BY MIKE CETERA
In 2007, Gov. Rod Blagojevich killed funding -- about $6 million -- for the anti-violence group CeaseFire, which had a fledgling Aurora chapter. An administration official at the time said the state could not afford to spend money on the program.
Nine months later, the governor on Tuesday proposed a $150 million anti-violence plan that encourages funding of "community-based programs (to) keep our children safe."
You see, now the governor wants to find a way to Stop. Killing. People.
If only there were a such a program out there...
But, wait, it gets better. The governor, in proposing his new Community Investment Works program, which -- as of yet -- has no funding source, appears to have used a rather flattering news story about what CeaseFire has accomplished to advocate his own plan. If CeaseFire is so great, why did he block funding?
]]>
Let's break it down.
Alex Kotlowitz (the author of the excellent Chicago Public Housing expose "There Are No Children Here"), wrote a must-read New York Times Magazine piece on CeaseFire that was published Sunday, but was posted online as late as Friday. The story leaves the impression that CeaseFire has done some good on the streets of Chicago.
Among the points Kotlowitz raises in the lengthy piece:
In Chicago, where on average five people were shot each day last year, 83 percent of the assaults were concentrated in half the police districts. So for people living outside those neighborhoods, the frequent outbursts of unrestrained anger have been easy to ignore. But each shooting, each murder, leaves a devastating legacy, and a growing school of thought suggests that there's little we can do about the entrenched urban poverty if the relentless pattern of street violence isn't somehow broken.
The traditional response has been more focused policing and longer prison sentences, but law enforcement does little to disrupt a street code that allows, if not encourages, the settling of squabbles with deadly force. Zale Hoddenbach, who works for an organization called CeaseFire, is part of an unusual effort to apply the principles of public health to the brutality of the streets. CeaseFire tries to deal with these quarrels on the front end. Hoddenbach's job is to suss out smoldering disputes and to intervene before matters get out of hand. His job title is violence interrupter, a term that while not artful seems bluntly self-explanatory.(emphasis added)
Now, let's look at the Web site for the governor's plan.
Under the explanation of "the problem," the authors of the Web site advocate a "comprehensive approach...to stem the tide of violence in Illinois." To back up the assertion that a "comprehensive approach" is needed, the authors paraphrase relevant studies and media, including this:
* "According to the New York Times Magazine, research suggests that peer or social pressure is the most effective way to change behavior, whereas law enforcement does little to disrupt a street code."
and this:
* "According to the New York Times Magazine, in Chicago, where on average five people were shot each day last year, 83 percent of the assaults were concentrated in half the police districts."
The Web site doesn't appear to mention CeaseFire or the specific New York Times Magazine article being paraphrased. It seems clear, however, which story the administration culled its supporting documentation from.
So why is the governor using a program he didn't think was necessary to bolster the argument for his own, much more expensive program? And, when, exactly did he come up with the idea for Community Investment Works? If it was before the NYT piece was published, it seems the administration's fancy Web site argument would have been even more flimsy than it already is.
]]>
