Mr. Chairman, I have reintroduced legislation, H.R. 7403, which will accomplish precisely what I have suggested today. I hope this Subcommittee will consider it as soon as possible.

Benjamin Franklin's famous homily, "a stitch in time saves nine," has become trite only because it is so true. We would all be wise, in considering the best remedy for juvenile delinquency, to heed Franklin's advice today.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We are very fortunate this morning in having here to testify on this legislation two gentlemen who have an outstanding reputation in the field of criminology and the study of related matters.

I am particularly happy to welcome to the committee this morning Dr. Joseph Lohman, dean of the School of Criminology of the University of California.

Dr. Lohman was sheriff of Cook County and brought a new dimension of dignity to that office while serving Cook County.

We miss him very much in Chicago, and hope that one of these days he is going to come back where he belongs.

So we are very pleased to have Dr. Lohman with us before the committee, and we are also very pleased to have Dr. Richard Clendenen, professor of criminal law administration at the University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, Minn., a gentleman who equally is highly respected in the entire profession for his knowledge of the subject.

Gentlemen, we have been holding hearings for the last few days on legislation which would for the first time provide some meaningful assistance to States and local communities to deal with the problem of juvenile delinquency.

Now, we were shocked to learn yesterday from the Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, that of all the age groups in this country, the 15-yearolds are the category who have the highest arrest record and the highest incidence of participation in crimes of all levels.

We were also deeply concerned to learn from the Attorney General that out of 500,000 automobiles stolen last year in the United States, 64 percent of those cars were stolen by youngsters of 18 years and less.

These are appalling statistics, and in my judgment the time is long past due when this country must approach this problem of juvenile delinquency in very much the same manner in which we approached education a hundred years ago.

We realized that the Nation could not survive without education, and so we established a public education system, one that costs the taxpayers billions of dollars, but one that we could not get along without, that we had to have.

And I think that the time is long past due when we can continue to only give lipservice to what I believe to be perhaps the most serious problem of our society, the problem of youngsters who commit antisocial acts.

And while I am mindful of the fact that man has been struggling with this problem for 2,000 years without any really significant change. it is my hope that this legislation, which among other things will provide some funds for research and new techniques, will also provide funds for brick and mortar to build facilities.

One of the things we have found in these hearings is that the people who are most learned in this subject have some excellent programs and excellent ideas and excellent remedies, but they just don't have the facilities.

So this legislation, in the next 5 years, would provide $450 million of Federal assistance to local communities to start making some meaningful progress in the treatment of juvenile delinquents.

Now, I cannot think of two more qualified individuals to speak on this subject than the distinguished witnesses that are before this committee this morning.

I want you both to know how deeply grateful we are that we can have and share with you your rich knowledge of this subject, so that we can better evaluate this legislation.

Dr. Lohman and Dr. Clendenen, your statements will go in the record in their entirety, and you may proceed in any manner you wish. If you care to read your entire statement, fine. If you would rather summarize your statements, so that we can go into more questions, that would be all right, too.

We will let you start off, Dr. Lohman, and then we will get to Dr. Clendenen.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH D. LOHMAN, DEAN, SCHOOL OF

CRIMINOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Dr. LOHMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pucinski.

It is a double privilege for me to be here, because I feel honored by the fact that one of my old colleagues from Illinois is chairman of this subcommittee, in yourself, and I take pride in the distinguished record you have made in contributing to the advancement of our educational processes in this country in your capacity, and it is, I think, quite appropriate that it is in that context that the problem of juvenile delinquency should be addressed.

Too often we are disposed to deal with it in purely law enforcement terms, which of course is a necessary component of the business, but we will not make progress on that front until we begin to establish a framework of consent and participation on the part of great numbers of individuals in norms and values that are the basis for the enforcement of the law, and on that score the educational input seems to me to override all.

I feel privileged again because I have been afforded this opportunity to appear before this subcommittee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, since it was my good fortune to share an intimate experience with the first major Federal legislation directed to the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency, the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenders Control Act of 1961.

I was a member of the panel which reviewed applications for demonstration programs, and as one who has carried forward research and experimentation under that act, designed to increase the capacity of State and local communities to cope with the problem, I am especially impressed and encouraged by the legislative intent and the provisions of II.R. 7642, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967.

The lessons of the past 6 years have reemphasized the fact that juvenile delinquency and crime are continuing to outrun our capacity to deal with it, and unhappily, and notwithstanding the earnestness of our effort, the accent in controlling delinquency and crime continues. in too many places to be placed on the old negative, punitive measures

of arrest, detention, and incarceration. We see all about us the persistence of established means and procedures.

The results were plainly noted and underlined by the recent President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Local law enforcement, in my judgment, is engulfed in inadequate and abortive routines, and criminal justice and penal facilities are so dangerously overtaxed that they continue to generate the very conditions of behavior they were designed to repress.

It should be obvious that we must take an entirely new look at the phenomenon of crime, since lawlessness is only a surface symptom. For every delinquent or criminal who commits an overtly hostile and aggressive act, there are the many more disaffected whose latent hostilities result in their loss as a human productive resource.

Furthermore, it is the young who are increasingly the focus of the crime problem. In every year during the past 20 years, the average age of those who commit crime has gone steadily downward, so that in 1965 well over half of all the serious crimes-the part I crimes of the uniform crime reports-were committed by persons 18 years of age

and under.

Our society cannot afford to write off human resources on so vast a scale. Nor can we afford a total crime bill estimated at well over $25 billion and getting bigger.

The cost of our police departments has increased over 50 percent in the last 5 years and is currently going up at an even steeper rate.

