RECOMMENDATION NO. 1.

There is a great and critical shortage throughout the nation of the following facilities:

A. Detention and diagnostic facilities.

B. Halfway houses.

C. Small special purpose residential community-based facilities for diagnosis of youth who are in or under the control or supervision of correctional institutions.

In Michigan, there are 23 detention homes for 83 counties. You can start from Saginaw, Michigan and drive to the Upper Peninsula to the Wisconsin border, a distance of over 500 miles, and there is not a single detention home. This is about the same distance as from Washington to Detroit. Even in areas where detention homes are located, they are far too small to handle the problem.

Michigan is far better off than most states in the matter of detention homes. Throughout vast areas of the nation, they are simply non-existent or far too small. The same statements apply with equal force to diagnostic facilities, halfway houses and small community-based treatment units.

Recommendation

The National Council of Juvenile Court Judges supports those portions of H.R. 6162 as they relate to planning grants, detention facilities, halfway houses, and community-based residential treatment centers.

RECOMMENDATION NO. 2.

There is a great and critical shortage throughout the nation for the following facilities:

A. Training schools for both short term and long term rehabilitation, both at state and local levels.

1. The need and demand for Training Schools is equally as great as for detention homes. There is a desperate need for anywhere from 20,000 to 75,000 additional Training School bed spaces for delinquents.

2. Training Schools are effective in combating delinquency and are a necessary part of the program. Until the shortage of Training School space is corrected, delinquency will remain high.

(a) In 1964, I was able to get 400 boys in the State Training Schools as compared to 200 in 1963. This caused recidivism to drop 22% in Detroit for 1964. In other words, getting 200 case-hardened delinquents out of the community and into a suitable rehabilitative program did more than any of the poverty programs that may be effective in curbing delinquency in a decade or so.

Delinquency continued to rise in Detroit, but the greatest single factor of all programs that checked the increase was additional Training School space.

3. Why does H.R. 6162 omit any reference to Training Schools? Obviously, because HEW and the National Crime Commission failed to recommend that Training Schools be included in the program.

Obviously, there are some people who have had a strong voice in drafting the recommendations and who do not believe in Training Schools under any circumstances.

A small minority of Juvenile Court Judges opposed Federal Aid for Court facilities but most of this small minority have plenty of facilities now. Very few Judges have this situation. It is harder to get Judges to agree than members of Congress. Look at Supreme Court decisions! The Juvenile Court Judges are as united on this as you could get them on any vital issue.

4. Now the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges did not specify any particular size of Training Schools. They left this problem to Congress. Some Training Schools have 500 in them and some 25. Considering the numbers involved and the practical cost of operation, 200 is a good, conservative, healthy compromise between two extremes.

The National Council of Juvenile Court Judges are for Federal Aid for Training Schools. The figure of 200 is my recommendation.

Recommendation

It is therefore proposed that H.R. 6162 be amended as follows:

Section 124 which begins on page 7. The suggested amendment would be on page 8 on line 16. Delete the "and" immediately preceding (3); in line 19, same page, delete the period and add the following-"and (d) Training Schools for the rehabilitation and education of youth of a capacity not to exceed 200 youths, who are in the custody of any public agency charged with the care of delinquent youth."

Conclusion

No matter what programs are developed, delinquency rates will remain high until detention homes and Training School space is made available to Juvenile Courts.

A. Even one of the Twelve Disciples went sour and counseling and preventative programs are not going to save them all.

B. No matter what programs and supporting facilities are made available, Training Schools and detention homes and other "out of home programs" will always play a vital part in curbing delinquency.

C. Without Federal Assistance, Juvenile Courts will not have these necessary facilities for at least another generation.

I have spoken only on that portion of H.R. 6162 that is covered by the official resolution of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. I have personal opinions as to other portions of the Bill, but the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges can not take a position on these matters until their convention in June, 1967.

In behalf of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges, I thank you for your time and courtesy.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES, 1965 ANNUAL MEETING

RESOLUTION ON FEDERAL AID FOR STATE, COUNTY FACILITIES FOR DELINQUENT CHILDREN XVI

Whereas there is great and grave concern in all of the United States concerning the increased incidents of crime among both our youth and adult population, and

Whereas there is abundant evidence that many adult criminals had a history of criminal activity in their youth, and

Whereas it has been demonstrated that proper facilities for the education and redirection of delinquent youth can be the constructive influence needed to deter the youth from criminal activity in adulthood and make of said youth useful productive citizens, and

Whereas state, county and private facilities for delinquent children throughout this nation are grossly inadequate and greatly overcrowded, and

Whereas the past failure of state and local governments to provide the sorely needed institutions has created this problem and has demonstrated that state and local governments will not and probably cannot meet the present pressing requirements and the ever increasing need of our expanding youth population,

and

Whereas the proper redirection and education of delinquent youth would greatly reduce poverty in future generations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That this convention of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges go on record as urging the Federal government to provide funds on a matching basis to the several states and/or counties thereof, for the correction, redirection and education of delinquent youth; and be it further

Resolved, That the officers of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges take the necessary action with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and/or any other appropriate federal office or department to initiate and implement the intent and the purpose of this resolution.

