U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–827 PDF 2009

ADDRESSING GANGS: 

WHAT’S EFFECTIVE? WHAT’S NOT? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 10, 2008 

Serial No. 110–151 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

CAROLINE LYNCH, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 10, 2008 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 4 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 5 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Charles Ogletree, Jr., Professor and Director of the Charles Hamilton 

Houston Institute for Race and Justice, Cambridge, MA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 

Mr. Frank Straub, Commissioner, White Plains Department of Public Safety, 

White Plains, NY 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

Major John Buckovich, Richmond Police Department, Richmond, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 64 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 66 

Mr. Ely Flores, Leadership Facilitator and Teaching Assistant, Los Angeles, 

CA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 77 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 79 

Mr. Kevin O’Connor, Associate Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 83 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 85 

Mr. Robert D. Macy, Executive Director of the Boston Children’s Foundation, 

Beverly Farms, MA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 111 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 113 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 153 

(1) 

ADDRESSING GANGS: 

WHAT’S EFFECTIVE? WHAT’S NOT? 

TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

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

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert C. 

‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Scott, Nadler, Jackson Lee, 

Waters, Baldwin, Smith, Gohmert, Coble, Chabot, and Forbes. 

Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Majority Chief Counsel; Rachel 

King, Majority Counsel; Mario Dispenza, Majority Fellow, ATF 

Detailee; Karen Wilkinson, Majority Fellow, Federal Public Defender Office Detailee; Veronica Eligan, Majority Professional Staff 

Member; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, 

Minority Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. The Committee will 

now come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you today to this hearing before the 

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security to discuss what is effective in preventing gang crime and what is not. 

This hearing is the latest of several Subcommittee hearings we 

have held to take testimony and counsel from experts in the field 

of justice over this session of Congress for the purpose of developing effective crime legislation. 

Today, among our witnesses, we are joined by Professor Charles 

Ogletree, the director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute 

for Race and Justice in Harvard Law School. The institute recently 

completed a study and released a policy brief in March in 2008 entitled ‘‘No More Children Left Behind Bars: A Briefing on Youth 

Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention.’’ The focus of today’s hearing will be to discuss this study’s findings which give the 

most up-to-date information about evidence-based foundations for 

sound crime policy. 

Now working on crimes issues over the years, I have learned that 

when it comes to crime policy, you have a choice: You can reduce 

crime or you can play politics. The politics of crime calls for the socalled tough-on-crime approach, such as more death penalties, 

more life without parole, mandatory minimum sentences, treating 

more juveniles as adults or as gang members. 

2 

However, we can now show by research and evidence that while 

these approaches score well in political polls, they have little to do 

with preventing crime. Under the get-tough approach, no matter 

how tough we were last year, we have to get tougher this year. We 

have been getting tougher for about 25 years now, and since 1980, 

we have gone from about 200,000 persons incarcerated in the 

United States to over two million. 

This incarceration binge is not free. The annual prison costs have 

gone from $9 billion in 1982 to over $65 billion a year now. Los Angeles County spends about $2 billion a year in State, Federal, and 

local funding to lock people up. In several cities in my district, we 

spend between $250 to $500 per citizen. About $750 to $1,500 per 

child or, if you target for at-risk dangerous children, about $1,500 

to $3,000 or more per child per year locking people up. 

The chart on the left shows where we are in international incarceration rates. The United States now is the world’s leading 

incarcerator by far. The incarceration rate is seven times the international average. The world average of incarceration is about 100 

persons per 100,000. The average rate in the United States is over 

700 per 100,000, and in some States, the rate goes over 4,000 per 

100,000. 

Russia is the next closest with the rate of incarceration of about 

560. Every other nation is below that, such as India. In the world’s 

largest democracy, 36 people locked up today for 100,000 population; China, the world’s largest population, 118 per 100,000; the 

United States, over 700 and, in some areas, over 4,000. 

The United States has the world’s most severe punishments for 

crime, especially for juveniles. Of over more than 2,200 juveniles 

sentenced to life without parole all over the world, all but about a 

dozen are in the United States. Some who were given their sentence as first-time offenders under circumstances such as being a 

passenger in a car from which a drive-by shooting occurred. Examples like this prove that we are already tough on crime. 

All States have provisions that allow, if not require, juveniles to 

be treated as adults for trial, sentencing, and incarceration for serious offenses. Most juveniles treated as adults are convicted actually 

for non-violent offenses. 

And, again, we are very tough on crime, especially juvenile 

crime, and this chart shows it on a graph, that we are off the 

charts in terms of incarceration. 

And yet crime persists, and it is growing, by some accounts, even 

as we continue to cling to our get-tough approach. Still, under some 

proposals before this Congress, such as those who are addressing 

gangs, we would further expand the get-tough approach by punishing conspiracies and attempts the same as completion of the 

crime. This would result in a lot more fringe involved individuals 

being sentenced to harsh punishments, such as life without parole. 

And the impact of the focus on touch enforcement approaches 

falls disproportionately on minorities, particularly Black and Hispanic children. Many studies have established that when compared 

to similarly situated White children, minority children are treated 

more harshly at every stage of the juvenile and criminal justice 

system. 

3 

I am concerned that policies, such as expanding the definition of 

‘‘gang’’ and expanding big gang databases, would only exacerbate 

this problem, with no impact on reducing crime. Without appropriate intervention, these children will be on what the Children’s 

Defense Funds has described as a cradle-to-prison pipeline where 

many minority children are born on a trajectory to prison. When 

we realize that it is possible to get them on a cradle-to-college pipeline, it is tragic and much more costly to society in the long run, 

if we do not do so. 

Research and analysis as well as common sense tell us that no 

matter how tough the law on the people you prosecute today, unless you are addressing the underlying reasons for crime, nothing 

will change. The next crime wave will simply replace the ones you 

have taken out, and the crime continues. So the get-tough approach 

has little impact on crime. 

Further, all credible research and evidence shows that a continuum of services for youth identified as being at risk of involvement in delinquent behavior and those already involved will save 

much more money than they cost compared to the aborted law enforcement and other expenditures, and these programs are most effective when they are provided in the context of a coordinated, collaborative strategy involving law enforcement, educational, social 

service, mental health, non-profit, faith-based, and business sectors 

working with identified children at risk of involvement in the 

criminal justice system. 

In the face of all of this evidence, it is curious that we have continued to rely on the so-called get-tough approach. It is my fervent 

hope that with the testimony and evidence that the Subcommittee 

will hear today that we will change this focus of crime legislation 

from sound bite policies to effective legislation. I look forward to 

working with my colleagues as we adopt these proven concepts. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the esteemed Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Judge 

Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Chairman Scott. 

And thank you for holding this important hearing today on strategies for combating gang violence. 

My colleague from Virginia and I share deep concern for the impact of violent gangs on our communities and our youth. Although 

we may have different approaches for addressing this issue, our 

goal is the same. 

Today, there are nearly one million gang members in America— 

one million. It may be hard for some to appreciate the magnitude 

of this, but when you consider that the total number of Navy and 

Army active duty personnel is 856,000, then it becomes a startling 

figure. 

Sadly, the problem of gang violence in America is not a new one. 

For decades, gangs of all shapes and sizes have exacted control of 

our neighborhoods, brought narcotics and guns to our street corners, and instilled fear in our families. 

Street gangs, prison gangs, biker gangs, even border gangs, each 

with different styles and organizations, present a daunting challenge for law enforcement. Once thought to be only a problem in 

our Nation’s largest cities, gangs have now invaded smaller cities 

4 

and suburban areas, cities like Richmond, Orlando, Tulsa, and 

even my home in Tyler, Texas, where nearly 20 years ago a gang 

task force was implemented with sophisticated anti-gang initiatives 

that had been traditionally utilized in Los Angeles, New York or 

Chicago. 

Equally troubling is that today’s gang members are younger and 

younger. Youth gang members commit a high percentage of gang 

murders, robberies, and assaults. According to statistics, nearly one 

in five gang murders are committed by offenders under the age of 

18. Preventing America’s children from joining a gang is perhaps 

the greatest hurdle to stopping the growth of gangs. 

In my home state of Texas, rival Mexican drug gangs are at war 

with each other across the U.S.-Mexico border. The Gulf cartel and 

the Sinaloa cartel have turned Laredo, TX, and Mexico’s neighboring city, Nuevo Laredo, into the most significant launching 

point for illegal drugs entering the United States. It has become 

basically a war zone. 

To protect and expand their criminal operations, these cartels 

maintain highly developed intelligence networks on both sides of 

the border and employ private armies to carry out enforcement 

measures. The Gulf cartel employs a group of former elite military 

soldiers known as Los Zetas. Los Zetas have been instrumental in 

the Gulf cartel’s domination of the drug trade in Nuevo Laredo. In 

addition to defending the Gulf cartel’s terrain in northern Mexico, 

the Zetas are also believed to control trafficking routes along the 

eastern half of the U.S.-Mexico border. 

In cities across the country, prevention, education, and rehabilitation efforts are being combined with law enforcement strategies 

to provide a comprehensive approach to dismantling gangs, prosecuting gang violence, and deterring gang affiliation, particularly 

among young people, but violent international gangs, such as MS13, or border gangs, such as Los Zetas, pose a dangerous threat 

that requires a sophisticated coordinated law enforcement response. 

But one tactic must be mandatory, and that is for greater border 

security at a time when the estimates we have heard indicate that 

there may be 70 to 75 percent of gang members illegally here in 

this country, and the estimate we have seen and in testimony 

today, I think, has illustrated that probably 90 percent of the MS13ers are illegally here. 

Gangs have evolved from what they were just a few decades ago. 

The answer to the question, ‘‘What is effective to combat gangs?’’ 

must evolve as well. One size no longer fits all. 

I welcome our witnesses. Thank you for joining us today. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And we are pleased to be joined by the Chairman of the full 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is important because we have been dealing with gangs for 

decades, if not generations, and there have been unusual attempts 

at it. I am glad there is one of our witnesses with a sociological and 

hopefully a psychological approach that I will be very interested in. 

And, of course, we have our dear friend from Harvard Law School, 

5 

Charles Ogletree, who has joined us on many occasions in the Judiciary Committee. 

But I was struck by your observation that unless you deal with 

the underlying causes of crime, we are not going to get very far 

down the line, and, of course, it requires what is necessary in all 

Federal legislative undertakings. You have to depoliticize the subject matter. You try to deal with health care, and if you do not 

depoliticize it, you just get different groups with their own points 

of self-interest arguing or sharing views with one another, and we 

will not get anywhere. 

Gangs, of course, frequently have a racial connotation, and that 

is due to, in my view, the fact that it is much easier for young people of color to get into an unhealthy relationship with law enforcement than anybody else, namely because we are still clearing the 

race situation out of law enforcement and out of criminal justice 

and out of the courts and out of the prisons. 

So it does not take a lot of research to realize that with some of 

these notions of how to deal with gangs some wanted increased 

prosecution. We have some bills, I think, still laying around. Fortunately, they are in your Committee, so we sleep pretty comfortably 

at night. 

But these bills say, ‘‘Let’s crack down on crime.’’ Everybody says, 

‘‘Right on. Well, let’s get the gangs first.’’ And then you get a few 

young men of color on the corner, and they say, ‘‘Well, any association like that, that constitutes a gang, and let’s break them up 

right away.’’ 

And so this kind of simplistic implication of lack of education, living in a poor economic community, and then having a broken-down 

education system on top of all of that, and then throw in the vast 

unemployment characteristic—and I used to laugh about the unemployment statistics. When they are telling you about 6 percent and 

7 percent—oh, and in some places, it is up to 10—look, there are 

places inside the inner cities of America where there is 50 percent 

unemployment, 60 percent unemployment. There are more people 

out of work than are working. 

And then if you were too academic about this, Chairman Scott, 

you would start saying, ‘‘Well, let’s look at the technical reasons.’’ 

Look, if you do not have a job, you come from a broken family, the 

education system is not working, the police have frequently associated more as your enemy than as your friend, and then you say, 

‘‘Well, I wonder why they joined a gang’’—and so we are here to 

begin the exploration, the continued examination, of a very important subject. 

And what this Committee has done—I can say as the longestserving Member on it—in the 110th Congress breaks new ground, 

and so we continue this exploration of how we get to the truth in 

this matter, and that is why I am proud to be with the Committee 

today. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The Ranking Member is with us today, the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As our children begin their summer vacations, their safety is now 

more than ever on the minds of parents across the country, and 

6 

these concerns are no longer reserved for families in large cities. 

With the spread of violent crime to traditionally suburban areas 

and smaller cities, parents in all parts of the United States fear violence in their neighborhoods. 

Gangs are responsible for a large number of violent crimes committed each year, including homicides. Experts estimate that there 

are more than one million gang members nationwide. In San Antonio, Texas, my home town, there are over 4,500 gang members, and 

those are only the ones who have been identified and documented 

by local law enforcement officials. 

As part of our efforts to prevent violent crime and curb the expansion of gangs in our communities, we need to address the flow 

of illegal immigration. That is because some of the most dangerous 

gangs in America today are comprised primarily of illegal immigrants. 

For example, MS-13 is one of the largest and most violent gangs 

in the country, active in at least 38 States and boasting approximately 30,000 to 50,000 members worldwide. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 90 percent of MS-13 members in the 

U.S. are illegal immigrants. In California, 80 percent of the gang’s 

members are illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America. 

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicides are for illegal immigrants. 

Last week, U.S. Marshals arrested three men in the May 31 

death of Omar Florencio-Vazquez of Manassas, VA. One of the 

three members apprehended, Sebastian Cortez Hernandez, had 

been deported in 2003 after being arrested on gang charges. 

It is clear that many gangs in the United States are heavily dependent on the recruitment of illegal immigrants. The only way to 

put gangs out of business is to secure our borders and to facilitate 

deportations. Such approaches may not solve all of our gang problems, but they will go a long way toward solving many of them. 

We must also look to strengthen our own laws against gang 

members and to beef up sentences both to deter and to incapacitate 

gang members. There is also a special Federal role in promoting cooperation and coordination among various jurisdictions, especially 

through task forces and targeted grants, because many gangs do 

not respect communities’ borders. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. 

And I want to thank the witnesses for their expert testimony 

coming up shortly. 

Now I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses with us today to discuss these important issues. 

Our first witness will be Professor Charles Ogletree, the Harvard 

Law School professor of law, founder and executive director of the 

Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice. He is a 

prominent legal theorist who has made an international reputation 

by taking a hard look at complex issues of law and working to secure rights guaranteed by the Constitution for everyone equally 

under the law. He has a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree in 

political science from Stanford and a J.D. from Harvard Law 

School. 

7 

Dr. Frank Straub is a commissioner for public safety for the City 

of White Plains, New York. He has over 24 years of experience in 

law enforcement at the Federal, State, and local levels. He is nationally recognized as an innovator, having introduced COMSTAT, 

a concept to improve performance and implement innovative community policing strategies. He holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology, a master’s degree in forensics psychology, and a Ph.D. in 

criminal justice. 

