by Diane Dietz of The Register-Guard
Republicans like babies. Democrats say teens can’t be ignored.
That difference between the two political parties doomed juvenile crime legislation in the 1997 session of the Legislature, and it could very well do so again, some lawmakers are saying.
But nobody seems to have a clear answer for why a kid’s age should be the dividing line between Republicans and Democrats.
“I don’t quite know why that happens,” says Senate President Brady Adams.
“I don’t for the life of me understand that,” says Bob Applegate, spokesman for Gov. John Kitzhaber.
Lawmakers in both parties agree that teenage crime is a big, big problem, and may be the top issue in the 1999 legislative session. They mention Kip Kinkel and last May’s shootings at Thurston High School, which took the lives of two students and wounded 24 others.
Lane County delegates mourn for the youths who are lost and listless, the 15 percent to 20 percent of local teens who quit school, the 2,500 who escape or ditch their parents to sleep on strange sofas or in downtown alleys, and the 6,000 crimes some of them commit each year for entertainment or sustenance.
Despite perpetual disagreements on taxing and spending, however, the parties have agreed to put money into trying to reduce juvenile crime. They’ve even set a figure of $30 million for the next two-year budget cycle.
Now the leadership is seeking agreement on how to spend the money, and the thorny issue of age is emerging.
The High-Risk Juvenile Crime Prevention proposal, launched by Kitzhaber, targets kids ages 10 to 17. Local jurisdictions would have to apply for a waiver to spend their share of the money on younger kids.
Republican lawmakers are more interested in expanding Healthy Start, which provides home visits and support for first-time mothers. That program, which lawmakers approved in 1993, has spread to a dozen Oregon counties, including Lane County, where 307 new mothers received intensive services last year.
Healthy Start begins at birth and ends before the child is 5. It should be given priority “because of how the brain is formed,” says Senate Majority Leader Gene Derfler, R-Salem.
Derfler says Kip Kinkel, who is facing trial for the Thurston shootings and for the killing of his parents the day before, was damaged early in life. “That personality was formed in the first 18 months,” he says. “The tendency to commit that crime started then.”
So lawmakers should put most of the $30 million toward the first three years of life, Derfler contends. Spending on older kids wastes money because they are not receptive to change after age 8 or 10, he says.
The cost of trying would be astronomical, he argues, adding that he has no answers for the older, troubled kids.
“In my opinion, you almost have to write off a generation of kids,” Derfler says.
Studies on violence prevention would indicate that the Republicans are absolutely right. Lawmakers would get the biggest bang for the buck targeting early life, says John Reid, executive director of Oregon Social Learning Center in Eugene. “The answer,” he says, “is not complicated.”
But here’s the problem: The older kids who are already on the road to violent behavior are at school, right next to the children of lawmakers and the children of their constituents.
“How many victims do we want to create by not investing in our (older) youth?” asks Rep. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene. “For every child you write off in this state, you can rest assured they will be served in the social service system or the criminal justice system.”
Researchers are zeroing in on strategies for diverting older kids from a lifetime of violence and criminal activity. The programs work with families because families hold the strongest potential for influencing kids, and remain in place when social programs are done.
The researchers take a multi-disciplinary approach, involving a probation officer, a therapist, maybe a school teacher or counselor, and specially trained young men and women who befriend the troubled kids and teach them social skills and non-criminal forms of entertainment.
Two such programs are under way in Lane County. One is Violent Offenders Treatment and Rehabilitation, which brings intensive help to families immediately after a kid’s first arrest for a violent offense. The other is the Treatment Foster Care program, which removes the child from home for seven months while the family gets intensive counseling.
Those programs don’t stop the majority of young people from committing crimes, but they do reduce the rate and severity of the offenses.
In plain language, the programs are likely to save lives, which officials say is certainly worth the expenditure, at least from a victim’s point of view.
That’s the insight that the Thurston shootings pressed on Republicans and Democrats alike, and it may be the chief reason that some form of juvenile crime legislation will be adopted during this session.
“The level of tragedy plays on everyone’s minds,” Adams says.
“We realize this could be our next door neighbor,” Prozanski says. “It has raised the threshold of interest.”
The outcome, however, is by no means assured. In 1997, the Senate approved a juvenile crime bill backed by Kitzhaber, but a House committee chairman, who didn’t like spending on older kids, killed it in his committee.
This week, lawmakers are struggling behind the scenes to steer potential legislation away from the House Human Resources Committee, where Rep. Jeff Kruse, R-Roseberg, wants to spend almost exclusively on early childhood. The chairmen of the two House judiciary committees, civil law and criminal law, would take a more balanced approach when it comes to age, lawmakers say.
House Speaker Lynn Snodgrass will make the call and is expected to do so within days.
Over in the Senate, Derfler has pledged to use his influence to block any bill that spends more on older kids than youngsters.
“He’s a powerful guy, so who knows?” says Rep. Kitty Piercy, D-Eugene. “The drama does unfold here one more time.”
Some skepticism about older kids may be overcome by popular support. When the governor’s bill failed last session, he launched a task force to come up with a new proposal and involved politicians, juvenile justice authorities and school officials at the local level.
They submitted proposals for what their counties would do with the proposed $30 million, so it will be clear what programs are lost should the Legislature fail to act.
The governor’s proposal has won endorsements from Association of Oregon Counties, the League of Oregon Cities, the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association, the Oregon Association of Chiefs of Police, the Oregon Juvenile Justice Department Directors Association, the Oregon District Attorneys Association and, for good measure, the Oregon PTA.
Those groups no longer call it the governor’s plan, in fact. They call it their plan.
Adams, the Republican Senate president, says he’s not interested in a partisan argument about age groups this session.
“It should be a multi-structured approach,” he says. “Yes, you put some money into (kids) 11 to 13.”
Reprinted with permission. Copyright 1999, The Register-Guard, www.registerguard.com.