Citizens Committee on the Juvenile Court of Cook County

Annual Meeting March 7, 1986

A Panel Discussion On:

Gangs, What Has Been Done?

Guest Speaker:

Mayor Harold Washington

 

Edited By Gad J. Bensinger Ph.D.

All Rights Reserved

1986 by Citizens Committee on the Juvenile Court

Introduction

            The challenge of controlling the spread and influence of gangs has weighed heavily on Chicago and suburban communities, law enforcement officials, and youth serving agencies. Last year the Citizens Committee sponsored a panel discussion entitled: “Gangs, What Can Be Done?”* Citizens and community leaders expressed concern and outrage regarding this problem while city officials announced the inauguration of the Chicago Intervention Network (CIN), a program designed to combat gangs. Now, nearly a year later, national attention has focused on the decline in Chicago’s gang violence. Has the CIN program been successful? What other factors can account for this decrease? These and other questions and issues were addressed at the 1986 Citizens Committee Annual Meeting, “Gangs, What Has Been Done?” Mayor Harold Washington, youth workers, and experts on gangs discussed the effectiveness of the efforts to fight gangs and answered audience questions. Highlights of their remarks are featured in this publication.

* See Citizens Committee on the Juvenile Court, Gangs, Juvenile Court and the Community: What Can Be Done? Edited by Gad J. Bensinger, Ph.D., (Chicago, 1985), pp. 43.

Opening Remarks

John J. Casey:

            I would like to begin by speaking about the Citizens Committee and our activities this year. This is the 24th year in the life of the Citizens Committee on the Juvenile Court of Cook County. It has been, in my judgement, a very remarkable year. Our various sub-committees have never been more active. And the demands upon our staff probably have never been greater.

            If one were required to summarize the lessons learned this past year, I would simply say that bright, concerned citizens demand more from the system of juvenile justice than do those involved in the system on a day-to-day basis. The goals that they set are higher, and their expectations are greater because they are singular in their pursuit of excellence. They accept no substitutes and form judgements independent of pressures from within the system. They demand the best for the clients of the juvenile justice system and will accept nothing less. The intensity of the work of the Citizens Committee this year has been greater, in my judgement, than in the past years because previous sub-committees lacked the n umber of active, involved and concerned members who are now examining the multiplicity of issues that are presented to our committee and to the courts in this complex judicial system that we have.

            The Citizens Committee is now postured to provide the guidance that the juvenile system in Cook County will require to take into the future. And the future, in fact, is going to be a very complicated and often unknown situation as far as we can see it. But whatever might occur within the system of juvenile justice within the next 5 or 10 years, one fact remains clear: Citizen involvement in the major policymaking decisions of the juvenile division of the Circuit Court of Cook County is an indispensable operative element to the functioning of that court system.

            More importantly, as a result of my experience through these years, I have concluded that some form of citizen involvement in every country in this state will go a long way toward assuring a higher quality of justice to all who come before the system. And if there are any in this room who are prepared to take up the call for citizen involvement in other divisions of the courts, we would certainly welcome it. We would share our experience and our knowledge with anyone who would like such involvement.

            At this time, it is my pleasure to introduce our program’s moderator, Bruce DuMont, host of WBEZ’s “Inside Politics” and political correspondent for the public television station, WTTW.

            Bruce has been involved in many, many functions. He has won two Emmy awards for his talk show productions. He is founder and president of the Museum of Broadcasting Communications. He’s senior editor of Chicago Tonight with John Calloway. He was a 1970 candidate for the Illinois State Senate. Bruce, welcome. We’re glad to have you aboard.

           

Panelists’ Remarks and Audience Discussion

Moderator:

            Since the tragic death of Ben Wilson* in this city, a campaign to fight gang crime was mobilized. Over $4 million has been appropriated to that battle. As Jack was saying, it has involved the community, parents, police, the church, civic organizations as well as the constant spotlight of the media during the early stages of that war. It also resulted in passage of Safe Zone legislation in Springfield, and there have been numerous other proposals.

