Mr. VORENBERG. I think there is all the difference between presenting demonstration projects and offering broad support to cities and States that are ready and want additional resources for change, and I think, it seems to me that your characterization of it and the relationship to the earlier act is absolutely correct. Mr. PUCINSKI. We enumerate specifically here some programs that we are thinking about in meeting the problem: No. 1, we call for combination detention and diagnostic facilities for delinquent youth, (b) halfway houses for youth who, because of special behavioral problems, have a high risk of becoming delinquent or who are determined to be delinquent and are not yet ready for a full return to society, and (c) small, special-purpose, residential, community-based facilities for diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of youth who are in or under the control and supervision of correctional institutions. It seems that all three of these facilities are sadly lacking in every community of America. Based on your experience in preparing this excellent report, would you care to give us some of your thinking on the advisability of these projects? Mr. VORENBERG. I think I said earlier that in many areas we are still looking for answers. We still want to know what the best way of dealing with people is, but it seems to me that those three types of program and facility are among those that have been tested. The testing isn't over. We will have to go on. The halfway house means lots of different things, and we will still have to find what the best form, size, location, and so forth, is. But the concept of a halfway house and the concept of this combination detention and diagnostic center, and the concept of intensive community treatment, has been proven effective in action. It seems to me that to the extent that we can find people in localities ready to go on these programs, it is highly appropriate that we move forward on them, and the Commission's report specifically endorses these programs. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Vorenberg, it seems to me, on the basis of my own studies of this problem, that what limited facilities there are in this country for dealing with delinquent youth, are usually geared or oriented toward the youngster with the subnormal intellect, the youngsters who do not have the ability to read and write. But I find from talking to policemen and various other authorities in this field that today more and more youngsters with a reasonably normal or above-normal IQ getting in trouble. And it seems to me that this is the youngster that we don't have any facilities for. We pull him into various institutions around the country, and here is the area where many of these youngsters that could be helped are not being helped because no facility exists. Do you feel under this legislation that facilities for this youngster, who is perfectly normal in terms of school achievement but who has some behavior pattern that makes him dangerous to society, could be helped, at least in the first instance? Mr. VORENBERG. I think the problem you mention of lumping people with different problems and different abilities together in correctional programs, is one of the serious lacks and one of the serious needs to be met. And to the extent you are asking whether this legislation will enable us to deal with youths of real potential in a way that would get them back on the track soonest. I would say not only "Yes," but that that is one of the great promises of this kind of program. Mr. PUCINSKI. One of our biggest problems as legislators, I think, is to try to translate to the American people how each of these programs complement each other. I think President Johnson, in recognizing these needs, has come forth with a program that really complements other programs in existence and those planned under the proposed safe streets legislation. Given a chance to work, we can, I think, make some substantial gains, and overcome the problems that have plagued us for many years. Your excellent report is not going to have the kind of mass distribution that it ought to have in this country. And if you have any suggestions as to how we can get this story across as to what we are trying to do, how the Vocational Education Act complements the Juvenile Delinquency Act, how the Safe Streets Act complements this legislation, how Headstart, title I, and various others, War on Poverty, and all these things, tied together, try to create a fabric that ultimately is going to free the individual of the shackles that have kept him in the darkness all these years-those suggestions would surely be welcome. Mr. VORENBERG. That is a problem that goes beyond my knowledge. I think in terms of getting public realization, public acceptance of the problems and how the programs can deal with those problemsI think the most important step that can be taken is to encourage the formation at the local level of planning committees or local crime commissions, or whatever, that include business people, academics, civic groups, and the like, newspaper publishers, so that you get a real base in the community, a base of knowledge and a base of determination. I think there is a limit to how much we can do with National Crime Commission reports to deal with that problem. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Scheuer. Mr. SCHEUER. Mr. Vorenberg, we have heard that there is concern. that we have not emphasized the question of training schools and detention homes. In fact, people are upset that there has not been any mention of training schools in this bill, and we have had one piece of testimony that tells us that several hundred case-hardened delinquents out of a community and in suitable rehabilitative programs, may do more than any of the poverty programs that may be effective in curbing delinquency in a decade or so. I think you would like ideally to provide all of these facilities across the whole spectrum. But if we had to pick and choose and select priorities, would you say that we ought to put the major thrust of the limited resources that we have to work with into training schools and detention homes? Or, would you say that we ought to try and get the prospective delinquent much earlier in his career, perhaps in the kind of youth services center that you have discussed? If you were sitting in our chair, what would you say ought to be our heirarchy of values and priorities with the limited resources with which we have to deal? Mr. VORENBERG. Let me preface what I have to say by saying that I recognize the problems that the juvenile court judges and other local authorities have, and we simply don't have places to send kids, many of whom are tough, dangerous actors. Mr. SCHEUER. Case-hardened delinquents? Mr. VORENBERG. That is right. I don't think we should forget the fact that many of these people are dangerous and need to be detained, and, hopefully, we will do more than detain them, but, they at least. need to be detained. Therefore, I am very sympathetic to what is said by these people, that they simply need more of this kind of facility. On the other hand, if you are faced with the problem of scarce resources, and if we are really trying to make a dent in the delinquency problem, I think I would put heavier emphasis on some of these halfway programs, some of the programs that put a heavier emphasis on rehabilitation than on detention. I hope that by doing that we will not be forcing ourselves to simply to have out in the community people that should not be there. And I rather think we won't. In the first place, if this message is made clear to the local and State people, it seems to me that experience indicates that, odd as it is to get money for any part of the criminal field, it is hardest of all to get money for an innovative program. Second, my guess is that in many places, although I am sure this is not uniform, we would find, if we looked hard at the population of these detention facilities, that there are already ways of taking out of those facilities people that ought not to be there, in order to make room for the ones that are not. One of the problems of the juvenile courts today, I think, is that they lack the resources, the evaluative capacity, to really look and see who is where in the system. So I would have some hope that maybe by more discriminating judgment as to who goes where, you would solve part of the problem. So if I had to make the choice, I think I would make it the way this act makes it. I would do it rather sorrowfully, you have to make that choice. Mr. SCHEUER. Thank you very much. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Vorenberg, we are really grateful to you for your contribution this morning. As I said, I consider this one of the most important pieces of legislation before this session of Congress. I think that was given added stimulus this morning when we real ized that juvenile crime is costing the people of America $4 billion a year. I think that the seriousness of this problem is demonstrated when you consider that in addition to this $4 billion, there is a tremendous cost in social values that you can't put a dollar tag on. So we are grateful to you because you have given us the benefit of your long experience, and the great contribution you made in directing the preparation of this report. I am sure your testimony this morning has given us a much better understanding of the problem. We are very grateful to you. Mr. VORENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PUCINSKI. The chapter on juvenile delinquency in the President's Crime Commission report is of particular interest to this committee and I ask unanimous consent to insert it at this point in the record. (The report follows:) Chapter 3 Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime AMERICA'S BEST HOPE for reducing crime is to reduce juvenile delinquency and youth crime. In 1965 a majority of all arrests for major crimes against property were of people under 21, as were a substantial minority of arrests for major crimes against the person. The recidivism rates for young offenders are higher than those for any other age group. A substantial change in any of these figures would make a substantial change in the total crime figures for the Nation. One of the difficulties of discussing the misconduct, criminal or not, of young people is that “juvenile" and "youth" are not precise definitions of categories of people. People are legally juveniles in most States until they pass their 18th birthdays, but in some States they stop being juveniles after they turn 16 or remain juveniles until they turn 21. The problems and behavior patterns of juveniles and youths often are similar. FACTS ABOUT DELINQUENCY To prevent and control delinquency, we must first know something about the nature of delinquency and the dimensions of the problem. We need to know how serious delinquency is. How much of it is there? How many of our youth are involved? What sorts of illegal acts do they commit? What have the trends in delinquency been in the past, and what can we expect in the future? We also need knowledge about the people who become delinquent information such as where most delinquents live and under what economic conditions. But we are severely limited in what we can learn today. The only juvenile statistics regularly gathered over the years on a national scale are the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, based on arrest statistics, and the juvenile court statistics of the Children's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, based on referrals of juveniles from a variety of agencies to a sample of juvenile courts. These reports can tell us nothing about the vast number of unsolved offenses, or about the many cases in which delinquents are dealt with informally instead of being arrested or referred to court. Supplementing this official picture of delinquency are self-report studies, which rely on asking selected individuals about their delinquent acts. While efforts are made to insure the validity of the results by such means as guaranteeing anonymity, and verifying results with official records and unofficial checks, such studies have been conducted only on a local and sporadic basis, and they vary greatly in quality. Clearly, there is urgent need for more and better information. Nonetheless, enough is available to give some of the rough outlines of juvenile