POVERTY Some 14.8 million children under 18-out of a total of about 70 million-live in poverty-stricken families. Of the 34.1 million persons in 1964 who came under the Social Security Administration's poverty-income standards, 43 percent were children. Teenagers receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children payments in 1961 constituted 2.7 percent of all 17 year olds, 3.8 percent of all 16 year olds, and 4.1 percent of all 15 year olds. REMARKS BY LISLE C. CARTER, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INDIVIDUAL AND FAMILY SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE* To complement the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, which Mr. Vorenberg has described to you, the President has also proposed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967. Taken together, both pieces of legislation take a long and carefully measured step towards implementing the recommendations of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. I hope that you will consider them two sides of the same coin-for we cannot hope to reduce crime if we do not at the same time make a vigorous effort to reduce juvenile delinquency. The report of the Crime Commission points out that in 1965 a majority of all arrests for major crimes were of people under 21, as were a substantial number of arrests for major crimes against the person. And the recidivism rates for youthful offenders are higher than for any other age group. A significant decrease in any of these figures would make an equally significant decrease in the total crime figures for the Nation. Our concern about juvenile delinquency is heightened when we remind ourselves that there are more young people every year and that young people have always had a higher crime rate than adults. The size of the younger age group is increasing twice as fast as the older age group. This can mean a significant increase in crime by the end of the next decade. This is an important, but not the only reason, why many of us feel a sense of urgency about the need for an increased Federal investment in the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency. An even more important reason for a redoubled effort in the delinquency field is that young people will shape tomorrow's world. They need and deserve our best efforts if they are to have a stake in that world. Although its implications are broad, the Act is a relatively simple proposition-it has only two titles and it would authorize $25,000,000 for 1968 and necessary sums for the next four fiscal years. Part A of Title I provides for planning and technical assistance grants: First, grants would be authorized to State or community public agencies to meet up to 90 percent of the cost of preparing or revising comprehensive Statewide or community-wide plans. The Secretary could make such planning a condition to receipt of any other aid under this title. Also authorized would be grants to State agencies to meet up to 90 percent of the cost of planning any project or program eligible for assistance under the Bill. I want to make clear that we are not talking about the development of more plans-we are talking about developing a planning competence. The complexity of juvenile delinquency demands a depth of investigation and an understanding that takes time. Planning in the delinquency field is a continuous process that has a spiral-like quality. It is not something that can be done once and for all. Consequently, the provisions for planning under the proposed legislation allow for the flexibility and latitude necessary to meet the varied planning needs of the States and communities. Part B of Title I is designed to assist public agencies to make full use of community resources for the treatment and rehabilitation of youth who have come to the attention of law enforcement agencies and the courts. The Federal share would be 60 percent. Under these provisions grants could be made to improve the pre-judicial dispositional handling process. The police and the courts are the two most important *Prepared for delivery before the National Governor's Conference on Juvenile Delinquency, April 11, 1967, Chicago, Illinois. 80-799-67-42 agencies that determine whether or not the official stamp of delinquency will be placed on those who come before them, and their actions determine very largely the dispositions that follow upon that stamp. Yet there are few formal guidelines available to the police and courts for the exercise of such discretionary powers, Frequently, those who make such decisions lack the expertise or resources to make them wisely. Discretion is often exercised haphazardly and episodically, without obligation to account and with little information about the juvenile or the availability of alternative dispositions. The proposed legislation can help to remedy these problems by enabling police and courts to add staff and resources necessary for the development of systematic procedures for pre-judicial dispositions and for the greater use of community programs. Grant funds would also make it possible for courts and correctional agencies to develop alternatives to the traditional practice of probation and parole. Much of the help that probationers and parolees need can come from community institutions-help from schools in gaining the education necessary for employment and help from employment services and vocational training facilities in finding jobs. If probation and parole officers are to mobilize varied community resources to deal more effectively with offenders, they must develop new work styles that reach out to community resources and relate them to the needs of their caseloads. Instead of working with isolated indivduals, consideration might be given to the assignment of probation and parole officers to specific target communities to act as advocates and mobilizers of resources for problem youth living in these communities. The role of the community corrections worker might be analogous to that of the Ombudsman, a spokesman for the target population in the larger community. The proposed legislation can make it possible for courts and correctional agencies to recruit and train both professional and non-professional workers to carry out these and other new roles in the community. If there is a principal need facing probation and corrections, it is for a greater range of treatment facilities. I am sure that most of us would agree on two major principles. The first is that traditional forms of incarceration in correctional institutions should be avoided insofar as possible. Not only is extended incarceration potentially damaging to individuals, but the cost of traditional correctional institutions is much greater than that associated with most alternatives to incarceration. The second and related principle is that the alternatives must be broad and diversified enough to encompass the whole range of offenders, both as to type and degree of severity of delinquent behavior. The provisions of Part B will make it possible for States and local agencies to replicate some of the imaginative programs developed elsewhere as alternatives to incarceration as well as to develop other innovative approaches. Among the most promising alternatives to full incarceration are various kinds of group-treatment programs operating in the community, but with the offender spending part of the day in a treatment center, where, for example, he participates in group sessions based upon the model of guided group interaction. The most important features of these programs is that the youth remain in the conmunity where their problems have arisen. Thus, the artificiality of institutional life is avoided and concentration can be placed upon the issues with which every offender eventually has to deal. Another way of increasing the range of alternatives available to sanctioning authorities is the development of different types of residential settings with great variations in the length of time persons spend in them. Grant funds could be used to pay up to 50 