SPEA

It has become increasingly clear that the dominant models of metropolitan governance are inadequate to our purposes.  Regional approaches to social and economic concerns are increasing in importance.   And regional governance structures – both formal and informal – are developing to address these needs.  Despite these developments, the literature pertaining to metropolitan governance can be organized into two mutually exclusive categories, consolidation and fragmentation, neither of which explains recent developments of a regional nature.  Indeed, much of the thinking and theory building about metropolitan governance is path dependent, shaped by what exists.  It is limited by an over-reliance on political and public administration traditions (Peters and Pierre, 1998, p. 224). 

Chief among these traditions is the premise that a central city or some other central authority should serve as the primary governing unit and the major service provider for the entire metropolitan region.  In this view, consolidation is the preferred response to emerging concerns.   Public choice theory posits an alternative to consolidation.  It rejects the idea that fragmentation is inherently bad.  It recommends market approaches to social and economic concerns.  In public choice theory, the political arena is viewed as a marketplace in which voters and elected officials behave as rational actors interested only in maximizing their individual interests. 

The problem with these contending models is that today’s metropolitan regions are multicentered, polynucleated, deconcentrated, and interrelated spaces (Gottdiener, 1985, pp. 25-70).  City governments no longer serve as the sole locus for integrating relationships, nor are they the only arena in which programs of action can be organized and managed (Davoudi, 1995, pp. 224-225).  Critical concerns transcend the capacities of existing forms of government.  And  city and other local units of government stand alongside other actors who compete for access to resources and the control of agendas (Davoudi, 1995, p. 226). 

In this paper, we review the literature pertaining to the two dominant models of metropolitan governance.  We then describe key social and economic forces which point to the need for an alternative model.  To illustrate the nature of these developments, a select set of regional initiatives undertaken in the City of Gary, Indiana is examined.  As we shall see, the extant models of metropolitan governance cannot account for these initiatives.  An analysis then follows which points to the need for an alternative model of regional governance, one that is based on the principles of sustainability.

Research Pertaining to Metropolitan Governance

Scholarship pertaining to nature of metropolitan governmence dates back to the municipal reforms of the Progressive Era.  Efficiency served as the key objective in the normative literature that is now associated with Woodrow Wilson, Frank J. Goodnow, Frederick Taylor, and others.  According to Stephens and Wikstrom, four principles emerged in the municipal reform movement (2000, pp. 31-32). 

§ There should be a single government for each urban area.
§ Only the few most important policy-making officials should be elected.
§ The functions of administration should be separated from politics, and they should be carried out by professionals.
§ The best government structures are hierarchical, culminating in a single chief executive.

Although the scholars of the Progressive Era focused primarily on cities, certain conceptual problems posed by the rise of metropolitan regions were noted.  Chester Maxey conceded that cities do not function in the same manner that metropolitan regions as a whole do (1922).  And Roderick D. McKenzie predicted that the metropolitan region would become the dominant form of urban settlement in the United States.  He concluded that this important construct needed definition (1933,  p. 98). 

In the main, however, metropolitan regions came to be viewed as decentralized structures that overrun the political boundaries of the central city, thus creating a physical place that is contiguous yet populated by people who live beyond the boundaries of the city.  Nevertheless, those who live outside the city work and pursue recreational opportunities within it, thereby entering into a common set of relationships within a fragmented governmental structure (Burgess, 1925).  Fragmentation  thus emerged as the primary concern of scholars in the period following World War I.  This is most evident in the work of Paul Studenski (1930) and Victor Jones (1942).  Studenski viewed advances in transportation and communications as the principal reason for the growth of metropolitan areas (1942).  The ability to commute and communicate from a distance made it possible to live far away from the central city.  Studenski blamed obsolete state laws for permitting metropolitan growth to find expression in conglomerations of local units of government which are not bound together by any superior or coordinating levels of government (1942, p. 23).  According to Studenski, fragmented government obscures citizens’ perceptions of regions as social and economic entities.  In Studenski’s view, this contributes to the inability of local units of government to join together to solve shared problems (1942, pp. 29-30).  In keeping with the reform principles inherited from the Progressive Era, Studenski advocated for a central metropolitan government.  More specifically, he promoted the concept of the “federated city.”  In this kind of structure, each unit of government would maintain a measure of control at the local level, but it would be exercised within the framework of policies administered by a metropolitan government. 

In his study of local governments in the greater Chicago area, Charles Merriam adopted Studenski’s assumptions about the inherent inefficiency of fragmented government (Merriam et al., 1933).  He recommended significant structural changes, the end result of which would be a consolidated form of government.  This “greater city,” as Merriam called it, would have unified some 1,600 local units of government in the Chicago area, bringing about much sought after efficiencies. 

This idea was further developed by Merriam’s student, Victor Jones, who stressed the need to eliminate the fractured state of local government (1940).  He contended that a “giant municipality” was needed to solve the problem of fragmentation (1940, p. 154).  This could be accomplished in various ways including the formation of an urban county, city-county consolidation, or a type of federated government.  Jones also stressed the need for states and the federal government to impose consolidatations.

In 1960, Luther Gulick summarized various reform proposals in a series of lectures that were later published in The Metropolitan Problem and American Ideas.  In Gulick’s view, metropolitan regions suffer from a lack of region-wide services, development, and the machinery for dealing effectively with regional problems.  Gulick promoted the establishment of a federated government in all metropolitan regions.  He also called on the national, state, and local levels of government to join together in establishing these new structures. 

For the most part, the academic literature from the 1960s through the 1980s accepting the framing of the municipal reform issue that was inherited from scholars writing in the first half of the 20th Century.  During this period, however, several city-county consolidations took place.  Consolidations in Cleveland, St. Louis, and Dayton are generally thought to have been unsuccessful.  Successful consolidations took place in Baton Rouge (1947), Nashville (1962), Jacksonville (1967), and Indianapolis (1969).   Also during this period, councils of governments (COG’s) appeared in the form of regional planning commissions.  COG’s promote regional initiatives and intergovernmental cooperation.  Most, however, have met with limited success due to the persistent parochialism of representatives of local units of government which typically make up the voting membership of COG’s (Ross and Levine, 1996, pp. 355-359).

From 1960 through the 1980s, scholarship on this topic was led by the Committee for Economic Development (CED) and the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR).  Both organizations conducted comprehensive studies on the need for regional government.  They both concluded that the creation of various forms of consolidated metropolitan government would engender improved efficiency, governmental effectiveness, and regional accountability.

Although consolidation continued to be viewed as the preferred solution to regional problems, an alternative perspective began to develop about 30 years ago.  It defended the multiplicity of local governments in metropolitan regions.  Advocates for this point-of-view, which is now called public choice theory, included Vincent Ostrom, Charles Tiebout, and Robert Warren (1961).  Collectively, they viewed local government fragmentation as far less chaotic and inefficient than did their predecessors.  In fact, Robert Bish and Vincent Ostrom suggest that a situation in which several units of government perform multiple services could stimulate a more responsive and efficient economy in metropolitan regions (1973).  In this scenario, citizens “vote with their feet,” moving to the governmental jurisdiction that offers the most attractive set of services and the least taxes. 

Public choice theory assumes that individual citizens are rational utility maximizers.  The unit of analysis is the self-interested individual; and the public good is nothing more than the aggregate of individual desires (Tiebout, 1956).  As Michael Keating has noted, however, decision-making processes are not nearly as neat as public choice theorists suggest (1995, pp. 124-125).  The public choice model embodies certain assumptions that are questionable.  For instance, it assumes the mobility carries no costs, that it can be simply accomplished.  Public choice theorists also discount the regional nature of many modern day urban problems, which cross jurisdictional boundaries and lie beyond the reach of local governments.  These problems include sprawl, environmental degradation, public transportation, and fiscal and social disparities.  Public choice theory denies the interdependence of governmental entities in metropolitan regions and the attendant need to work in harmony (Altshuler, et al., 1999, pp. 34-36).  As Keating suggests, the problem with fragmented local government may not be poor leadership, but parochial leadership with a confining and narrow perspective (1995, p. 126).

Despite these serious deficiencies, public choice scholars mounted a serious challenge to the legitimacy of the unitary model of consolidated metropolitan government (Oakerson and Parks, 1989).  Due in part to this challenge, recent scholarship tends to call for the use of inter-institutional arrangements rather than outright consolidation.  For example, Wikstrom and Stephens recommend the establishment of metropolitan-wide multifunctional service authorities that would be responsible for the provision of certain systems-maintenance functions involving water, sewer, mass transportation, refuse collection and disposal, environmental protection, and cultural, recreational, and sports facilities (2000, pp. 170-174).

