<DOC>
[105th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:41843.wais]
H.R. 956, DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES ACT OF 1997
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT
REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 956
TO AMEND THE NATIONAL NARCOTICS LEADERSHIP ACT OF 1988 TO ESTABLISH A
PROGRAM TO SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGE LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT FIRST
DEMONSTRATE A COMPREHENSIVE, LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO REDUCE SUBSTANCE
ABUSE AMONG YOUTH, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
MARCH 13, 1997
__________
Serial No. 105-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-843 WASHINGTON : 1997
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT
DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC
DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
Carolina JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JIM TURNER, Texas
PETE SESSIONS, Texas THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
MICHAEL PAPPAS, New Jersey ------
VINCE SNOWBARGER, Kansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
BOB BARR, Georgia (Independent)
------ ------
Kevin Binger, Staff Director
Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
Judith McCoy, Chief Clerk
Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal
Justice
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Chairman
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio JIM TURNER, Texas
BOB BARR, Georgia
Ex Officio
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Robert Charles, Staff Director
Ianthe Saylor, Clerk
Chris Marston, Legislative Assistant
Elizabeth Mundinger, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 13, 1997................................... 1
Text of H.R. 956............................................. 3
Statement of:
Copple, James E., president and CEO, Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America; and Robert Francis, executive
director, Regional Youth and Adult Substance Abuse
Prevention................................................. 44
Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio; and Hon. Sander M. Levin, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan..................... 22
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Copple, James E., president and CEO, Community Anti-Drug
Coalitions of America, prepared statement of............... 47
Francis, Robert, executive director, Regional Youth and Adult
Substance Abuse Prevention, prepared statement of.......... 56
Levin, Hon. Sander M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, prepared statement of................... 37
Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, prepared statement of....................... 27
Rangel, Hon. Charles B., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, prepared statement of............... 43
H.R. 956, DRUG-FREE COMMUNITIES ACT OF 1997
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1997
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, International
Affairs, and Criminal Justice,
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:40 p.m., in
room 2157, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. J. Dennis
Hastert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Hastert, Mica, Souder, Barr, and
Barrett.
Staff present: Robert Charles, staff director; Chris
Marston, legislative assistant; Ianthe Saylor, clerk; Elizabeth
Mundinger, minority counsel; and Ellen Rayner, minority chief
clerk.
Mr. Hastert. The Subcommittee on National Security,
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice will come to order.
I am pleased to conduct this hearing on H.R. 956, the Drug-
Free Communities Act of 1997, which I had introduced with my
colleagues, Mr. Portman of Ohio, Mr. Rangel of New York, and
Mr. Levin of Michigan, all who will testify today.
I am especially pleased that this subcommittee's
distinguished ranking member, Tom Barrett of Wisconsin, has
signed on as a co-sponsor. Thank you, sir, for that.
The crisis of drug use among our Nation's youth calls out
for an answer. This bipartisan bill rechannels existing
resources to community-based solutions. I believe that it will
form the beginning of such an answer.
The problem of drug abuse among our Nation's youth is
growing. Illicit drug use among 8th and 10th graders has
doubled in the last 5 to 6 years. Five percent of high school
seniors smoke marijuana on a daily basis. Our children are
using LSD and other hallucinogens--cocaine, heroin, and
methamphetamine--at increasing levels.
Parents have stopped talking to their children about the
dangers of drug use. Only 3 of 10 children say their parents
have actually talked to them about drugs.
In my own home in Aurora, IL, I have a brother who teaches
at the junior high level. Out of his class just this calendar
year, he has already lost one of his students because of gang-
bangs and assassinations.
It is a real problem. It is a real problem with our kids,
and it is a real problem right at home.
Decentralized Federal programs cannot answer this problem
alone. In order to reduce demand for drugs among our Nation's
youth, we must address the problems one community at a time.
This bill will support the efforts of local communities to
form coalitions from all sectors, Government, education, faith,
business, and media, to effectively address their own local
problems. By integrating the efforts of all of these groups,
such coalitions can make the most of a limited pool of
resources, and find the most effective way to reach our young
people.
The bill provides this support responsibility. It
rechannels funds into matching grant programs with built-in
accountability provisions. Coalitions must meet certain
sustainably reasonable requirements to be eligible and they
will be held accountable for all Federal dollars that they
spend.
Citizens Against Government Waste and other organizations
support the proposal along with community-based organizations
from all over the country.
I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses today,
and the insights of our Members, as we turn to the markup of
this bill immediately following this hearing today.
I am pleased to turn to my colleague on the subcommittee,
the ranking minority member and co-sponsor of H.R. 956, Tom
Barrett, for any opening remarks that he may have.
[The text of H.R. 956 follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.018
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing and markup.
I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this bill that will
provide communities with the funding and organization for
implementing a coordinated attack in the war on drugs. I
compliment Mr. Portman and Mr. Levin for showing the leadership
that they have today.
We all know that we have a serious problem. Teen drug use
is on the rise. Monitoring the Future study that was released
in December found that the increase is caused in part by the
fact that youngsters are not hearing about the dangers of drug
use. Community partnerships can help us get this information
out.
The Federal Government already recognizes their importance
by providing Federal funding to community coalitions, so they
can demonstrate that their prevention methods work. In fact,
Federal seed money has helped build a strong community network,
which now includes over 4,000 community partnerships
nationwide.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today, who can
tell us more about their successes and I am pleased to be a co-
sponsor of the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997, because we
need to continue our commitment to these coalitions. This bill
authorizes Federal matching grants and an organizational
framework to help communities disseminate information in the
best way to prevent drug abuse.
There are some issues, however, Mr. Chairman, that I would
like to delve into further. First, the bill provides that the
Office of National Drug Policy will appoint an administrator of
the program after receiving a recommendation from the Advisory
Council.
