U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

41–843 CC 1997

H.R. 956, DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES ACT OF 1997

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT

REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 956

TO AMEND THE NATIONAL NARCOTICS LEADERSHIP ACT OF 1988 TO

ESTABLISH A PROGRAM TO SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT FIRST DEMONSTRATE A COMPREHENSIVE, LONGTERM COMMITMENT TO REDUCE SUBSTANCE ABUSE AMONG YOUTH,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

MARCH 13, 1997

Serial No. 105–19

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

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

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

PETE SESSIONS, Texas

MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey

VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas

BOB BARR, Georgia

——— ———

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

GARY A. CONDIT, California

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,

DC

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania

TIM HOLDEN, 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

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

KEVIN BINGER, Staff Director

DANIEL R. MOLL, Deputy Staff Director

JUDITH MCCOY, Chief Clerk

PHIL SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL

JUSTICE

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Chairman

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

BOB BARR, Georgia

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

TOM LANTOS, California

ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia

GARY A. CONDIT, California

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

JIM TURNER, Texas

EX OFFICIO

DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

ROBERT CHARLES, Staff Director

IANTHE SAYLOR, Clerk

CHRIS MARSTON, Legislative Assistant

ELIZABETH MUNDINGER, Minority Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 13, 1997 ............................................................................ 1

Text of H.R. 956 ................................................................................................ 3

Statement of:

Copple, James E., president and CEO, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions

of America; and Robert Francis, executive director, Regional Youth

and Adult Substance Abuse Prevention ...................................................... 44

Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio; and Hon. Sander M. Levin, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Michigan ................................................................................... 22

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

Copple, James E., president and CEO, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions

of America, prepared statement of .............................................................. 47

Francis, Robert, executive director, Regional Youth and Adult Substance

Abuse Prevention, prepared statement of ................................................... 56

Levin, Hon. Sander M., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan, prepared statement of ............................................................. 37

Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 27

Rangel, Hon. Charles B., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 43

(1)

H.R. 956, DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES ACT OF

1997

THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1997

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, INTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m., in room

2157, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Dennis Hastert

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Hastert, Mica, Souder, Barr, and Barrett.

Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director; Chris Marston, legislative assistant; Ianthe Saylor, clerk; Elizabeth Mundinger, minority counsel; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief clerk.

Mr. HASTERT. The Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice will come to order.

I am pleased to conduct this hearing on H.R. 956, the Drug-Free

Communities Act of 1997, which I had introduced with my colleagues, Mr. Portman of Ohio, Mr. Rangel of New York, and Mr.

Levin of Michigan, all who will testify today.

I am especially pleased that this subcommittee’s distinguished

ranking member, Tom Barrett of Wisconsin, has signed on as a cosponsor. Thank you, sir, for that.

The crisis of drug use among our Nation’s youth calls out for an

answer. This bipartisan bill rechannels existing resources to community-based solutions. I believe that it will form the beginning of

such an answer.

The problem of drug abuse among our Nation’s youth is growing.

Illicit drug use among 8th and 10th graders has doubled in the last

5 to 6 years. Five percent of high school seniors smoke marijuana

on a daily basis. Our children are using LSD and other

hallucinogens—cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine—at increasing levels.

Parents have stopped talking to their children about the dangers

of drug use. Only 3 of 10 children say their parents have actually

talked to them about drugs.

In my own home in Aurora, IL, I have a brother who teaches at

the junior high level. Out of his class just this calendar year, he

has already lost one of his students because of gang-bangs and assassinations.

It is a real problem. It is a real problem with our kids, and it

is a real problem right at home.

2

Decentralized Federal programs cannot answer this problem

alone. In order to reduce demand for drugs among our Nation’s

youth, we must address the problems one community at a time.

This bill will support the efforts of local communities to form coalitions from all sectors, Government, education, faith, business, and

media, to effectively address their own local problems. By integrating the efforts of all of these groups, such coalitions can make

the most of a limited pool of resources, and find the most effective

way to reach our young people.

The bill provides this support responsibility. It rechannels funds

into matching grant programs with built-in accountability provisions. Coalitions must meet certain sustainably reasonable requirements to be eligible and they will be held accountable for all Federal dollars that they spend.

Citizens Against Government Waste and other organizations support the proposal along with community-based organizations from

all over the country.

I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses today, and

the insights of our Members, as we turn to the markup of this bill

immediately following this hearing today.

I am pleased to turn to my colleague on the subcommittee, the

ranking minority member and co-sponsor of H.R. 956, Tom Barrett,

for any opening remarks that he may have.

[The text of H.R. 956 follows:]

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding

this important hearing and markup.

I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this bill that will provide communities with the funding and organization for implementing a coordinated attack in the war on drugs. I compliment Mr. Portman

and Mr. Levin for showing the leadership that they have today.

We all know that we have a serious problem. Teen drug use is

on the rise. Monitoring the Future study that was released in December found that the increase is caused in part by the fact that

youngsters are not hearing about the dangers of drug use. Community partnerships can help us get this information out.

The Federal Government already recognizes their importance by

providing Federal funding to community coalitions, so they can

demonstrate that their prevention methods work. In fact, Federal

seed money has helped build a strong community network, which

now includes over 4,000 community partnerships nationwide.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, who can tell

us more about their successes and I am pleased to be a co-sponsor

of the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, because we need to continue our commitment to these coalitions. This bill authorizes Federal matching grants and an organizational framework to help

communities disseminate information in the best way to prevent

drug abuse.

There are some issues, however, Mr. Chairman, that I would like

to delve into further. First, the bill provides that the Office of National Drug Policy will appoint an administrator of the program

after receiving a recommendation from the Advisory Council.