            Last year, during the early stages of this war, the Citizens Committee met to discuss what had to be done. Today we come back to examine what has happened during the past year. There is apparent success, given an estimated drop of 40% in the number of youth murders in this city since the death of Ben Wilson. So today we will be examining what we have done right, what we did wrong, what other lessons there are to be learned, and, perhaps most importantly, given the lack of the constant media spotlight and public attention which the war was given in its early stages, where do we go from here?

            Joining us to share their thoughts and opinions is our panel. Starting at the far end of the dais, Dr. Irving Spergel is a professor at the School of Social Service, University of Chicago. He has written extensively about community organization, juvenile delinquency and work with gangs. He is one of the leading figures on the subject of gangs in urban areas.

            Next to him is Commander Edward Pleines, who has been a policeman for 38 years with the Chicago Police Department and has served as commander of the Gang Unit for the past 12 years.

            Also with us today is Father Lawrence Craig. He is the head chaplain of the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center and director of Kolbe House and the Archdiocesan Gang Education Teams.

            Also with us is Michael Mahoney, executive director of the John Howard Association, and an instructor and consultant to the Corrections Department of Chicago State University. He will address the issue of gangs within the prisons in the state of Illinois.

Our other guest is Jaime Rivera, an administrator of the Youth Guidance Program which has served Roberto Clemente High School since 1974.

            I should also mention that at any time, after the mayor has given his comments, anyone could come up to the microphone; we would like to make this program as conversational as possible.

            I’d like to begin. According to the statistics, it looks like we’ve done everything right. Professor Spergel, have we done it right?

 

* Editor’s Note: In Chicago, murder is a daily event that usually evokes little public concern. However, the 669th killing of 1984 touched off an unprecedented public outcry for more effective means of curtailing gang violence. The tragedy that struck a vital nerve was the slaying of Benjamin Wilson, a 17-year-old high school basketball star who was being recruited by major colleges across the country. He was shot to death in a sidewalk confrontation with a gang member on the city’s South Side on November 20, 1984.

 

Dr. Spergel:

            Statistics, if you look at them closely, are really mixed. There has been a general decline in the gang problem using many of the indicators between 1984 and 1985.

            However, if you begin to look at the differences which began to occur July 1 when maximum efforts occurred, you’ll see that the picture has been mixed. There’s been a general decline in gang homicides. But this is not the case in a number of other areas.

            The problem in the schools has gone up in terms of gangs. Part I and part II crimes have gone up. I’m looking at the period July 1 through December of ’85 versus that same period a year earlier, because the program began in July.

            Now, the media reports generally compare 1984 and 1985. I don’t’ think that’s a fully accurate way of looking at the problem. In other words, what I’m saying is that there’s hope and promise in what’s been occurring. But it’s a mixed picture. Some parts of the problem are getting better or being resolved, and others are not.

 

Moderator:

            Before we get to our special guest, Mayor Washington, I want to get a quick reaction from the members of the panel to the question, are things better today than they were a year ago in your particular sphere of influence? Commander Pleines?

 

Edward Pleines:

            In reference to what Dr. Spergel was talking about and citing his figures, I don’t know – he was talking about a new program. What he was referring to was the Chicago Intervention Network, and I don’t know how many people here are familiar with it. It is a group that was funded by the City of Chicago after many, many meetings in the City of Chicago with different divergent community groups about the best way to proceed against gangs and the way to be most effective.

            After Ben Wilson, the city for the first time admitted that we do have a problem with gangs. That it does reside with our children. That it does reside with our community. And that the city must get involved with the program.

 

Father Craig:

            From my perspective, I don’t think things have substantially changed. For instance, I have never seen Pilsen any hotter than it is today.

            At the detention center we just finished a period where we were at the capacity again or maybe beyond capacity. We never really know why. There’s always a very high percentage of kids locked up who belong to gangs. There are many issues involved in this. I haven’t seen a really substantial change.

 

Michael Mahoney:

            There’s good and bad news to report from the prison system. The good news is that we’ve learned by working with Commander Pleines and others in the Police Department about information. We’ve learned, as the Tribune showed you this morning, to add prisons that are smaller, medium-security facilities, which are easier to control.