The choice of an administrator is obviously an important
one. I hope that we will have followup discussions in which we
can hear from those who are in the running for administrator,
like representatives from the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, who will be the director of the program in the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration,
which currently runs the grant program for Community
Partnerships.
I also hope that we can fund this new initiative without
damaging existing drug programs, which have been successful.
For example, the substance abuse bloc grant, which provided the
funding used to treat 340,000 people with serious substance
abuse problems in 1995. Or the National Institute on Drug
Abuse, which provides us with 85 percent of drug abuse
research, including studies like Monitoring the Future, which
describe the drug problem and its causes.
I do not want to see the future programs, like the
Secretary's substance abuse youth initiative, hurt in this
process. In other words, I do not want to rob Peter to pay
Paul.
It is time, however, that we take an integrated approach to
fighting the war on drugs. It is time that we brought together
the entire communities, schools, media, law enforcement, parent
groups, and others, so that we can work together to fight this
serious problem. This bill does just that.
Thank you.
Mr. Hastert. I thank the ranking member. Certainly, his
advisements we will take under consideration as we move this
bill from subcommittee and before we go to full committee. I
would hope that we will have some field hearings, and that we
would listen to some of the concerns of yours as well as others
about how this bill could be made even better.
At this time, I would like to welcome Congressman Portman
and Congressman Levin to testify. Gentlemen, would you please
proceed. Congressman Portman.
STATEMENTS OF HON. ROB PORTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO; AND HON. SANDER M. LEVIN, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to testify
today in support of the Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997. As
mentioned earlier, I introduced this along with Mr. Levin, who
is with me this afternoon, Chairman Hastert, and Mr. Rangel.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your help in
developing what we think is a very good bill, but also in
expediting this process. Not only are we having a hearing, but
a markup today and we are very appreciative that this is moving
forward rapidly.
I also have to acknowledge that my friend, Tom Barrett, was
the first cosponsor of this legislation. I take very seriously
his concerns expressed this afternoon, and want to work with
him on any of those.
This is a bipartisan effort, and it reflects some new
thinking. It takes existing Federal drug control resources, and
rechannels them to support the community efforts around the
country, that are actually working to reduce teenage drug
abuse. In my view, this shift in priorities is long overdue.
As those of you on the panel know well, and Chairman
Hastert has already talked about, after more than a decade of
substantial progress in reducing drug abuse in America from
1979 to roughly 1991, those trends have now reversed and
reversed pretty dramatically. It is about younger and younger
kids.
There was a new study released last week by the Partnership
for a Drug Free America showing for the first time significant
increases in drug use among 9, 10, 11, 12-year-olds, fourth,
fifth and sixth graders.
Of course, the real stories of lost opportunities and even
lost lives are even more disturbing than the sobering
statistics that you, Mr. Hastert, and others have talked about.
Within the last year, in my own district, 21 high school
students were expelled from a suburban school I represent for
LSD use, cocaine, and marijuana use. Twelve middle school
students, these are 12- and 13-year-olds, from the school that
I attended as a young man, were suspended last month for
dealing, possession, and use of marijuana on school property.
It goes on and on. One of the reasons I got into this in
the first place is that the mother of a 16-year-old from my
district came to Washington to talk to me about the tragic
death of her son. He died huffing gasoline and smoking
marijuana a few years ago.
It is significant to point out, I think, that no area of
our country, no district represented by this panel, or Congress
indeed is being spared.
A well-respected study, which you may be familiar with,
called Monitoring the Future from the University of Michigan,
tells us that usage is up because young people view drugs as
more socially acceptable and less dangerous than they did 5 or
10 years ago.
This has got to be a call to action for all of us here and
around the country to get organized community by community, if
we want to reverse these trends, and address all of the other
social problems that drug abuse is behind. Violent teen and
gang crime is an example; spouse and child abuse; high rates of
high school dropouts. These are all issues that are related to
drug abuse.
This act that we are talking about today is designed to
support those communities around the country, that have
demonstrated the will with substantial volunteer participation
to address the drug problem.
The bill also gives incentives to spark those communities
that are not yet organized. It focuses on providing support in
every case in what I think is a very cost effective manner.
I would like to highlight the six main points of the
legislation quickly, and then turn to my colleague, Mr. Levin.
First, a local community must demonstrate, before any money
goes to that community, that there is a comprehensive
commitment to reduce drug abuse. This would enable them to
qualify for matching Federal grants of up to $100,000.
Experience in the field, Mr. Chairman, good research, and I
think just common sense tells us that communities that have
every major sector involved in this effort are going to be more
successful.
That is why this legislation awards those communities that
mobilize youth, parents, businesses, faith leaders, law
enforcement, educators, and all of the other key sectors
working together for at least 6 months with a focused mission
and targeted strategies.
Second, the local community must demonstrate that it is not
dependent on the Federal dollar. I think that this is very
important. Because with local will and local financial support,
the program is going to be more successful. Without it, in my
view, the program just will not survive over the long haul.
In fact, we have I think a good record in this regard in
the sense that from CSAP, the community partnership program,
grants were given to many communities that simply did not have
a sufficient non-Federal support base. During its 6-year life,
the CSAP community partnership program has made at least 252
grants, typically ranging from $350,000 to $700,000 to
community programs.
Today, we understand that only 137 of those programs
survive. So about half of them are gone. Again, I think this
goes in large measure to a lack of support in the community.
In my view, we should be a catalyst to these communities to
get organized to do the right thing, but we cannot sustain it
solely with Federal support.
Third, one of the most common and often criticismed of the
Federal programs that support State and local initiatives is
the lack of accountability. We have heard that with drug free
schools and many other programs. This bill requires the local
community to have a system of evaluation in place. It has to
measure outcomes, and it has to be consistent with the common
indicators out there.