The choice of an administrator is obviously an important one. I

hope that we will have followup discussions in which we can hear

from those who are in the running for administrator, like representatives from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, who

will be the director of the program in the Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration, which currently runs the

grant program for Community Partnerships.

I also hope that we can fund this new initiative without damaging existing drug programs, which have been successful. For example, the substance abuse bloc grant, which provided the funding

used to treat 340,000 people with serious substance abuse problems

in 1995. Or the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which provides

us with 85 percent of drug abuse research, including studies like

Monitoring the Future, which describe the drug problem and its

causes.

I do not want to see the future programs, like the Secretary’s

substance abuse youth initiative, hurt in this process. In other

words, I do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul.

It is time, however, that we take an integrated approach to fighting the war on drugs. It is time that we brought together the entire

communities, schools, media, law enforcement, parent groups, and

others, so that we can work together to fight this serious problem.

This bill does just that.

Thank you.

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the ranking member. Certainly, his advisements we will take under consideration as we move this bill from

subcommittee and before we go to full committee. I would hope

22

that we will have some field hearings, and that we would listen to

some of the concerns of yours as well as others about how this bill

could be made even better.

At this time, I would like to welcome Congressman Portman and

Congressman Levin to testify. Gentlemen, would you please proceed. Congressman Portman.

STATEMENTS OF HON. ROB PORTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO; AND HON. SANDER

M. LEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

subcommittee. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to testify

today in support of the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. As

mentioned earlier, I introduced this along with Mr. Levin, who is

with me this afternoon, Chairman Hastert, and Mr. Rangel.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your help in developing

what we think is a very good bill, but also in expediting this process. Not only are we having a hearing, but a markup today and we

are very appreciative that this is moving forward rapidly.

I also have to acknowledge that my friend, Tom Barrett, was the

first cosponsor of this legislation. I take very seriously his concerns

expressed this afternoon, and want to work with him on any of

those.

This is a bipartisan effort, and it reflects some new thinking. It

takes existing Federal drug control resources, and rechannels them

to support the community efforts around the country, that are actually working to reduce teenage drug abuse. In my view, this shift

in priorities is long overdue.

As those of you on the panel know well, and Chairman Hastert

has already talked about, after more than a decade of substantial

progress in reducing drug abuse in America from 1979 to roughly

1991, those trends have now reversed and reversed pretty dramatically. It is about younger and younger kids.

There was a new study released last week by the Partnership for

a Drug Free America showing for the first time significant increases in drug use among 9, 10, 11, 12-year-olds, fourth, fifth and

sixth graders.

Of course, the real stories of lost opportunities and even lost lives

are even more disturbing than the sobering statistics that you, Mr.

Hastert, and others have talked about.

Within the last year, in my own district, 21 high school students

were expelled from a suburban school I represent for LSD use, cocaine, and marijuana use. Twelve middle school students, these are

12- and 13-year-olds, from the school that I attended as a young

man, were suspended last month for dealing, possession, and use

of marijuana on school property.

It goes on and on. One of the reasons I got into this in the first

place is that the mother of a 16-year-old from my district came to

Washington to talk to me about the tragic death of her son. He

died huffing gasoline and smoking marijuana a few years ago.

It is significant to point out, I think, that no area of our country,

no district represented by this panel, or Congress indeed is being

spared.

23

A well-respected study, which you may be familiar with, called

Monitoring the Future from the University of Michigan, tells us

that usage is up because young people view drugs as more socially

acceptable and less dangerous than they did 5 or 10 years ago.

This has got to be a call to action for all of us here and around

the country to get organized community by community, if we want

to reverse these trends, and address all of the other social problems

that drug abuse is behind. Violent teen and gang crime is an example; spouse and child abuse; high rates of high school dropouts.

These are all issues that are related to drug abuse.

This act that we are talking about today is designed to support

those communities around the country, that have demonstrated the

will with substantial volunteer participation to address the drug

problem.

The bill also gives incentives to spark those communities that are

not yet organized. It focuses on providing support in every case in

what I think is a very cost effective manner.

I would like to highlight the six main points of the legislation

quickly, and then turn to my colleague, Mr. Levin. First, a local

community must demonstrate, before any money goes to that community, that there is a comprehensive commitment to reduce drug

abuse. This would enable them to qualify for matching Federal

grants of up to $100,000.

Experience in the field, Mr. Chairman, good research, and I

think just common sense tells us that communities that have every

major sector involved in this effort are going to be more successful.

That is why this legislation awards those communities that mobilize youth, parents, businesses, faith leaders, law enforcement, educators, and all of the other key sectors working together for at least

6 months with a focused mission and targeted strategies.

Second, the local community must demonstrate that it is not dependent on the Federal dollar. I think that this is very important.

Because with local will and local financial support, the program is

going to be more successful. Without it, in my view, the program

just will not survive over the long haul.

In fact, we have I think a good record in this regard in the sense

that from CSAP, the community partnership program, grants were

given to many communities that simply did not have a sufficient

non-Federal support base. During its 6-year life, the CSAP community partnership program has made at least 252 grants, typically

ranging from $350,000 to $700,000 to community programs.

Today, we understand that only 137 of those programs survive.

So about half of them are gone. Again, I think this goes in large

measure to a lack of support in the community.

In my view, we should be a catalyst to these communities to get

organized to do the right thing, but we cannot sustain it solely with

Federal support.

Third, one of the most common and often criticismed of the Federal programs that support State and local initiatives is the lack

of accountability. We have heard that with drug free schools and

many other programs. This bill requires the local community to

have a system of evaluation in place. It has to measure outcomes,

and it has to be consistent with the common indicators out there.

24

This again is very significant and a change from where we have

been. We have learned, I think, over time that successful community efforts around the country who evaluate their progress over

time are going to be much more successful.

