unfair, untrue and destructive. Juvenile Courts are now undergoing the same kind of attack. On one hand they are blamed for turning juveniles loose, although they have no facilities for them; on the other hand they are being charged with wholesale disregard of due process which is not true.

The great and strong feature of Juvenile Courts is that, in seeking a new and superior kind of justice, Juvenile Court Judges know that they must constantly seek improvement not only for their Courts but also for themselves. "Be not self-righteous over much," is the guide that a Juvenile Court Judge must carry every working hour.

Juvenile Court Judges are proud of their Courts. No other Courts have any better brand of justice for those who come before them.

MEMORANDUM BY JUDGE WALTER G. WHITLATCH, OHIO ASSOCIATION OF
JUVENILE COURT JUDGES

The increase in juvenile delinquency throughout the nation has been so well documented that it needs no review here. However, state and local governments have lagged greatly behind in providing facilities with which to control and prevent delinquency and youth crime. While state and local governments have considerably increased expenditures, they have not and are probably not able to provide adequate financing for the necessary delinquency prevention and control programs.

The very limited Federal funds expended to date in the delinquency field have been in research and demonstration. Some of these projects have been helpful but they have had little impact on the total problem. We already know what is needed to be done to control delinquency and thus prevent crime. What we must do are the very things we have been doing but be must greatly increase these programs both qualitatively and quantitatively. Here we refer to delinquency prevention, the early detection of delinquent prone youth, enlarging and strengthening of probation services, and above all the establishment of an adequate number of well staffed, properly programmed schools.

A recent survey of 13 states showed an existing need for 17,500 correctional school beds. The survey further indicated that in almost all of the states surveyed present correctional schools for delinquent children were grossly overcrowded and that the problem of overcrowding was being met by premature discharges resulting in a high rate of recidivism-60% in a state which kept youth for the shortest period.

Commitments to the Ohio Youth Commission increased 50% during the last four years alone, going from 2,500 in 1962 to 3,745 in fiscal 1966. It is estimated that by 1970, the Commission will need an additional 3,200 beds over its present capacity of 1,800 to provide adequate care for the number of children that will be committed to its custody. That this estimate is conservative is demonstrated by a recent survey conducted by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission of the Ohio Legislature in which the state's juvenile court judges reported that they would have committed an additional 2,000 children to the Youth Commission in 1965 had adequate facilities been available.

We of course recognize that the ultimate answer to the delinquency problem is prevention, and we believe the provisions to that end in this bill are most laudable.

Federal aid is being given to state and local governments in vast sums for education, hospitals and for health and welfare purposes generally. Yet, nothing substantial has been done by the Federal Government to date to assist local and - state governments in the prevention and control of delinquency. Here the need of Federal aid is greatest since the general public is not enough involved with the needs of delinquent children to fully comprehend the necessity of giving adequate support to such programs.

We firmly believe that Federal aid to state and local governments in the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency is absolutely necessary and we enthusiastically endorse H.R. 6162. We believe that the bill should be amended to provide for training schools for the rehabilitation and education of youth, of a capacity not to exceed 200 youth, who are in the custody of any public agency charged with the care of delinquent youth.

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

Judge LINCOLN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say I don't know what I can do for Congressman O'Hara for his part in that fine introduction, but if we get this bill passed and the funds in it, we need a new youth home in Wayne County, the cost will be $9 million, and if we can get $42 million out of the Federal Government we can get it up there in Congressman Ford's district so he has something hanging on this.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Off the record.

(Off the record.)

Judge LINCOLN. I want to say I am only going to read a portion of my written statement and we will go into questions from there, if you have any.

My appearance here today is to state as forcefully as I can the position of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. I am not speaking for myself. I speak for an organization that is nationwide in scope and whose members have as much day-to-day working knowledge concerning the problems of delinquency as any organization in the Nation.

And I speak for the group that is on the firing line.

The first recommendation: There is a great and critical shortage throughout the Nation of the following facilities: Detention homes and diagnostic facilities, halfway houses, and small special-purpose, residential, community-based facilities for our 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 Saguenay, Mich., and drive to the Upper Peninsula to the Wisconsin border, a distance of nearly 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 better off, far better off, than most States in the matter of detention homes. Throughout vast areas of the Nation they are simply nonexistent and far too small. The same statements apply with equal force to diagnostic facilities, halfway houses, and small community-based treatment centers.

So the first 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 communitybased residential treatment centers.

Now, pertaining to the second recommendation, there is a great and critical shortage throughout the Nation of the following facilities: Training schools for both short-term and long-term rehabilitation, both at State and local levels. 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.

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.

In 1964 I was able to get 400 boys in the State training schools as compared to 200 in 1961. This caused recidivism to drop 22 percent 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.

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 these recommendations who did not believe in training schools under any circumstances.

There is a small minority of juvenile court judges who oppose 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 the Supreme Court. The juvenile court judges are as united on this as you could get them on any vital issue.