Our next witness is Major John Buckovich of Richmond, Virginia, 

Police Department, who brings a wealth of diverse investigative, 

tactical, and organizational experience. He has received several 

medals of honor during his service, including the Medal of Valor, 

the Police Medal, the SWAT Medal, the Meritorious Police Duty 

Award, the Unit Citation, and the Excellent Police Duty Award. He 

has a bachelor’s degree in applied science from the University of 

Richmond and is a graduate of the FBI Academy. 

The next witness will be Ely Flores, a former gang member who 

has become a talented organizer, facilitator, and public speaker. He 

has worked with many community-based organizations in the Los 

Angeles area, working on community organizing, social awareness 

workshops, facilitation workshops, asset-based community development, adultism, leadership development, and California legal education. He is working on two educational pursuits at this time. He 

is working on an associate’s degree in liberal arts from Trade-Technical College in Los Angeles and is working toward certification in 

youth development training by YouthBuild USA. 

Our next witness will be Kevin J. O’Connor, associate attorney 

general of the United States. He has a wealth of legal experience, 

including partnership with the law firm of Day, Berry & Howard, 

and served as corporate counsel for the town of West Hartford, 

Connecticut, and as a staff attorney for the United States Exchange Commission. He has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame and a J.D. from the University of Connecticut 

School of Law. 

And our final witness will be Dr. Robert Macy, director of community services for the trauma center in Boston, Massachusetts. 

He has 20 years of experience doing clinical interventions and academic research in the field of behavioral health crisis intervention 

and traumatic incidents management, which he has presented at 

numerous regional, national, and international conferences. He has 

a bachelor’s degree from Lewis & Clark College, a master’s degree 

in psychology from Lesley University, and an advanced graduate 

degree in cognitive neuroscience from Harvard, and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology again from Harvard. 

Each of our witnesses’ written testimony will be made part of the 

record in its entirety, and I would ask the witnesses to summarize 

your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that 

time, there is a timing device at the table which will start with 

green, go to yellow when you have about a minute left, and finally 

red when your 5 minutes are up. 

And we begin with Professor Ogletree. 

8 

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES OGLETREE, JR., PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF THE CHARLES HAMILTON HOUSTON INSTITUTE 

FOR RACE AND JUSTICE, CAMBRIDGE, MA 

Mr. OGLETREE. Thank you, Congressman Bobby Scott. I am very 

pleased to be here to testify today. 

This is the first time I have been as far away from the clock in 

testifying, and so I cannot see how much time I have left, but I am 

sure you will remind me. 

I am very happy to be here today, and I wanted to have not only 

my testimony submitted to the record, but also a report that we did 

called ‘‘No More Children Left Behind Bars: A Briefing on Youth 

Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention’’ that we prepared 

this past March, having had the chance to examine several bills 

that were both in the Senate and the House. 

My colleagues, Dr. Susan Eaton, David Harris, and Johanna 

Wald—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Without objection, the report will be made part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

9 


B-1.eps
10 


B-2.eps
11 


B-3.eps
12 


B-4.eps
13 


B-5.eps
14 


B-6.eps
15 


B-7.eps
16 


B-8.eps
17 


B-9.eps
18 


B-10.eps
19 


B-11.eps
20 


B-12.eps
21 


B-13.eps
22 


B-14.eps
23 


B-15.eps
24 


B-16.eps
25 


B-17.eps
26 


B-18.eps
27 


B-19.eps
28 


B-20.eps
29 


B-21.eps
30 


B-22.eps
31 


B-23.eps
32 


B-24.eps
33 

Mr. OGLETREE. Thank you. 

Dr. Susan Eaton, David Harris, Johanna Wald, and Daniel Losen 

have been working extremely hard on this topic. 

And I hope there will be at least two important conclusions 

today. 

First of all, there is no one on this panel or in this room who supports the idea of gang violence. We all think it is a problem and 

it should be addressed. It is not to suggest there is not a serious 

problem, but the problem is how we have addressed it thus far. 

The money that we have spent on gangs at the expense of prevention is just astonishing. 

We have focused on targeted groups, many of them male, many 

of them Black and Brown, and if you look in this audience today, 

you see a lot of young men who have overcome those challenges 

and tell us if we invest in our communities, it makes a huge difference in those who will be able to make a difference. 

And if we want to solve the problem of violent crime, it is imperative that we focus on the gang members and not every single person of color who happens to fit the age, the dress, the race, and the 

residential profile. It is too inclusive, and it undermines the idea 

of having a focused and seriously addressed criminal justice system. 

I also want to acknowledge the work of Dr. Robert Macy who you 

will be hearing from momentarily who is providing expert testimony today, and he supports the most counterproductive direction 

that we can move in. It tells you it is to expand the net of offenses 

for which youths can be prosecuted and incarcerated. If we do, he 

will tell you, we will snare into that net those children and teenagers who are neither dangerous nor violent, but very much in 

need of adult guidance and direction and opportunities to develop 

healthy pursuits, talents, and skills. 

Moreover, a strategy that will almost certainly target children of 

color who live in the communities that are already overwhelmed 

undermines the very purpose of crime prevention. We can prevent 

these crimes by addressing more systematically, more systemically, 

and more effectively and more costly the idea from birth to teenage 

years giving those children a healthy environment, an opportunity 

to go to school, family resources in a community that has programs 

that addresses them. 

In our report, we outline some of the best practices in the country that have been very effective over the past few years, and they 

are there for the Committee to consider. 

And one of the problems that you cannot ignore, this idea of 

sweeping in gangs has led to an onslaught of sweeping in Black 

and Brown males, particularly in places like California and in 

places like the City of Detroit and Chicago and Philadelphia and 

Washington, DC. You can almost take any map and see where 

there is a large conglomerate of African-American men or Latino 

men and see an overrepresentation of criminal justice system. 

It is a problem that has been plagued by the absence of meaningful educational programs, by a net that is too large, and by the absence of any meaningful efforts to address it systemically. 

Finally, I would say that our institute is very interested and willing and able to assist this Committee in not only looking at the 

34 

data that is available, but also coming up with recommendations 

that will address the concerns of those who want to fight crime and 

fight the criminals and not just fight those who are innocent bystanders and who are the byproduct of a system whose net is much 

too large, whose focus is much too general, and whose target is 

largely men of color who are African-American and Latino. 

We can address those issues much more systemically, and I hope 

we have a chance to do that during the course of this hearing and 

beyond. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogletree follows:] 

35 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES OGLETREE, JR. 


CJO-1.eps
36 


CJO-2.eps
37 


CJO-3.eps
38 


CJO-4.eps
39 


CJO-5.eps
40 


CJO-6.eps
41 


CJO-7.eps
42 


CJO-8.eps
43 


CJO-9.eps
44 


CJO-10.eps
45 


CJO-11.eps
46 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Now Dr. Straub? 

TESTIMONY OF FRANK STRAUB, COMMISSIONER, WHITE 

PLAINS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, WHITE PLAINS, NY 

Mr. STRAUB. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Members of the 

Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify about White Plains police strategies that have reduced violent crime and gang activity, 

improved communication with our young people, and built trust in 

our neighborhoods. 

In 2006, a series of violent events—a fatal stabbing in March, a 

fatal shooting in May, two more stabbings in September, and a 

shootout in the city’s largest public housing complex—brought the 

realities of gang violence to White Plains. 

In response, the police department increased uniform patrols and 

stepped up enforcement in crime hot spots. Detectives identified 

gang leaders, arrested them and their crews. The community policing division conducted home visits, interrupting potential violence, 

and preventing retaliation. 

Police and Youth Bureau representatives met with the AfricanAmerican community and ministers in that community who demanded that the police end the violence. At the same time, they 

described incidents that had generated animosity and distrust between the community and the police. 

There is no single response to youth violence and gang activity. 

Enforcement alone is insufficient. Long-term solutions require comprehensive, collaborative models that offer real alternatives, individualized services, support, and mentoring. 

We partnered with the North American Family Institute to develop and implement a program to reduce youth-involved violence 

and improve community police relations. 

The youth-police initiative brings at-risk youth and patrol officers together to discuss race, respect, street violence, and gang activity. In role playing, they learn how their actions and language 

can escalate street encounters, and by the end of the 2 weeks, the 

youth and police officers come to realize that maybe they are not 

that different. 

Team-building exercises held outdoors in the heart of our public 

housing complexes generate community interest and support. For 

many residents, this may be the first time they have seen police 

officers positively engaging with youth in their neighborhood. 

Step Up, another critical component of our gang reduction strategy, is based on DOJ’s Comprehensive Gang Model program. Atrisk youth enter Step Up through police referrals, youth bureau 

outreach, and most recently, young men and women in the program have recruited their peers. Once engaged, the youth receive 

individualized case management to address truancy, school performance, job skills, teen parenting, substance abuse, and other 

issues. Among the 87 young men and women who have participated 

in Step Up to date, individual risk levels and negative police contacts have been reduced by the twelfth month. 

The White Plains Police Department’s prisoner re-entry program, 

the first in Westchester County, represents a further effort to prevent violence. A multiagency team led by the police department 

47 

meets with county jail inmates 1 month prior to their release. Social service providers, religious groups, and community organizations offer employment, housing, education, mental health, and 

other services. The police reinforce the message that criminal activity will not be tolerated and discuss repercussions of re-offending. 

In 2007, the re-entry team met with 84 inmates. Only seven have 

been re-arrested. 

The White Plains Police Department under my leadership is committed to fighting crime on all fronts. Traditional police strategies 

target high-rate offenders, illegal activities, and crime hot spots. 

The community policing division partners with the city’s youth bureau and community organizations to develop and implement programs that target the factors that drive violence and gang activity. 

As a result, serious crime has declined by 40 percent to the lowest level in 42 years. There has not been a homicide since the fatal 

shooting in May 2006. 

The White Plains Police paradigm confirms that the police, 

through their actions, enforcement, and community building, can 

shape and define the factors that impact crime. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your leadership 

regarding the youth crime aspect. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Straub follows:] 

48 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK STRAUB


FGS-1.eps
49 


FGS-2.eps
50 


FGS-3.eps
51 


FGS-4.eps
52 


FGS-5.eps
53 


FGS-6.eps
54 


FGS-7.eps
55 


FGS-8.eps
56 


FGS-9.eps
57 


FGS-10.eps
58 


FGS-11.eps
59 


FGS-12.eps
60 


FGS-13.eps
61 


FGS-14.eps
62 


FGS-15.eps
63 


FGS-16.eps
64 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Major Buckovich? 

TESTIMONY OF MAJOR JOHN BUCKOVICH, 

RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT, RICHMOND, VA 

Mr. BUCKOVICH. Chairman Scott and Members of the Committee, 

in response to the rise of violence and gang activity, the Richmond 

Police Department has—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Could you pull the mic a little bit closer? 

Mr. BUCKOVICH. Is that better? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. BUCKOVICH. The Richmond Police Department has sought to 

develop a focused and comprehensive violent crime and gang strategy which addresses the systemic enablers of the crime and that 

will create lasting partnerships with the community and our local 

and Federal law enforcement partners. The key to this focused 

strategy is accountability on all levels of our organization as well 

as from community members and our law enforcement partners. 

Two important factors in our violent crime and gang strategy 

which have produced significant results are our Gang Reduction 

Intervention Program, GRIP, and the Cooperative Violence Reduction Program, known as CVRP. 

In 2004, the City of Richmond was awarded a Federal grant to 

combat gang violence and the influence of gangs on youth and our 

community. GRIP is funded through a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice. 

GRIP has four categories, one being prevention, primary and secondary. Prevention includes a wide variety of activities that focus 

on the entire population in high-crime, high-risk communities, and 

the primary prevention strategy for GRIP centers around providing 

a single one-stop service and resource center that facilitates effective distribution of services. 

Another part of GRIP is intervention. GRIP incorporates aggressive outreach and recruitment efforts that are needed to ensure 

that these high-risk individuals and their families receive needed 

services. 

Another part of our GRIP strategy is directed at suppression and 

re-entry. Where prevention and intervention fail, gang leaders are 

identified and targeted for aggressive suppression efforts. Re-entry 

targets serious and gang-involved offenders who face multiple challenges to re-entering their community. 

Examples of some of the partnerships and programs under our 

GRIP initiative include a one-stop resource center, after-school programs, truancy and dropout prevention, gang awareness training 

for both our officers and the community, and directed police patrol 

in the targeted neighborhoods. 

The centerpiece of GRIP has been its partnership with so many 

outstanding organizations, departments, and citizens. 

Crime reduction in the targeted communities in 2007 showed a 

reduction of 25 percent of robbery of businesses, 20 percent reduction of robbery of individuals, and a 12 percent reduction in aggravated assaults. 

In 2008, we continued on the reductions over the 2007 reductions. Robbery of businesses have been reduced by 71 percent; robVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:34 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\061008\42827.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42827
65 

bery of individuals, by 36 percent; and aggravated assaults, by 31 

percent. 

To increase communication and coordination of efforts between 

the Richmond Police Department and our Federal partners, the Cooperative Violence Reduction Program was formed in May of 2005. 

Member organizations of CVRP include the Richmond Police Department, Richmond Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, Attorney 

General of Virginia, United States Attorney—Eastern District of 

Virginia, the Virginia State Police, ATF, FBI, DEA, and the Virginia Department of Corrections’ Probation and Parole. 

The CVRP utilizes an intelligence-driven approach to identify the 

most violent neighborhoods and offenders in the City of Richmond 

and then deploy the combined resources of the CVRP partners to 

interdict, suppress, and prevent violent crime. The CVRP is a 

multipronged approach to reducing the historically high rate of violent crime in the City of Richmond. 

The five prongs that are associated with our CVRP approach are: 

homicide and violent crime prevention, this is designed to gather 

intelligence, identify neighborhoods and target habitual offenders 

using the collective resources of member agencies; homicide and 

violent crime deterrence, which is based on the Boston approach of 

pulling levers; homicide and violent crime intervention, which in 

GRIP is our centerpiece for this portion of the CRVP; and homicide 

and violent crime investigation, this prong includes maintaining a 

fully staffed, centralized, homicide and gang unit within the RPD 

consisting primarily of the most experienced detectives; and, finally, homicide and violent crime prosecution, our sector prosecutors, this fifth and final prong emphasizes the role the prosecutors 

play through their partnership with not only police, but with also 

the community. Community prosecution is achieved in Richmond 

by integrating designated prosecutors into each of our 12 police sectors. 

The collaborative efforts of GRIP and CRVP, along with a focused sector approach to policing, which not only addresses violent 

crime and gangs, but the systemic enablers of crime, have produced 

significant results in decreases in violent crime in the City of Richmond. In 2006, violent crime was reduced by 14 percent; in 2007, 

violent crime in the City of Richmond was reduced by 10 percent; 

and year to date, we are at a 24 percent reduction in violent crime. 