STATEMENT BY JAMES H. LINCOLN, CONCERNING MATTERS RELATING TO H.R. 6162 UPON WHICH THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES HAS TAKEN NO OFFICIAL POSITION

I have been informed that I might be requested to make comments on portions of H.R. 6162 upon which the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges has as yet taken no position.

It should be clearly understood that these observations are mine and not necessarily the position of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges.

First. What do I think of the red tape that has to be gone through under this proposed bill before states or local communities get any money,

Answer. Most of it is unnecessary. If you have to set up requirements, I suggest that you start on page five and go through line 17, on page seven. Put each of these requirements on a slip of paper, place them in a hat and draw out half of them and burn them. Leave the others in the Bill. It will work much better and make just as much sense.

Second. What do you think of Part C. of the act pertaining to preventative services page nine?

Answer. It probably won't do too much harm. It sounds a lot like the TAP programs already in existence in Detroit. Is this a duplication of other programs? There is one thing that is not good about it. All trained workers are now employed by existing agencies and new graduates do not begin to fill demands of existence agencies.

What happens is that the Federal Government will hire away Court workers for more money and the worker will do less work on TAP than they would at the Court. So there's no profit in that.

Just where does HEW think that local communities will get people to run these programs. They are paper thin on competent personnel for TAP programs now and they are paying good salaries to some people we would not even consider as adequate for probation work in the Court.

Now, I don't want to talk down TAP. They are in there trying and every new organization has difficulties. But where are there any workers to run any new programs without hiring them away from agencies who are doing as much now as they would under any other program?

There is one part of H.R. 6162 that is nonsense and if it remains in the bill, it will haunt every Member of Congress. I refer to the following language:

A. Page 2, lines 15, 16, 17. "The Congress believes that the nation's youths should be given meaningful opportunities to be involved in efforts designed to assist them."

B. Page 11, top of page, lines 6-7. "(5) will provide for appropriate participation by youths in the formulation and operation of the project and program."

Comment: This is nonsense! Delinquents are certainly incompetent to assist in developing programs to take care of their problems. Don't buy this! Some social workers will start using expressions such as "maximum participation of those involved."

Undoubtedly, expressions like this were the basis of the language in H.R. 6162. I am all for social workers, but the fact is that social workers are having a very hard time being recognized as professionals by other professions. In their effort to be accepted as professionals, they are rewriting the English language and frankly, in many cases, they make it less clear and less meaningful than before.

What is the meaning of the words, "participation in formulation and operation," in H.R. 6162?

In plain English, it means that part of the actual control of setting up these programs and also operating them is being given over to delinquents.

Now if I didn't want to be made the butt of coarse jokes by the masses, I certainly would have all that stricken from the bill.

The bill seems to make this participation mandatory. It should not even be mentioned in the bill as permissive. A century from now this will be looked upon much as we now view the Salem witch hunts. It is about as hard to argue against "participation in formulation and operation" today as it was to argue against a charge of being a witch a few centuries ago in Salem. No one could successfully defend themselves by saying that there was no such thing as a witch. Today, anyone who says they do not believe in "participation" immediately gets put on the defe it having delinquents participate in formulation and operation

of delir

s is a witch hunt pure and simple.

What about title II? Research and technical assistance.

I am for it.

Nor can I point to much that has been done in the way of research that has had much practical results in curbing delinquency.

Maybe we are asking the wrong questions!

But, I don't consider any of the research money wasted. If a project establishes what won't work, then even this is advancement for we don't have to walk that road again.

You may recall Swift's Gulliver's Travels and his bitter satire directed at the Royal Academy of Science. This was a few centuries ago and he made the scientists look like fools. But, I am glad they didn't quit trying. It took them a few centuries but they finally came up with jet airplanes and television. So give them the money for research. It could be the best investment in good citizenship for which any public official ever voted.

For the most part, I am interested in the portions of the Bill that would give more "out of home" placement facilities for juveniles who have gone beyond being helped by probation. I wish that some strong statements would be made on the record about HEW cutting red tape in getting grants in event this Bill is enacted.

STATEMENT BY JAMES H. LINCOLN, JUDGE OF PROBATE, JUVENILE DIVISION, WAYNE COUNTY, MICH.

This statement is not authorized by the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. It represents the personal views of Judge Lincoln.

It is submitted because, as of this time, Judge Lincoln is the only Juvenile Court Judge scheduled to appear before Congress.

There has been much adverse criticism lately concerning the quality of justice given in Juvenile Courts. Thus, it might be helpful to get a statement by someone who is familiar with the facts.

