Mrs. PRICE. That is right. And a program of this type helps to bring about a better parent-child understanding of each other.

Mr. PUCINSKI. How many do you have in this program?

STATEMENT OF MRS. ROBERT DELEHANTY, LOUISVILLE, KY.

Mrs. DELEHANTY. There were first 81, and them 63 youngsters in the two programs. I think the important thing is this: It appeared in our community-and this is not unusual-that the courts are really overloaded and understaffed and don't have the resources available to them to get to the parents.

Oftentimes they have trouble just maintaining their own probation. And these women I am sure could tell you much better than I how much it meant to them to really get involved in helping your son. Because they have previously been overlooked because of the lack of resources and facilities. And for the first time they felt they were in partnership with the court people, with the group center people, with their sons, in partnership to work this thing out.

-1

Mr. PUCINSKI. Out of the 63 youngsters involved in the project, what sort of a delinquency pattern do you have?

Mrs. DELEHANTY. We have had unusual success with those who have graduated. And honestly, about one-third of the youngsters who went through graduated and have done reasonably well.

Now, many youngsters have gone on to institutions, but I think that many of the parents, Mrs. Lawless particularly, whose son went on. 'can testify that there seems to be a lessening in the frequency and degree even after their sons failed in our particular program. So it is difficult to measure what is success when you are dealing with human beings, but there are certain recognizable changes even in the ones that we call dropouts.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Is this a project in an urban community, or this in a small town or in a rural area?

Mrs. DELEHANTY. This is located in Louisville, Ky., and in the west end of Louisville, Mr. Pucinski.

We deal with five junior high schools, and the part of it was that these youngsters who would have ended up in an institution were permitted to remain at home, stay in their own classrooms, in their individual high schools, so that they were not stigmatized, and they would remain in the community while they were being helped.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Dr. Clendenen, what is the mortar that holds these families together in this community? What is the line of communications?

I would think that in most of your large cities where problems are very prevalent there are not very good communications. In many areas of our country people live in the same building and do not know who lives behind the adjoining wall or in adjoining apartment buildings. What is the mode of communication here to hold these things together? Dr. CLENDENEN. I think you lay your finger upon the described situation that did exist here. This is, as Mrs. Delehantv indicated, a rather depressed and disadvantaged area of Louisville. The project is physically located in two portable classrooms on the school grounds.

I think that initially there was an absence of communication amongst the parents, who were ultimately involved in this project, and I think

they would tell you there was an absence of communication many times between the parents and the youngsters as well.

Now, these youngsters were referred to the project by the Jefferson County juvenile court. And, of course, through the project, then, the parents were brought into groups and began this process of communicating, and for the first time, in many instances, I am sure, really became acquainted with one another out of this opportunity to share problems and experiences in this kind of a way.

The problem of communications, here, is a key one, as you can well appreciate.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, it is very inspiring to know that the chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Perkins, has been able to assist you people in developing this very imaginative program in Louisville. Certainly a program such as yours could be fi nanced under title 2 of this bill, the research and technical assistance provisions of the bill. It also could be financed under part C of title 1. "Preventive Services." Because, from what I gathered from your testimony, you ladies, as parents, and I presume the fathers also participated in this--the fathers do not? Where there are fathers, do they participate in the program?

Mrs. LAWLESS. Some of us are separated, and we are in this battle alone. You see, my son graduated from the program, and then after he graduated, a week after, he got in trouble. And I am yet sticking with the program. So this is really good. It helped me to learn him some, after he got out, and to help others.i

Mrs. HIBBS. But there are some fathers.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I gather from your testimony that your basic mission is prevention rather than cure.

Mrs. LAWLESS. That is right. We don't want our boys to go to insti tutions. That is not solving the problem. We want them taken care of before they go. We want these services before they are committed to an institution.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Dr. Lohman, you recall, spoke rather extensively on this subject, and I believe Dr. Clendenen also stressed the point, that the need was to try and resolve these problems right in the community, because, sooner or later, these boys are going to come back to the community. So you might as well try and help them right there.

It would seem to me that you certainly have a program that is most worthy of further study. You might very well have a program that could attract nationwide attention and help resolve the problem.