Homicide decreased from 86 in 2005 to 55 homicides in 2007, 

which was the lowest rate of homicide since 1981. Currently, we 

are on track to meet or go below the 2007 numbers. 

The Richmond Police Department continues to review and evaluate its methodology and tactics, endeavoring to remain flexible and 

responsive to changing crime trends and patterns. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buckovich follows:] 

66 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BUCKOVICH


JB-1.eps
67 


JB-2.eps
68 


JB-3.eps
69 


JB-4.eps
70 


JB-5.eps
71 


JB-6.eps
72 


JB-7.eps
73 


JB-8.eps
74 


JB-9.eps
75 


JB-10.eps
76 


JB-11.eps
77 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Flores? 

TESTIMONY OF ELY FLORES, LEADERSHIP FACILITATOR AND 

TEACHING ASSISTANT, LOS ANGELES, CA 

Mr. FLORES. Hello. My name is Ely Flores, and I am from Los 

Angeles, California. 

As a child, I was abandoned by my father, and I grew up in both 

the City of South Hollywood and South Central Los Angeles, an 

under-resourced, oppressed community where more youth are sent 

to prisons rather than rehabilitations—or to college, for that matter. 

Our mothers were so overwhelmed they could do little to prevent 

us young men from searching for other means of sense of belonging 

in the streets. That led us to straight to prison and some of us even 

jail—or even death. 

Violence was my learned resolution for all the challenges I faced. 

Like many young people who grew up in poor communities and 

disenfranchised communities with few opportunities, I lived by the 

law of dog eat dog and the survival of the fittest. 

I raised my fists in violence over nothing. Maybe someone made 

fun of my shoes or clothes. Perhaps someone talked negatively 

about my mom or my sister or my brother. Perhaps someone challenged my so-called manhood. A fight was always the conclusion. 

Where I am from, being scarred and bruised was like wearing military stripes on the battlefield or won on a battlefield. Whenever the 

pain was too much to bear, many of us chose to take a dose of 

marijuana or whatever drug relieved that pain. The older gangsters 

found it fun to pit kids against each other, instigating little disagreements that escalated to a fight. Violence was commonplace. It 

was entertainment and, to us kids, it seemed normal. 

Violence plus the lack of resources and a dearth of opportunity 

made it easy for me and other kids to pursue fantasy lives, to emulate gangster lifestyles and drug dealing. My brother and I slipped 

into that. I have been in situations where I was forced to fight individuals for claiming or stating their membership to another gang 

that we did not get along with. My anger and violence led me to 

use weapons to hurt people. I conditioned myself to not care whether or not my victim ended up in a hospital—or, for that matter, 

ended up dead. The same rules my homies and I lived by also ruled 

the people that I thought of as my enemies. 

One of the experiences that changed my life was when one of my 

homies was shot dead at the age of 14. He used to be a 

skateboarder. He always promised that he would never join a gang. 

But one day the peer pressure and lack of other options got the 

best of him. He joined the local gang, and a month later, he was 

shot and killed right outside of my grandmother’s house. That cycle 

continued with years of retaliation. 

As I began to develop my consciousness about social issues, I 

asked myself, ‘‘Why are there so many poor people in prisons and 

especially Black and Brown people in prisons? And why do they 

keep going back? Is it the people’s fault, is it the communities’ 

fault, or is it the parents’ fault?’’ Then I realized that I was trying 

78 

to come up with an answer from an oppressed and deficit perspective. 

Of course, there has to be some accountability for the people, but 

there also has to be accountability for the institutions that contribute to the problem and do not help to solve the problem. It affects not just young people caught up in a cycle of violence and deprivation, but the entire society in which we live in. South Central 

Los Angeles is already a poor community, but continuously prisons 

and police continue to criminalize the many communities of color. 

I found an organization called LA CAUSA YouthBuild, which is 

an affiliate of YouthBuild USA, a grantee of the U.S. Department 

of Labor’s YouthBuild Program, and introduced to me a positive 

program, a program of consolation, self-accountability, and leadership. 

Because of this key I was given, because of this opportunity I 

was given, I became an activist. Because of this key, I have developed a passion for community work and helping numerous people 

in diverse and challenging communities. 

This opportunity was rarely given to people, but it was given to 

me. Because of this opportunity, I have been able to not only get 

recognized by a Member of Congress, to not only be recognized by 

the City of Los Angeles, but it also has given me a chance to even 

travel to places like Israel to try to work with Palestinian and 

Israeli youth. I just try to bring peace among them. 

So I want you to imagine that, like an ex-gang member who lived 

by violence, who acted in violence against other people, and I could 

sit here and tell you that I am actually now an activist or an advocate for peace, not only here in Los Angeles, but in Israel. 

So, when you think about developing some sort of programs or 

allocating money, think about my story, right. Think about that, a 

gang member that is sitting here right in front of you that could 

have been incarcerated, could have been dead, and because of resources and opportunities that were given to our community, I can 

sit here and tell you that a gang member can become a productive 

member of society and a gang member can become an advocate for 

peace and an advocate for justice. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Flores follows:] 

79 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELY FLORES


EF-1.eps
80 


EF-2.eps
81 


EF-3.eps
82 


EF-4.eps
83 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. O’Connor? 

TESTIMONY OF KEVIN O’CONNOR, ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 

Gohmert, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to be 

here with you today to discuss the Department of Justice’s strategy 

to address the problems of gangs and gang violence. 

I would like to begin by noting that the data released just yesterday from the FBI indicates the country experienced a decrease in 

the number of violent crimes for 2007 compared to 2006. Much of 

the credit for this decrease, of course, goes to our local and State 

partners, many of whom are represented here today, as well as to 

local and community leaders, faith-based leaders and their communities, who are working tirelessly to address the problem of violent 

crimes and gangs in their communities. I applaud their efforts, the 

department supports their efforts, and we in the department will 

continue to be vigilant and support their efforts to fight violent 

crime. 

Notwithstanding the recent good news, the department will not 

take its foot off the gas pedal, if you will. We will continue, as we 

must, to be proactive in combating gangs, and we remain fully committed to implementing strategies to fight violent crime, focusing 

not just on traditional law enforcement, but, as many here today 

have noted, also working with our community partners to provide 

opportunities for at-risk youth and returning offenders to learn the 

skills and attitudes that they need to become productive members 

of society. 

The department’s comprehensive approach to gang and gang violence centers briefly on three key areas: enforcement, prevention, 

and prisoner re-entry. 

One example of this approach is the department’s comprehensive 

anti-gang initiative. This initiative targets communities plagued by 

gang violence through the prosecution of the most significant gang 

members, intense prevention efforts employing local strategies to 

reduce gang membership and violence, and re-entry strategies that 

create mentor-based assistance programs for prisoners re-entering 

those communities upon completion of their sentences. 

Currently, the initiative operates in 10 jurisdictions across the 

country with each jurisdiction receiving a total of $2.5 million in 

targeted grant funding. This amounts to $1 million for enforcement, $1 million for prevention, and half a million dollars for reentry programs. As you can see, well more than one-half of the 

funding in each of these sites is dedicated to prevention and reentry. 

Another good example of this comprehensive approach to gang violence is Project Safe Neighborhoods, a national program which 

targets the most serious violent criminals with aggressive enforcement of our Federal and State firearms laws. Under Project Safe 

Neighborhoods, the Federal Government through this Congress has 

committed more than $2 billion to fund more than 200 Federal and 

550 State and local prosecutors to prosecute gun crime. 

84 

I should add the money has also been used to support training 

for more than 30,000 law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and 

community members across the Nation to develop effective prevention and deterrence efforts to reduce gang and gun violence. 

Our efforts, as you can see, are not limited to prosecution of gang 

members. At the direction of the attorney general, every United 

States attorney, including myself when I had the pleasure of serving in Connecticut, convened a gang prevention summit in their 

district that collectively brought together over 10,000 law enforcement and community leaders to discuss best practices, identify 

gaps in services, and create a prevention plan in their particular 

districts to target at-risk youths within our communities. 

The department has long supported other gang prevention activities, such as the Gang Resistance Education and Training Program, GRIP, as my colleague Major Buckovich referred to, as well 

as many other gang prevention strategies. 

The third component of the department’s gang strategy is funding and support for prisoner re-entry programs. These programs 

provide services and supervision for gang members, in particular 

upon their release from prison. The goal of this initiative is to connect community organizations with law enforcement to provide 

much needed services tailored specifically for prisoners re-entering 

their communities. 

In order to reduce violent crime, the Federal Government must 

work cooperatively and collaboratively with our partners in State, 

local, and international law enforcement. We must also, as it is 

very clear by today’s hearing, focus not just on dealing with today’s 

criminals, but on preventing our children from turning into tomorrow’s criminals. 

Thank you, again, for your attention to this issue, and I look forward to taking your questions at a later time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Connor follows:] 

85 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN O’CONNOR


KO-1.eps
86 


KO-2.eps
87 


KO-3.eps
88 


KO-4.eps
89 


KO-5.eps
90 


KO-6.eps
91 


KO-7.eps
92 


KO-8.eps
93 


KO-9.eps
94 


KO-10.eps
95 


KO-11.eps
96 


KO-12.eps
97 


KO-13.eps
98 


KO-14.eps
99 


KO-15.eps
100 


KO-16.eps
101 


KO-17.eps
102 


KO-18.eps
103 


KO-19.eps
104 


KO-20.eps
105 


KO-21.eps
106 


KO-22.eps
107 


KO-23.eps
108 


KO-24.eps
109 


KO-25.eps
110 


KO-26.eps
111 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And Dr. Macy? 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT D. MACY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF 

THE BOSTON CHILDREN’S FOUNDATION, BEVERLY FARMS, MA 

Mr. MACY. Thank you. 

I want to extend my gratitude to the Chairmen and to the Members of the Committee and to my esteemed colleagues. It is an 

honor to be here. 

I thought, given Chairman Conyers’ comment around sociological 

perspective, I would take that up as a potential lens to maybe stimulate some further conversation as we go along today. 

I see two major domains involved in what I would consider to be 

one of the top two or three public health crises in our young 230- 

year-old Nation, and that is this issue that you are committed to 

looking at today and hopefully beyond. 

The two primary domains are public safety, which I think has 

been established through our other witnesses to be of prime importance and cannot be ignored, and the second domain is what I 

could call social capital. I learned this term from the World Bank. 

It refers to our children, to our future leaders, and not only our future leaders, but to the people that actually run the country at the 

basic human, community, religious, cleanup level. 

Within these two domains, we have to consider at least five huge 

challenges which are complexly layered, as was pointed out by the 

two members from Texas with respect to immigration, and what I 

would consider to be racketeering, organized crime groups—MS-13, 

which is actually a non-profit organization, established private 

501(c)3s in 38 States—and, of course, the border gangs. We really 

cannot compare those to what are called sneaker pimp gangs and 

younger youth gangs around America. 

But we have this issue of protecting public safety which primarily is at this point using arrest and incarceration, and there are 

some key issues here, as I just pointed out, with respect to illegal 

immigrants, and ICE is doing quite a good job and, I think, needs 

to certainly be applauded for what it can do and may be able to 

be brought in to look at some of the violent gang activities with respect to illegal immigrants. 

The second are the costs of arrest and incarceration versus costs 

for alternative measures to decrease violence among youth. And I 

just want to point out that I am not as familiar with some of the 

criminology data that some of my esteemed colleagues are, but I 

think if we were to use and look at age breaks and the decrease 

in violent crime, you might not necessarily see the same decrease 

in the 15-to-23-year-old age range, and that is part of the issue. 

Mr. SCOTT. Say that again. Sorry. 

Mr. MACY. I would just say that as a Committee and as associates of your Committee, you probably look at the age break of 15- 

to-23-year-olds, when we talk about the overall reduction in criminal acts for aggravated assaults for youth the year 2007, because 

I am having an educated guess that it may actually have increased. 

Our third issue is what is known as the DMC which Professor 

Ogletree’s written testimony provided. That is the Disproportionate 

Minority Contact which Congress is well aware of, in view of the 

112 

2007 Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice, and it has 

been pointed out here on these charts and I think it has been 

brought up in several of your comments during the introduction. 

The fourth issue is elements of the youth offender, him or herself, and several people have mentioned this. We have to look at 

not just the crime, but the criminal. And I would refer to a gentleman named Arredondo who wrote a seminal article in juvenile 

justice on looking at offender-based sanctioning versus offensebased sanctioning. I think that is going to be critical as we move 

forward. 

And fifth is the relationship between trauma and violence, which 

is what I would like to spend the rest of my time on, which looks 

like it is not very much, and that is that we have $90 billion a year 

spent on child maltreatment. This is determined by the U.S. Surgeon General’s 2005 report. So one of the questions I pose to all of 

us: Is increased sanctioning, severe sanctioning, actually feeding 

into child maltreatment? 

It appears from the overwhelming research, high-fidelity research, among many different investigative domains that children 

grown in impoverishment without resources first experience trauma, and in order to survive, they use maladaptive coping strategies, that is, they try to protect themselves. You can do this with 

your own son or daughter. Irrespective of the color of their skin, 

they want to get to school and they want to pass the test and they 

want to belong and they want to become. 

But, in order to get to school, they are called a wannabe gang 

member. They are not involved in gangs yet, but they get a gun 

or they get a knife. They do not really know how to hide it. They 

get tagged. They end up with a felony. They end up not being able 

to vote, and they end up being incarcerated at quite a great cost. 

So, in summary, I think public safety and social capital are of 

equal value, and we have to hold them as of equal value, both for 

public safety and the development of our social capital, the protection of our children. 

And I would like to end with a quote by Black abolitionist and 

escaped slave Frederick Douglass who said, ‘‘It is easier to build 

strong children than to repair broken men.’’ 

I think we have several approaches that are evidence-based, 

some of them registered in the National Registry of Evidence-Based 

Practices that would speak to the issue of using treatments that 

are biopsychosocially driven rather than treatments of incarceration. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Macy follows:] 

113 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. MACY


Macy-1.eps
114 


Macy-2.eps
115 


Macy-3.eps
116 


Macy-4.eps
117 


Macy-5.eps
118 


Macy-6.eps
119 


Macy-7.eps
120 


Macy-8.eps
121 


Macy-9.eps
122 


Macy-10.eps
123 


Macy-11.eps
124 


Macy-12.eps
125 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And I want to thank all of our witnesses for this great testimony. 

We will ask questions using the same 5-minute rule. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

I notice in all of the testimony that we did not hear any need 

for new statutes, any gang-related statutes. It would seem to me, 

Major Buckovich, if you catch somebody in a drive-by shooting, the 

penalty for that will be life. If you dress it up and call it a gangrelated drive-by shooting, does that help you? 

Mr. BUCKOVICH. Thank you. 

