New Haven Independent

Posted by: concernedinnewhaven | November 29, 2007 1:50 PM

What independent facts does this organization provide to prove that these truces actually exist?

What does "engaging 319 young people" actually mean? I engage young people all day long, but that doesn't mean that I'm actually accomplishing anything to help them better their lives.

Is this going to become a permanent taxpayer funded job initiative for former criminals? Doesn't it seem a little too perfect that they have this glowing report, while discussing funding issues?

Posted by: Chris Gray | November 30, 2007 1:48 AM

Wait a minute, CONCERNEDINNEWHAVEN.

The funding they were discussing was future funding and, as Ms. Clark was suggesting, it was the idea of getting other sources of that funding than taxpayers. This is a program already funded for a year, if I understand what is written here.

As for concrete results, I read that two formally feuding groups are interacting in positive ways and, more importantly perhaps, 21 kids are now prepared for work.

If they'd reported 60, I'd doubt them. This is a modest, believable number.

Again, as Clark says, one of the crucial qualities these folks are offering the youth is responsible, encouraging adult attention, something I am confident is missing in many young lives.

This is not to denigrate their parents or teachers. There are many, many reasons why both lack the time or energy or skills to offer it.

If former criminals, and I emphasize former (and I am in no position to say whether these workers even ever were criminals), can find a way to reach out to these kids and actually help bring down the crime rate among their target population, I say more power to them, especially, if alternative funding for the program can be attracted.

Posted by: concernedinnewhaven | November 30, 2007 9:29 AM

Chris,

Programs looking for funding typically start a year in advance. This program is already 3 months into its funding, with no apparent additional funding in the pipeline yet. I guarantee you that within three to six months, they will be in front of the Board of Aldermen asking for additional funding (MY TAX PAID Dollars), spearheaded by Ms. Clark.

You say that two feuding groups are no longer feuding, who is to say that is true, am I supposed to take the word of the folks asking for the funding. What INDEPENDENT source says that it is true.

If they can help lower the crime rate among this group (and I do not see the evidence to prove so), then more power to them, as long as it is not done with MY TAX PAID dollars.

Posted by: andy ross | November 30, 2007 11:53 AM

Tax dollars are always at risk when trying to improve a community is solving problems. I agree accountability should be paramount when ever public funds are required to fund projects. However, I would like to see this group feel as if every one is 100% behind them, and are not knit picking. Any one that will take the time to go out , put themselves into potentially dangerous positions deserve the benefit of any uncertainty. Facts, figure, statistics, and hard evidence, may not always be available, because so much of what they do, is based a persons word and trust, not contracts. This is good stuff. Let's all keep an open mind, and support any one willing to quell the violence in our city

Posted by: visitor | November 30, 2007 12:51 PM

I'd like to get involved or help out in some sort of way. If anyone involved in this program reads this, please post saying what sort of things would help your work. thanks!

Posted by: concernedinnewhaven | November 30, 2007 1:42 PM

Andy, a person can be 100% supportive of this initiative and still ask for accountability, and should ask for it. In addition, why should someone who is not 100% behind this be forced to support it through tax dollars. If you or anyone else would like to see this program expanded, then you should put YOUR money and time where your mouth is, not mine, like visitor has suggested. By the way, I am an African American middle aged male, in New Haven, with both and son and newphew and nieces who have been in the system, so I understand, probably better than you do, the support they need. I spend my money on assisting them, not every young offender or ex offender in New Haven who needs a job.

Posted by: Bitsie Clark | November 30, 2007 2:44 PM

Visitor:
You might call Barbara Tinney at New Haven Family Alliance 786-5970, and tell her you would like to explore ways to assist the Street Outreach Progam

Posted by: Ned | November 30, 2007 3:34 PM

"One thing Tinney and Weston know about these kids: They don't trust the police." Gee I can't imagine why not? Maybe Billy White could give them pep talks?
http://bobdylan.com/moderntimes/songs/trust.html

Posted by: PowertothePeople | November 30, 2007 6:16 PM

I agree with Concerned that accountability is necessary, especially if they are going to come back for taxpayer money but think the tone of the posts is too negative. This article states

"Tinney was proud of the program, but she was careful to stress her work with Yale's Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars to evaluate its first-year success."

