Juvenile delinquency is one of the nation's major unsolved problems. It is more than a headline issue, more than a matter of public safety. Nor is delinquency a single problem which calls for a single an

swer.

Delinquency is a tangle of profoundly interwoven problems that are inseparable from the social system in which we live. It is a chronic problem that will not yeild easily to efforts of prevention and control. Neither can it be resolved by crash programs leaving underlying social causes unchanged.

Delinquency is not a new or uniquely American problem. The particular forms and varieties of youthful antisocial behavior may change with the times, but delinquency remains an intrinsic part of industrial society. Today's expanding youth population, and the increasing complexities of modern life, call for innovative long-range programs--as well as immediate action--for dealing with youth problems.

There are different ways of looking at delinquency and its manifestations. One possible approach is to suggest that societies which place a high premium on freedom, initiative, and success should hardly expect to contain all of its members in a conventional mold. According to this approach, delinquency is one form of breaking out of that mold. Another related approach is to suggest that democratic societies always have to tolerate a fairly high percentage of nonconformity among youth. However, in any approach to delinquency, while nonconformity and unconventional behavior are factors to be recognized, the protecttion of society comes first. Ways must be found to deal with deviant behavior which leads to the destruction of property; criminal acts; or violence.

Destructive behavior needs to be channelled into constructive activity in order to reverse the effects of this social blight in our future generations.

Planning for the prevention of delinquency must be based on the realistic appraisal of the problem. Resources for coping with the problem must be adequate; and feasible programs need to be undertaken. However it is approached, the problem of juvenile delinquency needs to be recognized as a fundamental challenge to our ability to make the American dream mean something in a nuclear society.

The Size of the Delinquency Problem

With the single exception of 1961 the upward trend in juvenile delinquency rates has continued.

The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports and D/HEW's Juvenile Court Statistical Reports show not only spiralling rates of delinquency but increasing involvement of youth in serious crimes.

During the past decade (1960 thru 1969) the volume of police arrests of persons under 18 years of age for all offenses except traffic violations increased at a pace almost four times the percentage rate of increase in the national population. While the number of young people in the age group 10 to 17 increased 27 percent during this period, the arrest rate of persons under the age of 18 doubled. When only the Crime Index offenses are considered in computing this longterm trend, the rate of increase registers a startling 90 1 percent, for the decade.

Who Are The Delinquents?

Although the problem of juvenile delinquency remains concentrated primarily in the urban areas of the country, the statistics indicate a problem of considerable magnitude in the rural and suburban areas as well. According to the 1 96 9 Uniform Crime Report:

Nationally, persons under 15 years of age made up 10% of the total police arrests; under 18, 26%; under 21, 39%; and under 25, 51%. In the suburban areas, the involvement of the young age groups in police arrests is again markedly higher than the national figures with the under 15 age group represented in 13%; under 18, 35%; under 21, 50%; and under 25, 63%. In the rural areas, the distributions were lower for the younger age groups, with the under 15 group being involved in 5% of the cases; under 18 in 21%; under 21 in 38%; and those under 25, 53%. When only the serious crimes are considered 22% of all arrests in 1969 were for persons under the age of 15 and almost onehalf were under 18 years of age (p.33).

Likewise, the 1969 Juvenile Court Statistics show that juvenile court cases increased in all areas of the country. Nationally, juvenile court cases increased 9.9 percent in that year; urban courts experienced a 9.8 percent increase, while the increase in semi-urban courts was 9.2 percent and rural courts registered an 8.8 percent increase. The number of juvenile court cases handled by predominantly urban areas, however, was almost three times higher than in the rural areas. Sixty-six percent of all the cases were handled by the urban courts, 28 percent by semi-urban courts, and 6 percent by rural courts.

Drug offenses, too, are becoming increasingly prevelant among young people, as evidenced by the statistits contained in the 1969 Uniform Crime Report. In 1964, 23 percent of the persons arrested for Narcotic Drug Law violations, were under 21 years of age; by 1969, the percentage had jumped to 55 percent. When marijuana offenses alone are considered, 27 percent of the persons arrested were under 18 years of age, and 63 percent were under 21.

Statistics, however, tell only part of the story. As the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice pointed out in The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, "These reports (The Uniform Crime Reports and the Juvenile Court Statistics) can tell us nothing about the vast numbers of unsolved crimes or about the many cases in which delinquents are dealt with informally instead of being arrested or referred to court. 3

Indeed, various self-report studies indicate that ap

proximately 90 percent of all youth commit acts for which they might be brought to the attention of juvenile courts if apprehended.

Alarming as these juvenile delinquency statistics may be, however, it is necessary to view them in perspective.

In part, these increases are the result of better statistical reporting and better record keeping systems adopted by police departments and other official agencies. In part, they may stem from increased formal actions on the part of law enforcement agencies. In part, too, they are the product of a phenomenal increase in the youth population in recent years--a rate of increase which is significantly higher than for the adult population. And, in part, they are the conse. quence of an increasing urbanization which has exacerbated conditions in which delinquency rates have traditionally been high.

Moreover, despite the increasing involvement of juveniles in Crime Index Offenses, the majority of youth continue to be apprehended for "minor" crimes, and a significant number are arrested for actions which, if committed by an adult, would not be considered criminal.

In 1969, boys under 18 years of age were most often arrested for larceny and burglary. Large numbers, however, were also apprehended for disorderly conduct, curfew and loitering violations, and running away. Similarly, while a large number of girls under 18 were arrested for larceny, a significant proportion of both boys and girls were arrested for other violations of State and local laws which are not broken down in the Uniform Crime Reports, but rather are classified as "all other offenses, except traffic." This catagory encompasses such offenses as truancy, ungovernable behavior, and similar activities, as well as other offenses which pertain to both adults and juveniles.

Finally, the fact that a large percentage of juvenile crimes are committed in groups--the estimates range from 60 to 90 percent--may also result in "inflated" statistics which are out of proportion to the number of crimes actually committed.

Delinquency and The Inner City

Despite the rise in suburban delinquency, more often than not the world around the delinquent is the inner-city slum.

By 1980, 75 percent of the population of the United States will live in metropolitan areas. As has already been indicated, crime and delinquency rates