My response to that would be the Richmond Police Department, 

whether it is a gang-related or non-gang-related shooting, investigates with the same amount of energy and aggressive investigative techniques as we would any type of shooting. 

However, I believe that enhancements to certain—— 

Mr. SCOTT. But would you get more time if it is dressed up as 

a gang-related drive-by shooting as a regular drive-by shooting? 

Mr. BUCKOVICH. If someone was killed or injured? 

Mr. SCOTT. It is the same life. 

Mr. BUCKOVICH. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. And if we are going to do something about 

gangs, dressing up the criminal code does not appear to be what 

we need to do to reduce gang membership because by the time you 

get to the point of sentencing, they have already joined the gang, 

committed the crimes, got court, got convicted, and now you are arguing about how much time they are going to get when the criminal code—according to this chart, you are doing pretty good. The 

police are doing a pretty good job, and we have locked up more people on earth than anywhere. 

Those brown charts show what we are doing in the minority community compared to the rest of the world. It just does not seem 

that changing the criminal code would be a necessary element. 

Maybe more enforcement of the present criminal code, but the 

criminal code itself has produced this chart where the United 

States, and particularly the minority community—the first brown 

chart is the average African-American incarceration rate. The second brown chart is the top 10 States. Many States are around 

4,000 per 100,000 locked up today when most of the world is 

around 100. So it seems as though the criminal code seems to be 

working pretty good. 

Dr. Macy, your testimony talks about the effect of getting real 

tough on gangs as being possibly counterproductive. What do you 

mean in terms of helping with gang membership, getting kids out 

of gangs? What did you mean by that? 

Mr. MACY. Thank you. 

I think the more generalized issue, which is critical for all of us, 

is young children face a pretty significant decision early on because, as you all know with your own children or grandchildren, 

their primary question is: Who do I belong to? Who belongs to me? 

How do I become? 

And so children actually seek permission for many things, including to kill, and this certainly has been demonstrated in David 

Grossman’s work, ‘‘On Killing.’’ In fact, children face a difficult deVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:34 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\061008\42827.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42827
126 

cision when they offer their permission to someone to tell them 

what to do. 

So, right now in this country, many of the disadvantaged children, which we call at risk, are faced with a decision like Ely was, 

which is: Do I give my allegiance, do I actually give my permission 

to have someone tell me what to do to a gang or leadership authority structure organized around violence, or do I give it to a gang 

or leadership authority organized around justice, peace, democracy? 

And so if we sanction children too young and too hard, what usually happens, in my personal field experience and in the research, 

is that they end up giving their affiliation, their permission to an 

authority structure that is organized around violence. 

The second issue is that if you take a kid and you bring them 

into jail, irrespective of all the sort of old-timer stories about how 

kids learn more crime in jail, there is a more significant issue. As 

we increase arrests and use felony charges to keep kids in jail, in 

order for them to stay alive in jail, especially the younger ones, 

they have to swear their allegiance to a gang for protection, and 

then they owe that gang when they get out. So we are actually increasing gang membership by this methodology, I believe. 

Mr. SCOTT. And, Professor Ogletree, what does a get-tough approach do to gang cohesiveness? 

Mr. OGLETREE. Well, it makes it even stronger, and that is what 

surprised me a little bit by Mr. O’Connor’s comment that the Department of Justice better not take its foot off the gas pedal. It 

seems to me at some point you take your foot off the gas pedal to 

see what you are doing and whether you are making any progress 

and, in fact, some of these get-tough-on-crime policies, as we indicate in our report, only lead to the contrary result. 

I am not sure you can say you have succeeded because you have 

more people in prison, but you have not solved the problem of 

young people being able to be productive members of our community, and I think that what we need to do is to do what has been 

successful. 

All these departments—White Plains—these are East and Northeast, and Richmond’s southern—people take the time to figure out 

how to work with communities, how to work with the clergy, how 

to work with the young people are creating remarkable changes. 

Both what Ely said about his own experience and what you heard 

is that if you give a child a chance, it makes a difference, and if 

you do not, you are going to find more people incarcerated, but you 

are not going to find the problem of violence reduced or seriously 

addressed. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We are all concerned about the same problem. Everybody has 

come at it from a different position. 

Mr. Flores, we appreciate what you have been able to do with 

helping and caring for people. 

We have a number of questions to ask, but, folks, I am not going 

to ask questions because I did not hear anybody get to the heart 

of what I heard over a decade of sitting on the bench over thousands of criminal cases. I started taking my own little survey for 

127 

3 months, for a quarter. I randomly picked 5 years of age. Way 

over 80 percent, nearly 85 percent, of the people that came before 

me for sentencing on felony cases had had no relationship with a 

father since at least age 5. 

Mr. Flores, your testimony started off, and you prepared your 

testimony, I take it. You chose to start off by saying, ‘‘I was abandoned by my father.’’ 

Dr. Macy, you pointed out people are looking to belong. 

In our society, there ought to be societal pressure to be a father, 

and I know that some of the greatest contributions in this country 

have come from people from single parents and will continue to 

come from people from single-parent homes, some of the major 

problems have come from people with two parents, but we are—— 

You know, I saw in this testimony here, Dr. Straub, the statement ‘‘Incarceration breaks up families and disrupts social networks,’’ and I am thinking breaking up families? It is about incarceration. 

I was sentencing a young man who was a gang member, and he 

just poured out his heart. And he had been stoic. You could not tell 

hardly when he was lying because he was so cold and cool. But, 

clearly, the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt he was involved in a murder, and he talked about he had no father. His 

mother was never around. He wanted to belong to something. His 

gang was his family. He felt safe with his gang. That was his family. 

Now it concerns me that with all your expertise and with all the 

brilliance and the high IQs sitting here in front of me that we are 

not talking about that, that the societal pressure ought to be there 

to be a good father, do your best to succeed. You know there ought 

to be pressure to do well in school. 

You know, for far too long, in my criminal court, over and over, 

people came before me and they said the pressure from those they 

hung around with was, ‘‘Do not succeed. Do not sell out.’’ The pressure ought to be there to succeed in school, to do well, and I am 

just afraid we are not talking about an elephant in the room, the 

societal breakdown of the family. 

In 1973, I was an exchange student in the Soviet Union, and I 

was taken to numerous daycare centers as a point of pride because 

they pulled the kids—there were eight Americans there that year. 

We were told, ‘‘The Government knows best. We have these Government programs for raising the kids. The parents cannot always 

be trusted. So, as soon as they are old enough to walk—and in 

some cases before that—we get them in here in our daycare centers 

so we can start working on them.’’ Highest alcoholism rates anywhere in the world is what I understood. The Government was not 

the answer. 

So I welcome input. My time is about up. And 5-minute little 

blurbs does not really do it for any of you with your vast amount 

of research. I would welcome input from any of you in writing after 

the hearing, but I am afraid we are not addressing an important 

societal problem here, and that is the breakup of the family and 

kids just wanting to belong. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

128 

The gentleman from Michigan? 

Mr. CONYERS. Judge Gohmert touched on something that Maxine 

Waters and I were commenting on, is that—and you have done this 

yourself, Chairman Scott—and we need a different setting. This is 

too formalized and ritualistic. You have had forums on crime where 

we sat in a different relationship—this is a bureaucratic legislative 

hearing about something that touches the nerve endings of us all— 

where we sit around and everybody could chime in and interrupt 

and agree or disagree, and I know that Professor Ogletree has been 

in these kinds of sessions that we have had not only in the Congress but around the country and at Harvard as well, come to 

think about it. 

But let me tell you what I am thinking about. A lot of this has 

to do with belief systems, and they start out early. Sometimes we 

do not make much progress as quickly as we want to, but I have 

begun to think that in this country, at this point in time, we are 

beginning to get more honest and realistic about the nature of race 

relations and the cultural considerations that are all a part of it. 

I think of Martin Luther King—and now after more than a dozen 

years it took to get the King holiday bill—where a person got up 

and said, ‘‘Non-violent protests can win the day.’’ Now that is still 

coming out of a culture, a background, Ogletree, that is crazy. We 

spend more money on not only weapons of destruction. I think it 

was $1.3 trillion worldwide. And we have huge research activities 

going on, more in this country than any other, where we are developing new weapons. We are now out in space. 

So, when you come back then and say, ‘‘Well, you know, King 

was one of the great leaders of all time. You do not understand, 

Congressman, his non-violence theory,’’ and I say, ‘‘Hey, wait a 

minute.’’ We have a culture of violence that has been from the beginning of time. That is the way things always were. 

It was not until Roosevelt and Churchill came along at the end 

of World War II that we said, ‘‘There ought to be treaties against 

torture, and there ought to be treaties’’—then we came to nuclear 

non-proliferation treaties. Then we came to war crimes tribunals. 

Now that sounds maybe far away from the subject of gangs, but, 

you know, when you are looking at our video, television, and our 

cultural recreational things, you get into some serious problems 

where kids have seen 1,500 murders on television before they are 

12 years old. Then you say, ‘‘Well, why did you join a gang, 

Tommy?’’ and he looks at you like you must be on another planet. 

What do you think most of our recreation is about? Crime. Law and 

order. 

And I would just like to get a reaction from Professors Ogletree 

and Macy on this, if my time permits. 

Mr. OGLETREE. Congressman Conyers, I mean, you hit the nail 

on the head, and I am very impressed with the analysis of connecting all these things together. It is exactly right. 

We have a culture of violence. It is embedded in our culture, and 

at the same time, we do not even recognize the fact that as a democratic progressive Nation, if you look at this chart, I mean, we are 

off the charts in terms of promoting violence. It is part of our culture, and it goes to the question raised by Congressman Gohmert 

as a judge, and I can see the challenge as well. 

129 

I think Dr. Macy hit the nail on the head as well when he talked 

about social capital. If you care about children, you care about families, and if you and I sat down in a room with a door locked for 

half a day, we could solve it. For example, I would tell you that 

there are a lot of fathers already there. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You would need someone a lot smarter than me. 

Mr. OGLETREE. Oh, no, you are exactly what is needed. It is not 

a question about intelligence. It is about a sense of moral courage. 

And those fathers who are not there, some of them are not there 

because they are dead. Some are not there because they are incarcerated before. They cannot get a job. They cannot help the family. 

They cannot go back to school. They cannot get a driver’s license. 

So that is social capital as well, not just the children, the family. 

I agree with you about the importance of two parents, but it is 

not that they do not want to be there. We have created an infrastructure that prohibits them from being a part of a family, and if 

we really solve the gang problem, the violence problem, we have to 

say that man who has been in prison, has been released can paint 

a fence, can cut some grass, can be a taxpaying, wage-earning citizen, and not a recidivist. 

That means we are looking at a holistic problem. If we take that 

up—and then we will address Congressman Conyers’ problem because—if we look at it holistically, at social capital, not just a child, 

but also the adults, we could begin to address this. But we have 

not even scratched the surface of it. We look at the symptoms and 

not the problem. 

Mr. MACY. I agree with the professor, Mr. Conyers. I think you 

are on track, and I think connecting the dots are important. I did 

that in my written testimony in terms of the global violence with 

respect to what is called identity conflict, which is age old, but has 

really arisen to astronomic proportions in the last 15 years. 

I think I might as well say what I think the white elephant in 

the room is, and I say it with the greatest respect for all of us who 

are struggling really with very difficult, complex challenges. It is 

very hard to legislate good parenting. I think there should be a 

taboo against poor parenting because, you know, it is very, very difficult. 

The professor speaks to some proportion. I would give an educated guess it is more than 50 percent of fathers that want to be 

fathers, especially after the age of 25—the developmental psychopathology literature points that out—are in jail. So it is hard for 

them to father. 

But the white elephant I was referring to is slavery, and I have 

part of this proven. I do not have the whole thing proven, but I 

tried in my verbal testimony to link trauma as the root cause of 

violence as opposed to saying violence causes trauma. Psychological 

trauma appears to be one of the root causes of violence, violence 

as a way to protect one’s self in an unsafe world. 

The unsafe world was created by trauma which is really a psychological shattering of the whole human being. And how did that 

come about? If we look at the history certainly of our country and 

then you look at these graphs here, we do have an issue, which I 

think we cannot avoid, which is slavery, and the enslavement of 

these young men is in a sense a recapitulation of that. 

130 

And then what I have been looking at in working with the gangs 

is that a gang is just another form of imprisonment. It is no better 

being in a gang than being in a prison. It is just—now you can call 

it a secondary form of enslavement where young men do unto others what was done unto them only better. 

They ask for allegiance to violence and to destruction, and it is 

really the destruction of the fatherhood in the family because most 

of these gangs are males instead of seeking out an authority that 

allows them to pursue justice and peace. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of you for being here and echo what everybody has said in that I think each of you have an enormous 

amount of wisdom and expertise in this area, but I do not think, 

and I have never thought that the forums that we utilize are the 

correct ones. This is not the first time we have raised this. 

I mean, just look at the logistics of what I have here. I have six 

wonderful witnesses that I would love to delve into what you say 

and pick out the good parts because this whole thing is a matrix. 

It is not just, you know, that Mr. Ogletree is right, Mr. Flores is 

wrong. It is a matrix that we need to pull together, but I have six 

of you. I have 5 minutes. That gives me 50 seconds each. It would 

be insulting to you for me to even try to begin to do that. 

But let me just tell you that I am at least glad that we recognize 

that we have a gang problem because a few years ago when I 

brought legislation here—it was not perfect—legislation to try to 

even talk about the gang problem, some of my good friends over 

here said, ‘‘We do not have a problem. Where is the problem?’’ 

And I will tell you we would go to school districts, and I would 

talk to school superintendents, and I would say, ‘‘You have a gang 

problem.’’ They said, ‘‘We do not have a gang problem.’’ The next 

day, I would have the assistant or deputy superintendent coming 

in my office, ‘‘We have a big gang problem, but we cannot talk 

about it because we will offend somebody or perhaps it will hurt 

our real estate values,’’ or whatever. 

I am just excited that we at least can come together and talk 

about the fact that we have a gang problem. 

The second thing is my good friend and Chairman of this Committee asked this question: Do you want to reduce crime, or do we 

want to play politics? There is not—I do not think. I have not seen 

the person. I do not think there is a person in this room that does 

not want to reduce crime. 

If there are, I have not met them. I do not know who you are. 

But I do not think there is a person in here, I do not think there 

is a person on the other side of that aisle that does not want to 

reduce crime. I know that I have no person on this side of the aisle. 

But what we do is if somebody disagrees with our approach, we 

label whatever they want to do as playing politics, instead of recognizing that we have to create this matrix to be able to come together and create a solution. 

The other thing that we have talked about is the fact that incarceration is not free. No one in this room is foolish enough to think 

that the cost of incarceration is not through the roof, but the other 

131 

thing we at least need to put on the table is the fact that letting 

gang networks run free is not free either because we have had 

overwhelming testimony before this Committee of people whose 

lives have been transformed in a negative way because of gang networks that came in. 