Dr. CLENDENEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One thing they didn't bring out, here, that I think also represented a very encouraging development, is the kind of community initiative that they have assumed.

For example, at one point, in relation to the problem of glue sniffing, the mothers of Parkland took considerable initiative in trying to combat this problem at a point of distribution by visiting the people who sold glue in the communities. And of course this is the kind of healthy community initiative that is so badly needed.

Mr. PUCINSKI. That is precisely what this legislation tries to do. It recognizes the fact that while we have some set ideas in dealing with the problems of youth and delinquency, we need continuing research. So we have provided here a corner of this bill to continue with innovative programs, such as this one.

And it is my hope that this legislation is going to stimulate more

programs, such as the one you ladies are conducting in your community.

You might perhaps want to invite some people down there, to see how it works.

I can see why Mr. Perkins keeps telling us what a great District he has. As I have listened to the various witnesses who have appeared before this committee, I am beginning to think he was right. You have a fine Congressman. We are very grateful to you for your testimony.

Mrs. PRICE. I wanted to say if a boy does get in trouble and has to go see the Judge, he might have some little brother at home, you know, and through this program he will get help for the little ones. And they won't go to court.

But the thing he wanted to do: After a child goes to see the Judge, he is already in trouble.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The interesting thing about your program, from where I sit, is that you recognize that human beings are going to make mistakes, and you recognize that human beings are going to get in trouble. And instead of stigmatizing those human beings and putting them off into some dark dungeon-as every so often we read about some parent tying a youngster to a radiator in the attic-the interesting thing about your program, I think, is that you recognize this youngster's problem as a community problem. And the community then tries to apply its resources in a cooperative manner to resolve this problem. And to me it seems very interesting that you can apply that technique. And I am interested in what Mrs. Delehanty said here, that your delinquency rate, you feel, has been substantially reduced, because of this sort of cooperative effort.

Now, I don't suppose you have any statistics on this program, as I am sure it would be rather difficult to compile these statistics. But, what yardstick do you use to measure its success?

Mrs. DELEHANTY. I think one of the greatest things-there was a large research component tied in with the Parkland Center and we are in the process of evauating and compiling all of our data. It will be available around July 31.

So, you know, not only did we get help ourselves, but I think we, in some small measure, will provide research in material which can be used by others.

So one thing on behalf of all of the ladies here, I would like to express our gratitude to Congressman Perkins. We are very proud of this man, because we feel not only does he represent his District, and all of Kentucky, but he has made a substantial contribution to the Nation as a whole. So we could not let the chance go by without expressing our appreciation to Congressman Perkins.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I just want you to know that we are pretty proud of him around here, too.

This is a very interesting program and I am very grateful to you for coming here and showing us what can be done when people use their imagination and some innovative ideas are applied to human beings.

I certainly want to wish you success in the program.

Thank you very much.

The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.)

AFTER RECESS

The subcommittee reconvened at 2:30 p.m., Representative Roman C. Pucinski (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The committee will come to order.

Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. Milton Rector, director of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

We are going to have another rollcall in just about 6 minutes or so, so, Mr. Rector. I wonder if it is agreeable to you if we put your statement in the record in its entirety at this point. I would not want to delay you any longer than we already have, simply because we are going to have to be leaving and, as soon as we have this rollcall, there is another right behind it.

I recommend we put the statement in its entirety in the record at this time. I am sure Mr. Scheuer and I have questions to ask, if we can do it that way. That will complete our hearings in a much more orderly way, if it is agreeable to you.

STATEMENT OF MILTON RECTOR, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. RECTOR. All right, sir; would you prefer that I just field your questions?

Mr. PUCINSKL. Yes.

Mr. RECTOR. Could I add one or two things to my statement for the record?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes, and your statement will go in the record at this point.

(The statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT BY MILTON G. RECTOR, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY, NEW YORK CITY

I am Milton Rector, director of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, a nongovernmental, non-profit organization. The NCCD seeks to introduce improved methods in the prevention, control, and treatment of crime and delinquency. It is headed by a Board of Trustees of prominent and informed persons, the majority of whom are lay citizens. We support and direct citizen councils in 19 states in which over 600 leading business, labor, and professional members study and promote needed changes in our juvenile and criminal justice systems. We are now organizing a national movement, similar to that developed in the mental health field, to inform and to involve leading citizens in efforts to reduce the crime and delinquency problem.