Most have to do so in order to get private sector funding. Again,

I think, that is something that we have built into this program.

Where if you have to go out to the business community, and other

foundations, and other private sector sources to get funding, you

are going to have to have a program in place to measure your results.

To put the full responsibility for evaluating these programs, Mr.

Chairman, on the Federal Government in this case, I think would

lead to a larger bureaucracy, more costs, and more onerous reporting requirements for the participating community. So we have the

community group itself do this.

One of the common criticisms of the CSAP program as an example is that the community coalitions had to hire someone just to

comply with the Federal reporting requirements. This bill meets

the need for real accountability with a minimum of red tape, I

think, by requiring the administrator to approve the local system

evaluation with help from people immersed in the field, and then

monitor the progress of local communities.

But it also requires the administrator to make every effort consistent with existing law to minimize the reporting requirements to

the Federal Government. I think that it is the right balance.

Fourth, although the data shows us that broad based local efforts

work best, we also know that national and State leadership can

play a role at the local level. For example, national and State experts in the field can assist local communities by sharing the best

ideas from around the country, and helping put in place effective

systems to sustain and evaluate those local efforts.

The bill encourages local communities to involve their Federal

and State leadership, including Members of Congress. I can speak

from my own experience, as can other members on the panel, over

the last 2 years in organizing our own coalition in Greater Cincinnati, we had helped mobilize our local community, but also

brought national groups to the table like the Partnership for Drug

Free America; like CADCA, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of

America; the PRIDE group, the National Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education. We also brought in, of course, the State

anti-drug resources.

Because the drug issue has to be addressed at the local level, I

believe all of us must focus our efforts at the local level. But we

have something to bring to the table too at every level.

Fifth, the Federal support provided under this program I think

provides a lot more bang for the buck. The bill redirects, at its

height, less than three-tenths of 1 percent of the existing drug

budget. Once again, I take Mr. Barrett’s concerns very much to

heart. But we have to remember here that not one Federal dollar

will be spent under this program without a dollar or more first

having been generated by the local community. It is a relatively

small part of our national drug budget.

Communities with larger populations can qualify for more than

one grant. Federal support is also available to sparsely populated

25

areas, and the bill recognizes the very special challenges many of

these communities face in trying to organize an effort to reduce

drug abuse.

I want to just tell you what a couple of people in the field have

told us recently about what they would do with this Federal support. We have a lot more testimony on this that we can provide for

the record.

One example would be from Ronda Kopelke. She is from the

North Woods Coalition in Marshfield, WI. She wrote, ‘‘If you have

Federal support based on community buy-in, then it can help us leverage support from the community. A small grant, even $5,000,

could enable our coalition to build a regional youth alliance, send

youth to camp to learn drug and alcohol strategies, and hire a parttime person to marshall the volunteers,’’ in other words leveraging

volunteers, ‘‘necessary to sustain the effort over time.’’ Marilyn Culp, executive director of the Miami coalition, a wellknown coalition in Miami, FL, that has cut community drug use

there to about half the national average, has said that a $100,000

grant from the Federal Government would enable that coalition to

leverage an additional $300,000 to $400,000 immediately from the

private sector. That this would train an additional 20,000 parents

on how to talk to their kids about the dangers of drug abuse, practical steps that they can take.

The Miami Coalition could also send community drug free messages on up to 200 more billboards across the Miami area, and

could train up to 300,000 students on the dangers and unacceptability of drug abuse, and on life enhancing skills.

Again, I could go on and on. The stories do go on and on, and

they are good ones. But the point is that a small amount of Federal

support that tracks local will can act as a catalyst to help these

local communities fashion effective solutions to meet their communities’ needs.

Finally, to ensure that this program assists those efforts that are

truly working, and to ensure that it gives communities the flexibility to continue to fashion local solutions and try innovative initiatives, an advisory commission is in this legislation. It is made

up of local community leaders and national and State experts in

the field, and they will help the administrator oversee this program.

I think that this is a good change. The members of this advisory

commission will be able to review grant applications, policies and

criteria relating to the program, to ensure the program remains responsive to local needs.

The legislation, as you know, I think, has the support of hundreds of community groups in all fifty States. It has the support

of national leaders like former Drug Czar William Bennett; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; the Partnership for a

Drug Free America; PRIDE; and D.A.R.E. America.

Because it is fiscally responsible, believe it or not, it has the support of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. What

a combination. This bill is also consistent, I think, with the goals

of the National Drug Control Strategy that the President has submitted. I think that it frankly improves on the proposals within

those goals.

26

We have already received constructive input over the past few

months from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and this

bill actually reflects much of their input on the legislation. We are

also working with the appropriations staff and so on to help identify appropriate offsets, although they are not made part of this

legislation.

I am hopeful that we can work together on a bipartisan basis to

move this bill forward, Mr. Chairman, so that we can provide the

necessary support to our communities around the country to truly

reduce teenage drug abuse.

Again, I want to thank you and members of the subcommittee for

moving this process so quickly forward. I am happy to answer any

questions.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Rob Portman follows:]

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for the excellent

work that he has done.

At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, who has also been a leader in Michigan and certainly in his

home area in making these types of programs work. The gentleman

from Michigan, Mr. Levin.

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; my friend also, the ranking member.

Mr. Chairman, you and Mr. Portman, my colleague, and Mr. Barrett have spelled out vividly what the problem is. So I will not

dwell on it. The data is disconcerting.

We are struggling to find answers to a clear problem. I have

joined Mr. Portman over these months. It has been going on now

for some time. Because our experience indicates that there are

some answers. When we have a tough problem, we better grab hold

of some good answers.

I have seen in the district that I represent, that I came to represent in 1992, experiments with coalitions. The one that I first became intimately involved with was the Detroit Coalition. Essentially, that experience is one of those mirrored in this legislation.

