school, out-of-work youth; neighborhood-based multiservice centers; neighborhood legal services; and the training and hiring of indigenous subprofessionals. These and many other innovative attempts to counteract delinquency have been stimulated by more than 200 demonstration and training grants provided under the act. Some of the attempts have been clearly successful and are readily transferable to communities across the Nation. Some have been inconclusive and others have failed altogether. Since the main object was to test new methods and find new solutions, both the successes and the failures have taught us something. I would like to mention here some of the most salient things we have learned. We have learned that the labeling of the young offender as an official delinquent can damage and isolate him. A study at Harvard, for example, has shown that the more involvement of an individual with the juvenile justice system increases the chances that he will return to that system; and commitment to correctional institutions may serve to reinforce delinquent values and negative attitudes toward authority. Correspondingly, we have found that the best programs are those that keep first offenders out of the correctional process. Excellent results were obtained in reducing court referrals where a community team was set up to assist the police in securing needed help from community agencies in working with troubled youth. In another case where students had become unmanageable in the classroom, a special program involving tutoring, employment in community service projects and parental group counseling enabled almost all of the participants to return to school within 6 months. We have also learned that aberrant or delinquent behavior, particularly among low-income minority youth, is often based on having no meaningful role in legitimate society. Demonstration projects in New York, the District of Columbia, Michigan, and elsewhere have shown that one way to rescue underachievers, delinquents, and even dropouts is to ask them to help instruct younger children. The lower graders, in almost all cases, showed a noticeable rise in involvement and achievement. Equally significant was a rise in the achievement and attitude of the tutors. In one project the experimental tutors made more than 100-percent gains over the control group in reading achievement. And particularly relevant to our discussion here, there was a marked decrease in law violating behavior among participants. Another thing we have learned is that bringing youth into a constructive relationship with the police and other symbols of authority can have an impact on delinquency. One program which trained youth as police aids produced a marked improvement in the attitudes of youth and police toward each other. Similarly, a well-known project in Hampton Beach, N.H., has provided valuable guidance on preventing youth violence at resort areas. These and other experiences have shown that many delinquents can be worked with in the community without undue danger to society and that the behavior of a large number of delinquent youth can be changed without having to subject either them or the State to the costly and negative consequences of confinement. In the past the community and its institutions have all too often dealt with youth teetering on the brink of delinquency by unloading them on the correctional system. These experiments show (a) that the community can deal with these young people in a way that prevents delinquency and (b) that representatives of the correctional system can work with the community in that process. The President has proposed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967. This act will support efforts to put into action the best that we have learned. It complements the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act. Together, these proposals take a long and carefully measured step toward implementing the recommendations of the President's commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Althought its implications are broad, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act is a relatively simple proposition; it has only two titles and it would authorize $25 million for 1968 and necessary sums for the next 4 fiscal years. The four principal thrusts of the bill are planning, integrating correctional and community services, providing nonjudicial alternatives, and research. Planning Under the act, States and communities could develop plans to link correctional resources with the whole range of community resourceseducational, job training, mental health programs, and the like-for focused prevention and control activities. States could also provide technical assistance to localities in developing delinquency plans and programs. Integrating correctional and community services Law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional agencies could receive help to make full use of community resources for the treatment and rehabilitation of youth who have come to their attention or under their jurisdiction. Official agencies would be encouraged and enabled to improve the handling and disposition of cases prior to adjudication. Courts and correctional agencies could develop alternatives to the traditional practice of probation and parole, through broader access to the resources of community institutions and the greater assumption of advocacy roles by probation and parole officers. A principal need facing probation and corrections is a greater range of alternatives to traditional forms of incarceration to encompass the varying needs of offenders. This legislation would support development of these alternatives. Among the most promising alternatives to full incarceration are various kinds of group treatment programs carried out in communities. Another avenue is to develop different types of residential settings based on models already in existence geared to the requirements of different types of delinquents. These might include family type group homes, peer group residences, hotels, work camps, and youth rehabili tation centers. Each agency receiving support for such rehabilitative facilities. would be asked to relate its programs to the schools, employers, and other community institutions. Providing nonjudicial alternatives One of the central dilemmas in the field of delinquency prevention and treatment is how to give special help to young people in trouble without separating them from their communities. To unravel this dilemma we will need to have new and different kinds of community agencies for dealing with delinquents nonjudicially and close to where they live. The bill would help carry out one of the Crime Commission's major recommendations for youth with special needs-the establishment of a special youth agency in the community to which other agencies can refer and upon which families and youth can call. Such an agency would give priority to youth referred by police or courts, but would be a resource for young people with many other kinds of problems and needs-so it would not be stigmatized as a place for youth in trouble. It could offer, either directly or through other agencies, a full range of services and opportunities-counseling, employment, training, family life education, creative arts, and opportunities for youth to participate in