To Extend the Provisions of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968

to concerns of state and local government which has been lacking in HEW's administration of the Juvenile Delinquency Act.

It may be appropriate to consider improving the operation of this program and its coordination with other criminal justice programs by placing prime responsibility for distribution of funds for juvenile delinquency programs under LEAA. Such a structuring would limit the bureaucratic competition which has harmed the effectiveness of both programs in the past. Some may argue that shifting administration to LEAA would reduce visibility for the juvenile delinquency program, but it is hard to imagine a lower visibility and bureaucratic interest than HEW has given the program during the past three years. Others may argue that granting control to LEAA will result in too great an emphasis on the enforcement aspects of the juvenile delinquency problem, but HEW has already granted responsibility for drawing up state juvenile delinquency plans to the LEAA supported state planning agency in all but five states, and it is LEAA not HEW that is pushing these state agencies to give greater support to court and corrections programs. We believe that LEAA, given a sufficient Congressional mandate, could effectively administer the program while retaining for it the special and distinct emphasis and concern about juvenile problems which is demanded by the enormity of needs for action in the juvenile delinquency area.

It must be emphasized, however, that any Federal effort in the juvenile delinquency area must not be merely made a part of the Safe Streets Act. The Safe Streets Act has provided valuable assistance to many localities for juvenile delinquency programs and a broad range of other efforts in the criminal justice field. However, the Act and its administration have been beset by many difficulties primarily created by its emphasis on block grants to states as a method of fund distribution. This distribution pattern has, in many instances, resulted in inadequate funding for juvenile delinquency projects and other criminal justice programs in urban areas which have traditionally been shortchanged in any fund allocation processes where state governments play a role.

To assure its effectiveness, Federal support for juvenile delinquency prevention and control efforts should remain as a separate statutory authorization independent of the Safe Streets Act. However, administration by LEAA rather than HEW may be appropriate to assure that better coordination of the Federal response in the criminal justice area and a more efficient manner of program administration than HEW has been able to provide. A new program so structured could also take advantage of the state level comprehensive planning already being supported by LEAA and thus turn its attention from planning to action programs at the state and local level to improve juvenile delinquency prevention and control functions. Accordingly, we suggest that the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968 be rewritten along the following lines: 1. Program administration transferred from HEW to LEAA.

2. Removal of any matching requirements for states and localities desiring assistance under the program. Such has been suggested for the Safe Streets program under President Nixon's Law Enforcement Special Revenue Sharing proposal and is fully justifiable in light of the extreme financial crisis which prevails in many cities. A city should not be prevented from receiving assistance to control juvenile delinquency, or for any other matter because it cannot raise the cash to pay its share.

3. Authorization for direct grants from the Federal government to states and local governments for juvenile delinquency prevention and control programs. 4. A substantial increase in program authorizations to a level of at least $100 'million.

5. Allocation of a portion of appropriated funds on a formula basis to major cities and counties for them to use in juvenile delinquency and prevention control programs developed at the local level without first having to proceed through a maze of state or Federal red tape for approval. Reasonable Federal performance criteria for local programs receiving assistance would assure innovations and positive programs and would also give the Federal government a better idea of local program performance and improve Federal capacity to measure the effectiveness with which Federal funds have been spent. Such a formula grant procedure will only work, however, if the money is directed to those units of government which will be directly administering the aided projects. A formula grant proposal channelling money through states as under the present Safe Streets Act would leave localities with the same problems of bureaucracy and red tape as they currently face dealing with Federal agencies. Also the state channeled pattern places localities at the mercy of a fund distribution unit which

has traditionally been more hostile to local needs and interests-particularly the needs and interests of urban areas-than the Federal government.

6. Use of the remainder of the funds for grants to be distributed at the discretion of LEAA to states and localities. Such a program would allow LEAA to supplement programs of particular merit among those localities which are receiving formula grants and provide resources to other agencies whose programs were not funded under the formula grant process.

Such a restructuring would give local agencies greater flexibility in using juvenile delinquency funds, assure that Federal funds were used more effectively on projects of greatest need at the local level, and provide a program of greater visibility to assure more support for a Federal goal of improving juvenile justice services.

NLC/USCM COMMENTS ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY GUIDELINES

We have reviewed the Draft Regulations for Grants under the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968. In reviewing these guidelines, we have noted a number of general problems which, if not corrected, may very seriously limit the effectiveness of this program and its usefulness for local governments in efforts to prevent and control crime. We have a number of general comments which will be listed and followed by comments on specific sections.