This again is very significant and a change from where we
have been. We have learned, I think, over time that successful
community efforts around the country who evaluate their
progress over time are going to be much more successful.
Most have to do so in order to get private sector funding.
Again, I think, that is something that we have built into this
program. Where if you have to go out to the business community,
and other foundations, and other private sector sources to get
funding, you are going to have to have a program in place to
measure your results.
To put the full responsibility for evaluating these
programs, Mr. Chairman, on the Federal Government in this case,
I think would lead to a larger bureaucracy, more costs, and
more onerous reporting requirements for the participating
community. So we have the community group itself do this.
One of the common criticisms of the CSAP program as an
example is that the community coalitions had to hire someone
just to comply with the Federal reporting requirements. This
bill meets the need for real accountability with a minimum of
red tape, I think, by requiring the administrator to approve
the local system evaluation with help from people immersed in
the field, and then monitor the progress of local communities.
But it also requires the administrator to make every effort
consistent with existing law to minimize the reporting
requirements to the Federal Government. I think that it is the
right balance.
Fourth, although the data shows us that broad based local
efforts work best, we also know that national and State
leadership can play a role at the local level. For example,
national and State experts in the field can assist local
communities by sharing the best ideas from around the country,
and helping put in place effective systems to sustain and
evaluate those local efforts.
The bill encourages local communities to involve their
Federal and State leadership, including Members of Congress. I
can speak from my own experience, as can other members on the
panel, over the last 2 years in organizing our own coalition in
Greater Cincinnati, we had helped mobilize our local community,
but also brought national groups to the table like the
Partnership for Drug Free America; like CADCA, Community Anti-
Drug Coalitions of America; the PRIDE group, the National
Parents Resource Institute for Drug Education. We also brought
in, of course, the State anti-drug resources.
Because the drug issue has to be addressed at the local
level, I believe all of us must focus our efforts at the local
level. But we have something to bring to the table too at every
level.
Fifth, the Federal support provided under this program I
think provides a lot more bang for the buck. The bill
redirects, at its height, less than three-tenths of 1 percent
of the existing drug budget. Once again, I take Mr. Barrett's
concerns very much to heart. But we have to remember here that
not one Federal dollar will be spent under this program without
a dollar or more first having been generated by the local
community. It is a relatively small part of our national drug
budget.
Communities with larger populations can qualify for more
than one grant. Federal support is also available to sparsely
populated areas, and the bill recognizes the very special
challenges many of these communities face in trying to organize
an effort to reduce drug abuse.
I want to just tell you what a couple of people in the
field have told us recently about what they would do with this
Federal support. We have a lot more testimony on this that we
can provide for the record.
One example would be from Ronda Kopelke. She is from the
North Woods Coalition in Marshfield, WI. She wrote, ``If you
have Federal support based on community buy-in, then it can
help us leverage support from the community. A small grant,
even $5,000, could enable our coalition to build a regional
youth alliance, send youth to camp to learn drug and alcohol
strategies, and hire a part-time person to marshall the
volunteers,'' in other words leveraging volunteers, ``necessary
to sustain the effort over time.''
Marilyn Culp, executive director of the Miami coalition, a
well-known coalition in Miami, FL, that has cut community drug
use there to about half the national average, has said that a
$100,000 grant from the Federal Government would enable that
coalition to leverage an additional $300,000 to $400,000
immediately from the private sector. That this would train an
additional 20,000 parents on how to talk to their kids about
the dangers of drug abuse, practical steps that they can take.
The Miami Coalition could also send community drug free
messages on up to 200 more billboards across the Miami area,
and could train up to 300,000 students on the dangers and un-
acceptability of drug abuse, and on life enhancing skills.
Again, I could go on and on. The stories do go on and on,
and they are good ones. But the point is that a small amount of
Federal support that tracks local will can act as a catalyst to
help these local communities fashion effective solutions to
meet their communities' needs.
Finally, to ensure that this program assists those efforts
that are truly working, and to ensure that it gives communities
the flexibility to continue to fashion local solutions and try
innovative initiatives, an advisory commission is in this
legislation. It is made up of local community leaders and
national and State experts in the field, and they will help the
administrator oversee this program.
I think that this is a good change. The members of this
advisory commission will be able to review grant applications,
policies and criteria relating to the program, to ensure the
program remains responsive to local needs.
The legislation, as you know, I think, has the support of
hundreds of community groups in all fifty States. It has the
support of national leaders like former Drug Czar William
Bennett; Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America; the
Partnership for a Drug Free America; PRIDE; and D.A.R.E.
America.
Because it is fiscally responsible, believe it or not, it
has the support of the Council for Citizens Against Government
Waste. What a combination. This bill is also consistent, I
think, with the goals of the National Drug Control Strategy
that the President has submitted. I think that it frankly
improves on the proposals within those goals.
We have already received constructive input over the past
few months from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and
this bill actually reflects much of their input on the
legislation. We are also working with the appropriations staff
and so on to help identify appropriate offsets, although they
are not made part of this legislation.
I am hopeful that we can work together on a bipartisan
basis to move this bill forward, Mr. Chairman, so that we can
provide the necessary support to our communities around the
country to truly reduce teenage drug abuse.
Again, I want to thank you and members of the subcommittee
for moving this process so quickly forward. I am happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Rob Portman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.026
Mr. Hastert. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for the
excellent work that he has done.
At this time, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Michigan, who has also been a leader in Michigan and certainly
in his home area in making these types of programs work. The
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; my friend also, the
ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, you and Mr. Portman, my colleague, and Mr.
Barrett have spelled out vividly what the problem is. So I will
not dwell on it. The data is disconcerting.
We are struggling to find answers to a clear problem. I
have joined Mr. Portman over these months. It has been going on
now for some time. Because our experience indicates that there
are some answers. When we have a tough problem, we better grab
hold of some good answers.