Despite these developments, however, current scholarship on metropolitan governance is still guided by the extremes of the consolidation-fragmentation continuum (Lowery, 2000).  Public choice theorists caricature consolidated governments as blotted, monopolistic bureaucracies.  And consolidationists reject any model that is built on the minimalist foundation of self-interested utility maximization.  Scholars in both camps summarily dismiss each others’ work despite evidence that indicates limited support for either view.  For example, choosing where to live may not be a function of the best combination of tax and service packages as the public choice model assumes.  It may be based instead on issues of race and class (Lowery and Lyons, 1989; Stein, 1987).  Conversely, today’s heterogeneous mix of public and private actors that may not open to monolithic approaches to government (Stein, 1990; 1993).

The New Urban Space

Due to the path dependent disposition of scholarship on the subject of metropolitan governance, the unique nature and structure of contemporary metropolitan regions has not been fully explored.  Although the appeal of suburbanization has been well documented, the structure of contemporary metropolitan regions is largely attributable to supply side factors such as government incentives, real estate speculation, and, more recently, the effects of global capitalism (Gottdiener, 1994).  Housing and transportation policies made the move to suburban communities more viable for larger numbers of people (Shlay, 1999, p. 248).  Housing loans and road construction following World War II encouraged rapid suburban development.  The real estate industry – what Henri Levebvre called the “second circuit of capital” – enticed monied city dwellers to move to new developments beyond the central city (Lefebrve, 1991, pp. 36-45).  And global capitalism together with dramatic developments in communications and information technologies, has rendered decentralized development in outlying areas economically viable (Castells, 1989, pp. 7-32). 

Supply-side factors tell only part of the story, however.  City neighborhoods also declined because of the discriminatory practice of bank redlining and lender disinvestment (Shlay, 1999, p. 248).  Racial segregation resulted from what has been referred to as the dual housing market, not because racial minorities chose to live together (Massey and Denton, 1992).  The poor and racial minorities did not choose to concentrate in central cities as part of a natural process in which neighborhoods eventually outlive their usefulness.  On the contrary, they did so in response to the actions of powerful institutions which dominated the urban land market (Logan and Molotch, 1987).

What began at the turn of the last century as a trend in which wealthy and mobile citizens could live beyond the city’s boundaries has become the dominant form of living at the turn of the new century.   More than two-thirds of people in the United States now live in some three hundred metropolitan regions (Stephens and Wikstrom, 2000, p. 18).  And the contemporary metropolitan region typically includes about one hundred different local units of government (Stephens and Wikstrom, 2000, p. 18).  In fact, the multi-nodal metropolitan region has replaced the hierarchical model which traditionally guided the thinking of planners and city managers.  Theories of urban sociology based on the threefold structure of a city center, subordinate district centers, and neighborhoods has been replaced by a space defined by networks and process flows (Castells, 1989).  The urban world now consists of a complex weave of relationships that coalesce, fragment, and recombine depending on the issue at hand.  Organization is now defined by networks of relationships rather than the mental constructs of functional hierarchies which focus on certain tangible objects such as buildings, houses, and factories (Castells, 1996). 

Changes in the traditional hierarchical structure of cities is mirrored by changes in the structure of urban economies as well.  Indeed, technological change has significantly altered the criteria used by businesses in locating their enterprises.  Plants are now located in proximity to customers and transport systems rather than in proximity to material resources, labor, or other firms in the same industry (Kresl and Singh, 1999, pp. 1-2).   This has resulted in the creation of new economic spaces in which the notions of periphery and center must be rethought and relationships take on new meaning, most notably, the idea of public/private sector cooperation.  This is the even true in the case of knowledge-based industries.  It is generally thought that this kind of enterprise maximizes the production and transmission of ideas.  This clustering effect is associated with certain “learning regions” such as the Silicon Valley and the North Carolina research triangle (Audretsch, 1998).  In fact, the multi-model construct prevails even in learning regions. 

The construct of a networked multi-model metropolitan region requires a rethinking of the role of city government.  The city has traditionally been associated with urban government.  This is the venue in which politicians and managers are believed to translate political philosophies into programs of action.  However, if the city is but one among many actors in the contemporary urban setting, urban communities may not be manageable as a single city or even as a federation of cities.  Indeed, it has been suggested that the traditional city form is a relic of a past era which survives only due to inertia (Dear, 1995, p. 33; Amin and Thrift, 1995, p. 92).  Others suggest that fragmentation is simply a reflection of a new concentration of economic power.  This perspective cites certain continuities in the ongoing efforts of capital to organize webs of relations and political power structures (Fainstein, 1995; Lovering, 1995; Robins, 1995).  Nevertheless, the most dominant view holds that the continuing marginalization of urban policies can be viewed as a response to the diminishing political influence of cities after decades of depopulation and suburban growth. 

The Interdependence and Antipathies of Regional Actors

To some, the future of American urbanism lies with large suburban developments (Garreau, 1991).  Over the course of the last 30 years, suburbs have evolved from bedroom communities to “outer cities” which claim to have achieved economic and social independence from the central cities that spawned them (Hartshorn and Muller, 1989, p. 375).  Others have argued that central cities are now dependent on the suburbs for qualified workers and, in some cases, for shares of suburban revenues (Bingham and Kalich, 1996).

Actually, cities, suburbs, and the public and private entities which now inhabit metropolitan regions are suspended in networks of interdependencies.  Studies show that a viable urban core is essential to the health of a metropolitan region (Ledebur and Barnes, 1992; 1993; Savitch et al., 1993; Voith, 1992; 1993; 1995; Hill et al., 1995).  In his analysis of neighborhood poverty in the 318 metropolitan regions in the United States, Paul Jargowski (1997) employed a robust statistical model in demonstrating that urban core poverty and the concentration of racial minorities in cities is attributable to the dynamics of metropolitan growth.  Although a suburb may prosper, it often does so at the expense of a central city and the metropolitan region in which it is located. 

Lacking this understanding, suburban residents may simply perceive themselves to be performing better than their urban core counterparts.  They may not realize that their incomes, the continued growth and development of their individual communities, the values of their homes, and the overall quality of life in their neighborhoods are also adversely affected by decline in the urban core (Voith, 1995, p. 21).  In fact, quality of life is the result of both performance and environmental circumstances.  The external effects of development demonstrate this point.  Metropolitan regions experience an ever-shifting mosaic of development projects (e.g., housing, shopping centers, industrial and office parks) which affect areas that extend far beyond the developments themselves.  For example, large single family housing developments tend to create problems and costs to the general public which are not paid for by the developer.  These “externalities” include elements of infrastructure such as new schools, new roads and highways, increased fire and police protection, as well as additional burdens on water and waste water treatment systems.  Consequently, growth and new construction have effects that reach well beyond the immediate location of a new development.  For this reason, it is essential that we conceptually integrate cities and suburbs so that new strategies for revitalization and sustainable development can be conceived and implemented (Rusk, 1995).  The ultimate goal of these strategies should be to raise the opportunity structure of the entire region (Jargowsky, 1997, pp. 191-193). 

Gary and Northwest Indiana

 The following analysis examines a series of initiatives which are consistent with the kinds of emerging regionalism that rejects the false dichotomy of the consolidation-fragmentation continuum.  It reflects the perspective of a key action, Mayor Scott L. King, of a particular city, Gary, Indiana,  which is located in a reasonably well-defined region, Northwest Indiana.  The analysis is based on numerous conversations and other interactions in which both authors have engaged Mayor King over the course of the last five years.   More specifically, the analysis draws on the five “State of the City” addresses that the Mayor has delivered since his first election in 1995.  The chief value of this data source is that it reflects the Mayor’s understanding of regional initiatives and partnerships.  As such, it serves to capture the evolving views of a key practitioner.  At the same time, it lacks the breadth of scope that could be provided in a more comprehensive study involving multiple actors.  Given this limitation, the analysis that follows should be viewed as a preliminary step toward the development of a more comprehensive study.

 The City of Gary has received a great deal of negative publicity in recent years.  It has frequently been cited as the “murder capitol” of the United States.  And Northwest Indiana has been identified as the most segregated region in the county.  African-Americans account for approximately 90 percent of Gary’s population.  The cities to the immediate west, Hammond and East Chicago, are home to mixed populations of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Whites.  The more affluent communities to the immediate south are virtually all-White. 

 Gary is also known as a “one-industry town” in a “one-industry region.”  Five steel mills ring the southern shore of Lake Michigan from the Illinois border to the Dunes National Lakeshore in nearby Porter County.  The steel industry and its ancillary product and service providers account for a significant portion of the jobs that Northwest Indiana offers to its citizens.  Unfortunately, this industry has experienced considerable difficulty over the last 20 years.  In the early, 1980s, Lake County, in which Gary is located, lost 48.9 percent of its manufacturing jobs.  Other “rust belt” communities, including Steubenville, Ohio, Harlan County, Kentucky, and Waterloo, Iowa, recovered most if not all of the manufacturing jobs that they lost in the 1980s in the ten years that followed.  In contrast, Lake County lost another 14.5 percent of its manufacturing jobs (Sheldrake and Marcus, 2001). 

 In terms of crime, housing patterns, and economic growth – or lack thereof – Gary has experienced many of the challenges that many urban core communities across the country have shared over the course of the last 20 years. 