            The bad news is that in the four maximum-security prisons in the adult division – Joliet, Pontiac, Menard, and Stateville – which house almost 7,000 inmates, gangs run rampant and control the institutions.

            The other bad news that I hate to report to you is that we have not learned our lesson in the juvenile division of the Department of Corrections. Rather than moving as we have in the adult division to smaller institutions where we can identify and manage inmates and program them and protect them and therefore not create a climate for gangs to appear to do very well, in the juvenile division we’ve gone the opposite way. We’ve closed all the smaller, program oriented juvenile institutions. And we are moving to larger institutions. Of the 1,200 beds we have for juveniles incarcerated as juveniles in the Department of Corrections, only two facilities are less than the 100 beds recommended by the American Bar Association standards.

            So I think the good/bad news scenario exists. If we have learned anything at all, we ought to provide for juveniles what we know works for adults; that is, smaller, more manageable, highly programmed institutions.

 

Moderator:

            Whenever there is a high visibility of gang-related incident, as was the case with the murder of Ben Wilson, you could expect that there would be a massive response from Chicago’s political community. Unlike in previous incidents, however, the spotlight of the media and the action and activity of the political community lasted considerably longer.

            One of those who continued to keep the spotlight on that particular issue and has made it a top priority has now joined us. Consequently, I am honored to present to you the Honorable Harold Washington, Mayor of Chicago.

           

Mayor Harold Washington:

            Thank you very much. Thank you, Bruce DuMont, for your generous introduction. And to you John Casey, chairman; it’s good to be here with you. Ladies and gentlemen, I’m pleased to join you this afternoon to discuss the problem of juvenile crime in our city.

            As Bruce DuMont said, our concern, of course, didn’t start with the death of Ben Wilson. However, this event presented an opportunity to marshal in a positive directed sense the communities in the city, which to me are always the ultimate answer to the solution of juvenile crime.

            As you may recall, shortly after the death of Ben Wilson, a series of neighborhood or community meetings were organized. I think there were about 30 if I’m not mistaken. At these meetings people were making a significant input into the question of crime, particularly on the  matter of youth. At the same time, various agencies within these different communities were screaming that they were not being utilized in the fight against youth crime.

            Consequently, it occurred to us, within various aspects of our government, that here was a golden opportunity to try to put something together. So, the so-called Philadelphia Plan or version of it was put together and named the Crisis Intervention Network or the Chicago Intervention Network.

            I don’t think it’s too early to make an assessment. It might be too early to take a vow, but certainly not too early to make an assessment. Statistics don’t speak for themselves; they need to be interpreted. It was in July of ’85 that the Chicago Intervention Network finally got off the ground after being squeezed in the crucible of political operations and windbag discussions.

            In 1985 we saw gang crimes decrease; that’s over the whole year, taking into consideration the six months on the tail end. While gang arrests increased, a 19.4% drop in gang related homicides came about.

            Also, a 20.7% drop in gang robberies and a 10% increase in recovery of illegal guns by the gang crimes unit occurred. Clearly, the police were more activated, I think, by virtue of that killing and the ensuing discussions which took place. There was a 21.4% increase in gang-related arrests. That was not an accident. But yet, we didn’t hear the hue and cry about illegal arrests. And that’s very interesting. I’m certain there may have been some, but nowhere near what had been reported over the preceding four years, which led to the serious situation of cases being dismissed by virtue of abuse of the legal process.

            There was an 11% increase in the number of gang murders sent to prison. I don’t know quite how that followed, but it did. But you know how these things are, once you trigger a certain mechanism in a given area it sort of reverberates and goes through the whole system, touches the various institutions. And I think that this final figure is a reverberative aspect of what was going on in the neighborhoods, in the police department, and the overall concern and the interest galvanized by the Ben Wilson murder.

            On the human social side of our programs, where our goal is to protect the youth who are not hardened criminals and help them become productive citizens, 116 community agencies funded through the Chicago Intervention Network have already served over 12,000 youth and family members. Therein might be the real, real thrust of the program. This preventative strategy – diversion of youth to other kinds of activities such as youth training, job placement, hope – may well be more significant than crime statistics.