Now, the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges did not specify any particular size of training schools. They left that problem to Congress. Some training schools have 500 in them and some 25. Considering the numbers involved and the practical cost of operation, the 200 is a good, conservative, healthy compromise between extremes. The National Council of Juvenile Court Judges are for Federal aid to training schools. The figure of 200 is my recommendation that was suggested to me by Judge Whitlatch here and I agree with him. It is a good figure.

That doesn't refer to the maximum number of training schools, but the maximum size of training schools. So it is recommended 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. Even one of the 12 disciples went sour and counseling and preventative programs are not going to save them all. No matter what programs and supporting facilities are made available, the training schools and detention homes and other "out of home programs" will always play a vital part in curbing delinquency. Without Federal assistance juvenile courts will not have those 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 cannot take a position on these matters until their convention in June of 1967.

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

Mr. FORD (presiding). Thank you, Judge. I would like to ask if you would like to continue with recommendations as you set them forth in your comments on the bill from your own point of view in those areas where the national association has not had an opportunity to take a formal or official position?

Judge LINCOLN. All right. It must be understood that these are my own observations and the council has not taken any official position on them. I would like to correct a few things. I wish this committee would give me about 4 hours to correct some of the lack of and misinformation that I have heard here today before the committee. It will take that long. But I will try to hit a few things.

I think people get the impression that juveniles are waived out of juvenile court and handled in adult court because people in responsible positions make those statements, not Congressman O'Hara, but judges in appeal courts make them, and they appear in Life magazine and here is one of them.

Let me give you the exact quote "Last year some 600,000 youths appeared before juvenile court and 100,000 of them are now doing time in adult court."

Last year I waived four boys out of juvenile court. I represent a county that has nearly 3 million population. There were not more than 150 waives in Michigan. You can ask Judge Whitlatch. They go to 18, their age.

Let's clear up this point. How many went to adult court out of that? Judge WHITLATCH. Nineteen, and we committed 13 to a reformatory for youthful offense, three who had adult treatment, total population, 1,800,000.

Judge LINCOLN. I want to say that there are appearing in the newspapers, and also what I hear on this committee, some of the most fantastic statements, some of the most absurd things, when you get down into the real facts of the case and I wish you could have quite a few more juvenile court judges around here to just straighten out a few things that are being said.

However, let me talk for a moment about some other points on this bill. Let's get right down to the bill because regardless of what the news media and everybody else says, we are interested in the bill.

First, what do I think of the redtape that one has to go through under the proposed bill before States or local communities will get money? My answer to that is most of it is unnecessary. If you have to set up requirements I suggest you start on page 5 and go through line 17 on page 7. 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 just as well and make just as much sense. I have had experience getting Federal money. I was chairman of a committee that built $100 million worth of construction in Wayne County over 5 years, and we had more trouble getting $600,000 of Federal funds out of the $100 million than I had with doing the whole rest of the $100 million Program, and I am well aware of the difficulties.

ΠΟΣ

It also says in the bill that the Secretary can ask for other requirements, and so forth, so even if you take it out of the bill it can still be made tough at the administration level.

What do you think of part C of the act pertaining to preventative services on page 9? My answer to that is it probably won't do too much harm. It sounds very much like the TAP programs in existence in Detroit, and I am asking if it is a duplication of these.

There is one thing not good about it. All the trained workers are now employed by existing agencies and new graduates do not begin to fill the demand of existing agencies. What happens is that the Federal Government will hire away court workers for more money and the workers will do less work, and this happens on TAP. I have seen it. There is no profit in that.

I would like to ask just where HEW thinks local communities will get people to run these programs, because the present programs are paper thin and they are paying very good salaries to people that we would not even consider adequate for probation work in court. There just are no people to run these new programs and new agencies that are at all qualified without taking them from agencies in which they are already working and doing a job.

But I say I haven't too strong feelings on that. I heard the judge before us here testify about treatment. Every psychiatrist is busy now. Every psychologist is busy now. Every social worker is. And all you can do is hire them away from someone else and leave a gap some

where else.

In other words, when we talk about they need intensive treatment, there are not any additional children going to receive any additional treatment in this country. You are going to have to graduate and train the people to give them this intensive treatment. They are not there. They are all busy now. You just shift them around.

This is what occurs. 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: On page 2, lines 15, 16, and 17, it says: "The Congress believes that the Nation's youths should be given meaningful opportunities to be involved in the efforts designed to assist them."

And then on page 11, top of page, line 6 and line 7, it says: "Will provide for appropriate participation by youths in the formulation and operation of the project and program.

And my comment is I believe this is nonsense, that delinquents are certainly incompetent to assist in developing programs to take care of their problems, and I don't think you ought to buy this. I know that this comes out of expressions used by social workers such as "maximum participation of those involved," and I think that was probably the basis of writing it in the bill.

I am for social workers. I have very high standards in the court. We have over 30 MSW's, in the court alone and everyone in my court has a degree at least and is very well trained. I am for them.

But I think you should recognize that social workers are having a hard time being recognized as professionals by other professions and in their effort to be recognized and accepted as professionals they are rewriting the English language, and frankly in many cases it becomes less clear than it was before.