I have seen in the district that I represent, that I came
to represent in 1992, experiments with coalitions. The one that
I first became intimately involved with was the Detroit
Coalition. Essentially, that experience is one of those
mirrored in this legislation.
They decided in this suburban community, a fairly well-to-
do suburban community, that there was a drug problem that was
not being confronted. So they called on all of the communities
to pull together--the education community, parents, students,
the law enforcement community, the business community, the
religious community--and put together a broad-based
comprehensive coalition approach.
They received some assistance from the Federal Government,
a grant. But they have run this coalition. It has not been
operated from Washington or anyplace else, except from Troy,
MI.
We asked them to use this grant to work within Troy, and to
spread the effort to neighboring communities and they have done
just that. There is evidence that it is working within Troy,
where they took a targeted area, and drug abuse has diminished
substantially.
So this proposal builds on the experiences of coalitions
like Troy and others in our district, and those in Mr.
Portman's district, and Miami, and other places. It says what
is the role of the Federal Government here.
I think No. 1, to express a national commitment,
leadership, use the bully pulpit, all of us. Second, to spread
the word. Because it is hard for one community in one State to
know what has worked in another community. Third, to spark
further efforts and that is what this bill endeavors to do.
So I would urge strongly that you proceed as you are
planning to do so. We are pleased that you are going to proceed
to markup quickly.
Let me just say in response to the concerns that have been
raised. I, with others, have worked hard to try to make sure
that SAMHSA has received adequate funding, and will continue to
do so.
I do not think that there is any robbing of Peter to pay
Paul here. What this effort is is to say that among the
resources that we are spending, Federal resources, we want to
take a very small portion of them, and apply them to an
approach that we know is working.
I think that this is a wise move, to try to make sure that
we prioritize among programs while they are not implemented
here, but they are carried out locally.
So I will be glad to answer any questions, as Mr. Portman
will. I have become a true believer. This is something that is
happening in the grassroots. We are not manufacturing it. What
we are really doing is carrying messages and experiences from
the grassroots here to Washington, and then trying to spark
their realization in other places.
So we thank you for this hearing, and we look forward to
continuing to work with you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Sander M. Levin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.030
Mr. Mica [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Levin, and also my
colleague, Mr. Portman, for your leadership on this issue and
other issues relating to drug education, and trying to do a
better job in our communities to address this problem.
I have just one or two quick questions, if I might.
When you all were constructing this legislation, did you
find that there were instances where it duplicated some
existing programs for grants or assistance from the Federal
Government?
Mr. Levin. I know Mr. Portman and the chairman had to
leave. There is a debate on the floor.
Mr. Mica. Right.
Mr. Levin. On an issue that involves drugs.
I think that the answer is no. There is presently a series
of demonstration projects being undertaken, most of them being
phased out. I really do not think that this is duplicative. The
only thing that this is duplicative of, it is really not
duplicative but it is replicative. I mean this is an effort to
carry out what I think in our experience is one of the most
difficult things, to replicate successful programs.
Mr. Mica. The other question I had is having dealt with
Federal grants before, and I heard small amounts for these
grants, I think Mr. Portman mentioned $5,000 or something to
get started, one of the problems with receiving Federal money
is that it requires a great deal of reporting, and bookkeeping,
and things of that sort.
I am wondering if there is any way that we can still have
some oversight of how these funds are expended and in what
fashion they are expended in an appropriate manner, and yet
keep the mounds of paperwork that usually accompany Federal
programs to a minimum?
Mr. Levin. Well, like you, I have worked with a variety of
Federal programs. This is fashioned so that there will be a
minimum amount. If you look at the dynamics here, what we are
saying to community groups, you get together, and we are going
to provide some seed moneys, but you are going to run your
programs. They are not going to be operated from here.
I think that the experience from within our own district
indicates that the Federal Government can spark and support
initiatives if it is careful without a lot of paperwork.
Mr. Mica. I thank you for your response, and again for your
leadership on this issue with Mr. Portman, Mr. Rangel, and
others. I yield now to the ranking member, Mr. Barrett.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
Sander, I just want to thank you for the leadership you
have shown on this issue. Obviously, we all recognize that if
we are going to make progress in our fight against drugs, that
it is going to take a lot of different factions working
together. I think that this is a very good faith effort to do
that in a coherent manner, and do it with a lot of local input.
So thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you. As I leave, I just want to say one
thing. I spent quite a bit of time, as you probably did, in the
fall at high schools, and I left them kind of shaking my head.
We are not facing up to these issues. Where communities are
willing to take the lid off and to really look inside the
dynamics of these issues, and to pull together the resources,
we should encourage it.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you.
Mr. Levin. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Charles B. Rangel follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.031
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Levin. We will excuse you at this
time.
We will call our second panel this afternoon. The second
panel is Mr. James E. Copple, president and CEO of the
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America.
Our second panelist is Mr. Robert Francis, who is the
executive director of the Regional Youth and Adult Substance
Abuse Prevention Program.
Gentlemen, this is an investigations and oversight
subcommittee of Congress. We do swear in our witnesses, when we
are considering this legislation. So if you would please stand
and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Mica. The witnesses answered in the affirmative. We
thank you again for joining us, and for your commentary today
on this important legislation issue before this subcommittee
and Congress.
We do have a practice of limiting the addresses to 5
minutes, and we will enforce that today. If you have additional
comments or documentation that you would like submitted for the
record, we will accommodate that request.
So first, I will recognize Mr. James E. Copple of the
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America. Welcome, and you are
recognized, sir.
