STATEMENTS, LETTERS, SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. BENNETT, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Mr. Chairman, the rising juvenile delinquency rate in this country is shocking and must be reversed if we are to continue to protect the sanctity of home life in America and uphold the traditions of good government and the rule of law in our nation. The statistics are an indication of what the growing problems are with juvenile delinquency and the continued percentage jump in crimes committed by those under 18 years of age. Over 60 percent of those arrested for automobile theft in 1965 were under 18 years of age, and 88 percent were under 25; three-quarters of the arrests in 1965 for robbery, willful homicide, forcible rape, aggravated assault, burglary, automobile theft, theft of $50 or over, petty larcency and negligent manslaughter were by people less than 25 years old; and more 15-year-olds were arrested for these crimes than people of any other age, and the 16-year-olds were to close second. Arrests of young persons under 18 years of age were up seven percent in cities over 100,000 and 11 percent in the suburbs; crimes committed by 18-yearolds, and under, increased nine percent in 1966 over 1965. These are shocking figures and point up the extent of juvenile delinquency in this country. As Bishop Reuben H. Mueller, President of the National Council of Churches of Christ, said: "A moral reformation is in order for our times, beginning with us adults. The real problem today is that our homes-our families have neglected responsibility for the character training of our children." But I also believe that the federal government has a responsibility to our children and young adults by providing groups and organizations and public bodies with the proper tools with which to rid America of juvenile delinquency and crime. In 1964, I was able to add an amendment to the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act, establishing assistance to programs which would teach our youth "high ethical and community responsibility standards." I have been informed that many public agencies and outside groups have taken advantage of this opportunity to help in this field. The rising crime rates, juvenile delinquency, the riots, the civil disobedience, and other aspects of a break down in our moral fiber and ethical conduct show that we have an emergency situation on our hands. We should waste no time in attacking this problem on a nationwide basis. I am in agreement with the objectives of H.R. 7642, "The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967," and I am hopeful that meaningful legislation can be adopted by the Congress to help in the critical field of law enforcement and correction to reverse the rising crime rates, especially among children and young adults. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Re Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 (S. 1248 and H.R. 6162). House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE O'NEILL: The Office of the Commissioner of Probation of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts strongly supports the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967. We are acutely aware of the great need for Federal leadership and financial support to help states and communities contend with the national delinquency problem. Our hope is that the funds allocated under this Act could be allocated primarïv to agencies, courts, and organizations dealing primarily with youngsters idente fied as delinquents. Money spent for good probation services can provide specialized programs and effectual care for the adjudicated delinquent, procedures far sounder economically than commitment to an institution. We strongly urge your support for this Act and with the same fervor as in our previous letter supporting the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act. Very truly yours, C. ELIOT SANDS, Commissioner of Probation. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE ON JUVENILI DELINQUENCY, CHICAGO, ILL., APRIL 10-12, 1967 Among the three levels of government, state government has the basic rosporsibility for the prevention, control and treatment of juvenile delinquency. Bet delinquency is by no means the exclusive concern of state government. Each cit:zen and every level of government has an appropriate part to play. These responsi bilities are inescapably intertwined. Maximum progress cannot be made without full cooperation between the federal, state, and local governments, and litprogress can be made at any level without the informed support of the citizen. In fulfilling its responsibilities, the state must rely upon and assist its loca. communities in providing essential services and facilities. The state should be prepared to provide consultation and technical assistance and, where necessary to share with local communities the costs of needed programs. FIXING RESPONSIBILITY The Conference recommends that each state establish necessary machinery v coordinate the planning, leadership and services of the state agencies which ee tribute to the prevention, control and treatment of juvenile delinquency. Respon sibility for directing the coordinating machinery should be clearly vested in ore official or agency, which should have the authority to delegate assignments and responsibilities among the other officials and agencies involved. The state coord nating agency should establish close working relationships with other levels of government and with voluntary groups. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION The Conference recommends that each Governor call a statewide confere to assess the dimensions of the delinquency problem in the state. State gover ment cannot fulfill its responsibilities for youth alone. It needs the help of ex zens who are informed and involved. CURRENT FEDERAL PROPOSALS Now pending in the Congress are two major measures to provide for feder participation in the crime and delinquency field. The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 provides for grants throu the Department of Health. Education and Welfare to the states and the localities for delinquency prevention, treatment and control programs. The Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1967 provides for grants throng the Department of Justice to the states and their localities for expanded enriched juvenile and adult law enforcement and correctional programs Passage of both of these measures is critical because legislative author for existing federal programs in the delinquency field will lapse on June 3 The Conference strongly recommends the states' support of these two bills. COORDINATED PLANNING Under the proposed federal legislation, funds