 Various solutions to these multifaceted problems have been forwarded over the years.  Long endemic in Lake County,  fragmentation was embraced through much of the 1970s and 1980s, but not for the reasons which are cited by public choice theorists.  The White flight that accompanied the election of Richard G. Hatcher as Mayor of Gary in 1968 engendered a bitterness among the White “diaspora” that lingers to this day in the collar communities, known collectively as the ridge communities, and other towns and cities to the east and south.  In Gary, the view that the City has been “abandoned” by its White citizens prevailed, lending support to a “go it alone” strategy that would prove counter-productive over time.

 At the other end of the continuum, a report prepared by Indiana State University which was commissioned by the State’s General Assembly in 1986 recommended a “unigov” model that was based on the Indianapolis experience.  Given Lake County’s polarization along racial and geographic lines, it is not surprising that this proposal was stillborn.  To this day, proposals for any kind of cooperation among political jurisdictions in Lake County, specifically, and Northwest Indiana, generally, risk being tarred with the “unigov” moniker. 

 Given its recent history, Northwest Indiana would seem to be an excellent testing ground for a new understanding of regionalism governance.  The region faces daunting challenges.  At the same time, the “balkanized” pattern of governmental units requires the kind of formal and informal linkages that are prescribed above if effective action is to be taken to address problems that extend beyond a municipality’s borders.

 The regional initiatives which are reflected in Mayor Scott L. King’s “State of the City” addresses can be grouped into three broad categories: public safety; economic development; and fiscal policy.  Each will be examined in turn.

 Crime, particularly drug-related crime, plagues the City of Gary.  It largely accounts for the City’s lingering reputation as a dangerous place to live and work.  This public policy concern has been featured prominently in each of the Mayor’s annual addresses to the City.  He has undertaken certain initiatives on his own, including a rebuilding of the City’s police force and investments in the Police Department’s support infrastructure.  Regional initiatives, both formal and informal, have been featured prominently as well, however.  Most importantly, the Mayor developed a taskforce composed of representatives of the Gary Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the United States Attorney’s Office, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, the Lake County Prosecutors Office, the Indiana State Police, and the Indiana National Guard.  The Gary Response Investigative Team (GRIT) conducts investigations of violent crime in Gary (King, 1997; 1998; 1999).  This multi-faceted partnership represents a bold step both for Gary and the criminal justice community in Lake County, in which rivalries and non-cooperation served as norms for many years. 

By most accounts, GRIT has been successful.  The crime rate has decreased in each of Mayor King’s five years in office.  From 1997 to 1998, the number of homicides in the City fell by 20 percent.  Forcible rapes declined by 52 percent.  Assaults decreased by 28 percent.  And burglaries fell by 34 percent (King, 1999).  The homicide rate, which has received so much national attention, declined by 41 percent from 1995 through 1998.  And it has fallen in each of the last two years as well (King, 2001). 

To address the serious problem of handgun violence, Mayor King joined other mayors from around the county in suing gun manufacturers, importers, distributors, and local dealers in August 1999.  The connection between handguns and the homicide rate, in particular, is clear.  In 1999, 77 percent of all homicides committed in the city involved handguns (King, 2000).  Although legal action continues, the City of Gary reached a settlement with a retail outlet in neighboring Porter County from which handguns used in crimes committed in Gary had been purchased.  The retailer agreed to stop selling handguns after depleting its existing stock.  It also agreed to contribute $10,000 toward the fight against handgun violence in the City (King 2000).  In 2000, Mayor King participated in a meeting convened by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana and the Lake County prosecutor.  The meeting which included representatives from Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties examined actions that could be taken on the local and regional levels of government to reduce the incidence of handgun violence (King 2000). 

 A continuing concern about drug trafficking lead Mayor King to adopt a two-pronged strategy in 2000.  He organized and hosted a regional summit on substance abuse which featured the Clinton Administration’s “drug czar,” Barry McCaffrey, and other prominent speakers.  At the same time, he began publishing the names and hometowns of individuals arrested in the City of Gary for purchasing illegal drugs.  Both initiatives, together with a rash of heroin deaths in neighboring Porter County, awakened many in the community to the regional nature of the challenges posed by substance abuse.

 Although followup on this latest initiative has been spotty, representatives of two institutions of higher learning located in Lake County have undertaken the development of an informal network that now provides substance abuse practitioners from across Northwest Indiana with continuing education classes on a monthly basis and, perhaps more importantly, with much-needed opportunities to network.  This would not have occurred unless the regional summit had been held.

 Mayor King has devoted special attention to two regional economic development initiatives in his “State of the City” addresses.  The first involved the long-dormant Gary Airport, which is located 20 miles from downtown Chicago, can be accessed by two existing interstate highways, and is in close proximity to rail lines (King, 1997; 1999).  With a runway longer than Midway Airport’s and room for expansion, the Gary Airport may be the third major airport that is generally believed to be needed in the Chicago area.  The Mayor’s regional strategy with respect to the Airport has involved four distinct elements.  One, he bypassed other communities in Northwest Indiana to forge a partnership with Chicago’s Richard M. Daley.  The Gary Airport was then renamed the Gary-Chicago Airport in an effort to attract business and investment from the Chicago area.   Two, the City undertook the renovation of the Airport’s terminal facility and the development of a $11 million maintenance hangar (King, 2001).  Three, the City attracted Pan Am Airlines to the newly named Airport, thereby reestablishing passenger service at the underused facility.  The Airline promised regularly scheduled flights to Orlando, Florida, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Portsmith, New Hampshire (King, 2000).  And four, the City participated in a regional publicity campaign designed to attract wary travelers to the Gary-Chicago Airport. 

 The jury is still out with respect to this initiative.  Neighboring cities have asked for representation on the Airport’s board of directors.  The Mayor has elected, instead, to pursue the City’s partnership with the City of Chicago, at least to this point in time.  Further, the use of Pan Am’s limited routes has fallen short of expectations, even though 50,000 passengers flew Pan Am out of Gary in 2000.  And the City has not yet been successful in attracting a  second carrier.  Nevertheless, the Airport’s advantages are considerable.  It holds the potential to serve as an anchor for commercial development on the City’s west side.

 The second initiative involved the cities of Hammond and East Chicago.  In late 1998, a geographic strip shared by Gary, Hammond, and East Chicago received empowerment zone designation, thus qualifying for tax exempt bonding, business tax deductions, tax credits, and $100 million in federal funding over a ten-year period (King, 1999). 

 The three-city partnership is the key to this effort.  It points the way toward other possible partnerships as well, including one involving the Gary-Chicago Airport.  It must be noted, however, that the full potential of the empowerment zone cannot be predicted at this time.  Progress has been slow to date.  Still, in 2000, a metal processing firm with 100 jobs was attracted to the target area using enterprise zone incentives.  And the City hopes for additional progress in the coming years.

 A third set of initiatives involves fiscal structures.  As is common in “rustbelt” communities, Northwest Indiana relies heavily on property taxes.  Property valuations are also skewed in favor of homeowners and to the detriment of businesses.   According to representatives of the steel industry, property taxes add a $10 per ton premium over and above steel that is produced elsewhere in the country.  As a result, the steel industry has been reluctant to invest in its current plants in Northwest Indiana when it has options to invest elsewhere.  This situation has been further exacerbated by a recent downturn in the steel industry as a whole. 

By mid-2000, it was becoming increasingly clear that the steel industry was in trouble.   With thousands of jobs at stake, a coalition of industry, labor, and other community leaders approached Mayor King about the need for a county-option tax dedicated to property tax relief.  The Mayor then initiated talks with his counterparts in Hammond and East Chicago that led to a press conference in February 2001 in which a county-option tax was proposed (King, 2001).

The proposal unleashed considerable animosity in the ridge communities and in towns and cities further south in Lake County.  Political leaders in these communities called for reductions in the cost of municipal government in north Lake County.  They also promoted a more comprehensive reform package involving the property tax assessment process.  At the urging of local representatives to the State’s General Assembly, the Northwest Indiana Quality of Life Council, a nonpartisan organization which is chaired on a rotating basis by the presidents and chancellors of Northwest Indiana’s colleges and universities, was asked to host a community mediation involving some 150 participants.  The contentious meeting resulted in agreement on a broad range of issues, including a call on the State to absorb the non-federal portion of welfare costs (i.e., the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program).  The participants also agreed to support the passage of a dockside gaming bill which would increase tax revenues generated from Northwest Indiana’s five casino boats, an independent reassessment of all properties in Lake County, and a minimum property tax for the 60,000 properties in the county that now pay $200 or less in property taxes.  Key industries also promised to reinvest at least 50 percent of their property tax savings in local capital improvements or environmental projects.  And the three cities in Northwest Indiana agreed to reduce their per capita property tax expenditures to 150 of the mean for all Indiana cities and towns with populations in excess of 10,000.  In Gary’s case, this would require a reduction of $3.2 million, representing about 5.2 percent of the City’s civil budget. 