STATEMENTS OF JAMES E. COPPLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, COMMUNITY
ANTI-DRUG COALITIONS OF AMERICA; AND ROBERT FRANCIS, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, REGIONAL YOUTH AND ADULT SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION
Mr. Copple. Thank you, Congressman Mica, and Mr. Barrett. I
appreciate the opportunity to address this important committee
on this important topic. We are thrilled today that this
legislation is being introduced, and that it has bipartisan
support. It gives us great promise and hope in terms of what we
hope to see happening in local communities throughout America.
I am here today to speak to the power and to really the
promise of coalition building in local communities throughout
our country. In today's complex community environment,
coalitions promote coordination and corroboration in needless
competition and redundancy in community services aimed at
preventing and treating drug abuse.
A coalition which engages all sectors of a community is
able to identify key problem areas, as well as opportunities,
and can chart the best use of available resources to address
priorities in the community. Coalition building is a smart
strategy that can make a dynamic difference when it works to
its fullest potential. This legislation that we are here to
consider recognizes this potential, and provides important
resources.
The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 offers great promise
and hope to those of us who have long worked in this field.
Communities can no longer afford to work in isolation.
Resources are too few and programs too diffuse. Program and
organizational isolation is our enemy at a time when our
children need consistent and persistent messages from all
sectors of society.
The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 brings about the
whole community, and brings them together to address this
problem.
This legislation represents a shift in the way that we have
historically funded and addressed this issue. The shift can be
highlighted in the following ways. This legislation requires
the communities to participate in this program to have clear
documentation and outcome evaluation. Grant recipients must
demonstrate that they can and will document the extent of the
community drug problem, and implement programs with outcome
evaluation that will assess whether or not their programs
actually produce change.
The emphasis is on outcome evaluation. Previous efforts by
the Federal Government have focused on process evaluation,
leaving us little to assess in terms of effectiveness, and also
quite frankly a far more expensive evaluation process.
Communities must now build coalitions that will reduce drug
abuse, and they must demonstrate how these coalitions make a
difference.
The second major shift is that these grant awards are
reasonable, and they are targeted grants. Grant awards cannot
exceed $100,000. Community driven coalitions should not be
dependent upon the Federal Government or any other single
source for their sustainability. These awards match existing
community efforts that reflect the size and will of the
community to address their own substance abuse problems.
Previous efforts have poured large amounts of Federal
dollars into the community with little or no regard to the
community's capacity to sustain themselves after the Federal
funding was no longer available.
The third major shift is participation by elected
officials, which bring local, State, and national leaders to
the table in this process. This is a top down, bottom up
strategy that has proven its effectiveness in many community
coalitions throughout the country.
True coalition building engages the political leadership in
a way that helps to create and strengthen community and
volunteer based assets and leadership. Further, another shift
is it is a coordinating agency.
This program will be housed and administered in the Office
of National Drug Control Policy. ONDCP's mission is to provide
a coordinated and comprehensive national strategy. Grant
recipients under this legislation are required to build
coordinated and comprehensive strategies at the local level.
It is fitting that this program be administered by the one
agency with the mandate to create a coordinated national
strategy against the drug problem. This will help circumvent
many of the turf-ish issues that we often address in local
communities.
A fifth shift is citizen participation. This legislation
recognizes the importance of volunteer leaders such as parents,
civics clubs, and clergy. A local coalition will be required to
demonstrate a substantial participation from citizens whose
lives are directly affected by drug abuse.
I want to also comment briefly on how this strategy has
worked, and it has worked in numerous communities. We have
strong evidence that when diverse sectors of a community
corroborate on planning and implementing coordinated
strategies, the result is a positive change in environment
behavior.
Just 2 weeks ago, I was in Wisconsin with the Governors
Alliance looking at 132 separate coalitions. The number of
those alliances that are demonstrating outcome evaluation is
very impressive.
A couple of coalitions that I want to highlight is Little
Rock, AR, which is a partnership between the city of Little
Rock and a city-wide coalition. It has implemented a
comprehensive program which has been so well received that
Little Rock voters have chosen to institutionalize these pilot
programs with an additional half cent sales tax to support and
expand them.
The innovative programs include the establishment of
neighborhood centers with action teams that include community
police, code enforcement, and neighborhood residents, and have
reduced the victim crime rate by 37 percent in the eight target
areas. A special treatment program for pregnant women, which
has reduced the rate of alcohol use by mothers at the time
before birth from 37 percent to only 4 percent. It has reduced
the incident pre-term labor from 50 percent to only 8 percent.
These coalitions are working, and they are working to
reduce substance abuse. In Miami, the reported drug use
decreased by 55 percent during the campaign from 5.4 percent in
1991 to 2.4 percent in 1993.
In Hattiesburg, MS, the outcome of these targeted efforts
was the DUI arrests decreased by 28 percent, and arrests for
individuals under 21 years decreased by 45 percent.
Additionally, the rate of DUI related injuries decreased by 42
percent.
This was the result of coalition strategies. Other examples
are included in my testimony, Congressman Mica, as to how these
coalitions have worked, and worked effectively when they are
coordinated and corroborative.
This legislation gives us additional tools for local
communities to address this issue in a comprehensive and
strategic manner. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Copple follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.037
Mr. Mica. We thank you for your testimony. We will defer
questions until we have heard from Mr. Francis.
Mr. Francis is the executive director of the Regional Youth
and Adult Substance Abuse Prevention Program. You are
recognized, sir.
Mr. Francis. Thank you, Congressman Mica and thank you to
the other members of this committee, and especially Congressmen
Portman and Levin and others who introduced this legislation.
As was said, I am the executive director of the Regional
Youth Adult Substance Abuse Project in Bridgeport, CT. We are a
regional coalition. My testimony today is going to represent
some of the long-term work that we have done in Bridgeport by a
coalition similar to that in this legislation.
Greater Bridgeport consists of a poor medium-sized city and
five suburban communities ranging from working class to quite
wealthy. The total regional population is about 320,000.