            Over 46,000 people have been activated within the Chicago Intervention Network as volunteers working with neighborhood watch groups, our graffiti program and with other youth programs.

            Our network teams which work in schools and on the street have intervened in 815 gang disputes. That’s probably up much higher, since this statistic was recorded. The extent to which community organizations and residents have become involved in some aspect of the anti-gang program over the past years is one of the great unreported stories of the year.

            Citizen involvement has virtually become a movement, as indicated before. Much more of this is described in our six-month progress report. * I will submit to you that it should be read, read carefully, and read with a jaundiced eye. Not just to absorb it, but to criticize it. Because we are serious about trying to find an answer, if there is an answer, to the growing involvement of our young people in crime.

            This year we will launch our new celebrity program called STAR. We will be asking notable persons in all walks of life to help us to motivate youth to stay in school and to feel a sense of self-pride. That taken by itself would not be very meaningful. But if you put that into the whole kettle or pot of programs and issues and involvement, then, I think, it takes on a bit more meaning.

We’ll also be tackling the problem of hard core gang leaders, some of whom work out of the penal institutions. And we will work with youth who are incarcerated to provide them alternatives to joining gangs. I don’t need to tell you about the network in the prisons, you probably know it better than I do. Someone’s got to pierce that veil in several places and break that network in some way. With careful use of resources we can make a dent at that. But these resources, unfortunately, are now in serous jeopardy. Chicago spent $3.2 million on the Chicago Intervention Network in 1985. A mere piddling sum in terms of the magnitude of the problem. Of that, $2.6 million or over half were federal funds. In 1986 we will spend $5.1 million, of which $2.8 million will be federal funds. At the same time, we expect federal community and development funding to be cut this year by about $27 million. Revenue sharing funds will also be cut by at least $22 million. So the program is in danger almost before it begins to really spread some serious long-term gains. All told our budget office projects the loss of $155.7 million in federal funding for 1986 alone, a loss of 20% of our total federal funding. In 1987 the cuts will be even larger. And by the year 1991 we will have lost in terms of federal largess returning to our city better than $600 million.

            The Chicago Intervention Network program and all related programs which are beginning to be functional will be lost of seriously endangered by the loss of federal funds.

            How will it effect the anti-gang efforts? If these cuts are implemented, Chicago will be able to pick up the garbage and put police on the streets. We can do that. But Chicago will not have anything left for our efforts to build a future for our youth. And building a future for our youth is what you’re all about. The Crisis Intervention Program has been a remarkable experience for Chicago over the last year. Energies and resources which were untapped for years are now part of the equation. The results speak for themselves. I think we’ve proven or are beginning to prove that a small investment in dollars can do something to trigger a network and an interest that galvanizes the experts in the field. I think that we’re on the right road and that there is some reason for hope, if we steer the course. Thank you.

 

* See, Chicago Works Together. Chicago Intervention Network Second Quarterly Report: The First Six Months. (Chicago: Department of Human Services, January 17, 1986.)

 

Moderator:

            The mayor has just informed me that he will be able to stay for awhile, and we’ll give him an opportunity to respond to some other questions and comments. Anyone who has a question or comment for the mayor or for any other panel member may line up by the microphone.

            Professor Spergel, I would like to get your response to the point that the mayor was making about the loss of dollars.

 

Dr. Spergel:

            Certainly, dollars are needed to mount the program. I agree with the mayor that the program is generally on the right track. However, I think that there have been some problems, at least statistically speaking. Some things are not as good. Other things are better. The key thing is homicides have been reduced. Other parts of the gang problem have not changed, particularly the school related gang problem.

            I think it’s important not simply to give monies to the delegate agencies to increase services, but to make sure the monies are given to target the problem. There are a lot of problems in Chicago. If you’re concerned about the gang problem and the delinquency problem, then you must have agencies that are providing the kinds of programs for the kinds of kids that need these programs. I’m not sure that we are yet clear that this is occurring.

