very useful in modifying unfair screening procedures used by private employers and civil service boards.

(5) Similar studies of job-seeking patterns have led to the development of demonstration efforts to provide bonding for youthful applicants with histories of delinquency who are not now bondable by private bonding agencies.

These are but a few examples of some of the exciting work begun in the last five years. Time does not permit me to describe equally exciting and innovative work dealing with such varied aspects of the problems as: residential treatment of youthful offenders on an Indian Reservation; methods of prevention of youthful riots at summer beaches; strengthening the ability of local communities to handle the deviant acts of youth without recourse to formal lawenforcement procedures; and the use of previously delinquent youth in preventing delinquency among their peers in the community.

Unfortunately these few brief examples can only touch upon the contributions made to programs of prevention and treatment by the more than 200 training and demonstration grants awarded by the Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development. It is clear to me that these programs have had an impact upon knowledge, policy, legislation, and program far exceeding the relatively modest funds which have thus far been expended.

I am particularly enthusiastic about those aspects of H.R. 7642 which will strengthen efforts to prevent and treat delinquency within the framework of the open community. I believe that most of our experience and knowledge points to the community as the place where our struggle with delinquency will either be won or lost. I am equally enthusiastic about that portion of H.R. 7642 which will provide expanded programs in demonstration and research. Again our experience and knowledge underlines the fact that delinquency is not a unitary concept and juvenile delinquents differ as much from each other as they do from the lawabiding youthful population. It is through continued, painstaking, and often frustrating demonstration and research efforts that we can hope to design programs which can more effectively deal with different types of delinquent acts and different types of delinquent actors.

I would like to call attention to an aspect of H.R. 7642 which I believe requires strengthening-training. All of us recognize the shortage of adequate numbers of competent personnel to operate the newly emerging programs. In order to make full and continued use of the programs launched by the new legislation, funds should be provided to insure the development of suitable curriculum materials and actual training of the wide variety of personnel who must be prepared if the new programs are to succeed.

In sum, as a person who has long been concerned with both delinquent and non-delinquent youth, I most strongly urge the early passage of H.R. 7642 to insure continuity in our country's efforts to cope with the problem of juvenile delinquency.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAURICE A. HARMON, COMMISSIONER, KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD WELFARE

I am Maurice A. Harmon, Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Child Welfare. I am pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you to discuss H.R. 7642, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967.

Kentucky's child welfare department, established in 1960, was the first independent state agency with cabinet status devoted exclusively to child welfare services and to services for delinquent children and youth. It is still the only state agency with complete responsibility for treatment and rehabilitation programs for delinquent youth, as well as responsibility for child welfare activities. Several authors have said that Kentucky has the most adequate organizational structure in the nation for services to children and youth.

The statutory responsibilities of my department cover the needs of children and youth from birth to the age of 18-and cover far more than responsibility for treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.

It is my considered opinion that the legislation now before you covers only a small portion of the responsibilities the federal government, state governments, and you and I as citizens share for the protection of children throughout the nation. I believe that H.R. 7642 in its present form may tend to complicate further the confusion created by the existing duplication and overlapping of granting programs.

In the field of child welfare, there are many program needs which experienced child welfare leaders throughout the country have been demanding for decades. They have expressed these needs in many ways and many words. Most of these words have not been heard.

Now that the needs of children have begun to be recognized at the federal level, we find grants for child welfare purposes scattered throughout the federal universe.

One finds identifiable child welfare grants in poverty programs, in mental health and health programs, in Title I of the Secondary and Elementary School Act, and in correctional programs.

Before I speak on the merits of H.R. 7642, I would like to make my position clear on this scattering of funds in the granting game.

The field of child welfare is specialized enough, and certainly big enough, to be considered as a separate entity, and the Children's Bureau at this time plays a second rate role in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, although programs directed toward the full development of children and youth might well be centered there.

The fact that only 25 million dollars has been set aside to implement a program of the magnitude and importance of this one in all fifty states amazes and saddens me. It indicates that the needs of children and youth are far down on the list of priorities today, when they should be close to the top in any list of important programs.

