Mr. FORD. Law enforcement and crime prevention, with emphasis on the specific acts that become antisocial.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Would my colleague yield?

I think perhaps part of this may be due to the fact that the Secretary will administer this, and not the Justice Department.

Mr. FORD. Except that it is going to be administered, as Mr. Clark points out in his testimony, at least to some extent in cooperation with his Department, so that there will be, at the Federal level, cooperation that does not frequently exist at the State level.

Mr. CLARK. I think the cooperation is highly desirable. I think if you look at the total administration program, you will find much more going toward the environmental problems of youth than you do toward the law enforcement side.

I think we know that even in crime itself, the part detected, the part even reported, is only that part of the iceberg that is above the water. Probably more than 50 percent, generally, of all crimes committed are not even reported.

So we have got to work with the people in a much more comprehensive way than merely through law enforcement, but we have got to work firmly, and we have got to work effectively in law enforcement,

too.

I think we have to have a blending between our social work with youth that the Department of HEW is engaged in on a broad scale, with corrections and with the law enforcement agencies, and I think this act, in conjunction with the Crime Control Act and the coordination between the Secretary of HEW and the Department of Justice that each visualizes is a very effective way of going about it.

Mr. FORD. At the same time that the part of our court system that deals with the adult criminal is becoming more and more conscious of him as a whole person, with problems going beyond the specific act that brings him before the court, we find that we are subjecting these young people to a court system that has not advanced in this

way.

In my own State of Michigan, in the large cities, we have judges who are able to devote time to the special problems of juvenile crime, but in the majority of our counties, although certainly not the majority of the population of the State, we find that these young people and their problems are reached only by the courts that have absolutely no contact with antagonistic proceedings at either the civil or criminal level.

This court acts pretty much like a benevolent parent. As a matter of fact, that is the theory of the entire treatment of these young people by the courts in a good deal of the rural parts of our State.

And in recent years I have had the opportuinty to be in a legislative body that has studied the courts of other States, looking toward a guide to a remaking of our own system, and we found this is not uncommon throughout the the country.

I am hoping that we can do something to stimulate interest in moving this part of our court system forward, and I wonder if you think that the legislation we have before us, coupled with the other legisaltion proposed in the President's package, is likely to have that as one of its results.

Mr. CLARK, I surely think that one of the results will be a redefinitition of the mission of the juvenile court, and a provision of new resources and implementation in the commitment to this mission. Mr. FORD. Thank you very much.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Clark, we are very grateful to you for coming down here this morning.

As you can see, the members have spent a great deal more time with you, because it is a subject of tremendous interest to all of them, and they do want to come up with a meaningful piece of legislation. We will be in touch, of course, with you as we go along in considera

tion of the bill.

I want to apologize to you for keeping you longer than I promised I would.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Pucinski.

We want to be of any assistance we can, and it is a privilege to appear before your distinguished committee.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you so much.

Our next witness is Mr. James Vorenberg, Executive Director of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice.

Mr. Vorenberg obtained leave from his duties at Harvard University to accept the office as Special Assistant to the Attorney General. He was named by President Johnson to become the Executive Director of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1965.

Most of you have the report of the President's Commission before you. I think it is a most significant document, and I can think of no one more qualified to tell us about the problems that the local communities have had than the witness before us, because he had made a very thorough and intensive study of the indiginous problems.

I might say, introducing Mr. Vorenberg, that a question was asked a little while ago about State and city and Federal relationships. This act does provide for the creation and development of a comprehensive plan covering the respective jurisdictions based on a thorough evaluation of problems of juvenile delinquency and youth in danger of becoming delinquent in the State.

Mr. Vorenberg, as you go along, I do hope that you will perhaps refer to this particular aspect of the legislation.

We are indeed very happy to have you here.

You have a prepared statement, and that will go in the record at this time in its entirety.

Perhaps we can make more rapid headway, here, if you would just briefly summarize it, and go right to the question as to what you have

seen.

The members have some extremely interesting questions, and I would like to give them time this morning to develop some of these questions. Mr. VORENBERG. I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. (The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY JAMES VORENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

As Executive Director of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, I am very glad to appear before this Committee in

connection with the proposed Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967. As the Commission's Report to the President, "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society," released last February, indicates, the most disturbing single aspect of the Nation's crime problem is the deep and growing involvement of young people in crime.

Perhaps one of the most startling facts is that 15-year-olds commit more FBIIndex offenses (the seven most serious crimes) than any other single age groupclosely followed by 16-year-olds. Half of the arrests for larceny, burglary and motor vehicle theft involve youths between the ages of 11 and 17, even though they constitute only 13% of the population. And almost 3 of the arrests for wilful homicides, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults involve youths between the ages of 18 to 24, even though they are only 10% of the population.

And perhaps most disturbing of all is that if we look at the relative mix of the population in the years just ahead, the proportion of people in these high-crime age groups will continue to increase. One indication of that is that 4 of the population today is 10 years old or younger. Thus, if we hold everything else constant-just go on doing what we are doing today-we can confidently predict that there will be in the next 5 to 10 years a very large increase in the crime rate, simply as a result of population changes. In a sense, we are going to have to move very fast just to hold our own. And if we want to reduce crime in this country, we will have to make radical changes in what we do and in the resources we make available.

In view of the difficulty of apprehending offenders and in view of the high recidivism rate among those who are arrested and convicted, the Crime Commission recommended that major emphasis be placed on delinquency prevention. It noted that much of what is necessary to prevent delinquency involves strengthening of major social institutions-families, schools, employment services.