No agreement was reached on the question of a county option tax.  It was agreed, however, that any such tax should be targeted to property tax relief.  It was also agreed that State action would be required to accomplish this purpose.  As it now stands, the General Assembly is considering a bill that would authorize a county option tax of this kind.  If passed, the matter would be referred back to Lake County for consideration by the County Council.

The regional and very public nature of the discussion that has ensued over the course of the last several months has been nothing less than remarkable.  Mayor King initiated talks with the mayors of Hammond and East Chicago before advancing a proposal on his own.  Even more importantly, he assumed a leadership role in the public forum that was hosted by the Quality of Life Council and in subsequent negotiations pertaining to the outcome of that meeting.  His public pledges to reduce spending proved critical to the achievement of an agreement of sorts.  And his willingness to engage his counterparts from south Lake County in very difficult and lengthy discussions contributed much to the progress achieved on this question to date.

Again, it is unclear how this initiative will fare.  It is unlikely that a county option tax will be adopted.  At the same time, the local media and certain groups like the Northwest Indiana Quality of Life Council believe that the potential may now exist to fundamentally change the nature of north-south county relations in Lake County.  This, in turn, holds the potential to dramatically improve the overall quality of life in Northwest Indiana.  In this sense, recent developments involving Gary and Northwest Indiana exemplify the potential of the new regionalism.

Discussion

 The several initiatives pertaining to public safety, economic development, and fiscal policy that are described above do not fit comfortably at either extreme of the consolidation-fragmentation continuum.  They were not initiated unilaterally or even dominated, in some cases, by actors representing the City of Gary.  In fact, the fiscal policy initiative was prompted by a non-governmental entity, the Northwest Indiana Quality of Life Council.  And the regional drug summit served as a catalyst for the creation of the Substance Abuse Academic Network by a small group of academics.  At the same time, the ties that bind the City of Gary to its neighboring communities and its multiple constituencies are strong ones.  The City of Gary has not and cannot go it alone.  And Northwest Indiana cannot afford for Gary to fail.  This conclusion belies the celebration of fragmentation which is reflected in the public choice literature.

For these reasons, a new model of regional governance may be needed.  Our objective has been a limited one, however.  We have described initiatives of a regional nature which have been undertaken or endorsed by a single actor, albeit an influential one, representing a particular municipality, Gary, Indiana.  Difficulties that these initiatives pose for the dominant theories of regional governance have been noted.  Clearly, more work will be required before an alternative theory of regional governance can be developed.  Nevertheless, certain elements of a new model have been suggested.  One, it will locate political leaders among other actors, some of whom represent various kinds of public and private institutions, and others who serve in temporary or informal coalitions.  Two, the responsibility for initiating specific actions and follow-through will be shared among this broad set of actors.  Three, specific initiatives will continue to be prompted by various motives.  Some will be strategic, others will be opportunistic, and still others will be of a problem-solving nature.  Four, long-term development and capacity-building will serve as important goals in the new model.  And five, the creation of a new sense of community, one that extends beyond municipal boundaries, will continue to challenge regional actors.  Public dialogue will be required. 

Can an alternative to the extant models of regional governance be developed?  The challenges involved in crafting a new theory of regional governance are considerable.  Nevertheless, an emerging literature which is based on the concept of “sustainable development” is promising.  This literature is also consistent with or, at least, not in conflict with the several themes which have been noted above.  Sustainability entails six principles. 

§ The environment is not an external factor of production.  On the contrary, it is the container that sustains and provisions the economy. 
§ The only limiting factor to development is the availability and functionality of living and life-supporting natural systems which have no substitutes and are presently not a part of the market value equation. 
§ Ill-conceived business systems, population growth, and wasteful consumption are the primary causes for the loss of natural life-supporting systems, and must be corrected to achieve sustainability. 
§ Progress best occurs in democratic, market-based systems of production and distribution in which forms of capital, human, economic, and natural, are fully valued. 
§ The best use of people, money, and the environment will take place in development systems that curtail resource depletion and pollution and provide a basis for full employment. 
§ Six, economic and environmental sustainability depends upon redressing inequities of income and material well-being. 

Research and analysis which link the experiences of cities like Gary and regions like Northwest Indiana to the principles of sustainability may be the key to developing a robust model of regional governance that can take the place of the false dichotomy which is posed by the consolidation-fragmentation continuum.

References

Altshuler, A., Morrill, W., Wolman, H., and Mitchell, Faith, eds. (1999).  Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press.

Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (1995).  “Globalization, Institutional ‘Thickness’ and the Local Economy.”  In Healey, et al., The New Urban Context: Managing Cities.  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Audretsch, D. (1998).  “Agglomeration and the Location of Innovative Activity.”  Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14(2): 18-29.

Bingham, R. and Kalich, V. (1996).  “The Tie that Binds: Downtowns, Suburbs, and the Dependence Hypothesis.”  Journal of Urban Affairs 18(2): 153-171.

Bish, R. L. and Ostrom, V. (1973).  Understanding Urban Government: Metropolitan Reform Reconsidered. Washington, D. C.: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Castells, M. (1989).  The Informational City. Oxford: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (1996).  The Rise of the Network Society.  Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Chisholm, Donald (1989).  Coordination Without Hierarchy.  Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Davoudi, Simin (1995).  “Dilemmas of Urban Governance.”  In Healy, P, et al., Managing Cities: The New Urban Context.  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Dear, Michael (1995).  “Prolegomena to a Postmodern Urbanism.”  In Healy, P, et al., Managing Cities: The new Urban Context.  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Fainstein, S. S. (1995).  “Urban Redevelopment and Public Policy in London and New York.”  In Healy, P, et al., Managing cities: The new urban context.  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Garreau, Joel (1991).  Edge City. New York: Doubleday.

Gottdiener, M. (1994).  The Social Production of Urban Space, 2nd ed., Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Harrigan, J. A. (1993).  Political Change in the Metropolis (5th ed.) New York: HarperCollins College Publishers.

Hartshorn, T. and Muller, P. (1989).  “Suburban Downtowns and the Transformation of Metropolitan Atlanta’s Business Landscape.”  Urban Geography 10: 375-395.

Hill, E., Wolman, H., and Ford, C. (1995).  “Can Suburbs Survive Without Their Central Cities?: Examining the Suburban Dependence Hypothesis.” Urban Affairs Review 31(2): 147-174

Jargowsky, P. A. (1997).  Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City.  New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Jones, V. (1942).  Metropolitan Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Keating, M. (1995).  “Size, Efficiency, and Democracy: Consolidation, Fragmentation, and Public Choice.”  In David Judge, Gerry Stoker, and Harold Wolman, eds., Theories of Urban Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

King, Scott L (1997).  Address to the City.

King, Scott L (1998).  Address to the City.

King, Scott L (1999).  Address to the City.

King, Scott L (2000).  Address to the City.

King, Scott L (2001).  Address to the City.

Kresl, P. K. and Singh, B. (1999).  “Competitiveness and the Urban Economy: Twenty-four Large Metropolitan Areas.”  Urban Studies 36/5-6: 1017-1029.

Lefebvre, H. (1991).  The Production of Space. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Ledebur, L. and Barnes, W. (1992).  Metropolitan Disparities and Economic Growth: City Distress and the Need for a Federal Local Growth Package.  Washington, D. C., National League of Cities.

Ledebur, L. and Barnes, W. (1993).  All in It Together: Cities, Suburbs, and Local Economic Regions.  Washington, D. C., National League of Cities

Logan, J. R. and Molotch, H. R. (1987).  Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place.  Berkeley: University of California Press

Lovering, J. (1995).  “Creating Discourses Rather than Jobs: The Crisis in the Cities and the Transition Fantasies of Intellectuals and Policy Makers.”  In Healy, P, et al., Managing Cities: The New Urban Context.  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Lowery, David (2000).  “A Transactions Costs of Metropolitan Governance: Allocation Versus Redistribution in Urban America.”  Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(1): 49-78.

Lyons, W. E. and Lowery, David. (1989).  “Governmental Fragmentation vs. Consolidation: Five Public Choice Myths about Creating Informed, Involved, and Happy Citizens.”  Public Administration Review 49: 533-543

Massey, D. S. and Denton, N. A. (1992).  American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 

Maxey, C. (1922).  “The Political Integration of Metropolitan Communities.”  National Municipal Review 11: 229-53 

McKenzie, R. D. (1933).  The Metropolitan Community, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1933.

Merriam, C. E., Parratt, S. D., and Lepawsky, A. (1933).  The Government of the Metropolitan Region of Chicago.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Oakerson, R. J. and Parks, R. B. (1989).  “Local Government Constitutions: A Different View of Metropolitan Governance.”  American Review of Public Administration 19: 279-294.

Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., and Warren, T. (1961).  “The Organization of Government in Metropolitan Areas: A Theoretical Inquiry.”  American Political Science Review 60: 831-842.

