REDUCE DRUG USE TO REDUCE CHICAGO'S MURDERS

Not long ago, many thought that rising crime was a fact of life that we
needed to accept. It wasn't, and we didn't. Over the last decade, by
following a coordinated anti-crime strategy of putting more police on the
streets and getting kids, guns and drugs off of them, Chicago, like other
cities, has made great strides in reducing the violence.

More police practicing community policing in our neighborhoods have enabled
many families to reclaim their streets. National gun control laws, such as
the Brady Law and the assault weapons ban, have curbed the spread of
destructive weapons, while community schools have provided a safe place for
kids to go during the hours that school is out and their parents are not
yet home from work.

Yet despite this significant progress, the Tribune's recent nine-part
series on the Editorial page ("The Chicago crime," Nov. 24 through Dec. 22)
has raised a troubling question: Why is it that our city continues to
suffer from 600 murders every year? The corollary question is, what can we
do to reduce that number, which should be unacceptable to anyone who lives
or works in a city that is, in most ways, among the best in the world?

The statistics underlying Chicago's murder rate suggest that tackling drugs
is fundamental to preventing future killings. The Tribune noted the
striking fact that, since 1990, murder victims had slightly longer arrest
records on average than their assailants: 8.3 arrests for victims, 8.0 for
suspects. We also know from numerous studies that upward of 80 percent of
those entering the Cook County jail test positive for an illegal substance,
and 75 to 80 percent of these criminals are likely to be rearrested. Some
65 to 70 percent of Cook County's 32,000 probationers have drug and
substance abuse in their backgrounds.

It's clear that this revolving door is fueled by drugs and contributes
directly to the murder statistics in our city. We must shut that door. We
cannot continue to tolerate repeat drug offenders who commit armed robbery,
burglary and murder to feed their habit.

Chicago's own Gateway Foundation has developed a novel approach, called
Coerced Abstinence, which has shown great promise when used in other cities
and states. It requires drug offenders to participate in daily drug testing
and treatment. Coerced Abstinence acknowledges that treatment alone cannot
do the job and must be backed up with mandatory daily drug testing and
strict sanctions.

The ideal target group for Coerced Abstinence is first-time drug offenders
who are serving time and are under the control and supervision of the
criminal justice system. In addition to first-time offenders, all
individuals who are on probation and have a drug abuse conviction should be
required to be tested daily as a condition of their probation. This ensures
that the sanctions of the law will follow them wherever they go and,
combined with appropriate treatment, rid them of their habit.

This is not merely a theory. A review of the Gateway and other comparable
programs has shown that they can reduce drug users' recidivism rate from as
high as 73 percent to as low as 7 percent. In short, Coerced Abstinence
works. It focuses resources on the most important cause of violent crime,
and it stops the revolving door of our criminal justice system.

But with a stagnant economy, and cities and states facing staggering budget
deficits, how can we afford to implement this proven approach to crime
prevention? The truth is that Coerced Abstinence costs $30 per day for
inmates and as little as $10 per day for probationers. Compared to the
annual average cost of $21,000 for housing an adult prison inmate and close
to $55,000 for juveniles, it is a bargain.

Moreover, Congress can help the states pay these reasonable costs by
allowing them to use the existing Byrne grant program to fund a Coerced
Abstinence strategy. The Clinton administration tried this approach, but
Congress would not go along. With many states now releasing prison inmates
early because of severe budget problems, Congress should revisit the idea
of providing states with this flexibility, particularly for programs with a
track record of reducing recidivism.

The anti-crime successes of the last decade proved that public policy does
make a difference when promoting community-based strategies that help
prevent crime. Coerced Abstinence would build on that progress by attacking
the core source of violence in Chicago: drugs and drug abusers. It's our
best chance to reduce a murder rate that is a tragedy for many
neighborhoods and a blot on our entire city.

U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel

(D-Chicago)