delinquency in the United States. SERIOUSNESS OF THE DELINQUENCY PROBLEM Volume. Enormous numbers of young people appear studies reveal that perhaps 90 percent of all young people to be involved in delinquent acts. Indeed, self-report have committed at least one act for which they could have been brought to juvenile court. Many of these offenses are relatively trivial-fighting, truancy, running away from home. Statutes often define juvenile delinquency so broadly as to make virtually all youngsters delinquent. Even though most of these offenders are never arrested or referred to juvenile court, alarming numbers of young people are. Rough estimates by the Children's Bureau, supported by independent studies, indicate that one in every nine youths—one in every six male youths—will be referred to juvenile court in connection with a delinquent act (excluding traffic offenses) before his 18th birthday. Youth is apparently responsible for a substantial and disproportionate part of the national crime problem. Arrest statistics can give us only a rough picture-probably somewhat exaggerated since it is likely that juveniles are more easily apprehended than adults. In addition, it may be that juveniles act in groups more often than adults when committing crimes, thus producing numbers of juvenile arrests out of proportion with numbers of crimes committed. But even with these qualifications, the figures are striking. FBI figures reveal that of all persons arrested in 1965 (not counting traffic offenders) about 30 percent were under 21 years of age, and about 20 percent were under 18 years of age. Arrest rates are highest for persons aged 15 through 17, next highest for those aged 18 through 20, dropping off quite directly with increases in age, as table 1 on the following page indicates. The picture looks even worse if attention is directed to certain relatively serious property crimes-burglary, lar ceny, and motor vehicle theft. The 11- to 17-year-old age group, representing 13.2 percent of the population, was responsible for half of the arrests for these offenses in 1965 (table 2). Table 1 shows that the arrest rates for these offenses are much higher for the 15- to 17-year-olds than for any other age group in the population. But not all of the acts included within these categories are equally serious. Larceny includes thefts of less than $50, and most motor vehicle thefts are for the purpose of securing temporary transportation and do not involve permanent loss of the vehicle. Moreover, although juveniles account for more than their share of arrests for many serious crimes, these arrests are a small part of all juvenile arrests. Juveniles are most frequently arrested or referred to court for petty larceny, fighting, disorderly conduct, liquor-related offenses, and conduct not in violation of the criminal law such as curfew violation, truancy, incorrigibility, or running away from home. It is an older age group-beyond the jurisdiction of almost all juvenile courts-that has the highest arrest rate for crimes of violence. The 18- to 24-year-old group, which represents only 10.2 percent of the population, accounts for 26.4 percent of the arrests for willful homicide, 44.6 percent of the arrests for rape, 39.5 percent of the arrests for robbery, and 26.5 percent of the arrests for aggravated assault (table 2). Table 2.-Percent of Arrests Accounted for by Different Age Groups-1965 Trends. In recent years the number of delinquency arrests has increased sharply in the United States, as it has in several Western European countries studied by the Commission. Between 1960 and 1965, arrests of persons under 18 years of age jumped 52 percent for willful homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, larceny, burglary and motor vehicle theft. During the same period, arrests of persons 18 and over for these offenses rose only 20 percent. This is explained in large part by the disproportionate increase in the population under 18 and, in particular, the crime-prone part of that population-the 11- to 17-year-old age group. Official figures may give a somewhat misleading picture of crime trends. Over the years there has been a tendency toward more formal records and actions, particularly in the treatment of juveniles. In addition, police efficiency may well have increased. But, considering other factors together with the official statistics, the Commission is of the opinion that juvenile delinquency has increased significantly in recent years. The juvenile population has been rising, and at a faster rate than the adult population. And an increasing proportion of our society is living in the cities where delinquency rates have always been highest. These trends and the increase in the total volume of crime that they appear to foretell are testimony enough that programs for the prevention and control of delinquency deserve our full attention. WHO THE DELINQUENTS ARE Almost all youths commit acts for which they could be arrested and taken to court. But it is a much smaller group that ends up being defined officially as delinquent Official delinquents are predominantly male. In 1965 boys under 18 were arrested five times as often as giris Four times as many boys as girls were referred to juvenile court. Boys and girls commit quite different kinds of offenses Children's Bureau statistics based on large-city court reports reveal that more than half of the girls referred to juvenile court in 1965 were referred for conduct that would not be criminal if committed by adults; only onefifth of the boys were referred for such conduct. Boys were referred to court primarily for larceny, burglary, and motor vehicle theft, in order of frequency; girls for running away, ungovernable behavior, larceny, and sex offenses. Delinquents are concentrated disproportionately in the cities, and particularly in the larger cities. Arrest rates are next highest in the suburbs, and lowest in rural areas Delinquency rates are high among children from broken homes. They are similarly high among children who have numerous siblings. Delinquents tend to do badly in school. Their grades are below average. Large numbers have dropped one or more classes behind their classmates or dropped out of school entirely. |