We had one lady that I think all of us have seared into our mind. 

She lived in Philadelphia. She was an African-American woman 

who had, I believe, five children, but I might be wrong on there, 

lived in Philadelphia, left Philadelphia because she was afraid of 

the gangs that were there, went to Maryland to escape the gangs 

in Philadelphia, put her children in private school to try to avoid 

it. Her and her husband worked two jobs. He was a minister, parttime, took another job. 

A gang member, 17 years old, comes up to him one night, puts 

a gun to his head, and kills him, never met him before, but killed 

him for one reason. That was his initiation into a gang. And when 

you looked at her, she realized that letting that gang member run 

free to kill her husband was not free to her and her children either. 

We need to recognize that these gang members, some of them, 

are going out and they are cutting people’s larynxes out in northern Virginia, they are cutting their arms off, they are murdering 

witnesses, they are doing extortion, they are recruiting innocent 

children, and I will tell you I remember the head of one of the gang 

units in Maryland, Mr. Forest, he said exactly what you did. He 

was a former MS-13 member who had transformed. Now he is out 

trying to stop gangs. 

He told me in a summit that we had in Arkansas, he said, ‘‘Do 

you know the group that fights against me the most when I am trying to get kids out of gang?’’ He said, ‘‘You will never guess.’’ And 

I said, ‘‘Who is it?’’ He said, ‘‘The mothers. The mothers who are 

trying to keep their children in gangs because they want the money 

flow coming in.’’ And he had transformed his life. 

Now the other thing that I think is we play politics when we 

start putting things in categories and say, ‘‘This is a get-tough approach,’’ where I guess the alternative is a get-soft approach. I 

mean, the reality is we have to pick and pull the tools that we need 

to deal with some of these problems. It is easy to reach in our quiver of arrows and pull out the common ones and say, ‘‘Oh, look, it 

is unemployment. It is dysfunctional families. It is small groups of 

innocent kids from street corners.’’ We are all against those. 

But here is the other thing that we need to recognize. In the 

1960’s when we went after organized crime, we could have done the 

same thing by just saying, ‘‘People just want prostitution. People 

want gambling. People want drugs.’’ Fortunately, we did not do 

that. We went after the networks and pulled those networks down 

very successfully. 

So what I am just suggesting to you—and I know my time is out. 

That shows how little we have. But I just want to tell you this. We 

need a combined approach that begins by tearing down these networks because these networks are out here recruiting, and I do not 

care what you do, those networks of people are going to continue 

to recruit, continue to do some of the things that we see. 

We also need to understand that it is no less fatal to have a murder by a 17-year-old than to have a murder by an 18-year-old. 

132 

And the other thing that we need to realize is that when you 

have at least sometimes in some of our most violent gangs 80 percent of the members coming in here illegally, then some of the prevention programs that we know work and we want to use are not 

going to work for that particular gang. 

The final thing is—of course, I could not agree with you more— 

I think gang members can be transformed and changed, but some 

of the most effective agents of change are some of our faith-based 

organizations that are going out and changing people, and yet we 

strap their hands every time we get a chance instead of letting 

them do that change. 

And the final thing I think we need to do is recognize that we 

need a combined program that brings the best of all these tools together so that we can pull down the networks and then so that we 

can deal with some of the other problems that cause people to join 

gangs, be it unemployment, dysfunctional families, lack of self-esteem, racial tensions, whatever they are. 

Unless we get that comprehensive approach, I do not think we 

are going to be able to make a big dent in this problem. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you for your patience. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from Michigan? 

Mr. CONYERS. Might I beg your indulgence to allow the six witnesses to just briefly reflect off of Randy Forbes, the former Ranking Member of the Crime Committee? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, it is Ms. Waters’ turn if she will defer. Okay. 

Mr. STRAUB. Congressman Forbes, I agree wholeheartedly with 

your comments that we need to bring multiple approaches to the 

problem of at-risk youth or gang-involved youth. There clearly is 

not one solution, and there clearly are people who are serious 

criminals who need to be incarcerated, and I think all of us would 

readily admit that. 

In speaking to Congressman Gohmert’s comment about the incarceration and fatherhood—I am fortunate to have two children of 

my own and clearly believe that fatherhood is critical—I would 

echo Professor Ogletree’s comments about the effects of incarceration in breaking up families and putting fathers in jail. Some deserve it. There is no doubt about it. 

The problem becomes this constant churning of communities 

where the community never settles down. So there really is no stability in the community, and I think we have to explore ways to 

reduce the ‘‘churning.’’ 

Clearly, we want to encourage people and we want to encourage 

fathers to be with their family and to be good families, and I think 

the program that we talked about specifically in White Plains is 

very much about that, addressing family values, keeping families 

intact, building positive skills so that people can become strong 

members of the community and we can, in fact, build the social 

capital and the community capital that my other colleagues here 

referred to. 

Mr. BUCKOVICH. Congressman Forbes, I also agree with you. 

For so many years in policing, we judged our effectiveness by the 

amount of arrests we made, fill this table up with guns and stand 

behind it and say, ‘‘Look what we have done,’’ but ignoring if it had 

133 

impact on violent crime. I think we are starting to see that we do 

have to address prevention, we do have to address intervention, we 

certainly have to have suppression efforts, but without prevention, 

without intervention, without addressing the systemic enablers of 

crime, that we are not going to be successful in the long term. 

And we have to engage the community. I know in Richmond that 

engagement means more than just going to community meetings 

and telling them, ‘‘This is what crime is like in your neighborhood.’’ 

It means going to community meetings and saying, ‘‘This is what 

we need from you. This is what we need you to do to help us and 

to help your community,’’ and I think that that is the direction we 

have to go in. 

Mr. FLORES. I think that you have a point where you are talking 

about a lot of religious groups are doing a lot of good work, but 

then I would raise the question that what happens to those gang 

members who do not believe in religion and who do not want any 

affiliation? I am not saying that they are approaching it—— 

Mr. FORBES. I am not saying that needs to be exclusive. I am just 

saying that is one tool that is very effective, and we want to use 

all the tools we can. I mean, my point was not that one size fits 

all. It is simply that we ought to let them if they are showing that 

effectiveness have that great affect that they are doing in lots 

of—— 

Mr. FLORES. Yes. And I guess my second thing to that was just 

to—like you were saying is using more than just one approach, like 

it should be more than one. I mean, to incarcerate young people, 

there are a lot of approaches that you take to do that, too, right? 

There are different approaches that you can use to incarcerate 

someone. So I think that should be the same way, is in order to 

rehabilitate someone or get someone out of that gang culture. 

And exactly what Professor Ogletree was talking about, he said 

the social capital of it. There are a lot of people that want to be 

parents. I became a parent at the age of 17, and if I did not search 

or I did not find that social capital, I might have not been there 

either. You know, I might have been incarcerated, dead, or whatever not. 

So I think also the social capital issue is huge, and there is 

breaking up families and that, and this is going on, right? So I 

think this issue needs to be handled from all sorts of directions, not 

just one, just saying just, you know, religious-based or whatever 

not, but it needs to be from all sorts of directions. 

If you have also been incarcerated, you will find out that gang 

members might be part of this lifestyle, but even in the gang lifestyle, there is diversity within there as well. So there needs to be 

different angles. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I will try to avoid being repetitive, and I would 

just say, Judge Gohmert, your perspective as a judge is one I think 

every prosecutor deals with. You know, prosecutors feel generally 

content, particularly when the victim of violent crime sees their 

perpetrator go to jail. It is justice. It restores confidence in the system. But I do not know of a prosecutor who does not stop and say, 

‘‘Boy, this kid threw his life away and is going to jail for the rest 

of his life.’’ They had that MS-13 member in Maryland yesterday 

with a life sentence. 

134 

That is why I do not know a prosecutor who does not go back 

to the local police chief or to the community groups and say, ‘‘What 

are we going to do to stop this?’’ It is not just throwing people in 

jail. I mean, we have an obligation to enforce the law. If people 

commit violent crimes, we are going to prosecute them. That is 

what the public expects. But we prefer not to be prosecuting these 

cases. We would prefer if kids—and they are predominantly kids— 

made better choices. 

We also recognize that as prosecutors we are not social workers. 

We do not have the Ph.D.s, we are lawyers, and so we rely heavily 

on community groups, faith-based or otherwise, to tell us what can 

we do to stop people from coming in because, by the time a file 

lands in my office, it is too late. Somebody is already been victimized, and somebody is going to be held accountable. 

The real goal is to keep people from entering the criminal justice 

system in the first place, and that is why I think prevention and 

enforcement are not mutually exclusive. I would say they are 

strongly complementary of one another. You send a message 

through enforcement that there are consequences for wrong 

choices. Through prevention, you say to people, ‘‘And you have better alternatives.’’ 

Thank you. 

Mr. MACY. I think that Committee Member Forbes did an incredible job trying to summarize what you call the matrix, and, you 

know, trauma which breeds violence has multiple determinants, so 

we need a multiply determined approach to decrease the violence. 

And I would argue from the social work combined criminology 

side before it gets to Mr. O’Connor’s desk that we look at the public 

mental health model where we are using identification assessment 

and early intervention starting—someone brought it up earlier— 

really in preschool, daycare, to look at children who are already at 

risk for mental distress which leads to mental disorders, and the 

studies are overwhelming at this point. 

If you look at the United States Secret Service report on school 

shootings in the last 25 years, 47 shootings, it was all youth-onyouth violence, and they tried to, as the U.S. Secret Service is expert at doing, develop a portrait or, if you will, a profile of the next 

school shooter, and they could not do it because there is no next 

school shooter profile because there are so many differences. 

They found two stunning similarities among 75 percent of all the 

shooters, no matter their color, their advantage, their disciplinary 

action record, or their academic achievement. One was 75 percent 

of all shooters prior to the shooting had evidence of suicidality, and, 

two, that for almost 90 percent of these shooters, no adults in the 

school system that actually knew who the kid was, knew anything 

about the kid. So you have factors of mental illness and isolation. 

This carries over into kids who get conscripted into gangs as 

early as fifth and sixth grade to do the initiation, which is absolutely grotesque behaviors, which are high-level military combat 

techniques, which these gangs know about, to condition them to 

kill because there is a universal human phobia to kill so you have 

to condition that out of a human. 

They start very young with kids who are not just at risk because 

of their disadvantaged neighborhood or their being born into slavVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:34 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\061008\42827.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42827
135 

ery, because they have a burgeoning mental illness, so I think adding to the matrix, in concert with criminology, a public health/mental health model is going to be crucial to consider. 

Mr. OGLETREE. And I will be very brief. 

Congressman Forbes, you made some great points. Let me just 

take two of the points you made and try to expand on them and 

tell you where I think there is a problem with the overgeneralization. 

You talked about organized crime, which is a good example, and 

I think the strategy in the 1960’s and beyond the 1970’s to come 

up with the approach to fight organized crime was an important 

one. It was not a law enforcement effort that labeled every single 

adult who happened to live in an Italian community or who happened to be poor as a member of organized crime. It was surgical, 

finding the people responsible, punishing them very severely—— 

Mr. FORBES. Especially going after the networks. Especially 

going after the networks. 

Mr. OGLETREE [continuing]. And leaving the community intact. 

That is very important. So I think that example is a good one. They 

did not just target anyone who was in the neighborhood or anyone 

who ate at a restaurant. That is an example. 

The mother who depends on the economics, that is the broken 

family, what we talk about in our report here. The broken family 

is part of the problem. 

Another one that really is important, particularly for a place like 

Virginia, is the school system. The people who are in gangs are not 

in school, they are not at home, they are not under supervision, 

and it tells us those people who are finishing high school and going 

to college and who have a job are not in gangs. 

And so we know the solution. We have to figure out how to balance dealing with the violence of the crime of gang members, but 

also try to be preventive. It is not either-or. I am not saying it is 

public safety or social capital, it is both, and the idea is the proper 

balance. But my sense is that it would be much better if that 14- 

year-old was not out of school, was not suspended or expelled, was 

not in a single family with no supervision, was not unemployable 

because he was arrested as a juvenile. 

All of those things are preventable, and I just think that we really are not that far off in terms of our point of view, and my sense 

is that where you see a thousand gang members, I see a hundred, 

and I would rather we focus our resources on that 10 percent to 

address it substantively than to put in that group a lot of people 

who can be saved, who would be more productive as citizens. 

No matter what we do, we cannot kill them all, they are all coming back. Whether they are 20 or 30 or 40, they are coming back, 

and so if we can prevent it on the front end, which I think you 

would not oppose, I think that is a solution that helps all the citizens of Virginia to be safe, more people finishing high school, more 

people employed and employable, and a much better community. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. I thank all of our witnesses. 

The gentlelady from California? 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to be at this hearing today, not so much that I wanted 

to learn more about gangs, but I wanted to be here because I am 

136 

trying to help you and this Committee educate the Members of 

Congress about how to approach dealing with these gang problems, 

and we have to get rid of the notion that you lock them up and you 

throw the key away, you get tougher, you give longer sentences, 

you create more laws, sending a signal to the public that you are 

tough on crime. 

I really want us to do everything that we can—and I know this 

is what you are attempting to do—to try and formulate some good, 

sound, sensible public policy that is going to deal with these problems in a real way. We know that locking them up and throwing 

the key away has not solved anything, and so I am hopeful that 

through these hearings, we can get to basically what is the last 

paragraph of Mr. Ogletree’s testimony that talks about trying to invest in human potential and to deal with developing the talents 

and possibilities of young people. 

Let me just say for the sake of this Committee that each of you 

brings some interesting perspective on dealing with this issue, but 

there is one thing that you kind of fall into because I think it 

sounds good about the role that the faith-based community is playing in helping to deal with gangs and helping to solve problems. 

I want to assure you that there are well-intended ministers and 

preachers who would like very much to solve this problem, but they 

do not have the resources to do it, and while they may have a 

march in the community to talk about taking back the community, 

they may even dedicate a Sunday to preaching about it, the gangsters are not in church, they are not in prayer meeting on Wednesday night, and the ministers are truly not in the public housing 

projects where the gangsters are. 

So I want us not to think that somehow that we can rely on the 

faith-based community or the community to solve these problems. 

The communities are begging for help. They are begging for the 

system to do something substantive. 

I listened to the Justice Department, and, you know, I was hoping this would not be the kind of hearing where you would feel the 

need to have to talk about how good you are and how much good 

you are doing and how you are dealing with the problem because 

really you are not. The Justice Department, in my estimation, is 

not doing a lot with prevention. 

As a matter of fact, I am not so sure that the Justice Department 

is cooperating well enough with the local law enforcement authorities to do what it could be doing in dealing with getting some of 

the shot callers and the shooters off the streets so that we can deal 

with the others who have been described here in many different 

ways who have a lot of potential. 

I have worked with gangs—the Crips, the Bloods, the Eight 

Trays, the Grey Streeters—in South Central Los Angeles since the 

1980’s. I know and understand the community of gangs, and I 

know and understand, as many have alluded to here today, that 

many of these are the children of families that are in deep trouble. 

