in front of our communities. We will speak that

issue every single time.

Finally, we are diverting local resources; there is no question

about that. That is a concern, but I would leave you with a statement that we need to build comprehensive systems, because when

we put good people in bad systems, the system always wins.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fields follows:]

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

And now I would like to recognize Mr. Clarence Cain, a teacher

with the Crisis Resource Program of Maury Elementary School in

Alexandria, VA. You are recognized, sir, and you have a couple of

witnesses with you.

Mr. CAIN. Thank you, sir. I am privileged to be here. I am honored to be here.

My name is Clarence Cain, and I am the crisis resource—one of

the crisis resource teachers in Alexandria, VA.

I would like to start with a statement about what am I, because

that greatly influences whether or not I am effective as a crisis resource teacher. Although public education is what I do, it is not

what I am. I am a Christian. I belong to Jesus Christ in attitude

and lifestyle. I aim to pattern my steps after His. I do what I do

as I do because I am joined to Him, and I seek to give my time,

talent, and treasure for one reason: Christ gave His life on behalf

of mine.

And then I would like to state briefly strategies I employ on a

daily basis. I pray for each child by name that I am dealing with,

and this is done in my home. And then when I come to school, I

maintain a calm demeanor and patience regardless of the incidents

that I face. On a weekly basis, I employ the following crisis intervention strategies: small group isolation, behavioral journals, parent conferences, incentive plans, BRAG Corps—and I have two representatives here of the BRAG Corps—prosocial training, student

contracts, home visits, lost privileges, non-violent restraints, final

consequences, also rewards.

I am a Christian who is armed with compassion. I was inspired

to be a teacher. It was not my plan. I had wanted to be a doctor,

but my faith helped me to recognize the problem, and so I decided

to give my time to children within the public schools. My greatest

impact, however, is not made in the public schools; it is made after

school and on the weekends where I am able to practice my faith

as a Christian freely. I have no power of my own. The Gospel of

Jesus Christ is the power of God to purge unrighteousness from the

heart of any person or people. This is my conviction.

And then I want to share a story about a group of kids at the

Fishing School in Northeast Washington that is off the A Street

corridor. I had a group of children that were involved with me in

Bible study. Tom Lewis is a retired police officer. He is the executive director. He saw me working out in the West Virginia wilderness with full love of children. My cabin was honored as the best

cabin that week. So, he asked me to come and lead his program

in Northeast Washingotn, DC. I told him the same thing, I had no

power to change human behavior; that the only way I would accept

the job is if he allowed me to involve his children in Bible study.

He agreed. I set the Bible in front of these kids 5 days a week,

Monday through Friday. At first, they left, but then they came

back. One particular Saturday morning, some of them had come in

and wrecked the place during a meeting with a potential donor. I

asked the question: If Jesus had been there, would they have

wrecked the place? I remember clearly never chastising. I didn’t

ask them to do anything. I returned upstairs, and after the meeting was finished, I came down and the place was spotless. A numVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63843.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
141

ber of the kids within the same group a week later confessed Christ

as their own personal savior. This story, and I have countless stories like this one, is really a prelude to the other reason why I am

here and that is to share in brief detail what I believe the role of

the Church is in terms of stemming the problem of violence or any

other form of unrighteousness that is in our country.

I am a member of the Crossroads Baptist Church. To me, it is

one of the greatest churches in America today. It has reproduced

itself 11 times, and its ministries and programs are comprehensive.

I will just name a few: Bible preaching, music, teens, prisons, military, death, children’s church, child development center just to

name a few.

It is my personal view that America has come to a place where

children of all backgrounds are now at risk. Our country is eroding

from within; violence and moral corruption are now threatening to

bring this glorious empire to ruins. Unbelief and unrighteousness

is effectively doing to America what the cold war could not. America’s diseased and dying. We are experiencing a national crisis. To

get well, I believe that America needs a large dose of churches like

Crossroads Baptist. The American people, as any people, need to

experience Bible salvation.

Religion and personal faith in Jesus Christ are not one in the

same, and, with all due respect, religion crucified Christ. We do not

need more religion. As I follow the news, few can argue with me

when I say that some of the most violent nations in the world are

religious. Real change begins within the heart. The Book of Proverbs says, ‘‘Out of the heart are the issues of life.’’

Today, American television is the mirror of our unrighteous indulgences as a society. Sin is still a reproach today. A white gown,

fancy suit, college diploma, or fat bank account is no match for an

unregenerate heart. Covetousness and evil desire threatens the

very soul of this Nation, its people. Under Heaven, there is only

one element I know of that personally cleanses the heart of man—

the blood of Jesus.

