ties. Although the rules only became effective in January, 1966, we presently have five such facilities which have advanced to the point of being funded or have already begun architectural drawings. Some of these will contain diagnostic services and others will be more or less designed to accomodate delinquent children with strong dependency needs. The point of all of this is that a wide variety of community services are possible, that county governments are prepared to share the costs of these programs and that it will take the participation of more than one level of government to make them come about.

II. THE ROLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT

One of the major reasons for the massive infusion of federal money into 2 variety of local programs has been inability of the states to meet responsibilities that they should have assumed as part of their own governmental operation. And while it is true that the costs of meeting the demands of local communities are irrevocably beyond the resources of both local and state governments, it is equally true that there is a revitalization of interest among the states to do more to help their cities meet the challenges of urban impact. It is important that this resurgence of responsibility not be thwarted by federal funding patterns that preclude a meaningful role for state governments. We have wit nessed much disorganization, wasted effort and unnecessary frustration in the operations of the Office of Economic Opportunities because of an effor to get funds directly into communities or neighborhoods outside of the tradi tional lines of governmental funding.

It is important to remember that communities have traditionally looked to state government for technical assistance in developing local programs. Familiarity with local conditions is greater and resentment of outside intervention is less where state governments are involved. I would, therefore. recommend that serious consideration be given to enabling states to assume a role in the important areas of standard setting, administration and planning

HI. ADEQUACY OF THE APPROPRIATION

Section 303 provides for a first year appropriation of $25,000,000. This figury is simply not realistic, unless it is the intention of Congress only to supply sufficient funds for scattered demonstration projects and sporadic planning Let us say that Ohio could optimistically anticipate $1,000,000 from the tot appropriation. It is obvious that any construction projects are out of the question. The Youth Commission anticipates that a 200 bed regional diagnosti center will cost approximately three times that figure. If we are talking about residential programs wherein facilities, such as half-way houses, are rented then a single half-way house in each of our communities over 250,000 populatio would consume the entire amount. If we are only speaking of funds for planning and coordinating among existing agencies, then all we will have achieved is the better coordination of inadequate services. If the appropriation were rais to $100,000,000, the prospective impact would be greater than four times, par ticularly if administration costs were minimized through greater utilization of existing state agencies.

This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman. I strongly urge the passage of H.R. 6162.

Committee on Education and Labor,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN PUCINSKI: I write in support of the urgent passage of HR6162, introduced into the House of Representatives on February 27, 1967. ! Congressman Perkins. Not only is this legislation vital to us in Denver w: are struggling to improve and expand our rehabilitative services to youth offenders, but this measure is equally crucial to many other communities throughout our nation which I have visited.

Denver experienced during 1966 upwards of 25 per cent more delinquency filings than the previous year. Delinquency filings also increased in most cities throughout the nation and I believe this is not only due to the larger population of juvenile court age who are now numbered in our society. This bill is consistent with the recommendations of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, which urged a heightened development of community-based rehabilitation facilities. This bill would stimulate a grossly neglected area, namely, state and local planning for meeting the service needs of a community and for improving the coordination among local services. The enactment of this legislation would reduce the number of children detained in local jails, estimated at 100,000 annually. This Bill would foster the expansion of promising projects such as halfway houses, one of which our Court has recently launched.

Among the amendments which the Committee may wish to consider would be one providing for the training of personnel who may be employed by juvenile correctional agencies. Manpower needs in this field are serious and training in its many forms for the personnel would be most valuable. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,

TED RUBIN, Juvenile Court Judge,

SPEECH BY STATE SENATOR LOUIS DE LA PARTE, OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE JUDGES, JUNE 29, 1967

Without a doubt the most serious and the most vexing problem facing our society today is crime. It is an expensive problem when you consider that it costs you and me and the other law abiding citizens of this nation more than 20 billion dollars each year. And this appraisal does not include the untold physical and emotional anguish suffered by the victims of criminals.