a range of community activities. Members of its staff might be located in schools, recreation centers, and other agencies to keep track of youth having difficulties and to put them in touch with appropriate sources of help in the community. Because of the important relationship between school experiences and delinquency, States and communities would be given incentives to develop new ways of "rescuing" truants and other students in trouble by channeling them back into the educational process rather than referring them to juvenile court. Research The bill would support research in the causes of and solutions for the problems of delinquency. With this new authority it would be possible to develop long-term commitments to a research and evalua tion system. We would plan to try out arrangements such as uni versity-based institutions tied directly to community service agencies. We would encourage research as a significant part of State and local programs. We still know all to little about the causes and cure of delinquency. Research results, when obtained, must be fed back to the agencies and individuals who will put them to use. We have already done this to some extent, particularly in our cooperative efforts with private organizations such as the National Council on Crime and Delinquency. But we plan to do more. Mr. Chairman, this legislation, if enacted, and properly linked to broader prevention measures, will provide the help for substantial reductions in juvenile delinquency and youth crime. More importantly, it holds the hope of a new start for many youths who may otherwise have been condemned to lives of chronic dependency and crime. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I will be glad to answer any questions. I have with me Assistant Secretary Ralph Huitt, Assistant Secretary Lisle Carter, and Miss Virginia Burns. Mr. PUCINSKI. We certainly want to thank you for this excellent statement, Mr. Secretary. There is no question that with this proposal you have zeroed in on the need for some meaningful assistance to the local communities to meet this great unmet need of America. Obviously, your statement and the bill before us now reflect what we have learned in the last 6 years since we first passed the Juvenile Delinquency Control Act of 1961. I remember well President Kennedy's great desire for that legislation. At that time, in submitting that legislation, the President said that it would provide Federal help to start on some demonstration research projects that would begin to give us some concrete answers on how to proceed with this problem of juvenile crime. My only concern with this legislation, and I think it is a serious concern, Mr. Secretary, is that while we may set up this very hopeful formula, spelled out throughout the bill, we only suggest authorizing $25 million for this whole program. If you were to divide that among the 50 States I am wondering if we aren't slipping into a kind of "tokenism" that is not going to have the real impact on local communities that it could have. I am mindful of the problems, and we are mindful of the need for staying within budgetary limits. But it would seem to me, Mr. Secretary, that we would be very wise to giving serious consideration to authorizing substantially more money in this field and try to save it someplace else. I see here a program that could be of meaningful, positive help to local communities, but I do not think we are going to go very far with $25 million. Would you have any thoughts on that? Secretary GARDNER. As you know very well, each of these decisions with respect to requested levels of authorization have a long history and we make them in terms of a great many other decisions we are making at the time we are putting together the budget and our new legislation. It is extremely difficult to go back and trace out the processes that lead to this. We are under budgetary constraints, as you know. We felt in this program, where the main thrust is still experimental and demonstrative, this amount would carry us very well for the year. Mr. PUCINSKI. You would have no objection, then, if we specifically earmarked some sums for the following years in the legislation? We merely say "and such sums as may be necessary for the next four fiscal years." Would you have any objection if we put set figures so that local communities would have some idea of what they could shoot for in 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, rather than leaving this kind of open end thing where no one really knows where we are going? Secretary GARDNER. I have no objection. Mr. ASHBROOK. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Pucinski. It reminds me of a statement Alben Barkley made when we passed the full employment bill. He said it gave everyone the right to go out and look for a job. This gives everyone the right to stay out of trouble. I am most interested in the 200 projects we had. Were those in all 50 States? Secretary GARDNER. They pretty well covered all 50 States. Mr. ASHBROOK. I do not have in the back of my mind the figure for the Job Corps this year. How much are we spending on the Job Corps? Secretary GARDNER. That is out of my bailiwick. Mr. ASHBROOK. I am told it is $210 million. It seems to me rather strange to spend $210 million on the Job Corps, which, I am sure, has some close relation to the total problem of delinquency, but it would seem to me that we should put a little more attention on the juvenile delinquency. On page 4 you say We require young people to spend more time than ever in waiting and preparing to assume their place in adult society. Mr. Pucinski recalled the statement of the late President Kennedy. I remember very well when Senator Ribicoff, who was then Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, appeared before the committee and he made a rather caustic statement. I wonder if you have some thing like this in mind. He said when he was a boy, most of the things that he was able to do to help keep him out of trouble are now illegal. He couldn't now work in most of the places and occupations where he worked. I know in many cases we appear to keep our young people out of work. Secretary GARDNER. I think a much more serious problem today is that entry into the work force so often requires a level of skills that just means the passage of time and education. There are more jobs that require some measure of training. Mr. ASHBROOK. What you mean, then, is that by spending more years in education we are, in effect, keeping them out of jobs. Secretary GARDNER. That is the bulk of the delay, the requirement of the modern world for skills, for skilled hands. Mr. ASHBROOK, While your statement is very fine, and I followed it very carefully-it seemed to present the problem in very close detail-I would be interested in maybe several succinct statements as to the last program we passed in 1961, those features which we want to change and those features which we want to incorporate in new programs. १ On the basis of that experience of some areas that we have found do not work well and some areas which should be emphasized which were not addressed in that program. Do you have anything to say on the subject? Secretary GARDNER. I will make a general comment and ask Assistant Secretary Carter to comment more specifically. My general com |