They decided in this suburban community, a fairly well-to-do

suburban community, that there was a drug problem that was not

being confronted. So they called on all of the communities to pull

together—the education community, parents, students, the law enforcement community, the business community, the religious community—and put together a broad-based comprehensive coalition

approach.

They received some assistance from the Federal Government, a

grant. But they have run this coalition. It has not been operated

from Washington or anyplace else, except from Troy, MI.

We asked them to use this grant to work within Troy, and to

spread the effort to neighboring communities and they have done

just that. There is evidence that it is working within Troy, where

they took a targeted area, and drug abuse has diminished substantially.

So this proposal builds on the experiences of coalitions like Troy

and others in our district, and those in Mr. Portman’s district, and

Miami, and other places. It says what is the role of the Federal

Government here.

I think No. 1, to express a national commitment, leadership, use

the bully pulpit, all of us. Second, to spread the word. Because it

is hard for one community in one State to know what has worked

in another community. Third, to spark further efforts and that is

what this bill endeavors to do.

So I would urge strongly that you proceed as you are planning

to do so. We are pleased that you are going to proceed to markup

quickly.

Let me just say in response to the concerns that have been

raised. I, with others, have worked hard to try to make sure that

SAMHSA has received adequate funding, and will continue to do

so.

I do not think that there is any robbing of Peter to pay Paul

here. What this effort is is to say that among the resources that

we are spending, Federal resources, we want to take a very small

36

portion of them, and apply them to an approach that we know is

working.

I think that this is a wise move, to try to make sure that we

prioritize among programs while they are not implemented here,

but they are carried out locally.

So I will be glad to answer any questions, as Mr. Portman will.

I have become a true believer. This is something that is happening

in the grassroots. We are not manufacturing it. What we are really

doing is carrying messages and experiences from the grassroots

here to Washington, and then trying to spark their realization in

other places.

So we thank you for this hearing, and we look forward to continuing to work with you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Sander M. Levin follows:]

37

38

39

40

41

Mr. MICA [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Levin, and also my colleague, Mr. Portman, for your leadership on this issue and other

issues relating to drug education, and trying to do a better job in

our communities to address this problem.

I have just one or two quick questions, if I might.

When you all were constructing this legislation, did you find that

there were instances where it duplicated some existing programs

for grants or assistance from the Federal Government?

Mr. LEVIN. I know Mr. Portman and the chairman had to leave.

There is a debate on the floor.

Mr. MICA. Right.

Mr. LEVIN. On an issue that involves drugs.

I think that the answer is no. There is presently a series of demonstration projects being undertaken, most of them being phased

out. I really do not think that this is duplicative. The only thing

that this is duplicative of, it is really not duplicative but it is

replicative. I mean this is an effort to carry out what I think in our

experience is one of the most difficult things, to replicate successful

programs.

Mr. MICA. The other question I had is having dealt with Federal

grants before, and I heard small amounts for these grants, I think

Mr. Portman mentioned $5,000 or something to get started, one of

the problems with receiving Federal money is that it requires a

great deal of reporting, and bookkeeping, and things of that sort.

I am wondering if there is any way that we can still have some

oversight of how these funds are expended and in what fashion

they are expended in an appropriate manner, and yet keep the

mounds of paperwork that usually accompany Federal programs to

a minimum?

Mr. LEVIN. Well, like you, I have worked with a variety of Federal programs. This is fashioned so that there will be a minimum

amount. If you look at the dynamics here, what we are saying to

community groups, you get together, and we are going to provide

some seed moneys, but you are going to run your programs. They

are not going to be operated from here.

I think that the experience from within our own district indicates

that the Federal Government can spark and support initiatives if

it is careful without a lot of paperwork.

Mr. MICA. I thank you for your response, and again for your

leadership on this issue with Mr. Portman, Mr. Rangel, and others.

I yield now to the ranking member, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Mica.

Sander, I just want to thank you for the leadership you have

shown on this issue. Obviously, we all recognize that if we are

going to make progress in our fight against drugs, that it is going

to take a lot of different factions working together. I think that this

is a very good faith effort to do that in a coherent manner, and do

it with a lot of local input. So thank you.

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you. As I leave, I just want to say one thing.

I spent quite a bit of time, as you probably did, in the fall at high

schools, and I left them kind of shaking my head. We are not facing

up to these issues. Where communities are willing to take the lid

off and to really look inside the dynamics of these issues, and to

pull together the resources, we should encourage it.

42

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you.

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you very much.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Charles B. Rangel follows:]

43

44

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Levin. We will excuse you at this

time.

We will call our second panel this afternoon. The second panel

is Mr. James E. Copple, president and CEO of the Community

Anti-Drug Coalitions of America.

Our second panelist is Mr. Robert Francis, who is the executive

director of the Regional Youth and Adult Substance Abuse Prevention Program.

Gentlemen, this is an investigations and oversight subcommittee

of Congress. We do swear in our witnesses, when we are considering this legislation. So if you would please stand and raise your

right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. MICA. The witnesses answered in the affirmative. We thank

you again for joining us, and for your commentary today on this

important legislation issue before this subcommittee and Congress.

We do have a practice of limiting the addresses to 5 minutes, and

we will enforce that today. If you have additional comments or documentation that you would like submitted for the record, we will

accommodate that request.

So first, I will recognize Mr. James E. Copple of the Community

Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. Welcome, and you are recognized,

sir.

STATEMENTS OF JAMES E. COPPLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

COMMUNITY ANTI-DRUG COALITIONS OF AMERICA; AND

ROBERT FRANCIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL

YOUTH AND ADULT SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION

Mr. COPPLE. Thank you, Congressman Mica, and Mr. Barrett. I

appreciate the opportunity to address this important committee on

this important topic. We are thrilled today that this legislation is

being introduced, and that it has bipartisan support. It gives us

great promise and hope in terms of what we hope to see happening

in local communities throughout America.