Peters, B. and Pierre, J. (1998).  “Governance Without Government? Rethinking Public Administration.”  Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory 8(2): 223-244.

Robins, K. (1995).  “Collective Emotion and Urban Culture.”  In Healy, P, et al., Managing Cities: The new Urban Context.  New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ross, B. H. and Levine, M. A. (1996).  Urban Politics: Power in Metropolitan America, 5th ed. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers.

Rusk, D. (1995).  Cities Without Suburbs (2nd ed.). Washington, D. C.: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Savitch, H. V. (1993).  “Ties that Bind: Central Cities, Suburbs, and the New Metropolitan Region.”  Economic Development Quarterly 7(4): 341-357.

Sheldrake, William and Marcus, Morton (2001).  Transforming the Economy of Northwest Indiana.  Report Delivered to the Northwest Indiana Quality of Life Council.

Shlay, A. B. (1999).  “Influencing the Agents of Urban Structure: Evaluating the Effects of Community Reinvestment on Bank Residential Lending Practices.”  Urban Affairs Review 35(2): 247-278.

Stein, R. M. (1987).  “Tiebout’s Sorting Hypothesis.”  Urban Affairs Quarterly 23: 140-60.

Stein, R. M (1990).  Urban Alternatives: Public and Private Markets in the Provision of Local Services. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Stein, R. M (1993).  “Arranging City Services.”  Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3: 66-92

Stephens, G. R. and Wikstrom, N. (2000).  Metropolitan Government and Governance, New York: Oxford University Press.

Studenski, P. (1930).  The Government of Metropolitan Areas. New York: National Municipal League.

Voith, R. (Sep/Oct 1992).  “City and Suburban Growth: Substitutes or Complements?”  Business Review – Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Voith, R. (1993).  “Does City Income Growth Increase Suburban Income Growth, House Value Appreciation and Population Growth?”  Working Paper no. 93-27, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Voith, R. (1995).  “Do Suburbs Need Cities?”  Working Paper, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

  back to Top

GARY CITY DRUG COURT: EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSING A COMMUNITY’S NEED

WRITTEN BY:
JACQUELINE M. MULLANY PH.D.
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
INDIANA UNIVERSITY NORTHWEST

AND

KAREN FREEMAN-WILSON, J.D.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
STATE OF INDIANA

INTRODUCTION - Statement of the Problem

Poverty in Northwest Indiana has continued to increase in the last decade, particularly in Lake County, which includes the city of Gary.  Gary, in particular, has suffered greatly from the national plague created by alcohol and drug use.  The causes of poverty - unemployment and underemployment, low educational levels, and the breakdown of the family - have all contributed to an increase in alcohol and drug abuse and related crimes.

The Gary City Adult Drug Court, formally recognized as the Second Chance Program, was created in 1996 by the Gary City Courts, to address cases involving individuals who are addicted to drugs. This model represents a new way of thinking taking place in this Northwest Indiana community; an  example of a new philosophy and an innovative approach to tackling one of the major causes of crime in a community often labeled as the “murder capital” of the country - drugs.   One of the strongest aspects of this program has been the collaboration between representatives of the criminal justice system and community leaders.  The Gary Adult Drug Court represents an integrated approach involving not only criminal justice agencies, but a consortium of community agencies, including probation, treatment providers, religious leaders, politicians, the business community, education, and service delivery agencies in an effort to impede drug related criminal activity through education, early intervention, and the rehabilitation of addicted offenders. From the inception of the program this consortium of agencies and individuals have participated in the planning team, the operationalization of the program, and the continued quest for improvement

 The purpose of this paper is to highlight the unique aspects of this program, much of which is based on the findings of an evaluation report facilitated through a partnership between the Second Chance Program and Indiana University Northwest (IUN). Faculty from IUN have played the lead role in the evaluation of the program, and students have participated as research assistants. 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE - Link Between Criminal Activity and Substance Abuse

The link between substance abuse and criminal activity has been well documented. For some
offenders, substance abuse is just one of the many behaviors reflecting a criminal lifestyle.  For other offenders, criminal behavior arises directly from their substance abuse.  Crime, including robbery, burglary, theft, prostitution, possession and sales of illegal substances and credit card and check fraud are among the principal means to support substance abuse habits.  And, substance abusers who also deal drugs often employ violence to protect their “turf.”

Impact on System

The relationship between substance abuse and subsequent criminal activity is felt at nearly every level of our criminal justice system.  Arrests related to alcohol and other drug use increased by 126 percent during the last decade (Scheckel, L., 1993, p. 1).   Perhaps the greatest example of this impact can be seen in the influx of substance abusing offenders within our correctional institutions.  Nationwide, over 500,000 of the 680,000 inmates in our state prisons are estimated to have substance abuse problems (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1991). 

 The Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) surveys test the urine of arrested persons in custody at local jails (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992).  According to this survey, “over half of the inmates in our local jails reported being under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their offense, with over 70 percent of offenders in many metropolitan areas testing positive for drugs” (Ibid).  In Cook County (Illinois), 75 percent of new arrestees tested positive for drugs.

The role and mission of probation and parole have also changed substantially as a result of increased levels of drug-related offenders.  Largely as a result of the prison crowding crisis, what was once seen as a social service agency, probation and parole are now confronted with increased caseloads of individuals whose risk and need levels are considerably different from those offenders of 30 years ago.  Many of these present day probationers have high levels of drug addictions. According to the National Institute of Justice, up to 80 percent of probationers and parolees have some degree of substance abuse problem related to their criminal activity (Scheckel, L., 1993, p. 1).

Studies also show increased drug use being linked to other more violent types of crime.  Many homicides, for example, are related to drug trafficking (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992).  “A study of homicides in New York City in 1988 found that 53 percent of the cases, drugs or alcohol were judged to be an important cause of homicide (Ibid).

Most of the research documented throughout this report refers to the adult male population.  It would be remiss not to mention the impact that drug usage has had on other offender populations.  Perhaps the population most affected by drugs and the increased enforcement of drug crimes is the female offender population.  From 1982 to 1991, the number of women arrested for drug offenses increased by 89 percent (Wellisch, J, Prendergast, M., & Anglin, D., 1994, p. 1).

Moreover, we recognize that substance abuse is one of the most pressing issues confronted by our youthful population.  According to the final results of the 1995 Illinois Drug Use Forecasting Survey, 40 percent or more of all male juveniles detained in the sampled counties were identified as using marijuana within the month preceding their detainment.  Fifteen percent of the juvenile detainees were diagnosed as being drug dependent.

Traditional Methods of Dealing with Drug Addicted Offenders

Traditional methods of servicing drug addicted offenders have not been having the intended results.  Most drug offenders have typically been either sentenced to a period of incarceration or referred for probation supervision.  Due to limited funding, few jails and/or prisons provide substance abuse treatment for their inmates and none provide long-term rehabilitation support once the defendant is released (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996, p. 2).  Supervision of probationers with drug addictions offer little more in the way of treatment.  Urinalysis is generally conducted periodically, and treatment services are provided only if available. Moreover, there is usually no monitoring of whether drug use of defendants who enter and complete treatment programs has been reduced (Ibid).

 It has become increasingly clear that traditional methods of dealing with drug addicted offenders does little to break the cycle of drug use.  Offenders with drug related crimes are shown to exhibit high rates of recidivism.  According to the U.S. Department of Justice (1995), nearly 45 percent of defendants convicted of drug possession will recidivate within two to three years.

Systems Response to Increased Drug Cases - Specialized Drug Courts

 In response to the onset of drug cases since the late 1980's, coupled with problems associated with the traditional adjudication process and the high cycle of recidivism common to these cases, some state and local jurisdictions have rethought their approach to handling defendants charged with drug and drug related offenses.  One strategy that has emerged is the establishment of “special courts” (e.g., drug courts) to process only cases associated with drug issues. 

These drug courts are established to serve different purposes, with each of them being unique. Some jurisdictions have created specialized “fast track” drug courts to facilitate the expeditious processing of drug cases through the system. The purpose of these courts is to help alleviate the backlog of drug cases confronting the court system.  Other specialized drug courts have been established with an emphasis on treatment.  The premise of these courts is to reduce the likelihood of recidivism by addressing the individual’s addiction.  “The treatment approach often involves delaying the disposition of drug cases so that defendants can be monitored while the threat of more serious sanctions hangs over them” (Davis, S., Smith, B., & Lurigio, A.  1994, p. 1).

 While “fast track” drug courts have been in existence since the 1970's, the “first court to employ drug treatment as an integral part of the processing of drug felonies was the Dade County (Miami), Florida, Drug Court, which began operations in June 1989" (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993, p. 3).  This specialized drug treatment court served as a model for other jurisdictions to divert drug offenders from the traditional method of adjudication into a program of intense treatment.  The  purpose was to use the authority of the courts and the expertise of the treatment systems to reduce crime by changing the defendants drug using behavior.