That suggests to me that at least she is looking for truth behind the reports.

We are always complaining about how unsafe our streets have become and how horrible the kids are these days. Well here is an attempt to do something about it. Here is an attempt to do something for these kids and I say if we can heat bus sheltors we should be able to fund saving our kids (and ourselves in the process.) Sure the parents should be doing it but guess what... THEY AREN'T!!! So do we wait for the absentee parents to act (don't hold your breath) or do we step in and act for them.

I say find the funding and keep this going until it is no longer needed. Hire more workers to reduce the caseloads. If the city needs money, they can always go tow Paul's car a few more times.

Posted by: Chris Gray | December 1, 2007 12:02 AM

Concernedinnewhaven,

I can not deny the basics of your argument, other than to say that there is no opt out clause (or personal line-item veto) in the tax code.

Otherwise, I'd be interested in what kind of objective authority we could come up with to either confirm or deny the project's claims.

I applaud your personal investment in these youths.

While basically what one would describe as a middle-aged, single, white liberal, I have had some personal experience with youth; African-American, White and Asian. Matt Borenstein used to tell me that kids from High School in the Community used to meet at the apartment I shared with numerous young people, during their lunch while I was at work, and smoke pot. "It's o.k., Chris, we know that when they're at your house, they're so close that they come back to school, afterward."

One youngster living with me had a friend who shot someone at a party at his place. The friend became a frequent visitor until his court date and imprisonment. Went he got out, he ended up on the TV show "Oz". Since I never signed up for cable, I never got to see him act, nor do I know what he is up to now, but I'd hate to think people now think of him as "just" an ex-offender.

So, I haven't waited for the city to start this work anymore than you have, but with objective safeguards for accountability, such as you demand, but I can't object that they join in, especially since I enjoy taxpayers' largesse to whatever extent the city subsidizes my HANH apartment.

I don't think I can afford to have young guests there, however; certainly not when I am out of the house.

Having worked for several non-profits, I can say that while searching for dollars does and should begin at least a year before, due to the lack of professionalism on the part of volunteer boards and, often, the lack of skills on the part of administrators and staffs, sometimes the actual raising of funds comes just in the nick of time, to use a cliché.

Posted by: Jim Farnam | December 1, 2007 1:11 PM

Sounds like the Street Outreach Program is exceeding expectations in a very short time. We can all both support it and demand accountability, which is the purpose of the appearance before the Aldermanic committee. To expect a program like this to prove itself before getting funding commitments is unrealistic. It sounds to me like the operators are properly concerned about measuring success and are taking this complex question seriously, engaging help from the RWJ Scholars in the process. I look forward to hearing more as the program progresses.

When I think about accountability (or lack thereof) and transparency, I think about the collection of Independent commenters who rail against use of tax funds for this or that or repeat their one note diatribes at every opportunity yet hide behind screen names so no one knows who they are (for example, concernedinnewhaven, taxedtodeath,etc.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | December 2, 2007 9:48 AM

I pray this group is doing all they say. We really need it! I have yet to see there jackets in my area. Unless I am just missing them. We were told they would be here. We as a community have tried to talk to our kids but they laugh at us. There parents are in denial and won't work with us to help there children. We need that person that gets what these's kids are up against. So I give a bravo to the group.

just a side comment,

Jim
I don't think they hide they are a part of a organized group. http://www.nhcan.org/ They are at most city hearings and meetings. They get very involved in changing things to help the tax payers of New Haven. If we do not question these things we can be spending money on stuff that does not work. I am sure we have programs out there that are getting funded that have not made any changes. I think the group just wants to make sure that those programs are weeded out. This way the money can go to programs that are really working.

Not speaking for that group....just my side line view.