The periodic reports of the Federal Bureau of Investigation punctuate the crescendo of the crisis of crime. The ratio of criminals to the total population is the highest in the history of this nation. The frequency of crime is increasing. Consequently, it is only natural for the people of this nation, the people of Florida and of your state to become concerned and to demand a concentrated assault on this threat to their lives and possessions.

The result, of course, has been a war on crime, a war declared by governors from California to Florida. It too is a war in which you, the juvenile judges and the juvenile courts must be a vital part. Indeed, you should be the field generals for actually you have the most to offer and conversely, the most to lose in this battle.

You have the most to offer for I am completely convinced that no war can be effectively waged against crime unless the primary assault is concentrated upon the juvenile delinquent and youthful offender.

I realize and appreciate that you are the experts in this field. I recognize also that you have spent this entire week poring over the mechanics and the statistics of your responsibilities. Therefore, I will try not to bore you unnecessarily with figures. No doubt you have addressed numerous audiences and have used any statistics which I could quote tonight anyway. Certainly any statistical data which might be needed can easily be extracted from the report "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society" or from "Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime", the task force reports which were published by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice.

It is practically common knowledge anyway that one out of four rapes, that one out of three robberies, that more than half the thefts are committed by juveniles. To help enforce this and to help make my point, however, I would like to note that here in Florida nearly 40 percent of our adult prison population is 20 years of age or younger. Actually, more than half, 52 percent, are 25 years of age or younger.

What does this mean? It means that the most active, the most threatening crime front, is on the juvenile and young adult level. This not only is the most active front, it too is the breeding ground, the boot camp, for the professional criminal, the proving ground for crimes of profit.

On one hand, we have public pressure mounting. The people want to stop wholesale crime. The police are groping. Educators are groping. The courts are groping. Everybody is trying to reverse the spiraling crime rate. But thus far, our efforts have been futile.

80-799-67-38

In the widely publicized wars on crime, the main attacks have been at the glamor crimes, the organized vices, the gambling, prostitution, the crimes of profit. The Florida senate just the other day issued the governor a one-milliondollar blank check with no guidelines, with no outlined program, with but one purpose: to fight crime!

This sort of action makes headlines. If followed up with continuing programs of conscientious enforcement, it can take the profit out of crime and make it less alluring to the professionals. But it falls far short of stopping the crimes of the street, the rapes, the strong-armed robberies, the breaking and enterings, the theft and wanton destruction of property.

Don't get me wrong now. We must fight all crime. But are we making our first and primary thrust on the wrong flank? Are we concentrating on the sensational rather than on the mundane, street crimes which lack press appeal, but which wreck havoc on lives and property.

We must hit crime at its roots. We must identify the delinquent before he becomes a threat and a liability to society. We must recognize his potential as well as his past. We must lift the delinquent out of his abnormal environment and give him a normal opportunity to develop a normal personality, to gain a normal education, and to make a normal success out of his life.

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice makes this plain in its reports. The information and research of these reports are a gold mine. We should debate their conclusions as to solutions, but the study and the statistics are a masterpiece of research and analysis. And they should be a valuable point of beginning to us in the real war on crime.

Studies such as these and the growing public concern over the crime problem offer us a unique opportunity to make major advances in our struggle against this social problem. For in a free society there are few forces more powerful than an aroused public.

But, in addition to an aroused public we have still another stimulus. We have a concerned Supreme Court. As you know, I am referring to the Kent and Gault Decisions.

We now find ourselves caught between two great forces. On one hand the force of public pressure. On the other hand, the force of the Supreme Court. Those of us who share public responsibilities, police agencies, courts, departments of correction and rehabilitation, yes, and even the state legislatures, are caught in the middle.

The people are crying: Stop crime! And we know that the place to stop most of it is at the juvenile level. The Supreme Court, in the Gault Decision, questions the sincerity and effectiveness of the philosophy of parens patriae and we face the threat of losing our paternal authority over juvenile offenders.

