JUVENILE DELINQUENCY. There is no one accepted theory of the nature and causes of juvenile delinquency. The term usually refers to the child who comes into contact with an official law enforcement agency because of an alleged act of delinquency or misconduct. This is a limited definition, however, since it excludes many children committing similar acts who either are not apprehended or whose misdeeds are not seen as unlawful according to local statutes. A more accurate concept identifies as delinquent the child whose behavior, usually expressed in an anti-social manner, is contrary to the expectations of society as these are legally defined. Increasingly, the term juvenile delinquency is considered as describing not the quality of the child but rather his legal and social condition.

Significantly the 1950 White House Conference on Children and Youth did not use the term. The work group dealing with the subject discussed "children who rebel." Rebellion in this context is defined as the attempt of a child or youth to maintain and defend his integrity and dignity as a personality when these are threatened, damaged, or denied by other persons. Rebellion can begin

For addresses of periodicals listed see Appendix.

as a healthy expression of normal growth. It can also become anti-social and self-defeating.

Some persons see all delinquency as an expression of individual psychological conflicts; some, as almost exclusively the product of cultural and environmental situations. The importance of cultural factors in producing delinquency, rather than the economic determinism in vogue some years ago, is emphasized by a rising incidence of delinquency despite the ever-rising standard of living and increased economic well-being of America's families.

Those who believe delinquency to be a primarily psychological problem feel that while it may sometimes arise independently of the special social forces in any given culture, its expression is modified and undergoes change in accordance with the standards and values of each given culture. Their emphasis is that the dynamics of the underlying unconscious needs are the same in any society; that the deviate is the one who has difficulty in sublimating his wishes to those of the group. This theory holds that most cultures have contradictions in their values, as is illustrated in the difficulty of teaching the Golden Rule 1 See Witmer and Kotinsky, infra.

in the face of the need to teach a child how to get along in an intensely competitive economic environment.2

While it has been common to categorize delinquents into sociological delinquents, neurotic delinquents, with the recalcitrant "psychopathic" offender often a third group, this is a rigid classification and does not take into account the sociological setting which may permit the neurotic delinquent to express his conflicts in anti-social behavior, or the familial or environmental factors which push the so-called sociological delinquent into the street.

A simple society produces children who know what is expected of them. Our unstable and complicated society produces children who are unsure of themselves. Where we cannot offer children a firm understanding of who they are or assure them of what is true, desirable, or moral, of whether love or hate should prevail, we can hardly expect stability or ordered behavior from them.

There has been but meager application of our knowledge of personality to the forces engaged in treating so-called delinquents. All experts seem to agree that major changes are needed in our laws, services, and treatment practices to close the gap between modern knowledge and archaic practice. Wide public education is necessary if the public is to support the changes needed and if children are really to be treated and rehabilitated. For despite the great public clamor about juvenile delinquency the services are underfinanced, undermanned, and continue, in large measure, to be seen as in the correctional field rather than in the broad treatment fields of child welfare and mental health.

Incidence of Delinquency

Juvenile delinquency continued to increase during 1955 and 1956, according to the statistics currently available. The general trend in delinquency cases during the past fifteen years was upward during World War II. It reached a peak and went down slightly in the years after the war. In 1949 the downward trend was reversed and figures have 2 See Alt and Grossbard, infra.

continued upward each year since then. By 1954 the level of court-reported delinquents was 56 per cent higher than in 1948 and exceeded the previous high noted during World War II, while the child population between the ages of 10 and 17 years rose only 13 per cent.3

Data gathered by the U.S. Children's Bureau indicate that some half million children were brought into juvenile courts during 1955. Police arrests of young people under 18 in 1955 increased 11.4 per cent according to Uniform Crime Reports published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). One and one-half million children were picked up by the police. This represents one out of every twelve between the ages of 10 and 17 years. Current figures indicate that the ratio of boy delinquents to girls is five to one. The majority of boys coming before the court appear for larceny or malicious mischief. Girls most often appear for ungovernable behavior, running away, or sexual misbehavior. The majority of cases before the courts in 1954 were between 15 and 17 years of age, and 35 per cent were repeaters. It is said that more than five out of every ten adjudicated juvenile delinquents go on to commit one or more serious crimes for which they are convicted as adults.*

Juveniles represent one out of every ten arrests, three out of every five arrests for auto theft, one of every two burglary arrests, and four of every nine larceny arrests. There has also been an increase in the seriousness of the offenses, with a larger number of young persons under 18 years of age committing offenses such as robberies and auto thefts as well as crimes of violence.

Juvenile delinquency appears in both urban and non-urban areas. It is a more acute phenomenon in large metropolitan communities. For the first six months of 1956, New York City police reported a 42 per cent increase in "police" delinquency; Philadelphia reported a 20 per cent increase.