RYASAP was started in 1984 with seed money from the local
United Way in response to a student survey that demonstrated a
very high incidence of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use.
Cocaine and hallucinogen use in our region was especially high,
with rates that far exceeded the national data.
Since 1984, RYASAP has conducted substance abuse surveys in
1989, 1992, 1995, and again next year to continue to track our
efforts in this region. The research in those years
demonstrated a major reduction in all forms of drug use, but
especially with cocaine, crack, heroin, and hallucinogen use
among young people.
With alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana, there were also major
reductions from 1984 to 1992. Alcohol and tobacco use has
remained low. But from 1992 to the present day, we have had
increases in marijuana use. Not quite as high as the national
levels, but high enough to give us alarm.
RYASAP's reduction in the maintenance of low use of
cocaine, crack, and other harder drugs is much better than the
national data, while the use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana
is not quite as good.
Why the discrepancy? When RYASAP was founded, we placed a
much greater emphasis on these harder drugs, because we were so
far out of whack with the rest of the country. We implemented
broad community awareness campaigns, new school based substance
abuse prevention curricula, student assistance teams in our
schools, school police policies, as well as several other
targeted prevention activities.
We did not place as much targeted emphasis on marijuana as
we should have and we believe that greater efforts such as the
kind we are pursuing now will have a greater impact.
What are the principles that we used during this time that
have had us had such a strong local impact? These are some of
the same principles represented in this legislation.
First, we focused on an entire continuum of services, not
just one effort--community awareness, education, prevention,
intervention, treatment, law enforcement, and alternative
community pilot programs.
We established task forces of grassroots community leaders
and the top level leaders in our community in every area of the
continuum. We used our United Way money to leverage other
dollars, the same way that coalitions across the country would
use the money in this to leverage other funds.
We got funding from the Robert Johnson Foundation, from our
local municipalities, from the State of Connecticut, and others
to fill gaps in service, and to give us a comprehensive
continuum.
Comprehensive school policies were established. There was
one curriculum established for the entire region in seven
different school systems. Student assistance teams were
established in 106 elementary and secondary public and
parochial schools. An assessment and case management system for
early intervention was introduced and alternative education
programs were established.
Through all of this, we had over 1,600 volunteers a year
working in all of these areas from all of the different areas
that we are talking about. Second, we focused on
sustainability. We knew that the United Way seed money for 3
years would not be enough to solve the problem. Substance abuse
has been with us for an awfully long time, and we were not
going to lick it in 3 years time.
One of the major things that we did with these funds is we
leveraged a lot of other dollars. We secured municipal funding
from each of our six municipalities. We worked to create State
legislation that put coalitions like RYASAP and like the
coalitions across the country into the State budget. We
conducted local fundraisers.
This allowed us to maintain a core staff that was focused
on creating the kind of programs that we need here, and it gave
us some sustainability over an entire period of time.
Third, we know that it takes an entire community, regional
in our case, involving one central city and some of its
suburbs. The problems and therefore the solutions did not
belong to one town. They do not belong to one community or one
State. They involve a corroboration of several communities
working in concert with local, State, and Federal Government.
It also involves all sectors of the community, business,
education, Government, law enforcement, clergy, and human
service leaders working with young people, parents,
neighborhood residents, and senior citizens.
We organized groups block by block, town by town, sector by
sector, and we cross-fertilized the different populations, so
that they are all working together, knowing that it took all of
us to solve the problem.
Fourth, we found out that young people need meaningful
opportunities to determine their own fate. Our studies and
focus groups tell us that young people are skeptical of what
adults have been telling them about drugs, and especially
recently about marijuana.
What they have told us they want, and I feel that they are
correct, is meaningful involvement in their own education, and
to work on topics that are developmentally relevant to them.
They want guidance from adults, but they also want to listen to
their peers. They want their opinions to be seriously discussed
regarding legalization, decriminalization, responsible use of
alcohol, modeling of alcohol and drugs by parents, and other
things.
Finally, single-focused intervention, such as targeted
prevention, education, cracking down on pushers, or holding
more community meetings, are by themselves ineffective. Beware
of those who have one answer.
Unfortunately, we are a Nation of fads and magic potions,
excuse the pun. We demand instant or congressional-term-length
solutions. I hope that we would not do that here.
Youth and adults taking mind-altering drugs have been with
us longer than any of you. We will not solve this problem
overnight. Our approach must be long term. It must be
sustainable, especially by the kind of legislation you put
forward here.
I want to thank you for your time this afternoon and any
questions you have about a local coalition, I would be glad to
answer. Thanks again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Francis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1843.040
Mr. Barr [presiding]. Thank you very much.
One of the things you said is it takes an entire community.
I am glad that you did not use the worn phrase that it takes a
village. I appreciate that.
Mr. Francis. I do not believe that Mrs. Clinton started
that, by the way. I think that has been around long before her.
Mr. Barr. What effect from your work in communities on this
issue do role models in the media and in the entertainment
business play in this effort?
Mr. Francis. Well, they are an important part. In our area,
of course, we do not have ready access to those folks in terms
of using them. I think that they have an impact on young
people. There is no doubt about that.
Mr. Barr. How about from a negative standpoint? I subscribe
to Car and Driver magazine. I picked up Car and Driver last
month and flipped it open, and there is a picture of a naked
Dennis Rodman advertising for milk.
How about from a negative standpoint, the role models that
the media have, the advertisers, and that the entertainment
business portrays, is that something that sort of eats away at
all of the good work that we are trying to do in communities
for our kids?
Mr. Francis. I think that it is definitely a fight on our
part in terms of counteracting those messages. I think that we
need enough resources to counteract those messages on a regular
basis. I do not think that you can put up enough money to
counteract things like Joe Camel, and the frogs on the
Budweiser commercials, and people like that. Some of our role
models give you mixed messages, like the Dennis Rodman
commercial.