           

Moderator:

            Mr. Rivera, I’d like to get your response to something you said during last year’s program. You were talking about the attitude that teachers in your own school had about gangs. That they had little knowledge about gangs. That they didn’t understand the significance of signs and representation of colors and things of that nature. With all the current media attention about gangs and the stories after stories, not only on television but in the print, are the teachers at Roberto Clemente any more up-to-date on gangs than they were a year ago? Have their attitudes changed in any dramatic way?

 

Jaime Rivera:

            I want to make a distinction between attitudes and awareness. I think that if they’re not aware, then they certainly have been missing the picture in terms of all the media attention. Dr. Spergel, through the CRISP project, has been involved in educating the public school system and insuring that public school teachers and administrators are aware of the gang problem. I think he did more than an adequate job. Certainly I can speak for Roberto Clemente. It has had an impact.

            The teachers at Clemente at this point are more aware. They certainly understand what representation and gang symbols are really all about. They have made some effort. The principal speaks about it all the time. But whether their attitudes have changed, I can’t really vouch for that.

 

Donald Duster:

            I am a member of the Citizens Committee. A question to the mayor. You gave some statistics including the amount of money that was put in this program, over $3 million. My question is: To what extent are you satisfied with the results of this program? And how does it match up with what you were told would happen when this program was presented to you. In other words, do the results match up with what was said to you before the program began?

 

Mayor Harold Washington:

            Well, it wasn’t quite that simple, Mr. Duster, as you probably know. It was suggested to us that this might be the best program, given the problem we had in this particular city. The amount of dollars that were available were woefully less than what we needed to really launch a program. But we did see some correlation between the amount of money available and the ability to trigger the activity of certain skilled people in delegate agencies.

            How do I feel about it? As I said before, I feel it’s probably the way to go. The problem is tremendously awkward and difficult. Government is not going to solve it. I think if it’s ever resolved it’s going to be resolved by other institutions aside from government.

            I think it might be advisable to have Mr. Roberto Rivera, the director of the Chicago Intervention Network, say something about this.

 

Roberto Rivera:

            I would like to talk about the different initiatives that the CIN program has undertaken, because I’ve not heard it said in terms of what we’re doing in a variety of areas that touch, I believe, on many of the concerns that have thus far been expressed.

            Allow me for a moment to talk about the school issue. Prior to working with the CIN program, I worked with a group called Network for Youth Services, which took on – straight on – the drop-out issue, particularly at Clemente High School. I think that’s an important point because in terms of youth employment the options for young people are few. They’re on the corner. And let me just tie it in, if I can, to another statement. Back in 1971, a researcher, Dr. Sidi De Lucas, indicated that unless the drop-out issue was tackled we would have in the city of Chicago a larger gang problem than ever before. One of the major initiatives of our program is obviously the school program. We need to tie in the drop-out prevention piece with gang treatment, because if we don’t do that – if we circumvent that issue – frankly, we would be doing nothing more than mopping the floor.

            An additional focus of the CIN program is to expand the safe school zones. For this we seek cooperation of school administrators and community people.

            A third component of our program is our street intervention component. To date, in just eight months we have been involved in over 1,000 situations that have been resolved through our teams who work at night. Our intervention workers know the local street gangs and therefore can effectively intervene in volatile situations. We also work very closely with Commander Pleines and others to make sure that the police are on the scene in a timely manner, when needed.

 

Moderator:

            On that particular issue, one of the controversial aspects of the intervention program is the use of former gang members. The fear of many was that you could get some bad apples. Have there been incidences where that has happened?

 

Roberto Rivera:

            We closely screen all applicants applying for the Chicago Intervention Network Program. This is not to say that we exclude individuals who perhaps are closer to the pulse of those types of activities. What we make sure is that in terms of their own personal development supplicants will have been removed from these activities a minimum of 5 years. That way we gain the strength that they have to offer the program in knowledge, leadership, knowledge of who the shooters are, etc. At the same time, we satisfy the public’s interest and concern.

 

Moderator:

            Commander Pleines, would you agree with that?