The two sets of statistics on delinquency

3 Juvenile Court Statistics, 1953, U.S. Children's 8 Bureau.

4 See Fine, infra.

which have the widest acceptance are those published by the Children's Bureau and the FBI. The former reports on cases brought to the attention of juvenile courts, the latter on those arrested by the police. Errors in the samples gathered lead to doubt as to whether the statistics really show what they purport to, namely the numbers of "court delinquents" and "police delinquents," respectively. Both agencies are dependent on voluntary reports from their sources, and while the number of responding agencies is impressive, they make up neither comprehensive nor representative samples as demanded by scientific sampling techniques. Further, the figures sent to the Children's Bureau show only the number of cases handled by juvenile courts and do not give the reasons for which children come into the courts-which may range from traffic violations and misdemeanors to homicide and arson. The Bureau's plan to collect data from a national sample of juvenile courts; using the Census Bureau's current population sample, may help to overcome some of these limitations.

Although there is considerable hue and cry on the part of the public, the press, and the experts concerning the alarming increase in juvenile delinquency, the fact is that there are no really adequate statistics on the subject. Those available, however, provide relative measures particularly in the comparison of areas.

Prevention and Research

Students of the subject point out that "prevention," as used by researchers and program operators, has no precise meaning. Witmer and Tufts, in 1954, described past research in this area and evaluated the findings. They found that prevention has had these meanings for researchers: (a) it is synonymous with the promotion of the healthy development of all children; (b) it is synonymous with reaching potential delinquents before they get into trouble; and (c) it means reducing recidivism and lessening the potential for serious offenses rather than reaching the non-offenders. Two general types of preventive programs were identified; (a) those

aimed at improving the environmental situation and (b) educational and therapeutic programs. Among the former are included Shaw's Chicago Area Project, the Chicago Recreation Commission study by Shanas and Dunning, Thrasher's Boys' Club Study, and Reed's study of a Cincinnati group work agency. Educational and therapeutic attempts include the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study by Witmer and Powers, the work of Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, Thrasher's Study of the Gang, the New York City Welfare Council's Harlem Youth Club project, and the work of the New York City Youth Board, Boston's Judge Baker Guidance Center, the Passaic (N.J.) Children's Bureau, and the St. Paul Experiment in Child Welfare.5

The Children's Bureau, in an analysis of the preventive attempts and their evaluative data, confirmed the general impression that they produced rather little of certain knowledge about how to reduce or prevent delinquency. The Bureau's conclusions, generally concurred in, were:

No panacea for preventing or reducing delinquency has been discovered.

Certain measures by themselves have been unable to reduce delinquency, such as counseling, recreation service, psychiatric service, and group work service.

A start has been made toward identifying the kinds of measures that are likely to lessen the delinquent acts of particular type of children. (For example, child guidance has been found to help youngsters with mild personality disorders and those whose problems came from distorted parent-child relationships. In slum areas, groups of neighbors seem able to behavior.) restore some delinquents to acceptable social

New measures have been developed to reach children unreached by the usual devices. (For example, "aggressive casework," with staff going out to the individual family or gang to get individuals who do not use the group work agency, family service agency, or psychiatric clinic. The principle of some of the prevention projects, that children and their families will respond if warm con

5 See Witmer and Tufts, infra.

tacts are made and help is given consistently, is followed.)

A significant and provocative methodological contribution in the study of juvenile delinquency was reported in 1955 by Lander, who made a study of 8,464 cases of juvenile delinquency in Baltimore, using 1939-1942 Juvenile Court Statistics and 1940 population data. Making an approach similar to that used in the Chicago studies of Shaw, Dr. Lander calculated census fact delinquency rates by race and sex, and correlated them with socioeconomic variables, such as housing, poverty, education, and so forth. Using the techniques of factor analysis, he showed that the slum community failed to produce social conformity because the inter-group conAlicts prevented the development of any sense of togetherness. He refers to this as "anomie," a concept introduced by the French sociologist Emile Durkheim and used more recently by Parsons and Merton.8 This refers to social disorganization and/or social resistability in which the power of the social norms to control the conduct of individuals is slight because the norms are not clearly expressed, or are conflicting norms. The means to achieve these norms or goals, in whatever state they exist, are attenuated. This condition understandably can find people at loose ends, not sure of how to act and not particularly concerned. Apathy, confusion, and conflict with the major cultural requirements could easily result in both adult and juvenile delinquency.

7

Analysis of Lander's work by students in the field suggest that it has the potential for giving us a more scientific understanding of delinquent behavior and its causes than we have ever had.

Juvenile Courts

A long-range view of society's handling of juvenile delinquents is marked by ever-lessening responsibility in the family and increased responsibility in official agencies.