I am here today to speak to the power and to really the promise

of coalition building in local communities throughout our country.

In today’s complex community environment, coalitions promote coordination and corroboration in needless competition and redundancy in community services aimed at preventing and treating

drug abuse.

A coalition which engages all sectors of a community is able to

identify key problem areas, as well as opportunities, and can chart

the best use of available resources to address priorities in the community. Coalition building is a smart strategy that can make a dynamic difference when it works to its fullest potential. This legislation that we are here to consider recognizes this potential, and provides important resources.

The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 offers great promise and

hope to those of us who have long worked in this field. Communities can no longer afford to work in isolation. Resources are too

few and programs too diffuse. Program and organizational isolation

is our enemy at a time when our children need consistent and persistent messages from all sectors of society.

45

The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 brings about the whole

community, and brings them together to address this problem.

This legislation represents a shift in the way that we have historically funded and addressed this issue. The shift can be highlighted in the following ways. This legislation requires the communities to participate in this program to have clear documentation

and outcome evaluation. Grant recipients must demonstrate that

they can and will document the extent of the community drug problem, and implement programs with outcome evaluation that will

assess whether or not their programs actually produce change.

The emphasis is on outcome evaluation. Previous efforts by the

Federal Government have focused on process evaluation, leaving us

little to assess in terms of effectiveness, and also quite frankly a

far more expensive evaluation process.

Communities must now build coalitions that will reduce drug

abuse, and they must demonstrate how these coalitions make a difference.

The second major shift is that these grant awards are reasonable, and they are targeted grants. Grant awards cannot exceed

$100,000. Community driven coalitions should not be dependent

upon the Federal Government or any other single source for their

sustainability. These awards match existing community efforts that

reflect the size and will of the community to address their own substance abuse problems.

Previous efforts have poured large amounts of Federal dollars

into the community with little or no regard to the community’s capacity to sustain themselves after the Federal funding was no

longer available.

The third major shift is participation by elected officials, which

bring local, State, and national leaders to the table in this process.

This is a top down, bottom up strategy that has proven its effectiveness in many community coalitions throughout the country.

True coalition building engages the political leadership in a way

that helps to create and strengthen community and volunteer

based assets and leadership. Further, another shift is it is a coordinating agency.

This program will be housed and administered in the Office of

National Drug Control Policy. ONDCP’s mission is to provide a coordinated and comprehensive national strategy. Grant recipients

under this legislation are required to build coordinated and comprehensive strategies at the local level.

It is fitting that this program be administered by the one agency

with the mandate to create a coordinated national strategy against

the drug problem. This will help circumvent many of the turf-ish

issues that we often address in local communities.

A fifth shift is citizen participation. This legislation recognizes

the importance of volunteer leaders such as parents, civics clubs,

and clergy. A local coalition will be required to demonstrate a substantial participation from citizens whose lives are directly affected

by drug abuse.

I want to also comment briefly on how this strategy has worked,

and it has worked in numerous communities. We have strong evidence that when diverse sectors of a community corroborate on

46

planning and implementing coordinated strategies, the result is a

positive change in environment behavior.

Just 2 weeks ago, I was in Wisconsin with the Governors Alliance looking at 132 separate coalitions. The number of those alliances that are demonstrating outcome evaluation is very impressive.

A couple of coalitions that I want to highlight is Little Rock, AR,

which is a partnership between the city of Little Rock and a citywide coalition. It has implemented a comprehensive program which

has been so well received that Little Rock voters have chosen to institutionalize these pilot programs with an additional half cent

sales tax to support and expand them.

The innovative programs include the establishment of neighborhood centers with action teams that include community police, code

enforcement, and neighborhood residents, and have reduced the

victim crime rate by 37 percent in the eight target areas. A special

treatment program for pregnant women, which has reduced the

rate of alcohol use by mothers at the time before birth from 37 percent to only 4 percent. It has reduced the incident pre-term labor

from 50 percent to only 8 percent.

These coalitions are working, and they are working to reduce

substance abuse. In Miami, the reported drug use decreased by 55

percent during the campaign from 5.4 percent in 1991 to 2.4 percent in 1993.

In Hattiesburg, MS, the outcome of these targeted efforts was

the DUI arrests decreased by 28 percent, and arrests for individuals under 21 years decreased by 45 percent. Additionally, the rate

of DUI related injuries decreased by 42 percent.

This was the result of coalition strategies. Other examples are included in my testimony, Congressman Mica, as to how these coalitions have worked, and worked effectively when they are coordinated and corroborative.

This legislation gives us additional tools for local communities to

address this issue in a comprehensive and strategic manner. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Copple follows:]

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Mr. MICA. We thank you for your testimony. We will defer questions until we have heard from Mr. Francis.

Mr. Francis is the executive director of the Regional Youth and

Adult Substance Abuse Prevention Program. You are recognized,

sir.

Mr. FRANCIS. Thank you, Congressman Mica and thank you to

the other members of this committee, and especially Congressmen

Portman and Levin and others who introduced this legislation.

As was said, I am the executive director of the Regional Youth

Adult Substance Abuse Project in Bridgeport, CT. We are a regional coalition. My testimony today is going to represent some of

the long-term work that we have done in Bridgeport by a coalition

similar to that in this legislation.

Greater Bridgeport consists of a poor medium-sized city and five

suburban communities ranging from working class to quite

wealthy. The total regional population is about 320,000.

RYASAP was started in 1984 with seed money from the local

United Way in response to a student survey that demonstrated a

very high incidence of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. Cocaine

and hallucinogen use in our region was especially high, with rates

that far exceeded the national data.