We, the people of the United States of America, desperately need

the blood of Jesus applied to each of our individual accounts. If

that happens, our homes and our schools will change for the better.

I am a living witness—early Americans knew it too. Remember the

Bible schools of old? I believe a quality King James version education is still the greatest heritage we could give our children.

As a Nation, America stands to be blessed, as well. The Bible

says, ‘‘Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord.’’ That is the

view that I believe—a prominent view that I believe the Church

can play. I think that it has to be taken seriously what the Church

and its influence can be on a family. Most of the problems that I

experience in school have most to do with faith, have most to do

with lack of values, has most to do with poor family structure, and

there is only one person I know of who can influence that for the

better, and that is my Savior, Jesus Christ.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cain follows:]

142

143

144

145

146

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. Did these young men

want to comment?

Mr. CAIN. They are prepared to respond to any direct questions

you might have, and then they want to do a demonstration, as well.

Mr. MICA. We will ask some questions as we proceed here.

Mr. CAIN. OK.

Mr. MICA. We do want to keep the panel moving, and we are

running behind schedule. I appreciate everyone’s testimony today.

We have heard a number of recommendations here today, and I

think that Superintendent Hall commented on the different standards that we have in schools with the IDEA Program, special education students. You described two systems of discipline make it

difficult to operate. I would imagine you are a strong advocate of

some congressional change to these requirements. Is that correct?

Mr. HALL. Yes, I am.

Mr. MICA. And, specifically, how would we deal with this and

still serve the needs of our special education students?

Mr. HALL. Well, Chairman Mica, as I said, disruptive behavior

is disruptive behavior. Currently, the law allows me to expel a student or suspend a student, a special ed student, for up to 45 days

if they carry a weapon to school. I think the new legislation would

allow me to expel that student for much longer than that. If you

and I were regular students and we carried a weapon to school, we

would be suspended in the State of Florida for up to 1 full school

year after the incident. That is not happening with special ed students.

Now, I don’t want to dwell on special ed students, because they

make up only about 10 percent of our student population, but the

amount of problems that we have, particularly with emotionally

handicapped students and severely emotionally handicapped students, puts us into a double-tiered discipline system.

Mr. MICA. Well, you said they only account for about 10 percent

of our students, but what percentage of the problems are you seeing in the school system that they account for?

Mr. HALL. Approximately 40 percent.

Mr. MICA. About 40 percent. So you think you need a little bit

more discretion and flexibility as far as imposing punishment and

restrictions on them?

Mr. HALL. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. We have another superintendent, Mr.—I am sorry, Dr.

Fields, what is your opinion on this?

Dr. FIELDS. I think we need more local autonomy. I was a director of special education for 2 years, and so I also have some background in that. And my recommendation would be that local school

boards are charged with the responsibility of doing what is best for

children, and when we are dealing with youngsters with severe behavioral manifestations, special education students, that local

boards should have the autonomy to determine what is best for

their own community.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I think you also commented about some

problems with funding limits and the hoops that you go through to

apply for funds. You think we could administer Federal funding of

these programs in some more efficient manner, and what would

you recommend?

147

Dr. FIELDS. Well, No. 1, there need to be more. The second part

of the problem is how it comes to us from the States, and I know

every State is different; the requirements are different. But the fact

of the matter is, as I said, $12 per students this year for Safe and

Drug Free Schools money in our particular case. We don’t spend

any money on magic programs, and the kinds of statements that

I heard this morning in terms of some of these kinds of things, I

don’t know anyone near us that spends money on those kinds of

things.

The fact of the matter is, we need to have programs to intervene

with students who have drug problems—and I mentioned the marijuana issue. It is so significant. If one really looks at marijuana

and sat through 45 school board hearings, as I have, and sees the

behavioral manifestations of those students, the dollars that we

need, we shouldn’t be forced, necessarily, to compete for, and if

there are going to be dollars, they should be more entitlement dollars coming to us, and, again, there needs to be flexibility with

those dollars.

But the grants and writing for those grants—and I looked at the

booklet over here and the June 1 deadline, we simply don’t have

grant writers. Big districts can afford to hire grant writers to write

those programs. We have got 2,100 high school kids, and if I don’t

write the grant, no one does. So, it is a difficult issue.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And we have our two youngest witnesses,

Jeffrey and Anthony. Can you quickly demonstrate for the subcommittee how your BRAG Program disciplines students? They

have been waiting 5 hours to do this. [Laughter.]

We should give them both a medal.

[Demonstration.]

[Applause.]

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Thank you, gentleman, for showing us

what you do in your program.

Maybe, briefly, Mr. Cain, you could just tell us the purpose of

that exercise?

