The Commission appreciates the consideration that your Committee will give to its views. Sincerely, JOHN B. MARTIN, Chairman, Michigan Commission on Crime, Delinquency and Criminal Administration. POSITION STATEMENT BY THE MICHIGAN COMMISSION ON CRIME, DELINQUENCY AND CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION ON H.R. 6162-THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1967 The Michigan Commission on Crime, Delinquency and Criminal Administration hereby records its general support for the purposes and provisions proposed within H.R. 6162, titled, "The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967.” The Commission is particularly impressed by the emphasis of H.R. 6162 upon assuring that rehabilitation services for delinquent or pre-delinquent children will utilize and promote the related services of community institutions and agencies in mental health, social services, education, job training and placement, and other basic youth-serving programs. In addition to this general endorsement, the Michigan Commission is concerned that the Bill as proposed fails to give sufficient support to those state or regional institutions which, as "training or industrial schools," have served a vital function in caring for children who could no longer live within the open community. The strengthening of congregate residential centers to serve court committed children is critical. It is clear that state facilities in Michigan which offer this service are not adequate for the increase in numbers who need it. We understand Michigan is not alone in this respect. To encourage the speedy establishment of centers for court committed delinquent or pre-delinquent youth, administered by our own Department of Social Services or a like agency of other jurisdiction, the Commission on Crime, Delinquency and Criminal Administration calls for: "The expanding of the legislative intent of "The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967,' especially section 124, to include Federal financial support for the planning and construction of rehabilitation centers for court committed children where the nature of the manifest problems of the children do not permit frequent and continuous access by the children to community-based services, or where factors of population in a State mean that the locating of a facility cannot be within the perimeter of any population center which has an abundance of community-based services to which the court committed children could make ready access." Hon. ROMAN PUCINSKI, Chairman, House Education and Labor Committee JUNE 21, 1967. DEAR MR. PUCINSKI: For your consideration, enclosed is a copy of suggestions previously presented to Representative Emanuel Celler concerning pending legislation relating to the prevention and control of crime and delinquency. A copy was also sent to Senator John L. McClellan. I would like to take this opportunity to again reiterate support especially for the enactment of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967. The suggestions are presented with the understanding that the original legislation is being rewritten hopefully to provide more realistic support for the problems relating to the prevention and control of delinquency. Delinquency is a social malady that has little respect for local, state, or even national boundaries. Thus, it would seem that Federal participation and cooperation is essential for the creation, at least, of a start toward finding solutions to the problem. There are Federal sponsored programs in existence that have a direct bearing on juvenile delinquency. They include, among others, the various poverty programs, child welfare programs, special educational programs, medical programs for children, etc. Now there is an immediate need to address ourselves to the problems of the adjudicated delinquent child. Comprehensive state planning for juvenile delinquency services should certainly be a mandatory condition to receiving grants. To do otherwise would be an open invitation for the perpetuation of the "pound of flesh" philosophy, which is presently too prevalent, to build bigger and bigger brick monuments to house more and more of society's failures. This philosophy becomes of more than special concern with the value of such procedures being very questionable in comparison to many of the possibilities of community centered programs. Without adequate planning on the state level, we could end up, for example, with more poorly trained peace officers or "nice guys" trying to be rehabilitative specialists through the shortsightedness of local administrators. In addition, planning on the local level without statewide coordination is certainly an excellent method for the creation of fragmentated services. Such services have already too often become nothing more than obstructions to the creation and advancement of more effective rehabilitative resources and facilities. In the past the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency has been afflicted with the ailment of "too"-"too little too late" and unfortunately "too" often being applied in the wrong places to obtain the most effective results. Delinquency endeavors deserve more than a passing glance even if it takes some "head bumping" with some of the old guard in the administrative structures on the Federal level to accomplish the task. If a Heman Stark of the California Youth Authority is needed to get the job done, then let's take what action is necessary and get on with the battle. Sincerely yours, Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, YOUTH REHABILITATION DIVISION, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee No. 5, MAY 10, 1937. DEAR MR. CELLER: The recent report entitled "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society" by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice has forcefully brought together in one document what many of the authorities in the field of "criminal justice" have known and expressed deep concern about for several decades. That is, there is need for considerable improvement in the methods and philosophies presently used in the prevention and control of crime and delinquency. Apparently from the interest created by this study, new legislation has been proposed including the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 and the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act. Within the competence of my professional training and experience, I would like to take this opportunity to present some suggestions and to encourage enactment of the pending legislation. If a point of priority for enactment of the legislation becomes an issue, it should be emphasized that the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency is the first step in the control of crime. It is hoped that the need to question priorities will not arise, and that the urgency for enactment of both proposals will no be underestimated. If experience from past undertakings is of any value, careful consideration should be given to the fact that the most sincere legislative intent can go astray through administrative responsibility being placed where basic interests are not always