Since 1984, RYASAP has conducted substance abuse surveys in

1989, 1992, 1995, and again next year to continue to track our efforts in this region. The research in those years demonstrated a

major reduction in all forms of drug use, but especially with cocaine, crack, heroin, and hallucinogen use among young people.

With alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, there were also major reductions from 1984 to 1992. Alcohol and tobacco use has remained

low. But from 1992 to the present day, we have had increases in

marijuana use. Not quite as high as the national levels, but high

enough to give us alarm.

RYASAP’s reduction in the maintenance of low use of cocaine,

crack, and other harder drugs is much better than the national

data, while the use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana is not quite

as good.

Why the discrepancy? When RYASAP was founded, we placed a

much greater emphasis on these harder drugs, because we were so

far out of whack with the rest of the country. We implemented

broad community awareness campaigns, new school based substance abuse prevention curricula, student assistance teams in our

schools, school police policies, as well as several other targeted prevention activities.

We did not place as much targeted emphasis on marijuana as we

should have and we believe that greater efforts such as the kind

we are pursuing now will have a greater impact.

What are the principles that we used during this time that have

had us had such a strong local impact? These are some of the same

principles represented in this legislation.

First, we focused on an entire continuum of services, not just one

effort—community awareness, education, prevention, intervention,

treatment, law enforcement, and alternative community pilot programs.

We established task forces of grassroots community leaders and

the top level leaders in our community in every area of the conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 May 31, 2002 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\41843 pfrm11 PsN: 41843
54

tinuum. We used our United Way money to leverage other dollars,

the same way that coalitions across the country would use the

money in this to leverage other funds.

We got funding from the Robert Johnson Foundation, from our

local municipalities, from the State of Connecticut, and others to

fill gaps in service, and to give us a comprehensive continuum.

Comprehensive school policies were established. There was one

curriculum established for the entire region in seven different

school systems. Student assistance teams were established in 106

elementary and secondary public and parochial schools. An assessment and case management system for early intervention was introduced and alternative education programs were established.

Through all of this, we had over 1,600 volunteers a year working

in all of these areas from all of the different areas that we are talking about. Second, we focused on sustainability. We knew that the

United Way seed money for 3 years would not be enough to solve

the problem. Substance abuse has been with us for an awfully long

time, and we were not going to lick it in 3 years time.

One of the major things that we did with these funds is we leveraged a lot of other dollars. We secured municipal funding from each

of our six municipalities. We worked to create State legislation that

put coalitions like RYASAP and like the coalitions across the country into the State budget. We conducted local fundraisers.

This allowed us to maintain a core staff that was focused on creating the kind of programs that we need here, and it gave us some

sustainability over an entire period of time.

Third, we know that it takes an entire community, regional in

our case, involving one central city and some of its suburbs. The

problems and therefore the solutions did not belong to one town.

They do not belong to one community or one State. They involve

a corroboration of several communities working in concert with

local, State, and Federal Government.

It also involves all sectors of the community, business, education,

Government, law enforcement, clergy, and human service leaders

working with young people, parents, neighborhood residents, and

senior citizens.

We organized groups block by block, town by town, sector by sector, and we cross-fertilized the different populations, so that they

are all working together, knowing that it took all of us to solve the

problem.

Fourth, we found out that young people need meaningful opportunities to determine their own fate. Our studies and focus groups

tell us that young people are skeptical of what adults have been

telling them about drugs, and especially recently about marijuana.

What they have told us they want, and I feel that they are correct, is meaningful involvement in their own education, and to

work on topics that are developmentally relevant to them. They

want guidance from adults, but they also want to listen to their

peers. They want their opinions to be seriously discussed regarding

legalization, decriminalization, responsible use of alcohol, modeling

of alcohol and drugs by parents, and other things.

Finally, single-focused intervention, such as targeted prevention,

education, cracking down on pushers, or holding more community

55

meetings, are by themselves ineffective. Beware of those who have

one answer.

Unfortunately, we are a Nation of fads and magic potions, excuse

the pun. We demand instant or congressional-term-length solutions. I hope that we would not do that here.

Youth and adults taking mind-altering drugs have been with us

longer than any of you. We will not solve this problem overnight.

Our approach must be long term. It must be sustainable, especially

by the kind of legislation you put forward here.

I want to thank you for your time this afternoon and any questions you have about a local coalition, I would be glad to answer.

Thanks again.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Francis follows:]

56

57

58

59

Mr. BARR [presiding]. Thank you very much.

One of the things you said is it takes an entire community. I am

glad that you did not use the worn phrase that it takes a village.

I appreciate that.

Mr. FRANCIS. I do not believe that Mrs. Clinton started that, by

the way. I think that has been around long before her.

Mr. BARR. What effect from your work in communities on this

issue do role models in the media and in the entertainment business play in this effort?

Mr. FRANCIS. Well, they are an important part. In our area, of

course, we do not have ready access to those folks in terms of using

them. I think that they have an impact on young people. There is

no doubt about that.

Mr. BARR. How about from a negative standpoint? I subscribe to

Car and Driver magazine. I picked up Car and Driver last month

and flipped it open, and there is a picture of a naked Dennis Rodman advertising for milk.

How about from a negative standpoint, the role models that the

media have, the advertisers, and that the entertainment business

portrays, is that something that sort of eats away at all of the good

work that we are trying to do in communities for our kids?

Mr. FRANCIS. I think that it is definitely a fight on our part in

terms of counteracting those messages. I think that we need

enough resources to counteract those messages on a regular basis.

I do not think that you can put up enough money to counteract

things like Joe Camel, and the frogs on the Budweiser commercials, and people like that. Some of our role models give you mixed

messages, like the Dennis Rodman commercial.