 

Edward Pleines:

            So far the CIN program has been very, very successful in screening their employees through police department records to eliminate that potential from happening – that is getting active gang members involved in this program. So I would say their program has been very, very successful in that regard.

 

Moderator:

            I understand the mayor has to leave, so we will say good day to the mayor. And we will continue our discussion.

            I would like to spend some time talking about the activities of other institutions. I mentioned before that the Catholic church was very much involved. The Chicago Catholic Archdiocese put $250,000 into the project. Father Craig, would you tell us how that money is being used? And also, give your assessment of the success of the program.

 

Father Craig:

            The number of ordained clergy and religious who actually make working with gang members a part of their routine is really small. What the church is trained to do and has the operations to do is educate. And so the money, most of the money that came out of that $250,000 that the Cardinal put up was demonstration money. It was seed money; it was challenge money to see whether we could generate some sort of other interest in the city at different levels for the same problem.

 

Moderator:

            Can you be more specific?

Father Craig:

            Yes. Eighty-thousand dollars went to establish four-person mobile teams. These are four adults who work within the Catholic school system. They provide information and education about gangs. Thirty-five thousand dollars went to a program that operates in the West-town Humboldt Park area that has developed youth groups and alternative systems for kids within some 40 parishes in that area. Fifty-thousand dollars went to the establishment of the Pilsen Youth Center, down by the Benito Juarez High School. The rest of the money went in smaller grants to various parts of the city. A lot of the money went to a program called Lights On, which is an after-school program targeting areas that have a higher concentration of juvenile crime and gang activity.

Moderator:

            Commander Pleines, your comment?

Edward Pleines:

            I have no comment as to what Father Craig said. I wish to add though that youth are not the only problem within the gang structure. Today we’re dealing in the city of Chicago with three different types of gangs. We’re dealing with youth oriented gangs, which everybody visualizes when we talk about gangs. Two young kids meeting the park and fighting hand to hand. Well, nothing can be further from the truth. Gangs are cowards, they don’t fight out in the open, and they don’t address their problems in a legitimate manner. But we do have youth orientated gangs in the city which range in age from eight years up into the early twenties. Then we have the type of gang that Mr. Mahoney referred to in our penal institutions. The age range of those gang members is from the early 20’s up into the 40’s and 50 years of age group. The third type of gang we’re dealing with on the streets is simply a combination of the two I have mentioned which is the forerunner of what’s coming down the road. We’ve older, experienced criminals who are coming out of penal institutions who have been in the gang structure for years and years. They operate under the façade of being youth orientated street gangs. Thus, we have experienced criminals directing our youth into areas of criminality that they probably would not ever get involved in if left to their own devices.

Moderator:

            Following up on that, Mike Mahoney, what can be done in the prisons to stop this cycle?

Michael Mahoney:

            I think a couple of things. One is you can’t expect prisons to solve problems that communities haven’t been able to solved. People think that just because you lock a guy up you’re going to make him a non-criminal. In fact, what we have found is that prisons are a microcosm of the larger society. Gangs do the same things in prison that they do in the streets. They deliver both illegal and legal services that aren’t provided. The one thing we know that works is good information. I think Commander Pleines has worked very well with the Department of Corrections to give information on who’s coming in, so they can be separated and disbursed among the smaller facilities.

            I find it ironical that in the adult division, where gangs are the predominant problem, we’ve moved to smaller, more manageable institutions, while in the juvenile division we’re going to larger institutions. Thus, almost be default, we are perpetuating the grounds for gangs to thrive. The other component, which I think is critical, is the probation and parole component. After all, most of the offender in our community are not locked up; they are on probation or parole. Unless we can find adequate resources for those folks, we’re kidding ourselves that a short stretch in a penitentiary will solve the problem. We need to beef up the correctional components of both probation and parole of the CIN program and not expect the prisons alone to solve the problems. The prisons are making some mistakes. But the fact of the matter is that 95% of the people who go to those prisons are coming back, and we need a strategy for dealing with those who come back.