conducive to the accomplishment of the most promising results. For example, surgical tools in the hands of a non-medical hospital administrator. regardless of his administrative ability, do not provide expertness in their use. The same philosophy is true in placing the administrative responsibilities for rehabilitative services under the administrative direction of the judiciary the prosecution or law enforcement. The Crime Commission's report has quite diligently emphasized that all three separate parts of the correctional team-law enforcement, the judiciary, and the rehabilitative resources (referred to as corrections in the report)-have been for years, to say the least, functioning considerably below par. Where to pin the responsibility for the failures could no doubt cover the vast gamut of everything from individual inabilities to public apathy. Nevertheless, one of the logical conclusions about the failures, among other things, could be related to the fact that generally, on all levels of government, many of the programs in all three areas have been and are still lacking in administrative leadership akin to the best interest of the particular goals to be accomplished. The Commission's report stated that each segment of the team should represent a separate organized part, each with distinct tasks to accomplish. It was further noted that what each one does and how it does it has a direct effect on the work of the other. To add to the confusion about the skills needed to do a particular job, the questionable use of the word "corrections" provides a good basis for complications. Too often "corrections" is referred to as a profession in which a person may receive "special training". When we say "training in corrections", what does it mean? Is it training to be a police officer, a judge, a prosecutor, a prison warden or guard? Is it an accountant in a correctional agency or a teacher in an institution for delinquent children? Does it include a psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist, or a medical specialist working in a penal setting? Even if the term could be limited to the institutional setting, its present use would still be very misleading. Much confusion could be eliminated if "corrections" could be considered as a field of operation where various professional and other skills are applied in the process of the apprehension, adjudication and rehabilitation of the offender. The present use of the word is a "hangover" from the days when punishment in its severest stage was the order of the day to control crime. That philosophy has failed to deter crime, but some legal and law enforcement oriented personnel still "cling" to their claim for the administrative responsibility for the rehabilitative services, calling them correctional services, by inferring that the behavioral scientist does not have a responsibility for the protection of society, and would therefore be more inclined to indiscriminately release dangerous offenders back to the community. This is an excuse that is not only as out-dated and obsolete as the ancient method of public hanging of the pickpockets, but also serves as a retardent to the improvement of adequate rehabilitative programs both in the institution and in the community. As far back as the turn of the century, the practice of judges trying to be specialists in the behavioral sciences and trying to operate social agencies has been questioned but persistently ignored. As pointed out by Dr. Arthur L. Bealey and the Honorable John S. Boyden in an article in the Utah Law Review, page 337 (Winter 1963–64): "It might be added, in conclusion, that while the public rightly, looks to the legal fraternity for leadership in crime control, it is nevertheless beginning to realize that delinquency and crime are, in essence, problems of conduct-personal and social-and, therefore, no longer the exclusive concern of the lawyer and the judge as they were in pre-scientific era. The clinical wisdom of the behavioral and social sciences (e.g., psychiatry, phychology and social work) is, for example, imperative if we are to mount a united attack on lawlessness, and its increase, in a time of cataclysmic social change." It is recommended that special consideration be given in the delegation of administrative responsibility for the proposed legislation to insure that program development-whether it be related to law enforcement, the judiciary or the rehabilitative aspects-be directed to agencies where their professional interest would be more akin to the adequate development of the particular programs. To continue to give approval to the judiciary, the prosecution or law enforcement for the administration of rehabilitative facilities and resources, either for adults or juveniles, will only add to a further perpetuation of a dilution of the potentials of the total program. Private industry has long been aware that the undertaking of a development or expansion program necessitates the obtaining of workmen sufficiently skilled to produce a saleable product. Therefore, both inservice and formal academic training have become an important factor in meeting personnel needs. From the standpoint of dealing with the social problems of mankind, there should be no exception to this theory. Skilled workmen are still needed. Presently there are a number of new programs under way to improve the plight of certain segments of our populace. To mention a few, the poverty programs, special aducational programs, mental health and mental retardation programs. Certain professional skills that are needed in these programs will also be essential in the expansion of services for the prevention and control of crime and delinquency. In fact, the problems are very closely related and the search for solutions in all areas must be approached with this in mind. Thus, the emphasis on rehabilitative services for the offender will create an added strain on an already critically limited supply of essential specialists in social work, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, etc. 80-799-67- -39 In-service training is very important and certainly should be encouraged, but cannot provide the skilled personnel needed for many of the recommended re habilitative and preventive programs. The lack of adequately trained personnel has and will continue to cause some potentially very good programs to fall short of accomplishing the best results and then become, and justly so, subject to publie attack. To emphasize the point, in-service training for a friendly deputy sheriff will not make him a competent probation or parole officer. Formal academic training could do a much more effective job. Too often this has been ignored in the face of political patronage, public apathy, pressure of number of offenders, and especially the misguided theories of program administrators. It is suggested that funds be made available to the appropriate state authori ties both juvenile and adult-to provide stipends for training personnel on the professional levels, especially in the behavioral sciences. Hopefully to encourage action to alleviate the personnel problems, these funds should be allocated for immediate use and not