GENERAL COMMENTS

The proposed guidelines must be carefully reviewed to determine the extent to which they may frustrate attempts to coordinate the Juvenile Delinquency program with other relevant programs such as those under the Model Cities Act and the Safe Streets Act. The draft guidelines would appear to present serious difficulties for coordinating this program with other Federal, state and local programs. Particularly troublesome are long lists of information which must be provided to receive a grant and long lists of evaluative factorsgetting as long as "A" through "S"-which HEW suggests will be used in evaluating the grants. These lists set up what are essentially check-lists against which the program will be measured. These lists will force grant applicants to design their programs and planning processes, according to the structure suggested in these check lists. Programs under the Safe Streets Act, and Model Cities Act and other related statutes which permit a good deal more state and local freedom in setting administrative and program structures may have to be substantially revised to comply with forms imposed under these guidelines. Such an imposed structure will have the effect of stifling state and local initiative in developing programs and structures fitted to their particular local conditions. The practical result is likely to be that use of the Juvenile Delinquency Program, because of the small amount of money available, will be curtailed in many communities that already have smoothly functioning programs under Safe Streets, Model Cities and other related statutes, and do not want to restructure these programs to comply with the strict program structure mandated by HEW.

Coordination of other programs with this program will also be difficult because HEW requires a large and rather closely defined membership for governing boards to oversee program planning activities. Thus, even where coordination is attempted, the input of these governing boards, which may be different from the governing boards overseeing other programs, may prevent any real coordination because of differing views of these boards from those of other programs. The guidelines make the point that coordination with other programs should be maximized. However, the way the guidelines are devised, it appears that they are really saying that coordination of other programs should be maximized but only according to conditions, and sometimes rather lengthy conditions, laid down by HEW. The Draft Guidelines do not leave sufficient room for adjustment of the Juvenile Delinquency Program to successfully coordinate with other related programs to develop the best prevention and control program for each individual community.

STATEMENT OF MILTON G. RECTOR, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY, NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.

In preparing this statement it is our understanding that the Subcommittee wishes to focus critically upon the role the federal government has played and

should play in helping to control juvenile delinquency. Therefore our NCCD staff have analyzed the 1970 programs of the two principal federal agencies with statutory responsibility for federal juvenile delinquency programs.

The Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention Administration of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act; the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the Department of Justice for the Safe Streets Act.

As a private sector organization whose purpose is both to assist and to constructively criticize the public agencies the NCCD offers its statement and recommendations from the vantagepoint of close relationships with federal, state and local government agencies for over 60 years.

Copies of the detailed state by state summaries from which our assessment is made are appended to this statement. I hasten to add that it is easy to be critical of programs as new as HEW/YDDPA and LEAA. It is more difficult to recommend helpful changes to meet obvious weaknesses. There has not been time to measure the effectiveness of the grants in terms of delinquency reduction. Both agencies have the advantage of not having to start without a knowledge base. The three Presidential commissions on crime, disorder and violence have reported the major delinquency problems facing the nation and recommendations drawn from the opinions of many of the nations most knowledgeable authorities. There is wide agreement on the seriousness of delinquency in America and the fact that the solutions of much adult crime will be found in the solutions of juvenile delinquency. However:

1. There is the same lack of coordination and concerted planning among the federal agencies that was found in the early 1950's.

2. The continual shifting of organizational structure and requests for small appropriations has shown little commitment by HEW leadership over the years to mount and sustain a federal delinquency program commensurate with the problem. HEW has demonstrated even less interest in the contributions the behavioral science could make to the prevention of adult criminal behavior. 3. The lack of appropriations to match even the small budget authorizations for HEW delinquency programs shows little commitment by Congress to really do something about delinquency.

4. It was the expectation and possibly the intention of many that LEAA would pick up on the priority of delinquency where HEW had failed. But our study shows that in 1970 LEAA committed only 14.3 percent of its resources to plans for delinquency programs. Because many approved plans do not develop into programs 14.3 percent is a gross figure.

5. In 1970 about one third of the limited HEW/YDDPA appropriations were spent for planning and supportive services and the remainder were scattered throughout the country in small underfunded and uncoordinated programs.

6. The comprehensive planning recommended to the states and cities to qualify for the LEAA block grants is not a condition for receiving delinquency related grants from numerous other federal agencies and departments. In fact a major weakness is the lack of a structure at present where federal juvenile and criminal justice planning can be coordinated with other human resources agencies. Such a structural linkage is recommended as essential if the federal government is to help prevent as well as to help control crime and delinquency. 7. The introduction through the Safe Streets Act of the concept of state and metropolitan planning agencies could bring systematic planning out of chaos for the coordinated allocation of federal, state and local resources. The planning agencies, if broadened to include expertise from the health, education, welfare and other related fields, could become the most significant development to date in the delinquency as well as in the crime field.