Mr. CAIN. The drill teams or the BRAG Corps is an acronym for

Behavior, Respect, Attitude, and Grades. It is basically an afterschool club that works in conjunction with the classroom to help

modify student behaviors if necessary. It actually originated in the

District, in Washington, DC. It used to be—it is called in DC, the

Gentleman’s Club, and it is basically a club for black boys who

cause problems in schools, and there is about 15 of them in DC

today, and, from what I understand, where they exist, discipline

problems are reduced by 90 percent. I started my career in DC and

came across a gentleman who founded the program. His name is

Leslie Newsome, retired as of today.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I would like to yield now to Mr. Barr, the

gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the demonstration, Mr. Cain, as well as the explanation of the program. I

also appreciate your references to God and Jesus Christ, and I appreciate the fact that you are not ashamed to say that in your personal life and in your professional life and obviously practice it, as

well.

148

One of the things that hangs on the wall of our office in the

building right next door is the Ten Commandments. There is no

ode to wiccan. There is no statement of secular humanism or other

of the movements that seem to be taking hold in our society, even

on U.S. military bases. Now, the practice of witchcraft, wicca, is

being allowed as a practice of a legitimate religion, under the guise

of a legitimate religion, and officially sanctioned by our military. I

also read that the movement called secular humanism, which also

is an anti-God movement, is putting on a new face to make itself

more presentable to young people on campuses and high schools.

And these sorts of things simply illustrate the depth of the problem

that we face.

I have never had anybody that has come into our office and felt

intimidated because the Ten Commandments are there. We don’t

require anybody to pay homage to them. We certainly hope that all

human beings adhere to them; they obviously don’t. But it is not

an intimidating document, and I am, of course, very distressed, as

probably a lot of people are, perhaps, including some others on this

panel, that for the past 38 years we have consciously sought to remove any vestige of religion from our public schools, and I think

that was a very serious mistake, but there isn’t much that we can

do about it these days.

Just in Georgia, recently, students were denied at a graduation

ceremony from even referencing God. It wasn’t anything the school

would have sanctioned. It was simply the students wanted to do

that, and they were denied that opportunity. I sometimes think

that if we had the Ten Commandments on more walls and more

schools and public buildings, it might cause people to think a little

bit more about what those things mean.

So, I appreciate the fact that at least you stepped forward and

are not ashamed to say that, and you don’t require other people to

adhere to it, but I think by example it has a great deal of meaning

to others, so I appreciate that very much.

I also appreciate—I think both Mr. Hall and Dr. Fields, in your

presentation, you talked about the consistency of the way we treat

students with the overriding goal being the protection of students

against acts of violence in our schools. And, it seems to me that if

we approach the problem of school violence from the standpoint

that the primary responsibility of our schools is to, aside from

teaching our children, to protect our students and teach them in an

environment that is free from violence or the threat of violence

against the students, that that leads us to a number of conclusions,

one of which is that if students are found to cause acts of violence

or to bring weapons on school property, the school administrators

ought to have the power to remove those students and not be able

to remove only those, for example, that don’t claim that bringing

that weapon on school is a manifestation of a disability or something.

And that gets us into the IDEA Program. I have legislation pending that, in so far as the IDEA Program, can and has been used

as a shield behind which to prevent local school administrators

from treating a student who claims an IDEA disability the same

as another student when they bring weapons into the schools. It

would level the playing field.

149

Do you think that this, Mr. Hall—would this be an appropriate

step? It doesn’t say anything about teaching students with disabilities. It simply says that there is an overarching concern here

where you have students that bring weapons into the schools, that

they ought to be treated the same. Whether they claim this was a

manifestation of their disability or they don’t, it poses the same

threat to other students.

Mr. HALL. I think that is an appropriate step; yes, sir.

Mr. BARR. Dr. Fields, would you feel the same way?

Dr. FIELDS. Yes, absolutely. I used to use the term ‘‘common

sense,’’ and I have learned that there is no such thing as common

sense. The common sense answer is, if a student is dangerous to

others, that student cannot be there.

Mr. BARR. Would it be appropriate to ask our two young witnesses a question, Mr. Cain?

Mr. CAIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARR. And you can certainly put it in other words.

I would like to know—we talked before with the earlier panel

about children paying attention to what happens in our society.

Sometimes, I think we operate as if only we know what is going

on, the adults. But I think students do pay attention, and if they

see people being treated differently, people not being punished,

whether it is a high political official, somebody at school, a movie

star or sports star, children notice that. I would be interested in

what your two witnesses, the two young men that are with you,

whether they do pay attention to that sort of thing and whether it

impacts them?

Mr. CAIN. These are two of my most articulate members. They

are small and in third grade, but these are the sergeants of the

BRAG Corps, so they are prepared to speak for themselves, if you

will ask the question directly.