The number of drug courts in existence has increased dramatically over the years.  In 1989 there were two drug courts in existence, fifteen in 1994, in May, 1996, there were 180 drug courts underway or being planned, and as of 1998, there were more than 200 drug courts in existence with at least that number in the planning stages. Today, there are 600 drug courts which have been implemented or are in the planning stages (National Drug Court Institute, 1999).  Close to 140,000 drug dependent offenders have entered drug courts since their inception and more than 70 percent are either still enrolled or have graduated (Ibid).  Although a fairly new concept, the early success of drug courts has prompted this rapid growth expansion.

Do Drug Courts Work? 

While national evaluations of drug courts are minimal, early results are promising. The Drug Court Resource Center at the American University conducted a preliminary assessment of 20 drug courts (1995).  Through this evaluation, it was documented that recidivism and criminal activity had been significantly reduced for drug court participants.  Savings in jail bed days alone was estimated to be at least $5000 per defendant versus estimates of $20,000 to $50,000 to incarcerate a drug offender. The retention rate for the programs is 71 percent, nearly double that of traditional treatment program retention rates.  And, an unanticipated benefit has been the birth of a significant number of drug free babies to women enrolled in the program.

Drug usage of drug court participants is also being effected.  In the most recent American University drug court survey, an average of ten percent of the urinalysis tests were positive for drug court participants (Belenko, 1998). In contrast, the average percentage of positive drug tests for similar defendants, not in the drug court but under probation supervision was at 31 percent (Belenko, 1998).

In addition, there have been separate evaluations of three Drug Courts, all showing program success.  An evaluation of the Miami Drug Court funded by the National Institute of Justice found that compared to similar defendants not in the program, drug court defendants had: fewer cases dropped, lower incarceration rates, less frequent re-arrests, and longer times to rearrest.  They also reported a 60 percent completion rate  (National Institute of Justice, 1993). This retention rate is high when compared with retention rates of 10 percent to 15 percent reported across the country by traditional treatment programs.

Evaluations of drug courts in Portland and Oakland reflect similar results.  Portland Drug Court recorded a 57 percent retention.  Oakland Drug Court showed a 54 percent completion rate and a 35 percent reduction in recidivism. 

For the substance abusing offender, early results show that Drug Courts can be successful in providing this population with a pathway out of the vicious cycle of substance abuse and related criminal activity. 

PROGRAM EVALUATION 

An evaluation of Gary’s Second Chance Drug Court Program was conducted through Indiana University Northwest.  While the program was created in late 1996, the evaluation period extends from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1999. 

Sample participants were randomly selected from all participants who were referred to the program during the three year evaluation period.  Three samples included in the final analysis are: graduates, unsuccessful candidates, and active participants.  There are 36 participants in each of the samples.  The rationale behind this number is because we had access to 36 graduate files, hence, in order to have similar samples, we decided to keep all sample sizes the same.

The “”Graduate” sample includes those who were accepted into the program during the evaluation period and whom graduated successfully from the program.  This sample is also referred to as the Successful sample throughout this report. 

The “Unsuccessful” cases includes those who were accepted into the program during the evaluation period but who have outstanding warrants.

The “Active” cases include those who were accepted into the program during the evaluation period and who are still actively participating. 

Treatment Quarter Activity:

Activity of the participants was maintained by treatment quarters, each representing three months of the individual’s treatment year.  TQ1 (treatment quarter one) represent the first three months of program participation, TQ2 represents months four through six of program participation, TQ3 represents months seven through nine of program participation, and TQ4 represents the months ten through twelve of program participation.

Activity may be lower during TQ4 for some of the variables, as clients entering into the Drug Court later in the program year might not have reached this treatment quarter by December 31, 1999, when data collection for this evaluation terminated, or they may have completed the program prior  to the end of TQ4.  Further, numbers may be higher for some samples than for others simply because the total number of participants is higher (e.g., graduate sample of 36 versus unsuccessful sample of 31 during TQ1, graduate sample of 35 versus 11 unsuccessful sample during TQ2, etc.).   Because of this, percentages are often used instead of numbers.

As follows is a breakdown of the number of cases per sample per treatment quarter: 
Graduate Sample TQ1 - 36 clients TQ2 - 35 clients TQ3 - 34 clients TQ4 - 33 clients

Unsuccessful Sample TQ1 - 31 clients TQ2 - 11 clients TQ3 - 7 clients TQ4 - 4 clients

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

History of the Second Chance Program - Gary’s Adult Drug Court Initiative

The Second Chance Program was created September 18, 1996 through the Gary City Courts in an effort to address cases involving individuals who are addicted to drugs.  The specialized court is a 12 to 24-month program, which offers diversion from the traditional adjudication process of the court system, into an intense program of treatment and supervision. 

Those persons charged with non-violent criminal offenses (i.e. possession of marijuana, possession of paraphernalia, public intoxication, disorderly conduct, obstruction of traffic, prostitution, failure to identify, criminal trespass, and conversion), are 18 or over, and a Lake County (Indiana) resident,  are allowed to enter pleas of guilty which are taken under advisement for a period of one-year. Disqualifying factors include: pending forfeitures, violent priors, and prior incarceration in the Indiana Department of Corrections for two or more years. The project is supported by a grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The Program is designed to divert drug addicted offenders away from the correctional system and guide them through a model of treatment, education, and vocational assistance that will result in a successful reintegration into society.

Unique Aspects of the Drug Court Program

The Gary Adult Drug Court offers the courts an opportunity to adjudicate drug addicted offenders through a program that is unique to the traditional method of processing offenders.As follows is a listing of the unique aspects of the Gary Adult Drug Court.

Participant Enrollment

Three hundred and fifty four participants have been accepted into the drug court since its inception (1996).  Only 100 or 28 percent have been terminated unsuccessfully. 

Participant Demographics

The first component of the evaluation conducted through Indiana University consisted of collecting baseline information on a sample of individuals referred to the program from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 1999.  There are three resulting samples of individuals: graduates, unsuccessful, and actives.  While the original evaluation report resulted in individual profiles of each of the three samples, for purposes of this paper, we have only included the comparison profiles of two samples, the graduate and unsuccessful groups.

The purpose of this section is to review the demographic information to ensure that the appropriate target population is being serviced and to determine if necessary modifications are required.  It is also important in order to make comparisons between the “successful” clients and the “unsuccessful” clients and to identify the attributes associated with success.  Further, this information is critical for later purposes to determine if modifications in the client-base need to be addressed.

The graduate and the unsuccessful groups were compared and contrasted using a number of like variables.  We chose not to include the active sample, as they have not yet completed their program; it becomes difficult, then, to determine whether individual cases would be a successful or an unsuccessful client.  Comparison Matrix

• Graduate/Successful Sample Variable Unsuccessful Sample
• 31 Age 30
• male Gender male or female
• African American Race African American
• Gary, Indiana City of Residence Gary, Indiana
• single Marital Status single
• two Number of Children two
• 10 years Length of Time at Residence 10 years
• parents (50 %) Currently Lives With parents (47%)
• drug-related (58%) Present Charge drug- related (64%)
• yes (61%) Prior Arrests yes (64%)
• perhaps (33% yes) Incarceration perhaps (39%)
• three Number of Places lived in Last 12 months one
• five Number of Places Lived three
• Graduate/Successful Sample (Continued) Variable Unsuccessful Sample(Continued)
• yes (81%) Family in Area yes (97%)
• perhaps (44% yes) Parents Drinkers perhaps (42%)
• no (75%) Family Member with Drug Problems no (only 25% said yes)
• no (17% indicated yes) Abused as a Child no (25% indicated yes)
• no (19% yes) Abused as an Adult no (19% yes)
• 11th grade Education 11th grade
• no (39% employed) Employment no (17% employed)
• perhaps  Peers Employed perhaps
• yes (70%) Peers Drug Users yes (89%)
• cocaine (50%) Drug of Most Harm cocaine (78%)
• friends (22%)/kicks (22%) Reason for Starting friends (53%)/kicks (22%)
• other (58%)/kicks (17%) Reasons for Continuing other (58%)/friends (11%)
• family, jail, children Reasons for Stopping church, children, jail
• no (53%) Treatment History perhaps (39% yes)
• no (58%) Suicide Attempts no (86%)
• yes (42%) Feeling Depressed yes (39%)
• drugs (67%) Presenting Problems drugs (64%)
• yes (47%) Problems Serious yes (58%)
• want to get off drugs (73%) Reason for Enrolling want to get off drugs (86%)

The comparison of like variables among the two groups results in mostly interesting and some contrasting results.  As profiled earlier, the two groups have many commonalities and few differences.