Posted by: darnell | December 3, 2007 9:53 AM

Jim Farnum,

I personally know you, and respect the work that you do, but come on, we all know that your living comes from your working for an organization that collects taxpayer dollars, so you using your name to defend the system is no surprise. I have not attended nor am I a member of nhcan. I am, however, a taxpaying citizen who does not want his family or friends to be subjected to the vengeful political leadership of this city. I've worked in politics for over 20 years, and I know personally the lengths to which these people attempt to destroy families and careers.

This is America, and I have the right to "rail" about the spending of MY dollars, with or without my real name used. Your argument about transparency would have more weight if you weren't one of those folks spending MY money.

Posted by: Chris Gray | December 4, 2007 1:23 AM

Years ago Arnold Astman, the owner of the newspaper and magazine distributor, New Haven News Agency, is said to have said of me, "He will never work again in this town", after I had quit on him for the second time. I didn't work for a while, for money.

Eventually, my volunteer work led to my working for money, at a newspaper I distributed myself, statewide.

When I got too political, I lost the newspaper. Then I lost the community organizing project I went to work for and, eventually, I even lost the 112 year old Yale Co-op, where I ended up selling books, which is what I did for Arnie.

Matt Borenstein, at the opening of the first citywide Green Party Convention, gave a rousing speech about how running for office was safe. He'd run before, for Mayor. He'd kept his job.

Afterward, I told to him, "Matt, that is because your job is protected by law and your union, a lot of us do not have those protections." He shrugged and smiled.

He knew, already, that I would work, even without being paid. He'd already heard and seen that.

Of course, I'm sure my family has paid, but they've never mentioned it.

So, I can give testimony to Concernedinnewhaven's concern. Meanwhile, I still support the program.

Posted by: Jim Farnam | December 4, 2007 2:33 AM

I respect all efforts to assure accountability of public and philanthropic funds spent in New Haven and, believe me, my taxes in East Rock are through the roof so it does get personal.

But I also feel that we are not going to get ourselves out of some of the issues we face without wise expenditure of tax dollars-- and on the face of it and from what I have heard the Street Outreach worker program appears to be a serious effort to address one of our most pressing issues. I have no personal connection to it.

Drop me a line Darnell....

Posted by: darnell | December 4, 2007 9:22 AM

Jim, will do.

Chris, hooray.

Posted by: Andy Ross | December 4, 2007 8:13 PM

I hear you concernedinnewhaven.
I am not arguing accountability, and I do put my money, and efforts behind what I believe in. I am simply saying that this is a group, that has demonstrated an incredible commitment to their cause, and have promising results. New Haven's future starts with its youth and their commitment to non-violent solutions to their problems. This is a step in the right direction.

Posted by: Chris Gray | December 5, 2007 3:39 AM

Oops, I meant to be testifying for you, Darnell, but I guess you figured that out.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | December 5, 2007 11:59 AM

I hope the stats and report for this program are both accurate and long term - and not a first report surge result that disentegrates into just another city program needing funding that yields few tangible results. If this is working, then we should see fewer shootings a/k/a markings and less violence overall. Let's give it some breathing room and see.

As far as commenters on the NHI posting under assumed names - I understand why they do. It doesn't make their concerns any less valid. I testify in public, post in public and directly appeal to elected officials - there are times I have paid a price for doing so.

As far as "railing against the use of tax funds for this or that and ... repeating a one note diatribe" - It's important. I'll continue and it's hardly a diatribe. I support smart, open, accountable and practical local government. Too many times, the "fixes" are not fixes at all and they're not practical - they're exotic, complicated and expensive which at best, yield mixed results and sometimes, no results.

In case you haven't looked around, we are carrying a historic amount of debt that consumes more tha 10% of our budget; our spending is at an all time high; our taxes are projected to continue rising two and three times the rate of inflation for the foreseeable future and we are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to city employees.

If we don't raise these tax and spend issues at City Hall and here - who else will? Who has? Vendors? Contractors? Employees? Department heads, the mayor? For the most part, the answer is none of the above. On the other hand, there is considerable energy spent on plans to layer on taxes, grants to study a light rail system that is pure pie in the sky, assault vehicles and building $300,000 heated bus stops to keep the list short.