Mr. BARR. OK, if you two young men would tell me, if you see

somebody who has done wrong, who did drugs, for example, or committed an act of violence and they are not punished, do you think

that is wrong? Do you think everybody who does wrong ought to

be punished the same?

Mr. SHUROTT. Yes, I think that they should all be punished the

same because they all did that.

Mr. BARR. Do you agree, sir, the other young gentleman?

Mr. SNEAD. Yes, I do.

Mr. BARR. Do you all get good grades?

Mr. SHUROTT. Yes.

Mr. SNEAD. Yes.

Mr. BARR. Is that important also, to get good grades?

Mr. SHUROTT. Yes.

Mr. SNEAD. Yes.

Mr. BARR. Good. Well, I appreciate then—I know I probably can

speak for the chairman too—we appreciate you all being here very

much, and I appreciate all of the witnesses. All of these are important—what you all have been talking about are very, very important pieces of an overall solution.

Mr. CAIN. Sir, if I may, these are honor students. They weren’t

specific. They are honor students.

150

Mr. BARR. Well, I am glad you let us know that. Obviously, they

don’t go around wearing that on their sleeve, and I appreciate you

telling us that. It makes them even more impressive.

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much for your testimony and participation, each and every one. We do try to build a record here, and we

have a responsibility of oversight and investigation of the various

Federal programs and how they are working, and we take your

comments very seriously. So, if we have no further questions of this

panel, we will dismiss at this time and thank you again for being

with us.

Mr. CAIN. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I would like to call our final panel, and we have two

witnesses on that panel now. First, we have Mr. Kevin Dwyer,

president elect of the National Association of School Psychologists,

and then we have Mr. James Baker, executive director of the Institute for Legislative Action of the National Rifle Association.

If we could have our two witnesses please come up and join us,

and, staff, if you could make certain that we have their proper

identification.

Gentleman, as I mentioned before, this is an investigation and

oversight subcommittee. I apologize for the late hour. We did have

almost an hour of votes in between. So, we are running behind, but

I do thank you for being patient.

If you wouldn’t mind, could you please stand and be sworn in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. Again, I want to thank you, and if you have lengthy

statements or documentation, we would be glad to put that in the

record. I recognize, first, Mr. Kevin Dwyer, president elect of the

National Association of School Psychologists.

STATEMENTS OF KEVIN DWYER, PRESIDENT ELECT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS; AND

JAMES BAKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION

Mr. DWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is wonderful that you

are having these hearings and looking for information that is sound

and based on research.

My name is Kevin Dwyer. I am a nationally certified school psychologist. I am president elect of the National Association of School

Psychologists, representing the 21,000 members who serve in

15,000 school districts, in 85,000 public schools and 15,000 private

schools across the Nation. We also serve in overseas and Defense

Department schools, as well. We also provide services to children

in the private schools, particularly children who have disabilities.

School psychologists are highly trained mental health behavioral

and academic experts in both emotional and developmental learning.

I was a school psychologist for 31 years working in schools. I retired in 1993. I worked with about 10,000 youngsters. I am also the

parent of seven children and I have eight grandchildren, and so I

have a big investment in education and the future of education, as

well.

The Federal role in helping communities to make schools safer

and drug free and more conducive to learning should include techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:14 Aug 18, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\63843.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
151

nical support and resources for local schools to ensure that all children are healthy, ready to learn, and able to achieve their academic, physical and psycho-social potential as citizens in a democratic society. One of the ways to do this is through some of the

programs that have already been discussed here today, and that is

full service schools.

Full service schools, like Jesse Keen Elementary School in Lakeland, FL, are examples of how Federal funds have been successful

in really helping schools locally. Federal funds are provided to

schools through title I and also through some additional funds. In

that school, it is demonstrated, with teacher and staff training,

using theory-based, research-based practices, that children could be

taught not only to read and write and problem solve but also to respect each other and respect their teachers.

Children are taught to think before they act; basically, to stop

and think—which, by the way, is very hard to do in today’s society

since we teach kids through our media to be impulsive. Teaching

children to stop and think before they act; to solve problems, and

these children are held accountable for their actions. They are

taught to make choices, and they are held accountable for their actions when they make bad choices.

The program has significantly reduced fighting, suspensions,

costly grade retention, and the program has also reduced by almost

90 percent the number of students referred to special education,

again, reducing costs.

The Federal role was carried out through legislation that supports prevention of behavioral problems through school-wide programs, and I think this is one of the things that we have heard in

testimony a couple of times this morning and from Dr. Sherman.

Programs that are successful are school-wide programs. Programs

that are not successful are small programs that are attached to

schools.