Moderator:

            Given the reality of shrinking federal dollars, state dollars and city dollars available to combat a wide variety of the causes of gang violence, Professor Spergel, what do we do? What should the strategy be? Not only in the prisons but specifically, for the sake of this discussion, in schools.

Dr. Spergel:

            I think we need to be modest, and we ought to be clear that we can deal with only part of the problem. We ought to be, first of all, knowledgeable as to the scope and severity of the problem. Our strategy should be one of targeting those kids who have already taken the first step into the gang. You ought to get the kids in 7th grade or 8th grade in terms of a variety of specific programs. There is a problem with drop-outs generally, but the gang program cannot deal with the total drop-out problem. That’s much larger. Most of the drop-outs probably have nothing to do with the gangs. First, you need to deal with the kids as they begin to get involved in the gang problem, particularly through the schools. You also need to deal with older kids who already have dropped out of school, who need jobs and, especially, remedial help. So I’m not sure one needs a whole variety of general kinds of support programs. You need specific kinds of programs for specific kinds of kids. And most of all, you need a mediation program to prevent these kids from killing each other. You can’t do everything with a small amount of money. You’ve got to pick the specific pieces that are most important and which you can address successfully.

Question from the Audience:

            My question is: What strategies does CIN employ to reduce gang problems?

Roberto Rivera:

            In terms of the intervention workers, there are three major components: the school program, our correctional outreach program and our street intervention component.

            We are funding 116 delegate agencies. Consider that my staff, all in all, consists of 59 people. Therefore, the actual one-on-one time that is needed can best be utilized through a referral and follow-up system to the delegate agencies. This young man (the person who asked the question) is working with a delegate agency called the MICO Youth Services Program at the Cabrini Green area. He is involved in a series of activities that we ourselves fund. For instance, they’re doing video productions and learning technical skills in terms of TV, cameras and a variety of other things. So that the positive support program that we fund through that particular agency is an important piece of the overall strategy.

            We have nine area advisory councils throughout the entire city, consisting of all the delegate agencies that we have funded, church groups, schools, parents, and a number of community concerned individuals. They meet regularly to monitor the activities of the Chicago Intervention Network and its delegate agencies. We not only fund the delegate agencies but we empower these local groups to have local determination in terms of what’s happening in their specific area.

Moderator:

            Professor Spergel, I would like to get back to some recommendations that you have made. I wonder if you might briefly summarize the two approaches that you mentioned in your recent report to the Illinois State Board of Education.

Dr. Spergel:

            This refers mainly to the problem of gang activity in the Chicago public schools. I noted that there are gang members in all the public high schools. In fact, there are gang members in a lot of the Catholic high schools, too. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there are gang problems in all the high schools. But one of the things we observed in going around from school to school, particularly at the high school level – we went to about 60 schools in all – was that some of the principals or superintendents tend to deny the problem. Or they go to the other extreme with the same effect; they tolerate it. They don’t pay enough attention to it.

Moderator:

            Does that include killing statistics? I have heard stories that statistics are never reported to the district office because the perception from the principal is that if you have a problem at your high school, you’re probably not a very good administrator.

Dr. Spergel:

            Well, I think that’s generally correct. One should know, though, that the serious problem of gangs is not in the school. I think the schools are generally well disciplined. You don’t have kids pulling guns as a rule in the schools. Occasionally it happens; it’s true. And there is a good deal of underreporting. And there’s some overreporting for interesting purposed. The problem of gangs is mainly outside. We’re talking about older kids. As I mentioned to you, the statistics indicate that it’s the drop-outs, the kids on the streets. The problems of school age kids getting involved in gang activity usually does not occur in the school; it occurs outside.

            Of course, there’s much that the schools can do about the problem. As I suggested, they ought to zero in on these youngsters when they’re having difficulties in school. As you know, being a drop-out is a reason for joining a gang to get status an obtain excitement. We need to deal with that basic problem.

Moderator:

            In reader your comments and also the comments made last year by Mr. Rivera, it seems that there’s much reluctance on the part of teachers to perhaps take on the responsibility of dealing with the real world of teaching in an urban climate.