I had public housing projects, and many of those parents were 

dead, in jail, addicted, out on crack cocaine, living with grandmothers, living nowhere because the laws are terrible as it relates 

to poor children. 

137 

Number one, in order to be on that lease after a certain age in 

public housing projects, it costs more money. So they were not on 

the list. They did not live anywhere. They lived in some of the vacant units with other gang members, and they had decided that 

truly was their family and that nobody really cared about them. 

Then I started a program in all five of these public housing 

projects in South Central Los Angeles with Wagner Pfizer monies. 

I walked the public housing projects, and we recruited people to 

come to our training programs because we decided, we understood 

that in the public housing projects, for some reasons, they were 

treated differently than other parts of the city. The job training 

programs, private industry council programs did not get inside 

those public housing projects. So there was no job training going 

on. 

We started to organize. We took over the gymnasiums. On the 

first day in Jordan Downs Housing Projects, I will never forget, we 

had a line around the corner, over 200 young people, who had responded to these flyers and to the talking and the walking that we 

had done about trying to change their lives. 

We discovered a lot about them. All of them had experimented 

or were dealing with crack or marijuana or some form of narcotics. 

Surprisingly, many of them had graduated at that time from high 

school because they had not gotten down to the age that they are 

now, the 14-and 15-year-olds. 

Many of them had not learned how to negotiate the employment 

system, had never been to personnel offices, none of that stuff. So 

we dealt with the old basic stuff of how you fill out applications, 

how you dress, what employers were expecting. 

But this is another thing that we did. You cannot do job training 

without stipends and money for people to survive on while they are 

in training. The system does not want to put the money into training these young people. If you are going to train poor children, 

young men who have no money, you have to have food, and you 

have to have stipends for them to have some decent clothing, some 

haircuts, other kinds of things. We put the stipends into the program. We trained a lot of young people. 

We discovered that the Howe Public Housing Project would get 

contractors from outside of the community. They would come in to 

lay cable and do other kinds of things, and the people who lived 

there did not have a shot or a chance of those jobs, and nobody connected them with the jobs. We finally said to the public housing authority, ‘‘You will bring no other people in from out of the community and from other cities to do these jobs without at least finding 

out what you have here and giving young people a chance to do the 

jobs.’’ 

We hooked up with AT&T when they first laid their cable. We 

got gang bangers hired on those jobs. I have never seen a happier 

group of young people. They put their bandanas on their head, they 

got down in those trenches, they dug those ditches, they laid that 

cable, they made money, and some of them moved out of public 

housing. 

We went on to develop a fiber optics program at the Maxine Waters Employment Training Center that paid a lot of money, and 

those young people bought houses. A lot of them moved out. I have 

138 

seen a lot of deaths. I have been to funerals. But in all that we did 

in this training, we went to the jails at night. We ran out to Martin 

Luther King Hospital when shootings took place to see what was 

going on and to respond to families. 

In addition to the training that we were doing about how to 

dress, how to fill out applications, what was expected of you, we 

had to do tattoo removal. We had to deal with the judges and the 

courts in order to remove the warrants and give people a chance 

to work them off because we discovered if you come in for this job 

training and you have warrants out there or you have not paid 

your traffic tickets, you cannot get to anybody’s job. Part of that 

stuff has to be worked with. 

So I am thankful for the faith-based organizations and others, 

but it takes money. It takes real job training. Gangsters want jobs, 

and this business about they are making so much money dealing 

with drugs is a myth. There are only a few people who make a lot 

of money. Most of these young people who ended up with crack cocaine that they ended up getting mandatory minimum sentencing 

on, which is absolutely nuts and crazy, were not making a lot of 

money. They were out there surviving. 

So we have to change our thinking. Yes, there are some very, 

very bad folks out there who need to be locked up, but most of 

them are not. Given an opportunity, given a chance—we have in 

some of those high schools—60 percent of the students at Locke 

High are in foster homes, and so the system has to be dealt with. 

We have to provide the resources. We have to provide the support. 

We have to stop thinking we can lock everybody up. 

So I am here today to say the next hearing, Mr. Chairman, I 

hope that we will bring in a whole room full of ex-gangsters and 

gangsters and put a face on them. Let’s talk to them. Let’s find out 

who their mamas and daddies are or were. Let’s find out not only 

have been abandoned, how many have been abused sexually, physically, how many have slept out without a place to live and no food. 

They are angry at the system, and there is nothing worse than 

running into a poor, young, particularly Black males, who have 

seen their mothers abused, who have been abused, and you think 

if you put a gun in their hands, they are not going to shoot somebody. They will. 

But we can prevent that if we are serious about investing in 

human potential. I like the way you describe it because we do not 

have the fancy sociological names for what is wrong with the kids, 

but you described it. I understood exactly what you were saying, 

and we need to take that kind of information and make it more 

available to people in ways that they understand. 

Justice Department, how much money did you have in prevention? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I would not be able to give you an exact figure. 

Ms. WATERS. But it was not a lot, was it? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Well, I know that we just sent $1 million-plus to 

L.A. in particular in the anti-gang—— 

Ms. WATERS. One million dollars in L.A. is like a drop in the 

bucket. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I agree, Madam. I would say nationally it is well 

into the hundreds of millions of dollars. 

139 

Ms. WATERS. Well, let me tell you—he is trying to shut me up— 

it is not enough. So what we need for you to do is we need a Justice 

Department who will come in here and ask the President—I do not 

care who it is—to place in their budget some real money and some 

real resources to deal with prevention. Until the day that I see you 

come in saying this is how you can help us, then I do not know 

that you really do understand what the needs are. 

So let me thank all of you for being here. 

Mr. Ogletree, I think again everybody should read the Charles 

Hamilton Houston report that you just gave us and dwell on that 

last paragraph because I think it is so informative and it directs 

us. 

And I thank you for your generosity. I just had to say that because I know this business. I have worked with it long enough. I 

understand it. Jobs, job training, and some investment will do the 

job. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SCOTT. The gentleman from North Carolina? 

Mr. COBLE. I am belayed, Mr. Chairman. I do not have any questions. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, thank you. 

The gentlelady from Texas? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

I would like to associate myself with the Chairman of the full 

Committee’s comments. This does, if you will, warrant a roundtable 

discussion, Mr. Flores, with many of those that you have spoken 

of. 

Mr. SCOTT. Will the gentlelady suspend? 

The Ranking Member and I have agreed to do a roundtable discussion. So, in response—actually, before the comment was made, 

we had been talking about that already—I think that will happen. 

I apologize to the gentlelady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me start again, and I know the Chairman 

will yield me the extra time to compliment him—— 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. And the Ranking Member for this 

format that would allow us to have a roundtable, and I would assume, Mr. Chairman, that we could engage some of the individuals 

that Mr. Flores may have commented on because all of us living 

in the real world, Professor Ogletree, have had our share, and although the time may not have been as extended, I am reminded 

of the intensity of gang warfare when the so-called 1994 crime bill 

came out, and that was supposed to be relief, R-E-L-I-E-F, and I 

think we found out that it was not. 

I was then a Houston City councilmember that engaged with the 

gangs in our community in discussions, in calls, gang meetings, if 

you will. Guys come in and let’s face to face. I remember there was 

a great deal of humor about the midnight basketball. In fact, I 

think it extinguished itself as a joke. Frankly, there was value to 

that. Those folks were off the street talking to each other, seeing 

role models. 

140 

So I want to just pursue this line of questioning and will try to 

have all this merged in to my thoughts. 

This is a brilliant piece, Professor Ogletree. It is something that 

I will pull out of this big notebook and really try to frame the 

framework. Let me give some suggestions, if you would comment 

on them. 

When we begin in this new Administration that will have a new 

President—I would perceive that the President would be a graduate of the Harvard Law School. That means he is by the very nature bright, among others—but as we look toward the economic 

piece, we will be doing a rebuilding of the Nation’s infrastructure. 

We will be doing large transit projects. Why can’t we be creative 

and actually write into the legislation that the workforce should 

come from, a certain percentage thereof, individuals of this definition? Write it into the law. 

The second suggestion is no one even knows that we have provisions in the law, Mr. O’Connor, that talk about reporting stolen or 

lost guns. Do you know that there are State legislators who are 

asking me, ‘‘Is there such a bill?’’ because no one is enforcing 

whether or not local jurisdictions are, in fact, reporting lost or stolen guns, which fuels the fires of gangs. That is how they get most 

of their weapons. That is how they market them down to the border. They are stolen or lost, and there is no enforcement. 

That does not get necessarily to the question of whether or not 

we are unfairly incarcerating teenagers. That really is outside of 

that and would be a helpful piece of that if we looked at it in the 

right way. So let me pose these questions to you. 

First of all, I want to recite in Mr. O’Connor’s testimony. And I 

understand that you are working with the tools that you have, but 

here is what the Justice Department is doing: FBI-led Safe Streets 

Violent Crime Task Force, Violent Gang Task Force, the combination of the Violent Crime Impact Teams. We have something called 

RAGE. Can you imagine? RAGE. This is a force established by the 

ATF and Prince George’s County Policy and the FBI. The police 

forces’ RAGE. This is something that comes down upon our children. 

And so I would like, Mr. O’Connor, if you would read this, my 

question to you would be if we found other solutions, would the 

Justice Department then have the data to up its monies on prevention? I think what you want is to see the crime stop. 

I think that the Justice Department is the place of last resort 

that people cry to and look to and say, ‘‘Why isn’t the Government 

doing anything?’’ and so you form all these task forces that, frankly, do not work because, if they did, from 1994 to 2008 when they 

passed that 1994 bill, we would see a magnificent change, would 

we not? We would see numbers that Professor Ogletree did not see. 

So quickly, Professor Ogletree, you mentioned two points. ‘‘Public 

onion data strongly suggests that people living in the United States 

are far more likely to support education prevention strategies for 

youth rather than prosecution,’’ number one, and then the suppression, ‘‘suppression policies and expansive law enforcement power 

have not proven effective,’’ and then you proceed on (E) that talks 

about how it comes down on the people of color. 

Would you just comment? 

141 

And I will go to you, Mr. O’Connor, as the person that people 

look to say, ‘‘Why aren’t you doing more?’’ to tell me whether or not 

you would, one, read this extensively and, two, be able to get rid 

of all these RAGE task forces if we found data to support the 

premise of this. 

Professor Ogletree? 

Mr. OGLETREE. Thank you, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. 

I am very happy to respond. 

I want to say a word first about the FBI and the Department of 

Justice, and I think you and Congresswoman Maxine Waters hit on 

an important point, and I think it is fair for the Department of Justice to say—they may say—‘‘That is not our business.’’ 

If your business is only to be involved in fighting crime, we 

should know that because Congress keeps offering them opportunities to come to get money, and they keep saying, ‘‘We have enough 

for what we are doing.’’ I think it is important to get an answer, 

and maybe the answer is, ‘‘That is not our business. We do not do 

that prevention stuff. We are fighting crime.’’ It would help us to 

know. 

In terms of what we are doing, what the reports say, let me respond to the first thing. One of the important examples of social 

capital is that we have to figure out how to find a way to employ, 

not over other employable people, but to employ the hundreds of 

thousands of men who have served their time and who are coming 

out of prison and who need a chance to work somewhere. 

Let me give you an example. When we talk about crime, if you 

look at Houston, New Orleans, Oakland, and Newark, what is interesting about those four places, are ports, ports that employ thousands of people, and that the terrorism law now prohibits even the 

consideration of anyone. The question is whether or not Congress 

will, if you really want a solution, look at whether or not somebody 

can paint a fence or cut some grass or do something that does not 

undermine national security, whatever it might be, because that is 

a place that we are not going to reduce employment, we are going 

to increase employment, and what a better way to start training 

people. 

The Second Chance Act that—not the one that was passed, but 

the one that you may recall a decade ago—Mayer Ed Koch and 

Reverend Al Sharpton and I came and talked about that 10 years 

ago. What you passed was not what we proposed. It was looking 

at prior offenders, making them go through drug treatment, making them prove that they are eligible for employment, and then 

they would not be rejected That is exactly right, and that is the 

second point. 

The final point is that the public really wants to be safe. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am sorry. Would you agree then that in 

major infrastructure and in funding legislation dealing with job 

creation, we should consider a piece that directly—you know, we 

have goals for minority businesses and make sure there is no discrimination because these are Federal funds—goes ahead and targets that segment of the population? 

Mr. OGLETREE. Indeed. In fact, as you know, we have goals in 

our funding for Iraq to make sure that that money goes to Iraqi 

citizens. There is an affirmative step there. And it seems to me 

142 

here is the example where we can do something that is forward 

looking by saying, rather than knowing that the opportunity costs 

of having you back in prison, we are going to continue to work not 

paying much, but paying enough to make it productive as one of 

those goals, and the public will be happy to know that their tax 

dollars are not going to incarcerate somebody. They are going to 

make them employable, law-abiding, productive citizens. 

I think that is a very good idea, and I think it is the kind of 

thing that as Congress, not being soft on crime, being tough on 

crime, punish souls and send them to jail, but when people get out, 

make sure they can be productive parts of the community, and I 

think that is a very important forward-looking idea, and that is 

what we talk about in the report. 

And it is not one or the other. We are saying it is both. You have 

to be tough on crime, focus on the worst criminals, but also find 

a way to be preventive so that you do not increase that list and 

be proud of the fact that we have not one million in the 20th century, but two million people in jail. That is not progress. That is 

a sign of a failed system, and I think we need to recognize it and 

figure out how to fix that failure. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. O’Connor, reading this and, also, if we 

found that the data in here would support another way to handle 

this increasing crisis in juvenile crime or gangs, the Justice Department has a preventative element to it, would you work with the 

Congress? Would you believe the Justice Department—because, obviously, you are here at this timeframe. We do not know what your 

future is—would be able to work with us on this matter? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. The department would be certainly willing to 

work on any prevention-related programs. I mean, I think, if I may, 

with the Chairman’s deference answer one thing, I do not know 

where these task forces get their names, I certainly do not come 

up with them, but that is not about prevention, unfortunately. That 

is after a police chief—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are right. 

Mr. O’CONNOR [continuing]. Or a mayor has come to us and said, 

‘‘There have been 15 homicides. Help. Help us find out who did this 

and get them off the streets.’’ 

I looked around my office in Connecticut when I got one of those 

calls. I do not have one social worker in the U.S. attorney’s office 

in Connecticut. I do have 75 prosecutors and teams of FBI agents, 

and I think it is just important to understand that when it comes 

to prevention, the department’s role is funding prevention efforts 

by others, not preventing it itself. We do not have social workers 

we send into communities. We look for people who are on the 

ground and do that. 