These coordinated programs are the most cost-effective when

combined with interventions that focus on those children who need

intensive help to address their serious emotional problems, as was

talked about this morning by Dr. Chevez. And, by the way, the reality of the situation is that most emotionally disabled kids who

need emotional and psychological help are not getting it. It isn’t

just that 60 percent aren’t getting it; most of these kids aren’t getting it, and they are not getting it intensively enough to make the

difference.

I am also glad that this committee is asking: How do we know

that programs work? Is there research data or significant field testing that proves the results are sustained over time? Are the programs family friendly, and are they culturally sound? Feel good

programs with anecdotal data do not reduce violence or classroom

disruptions, and this is something that really disturbs me. We continue to support programs that may make people feel good. They

may look good even, but they don’t necessarily have any results

that show a dramatic change. Teachers and families, by the way,

lose hope when programs fail. The longer a poorly treated problem

persists, the more difficult it is to treat. It is like using a low dose

of an antibiotic or the wrong antibiotic to fight a serious infection.

152

The child’s disease becomes more resistant even to a good treatment.

The Federal role should be to ensure that local school communities are given the guidance—and this is important in terms of the

discussion we have had so far in this committee—to recognize what

is an effective program and what is not. Too many schools are reacting to the current rash of school shootings by buying a slick curriculum or a consultant or hardware that they have been told will

make their school safe. Too much of this commercial material is

unproven and ineffective. Metal detectors, school uniforms may be

good, but they are totally unproven. We have no research data that

shows that they work in reducing school violence.

Another thing I want to talk about is Medicaid. Medicaid, right

now, is an available funding source that could provide local school

systems finances to reduce the burden on local taxpayers by equalizing the funding of school-based services to children of poverty

who could benefit from those services. When services are provided

early in their natural setting in the school, they are shown to be

much more effective. The Social Security Administration does not

see ‘‘the medical necessity’’ and frequently invalidates the credentials of schools service providers. That is something that Congress

could deal with and I think deal with effectively. I heard you talk

about parity, which I think is another issue related to funding services.

The GAO Study in 1995, which was a report to Congress, reported what effective programs must look like. They must be comprehensive; they must start early; they must have strong management; they must use consistent disciplinary codes; they must provide teacher training, parent involvement, and interagency collaboration. This is the kind of program that project Achieve that Jesse

Kean Elementary School I mentioned in Florida has.

Last, I would like Congress to think about providing ways to

curb the exposure to overstimulating media that pushes many of

our children to thoughts of violence and destruction. I believe also

that we have a national responsibility that is seriously neglected

and that is, the access of firearms in millions of our homes. Children, particularly those with impulsive or emotional problems, who

have access to firearms, are a clear danger to themselves and others.

The United States leads the world in homicides and suicides of

teenagers. Homicide and suicide are the major causes of death

among adolescents in the United States, and firearms are the

major weapon for those homicides and suicides. You have a 98 percent chance of completing a suicide with a firearm and an 8 percent change of completion when taking pills.

I think that we need to make certain that we don’t allow access.

I am not saying we do away with guns; I am saying we don’t allow

access of firearms to children. We have to do something about that.

Access to firearms in the home is a primary difference between our

country and the other comparable countries in the world. It is a difficult issue; it is not an easy issue, but it is one that we can’t continue to ignore. And I am not saying that is the only thing we have

153

to do. The thing that we really have to do is institute these comprehensive programs both in our school and our community. I totally agree with the responsibility concepts that have been discussed here today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dwyer follows:]

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Dwyer and probably purposely timed,

although he has had to wait a long time to be on this panel, our

last witness, Mr. James Baker, who is executive director for the Institute of Legislative Action for the National Rifle Association. You

are welcome, recognized, and thank you again for your patience.

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. On behalf of our nearly 3 million members and the approximately 80 million law-abiding gun owners in this Nation, we appreciate the opportunity to testify here today.

The NRA joins the Nation in expressing our shock, grief and

sympathy at the tragedy that transpired in Littleton, but we do not

presume to cast ourselves as the most qualified experts in the root

causes of juvenile violence. The committee has heard from several

panels today representing a far broader realm of expertise in this

particular area.

And for that reason, my testimony will be very brief, and it is

a brevity that reflects what we believe is the absence of a nexus

between second amendment issues and the tragedy that transpired

Colorado and in other schools across the country.

For our 128 years of existence, the NRA has been unwavering in

our consistent condemnation of the misuse of firearms. We have already supported legislation that prohibits and severely punishes

the criminal misuse of firearms. That commitment is reflected in

one sense by the shear number of laws that were already broken

by the perpetrators of the terrible attack in Littleton, CO. By our

estimation, in Littleton, 22 separate State and Federal firearms

laws and explosive laws were violated, and I have included a copy

of those statutes with my testimony and would like to make those

copies part of the record.