The challenge is ours. And the challenge is now. We can sit back, shrug our shoulders and do nothing. And under the force of the Supreme Court ruling we can let our juvenile courts degenerate into nothing more than junior criminal courts with nothing but a cold, calculated judicial interest in young offenders. We can let someone else, perhaps a Federal agency, assume the responsibility of combating fuvenile delinquency even though the President's Commission itself emphasized that crime, especially juvenile crime, is a state and community responsibility.

Or, on the other hand, we can take advantage of the power of the public pressure and the threat of the Supreme Court. We can accept the Gault Decision. not as a proclamation of doom to our juvenile courts, but as a stimulus to convert the philosophy into reality, into promise and programs for our youth.

If we are to do this, we must provide both the programs and the facilities necessary to equip our juvenile judicial system for its parental role as well as for its judicial role. The Gault Decision does not attack the role of the juvenile court as much as it does the way that role has been exercised. I readily agree with Justice Fortas when he said. "Juvenile Court history has again demonstrated that unbridled discretion, however benevolently motivated, frequently is a poor substitute for principle and procedure."

Justice Fortas pointed out that the decision will not compel the states to abandon or displace any of the substantive benefits under juvenile process. But when the Supreme Court can see only that a juvenile offender is actually tried and sentenced, is actually incarcerated, locked up in a receiving home or industrial school, when his world becomes a building with white-washed wa!!* with regimented routines and institutional laws, then it has no other alternative than to require full protection for the legal rights of the offender. In this case. the court's interest is coldly judicial.

If, however, the juvenile court had the capacity and resources to fully exercise its parental concern, if the offender were offered, even compelled, to have an opportunity for real rehabilitation, if a proper school, if a proper environment. if proper medical and psychiatric care were provided, the same opportunities that would be available to most normal youth in a normal family, then I am convinced the Supreme Court could and would accept the philosophy that the court is a fitting substitute for parental authority where none other exists and that the consequences of court action would be not a deprivation of liberty but truly an opportunity for the future of the accused youth.

Personally, as a member of a state legislature, I can acknowledge the great need for reform in the juvenile courts and a great need for state action in providing adequate personnel, for providing trained sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and other counselors. I can see the need for institutional facilities and programs which are geared, equipped and staffed to train, rehabilitate and educate youthful offenders.

I agree with Justice Harlan in his concurring opinion when he said, "Legislatures are as the court has often acknowledged, the main guardian of the public interest and within their constitutional competence, the understanding of that interest must be accepted as well nigh conclusive." I can agree when he adds that the states should be permitted additional opportunities to develop, without unnecessary hindrance, their systems of juvenile courts.

This brings us to the whole point of my speech: We now have it within our power to build a system of juvenile justice and juvenile opportunity. We can strike crime at its roots, if we are but willing to make the effort, if we are but willing to pay the price.

The people are aroused. The Supreme Court has challenged us. Our state legislatures are recently reapportioned and now the areas with the major juvenile problems have an influential voice in passing appropriate legislation. You, who are the professionals in this field, now have a unique opportunity. You know what our needs are. You know what programs will meet them. What remains to be done is to sell your legislatures on the problem and the needs. If you want the juvenile courts to assume fully their role within the judicial system, then you must sell your legislators on the needs. You must show them the problems, point out the frustrations. You must be willing to participate in self criticism and in constructive changes. You, too, must convince your legislators and the public that superficial acts such as publishing the names of offenders is not the answer to the juvenile problem.

This is something each and every judge here, yes, every judge who administers juvenile law must do. No, I don't mean that you should point to your association's legislative committee. That is important too, for it drafts the bills and programs, but what I mean, is that you personally must acquaint your legislator, your county's delegation with the problems in your court, in your county, and the problems throughout your state.

This is my ball game now. I'm not the heckler. I am a legislator and I can assure you that you cannot expect your state government to build a sound program on a few hastily written letters on a barrage of last minute phone calls before the session starts, or upon a couple of panic meetings half-way through the session.