The first juvenile court was established in Illinois in 1899. In 1938 a Federal Juvenile

6 See Lander, infra.

7 See Parsons, infra. 8 See Merton, infra.

Court Act was passed, providing special procedures for juveniles committing federal offenses.

The juvenile court is often represented as the most outstanding improvement in the administration of criminal justice since the Magna Charta in 1215. The fundamental idea of the juvenile court founders was to treat the child not as one legally charged with a crime, but as a ward of the state, to receive the care, custody, and discipline given the dependent and neglected child. The original act stated that these shall approximate as nearly as possible that which should be given by the parents.

Since 1899 every state has developed some special juvenile court law defining delinquency. Not all courts with jurisdiction over juveniles are specialized juvenile courts. In many cities, and most often outside of cities, the circuit court, court of common pleas, justice of the peace, probate court, or other court is given jurisdiction.

Most courts follow the original intent of the law by providing private hearings separate from adults, and not binding the judge with technical procedural rules. In recent years there has been considerable debate about the legal rights of children in these courts since the offenses in a petition for delinquency need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The arguments that civil rights of children are violated by discouraging presence of legal counsel and avoiding legal weighing of evidence are countered by the theory that the aim of the court is to rehabilitate rather than merely to adjudicate and punish.

Three points of view about the role of the juvenile court continue to prevail with considerable discussion and writing by proponents of each. They are:

1. That the court is primarily a social agency in which an ever-widening set of social services is provided for children. These include-aside from probation-institutional care, foster home care, child guidance services, and family counseling. The great emphasis on 'unofficial' cases reveals an increase in this trend. Some courts have developed a

41638 0-59-24

referee system, and in some jurisdictions there has been considerable development of the use of volunteer citizens' committees, counselors, and "big brothers" and "big sisters."

Close analysis would probably reveal that the development of these services grew not from the conception of the founders of the system but in the absence of community facilities and the reluctance of child-caring institutions and agencies to give service. Since they developed in such large numbers, a rationale was easily built fitting in with the philosophy underlying the establishment of juvenile courts.

Aside from objection to this view from a theoretical standpoint it is argued that this role for the court disadvantages children because it holds back the development of a complete set of basic child welfare services in a community and that it continues to keep dependent and neglected children under court auspices unnecessarily.

2. The opposite view is that the court should be limited to a legal and judicial role and that all administrative matters pertaining to the child should be handled by a social agency aside from the court. Proponents of this view insist that the judicial function is not to adopt wards but to create guardians. This theory holds that the parens patriae doctrine, often referred to as the historical and legal basis for the juvenile court, does not give sanction to the court or state to act as parent but rather that the court has the obligation to see that the child is properly parented. Turning the court into an administrative agency, this group says, not only prevents full exercise of legal and civil rights for the child but sacrifices some judicial values. It holds, for instance, that probation is not a judicial function. The court should, under this belief, come into action only when it is needed and should not be in any automatic continuing relationship to the child.

3. The compromise point of view is that the court should make the disposition as well as carry the judicial functions in every case where the rights of parent or child are involved. Disposition is based on facts brought out at the hearing. Unofficial handling of cases by the court is eliminated. Administrative agencies would not be allowed to make disposition after a finding of delinquency is made, but would have long-term care of children on commitment. More adequate protec

tion for civil rights of children in court would be provided.

The juvenile court has made tremendous contributions in the handling of the juvenile delinquency problem, but it has not realized its potential. After more than fifty years, it has been unable to disassociate itseif from the atmosphere of the criminal court. Parents and children themselves are not convinced that the court is either a good parent, a counselor, or a friend.

Experience and study have led one student of the subject to firm conclusions concerning needed steps and improvements, in and out of the courts, to better the situation. These

are:

1. To develop methods for choosing childrens' court judges by qualifications and to give them special training.

2. To render all probation services through casework agencies by imposing professional personnel and practice standards.

3. To provide courts which cannot afford their own with central statewide or regional diagnostic and classification services.

4. To make the best court effective, longterm community resources are needed. Particularly needed throughout the country are: (a) The expansion and improvement of temporary shelters for children.

(b) Development of more psychological testing and psychiatric diagnostic facilities to give service to the court.

(c) Expansion of public and voluntary community resources for outpatient casework and psychiatric treatment of children known to the court as requiring such help.

(d) Development of group residences and residential treatment homes for teen-age boys and girls who cannot return to their families after institutionalization.

(e) Development of more extensive and immediate treatment facilities by existing institutions or in the state hospitals.

(f) Development of adequate vocational and job placement facilities for boys and girls of graduating age both in and out of the school system.

(g) Clarification of mutual resources and the best system of liason between school and

court.

(h) Expansion of foster homes to serve many kinds of children with particular emphases on facilities for Negro children.

* See Kahn, A Court for Children (infra).