There has been some very adverse publicity concerning juvenile courts during the past year:

A. The Kent case started it.

B. The Gualt case stirred it up again.

C. Life magazine and also writers and people in high positions have suddenly begun to write what amounts to wholesale charges against Juvenile Courts.

Juvenile Court Judges will soon feel like an illegitimate child at a family reunion.

It's time someone set the record straight:

First. For the past 50 years nearly every single improvement in handling humans involved in crime has come from juvenile courts.

Second. Juvenile Court Judges have made the greatest effort to improve themselves as professionals in their work of any group of judges in the Nation. The National Council of Juvenile Court Judges alone has sponsored training for nearly 1,500 Juvenile Court Judges.

I am proud to be a member of the Executive Board of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. This organization gets out and does something constructive.

Third, Juvenile Court Judges have made great efforts to get needed facilities and personnel. The shortage is desperate and judges have to “make do” as best they can.

Fourth. By clear implication in Kent v. United States 383 US 541, the United States Supreme Court holds that the brand of justice in Juvenile Court is so far superior to the brand of justice given in Adult Court that before a juvenile may be waived by a Juvenile Court Judge to Adult Court, he must be given more due process than they require in Adult Courts.

In the Kent case, after talking about some juveniles getting the worse of two worlds in Juvenile Court, the Supreme Court then held that before waiving to Adult Court (presumably a fate worse than death), every waiver hearing must be given a greater scope and more thorough treatment than a full blown murder trial in Adult Court.

In the Kent case, the United States Supreme Court held that attorneys in waiver hearings may see the social files that contain confidential information of doctors, social workers, etc., and argue them in open court. This is, in effect,

what the Kent case holds. So far as I know, no Court ever before in history, gave an attorney the right to argue the contents of a probation file in open court. Disposition was a matter for the judge. Guilt or innocence is a matter for the jury. Now both are matters for the jury. Who could have foreseen such a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States!

It should be pointed out that the practical effect of the Kent case is that more due process is required for juveniles in the District of Columbia than for juveniles in the State of New York. There are different ages of Juvenile Court jurisdiction in various states. In New York, it is 16 years of age and this lad, Kent, would have gone straight to Adult Court in New York.

How can Juvenile Court Judges be blamed for not following procedures that have never been passed on by the Supreme Court and where there are several strong dissenting opinions among the Supreme Court Justices?

Let me make it clear that I think the Supreme Court did an excellent job tightening up procedures in Adult Court with the Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 348 US 436.

I follow all those procedures in my Court. Furthermore, I anticipated most of the requirements of these cases and had them in effect long ago. But I never anticipated their holdings in the Kent case, nor did anyone else who knew anything about Juvenile Courts and the practical effects of such a decision.

Let me say that the Supreme Court of Michigan straightened out the Juvenile Courts of Michigan on a considerable amount of procedure and due process long before the United States Supreme Court got to this business. We were way ahead of them on some points. These wholesale charges against Juvenile Courts are simply not true.

Fifth. Juvenile court judges have been doing their very best to give juveniles due process in their courts.

There is no wholesale denial of due process in juvenile courts throughout the Nation.

It is true that the situation in the Gault case as it appears in the news articles smells.

But only those who are ignorant of the facts contend that this case is representative of what goes on in Juvenile Courts.

In my jurisdiction that case would have been kicked out of Court in five minutes if the facts are as related in news media.

I only hope that the Supreme Court does "not throw the baby out with the bath" if they have a case before them that smells.

I have been an Assistant United States Attorney and also worked for nearly three years in the Appellate Division of the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office as well as general practice. I know for a fact that the brand of justice in Juvenile Courts is just as food as any Court system in the country.

Sixth. The greatest cause of injustice in American courts is delay in bringing cases to trial and also delay in appellate courts giving decisions.

Future generations are going to be shocked at the time it takes to get decisions in American Courts. Even King John would have been shocked. Justice has slipped a long way since the Magna Carta-1215. "To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice."

Seven centuries later American Courts take 1-2-3-4-5 or more years to reach final decisions.

Many Appellate Courts are the worst offenders and no matter what they write in their decisions about due process the fact is, many of them set a horrible example for trial courts. This, of course, does not apply to all Appellate Courts. Juvenile Courts have their dockets in better shape than any court system in the Nation, except misdeameanors courts and small claim courts.

But we aren't bragging about this. In this case, the best is not good. Even if juveniles were tried in courts of high jurisdiction and in Courtrooms reeking with due process and sensitivity, the brand of justice would show small improvement unless they could get the facilities for which Juvenile Court Judges have fought so hard to obtain.

When I was the receptionist on the personal staff of former Attorney General Frank Murphy, an unfortunate event occurred. A Federal Judge in the Court of Appeals was tried and convicted of a felony and sent to prison. Immediately every sensationalist made the most of it and much publicity gave the impression that the Federal Bench was shot through with graft and corruption. This was