would be available to states a communities for comprehensive planning. Such planning would be desirable et · in the absence of this legislation. Each state should begin now to establish mechanism for such planning. State and local planning should be coordinated so that the needs of each eor munity are considered as part of the total needs of the state. Federal grants! delinquency and crime control should be made only for programs consistent with comprehensive plans adopted by states and their local communities. So that states may help to strengthen local juvenile delinquency efforts, appropriate state agencies should be notified about local requests for grants in order to have an opportunity to review and comment on them. The review and comment procedure can provide valuable information to the state and be of assistance to the federal government in relating the grant request to the comprehensive state plan. UPGRADING THE JUVENILE COURT The Conference affirms its support for the basic principles of the Juvenile Court system which is vital to the provision of effective services for youth. It recognizes, however, that there are deficiencies in existing Juvenile Courts and urges that the state assume leadership in upgrading these courts to make it possible for them to furnish the services needed by youth. The Juvenile Court must retain its treatment oriented goals and flexibility and at the same time protect the Constitutional rights of juveniles. PROVIDING PERSONNEL Throughout the nation delinquency programs are hampered by a critical shortage of trained professional and sub-professional personnel and by the paucity of programs and facilities for education of such personnel. It is essential that states provide additional funds to expand professional educational programs as well as in-service training, and that efforts be made to recruit and retain a larger percentage of trained persons for work in delinquency programs. In this connection, the Conference urges the states to give careful attention to the forthcoming reports of the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training. INTERSTATE ADVISORY SERVICE During the past several years, the states have benefited greatly from the work of the National Governors' Conference Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency and its Advisory Committee of State Officials. The value of this important interstate mechanism should not be lost, particularly at a time when new federal programs are in the offing. Accordingly, the Conference urges that consideration be given by the National Governors' Conference and the Council of State Governments to means of continuing this committee. The Conference also suggests that the services of such a group be offered to the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and to the Attorney General in connection with their responsibilities for administering delinquency and crime prevention programs. STATEMENT PRESENTED BY MONSIGNOR LAWRENCE J. CORCORAN, SECRETARY, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES The National Conference of Catholic Charities historically has had an interest in juvenile delinquency, including its prevention. We welcome the opportunity to comment on H.R. 7642, "The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967.” We especially are heartened by the emphasis on prevention which must be the heart of any community program or agency activity which addresses itself to juvenile delinquency. Without doubt all of us in Catholic social service can support H.R. 7642 as a legislative measure greatly needed today. Its emphasis on research, on innovation, on community-level planning rather than individual agency planning; its provision that the young themselves become a part of the planning and execution in some programs; and its clear delineation of preventive and rehabilitative programs, requiring flexibility in designs which are to be related directly to current conditions; all these are features of the Bill which we strongly endorse. There are, however, several points which we offer for your consideration. 1. Those sections of the Bill designating allocation of funds solely for projects and communities where there is assurance that the program will continue under local auspices "within a reasonable time" are, perhaps unwittingly, discriminatory. Poorer communities, where needs are great and present facilities few, are least likely to benefit from this program. We are aware of the danger that some communities and states may shift to the Federal Government a responsibility which they could in fact carry themselves, once good programs have been set in motion, but we hope this danger is not avoided by denying assistance to those areas who have real need. 2. Execution of the Bill would be strengthened if its administration were designated by law within a single administrative unit. At present, federal programs relating to delinquency are spread throughout the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Office of Education, the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration, the Children's Bureau and the National Institute of Mental Health are all involved in programs. In addition, the training programs for personnel are handled by the Department of Labor. While we are not suggesting that the present Bill address itself to the problems attached to this situation, we do believe that the designation of a single administrative unit will prevent the problem's being compounded and will assure better execution of this law. 3. In view of the historical role voluntary agencies have played in developing new and original programs of social welfare, and their special efforts in the field of youth and delinquency, the Bill should encourage their innovative role by clarifying the position they will hold under the present provisions. In the rehabilitative area, where they are contributing so much, private agencies are eligible for no funds, in spite of the emphasis in this section of the Bill on new ideas, methods, etc. This omission will deprive many communities of a service they cannot really afford to lose. 4. The Bill should be amended to provide funds for grants for personnel training. Universities and colleges should be assisted to initiate and continue undergraduate and graduate training programs. These recommendations and comments are not to be construed as a rejection of the Bill. We offer them as a means of improving and strengthening H.R. 7642 which we have commended already and for which we will continue to enlist support. STATE OF OHIO. Hon. ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Mr. CHAIRMAN and MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: My name is Joseph White. I am Acting Director of the Community Services Division of the Ohio Youth Commission. The Commission is a department of state government which is primarily charged with the rehabilitation and prevention of juvenile delinquents At the present time, we have approximately five thousand children under om jurisdiction, from the ages of ten to twenty. Our interest and concern with H.R. 6162, therefore, should be quite understandable. I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that the mass of data presented to your cour mittee is in many ways, as difficult to assess as it is for those of us in the fied of juvenile delinquency. Local leaders cry for more state institutions, state officials plead for greater flexibility in federal funding and rulemaking, and federal officials see community services as the greatest solution to the proldens confronting our cities. Everyone condemns the inadequacy of parents but must are slow to remove children from such environments. Delinquency is ofte seen as a product of poverty and slum living. Yet we know that we must realistically return these children to their own or comparable neighborhoods where they feel most comfortable. It seems to me that several things are certain. and should be used as a starting point. First of all, the problems of juvere delinquency will not be alleviated without the concentrated effort of a ce cerned citizenry. Social problems in this country have only shown positive results when the coordinated attention of our government has been directed toward them. I, therefore, wholeheartedly endorse the findings and objectives in ser. : of the Bill. Secondly, while delinquency occurs, for the most part, in the street of our cities, it cannot and should not be viewed as simply a local problem When a boy can drive from his home in Youngstown to Cleveland. Akron, or even Erie, Pennsylvania, and be back in less time than it would take to view a movie in a local theatre, the notion of delinquency as a local problem archaic at best. And, finally, crime and delinquency will not be eliminated. matter what we propose to do about them. They represent, in the abstract, both the consequence and the cost of people living together in groups. Therefore, it is critical that we not be swayed by emotional demands of those who have become overwhelmed by the insolubility of delinquency and, on the other hand, that we not set goals for our programs that are impossible to achieve. I would like to briefly relate to you and to the members of the committee what our experience and statistical evidence in Ohio suggests to us as the most effective means of utilizing federal resources. I will confine my remarks to three aspects of the Bill. The first will be directed toward the debate that apparently exists between those advocating institutional treatment and those recommending communiy services; the second will relate to the role of state government in the administration of programs and the last area of interest will be directed toward Sec. 303, entitled "Appropriations." I. INSTITUTIONAL VERSUS COMMUNITY SERVICES There is no question that more juvenile institutions are needed. In Ohio, for example, we would have to build four institutions of 200 beds each just to reduce the present populations in our existing institutions to their rated capacities. At present, we have under construction two new institutions and the expansion of one camp to enlarge our capacity by 430 beds. We have projected our needs over the next six years to include seven new institutions which would expand our capacity by an additional 1380 beds. These institutions, in our judgment, will meet the juvenile delinquency needs for institutional care in Ohio for a number of years to come. So there is no question in our minds that additional facilities are badly needed. However, may I, at the same time, point out some dismaying facts at the other end of the spectrum. Ten years ago in Ohio we had only three delinquency institutions; today we have ten. Our institutions are more overcrowded today than they were ten years ago. Furthermore, our statistics show that in 1965 the number of delinquency cases heard by juvenile courts in Ohio actually went down by 3.7% over the number of cases heard during the previous year. Yet during that same period, commitments to state institutions by those same courts rose by 10%. It is abundantly clear on us that the states, and even local communities, cannot keep pace with the demands for services so long as we tie our programs to physical plants. It also points out to us that if there are delinquency institutions in existence, the likelihood is great that they will be overused. That is to say, many children who would have been dealt with in the community are frequently committed to institutions simply because the court feels that the state has ample resources to provide for them. In 1965, one-fourth of all children committed to the Ohio Youth Commission were committed for offenses, which, if committed by adults, would not even have been punishable. These non-adult delinquencies include such offenses as truancy, incorrigibility and attempting to get married, underaged, without parental consent. Even more distressing was the fact that almost 28% of the children committed to us had either one or two official court appearances prior to commitment. It would seem quite likely that many of these children could and should have been helped in their own communities without having to resort to institutionalization. We have found that effective community services are not only desirable for many children but that such services are well within the confines of reasonable expectations. We have increased state foster care for delinquent children about seven times in the last three years so that one-fourth of all of our wards on aftercare are in some type of foster care setting. Our return rates for these children are half of our return rates for children who were returned to their own homes. At the present time, we are asking the Ohio General Assembly for a grant which would allow us to subsidize foster care for wards of juvenile courts. Our theory is that foster care is one effective alternative to institutionalization. The Youth Commission has also attempted to provide other alternatives to state commitment. At present, we administer a probation development subsidy whereby we subsidize and train county probation officers and supervisors. Out of 35 counties participating in this subsidy program in 1965, seventeen actually reduced their commitments over the previous year. The savings to the state more than paid for the entire program. We also have a subsidy program whereby the state shares in the cost of the construction and operation of local, short-term delinquency facili |