Mr. MICA. Without objection, they will be made part of the

record.

Mr. BAKER. One of those statutes is the Federal Gun Free School

Zones Act, first passed in 1992 and revised in 1996, without objection from the National Rifle Association. As recently as last week,

we very publicly reiterated our commitment to a clear policy of zero

tolerance for violations of that act. Yet the very same Department

of Justice that is regularly enlisted by the White House to lobby

for restrictions on lawful firearms, users, has, in our opinion, been

derelict in enforcing that law. The administration admits that over

6,000 juveniles were expelled from school during the 1996–1997

school year, alone, for violating the clear prohibitions of this act.

And yet over those past 3 years, the Department of Justice has

prosecuted only four violators in 1996, five in 1997, and eight in

1998.

Evidence of dereliction is present in the prosecution record of

nearly every other Federal firearms prohibition, as well. The administration championed the Youth Handgun Safety Act, which

banned the juvenile possession of handguns, but the Department of

Justice has prosecuted only 20 violations of this act in the past 3

years. In recent days, the Justice Department has attempted to

blunt the sting of this revelation by saying that such prosecutions

are better handled at the State and local level. Well, if that is truly

the case, Mr. Chairman, then why is the administration pushing

for more Federal laws they clearly have no intention of enforcing?

190

The American people understand that laws without teeth cannot

restrain lawless behavior. We will never know how many lives

could have been saved over the years if the laws that are currently

on the books had simply been enforced. We do know that further

posturing on behalf of passing new restrictions is meaningless unless it is matched by a commitment to enforcement.

We urge the committee and the House to refrain from a purely

political response to the tragedies, such as Littleton, and we are

encouraged that this committee has taken the time to engage in

the deliberative process of this hearing. The reflex to cast about for

a party to blame in the aftermath of any tragedy is understandable, but we believe we must not lose site of the fundamental precept of American jurisprudence, which is, that individuals are responsible for their own actions.

We stand ready to work with the House throughout this legislative process, and, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for

the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony and for

your enduring patience this afternoon.

I was interested to hear Mr. Dwyer say that one of his concerns

is the access to firearms, particularly among behaviorally or emotionally disturbed children. We already have some laws that deal

with this, and we heard the representative from NRA say that

those laws aren’t being enforced; 6,000 students expelled and only

a handful that they have gone after. Is there something missing in

the law, Mr. Dwyer, and, Mr. Baker, the same question, or is it a

question of enforcement?

Mr. DWYER. The things that I am talking about—most of the

youngsters, by the way, that I am thinking of who have used weapons, particularly those who use them on themselves, that is done

in the home, and those are weapons that they just have available

to them. I believe that in most of those situations if those firearms

weren’t available to them at that time, they would still be alive. I

have worked with—I have had three youngsters—one murdered

another youngster; one murdered another youngster and then hung

himself in jail, and another one shot himself with his father’s pistol; bought a bullet for it, because his father didn’t have any ammunition in the home. But the reality is that we need to take responsibility. We need to work together to take responsibility; to figure out ways to make sure that families, if they do have weapons

in their homes, that they have ways of preventing the youngsters

from having access to those weapons.

The other—and I say this to parents all the time—if you have

an emotionally disturbed child, a depressed child or a child with severe attention deficit disorder with impulsivity, you should take the

guns out of your house for the period of time that they are growing

up, particularly as they are moving through adolescence. It is too

dangerous. It is just pure and simply too dangerous.

We need to think a little bit about danger. We lock our cars, because we don’t want people to take them. We think about if there

are children around, we don’t do things that are going to cause

them harm. We have laws about lead paint. We have all these

kinds of rules and regulations. We have got to do something about

this one, because, frankly, we lead the world, accounting for 78 percent of the firearms deaths of children and youth out of 26 countries. OK, 78 percent of firearms deaths are in the United States

even though we only have 38 percent of the children among those

26 countries. I mean, this is something that we have to look at, and

we have to work on this together, bipartisanly.

I think this is something that we just need to come up with some

good ideas, some effective ideas that will prevent these deaths from

happening. I tell their parents to get the guns out of the house if

they have troubled children. Put them in a safety deposit box until

things get better, and I do that as a professional, but I think that

is one person. We need to have some way to publicly communicate

this to our Whole Nation.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Baker, did you want to respond?