The Commission also put great emphasis on the allocation of resources to deal with juveniles at the early signs of trouble. At the heart of the Commission's program in this connection was the recommendation that each community should establish a "Youth Service Bureau" to provide services lacking in the community, especially those services of major importance to less seriously delinquent juveniles. The existence of such bureaus would give the police, the juvenile courts, parents, schools and other agencies the opportunity to refer juveniles to an agency that would seek to work out these problems in the community, rather than injecting them into the often unproductive spiral of the criminal system. In many cases, the bureau would go to bat for youth who are now shut out or pushed to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to getting help from an employment service, a training program, or even a place in a summer camp.

One of the principal values of the proposed Delinquency Prevention Act would be to provide support for these important bureaus.

The Commission also recommended many steps to improve police handling of juvenile offenders; to make the juvenile court more effective in dealing with those cases which come before it; and to improve juvenile corrections. Here again, the proposed legislation would provide much needed resources.

In general, I believe this bill recognizes the importance of furnishing more resources to deal with the problems of delinquency prevention, including initial planning activities, research, technical assistance, and continuing grant-in-aid support.

STATEMENT OF JAMES VORENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. VORENBERG. I think the only point that I would like to emphasize, really two points, particularly in view of the statistics that the Attorney General has already presented: He has referred to the fact that youth between the ages of 11 and 17, although they only constitute 13 percent of the population, commit half of the property offenses.

In one way even more frightening is the fact that youth between the ages of 18 and 24, the older end of this youthful range, even though they are only 10 percent of the population, are arrested for one-third of the willful homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults.

80-799 0-67—21

So it is not just in the property offense areas that we are faced with a serious problem of trying to do something about young people in their relationship to crime.

What gives this special urgency, what gives these hearings and this hearing special urgency, is that it is perfectly clear that if we just stand still and go on doing what we are doing today, the problem is going to get much worse in the next 5 or 10 years, just as a matter of the shift in the mix of the population.

One-quarter of the population today is 10 years old or younger, and this wave is going to move into these high-crime areas in the next 5 to 10 years, and as they move, unless we can take very effective action and do things differently than we are doing today, it is completely predictable that crime is going to increase, and increase very substantially.

So we start off with the fact that we have to run pretty fast just to stay where we are, and we really are going to have to think very radically and devote very substantially increased resources if we are going to do more than that, if we are going to actually try to cut into the amount of crime.

The only point I think in specific relationship to this legislation, or the relationship of this legislation to the Crime Commission's report that I would like to make is the report notes that there are in a sense three levels at which you can try to deal with the problem of preventing juvenile crime.

One is what might be called in the broadest sense social prevention, dealing with the major social institutions, schools, employment service, more broadly the family.

The third is the traditional institutions of justice, the police, the courts, and corrections.

But what the Commission found was that between these two, in the second area, the attempt to deal with kids who are in trouble, but have not really been confirmed in delinquent patterns-there tends to be a major vacuum, and many of the Commission's recommendations, particularly the proposal for the Youth Services Bureau which the Commission recommended be established in every community attempts to fill that vacuum.

And as some of the comments just made indicate, there is carried with that some notion of a change in the nature of the role of the juvenile court, or-I think I would put it differently-an honest recognition that the juvenile court today is not living up to its ideas.

I think with that kind of a general statement, and with my prepared statement in the record, I have nothing further to add.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Vorenberg, on the basis of your studies of the enormity of this problem, would you find any validity in the statement that I have made here before, that what we need now in America to deal with the problem of juvenile delinquency and youthful crime is actual programs.

We have gone through the research stage. We know you can go into any community and talk to the social workers there, and the local judges and the local juvenile police officers and the various other people who live day in and day out with this problem, and they can tell you pretty well what it will take to help these youngsters straighten themselves out. But, in community after community in this country,

the judges just don't have any place to send youngsters for diagnostic treatment, nor any rehabilitative program.

Is this the main problem? Is this the main need of the local communities?

If this is so, I have said that this is where we can make a really significant contribution with this $475 million we are considering over the next 5 years.

Would you comment on it?

Mr. VORENBERG. I don't think I would go quite as far as your statement did, Mr. Chairman, although I think I would go most of the way with you.

I think there are many programs, many actions, that can be taken today, and that we know-they are not magic wands-we know they would be better than what we are doing today, and which we are not doing because there simply is not sufficient resources to do them.

One example of that is this important recent experiment in California, that has shown as persuasively as any research I think is ever going to show in this field that for most juvenile offenders intensive treatment in the community makes them less likely to commit crime than putting them into the traditional reform schools, training schools, forestry camps, and the like.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Let me interrupt at that point.

If you will notice, on page 8 of the bill we do just that.

We provide for:

(A) combination detention and diagnostic facilities for delinquent youth, (B) half-way houses for youths who because of special behavioral problems have a high risk of becoming delinquent or who have been determined to be delinquent and are not yet ready for full return to society, and (C)—

And this I think is the point you are making here

small, special-purpose, residential, community-based facilities for diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of youths who are in or under the control of training institutions.

So we do provide this in this bill.

Mr. VORENBERG. Yes. I think this bill would provide the wherewithal to finance programs that we know-as clearly as we ever are going to know anything in this field-will work. And I offer that as an example, I think a very important example, and there are several other examples, programs for example that the police departments have developed to deal with juveniles that have been shown to be more effective.

The reason I said I would not go all the way with your statement, Mr. Chairman, is that I have become increasingly skeptical in the last 2 years of some of the things that people think they know in this field. I think that research is very spotty, and we have got to be very careful that we do not make money available and this is not just a problem for the Federal Government, but it is a problem for State, local, and private agencies before we put additional resources into something which an official tells us, "This works, and this will be effective." We have got to satisfy ourselves that he has carefully tested it out, and the criminal field is not notable for the care of that testing, and I think that at the same time that we go forward with the kind of substantive provision of money and resources here for actual programs to reduce delinquency, that has to be combined with research, efforts to test as we go along.