Mr. Barr. I do not think that there is anything mixed about
the message that Dennis Rodman gives.
Mr. Francis. I think that what we do in the community by
community approach is that we are the people out there talking
to young people on a regular basis. You need people out there
talking.
Mr. Barr. Over the long term.
Mr. Francis. Over the long term to counteract that.
Mr. Barr. How about mentoring programs? One of the programs
in which I participated when I was a U.S. Attorney in Atlanta
was a mentoring program at the local high school. At least in
Atlanta, we found that was really, in talking to the kids, one
of the types of programs that meant a lot more to them than
just bringing somebody in who is a big name and deliver a
message in the school auditorium.
They appreciated the mentoring program, because the kids
could count on those men and women in the mentoring program
being there month after month after month for the entire school
year.
Is it important in looking at these programs and these
grants to understand, as I think we need to, that if we are not
serious about making funds available and having the programs
being able to sustain themselves over a long period of time,
that it is almost not worth doing?
Because if we jump in for a little bit and then we leave,
that in and of itself I find gives the kids a bad message. That
we are not going to trust you in the future, because we feel
you are going to abandon us. You are here today, and maybe you
will be gone tomorrow.
Is that an important thing to keep in mind in these
programs?
Mr. Francis. I would like you to come to my community and
almost give that talk. Because we are supporting a couple of
local mentoring programs with our funds right now, and it is to
do exactly that.
One of the programs that we are supporting are some people
who have been through the criminal justice system themselves
and have already been in jail. But when they come out, we have
supported a program where they have been picked up by this
organization and they have been trained, and they have turned
their lives around. They have sort of adopted young people
themselves that they are following, who have started to get
into some trouble, who have been in the juvenile court, and
they have linked up with them. They are providing a model for
them to do positive things.
They are always there. Their telephone numbers are
available 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They are almost better
than the parent who is missing in many cases here, and they are
providing a very positive role model. They are able to tell
them from firsthand life experience what is going on.
Mr. Copple. If I could add too, Mr. Barr. Mentoring is one
of those programs nationally that has good evaluation data. We
are seeing that mentoring makes a difference and that many of
our coalitions and one of the powers of this piece of
legislation, it gives coalitions the option to design those
kinds of programs.
Because kids at risk, all kids, need a significant adult in
their life. Those adults come from multiple sectors, be it the
faith community, the schools, the media, the business
community, they are present in this kind of effort. It gives
coalitions and community groups the leverage and the power to
do those kinds of programs.
Mr. Barr. One program, at least, Mr. Francis, you did not
mention by name--and I do not know, Mr. Copple, if you did--is
the Just Say No program, that I think was a very effective
program in the 1980's.
In your view, was it an effective program?
Mr. Copple. It was effective to the extent that it was part
of a larger media message. It is important for young people to
hear those messages. It was something around which communities,
and groups, and young people could rally.
But again, as I think Bob indicated earlier, there is no
single solution and it requires no single curriculum. There is
no single message. Kids are different, and communities are
different. We need those messages coming across culture, and
across the various sectors that intersect with the child.
I think that a media strategy that focuses on that will be
important. But it has to be bolstered, as it was in the 1980's.
It has to be bolstered by strong community participation.
Mr. Barr. Are there some coalitions that are in fact
demonstrably reducing teenage substance abuse, and some
communities that are doing far better than the national figures
that we see?
Mr. Copple. A number of them. I have indicated in my
testimony, to call your attention to Hattiesburg, MS that
focused on substance abuse reduction. The Miami Coalition
reduced it by over 50 percent and a coalition that I worked
with, Project Freedom in Wichita, KS, we reduced DUI instances
by 35 percent.
MOMS, we did a live study and evaluation on 800 live
births, where we found that 18 percent of the live births in
our community were drug-exposed. We reduced that to 9 percent
over a 2-year period. Because it brought the various sectors,
multiple sectors, together.
In Gallup, NM, they reduced substance abuse significantly
ahead of the national average, as well as in Little Rock.
There are a number of coalitions that are making this
happen. When they do coordinated, corroborative strategies, and
they link good strategic planning with evaluation, we generally
see impact and this is what this legislation requires
happening.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
Mr. Francis. You cannot let up. I think that is one of the
keys. We cannot fall asleep at the wheel here. We need
coalitions that we can count on day to day. They cannot be out
there just struggling for dollars all of the time. They have to
be out there with the people, and actually doing the work that
we have discussed here.
Mr. Barr. OK. Thank you.
At this time, I would like to recognize the distinguished
ranking member.
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the introduction to the bill or in the findings of the
bill, one of the statements that is made refers to the increase
of drug usage among younger teens.
What do you see as the cause of that?
Mr. Copple. I have labeled and I have borrowed the phrase
from Lloyd Johnson at the University of Michigan. I think that
we have one significant influence, and that is generational
forgetting. That as Bob has indicated earlier, this is a long
term strategy that requires consistent and persistent messages.
We have parents who are very much conflicted over the
messaging, when 60 percent of them themselves used drugs during
the 1960's. They are struggling with how to frame their
response and frame their reaction.
We have lost sight of this message. In the last couple of
years, we are starting to recover the message. But I think that
media norms have changed, and community norms have changed and
that the greater peer pressure is beginning to focus on young
people.
I have often illustrated. I have a 21-year-old daughter.
When she was in junior high, she was not offered drugs, not
even one time. My 14-year-old daughter, who just finished
middle school, junior high, last year was offered drugs seven
times last year.
The attitude of how it is normalized in the mainstream
culture is significantly different over a period of 6 years.
But a lot of it has to do with generational forgetting, and not
keeping consistent with the message.
Mr. Barrett. Mr. Francis.