be contingent upon the completion of a planning stage. The best of plans could be delayed several years because of the lack of trained personnel. To wait until the "building" is completed before considering the surve of labor supply to run the shop is not an accepted business practice. However, this suggestion does not exclude the need to also provide universities and colleges with immediate financial assistance for the expansion of resources for training personnel both on the in-service and the professional academic levels. The final suggestion is related to avoiding the creation of legislation that would be aimed at meeting the needs of large metropolitan areas, and in so doing re strict the less populated states from participating in the programs. The legisla tion, of course, must have certain limitations, but should not dictate to all states under a single formula what their most pressing needs must be to qualify for funds. What is of the utmost importance in New York or California may not fit into the priority of needs for Idaho. The problems in each state, as the result of various reasons including state and local support, may alter the need for assis tance in many areas. To provide restrictions that would force conformity to supposed needs created in Washington could result in legislation that would be of little help to many states. It is suggested that funds be allocated under the proposed legislation similar to the grants-in-aid method used by the Child Welfare and Crippled Children's programs of the Children's Bureau. This would permit the states, through ade quate planning, to decide their own special needs and to develop them according ly. Hopefully, the "begging" for funds by concocting some special gimmick that might be "exciting" to someone in Washington could be avoided. Money for re search and special demonstration projects is very important, but not to the poin of excluding the expansion of some of the time-proven programs. If even a few of the excellent sugestions made by the President's Crime Commission could be implemented, it could be considered as a historical breakthrough in attacking the problem of crime and delinquency. If we, as a nano have the resources to make the scientific advances that have been made in the past half century, we then should certainly have the stamina to stand up to the task of solving some of our social ills. Sincerely yours, YOUTH REHABILITATION DIVISION. RAY W. WOOTTON, ATLANTA YOUTH COUNCIL, Hon. CARL D. PERKINS. Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: The Atlanta Youth Council would like to on record as fully endorsing the proposed Juvenile Delinquency Act of 1:57 (H.R. 6162). The Atlanta Youth Council is an official agency of the City of Atlanta whose responsibility it is to deal with problems of juvenile delinquen and youth crime and their prevention and control. The Aldermanic Board and the Mayor have committed the City's govern"ben" to the task of formulating and implementing community programs in the juventdelinquency and youth crime fields. The Council believes this proposed legisa tion is urgently needed to help local communities fight the rising tide of de'rquency. The agency is particularly interested in that portion of the bill which allots funds for the construction of half-way houses and small community-based fac ities. We are glad, too, that this bill places strong emphasis on preventive services. Our main concern about the bill is that the $25,000,000 being proposed is not enough for cities, let alone prepare for future needs in this field and states to up-grade their services even to present acceptable standards. We urge the enactment of this legislation immediately. Sincerely, Hon. ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, ROBERT M. WOOD, Chairman. THE JUNIOR CITIZENS CORPS, INC., Washington, D.C., June 22, 1967. Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR MR. PUCINSKI: The executives of the Junior Citizens Corps, Inc., have read with great interest the "Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967,” H.R. 7276. They concur with its recommendations, wishing to go on record as supporting the Prevention Act, and offer you the support of the agency. For twenty-five years the Junior Citizens Corps has carried on a juvenile delinquency prevention program in the District of Columbia, based upon the belief that programs to prevent and control juvenile delinquency can succeed only if they provide young people with a genuine opportunity to feel important, to act differently, to be identificed as somebody, to be responsible, to be recognized, and to feel secure. The Corps redirects the antisocial tendencies of juveniles, delinquents or otherwise, into socially acceptable channels and turns their energies from destructive to constructive activities. The overwhelming success of the Corps' program resulted in numerous requests from school officials, juvenile authorities, and local citizenry for help with problem youths. Not having an adequate staff to effectuate a qualitative program, the Corps sought financial assistance from the United Planning Organization and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In March 1965 UPO, realizing the merit and value of such a program in this community, appropriated funds totalling $151,452.00 from March, 1965 through June 30, 1967, to make possible the planning and implementing of a citizenship and recreation program directed to alienated, hostile children, ages 12 through 17 in Census Tracts 35, 45, and 49, who have not been reached by other programs. The program has been evaluated and proved effective. With the absence of UPO funds after June 30, 1967 650 youngsters will lose the benefits of the Corps' services and will be susceptible or volatile to unfavorable social acts as the "long hot summer" approaches. The Corps realizes the plight of impoverished youths and seeks to help them overcome defeatism, lack of aspiration and community cohesiveness. Thus, it is important that the new Juvenile Delinquency Proposal be passed by the House and the Senate in order that existing organizations and systems may be able to provide the services needed to show significant results in the prevention of juvenile delinquency and the rehabilitation of the juvenile delinquent. Dear Mr. PERKINS: As Superintendent of the Missouri State Training School for Girls, a member of the Professional Council of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and a member of the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, I am writing to you for the purpose of asking that you support the National Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967. I understand the Act (H.R. 6162, H.R. 7642) is now in the General Subcommittee on Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor of the House of Representatives. I am sure that the adolescent girls in the State of Missouri who are adjudicated delinquent and committed to this Missouri State Institution will derive a direct benefit through the passage of this Act. This benefit can come to them through the resultant over-all improvement and effectiveness of rehabilitative programs for youth in trouble. |