Interpretation

A review of the comparison matrix was examined to identify differences and commonalities among the two groups.  The two groups are similar in almost all areas except with a few variables.  These differences are as follows:

• The unsuccessful sample is slightly more likely to have been abused as an adult.
• The unsuccessful sample is less likely to have been employed at program intake.
• The unsuccessful sample is more likely to have peers who are drug users (although the successful sample has a high number of peer drug users as well).
• The unsuccessful sample is more likely to have started using drugs because of friends.
• The unsuccessful sample is more likely to have continued to use drugs due to friends.
• The unsuccessful group cites cocaine as their drug of choice in greater numbers than the successful group.
• The unsuccessful sample, then, seems to have less positive support groups and structures present in their lives, such as employment, peers, and positive adult relationships.  Moreover, the unsuccessful sample appears to be more influenced by peers and to have peers that are more likely to engage in drug usage than the unsuccessful group. 

Treatment Phases

Unlike traditional treatment and justice programs, in Gary’s Second Chance Program, becoming sober is only the first step toward graduating.  Participants also have to obtain employment, work toward completing a GED (if appropriate), and complete community services hours. 

The Drug Court Program consists of a three-phase, highly structured, program lasting a minimum of 12 months.  Each phase consists of specified treatment objectives, therapeutic, and rehabilitative activities.  The components are as follows:

• PHASE I - 6 months 
  • Drug testing 3 times per week
  • Narcotics Anonymous 3 times per week
  • Court appearance 1 time per week
  • Office Visit - case manager 1 time per week
  • Drug treatment counseling as prescribed
  • Community service completed by end of Phase I
  • Job search, if unemployed minimum of five contacts per week
  • Program fees ½ paid by end of Phase I
  • Enrollment in an educational program if appropriate 
• PHASE II  - 3 months 
  • Drug testing 2 times per week
  • Narcotics Anonymous 3 times per week
  • Court Appearance 1 time per week
  • Office Visit - case manager 1 time per week
  • Drug treatment counseling as prescribed
  • Job search, if unemployed minimum five contacts per week
  • Program fees 3/4 paid by end of Phase II
  • Maintain enrollment in educational program, if appropriate 
• PHASE III - 3 months 
  • Drug testing 1 time per week
  • Narcotics Anonymous 2 times per week
  • Court appearance 1 time per week
  • Office visit - case manager 1 time per week
  • Drug Treatment Aftercare as prescribed
  • Job search, if unemployed minimum five contacts per week
  • Program Fees 100% paid by end of Phase III

Some of the unique aspects of these treatment phases include:

• participants are identified early in the process
• recovery is promoted through an integration of drug treatment with other service agencies
• participants have access to a continuum of alcohol and drug treatment
• abstinence is monitored by frequent urinalysis testing;  and 
• non-compliance is immediately addressed through routine office visits with case managers and ongoing judicial intervention. 

Frequent Urinalysis Testing

In a traditional court setting, urinalysis is generally conducted only periodically. In drug courts, including the Gary model, participants undergo frequent and random urinalysis. Moreover, the number of drug tests fluctuates with stay and compliance levels.

In the Gary program, the number of drug tests given in each of the treatment quarters decreased with program length of stay. With the graduate sample, during TQ1, there were 2673 urinalysis tests given.  This equates to 74 tests per person during TQ1 or 25 tests per person per month.  With the unsuccessful sample, for example, there were 1221 total urinalysis tests given during TQ1, or 39 tests per person during the treatment quarter, or 13 per month per person. 

The following chart more specifically summarizes all of the data.

Number of Tests Given

Graduate/Successful Sample Treatment Quarter Unsuccessful Sample

• 2673 total or 74 tests per person per TQ or 25 per person per month TQ1 1221 total or 39 tests per person per TQ or 13 per person per month
• 2919 total or 83 tests per person per TQ or 28 per person per month TQ2 501 total or 46 tests per person per TQ or 15 per person per month
• 2094 total or 62 tests per person per TQ or 21 per person per month TQ3 342 total or 49 tests per person per TQ or 16 per person per month
• 1884 total or 57 tests per person per TQ or 19 per person per month TQ4 108 total or 27 tests per person per TQ or 9 per person per month

These data reflect several important process points.  First, the successful sample received more total urinalysis tests and per tests per person during the program period.  Further, according to the program policies, a participant is to receive three drug tests per week during Phase I, two drug tests per week during Phase II, and one drug test per week during Phase III.  The number of tests given is consistent with, and greater than, the guidelines as outlined in the program policies.  

Collaboration/Team Concept 

 In a typical court setting, the court players often act independently of one another; operating more as a non-system than a system.  Drug courts require a team approach, including the cooperation and collaboration of the judges, prosecutors, probation, law enforcement, treatment providers, and an array of local service providers. Based on observations and interviews, one of the biggest impacts on the success of the Gary Adult Drug Court Program has been the personnel,  the team concept, and the ability to work cooperatively.  Each of the individuals involved in the operations of the drug court work in a collaborative manner and share the same goal and objective - the recovery of the participant.  Morever, there is a mutual respect for the roles of each other.

Collaboration between Various Systems

One of the strongest aspects of the Second Chance Program has been the collaboration between representatives of the criminal justice system, treatment providers, the church community and other branches of municipal government.  From the inception of the program, the County Prosecutor, the Police Department, treatment providers, health systems, local ministry, and the Mayors Office have played an integral part in the Drug Court. 

Role of the Judge:

 “Unlike judges in traditional settings, a drug court judge has a one-on-one relationship with every offender passing through his or her courtroom, and this relationship continues for the life of the offenders’ participation in a drug court program (National Drug Court Institute, 1999, p. 6).  In a survey of 400 drug court participants conducted by the States Justice Institute, responses indicated that the close supervision and encouragement provided by the drug court judges was a critical factor to their success (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998). 

Former Drug Court Judge Karen Freeman-Wilson has served as the central figure and leader in the Second Chance team effort since the very beginning of program implementation.  She has been able to effectively tap into the reports made by the case managers and service providers, and assures that the appropriate services and sanctions are ordered. She often leaves the bench to hug clients for compliant behavior.  Based on court observations, she encourages appropriate behavior and penalizes inappropriate behavior.  Her efforts and dedication to the drug court have been mirrored by that of her replacement, Judge Deidre Monroe. 

Role of the Case Managers

Based on observation, the case managers have been able to maintain a strict, yet compassionate, role with the participants.  Due to the intense requirements of the drug court, their role is much more intensive than case managers working in a traditional setting, including such activities as more intense reporting requirements, frequent urinalysis, and working closely with treatment and service providers.

Support of Community Leaders

Top political leaders have consistently shown support for this initiative.  

Clinical Style of Communication

The drug court team meets prior to the actual drug court date to discuss the cases to be heard.  There is a real sense of case familiarity.  This typically does not exist in a traditional courtroom setting.

Intensive Supervision/Prompt Response to Noncompliance

 Under the traditional adjudication process, supervision of defendants in the community usually consists of periodic, often monthly, reporting to the pretrial/probation officer.  Urinalysis is conducted only periodically, and violations may be reported only when a new crime has been committed, and generally can take up to a few months before it is placed on the court call (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998).

In the Second Chance Program, supervision, monitoring, and treatment are significantly more immediate and intensive.  This also results in a more expedient manner of addressing lack of compliance.

Rewards and Sanctions 

One of the important aspects of the Second Chance Program are the rewards and sanctions imposed on the participants.  Positive participation is rewarded and encouraged in a number of unique and innovative ways.  On a weekly basis, the drug court Judge congratulates clients who have maintained drug free lifestyles, fulfilled community service requirements, and/or made payments.  When participants achieve milestones in employment or education, the entire court room joins in a round of applause.  After the completion of each phase, participants are rewarded with key chains and certificates.

Sanctions imposed for non-compliance include the following: mandatory court confinement requiring participants to submit a written report of their observations, extended program time, jail time, additional drug testing, additional community service hours, in-patient treatment, and additional Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

Graduation Ceremony

Successful completion of the Second Chance Program results in the participation of a graduation ceremony which is open to the community.  The open graduation ceremony allows the graduates to be publicly and formally congratulated for their achievements.  For many, this is the first time they have been part of a graduation.  This ceremony also serves to continue to break the traditional barricades that exist between the offender, the justice personnel, and the community, and demonstrates a level of care by the court system.  

Creating New Opportunities

Ultimately, the Second Chance Program  provides opportunities to the participants that might not have been available to them otherwise.  Moreover, these services are community based, allowing for the linkages to continue after program participation.

PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS - DOES THE PROGRAM WORK?

Observations and program data reflect that the Second Chance Program is unique and possesses characteristics unlike those found in traditional justice or treatment programs.  But, does the program work?  An outcome evaluation was conducted to address this issue.  For this paper, we discuss the impact of the program on the offender, on the system, and on the community and have included only the more important outcome variables collected for the original evaluation report:  

Impact on the Offender
Outcome:  Reduction in Substance Abuse
Findings: 

(Unfortunately, the chart to which the following refers did not survive the translation into html. Sorry)

In the above charts, the top “darker” line represents negative urinalysis results; the bottom “lighter” line represents positive urinalysis results.  These charts demonstrate that drug usage decreases with program participation; the number of positive drug tests decreases with each additional client treatment quarter, whereas the number of negative drug tests increases with program participation.