The NCCD's professional staff serve the nation through our New York headquarters, four regional offices, and 19 state offices. Staff conduct professional evaluations, management studies and surveys and provide technical consultation for governmental agencies working with delinquency and crime problems. The NCCD has developed the world's largest crime and delinquency library and a research and information center in which information about crime and delinquency literature, research, and experimental projects from sixty countries is abstracted and stored with the National Clearinghouse for Mental Health Information for systematic retrieval.

The NCCD strongly supports the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 which we consider as essential for juveniles as the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act is for adults. We are acutely aware of the great need for federal leadership and financial support to help states and communities contend with the serious delinquency problem. On the other hand, having seen how little could be accomplished with the small amount of money appropriated under the Juvenile

Delinquency Act of 1961, we are concerned that this Act has requested far too little to have significant impact on the problem.

Our hope would be that the funds appropriated under this Act could be allocated primarily to agencies, courts, and organizations dealing with youngsters identified as delinquent. This would enhance the preventive and rehabilitative capacities of these organizations to concentrate on reducing the chances that first and second offenders will become third and fourth offenders. The much larger programs for public child welfare services in HEW, anti-poverty programs in OEO, and demonstration cities programs under HUD are already addressing needs of youngsters who are suffering various opportunity deprivations and are in danger of becoming delinquent. The proposed legislation should deal only with those already identified as delinquent.

The NCCD has recently completed a three-year study of training schools throughout the United States and last year we conducted a study of all state and local juvenile and adult correctional services for the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice..!

Our findings reveal that over 50 percent of the youngsters in state and local government training schools in 1965 had not previously been supervised or helped on probation. Because about 80 percent of the nation's juvenile courts lack diagnostic and clinical services, most judges are required to make their disposi tion without sufficient information; and most judges did not have the probation staff with which to undertake community-centered care. Far too little is known about which youngsters must be institutionalized and which ones can be better controlled and helped within the community.

The California Youth Authority's Intensive Community Supervision Project conducted under an NIMH grant demonstrates that even hardened multiple offenders can do better in the community under close supervision than in institutions. In many instances, the courts and probation officers are forced to give up far too soon because of lack of adequate community resources.

In 1965 the annual operating costs for state training schools totaled $144.600,000. For the most part, these schools are still operating undermanned, sterile programs and are incapable of applying knowledge that is already available or for testing new knowledge.

Despite the successes achieved in non-institutional, community-based programs, state and local governments are now planning a 42 percent increase in training school capacity by 1975 at an estimated cost of $177,000,000. This projection of funds is made despite the low success rate in dealing with institutionalized youngsters. On the other hand, little financial support is projected to increase the capability of community-based programs which, when adequately financed and administered, do a more effective job of dealing with delinquent youth.

The NCCD, therefore, urges that Title I of the Act make comprehensive community and state planning for juvenile delinquency services a mandatory condition for receiving a grant. Comprehensive planning should require such basic data as the amount and kinds of police, detention, court, and probation contacts and dispositions and the extent of use of institutions and alternatives to institutional care.

Without these data revealed in a plan, federal grant funds will be, in all likelihood, spent for more detention beds when better police screening criteria, more intake officers, or more judges are needed instead. More institution beds and new halfway houses will be requested when the actual need is for such help as more probation and aftercare programs, subsidized group homes, or training for judges.

While community planning should be required as a prerequisite for grants and the states should have no veto power over needed local programs, the legislation, or the administrative policy to implement the Act, should require that information copies of all community plans be routed to appropriate state planners for comment and coordination. If this does not happen, it can be predicted that small counties and municipalities will attempt to construct and to staff programs. which could be operated and staffed better at a regional or state level.

It will be disappointing and unfortunate if this Act does not encourage and facilitate the maximum investment of state funds and leadership to local government through the development of essential statewide reporting systems, standard setting, technical consultation and grants or subsidies for local and regional services. The day must pass when the state government will consider its only responsibility that of providing institution beds to receive committed youngsters