Child Welfare programs are not and should not be solely directed toward children who live in poverty. There are many psychologically neglected, disturbed, pre-delinquent, and abused youngsters who live in gracious homes on tree-shaded suburban streets who are in need of services child welfare agencies are prepared to give.

It is not clear, in H.R. 7642, who or what, at the State level, would coordinate "preparing or revising comprehensive State-wide or community-wide plans,' although 90 percent of the cost of such planning and revision would be underwritten by the Federal government.

I suggest, in order to bring about the coordination which H.R. 7642 is set up to establish, that a state agency should be established by executive order of each governor to administer and approve all such plans at the state level. This would avoid unnecessary duplication of programs and overlapping of effort. In my view, every effort should be made to avoid this kind of confusion in this extremely important program.

Title I, Part B and Part C of H.R. 7642 addresses itself to services to youths who are delinquent or in danger of becoming delinquent "whatever their legal status," supporting coordination and interaction between law enforcement agencies, the courts, other correctional institutions, and community social agencies. Again, the objective is important. With increased coordination between courts and social agencies, police would have the freedom to decide in individual cases whether the young offender should be referred to a community agency or to the juvenile court.

Another benefit to society and youth that would result from such coordination of law enforcement agencies and social agencies might be the reduction of "punishment by publicity." Juvenile courts are open to the press, as they should be, but it should be made clear-and judges and law enforcement officials should be able to implement this-that the names of juvenile offenders should not be publicized.

As Erik H. Erikson states the problem in his book, Childhood and Society, "Youth after youth, bewildered by his assumed role, a role forced on him by the inexorable standardization of American adolescence, runs away in one form or another leaves schools and jobs, stays out at nights, or withdraws into bizarre and inaccessible moods. Once he is 'delinquent,' his greatest need and often his only salvation is the refusal on the part of older youths, of advisors, and of judiciary personnel to type him further by pat diagnoses and social judgments which ignore the special dynamic conditions of adolescence. Their greatest service may be the refusal to 'confirm' him in his criminality."

Clear differentiation between freedom and responsibility of the press might well avoid two or three self-fulfilling prophecies a week in every town in the country. Branded "delinquent", adolescents frequently decide in earnest to earn the name. As to the merits of the bill before us, if adequate funds are allocated to fill the tremendous need for facilities and services, and if state agencies are designated to help with program implementation and plan-design at the local level, then the nation can proceed with its program of conservation of human resources.

I refer you to Title I, Part B, Section 124, which states that grants can be made for "meeting the cost of construction of unusual, and special-purpose or innovative types of facilities . . . such as combination detention and diagnostic facilities for delinquent youth, halfway houses for youths . . . small, specialpurpose, residential community-based facilities for diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of youths who are in or under the control or supervision of correctional institutions."

Adequate federal support of construction of such facilities could make state rehabilitation programs for youthful offenders as effective as they should beas effective as they should have been thirty years ago.

Consider the efforts of one state-Kentucky-last December Governor Edward T. Breathitt approved a long range capital construction plan for a series of small, regionally based detention-diagnostic centers and small institutions and forestry camps dedicated to the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders.

He took action because he is well aware of the urgency of the need for treatment facilities for delinquents. Recent federal reports indicate that delinquency cases increased by 58 percent between 1957 and 1965-almost double the 32 percent national increase in child population.

We estimate that in 1972, the Kentucky child welfare department's institutions for delinquents will have to accommodate 1,424 new commitments-a minimal estimate in view of the federal projections. Keep in mind the fact that this estimate is for institutional care only, and the figure does not include thousands of other children who will receive probation and placement services in their own communities.

Right now, in too many counties in my home state, young children, even before they are adjudged "delinquent," are held in county jails along with hopeless drunks and sophisticated criminals, simply because there are no other detention facilities available for them.

That's one reason the new facilities approved by the Governor are badly needed. Another reason is that in the last fiscal year our institutions continued to operate far above their rated capacities. We have one Reception-Diagnostic Center, with a rated capacity of 63 children. Its average daily population was 106.

Kentucky Village, a large co-educational treatment center, has a rated capacity of 200-average daily population was 432.