Mr. BARR. I do not think that there is anything mixed about the

message that Dennis Rodman gives.

Mr. FRANCIS. I think that what we do in the community by community approach is that we are the people out there talking to

young people on a regular basis. You need people out there talking.

Mr. BARR. Over the long term.

Mr. FRANCIS. Over the long term to counteract that.

Mr. BARR. How about mentoring programs? One of the programs

in which I participated when I was a U.S. Attorney in Atlanta was

a mentoring program at the local high school. At least in Atlanta,

we found that was really, in talking to the kids, one of the types

of programs that meant a lot more to them than just bringing

somebody in who is a big name and deliver a message in the school

auditorium.

They appreciated the mentoring program, because the kids could

count on those men and women in the mentoring program being

there month after month after month for the entire school year.

Is it important in looking at these programs and these grants to

understand, as I think we need to, that if we are not serious about

making funds available and having the programs being able to sustain themselves over a long period of time, that it is almost not

worth doing?

Because if we jump in for a little bit and then we leave, that in

and of itself I find gives the kids a bad message. That we are not

going to trust you in the future, because we feel you are going to

60

abandon us. You are here today, and maybe you will be gone tomorrow.

Is that an important thing to keep in mind in these programs?

Mr. FRANCIS. I would like you to come to my community and almost give that talk. Because we are supporting a couple of local

mentoring programs with our funds right now, and it is to do exactly that.

One of the programs that we are supporting are some people who

have been through the criminal justice system themselves and have

already been in jail. But when they come out, we have supported

a program where they have been picked up by this organization

and they have been trained, and they have turned their lives

around. They have sort of adopted young people themselves that

they are following, who have started to get into some trouble, who

have been in the juvenile court, and they have linked up with

them. They are providing a model for them to do positive things.

They are always there. Their telephone numbers are available 24

hours a day 7 days a week. They are almost better than the parent

who is missing in many cases here, and they are providing a very

positive role model. They are able to tell them from firsthand life

experience what is going on.

Mr. COPPLE. If I could add too, Mr. Barr. Mentoring is one of

those programs nationally that has good evaluation data. We are

seeing that mentoring makes a difference and that many of our

coalitions and one of the powers of this piece of legislation, it gives

coalitions the option to design those kinds of programs.

Because kids at risk, all kids, need a significant adult in their

life. Those adults come from multiple sectors, be it the faith community, the schools, the media, the business community, they are

present in this kind of effort. It gives coalitions and community

groups the leverage and the power to do those kinds of programs.

Mr. BARR. One program, at least, Mr. Francis, you did not mention by name—and I do not know, Mr. Copple, if you did—is the

Just Say No program, that I think was a very effective program in

the 1980’s.

In your view, was it an effective program?

Mr. COPPLE. It was effective to the extent that it was part of a

larger media message. It is important for young people to hear

those messages. It was something around which communities, and

groups, and young people could rally.

But again, as I think Bob indicated earlier, there is no single solution and it requires no single curriculum. There is no single message. Kids are different, and communities are different. We need

those messages coming across culture, and across the various sectors that intersect with the child.

I think that a media strategy that focuses on that will be important. But it has to be bolstered, as it was in the 1980’s. It has to

be bolstered by strong community participation.

Mr. BARR. Are there some coalitions that are in fact demonstrably reducing teenage substance abuse, and some communities

that are doing far better than the national figures that we see?

Mr. COPPLE. A number of them. I have indicated in my testimony, to call your attention to Hattiesburg, MS that focused on

substance abuse reduction. The Miami Coalition reduced it by over

61

50 percent and a coalition that I worked with, Project Freedom in

Wichita, KS, we reduced DUI instances by 35 percent.

MOMS, we did a live study and evaluation on 800 live births,

where we found that 18 percent of the live births in our community

were drug-exposed. We reduced that to 9 percent over a 2-year period. Because it brought the various sectors, multiple sectors, together.

In Gallup, NM, they reduced substance abuse significantly ahead

of the national average, as well as in Little Rock.

There are a number of coalitions that are making this happen.

When they do coordinated, corroborative strategies, and they link

good strategic planning with evaluation, we generally see impact

and this is what this legislation requires happening.

Mr. BARR. Thank you.

Mr. FRANCIS. You cannot let up. I think that is one of the keys.

We cannot fall asleep at the wheel here. We need coalitions that

we can count on day to day. They cannot be out there just struggling for dollars all of the time. They have to be out there with the

people, and actually doing the work that we have discussed here.

Mr. BARR. OK. Thank you.

At this time, I would like to recognize the distinguished ranking

member.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the introduction to the bill or in the findings of the bill, one

of the statements that is made refers to the increase of drug usage

among younger teens.

What do you see as the cause of that?

Mr. COPPLE. I have labeled and I have borrowed the phrase from

Lloyd Johnson at the University of Michigan. I think that we have

one significant influence, and that is generational forgetting. That

as Bob has indicated earlier, this is a long term strategy that requires consistent and persistent messages.

We have parents who are very much conflicted over the messaging, when 60 percent of them themselves used drugs during the

1960’s. They are struggling with how to frame their response and

frame their reaction.

We have lost sight of this message. In the last couple of years,

we are starting to recover the message. But I think that media

norms have changed, and community norms have changed and that

the greater peer pressure is beginning to focus on young people.

I have often illustrated. I have a 21-year-old daughter. When she

was in junior high, she was not offered drugs, not even one time.

My 14-year-old daughter, who just finished middle school, junior

high, last year was offered drugs seven times last year.

The attitude of how it is normalized in the mainstream culture

is significantly different over a period of 6 years. But a lot of it has

to do with generational forgetting, and not keeping consistent with

the message.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Francis.