The point is that we are continuing to fail in our plans and stratagems, in the development of appropriate and relevant attitudes within the established agencies of crime prevention and control, notwithstanding the accepted notion that crime is the lengthened shadow of the community.

While the community is changing drastically, we are still straitjacketed by the institutions and organizations of an earlier day.

That is why I am encouraged by H.R. 7642's emphasis upon the development of comprehensive plans with respect to the conditions which prevail within our new and expanding local communities.

We know now, from our recent experience, that without a comprehensive approach designed to affect the interrelated structures and agencies of community life we are not likely to improve the quality or increase the competence of the community in addressing the problems of its marginal young people.

Delinquency is too often assumed to be an evidence of personal defect or willful disregard for authority. We have yet much to learn about the mysteries by which societies generate abnormal responses within their own circle. But this has become increasingly apparent: It is the social structure itself which contributes to such behavior.

Indeed, it is the self-same social structure which ambivalently produces, on one hand, the conforming individual, the person respectful of the social codes, and on the other, the deviant and the lawbreaker who are disrespectful of the code.

It may well be that delinquency should more often than not be regarded as a normal reaction of a normal person to an abnormal condition.

The crux of the matter lies in the fact that most delinquents need more than anything else the realities of a positive community context

and a social atmosphere in which there is afforded an opportunity for developing those skills and abilities which are prized and rewarded in the society at large.

Many of our youth-serving agencies are at odds with the terms and conditions of life which marginal young people are experiencing. To a considerable extent this is true of the whole spectrum of youth, as we note the development of its own "youth culture" apart from and in its general exclusion from the mainstream of the adult world. There is much to do these days about the alienation and estrangement of young people and their almost desperate search for an identity.

One might dwell upon their problem as a reflection of the shortcomings of our traditional and unchanging institutions. More often. than is realized, there is an estrangement of our traditional agencies and services from people, as well as the reverse.

There is a crisis of institutions such as the school, welfare, crime, and juvenile justice that prompts the need for a critical examination of our traditional and time-honored means for dealing with convicted offenders.

The trend has been to remove the offender from the community, only to make doubly difficult his later return. By the same token, the conventional services and agencies have often been insensitive to the competing force and influence of the communities which they are ostensibly serving, and so the circle of exclusion and separation of the marginal child is complete.

There is a popular myth that we are dealing with delinquency under the conditions of our most advanced knowledge. Notwithstanding the increasing numbers of individual programs which we are experimenting with-new methods such as halfway houses, group therapies, work furlough, legal aid, indigenous workers, multiservice centersthey have no more than scratched the surface and pointed the way.

The fact of the matter is that when one looks at the correctional system or law enforcement in the United States, one must see it is a massive program of law enforcement and correctional housekeeping. For all practical purposes, we are still only warehousing the problem. It does us no good to equate our modest gestures of experimentation and research with the system as it operates as a whole. Our innovation does not yet add up to very much more than the warehousing function. We must not be deluded by the record of a few progressive gestures. The character of our law enforcement and correctional systems is a reflection of sheer numbers. There has been as yet no readjustment of facilities in relation to the enormous increases in crime.

What we do is struggle desperately to keep outmoded and failing institutions in some sense abreast of crime, while we have made only limited gestures in the direction of a few innovations and experiments.

We must break the logjam. It will not be an easy thing to do. However, unless what we have to offer has the potential for, in the long run, really recasting this warehousing function, our efforts will be futile.

Another myth I would call to your attention is one to which we all subscribe, and yet know to be untrue: the myth that the criminal and the delinquent are treated in singular perspective in American society.

I am not speaking here about the different views among the laity. I refer to the antithetical views of the crime problem entertained by

the professionals within our circle, as between the crime preventers, the crime catchers, the crime disposers, the crime keepers, and the crime treaters.

I have used the laymen's reference for what we have in professional terms in other language.

We are all familiar with the current hostility between the philosophy of the detached gang workers and the police. In one city a probation department, experimenting with guided group interaction, finds their program does not please the police department, and the police department mounts a public attack on the program, even challenging the probation department to prove it is not a "crime producer."

The crime catchers are concerned with apprehending the offender. That is their function and responsibility, but their view of the offender is more largely a function of their mission and their tasks than a reflection of a community-based cooperative enterprise.

The crime preventers and the crime catchers do not come to their tasks with a common commitment, with reference to the nature of the crime and the offender, to actually guard against the views which they may develop as a result of the roles which they are called upon to play. These problems must be faced up to and dealt with, but we have not faced up to them in such a way as to effectively offset the consequence of the functional differentiation which arises.

I am therefore encouraged by the impetus which H.R. 7642 gives to the development of a unity of purpose through the coordination of the several agencies and basic services within the community.

Research and experimentation have increasingly emphasized latent functions of our system in criminal justice. The police, corrections, and court may indeed, in unintended ways, generate the very tendencies which they are set up to repress.

Our task becomes one of addressing this problem explicitly, of sensitizing agencies to the processes inside their structures that produce a product very like the one which they originally received and which they assume, just because of their declared and overt purpose, will become different.

There may be generated among the socially deprived norms and views which are hostile to the community at large. But one may also offer them a situation where they are psychologically deprived, so that they are driven to antithetical values and notions inside the very institutions which are designed to breed respect for the law.

While in custody, men may be driven to means, practices which are in themselves evasions of the law. There are evasions of the rules of those institutions. There are rulebreaking tendencies and dispositions developed within the cover of the rulemaking and enforcing institutions themselves.

Although what I suggest seems logical, it is not obvious and not a general understandnig of the institutionalized agencies and services of law enforcement and corrections.

Lawyers, judges, police may be concerned about the effect of a given program upon an individual, be concerned about being humane in specific cases, but their concern is not generalized to the system of criminal justice.