One of the forestry camps-the Alben W. Barkley Camp-had an average daily population of 34, although its rated capacity is 24. The two other forestry camps operated at the top of their capacity-simply because there is no room for more boys than they have.

Three new institutions are slated for early construction. By the end of this year, we will have a new camp-style treatment facility for younger boys, plus a treatment center for girls. Work will begin on a new regional receptiondiagnostic center if funds become available.

Only if State funds become available—and at this point it is a serious question that they will-six years from now, Kentucky will have a statewide complex of reception-diagnostic centers, eight new forestry camps, five halfway houses near the five regional reception-diagnostic centers, and a residential treatment facility for emotionally disturbed pre-delinquent children. The reception-diagnostic centers will also serve as detention centers so that children and teen-agers will no longer be detained in county jails.

With adequate federal financial support, these facilities could emerge from the uncertain planning state and become an immediate reality.

Future State funds for building purposes could be diverted to programming. More money would be available for obtaining and training personnel, for setting an extended foster care program in motion, for increasing the number of children in day care, and protective services. These programs would in themselves go a long way toward the prevention of delinquency.

There is no lack of ideas for complete development of children and youth in Kentucky, no lack of plans for helping troubled children of troubled families, and certainly no lack of administration support of those ideas. But the critical financial fact is that my state, along with many others, suffers from the fiscal inability to put plans into action. Federal help is required in order to do this. Remember, in World War II, when a friend was said to be "due for a Section 8"? You could see the symptoms-he might black out temporarily, become extremely agitated or extremely lethargic, or suffer from functional blindness or paralysis. He'd come up with inappropriate responses to routine events, and

sometimes well-established patterns of behavior would be disrupted, so that he seemed to be experiencing a character change.

I suggest that a large number of our youth is "due for a Section 8"-not as a result of combat fatigue, but from social and psychological fatigue. They suffer moral blackouts; they lack self-control, or they show an "I don't care" attitude that results in failure at school and at work. Their preceptions of reality are not the same as yours and mine; they see a different world; they march to a different drummer.

Regardless of the socio-economic level of the home, many suffer from psychological neglect and abuse. The result is they're only for themselves because past experience has taught them no one else is really for them.

In some cases, delinquency is a hostile striking back at a society from which the young feel estranged. In other cases, it's a cry for help.

Whatever the source, whatever the form delinquency takes, we can no longer afford it. Its cost in human resources-and financial resources-is too high. We can't afford it any more than we can afford a polio or typhoid epidemic. We gladly support research that wipes out danger from physcial disease, and when a cure is found, children are the first to be inoculated. The same responsibility should be assumed to prevent social and moral breakdown.

We must accept the responsibility for our delinquent youth; we must work on the effect while research looks for the cause. We may find that delinquency is a disease that results from ethical, cultural and social malnutrition-and we may find a way to prevent it.

The federal government can provide new research, more questions, new answers, and adequate treatment programs and resources by escalating the war on delinquency.

Adequate funds should be allocated to support research, treatment and rehabilitation goals. Each state should be required to establish an agency dedicated to children and youth which would be responsible for statewide coordination with all pertinent agencies and which would also be responsible for the application for, and the use of, funds received from federal granting programs.

SUMMARY

I believe that H.R. 7642, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967, is a long overdue step in the right direction.

Demands created by physical and psychological neglect and abuse of children must be met, but the reality of the situation is that many (if not most) state governments simply do not have the financial resources to meet them. The attached graphs illustrate the growing demand for child welfare services in Kentucky over the last six fiscal years.

1965 Juvenile Court Statistics published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare state that between 1957 and 1965 delinquency cases increased by 58 percent-almost double the 32 percent national increase in child population.

I have serious reservations about the bill in its present form:

1. Establishment of yet another source for grants in aid without setting requirements for coordination and clearance at the state level might well result in duplication of effort and overlapping of programs.

The bill should be amended to require the establishment of such a central coordinating agency in each state if the state desires to participate.

2. The amount of federal funds allocated by H.R. 7642-twenty-five million dollars-is inadequate to meet the stated purpose of the legislation.