Mr. BAKER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think that there is any

way that we can legislate responsibility, but I certainly agree with

Mr. Dwyer to the extent that we need to, through education and

training, provide for secure storage of firearms. We have been an

199

advocate of that since we were formed. From the standpoint, with

the right to own a firearm, comes the responsibility to safely use

it, to safely store it. Certainly in the context of the home where

there are juveniles, they ought to be safely stored. We spend millions of dollars a year as do the firearms industry in just those

types of education and safety training programs around the country, and I couldn’t agree with Mr. Dwyer more that the question

of safety in the home is one of education, and there is really no way

to legislate that.

Mr. MICA. Well, finally, my question about access. Are there additional measures that Congress can take relating to access or are

the laws sufficient in keeping firearms away from young people

and those at risk?

Mr. BAKER. Well, just a couple of a factual matters. There were

as many firearms in 1950 per capita as there are now, and yet we

didn’t seem to have the same problems in the 1950’s with the misuse of firearms that we seem to be experiencing today. So, there

are clearly factors other than there being firearms. There were firearms then and the same numbers per capita as there are now. So,

there are other factors at play, and I must admit that the National

Rifle Association and myself, personally, are not experts, but you

have had a number of very qualified and articulate spokesmen for

various programs and plans. I don’t think that the number of firearms out there is the answer to the violence or is even a component

answer to the violence. It goes far beyond that.

Mr. DWYER. The violence—excuse me—may I?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Dwyer.

Mr. DWYER. The increase in adolescent and youth violence in

homicide and suicide, both, has been dramatic in the last 20 years;

a dramatic increase—186 percent increase in homicides; and a 300

percent increase in suicide in kids under the age of 14. It is not

that there are more weapons out there; it is what people are perceiving as their use. It is what we are teaching our kids through

a lot of different media and through a lot of other different things

that firearms solve problems. It is the interaction effect. I mean,

if you want to research this—I don’t want to be too technical—but

it is the interaction effect of all these things together that make—

and no offense—that make guns more dangerous today than they

were in 1950. That is the issue—they are more dangerous today

than they were in 1950 when they were in your homes. That is all

I can say. I mean, that is the truth; that is the reality.

The other thing that I think—we want to use proven practices

that work and in schools, we know exactly what works. I would like

to make sure that my extended testimony is in the record, because

in there we talk about those programs, and they relate to legislation that you and Mr. Barr and others would like to support. I

think we have—you know, we have ESEA coming up, and we have

a lot of other legislative proposals coming up. If people are going

to do things—if we are going to fund things on a local level and

give the responsibility to the local people to have those funds, that

is fine, but let us make sure that we take our responsibility—you

and I take our responsibility to make sure that they don’t waste

that money. That is what Dr. Sherman was saying before and what

I am most worried about. I don’t want that money to be wasted.

200

I see the failures; I see the pain; I see people die, and I don’t want

to see that happen anymore with my kids or anyone’s kids.

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.

I will yield now to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and at the expense of

praising you too much and giving you a swelled head, I would like

to thank you for the entire panels that we have had today, including this last one, and I appreciate both the chairman’s patience as

well as the patience of our witnesses. But I have appreciated very

much the opportunity to listen to the panels today and to have the

opportunity to read at least most of the written testimony.

One thing that I know, Mr. Baker, you are very, very well aware

of, because the NRA addresses the issue of consistency of prosecutions of crimes involving firearms, and I know that you are probably even more aware than I am since this is one of the key issues

that your job forces you to focus on. The inconsistency and lack of—

actually, it isn’t inconsistency in this regard; it is that the administration is consistently not prosecuting these cases. But the message

that that sends to people, and I appreciate your trying to focus attention on these sorts of these things.

So, as a former prosecutor, I know how important not just the

substantive tools that a prosecutor has available to him or her but

the message that consistent prosecution sends to the public and developing respect for law across the board. So, I appreciate your

work in this area.

Mr. BAKER. Thank you.

Mr. BARR. What I would like to do, just one question, Mr. Baker.

If you could, just very briefly explain the nature of some of the educational and law enforcement programs that the NRA is involved

in, because I know that doesn’t get a lot of the attention that some

of the other work that you all do. But I think, particularly in light

of the fact that this hearing is about children, it might be important, if you could just take a minute or so.

Mr. BAKER. Sure, and I would be happy to supply a more extensive account of that for the committee, for the record. As it says

in my title, I am the lobbyist for the association. But we have over

400 employees in the building, most of whom are dedicated to the

safety and training aspects of firearms ownership, and that run

programs from the grade school level on up to adults. And, as I

said in one of the chairman’s questions, firearm ownership is a

right as well as a responsibility, and the responsibility part of firearm ownership deals with safe handling, safe storage, and safe use

of firearms. We have a gun avoidance program for school age children that speaks specifically to, if they see a gun, stop; don’t touch;

tell an adult. And it is entirely and completely a gun avoidance

program, and we have those sorts of programs that are relevant for

every age group, as I said, up through adults.