Let me urge you, invite your representatives to your court. Take them to lunch. Show them what you are doing. Show them what should be done. Let them get the feeling of your responsibilities. Establish a dialogue between the professional's and the lawmakers."

There exists today a great gulf between the answers, the professional solutions to our social problems, and the implementation of those solutions. For example, in Florida we recognized, even applied, the principles of parole and probation supervision over adult offenders for nearly a quarter of a century before we created a similar program for juvenile offenders.

I say this only to point up the fact that quite often you have the expert knowledge that society needs but it is not being effectively communicated through your lawmakers and translated into effective programs.

For the past two years, I served as chairman of a legislative committee on juvenile delinquency. I purposely appointed only legislators to this committee, because I wanted them to become involved. I wanted them to talk to the experts, to the judges, to the counselors, to the sociologists, and psychiatric experts. I wanted us to experience your problems so that we could understand your needs; indeed, the needs of our state and our people.

Thus, we in Florida have begun this dialogue and as a result we have created a Division of Youth Services. Hopefully, with the continued support of the juvenile judges, with continued dialogue between the experts and the legislature, we can build this division into a statewide platform from which we can direct an effective program against crime and delinquency.

We hope to gather usable statistics. We hope to make in-depth interpretations. We hope to evaluate the effectiveness of old programs and to recommend new ones. Through this division we will seek to unite community and state resources and to provide leadership and expert services at all levels.

We intend to act positively and should we be defeated, we will lose honestly while fighting. Certainly, we will not lose by default.

We should never feel that we are in this battle alone. The people are in the struggle with us. They are concerned but they are looking to us for answers. Congress is concerned and Congress, too, is looking to us for answers. But Congress is trying to make it easier for us to find those answers.

Now pending in the National Capitol is House Bill HR 6162, which, if passed. will provide liberal financial grants for states to develop effective programs in youth services. Let me take this opportunity to urge you to contact your congressional delegations. Ask them, better still, insist that they support this measure. It offers us, on the state and community level, the logistical support we need to wage this war on delinquency.

Let us not forget that the future of millions of youth are in our hands. The future of our juvenile court system as we know it is in our hands. There is a maxim that history is a good teacher. This is true but it has one failing. While it shows us what has been done, it cannot show us what might have been. For history does not record the efforts which were never made.

Let us then make the effort. Let history record that we built a system of juvenile justice which can salvage the potential of our youth, a system which can build lives as well as judge them. Let history record that we struck a positive blow in the war on crime by hitting at its source, by stemming the tide of delinquency.

Thank you.

FURTHER STATEMENT OF ELIOT H. LUMBARD, TRUSTEE OF BIG BROTHERS, INC., OF NEW YORK CITY

I request that my oral presentation be amended to also include this statement and the attached two pieces of literature,1 all of which explain our agency and the nature of its service to the community. We believe this explanation to be especially important due to the confusion which arose in a discussion between Congressman Pucinski and myself during my appearance before the Committee. Since clearly our goals were the same, it is important that those who will be charged with expressing those goals as a matter of drafting or program development have an understanding of what our agency does.

Big Brothers, Inc. of New York City is a blend of volunteers and professional social workers. We believe a valuable program such as ours (in existence since 1904) provides an important resource to our community, and it should be part of any new or expanded federal program to reduce juvenile delinquency. While research is necessary to develop new programs for many types of boys, we are currently in existence and have an immediate capability to expand within the framework of a service program to a very large category of boys.

There are now approximately 110 chartered Big Brother agencies in over 30 states in the United States and in Canada.

The Big Brothers of America was established in 1947, with our agency as the prime mover among 13 original sponsors.

It serves as a national standard setting agency; it helps to develop new Big Brother organizations and charters them; but each local agency is autonomous under its own charter and Board, and responsible for the development of its own services and its own financing according to the prevailing local pattern Our own agency presently serves approximately 650 boys per year, with about 350-400 boys in care at any one time. There are about 300 active Big Brothers, and there is always need for more.

1 In committee files.