However, the delinquency program plans as submitted to LEAA and HEW/ YDDPA in 1970 reveal a wide disparity in planning capability by the state agencies with the majority delivering a poor product.

For our analysis we have grouped the programs of LEAA and HEW/YDDPA into seven program categories. These categories are: public education, informal community reaction, community-centered treatment programs, institutionalcentered treatment programs, prevention programs, staff development programs, and drug related programs.

Public Education Programs are generally poorly conceived, inadequately funded, and have little apparent relevance. Most of these programs are little more than police public relations programs, under another name. More funding for this category of programs does not appear to be an answer. In many the goal is so diffuse and unrealistic that it is questionable whether it could be accomplished with any amount of money. Many of the programs would promote

the public image of the state planning agencies or some other political units but have nothing to do with crime and delinquency.

The Informal Community Reaction Programs in our opinion are the most promising category as far as a new hope for delinquency treatment is concerned. Unfortunately, these hopes are dashed by the poor quality of programs submitted. They are grossly underfunded, poorly conceived, and most often developed in total isolation of other resources and activities within the state or community. Lip service is given to the concept of diversion from the criminal justice system which is a key component of such programs. But very few even have mechanisms within them for such diversion. The term Youth Service Bureau is often referred to, but seldom adequately developed.

The Community-Centered Treatment Program is the most popular category to receive support. The majority of programs in this area are extensions of probation and parole programs and the formation of halfway houses. While such programs are necessary and needed they should be coordinated and developed with the other programs within the juvenile justice system. Many are not.

The Institutional-Centered Programs are characterized by their shortsightedness and lack of imagination. In general, they represent only larger and more complex configurations of existing institutional structures. With the present overuse and unsuccessful use of institutions it is unfortunate when any federal funds are granted for institution construction before community treatment programs are developed to the maximum. The only encouraging aspect of programs within this category is the expenditure of some funds to take juveniles out of adult institutions.

Delinquency Prevention appears to enjoy the lowest priority in both LEAA and HEW. Rather than wrestle with the thorny problems of prevention, they allocate most of their funds to plans for institutional treatment. Very few of the programs called prevention appear to have any promise.

Delinquency programs are service programs based on human interaction, not mechanical technology. Unfortunately highest priority is not given to programs designed to improve the number and function of such service programs for juvenile offenders. There is an apparent commendable beginning of volunteer and paraprofessional progams, but, these are almost always severely under-budgeted and under-staffed. HEW in 1969, made major efforts to support youth service training programs, but these appear to be losing popularity.

Drug problems of youth are a major issue today. But, drug related programs receive significantly less than 10% of the federal government's juvenile delinquency support. Much of this is general directed toward public education programs for teachers and youth. Treatment programs for youth drug abusers are few. Of the hundreds of programs funded, only four address themselves to drug treatment. Our review of the state plans indicates the need for much more technical assistance, training and guidance for state and metropolitan planning agencies than is evident in the results of their work to date. More time will also be required before criminal justice planning and administration can be developed and recognized as professional rather than political skills. While capable planning and priority setting are still minimal under the present requirements it is difficult to see how they will improve if all federal controls and requirements are eliminated from the block grant program as is recommended by the revenue sharing concept.

Of related concern is a recommendation which appears many times before in the reports of the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the U.S. Senate: All cases of juvenile delinquency should be remanded from the federal courts to the local juvenile courts. At this time when the greatest potential is in rehabilitation within the community rather than in institutions it is illogical to transport youngsters from their communities to federal institutions. The continuation of such practice is even less logical when there is a federal leadership and appropriation program for the purpose of strengthening delinquency prevention and treatment programs in each state and community.

INDEX: APPENDIX A

Forenote: Definition of Categories.

Part A: LEAA Programs:

1. LEAA Programs by Category.

2. LEAA Juvenile Delinquency Effort by State. 3. State Rankings: Juvenile Delinquency Effort. 4. State Programs by Category.

Part B: HEW/YDDPA Funded Programs:

5. Programs by Category (1970).

6. Total Effort by State (1970).

7. Distribution of Programs by Category (1969-1970).

8. Distribution of Programs by Category and Percentage (1969-1970).

9. Distribution of Resources by Category (1969-1970).

10. Distribution of Resources by Category and Percentage (1969-1970). 11. Funded Programs by Category and State (1970).

12. Funded Programs by Category and State (1969).

Part C: HEW-LEAA Comparisons:

13. HEW-LEAA Comparison by Percentage of Programs by Categories (1970).

14. HEW-LEAA Comparison by Percentage of Resource Allocation by Cate gories (1970).

Books

To Extend the Provisions of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control ...