So I cannot commit to saying we will not have task forces. The 

public expects that, the mayors, the governors, the congressmen, 

anyone who is concerned, community groups. We have to do that, 

and I think that challenge for us is to be able to do both, to continue to fund the many prevention programs, some of which were 

talked about here, but at the same time be able to adequately respond to crimes after they occur. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But I think what you are saying—and I will 

conclude on this—is—— 

143 

Mr. SCOTT. If the gentlelady will suspend, we have a markup 

that has been scheduled, and we want to do that, and then we will 

come back to finish up the questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will conclude my sentence, and then I will 

yield back. 

Mr. SCOTT. Go ahead. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. 

Let me just conclude by saying how I interpret what you have 

just said, is, one, you will read this document, but there is a prevention component in the Justice Department, and so Congress can 

give the Justice Department more money, and you would be collaborative. 

I think the final word is if the crime of 15 homicides did not 

occur in that jurisdiction that you are speaking of, they would be 

just as accepting of the prevention dollars to not have those already 

homicides, and that is what we want to do, get in front of it to help 

these gang members get out of what they are doing and to solve 

these problems ahead of time. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And we are going to suspend the questions for just a minute. We 

had some previously scheduled business. 

[MARKUP] 

Mr. SCOTT. With that, the markup is concluded, and we will resume the questioning of the witnesses. 

Does the gentleman from Ohio have questions? 

The gentleman from New York? 

The gentlelady from Wisconsin? 

Just for a very brief second round, I would like to ask Mr. O’Connor a question. We have heard several references to the Second 

Chance, to how to deal with returning people who have served 

their time. We passed the Second Chance Act. Obviously, the way 

the Federal Government works, you cannot possibly have gotten 

any rules and regulations to implement the bill yet. Could you tell 

us the status of the implementation of the Second Chance Act? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, I do not know, but I certainly can 

get back to you. 

Mr. SCOTT. If you could provide that for the record—— 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I will. 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. We would appreciate it. 

And you mentioned that all the U.S. attorneys had gang prevention summits. Do you have the information gleaned from those 

summits? 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I do not know if there was any sort of formal effort to coordinate whatever information was gleaned. I can certainly check back with the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys and 

get back to you. I suspect that every district at least reported back 

in writing as to what they did, who participated, but beyond that, 

I just do not know. But we can find that out for you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And for Dr. Straub and Major Buckovich, the Youth PROMISE 

Act contains a provision we call the YOPs, youth-oriented policing. 

144 

Are there strategies the police departments can use to more effectively deal with juvenile crime? 

Mr. STRAUB. Mr. Chairman, the youth police initiative that I 

spoke about in White Plains deals just with that issue, and I applaud your work on the Youth PROMISE Act. Clearly—and a number of people have spoken about it—one of the biggest issues is 

building relationships with at-risk youth between the police and 

those youth. If there is not an opportunity for them to discuss very 

difficult important issues—race, violence, respect—those conversations never happen. We never have the chance for de-escalation. 

We never have the opportunity for either side—and I hate to say 

either side—to come to an understanding of each other. 

So I think the youth police initiative, which has been very, very 

effective in White Plains and now is being replicated in a number 

of cities, provides that opportunity to bring at-risk young men and 

women together with police officers to have those very serious discussions that typically as a society we do not want to have. We do 

not want to talk about race, we do not want to talk about respect, 

we do not want to talk about violence, and unless we bring the parties together and have those conversations, in my opinion, we are 

not going anywhere. 

Mr. BUKOVICH. And I agree. I think we have a window of opportunity with youth between about ages 17 and 14 or 141⁄2 to really 

make an impact. I think it is between those ages where they start 

to, especially youth in high-risk communities or who are at high 

risk, have interactions with the police, sometimes negative, and I 

think that we need strategies, when we are presented with those 

opportunities, to try to impact them in a positive way. 

I know that certainly in Richmond we are constantly looking for 

ways to provide positive role models for the youth, whether it is 

through sports, such as our police athletic league, or through some 

of our truancy prevention programs, to really put police in contact 

with these at-risk youth. 

Ms. WATERS. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCOTT. I yield. 

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, the perception of the police officer 

is developed on the street, and it is not that you get a group of kids 

together and begin to talk with them. It is how you treat them on 

the street. 

When you have 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds who are getting into 

trouble for the first time and they are made to lie on the sidewalk, 

they are handcuffed, they are thrown up against the car, they internalize what they are being told by others, that the police hate 

them, they are racist, they do not like them, on and on and on. 

There was an incident in one of my communities where some 13- 

year-olds were literally breaking into a vacant house on the block. 

I knew the police, the sheriffs. They were called. I met them over 

there. They picked up the young people. I asked the sheriffs to 

please let’s get their addresses, let’s go to their homes. 

I went with them to their homes. The parents were shocked. 

They did not have any idea that this is what these kids had been 

doing, but I have since been in touch with them over the years. All 

of these young people are doing fine. 

145 

Mr. SCOTT. Would the gentlelady suspend? My time has expired. 

On this round, we are going to keep very close to the actual time. 

My time has expired. 

It is the gentlelady from California’s time. You are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. And I will yield back my time to you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

But let me just say what those parents have told us is that having been apprehended and brought home probably did more in 

teaching them the lesson of not breaking into a house, not going 

on the other property. It left a great impression about the police 

who came to their homes, brought them home, instead of taking 

them to jail. 

So I just wanted to say that because I respect the idea that you 

are trying to build relationships and you talk about getting kids together and talking to them, but it really does not happen that way. 

It happens based on how they are treated with their early contacts 

with the police. 

The statistics are such that by the time an African-American 

male is 17 years old, he has been in touch with the police at least— 

I think it is, Mr. Ogletree, at least two or three times—and those 

experiences are what really helps them to understand or think they 

understand who the police are and what they are all about. 

So, if I can suggest when you talk about policing and youth—first 

of all, I like intervention programs and prevention programs, which 

the Justice Department used to have. I do not know if they have 

them anymore—when kids get in trouble for the first time, they are 

not taken to jail. There are alternative ways to deal with them in 

the community. 

That does more in developing relationships than going to even a 

church where they have gathered a group of kids to talk to because 

usually those are not the kids that need the talking to. 

I yield to the Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

I did have another question that I wanted to get in, and that is 

that the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act requires us 

to focus on disproportionate minority confinement. 

The chart over here shows the present gang-related statutes. The 

red bars are the percentage in the various statutes that are minorities where it shows, obviously, that a disproportionate number of 

minorities are prosecuted under those gang statutes. 

My question is what passage of some of the alternative get-tough 

bill would do to minority confinement first, then the definition of 

gang, and also the conduct of a trial that allows a prosecutor to 

bring in all kinds of community crime and mayhem. The suppression bill says part of the definition of a gang member involves people who have committed, not convicted of, committed crimes which 

allows you essentially to try that case along with everything else 

in the trial in chief, what that might do to disproportionate minority confinement. 

Mr. Ogletree? 

Mr. OGLETREE. The one obvious thing it will do, Congressman 

Scott, looking at that chart is that it will go off the chart. I mean, 

the numbers will be so catastrophic that you will not even be able 

146 

to confine the rate of disparity based on race in terms of how youth 

are being treated in our system. 

The disparities are national, but, ironically, they are not geographic. When I say that, it is not a southern problem. You will 

find it in the Northeast. You will find it in the Midwest. You will 

find it in North and South. Even when there are small concentrations of minority communities, the overrepresentation of children of 

color in this system is growing exponentially. 

We have identified some of the problems. Some of the problems 

are that these kids are being suspended and expelled from schools. 

That is that the educational system has become part of the criminal justice system. There are police on the property. There is a 

whole security apparatus. A police officer has usually unfettered 

discretion to decide who stays in school, who is suspended, who is 

expelled, and when they are out of school, they are out of school 

not just for the day, but until their case is resolved, which means 

they miss 6 months in school, and then they cannot repeat that 

grade. 

So this is a problem where we know there is a solution, and the 

juvenile court judges are calling us asking for help, superintendents are calling us, teachers are calling us. They all are saying 

there is a problem with these statutes that require judges to have 

no role, and the only role is the police officer on the school grounds, 

and it creates this kind of disparity, and it only makes the overrepresentation of children of color even greater in our system. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentlelady from Texas? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me continue the line of questioning and thought processes that we have had. 

And, Professor Ogletree, what I would offer is to use Harris 

County as a laboratory, and the reason I say that is because using 

State laws, our juvenile court system has discretion, and what we 

have found unscientifically is that more youngsters of the majority 

population—of course, that is, you know, somewhat of a metaphor 

now because who knows who the majority is—who are Anglos are 

sent home or parents are called versus Hispanic and African-American youth. 

Might I also suggest that in this economic market, this crisis 

where adults are competing for the typical youth positions, summer 

jobs at our franchises where you could always count on getting 

your summer job, and the loss, for example, in our community of 

a major entertainment center, like a Coney Island, which has been 

lost or whatever in New York, which used to be a central spot for 

hiring of our youth, is gone. 

So the scheme of things has turned upside down and, therefore, 

where do they go and what do they do? So a child that gets out 

of school who has no history of criminal activities, the long, hot 

summer, drives them, unfortunately, into a circumstance that may 

alter their life. 

And let me add one other point. I remember having Senator Paul 

Wellstone during his life visit—I will use Harris County—in our juvenile detention facility where he found, just by conversation as we 

were walking through, numbers of young people who had mental 

147 

health needs that are now being detained in these facilities, and 

the mixture of volatility and criminal activity and someone who 

needs some other kind of help only sends that youngster out on the 

street again, not finding the services that they need. 

So I would want to ask you to comment on this whole question 

of a comprehensive approach to services. I think we spoke earlier 

about jobs, but the fact that we have turned this society upside 

down. There is not a nurturing and caring society. We are so 

frightened by this potential of gang warfare—and, certainly, gangs 

have guns, and I know police persons are frightened of their lives 

as they project the image of gangs—and so suppression and using 

these heavy laws do not leave any pathway, if you will, for some 

of the thoughts that you made, if you would comment on that. 

And, Mr. Flores, if you would comment, what would happen if we 

turned the corner and had a massive structure of mental health 

services, employment—I think Professor Ogletree mentioned ridding ourselves of stigma, but if they are as young as 13 or 14, we 

might not be stigmatized totally yet—but anyhow moving them in 

that direction. I am not sure if you are familiar with MS-13, but 

I think I would like to make sure that we distinguish ourselves for 

some of the sort of hardened track that people tend to go on after 

they graduate from these baby crimes. 

Professor Ogletree? 

Mr. OGLETREE. Thank you. 

Let me just say one thing taking a step back. The research that 

we do suggests something very different than what I have heard 

today. That is if we are looking at people who are 14 to 17, that 

is too late. We have to look at them at 9 years old to 13 when we 

still have a chance to keep them in school, keep them from dropping out, have a network there. So I think we have to, unfortunately, step back in a real sense and make a difference. 

And then some of the data—the mental health is just pervasive. 

We looked at a number of States, and many of the Black and 

Brown boys in particular in the juvenile justice system, almost twothirds, have some mental health crisis that has been 

undiagnosed—too quiet, too active, those with ADHD and a whole 

series of other medical mental health issues that are being ignored, 

and, in fact, they have become aggravating rather than mitigating 

circumstances because, instead of trying to treat those, they become reason to detain, et cetera, as opposed to trying to find the 

right facility. So that is a very important issue to study. 

Having said all that, there is some good news. My wife, Pam 

Ogletree, is the president and CEO of something called Children’s 

Services of Roxbury. It is very like many other programs dealing 

with child welfare, but on their own, the young people started a 

group called YPP, youth-to-police partnership, and these are the 

young people who have been harassed by police, who could not get 

along with police, and they have decided to tell them why I run 

when you come after me, why I do not want to talk to you on the 

streets, and it is really a remarkable thing because they are out in 

the streets talking to other youth, ‘‘Do not be afraid. Come to us 

because we need to work with ways the police can be much more 

effective.’’ 

148 

Harris County is a very good example as well. There is good anecdotal data, but there is a big enough set of data. If we could have 

access to that to talk about both, how the young people are in the 

system earlier and how to increase the ideas of discretion, and it 

really seemed that everything we are talking about today is tied to 

the educational system. 

If we want to fix the issue of gangs, fix the issue of criminal justice, juvenile justice, we must first start with saying the school system is a haven of peace, educational opportunity, and of opportunity to move forward. If we do not do that, no matter what we 

do, we are going to find ourselves talking about another violent 

shooting. We are going to have that happen because we have not 

addressed the fundamental problem of making the educational system safe for our children and making them feel that they are protected. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Flores, can you just quickly answer? I will 

just put it this way. Intervention—would that be a positive step on 

some of these gangs for youngsters who are as young as 9 years 

old and jobs for that age group that may be 14 to 17? 

Mr. FLORES. Well, first, for your first question about affiliation 

with MS, I do have a long history with—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I did not ask you about your affiliation. 

Mr. FLORES. No, not my affiliation, rather my—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Your knowledge. 

Mr. FLORES. The knowledge of them and, actually, and, you 

know, my family varies with people from different gangs, so I am 

not going to say who is from where, right. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Absolutely. 

Mr. FLORES. But I think I am very knowledgeable of what they 

do and who they are. 

I think that intervention at the early age is very important, but 

I think what also is important is that even at an early age, as an 

8-year-old, 9-year-old, you already have a sort of vision of like a cop 

or of a police officer or anything like that. So even at an early age, 

you might be refrained from going into these programs that are 

run maybe by a police station or are run maybe by, you know, the 

Department of Justice or whatever it is that they are run by. 

So I think also the importance is for these departments to look 

for people who look like them, right, and I think that is a key that 

is a success to organizations in which I work with in Los Angeles, 

is looking for people that also look like them so those barriers can 

be broken down already, of course, because there are a lot of kids 

already afraid. 

I have a 3-year-old son that already knows to be scared of a cop. 

I do not know where he got it from. I know I am not teaching him 

that, but, you know, me not being with his mother and he is into 

the police, I do not know what he is learning over there, right, in 

terms of knowledge of police or whatever not. 

So I think in order to break these barriers down, we have to use 

different methods, searching for people that look like them, and 

that is one of the keys that happened the transformation that I 

had, as well as transformation of other gang members that I know, 

is that there were people that looked exactly like them, but they 

were giving them different information, rather than the informaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:34 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\061008\42827.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42827
149 

tion that is being kicked or being brought in by, you know, gang 

organizations or whatever you want to call them. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Georgia? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the panel, last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

released data on the unemployment situation in May, and to make 

a long story short, a net loss of 49,000 jobs for the month of May, 

324,000 jobs lost so far this year. So unemployment has risen at 

the highest rate the last 20 years. Housing foreclosures are rampant, and people are losing their homes. The economic situation is 

tight. 

How does the uncertainty of our economic posture—and it is really getting bleaker every day, gas prices going up every day, record 

highs—what impact does this economic condition, which is deteriorating, have on the prospects for gang development, starting with 

you, Professor Ogletree? 