Mr. FRANCIS. I think that the No. 1 question, I talk to a lot of

parent groups in my travels, and the question arises in every single

group, I used drugs when I was a teenager and when I was in my

twenties, what do I say to my kids when they ask me whether I

62

used drugs, or what do I tell them, that it is wrong having a joint

or having some marijuana?

What we have done is we have instituted a pretty broad educational program to really help parents put that message across.

You can either be very honest with your kids and tell them that

you did use. I think that is a judgment call. That is not something

that I am going to say one way or another in terms of whether you

tell your kids the truth about that.

But I think that the truth worked well can work. It is not the

idea that I used drugs, and I am using generically, when I was a

young person. Whether I can talk to my children well about that

or not. It is sort of how I convey that message, the harm that will

be done, how it stunts their motivation.

Parents are having a very difficult time with this issue and it

starts a discussion every time we meet with parents too about that

issue in general. You know, the parents today of these teenagers

are in their thirties, forties, early fifties possibly at the latest. They

are the generation that experimented probably more than any

other.

If you look at substance abuse in the late 1960’s and early

1970’s, that data far exceeds what we are looking at today. As high

as we think it is today, it was almost double than it is today back

then.

Mr. BARRETT. Have we seen a more dramatic increase in the use

of cocaine; and if you have a generation of adults who used primarily marijuana, are we seeing their children moving to cocaine,

or are their children basically staying with marijuana?

Mr. FRANCIS. We are not seeing that. We focused a lot of attention on cocaine and our cocaine use in 1984 was the highest in the

country. We had a 12 percent of high school seniors who had tried

cocaine in 1984. We had less than 1 percent last year when we did

our survey. So we are not seeing it with harder drugs, but we are

seeing it with marijuana.

Mr. COPPLE. I would concur with that. The rates of increase in

cocaine use is not as dramatic as we are seeing with marijuana,

methamphetamine, and inhalants, which have become more of the

popular drugs for younger kids.

Mr. BARRETT. When I looked out over the audience in the hearing, and looked at the faces of all of the good people here, I noted

that there were no minorities here. That troubles me, obviously.

Because I think that in many of the minority communities in our

country that the problem is that they do not have the resources to

go into treatment programs, if they get tripped up by drugs.

What makes you confident that this type of program will work

in minority communities?

Mr. COPPLE. This is by coincidence more than design. I was in

Milwaukee 2 weeks ago meeting with a group of neighborhood coalition leaders, part of Milwaukee Fighting Back. When we talked

about this legislation, and its promise and its prospect, there were

two messages that I heard. That drug abuse disproportionately affects minority communities and neighborhoods, because of drug

trafficking. But 70 percent of the drug abuse in this country is

white middle class.

63

Unfortunately, the minority community, we have got to deal with

its disproportionate impact that oftentimes the issue is exacerbated

by poverty, joblessness, and a number of other factors.

The message that I heard is that any resources that can be directed toward local communities to give them the power to choose

the program designs that best work for their neighborhoods and

communities will be welcomed.

They are tired of prescriptive programs. Because it worked in

Chicago does not mean that it will work in Milwaukee. Because it

works in Milwaukee does not mean that it will work in Wichita.

They want the flexibility to be able to design and implement programs that work for them.

It is critical that we give them resources to look at a variety of

solutions. Because a spokesperson in Milwaukee in terms of a

housing project working with low income families to actually purchase housing, and to target drug abuse in those environments that

are having an impact on housing prices, he has to have the flexibility to be able to design a program, and to be given the resources

to effectively implement it.

Again, from my perspective with 4,300 coalition members that

are very diverse, we need to give resources in a flexible manner

that gives them the power to design their programs.

Mr. FRANCIS. Let me reinforce that a little bit. Because we have

one of these phasing out CSAP grants from the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. One of the things we did with that is we

are trying to demonstrate a new concept that reinforces exactly

what Jim is talking about.

That the prescription formula of doing for people and doing what

you think is best for them is gone. Where we are right now is that

people really need to come up with their own solutions, and they

are fully capable of doing that.

What we did with this grant is that we started taking a look

neighborhood by neighborhood, going to neighborhood action councils in Bridgeport, and mapping their assets, not their deficits. Not

how desperate and destitute these communities were, but the kind

of positive resources they had in that community.

Once we identified those through a geo-mapping process, we then

organized them to come up with OK, how do you want to organize

your block and your community to do something about the drug

dealing and the drug use you have here. Where they did not have

block clubs, they formed block clubs and they formed neighborhood

watch programs.

They started working with each other. This mentoring program

that I talked about earlier they had mentors on the street that

started intervening with the young people who were there and

dealing with them. They did it themselves.

The beauty of the coalition piece working with this is that we

were able to facilitate that process. We taught them how to conduct

meetings, and to put together plans to figure out where the money

was, either in enterprise community money, or community develop

block grant money or whatever, and taught them how to go after

those resources to do something on their blocks.

But they did it themselves. We were just there as a guide for

them, as a helper in that process. We had some skills that they did

64

not have. But we are in the process of transferring our skills to

them.

I think that is the beauty of what we are talking about here and

what I said earlier, that there is no one prescription or no one formula.

In Bridgeport right now, we are working with 16 neighborhood

groups. There are at least 16 different solutions. Those neighborhood groups have formed block groups and we even have more than

that. It keeps multiplying.

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here, for providing

their materials both in writing and orally, as well as answering

questions. I look forward to continuing to work with you and I appreciate your support of this important legislation.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. FRANCIS. Thank you.

Mr. COPPLE. Thank you.

Mr. BARR. At this point, the subcommittee will stand in recess

until 3:30 or 5 minutes after the last vote on Mexico, whichever occurs the latest, for the markup.

[Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the hearing adjourned, with the subcommittee to reconvene at 3:30 p.m., Thursday, March 13, 1997, for

markup.]

Æ