Mr. Francis. I think that the No. 1 question, I talk to a
lot of parent groups in my travels, and the question arises in
every single group, I used drugs when I was a teenager and when
I was in my twenties, what do I say to my kids when they ask me
whether I used drugs, or what do I tell them, that it is wrong
having a joint or having some marijuana?
What we have done is we have instituted a pretty broad
educational program to really help parents put that message
across. You can either be very honest with your kids and tell
them that you did use. I think that is a judgment call. That is
not something that I am going to say one way or another in
terms of whether you tell your kids the truth about that.
But I think that the truth worked well can work. It is not
the idea that I used drugs, and I am using generically, when I
was a young person. Whether I can talk to my children well
about that or not. It is sort of how I convey that message, the
harm that will be done, how it stunts their motivation.
Parents are having a very difficult time with this issue
and it starts a discussion every time we meet with parents too
about that issue in general. You know, the parents today of
these teenagers are in their thirties, forties, early fifties
possibly at the latest. They are the generation that
experimented probably more than any other.
If you look at substance abuse in the late 1960's and early
1970's, that data far exceeds what we are looking at today. As
high as we think it is today, it was almost double than it is
today back then.
Mr. Barrett. Have we seen a more dramatic increase in the
use of cocaine; and if you have a generation of adults who used
primarily marijuana, are we seeing their children moving to
cocaine, or are their children basically staying with
marijuana?
Mr. Francis. We are not seeing that. We focused a lot of
attention on cocaine and our cocaine use in 1984 was the
highest in the country. We had a 12 percent of high school
seniors who had tried cocaine in 1984. We had less than 1
percent last year when we did our survey. So we are not seeing
it with harder drugs, but we are seeing it with marijuana.
Mr. Copple. I would concur with that. The rates of increase
in cocaine use is not as dramatic as we are seeing with
marijuana, methamphetamine, and inhalants, which have become
more of the popular drugs for younger kids.
Mr. Barrett. When I looked out over the audience in the
hearing, and looked at the faces of all of the good people
here, I noted that there were no minorities here. That troubles
me, obviously. Because I think that in many of the minority
communities in our country that the problem is that they do not
have the resources to go into treatment programs, if they get
tripped up by drugs.
What makes you confident that this type of program will
work in minority communities?
Mr. Copple. This is by coincidence more than design. I was
in Milwaukee 2 weeks ago meeting with a group of neighborhood
coalition leaders, part of Milwaukee Fighting Back. When we
talked about this legislation, and its promise and its
prospect, there were two messages that I heard. That drug abuse
disproportionately affects minority communities and
neighborhoods, because of drug trafficking. But 70 percent of
the drug abuse in this country is white middle class.
Unfortunately, the minority community, we have got to deal
with its disproportionate impact that oftentimes the issue is
exacerbated by poverty, joblessness, and a number of other
factors.
The message that I heard is that any resources that can be
directed toward local communities to give them the power to
choose the program designs that best work for their
neighborhoods and communities will be welcomed.
They are tired of prescriptive programs. Because it worked
in Chicago does not mean that it will work in Milwaukee.
Because it works in Milwaukee does not mean that it will work
in Wichita. They want the flexibility to be able to design and
implement programs that work for them.
It is critical that we give them resources to look at a
variety of solutions. Because a spokesperson in Milwaukee in
terms of a housing project working with low income families to
actually purchase housing, and to target drug abuse in those
environments that are having an impact on housing prices, he
has to have the flexibility to be able to design a program, and
to be given the resources to effectively implement it.
Again, from my perspective with 4,300 coalition members
that are very diverse, we need to give resources in a flexible
manner that gives them the power to design their programs.
Mr. Francis. Let me reinforce that a little bit. Because we
have one of these phasing out CSAP grants from the Center for
Substance Abuse Prevention. One of the things we did with that
is we are trying to demonstrate a new concept that reinforces
exactly what Jim is talking about.
That the prescription formula of doing for people and doing
what you think is best for them is gone. Where we are right now
is that people really need to come up with their own solutions,
and they are fully capable of doing that.
What we did with this grant is that we started taking a
look neighborhood by neighborhood, going to neighborhood action
councils in Bridgeport, and mapping their assets, not their
deficits. Not how desperate and destitute these communities
were, but the kind of positive resources they had in that
community.
Once we identified those through a geo-mapping process, we
then organized them to come up with OK, how do you want to
organize your block and your community to do something about
the drug dealing and the drug use you have here. Where they did
not have block clubs, they formed block clubs and they formed
neighborhood watch programs.
They started working with each other. This mentoring
program that I talked about earlier they had mentors on the
street that started intervening with the young people who were
there and dealing with them. They did it themselves.
The beauty of the coalition piece working with this is that
we were able to facilitate that process. We taught them how to
conduct meetings, and to put together plans to figure out where
the money was, either in enterprise community money, or
community develop block grant money or whatever, and taught
them how to go after those resources to do something on their
blocks.
But they did it themselves. We were just there as a guide
for them, as a helper in that process. We had some skills that
they did not have. But we are in the process of transferring
our skills to them.
I think that is the beauty of what we are talking about
here and what I said earlier, that there is no one prescription
or no one formula.
In Bridgeport right now, we are working with 16
neighborhood groups. There are at least 16 different solutions.
Those neighborhood groups have formed block groups and we even
have more than that. It keeps multiplying.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Mr. Barrett.
I would like to thank the witnesses for being here, for
providing their materials both in writing and orally, as well
as answering questions. I look forward to continuing to work
with you and I appreciate your support of this important
legislation.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Francis. Thank you.
Mr. Copple. Thank you.
Mr. Barr. At this point, the subcommittee will stand in
recess until 3:30 or 5 minutes after the last vote on Mexico,
whichever occurs the latest, for the markup.
[Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the hearing adjourned, with the
subcommittee to reconvene at 3:30 p.m., Thursday, March 13,
1997, for markup.]
-