And I would say of there could be a connection between the economic conditions and the rise of gang affiliation, does it make sense 

to continue to lock people up, or should we do more in terms of social services? 

Mr. OGLETREE. Well, Congressman Johnson, you are absolutely 

right, and you and I both as lawyers and particularly working in 

this system have seen the impact of the lack of education, lack of 

employment, and it is even tougher with people who have gone 

through the system, which means they have a record, they cannot 

get a job, they are not eligible. That becomes a huge problem. 

The other point that has impact not just to young people, but 

these loss of jobs of their parents. Jobs are being moved away. It 

is a huge problem that is being exacerbated by the current economic environment and foreclosure of homes. All that. 

And the interesting thing is that it is not just a race issue. This 

is striking poor White families, the urban families, whether they 

are Black or White or Brown, and I think it is a problem that I 

hope that not only this Congress, but the next Administration will 

focus on. It is one of the pink elephants in the room that here we 

are, we are called jobs, that means we have people on the street. 

Washington, D.C., tonight, it is probably 90 degrees outside or 

hotter. It will be 85 tonight at 11:00, and there are a lot of young 

people that are going to be walking the streets, not because they 

are looking for trouble. There is no air conditioning in the house, 

there is nothing else to do, and they become targets, and we are 

witnessing right now the very problem that we are talking about 

here in our Nation’s capital. 

And if we do not see that these kids who cannot get a job, who 

do not have a home with air conditioning, who are not in school, 

then we are the problem, and labeling them all as gang leaders is 

not going to answer it, and I think your idea of looking at these 

unemployment statistics, looking at this subprime lending and foreclosures tells us it is not a Black problem or a Brown problem, it 

is an American problem. 

I hope even though we are talking about gangs, if we want to 

solve the problem, we need solutions that address the whole family 

150 

and the whole community. That is what we have not done in a 

comprehensive and meaningful way. 

Mr. STRAUB. I think the other thing that we are going to see is 

a tremendous amount of frustration which is going to further exacerbate the existing problems. 

One of the issues that we really have not talked about at all is 

the whole issue of domestic violence, and I think as we see people 

become unemployed, as we see people lose their homes, as we see 

tremendous frustration levels build, there is going to be a propensity to increased—and we have seen it already in White Plains— 

incidents of domestic violence, and that is a whole series of issues. 

It is not just the partners that are involved, but it is the children 

who witness violence in their home, and what does that say to 

them as they go forth in their development, having witnessed 

mother, father or other partner type relationships where there is 

violence, and I that is something that we are not talking about. We 

are talking about kids on the street or we are talking about these 

issues, but domestic violence, I think, is just something that clearly 

is going to be very much aggravated by the dire economic situation 

that we are looking at. 

Mr. BUKOVICH. I think another important factor is communications between confinement facilities and re-entry teams. As these 

gang members come back to their neighborhoods where the job opportunities are even less than when they were confined that there 

has to be information sharing between the confinement facilities 

and the intervention and re-entry teams that are trying to get 

these gang members that have a host of issues back into their 

neighborhoods. 

And also the programs have to address the parents. You cannot 

just focus on the youth, but the programs have to address the parents, parenting issues, and economic issues that the parents are 

facing when the child comes back into their home. 

Mr. FLORES. I think that the unemployment issue is huge and is 

creating larger gangs, if you want to call it, because I think that 

a lot of these gang members are young members. Their parents are 

being laid off, right, and I think that that also pushes more young 

people, even people in high schools, to look for jobs, and I think 

that it is important for someone in high school to not be thinking 

about a job, right, to more be thinking about his or her education 

rather than thinking about a job, and unemployment is a huge 

issue that is affecting the large number of the gang growth and 

things like that. 

And I think one of the things that Maxine Waters talked about 

was stipends. I work in an organization that we stipend our young 

people for coming to school, and I think if we had more programs 

like that, it would alleviate some of that, some of the reasons why 

unemployment is affecting this issue. 

Mr. O’CONNOR. I mean, I think it is undisputed that there is an 

economic link to crime rates. Just for the sake of time, I do not 

have much more to add than that, but, certainly, that is a factor 

in anyone’s mind, that as the economic forecast appears, one has 

to be sensitive to the link there. 

I am not a social scientist, and I could not be precise, but it goes 

without saying that that would certainly heighten any concerns, 

151 

any prosecutor’s concerns. It is going to create an environment 

where people tend to be more angry. Anger tends to spout more violence. 

Mr. MACY. I think it is a wonderful connection you are making 

because I think it is no accident that the Subcommittee is titled 

Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and I am not an alarmist nor am I a conspiracy theorist, but having worked in the Middle 

East over the last 7 years and asked to come and look at the destruction, the psychosocial degradation after the second Lebanese 

war, if you are familiar with the role that Hezbollah played in that 

war, and we saw from the media standpoint how onerous and terrible it was that the citizens of Lebanon harbored the Hezbollah 

militants. 

But, in fact, were you to take a closer look, Hezbollah, which is 

organized around violent gang principles, is, in fact, the social service structure for the Country of Lebanon. So they get Lebanese 

children to school. They get the Lebanese families essentially 

health insurance. They are the ones that actually back the poorest 

of the citizens. 

It is no mistake, in my consultancy work with the Department 

of Homeland Security in New Jersey, they are looking at similar 

recruitment tactics, and I think it plays out probably more than 

just in New Jersey where these, as Committee Member Forbes 

terms them, networks of gangs are looking to take care of younger 

folks because, at this point, there is a gap between how our Government and our State and municipalities are unable to take care 

of them. They slip right into that gap very quickly and offer a false 

sense of security and safety. 

And so I think we have a bigger issue on our hand than just increased violence. I think we have a security issue in the long run, 

and I think that we are not going to arrest our way out of this. We 

are going to have to put significant funding on the table for psychosocial servicing that is broadband and includes biopsychosocial approaches and includes mental health services, along with looking at 

justice for the disproportionate minorities who are incarcerated. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Has the gentleman finished his questions? 

Thank you. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for their testimony today. 

We have heard about the importance of long-term solutions. We 

heard about domestic violence. 

One of the things that we have had from other hearings is the 

success of nurse-family partnerships who deal with newborns, family with newborns, and it is my understanding that by the nurses 

coming and visiting, working with the family through the last few 

months of pregnancy, first year of life, that 18 years later, children 

in that program are significantly less likely to get in trouble. 

I think it says domestic violence could be reduced, child abuse 

certainly would be reduced, and we know there is a strong correlation between child abuse and future violence. So we know we have 

to take a long-term approach, and we heard through the entire 

hearing that the criminal code has enough in it to deal with the 

serious crimes. 

152 

We heard an example of a gang member cut somebody’s arm off. 

Well, I think every State has a criminal code sufficient to deal severely with someone who chops somebody’s arm off, but we have 

heard not only how effective prevention strategies can be, but that 

the suppression strategy is not only ineffective in reducing future 

crimes, it is made situations counterproductive, that it actually 

may lead to more gangs. 

And we lock up already more people proportionally than anywhere else on earth. This chart shows the United States number 

one in the world, and the minority community getting locked up at 

rates that would justify an international human rights investigation that you would target a community with rates such as the one 

shown on that chart—2,200 per 100,000 in the minority community; the far right Brown line, almost 4,000; the top 10 States in 

minority confinement, 4,000 per 100,000—when most countries lock 

up between 50 and 200 per 100,000. 

So, obviously, the criminal justice system is doing all it can do, 

but what the chart also reminds us of is that the Children’s Defense Fund calls the present system the cradle-to-prison pipeline. 

We know, as Professor Ogletree has said, if we get people in the 

cradle-to-college pipeline, those children will not be getting in trouble. 

So we want to thank all of our witnesses for your testimony. 

Members may have additional written questions for our witnesses, which will forward to you and ask that you answer as 

promptly as you can so the answers may be part of the record. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 1 

week for the submission of additional materials. 

Without objection, the Committee now stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(153) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

Today, the Subcommittee is holding the third hearing this Congress on what approaches work to stop gang crime. 

Some think that the most effective approach is to enact more laws that would result in more people being locked up. Others support programs that help prevent 

young people from getting involved with gangs in the first place. 

I hope that today’s witnesses will address both approaches and help guide us in 

determining what will best stem the tide of gangs. To that end, I have three suggestions. 

First, I believe it is particularly important that we address the fundamental reason why young people are drawn to gangs. We need to understand why our youth 

often feel more of an allegiance to their gang than they do to their own families. 

Second, we must not ignore how communities are impacted by gang crime. Whether you live in urban or rural America, you have the right to feel safe from violence 

in your home. 

However, feeling safe in your home should not mean locking up every young person and throwing away the key. We need to find a balance that aims for the best 

result for our young people as well as for the communities where they live. 

As Professor Olgetree’s recent study points out, we spend anywhere from $35,000 

to $70,000 a year to incarcerate a juvenile in this country. A recent Pew Foundation 

study points out that 1 in every 100 Americans are now behind bars, with 1 in every 

9 young black males behind bars. 

Regardless of whether your motivation is to save money or to save lives, we 

should reflect upon whether our resources are being used wisely by sending so many 

people to prison. 

And, third, while it is critical to address gang crime, we must do so in a way that 

will not sacrifice basic principles of fairness and justice. We must deal with gangs 

in a way that does not lead to racial or age-related profiling, with disproportionate 

numbers of young Americans being unnecessarily funneled through the criminal justice system based on their race or ethnicity, or on their youth. 

More broadly, we should not be so quick to throw away our young people. The 

Supreme Court has acknowledged that there are fundamental differences between 

adults and adolescents that impact the way a young person thinks and reasons. We 

should also acknowledge these differences as we consider how to deal with gangs. 

With that said, I’d like to thank each of the witnesses for agreeing to appear before us today. I look forward to hearing your testimony and working with you to 

develop positive solutions to our gang problems. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, 

TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Chairman Scott for convening today’s very important hearing addressing gangs. Specifically, this hearing will focus on determining an appropriate response to gang crime in the United States. Witnesses will discuss alternative approaches to stemming violence, the effectiveness of various approaches and the appropriateness of federal law enforcement in criminal activity traditionally addressed 

154 

by the states. Although there are several gang bills currently before Congress, those 

are not the primary focus of today’s hearing. 

Today’s hearing will focus primarily on the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute 

for Race and Justice (Harvard Law School) report, No More Children Left Behind, 

which assesses the most comprehensive and up to date studies on the issue of evidenced-based crime reduction strategies, and applies the information to the major 

legislative efforts pending in the Congress to address the issue. Witnesses will also 

address law enforcement approaches to addressing crime, and their effectiveness. 

There will be a single panel of witnesses. Professor Charles Ogletree, Jr, Professor 

and Director of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at 

Harvard Law School will present findings from their report released in March 2008, 

entitled, No More Children Left Behind Bars. This survey report reviewed current 

research about child development and educational interventions in an effort to curb 

youth violence and gang affiliation. 

Ely Flores, a former gang member turned community activist, will testify about 

his work at LA CAUSA YouthBuild (Los Angeles Communities Advocating for Unity 

Social Justice and Action). Mr. Flores urges members of Congress not to give up on 

gang members, but instead to look for ways to incorporate them into functioning 

within the legal social structure. 

Dr. Robert D. Macy, Ph.D., founded the Boston Children s Foundation, a public 

charity, to address the ongoing gang violence and suicides in the 56,000 children 

enrolled in Boston Public Schools, will testify about anxiety disorders and traumatic 

stress disorders, the basis for much of the maladaptive gang behavior, which are 

highly amenable to treatment. 

Dr. Frank Straub, Ph.D., Commissioner of Public Safety for the City of White 

Plains, NY, watched as his city became gentrified, and how that affected crime and 

gang activity. Ultimately the police department and the city s youth bureau 

partnered with the North American Family Institute (NAFI), a Massachusetts-based 

social service organization, to develop and implement a successful program to reduce 

violence and improve community relations. 

Major John Buckovich, Richmond Police Department, will testify about the GRIP 

program (Gang Reduction and Intervention Program). The Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) allocated 2.5 million dollars to four pilot cities 

Richmond, Virginia; Los Angeles, California; Milwaukee, WI; and North Miami 

Beach, FL. The police department works in conjunction with multiple private and 

public organizations to focus on: primary and secondary prevention, intervention 

and lastly, direct gang suppression. Richmond has seen as decrease in the amount 

of violent crime by 24% since 2006, and homicides have decreased from 86 in 2005 

to 55 in 2007. 

The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program indicates that violent crime specifically robberies, homicides, and aggravated assaults has increased 1.9% over 2006; 

whereas some types of crime rapes, burglaries and auto thefts have continued to 

fall. The overall crime rate violent crime and non-violent crime considered together 

is the lowest it has been in 30 years. The top five cities suffering from crime increases are St. Louis, MO, Detroit, MI, Flint, MI, Compton, CA, and Camden, NJ. 

Some crime experts suggest that the increase in violent crime is linked to an increase in juvenile crime, specifically gang crime. In Oakland, police officials attribute recent rises to an uptick in Latino gang violence, more turf wars between 

drug gangs and an increase in violence among juveniles who escalate minor disputes 

to homicide. However, other experts disagree that gang activity is on the rise. According to a recently-released report from the Justice Policy Institute (JPI): 

There are fewer gang members in the United States today than there were a 

decade ago, and there is no evidence that gang activity is growing . . . the most 

recent comprehensive law enforcement estimate indicates that youth gang membership fell from 850,000 in 1996 to 760,000 in 2004 and that the proportion 

of jurisdictions reporting gang problems has dropped substantially. 

Researchers Kevin Pranis and Judith Greene, authors of the JPI report, conducted a literature survey of all gang research. They found, that there is no consistent relationship between law enforcement measures of gang activity and crime 

trends. For example, an analysis of gang membership and crime data from North 

Carolina found that most jurisdictions reporting growth in gang membership also 

reported falling crime rates. Dallas neighborhoods targeted for gang suppression activities reported both a drop in gang crime and an increase in violent crime. 

Some believe that demography has played a role in the crime increase. Some cities with rising juvenile populations are experiencing a rise in juvenile crime. In 

other cities, criminals are being released from prison after serving lengthy sentences 

imposed in the 80’s and 90’s. Often these newly released people never received treatVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:34 Jan 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\CRIME\061008\42827.000 HJUD1 PsN: 42827
155 

ment while incarcerated and there are few, if any, services available to them on the 

outside. 

Another explanation for the violent crime increase is diminished federal funding 

of local police forces. For example, under President Clinton the COPS program 

reached a high of $2.5 billion; in comparison to 2006 federal funding which was 

$894 million. The change in funding priorities is attributed to increased funding for 

terrorism instead of bread-and-butter crime fighting, according to Los Angeles Police 

Chief Bill Bratton, past president of the Police Executive Research Forum. 

Again, I welcome today’s witnesses. I yield the remainder of my time. 

f 

156 


C-1.eps
157 

Æ 


C-2.eps