And, as you mentioned briefly, we train and have trained for

years law enforcement around the country in safe and efficient use

of firearms, and while we get a lot of press for the lobbying we do

and what we talk about relative to prosecutions and what you and

I have talked about here, what we have done for most of our history is education and training, and it is what we continue to emphasize from the standpoint of where our resources are put. The

201

majority of our resources goes to our general operations divisions

that deal with education training across the country.

But I can certainly expand on that with a written submission.

Mr. BARR. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

[The information referred to follows:]

202

203

204

Mr. BARR. Do we have a vote, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MICA. Yes.

Mr. BARR. So, I have time for just one more question. To Mr.

Dwyer, I very much appreciate your testimony and your expertise

in this area.

It seems to me that as a non-expert in this area as you are, just

looking at it more as a layperson, there are basically two problems

that we have. One is to try and identify kids that are out there now

that are problems or that may snap and become a very serious

problem, and then the other focus ought to be what do we do in

the future to avoid those—prevent those kids from developing that

way?

Given that we probably will never have the resources to do everything to address this problem what would you say are the most

important things that we can be doing right now to try and identify

those children that might be—if anything, to identify children that

might be problems before they—and I don’t know whether the correct word is ‘‘snap’’ or what—like the kids in Littleton did before

that happens again?

Mr. DWYER. We need, Mr. Barr—and I think this is a critical

issue—we need to find those kids, but we also need to treat those

kids. In other words, once we find them, we have got to do something to make sure that they don’t carry out—they don’t become

more violent or more aggressive.

But the thing that we need—and I know this is probably unrealistic—but in every school, we need a person with my credentials

who teachers and parents can come to, and they can say—and I am

a school psychologist—they can say, ‘‘I am worried about what is

happening. I see these changes in this boy’s behavior, this girl’s behavior. I am concerned about that.’’ And then I can——

Mr. BARR. Excuse me, while you are talking about that, are there

Federal laws that pose restrictions right now on your ability to do

that or the ability of parents to come in and speak freely and

frankly with you?

Mr. DWYER. No. The reality of the situation is that there just

aren’t enough persons—there aren’t enough school psychologists,

school counselors, those kinds of persons in schools in the United

States. I mean, we have 1 school psychologist for every 2,300 kids.

That is like a teacher having 50 or more in a class. Very few high

schools have a full-time school psychologist.

Mr. BARR. Is there sort of—and I know it would vary—but what

sort of costs are we talking about in a school to do that?

Mr. DWYER. The salary for a school psychologist is the same as

the salary for a teacher. So, it is like hiring another teacher except

that we have an advanced degree, so if you pay extra for 60 credits

above a Bachelor’s degree, that is what you would be paying a

school psychologist. They don’t get any more—I didn’t make any

more money than anybody else when I worked in the schools.

Mr. BARR. And I don’t want you to go on the record here about

your personal situation, but is there sort of an average that we are

talking about, because, certainly, in terms of appropriations and

money, that would be a concern?

Mr. DWYER. Yes, that is a very good point, and we are—actually,

literally, 2 nights ago, I was made aware that there is a research

205

project right now going on to get the average—what is the average

salary, but the average salary in Georgia is very different from the

average salary in Scarsdale, NY.

Mr. BARR. It is probably lower in Georgia.

Mr. DWYER. Yes, it is, much.

Mr. BARR. If you could get that to us, I would really like to look

at that.

Mr. DWYER. We will try to get some information to you on that,

but that may not be ready until August.

[The information referred to follows:]

206

207

Mr. DWYER. But we need teams of people, like you, as a parent,

that I, as a teacher, if I were a teacher, could go to and say, ‘‘I am

worried about what I see.’’

And then an other thing that we need that is really critical—and

it was mentioned by Dr. Sherman in his testimony but not in his

presentation—was that we need to teach kids problem solving

skills, to teach kids the skills, to teach respect and responsibility.

I know it is a parental responsibility, but we need to do it in our

schools too. If the parents aren’t doing it, we have got to do it.

Thank you.

Mr. BARR. And I think that ties in, I think, Mr. Baker, with what

you are saying also—respect, discipline.

Mr. BAKER. Absolutely.

Mr. BARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,

Mr. Dwyer and Mr. Baker.

Mr. MICA. Well, I would like to thank both of our panelists. It

was the last panel, but, nonetheless, it will be part of the record

that we are trying to build in order to review this whole question

of school violence.

We do appreciate your testimony. We will leave the record open

for 2 weeks, and, without any other further business to come before

this subcommittee at this time, this meeting is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

Æ