<Begin Segment 30>

AI: We're continuing with Tsuguo Ikeda, and you were just talking about how you developed your program and your staff, and that you had some new concepts about staffing and the so-called paraprofessional situation...

TI: Yeah.

AI: ...in the, was that the late '60s, early '70s?

TI: Yes. Yes. During that time, the term "paraprofessional" was being used, career ladders were being expounded. But my impression of those kinds of activities were that paraprofessional teacher, paraprofessional health aide, you name it. I (believed), were not giving the full authority to them, which I felt was demeaning. It was, certainly it wasn't empowering at all. It was just rubbing it in that they were not professional. So we devised this group home project with the concept of, that they are preprofessionals, they were all university students going full-time and working half-time in this project. They would have the authority to develop the program from the African American perspective, young African American perspective, how to help their younger brothers and sisters. And so although I was a professional and another person was a professional social worker, the authority was given to the line staff. Then thirdly, they were called counselors rather than paraprofessionals. And so when you have a label, role definition, and compensation equal to a professional, you begin to institutionalize the sense of real respect for people with a different background. Because I come with the conclusion we don't know (how to be effective with troubled black youth, other) cultural aspect of African American. So that's how it was designed. And with this chaos experience with the newspapers, we had to terminate it, we didn't terminate the concept. I adapted it to (providing) outreach (service) only. (We) got funded from State Law and Justice Committee and did a brief, (three year) successful demonstration.

In the meantime, I (was) a member of the State Law and Justice Committee, found out each state was going to get a state plan on planning a delinquency prevention plan. I assumed other professionals with a certain degree and experience will say, "I know how." And I felt, "No, they (didn't)." It would be tragic plan (based on their assumption), whereas if you come with my unusual perspective that we didn't know how to plan delinquency, we didn't know how to prevent it, we didn't know how to rehabilitate either. Our (resulting) plan would be different. So we submitted our proposal from the Center, and we got ours funded (for three years). We were the only state in the nation where a private little agency did the state planning. And fortunately I believe strongly that limiting my understanding to my own profession was a major error. I needed to have a (broader) perspective. So I had met this Bernie Salazar on another (citizens committee on crime). He was a (structural) engineer from Boeing. And his skill as an engineer was mind blowing to me in how he worked out some plans as a builder of Boeing jet, they (identified) what the major components of the jet, the engine, the body, the wing, tail, and then they (kept) breaking it down. There's a systematic order. He applied (his skills) to the (work of our) committee, working on delinquency. I hired him part-time as my designing consultant. Then I hired a Boeing economist who helped Boeing reduce its work force by 50 percent (in 1978). He had a real sharp, unusual mind in thinking. I needed that perspective. (I involved) other engineers, social workers, nurses, (and) educators, you name it. Each, I felt, had some part of that truth (within each of us).

When our three-year project was approved, (and at the conclusion of the three-year project), it became most systematic planning model in United States. And I thought (of some other) different (ideas). I said, "What did the White House Conference for Children and Youth say in 1970, say in 1960? What did professional groups like National Council of Crime and Delinquency recommend? What did other groups, noted groups, say? Maybe we should learn from everyone and organize it so we could see which groups recommended what recommendation." So that's what we did. And I worked with each region in the state of Washington with a staff person in charge. I went to each regional law and justice committee, and they practically said, "We know what we want. We just need to have radios in our police car." Way back then they didn't have it. "That would solve our problems." So I said, "If you could look through this list, see what you have funded already and what other groups have recommended, (and see applicability) to your community. You're the only ones -- but look at the menu of recommendations all over the place. They rejected my offer. So was a radical idea (to learn) from (past) histories, (and) recommendations. I had total rejection (from) all these officials from different regions in the state of Washington. I accept the fact that people want to create their own plan, (with) idea off the top of their heads. [Narr. note: The inability to take advantage of many knowledgeable persons over many decades recommending solutions was very discouraging.]

I was selected to be on a national committee to develop standards and goals for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. After about a year and a half or so, we had thirty-five consultants putting input from education point of view, justice point of view, rehabilitation point of view, you name it. It ended up to be a eight hundred-page document. I kept in touch with the national director of National Institute of Mental Health, and I said, "Why don't we have those few that had done a good job in researching and failed, (learn from those few exemplary efforts)?" So he says, "Well, Ike, why don't you try that out?" (and gave Ike opportunity for a) small grant on the West Coast. You pick four or five people and try it out." So we had that study and finally national said, "Okay. We like the idea," to write a book on how to do it, manage research in the community. That was done through the Jewish Board of Guardians, New York City. We met once a month, together a group of about eight of us conferred with each other and gradually the chapters took place.

So when you begin to see pieces like that, the role of the center being on the cutting edge, thinking, creating, developing, evaluating, I felt we were really doing the more respectful work for the center. And I kept it up. So it's been really satisfying work, hard work, but very challenging to be different and feeling comfortable being different. After a while you get used to it, but initially it's kind of rough because there are very few people that will listen to you. [Laughs] Well, that's par for the course. We were able to redo significant pieces, just like that seven-year study is one of the top ten studies of the nation during that time. We were able to keep the standard up that way. And fortunately I was able to meet with Bob Yamashita, Tacoma Community House, who was director (with a) similar kind of agency, (sponsored by the Methodist Church). I encouraged him to consider changing his community center approach to focus on something, and he chose Asian Americans and immigrants, refugees and (later) ended up in a brand new facility, big staff. He felt much better about what he was doing. It was worth his sweat, blood and tears. But I couldn't get any other, roughly a hundred (Methodist) centers across the United States to consider what I had done, but at least I challenged them, (but) no takers. [Laughs]

AI: Well, this is actually the beginning of a completely additional subject that we can discuss. But for now, let's take a break for now, and then we'll pick this up again later.

TI: Okay.

<End Segment 30> - Copyright © 2000 Densho. All Rights Reserved.