Progress Illinois

In several posts this month, we've highlighted the growing interest in the Chicago-based anti-violence program CeaseFire. The renewed attention on the program is the result of several factors: a study released by Northwestern University examining its efficacy, a New York Times Magazine article on its tactics, and of course, the bloodshed on Chicago streets. All this recently culminated in state lawmakers taking up the program's cause in Springfield.

Yesterday, in the first of a three-part series scrutinizing CeaseFire, Criminal Justice Project President Tracy Siska countered the hype with a look at the state audit that led Gov. Blagojevich to strip the program's funding in 2006. Siska makes clear at the outset that he is not critiquing the premise of CeaseFire, which employs former gang members to act as on-the-ground intermediaries in violent neighborhoods. Rather, his criticism is aimed at the dysfunctional administration of the program and the media's failure to examine that factor properly:

One of the goals of the Chicago Justice Project is to enhance public discourse on issues where an open public discussion has been lacking or on issues where the discussion requires a greater degree of factual evidence. Nowhere is this more needed than in the discussion to re-fund the antiviolence program Ceasefire. [...]

In today’s installment I will dig into the results of the state audit and discuss why the findings are serious enough to prohibit future funding of the project with the current administrators of the program in place. My critiques of the program that are contained in this series are not in any way meant to be an attack on the notion of hiring former gang members. Those that have survived the urban gang experience have much to contribute to any solution that communities will find to gang violence. My critiques are also not aimed at the belief that local community driven agencies are not to some degree part of the solution. Rather, I argue that centralizing the funding through the Ceasefire program may not be the best way to get antiviolence funding to these communities.

(Click "Read More" to continue ...)

After detailing the audit's key findings, Siska points out that none of the auditor's criticisms "has much to do with the quality of work from community partners and has everything to do with the decisions made by administrators of the Ceasefire program." He concludes: "It is clear from the audit that Ceasefire played fast and loose with the State’s money and failed to live up to its responsibilities under the contractual agreements it entered into with the various state agencies." Read the whole thing here. And be sure to check for his future installments examining the Northwestern study and the recent press coverage of the program.