Dr. Spergel:

            I think both teachers and top level school administrators look at the matter in the same way. They assume that they don’t’ have enough resources. They say we’ve got to worry about reading problems, we’ve got to worry about drug problems, we’ve got to worry about illegitimacy. Now you’re going to saddle us with the gang problem. These are, of course, interrelated problems. The teacher is fundamentally not threatened by the gang kid. They tend not to attack adults. According to police statistics, teachers, as a rule, are not at risk from gang kids. Teachers need to be more involved in basic discipline, and they are not, particularly at the high school level.

Audience Participant:

            My question to the panel is: What is the correlation of parent involvement to gang activity?

Jaime Rivera:

            At the Clemente High School we have found that many of the kids we have targeted are coming from one-parent families. We’re talking about families that have or are disintegrating. When you’re talking about gang involvement, you’re talking about predominantly male adolescents who are trying to establish an identity, wanting to have a sense of belonging, cohesiveness, support, nurturing. They’re not getting that at home, because there’s a fragmented family. Obviously, you’re going to be seeing a lot of problems. There isn’t, to my understanding, a cohesive federal policy regarding the family. I think that’s one of the problems that needs to be answered by our society. How do we view the family as a whole?

            One of the successes that we’re having, which is the first time in the ten years that I’ve been at Clemente. Is that we’ve been successfully able to engage 15 out of 60 parents who are actively involved in the school. They come to weekly meetings and are beginning to ask some very serious questions about their children’s involvement in gangs. They want to know what some of the symptoms are, what things they need to look at. They want to know what they can do about it. I think that is really promising.

Moderator:

            Is that going on in grade schools as well?

Jaime Rivera:

            As Dr. Spergel had pointed out earlier, a lot of gang involvement seems to be spreading down to the 7th and 8th grades. A lot of the recruitment is beginning to take place at these grades, which means that when we get these kids as freshmen, they may have already established some kind of value system, some norm in the gang sub-culture.

Moderator:

Picking up on a point that was made earlier about gang recruitment and the drop-out rate specifically, what has been done to address the problem of a youngster who goes to one grammar school that is perhaps dominated by one particular gang and then goes to a high school that is controlled, or is partically (misspelled in manuscript) controlled by another gang? Mr. Rivera, perhaps you can address that particular point, because that seems to be one of the reasons that someone would use as an excuse for dropping out of school. Am I correct that it is?

Roberto Rivera:

            Yes, it is. An example of the gravity of that situation exists in the 6th District which encompasses Clemente, Wells and a couple of other schools, where we found that 27% of the graduating eighth grade class never entered the high school system. The drop-out phenomenon is considered a high school problem; it’s not considered an elementary school phenomenon. The second point is that district superintendents and some principals have indeed opted to place students in schools that would be less threatening to the individual.

            A case in point: There are many kids around the Clemente area who have to go to Oar High School, because that particular school is associated with the group that is opposed to the group that is dominant within Clemente. We experienced this early this year.

Moderator:

            Judge Barish, * I understand that you have a question you would like to address to the panel.

*Cook County Juvenile Court judge attending the conference.

Judge Barish:

            A consensus question that some of my brethren have asked me to present. I note all of you here are involved in this problem. We in Juvenile Court are also involved in it. You have people who are on the initial level – police for arrests, social workers, therapists, people involved in gangs. But I note with interest that you never involve us. We’re at the tail end. Why don’t you ask us to be part of your gang problem?

            I have the luxury, the benefit of seeing some of the suburban problems as well as the Chicago problems, because I chair suburban cases too. So, I want to share an observation that the initial gang problem rests with very young kids. The people closest to them are their parents. The parents know of a kid’s gang involvement. They know if they’re truant from school, they know their friends, they know they’re carrying graffiti. They see the signs on their arms. They see that they’re wearing gang emblems. Yet the parents do nothing. I think parents need to be educated and that a lot of attention has to be given to getting the parents involved and asking them to do something definite and positive. In fact, that’s where the blame lies.

Moderator:

            I’d like to give everyone on the panel the opportunity to make one final statement. Professor Spergel, let me ask you to look into the crystal ball and project what we might be discuss-