For the graduate sample, in TQ1, 94 percent of the participants tested negative for drug use; in TQ2, 98 percent tested negative; in TQ3, 99 percent tested negative; and in TQ4, 97 percent of the successful clients tested negative for drug usage.

For the unsuccessful sample, in TQ1, 86 percent of the sample tested negative for drugs; in TQ2, 90 percent tested negative for drugs; in TQ3, 90 percent tested negative for drugs; and in TQ4, 93 percent of the unsuccessful clients tested negative for drug usage.

While both samples show an increasing number of negative drug tests as the program progresses, as expected, the successful groups percentages are slightly higher.    Hence, it would appear that participation in the drug court program has a positive influence in minimizing substance abuse among this population.

Outcome: Reduction in Criminal Activity 
Findings: Total # of re-arrests after graduation/Total # of convictions after graduation

Ninety-eight participants have successfully graduated from the Second Chance Program since program inception.  Of those graduates, eight (or eight percent) have been rearrested  and three (or three percent) have been convicted of a new charge.  This is considerably less than recidivism rates cited for non-drug court participants.  Most criminal justice experts estimate that at least 45 percent of defendants convicted of a drug possession will recidivate within two to three years (U.S. Department of Justice, 1998).  

Impact on the System 
Outcome: Increase in Collaboration Among Criminal Justice Personnel
Findings:   One of the more important positive impacts of the Drug Court has been the increase
in collaboration among criminal justice personnel.  Cases are managed by caseworkers who are employed by the Gary City Courts.  Services are provided by a team, including the caseworkers, treatment providers, ministers, and vocational/educational specialists. There is daily communication between the case managers and the various service providers and the Drug Court Judge.  The Drug Court team meets in a “staffing” style of case management on Wednesdays prior to the Drug Court call.  And, based on observations in the court, and in the Drug Court offices, it becomes apparent that the team does work in a collaborative and cooperative manner.
Outcome:  Implementation of Other Related Initiatives
Since the inception of the program, the Gary City Drug Court has added other components deemed necessary to address the unique needs of its substance abusing population. Two such programs include the “Do or Die” Program and the Female Offender Group.

“Do or Die” Program

The “Do or Die” Program began during the winter months of 2000.  The program  is an attempt to address the challenges of young men between the ages of 16 and 25, the majority of whom have substance abuse issues.  Typical charges for this population are possession of marijuana, possession of a handgun, visiting a common nuisance, resisting law enforcement, and reckless driving.

The program was sparked by research pointing to the growing population of young males, particularly minority males,  involved in the criminal justice system.  National research suggests that approximately one in three youthful African American males are under the control of the criminal justice system.  According to Gary court officials, during the last seven years, the Gary City Court has experienced a 35 percent increase in the number of males ages 16 to 25 who have entered the criminal justice system.  Moreover, over 75 percent of homicides in the last seven years in Gary involved African American men in their late teens or early twenties.

Recognizing this trend, the Gary City Court developed their “Do or Die” Program.  “The theory is that if these young men fail to comply with the program, then they may die spiritually, mentally, and even physically” (Robinson, 2000, p. 5).  A primary goal of this program is to assist individuals in obtaining abstinence from drug use, drug selling, and involvement in illegal gang activity. 

Participants of the program are between the ages of 16 to 25.  They must remain drug free for one-year, complete high school or a GED, work 200 hours of community service, and become employed.  Participants are also required to attend substance abuse counseling and/or attend weekly meetings held in the courtroom with volunteer mentors.  One of the strengths of this program, as with the Drug Court Program, has been the collaboration and efforts made by the community.  Most of the mentors providing services to the “Do or Die” Program are volunteers from the Gary, Indiana business and spiritual sectors.

On July 14, 2000, the program had its first graduating class, with 14 of the original 25 participants successfully completing the program.  

Impact on the Community
Outcome: Local Crime Statistics - Reduction in Crime

The City of Gary has earned the label of “Murder Capital of the Nation” four of the last seven years due to the abnormally high number of homicides per capita per year.  However, the trend may be reversing itself as serious crime in Gary has somewhat declined over the past year.

According to statistics maintained by the Gary Police Department, between 1997 and 1999, murder has declined by 24 percent, rape has declined by 81 percent, aggravated battery with a firearm declined by 62 percent and aggravated battery which involved stabbing declined by 67 percent.  The following charts more accurately depict the number of each type of serious crimes committed for the years of 1997 through 1999 and their percent changes.

City of Gary - Serious Crime 1997 - 1999: By Year

CRIME 1997 1998 1999
Murder 98 79 74
Rape 141 75 26
Armed Robbery 471 351 325
Agg. Battery - Firearm 418 325 159
Agg. Battery - Stabbing 94 75 31
Burglary 2456 1806 1932
Auto Theft 2320 1727 1361  

City of Gary - Serious Crime 1997-1999: Percent Change

CRIME 1998-1999 1997-1999
Murder  -6% -24%
Rape -65% -81%
Armed Robbery -7% -31%
Agg. Battery - Firearm -51% -62%
Agg. Battery - Stabbing -59% -67%
Burglary   7% -21%
Auto Theft -21% -41%

 While levels of crime are still unacceptably high, the City of Gary has witnessed a continued reduction in crime over the past few years.   From 1997 to 1999, the City has experienced a 24 percent reduction in the number of Homicides (City of Gary Annual Report of Crime, 1999).  For this same period, there was a 44 percent reduction in firearm related offenses, which include homicides, shootings and armed robberies (Ibid). 

New practices, such as the Gary City Drug Court, have been put in place to better serve the needs of its criminal justice system populations and to enhance efforts to reduce crime.   The City of Gary, through a coordination of efforts of the Gary Police Department, the Gary City Courts, service providers, and others involved in the delivery of services, hopes to continue to improve public safety.  

CONCLUSIONS 

The results of the evaluation conducted on the Second Chance Program demonstrate  that the program is an effective and innovative approach in reducing the drug using activity of its substance abusing clients.  The Gary City Drug Court offers more effective and intense supervision of offenders in the community than traditional adjudication programs, provides for a greater accountability of defendants, and enhances the coordination of services among all those involved.  Dramatic has these benefits may be, they do not explain the tremendous personal impact that the drug court has had on all who have been involved in it. Data reflect that participation in the Second Chance Program positively impacts substance abuse.  As indicated throughout this paper, many of the drug court participants, both in the local program and nationally, have been using drugs for many years; most have never been exposed to treatment.  Negative drug tests for the Gary programs’ graduate sample averaged 97 percent, staying at 97 percent during the final treatment quarter. Data have also demonstrated that the participants graduate from the program drug free, employed, and some with a GED. Most of the graduates remain crime free.

In the beginning of this paper, we discussed the importance of collaboration and its impact on the overall effectiveness of the Gary City Adult Drug Court.  Results of this evaluation have demonstrated the strength of which these partnerships have added to this program.  Such partnerships have developed not only between the drug court team, but through other linkages as well.  Agencies such as the prosecutors office, the police department, the local health systems, local mental health agencies, the local ministry, the business community, and treatment providers have all played an integral role with the implementation and operations of this program. 

The Gary City Courts, in conjunction with these agencies, have made continued efforts toward addressing the needs of its substance abusing clients.  In addition to making changes in the drug court, it has added other components to its service delivery, such as the “Do or Die” Program and the women’s group.  These additions and changes should inevitably continue to add to the overall effectiveness of a program which already has proven to be a valuable service to its clients, the criminal justice system, and the community.

REFERENCES 

Belenko, Steven (1998, Summer).  Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review.   National Drug Court  Institute Review. 1 (1).

Bureau of Justice Assistance.  (1992).  Drugs, Crime, and the Justice System.  A National Report.

Bureau of Justice Assistance.  (1993, November). Special Drug Courts.  Program Brief.

Bureau of Justice Assistance.  (1995).  Preliminary Assessment of the Drug Court Program Experience.  Drug Court Resource Center.

Davis, R., Smith, B., & Lurigio, A. (1994).  Court Strategies to Cope with Rising Drug Caseloads.  The Justice System Journal.  17(1).

Gary Police Department (1999).  Annual Report of Crime - 1999. 

Goldkamp, J. (September, 1995).  The Drug Court Movement.  National Institute of Justice and the State Justice Institute.

King, P.  (Fall 1997).  Drugs and Crime in Chronological Literature.  Perspectives.  21(4), 29-31.

National Association of Drug Court Professionals.  (January, 1997).  Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components. 

National Drug Court Institute.  (1999, April).  Drug Courts: A Research Agenda.

National Institute of Justice.  (December 1993).  Assessing the Impact of Dade County’s Felony Drug Court.  Research in Brief.

Robinson, Kimberly.  (2000, Summer).  Gary Graduates “Do or Die” Group, Special Program for Young Men.  Indiana Association of Drug Court Professionals. 

Scheckel, L.  (1993, Spring).  Forging Links to Treat the Su