percent of the cost of developing newer types of residential facilities geared to the requirements of different types of delinquents. Various programs already in operation can serve as models. The possibilities include family type group homes, peer group residences, hostels, work camps, and youth rehabilitation centers. Each agency seeking support for the development of such rehabilitative facilities would be asked to link its programs closely to the community. Unless the schools, employers, and community institutions make provisions for offenders to try out new and legitimate roles, adjudicated youth will remain locked in a delinquent status over which they have no control. It would be a tragic mistake to set up programs whose mission was only that of providing therapy to the offender. He constitutes only one half of the problem; the other is related to existing arrangements-economic, social or otherwise which make it difficult for reintegration into the community. Priority will be given, therefore, to projects which involve employers, school officials and various other organizational representatives in aiding the reintegration of offenders into normal community life. We want to encourage the development of correctional programs that are incorporated into the community so that the stigma, isolation, alienation and dissociation that often follow traditional correctional experience do not disconnect young offenders from society. We want to furnish such youth with help that is particularized enough to deal with their individual needs, but which does not separate them from their families and peers and label them for life. Providing sufficiently specialized services while avoiding destructive labeling and stigma poses one of the central dilemmas in the field of delinquency prevention and treatment. The Crime Commission has outlined some ways of meeting it by minimizing the separation in special classes of children who need special help in school and by returning them to regular routine as soon as possible; by involving whole groups of young people rather than just the trouble makers, and by de-emphasizing adjudication as the primary method of dealing with difficult children. To achieve these goals we will need to have new and different kinds of community agencies for dealing with delinquents nonjudicially and close to where they live. Such agencies avoid the stigma of being processed by an official agency and labeled as an official delinquent. And the use of locally sponsored organizations can heighten community awareness of youth problems and of the need for expanded and improved resources for youth. Part C of the legislation, which authorizes up to 75 percent of the cost of projects, is designed to help communities establish these new kinds of resources-and to carry out one of the Crime Commission's major recommendations for youth--the establishment of a special youth agency in the community to which other agencies can refer and which families and youth can call upon. Such an agency would be expected to give priority to youth referred by police or courts, but would be a resource for youth with a variety of problems or needs, thus, it would not be set apart and stigmatized as a place for youth in trouble. It could offer, either directly or through other agencies, a full range of services and opportunities diagnosis, counseling, employment and training, family life education, creative arts, and opportunities for youth to participate in a range of community activities. Members of its staff might be located in schools, recreation centers and other agencies to keep track of youth having difficulties and to link them with appropriate resources. A center might include a cadre of outreach workers to make sure that high risk youth who are not known to any agency or who have fallen between the cracks in the services are linked up with needed community resources. Under the provisions of the legislation, States, in partnership with local communities, could set up an interlocking network of such youth services agencies. States and communities which receive funds for the creation of such mechanisms will be asked to provide opportunities for youth and their parents to become involved in efforts to help them, for it is in the process of involvement that much desired change comes about. Experience has shown, for example, that youth can participate effectively in efforts to create shifts from delinquent to conventional norms within a peer group; that they themselves can help to stimulate community changes through their work in neighborhood organization projects; and that they can benefit from serving as helpers. One promising new approach is the training and employment of delinquent youth for new careers in human services-health, education, recreation and even in the field of corrections. In California and New York, for example, delinquents and ex-offenders have been employed as probation and parole aides— and with a large measure of success. The provisions of Part C would make it possible for the State and local communities to develop or expand these New Careers Programs. The investment can have double pay-off-it can reduce the costs of delinquency and youth unemployment-in terms of dollars as well as human resources, and it can, over time, make a substantial dent in the manpower problem which weighs so heavily on the overburdened State agencies. I'm not suggesting the New Careers Programs as a panacea-we all know there is no such thing. Furthermore, New Careers Programs for youth are in their infancy-we don't know yet where the boundaries and limits are. There is yet much research and experimentation to be done. This leads me to the case for continued research and experimentation. The only sound basis for program development is knowledge of program effectiveness. The only way to get that knowledge is through systematic research. At the moment, relative to the importance of the delinquency problem, we know very little about the effectiveness of programs for prevention and control. Research needs are imperative and Title II of the Act provides up to 100 percent of the cost of research and demonstration projects. This, we hope, will give impetus to a more systematic search for knowledge about the processes that lead youth to delinquency and to the development, testing and evaluation of strategies of treatment and prevention. Agencies concerned with the prevention and control of delinquency have only recently begun to support efforts to develop action programs in light of research findings. And we are far from an ideal situation. Federal support has not adequately furnished the resources necessary for meeting the research demands in the delinquency field. Secondly, the support has usually been conditional on "action first, research later." Thus, the present situation still does not allow development of a systematic program of research that would facilitate the accumulation-step by step-of an array of tested and testable techniques of intervention. It has, rather, allowed us to undertake fragmented research that consequently leaves unresearched areas only vaguely defined. The organization of Federal grant programs reflects this fragmentation of research as well as the lack of linkage between basic and applied research. We are becoming increasingly concerned about the problem, and changes in the present organization of HEW programs are under serious consideration. More money and more resources for research are by no means the whole answer. The fact is that we do have a rich storehouse of knowledge about problems and programs. But we have a tendency to bury many findings from social research, especially when they call into question our present techniques and assumptions. There are few things sadder than producing a social evaluation study and then watching its conclusion ignored. Evaluators often assume that "the facts will speak for themselves," but the history of evaluation in delinquency prevention and treatment-as in most other fields-shows that things seldom work so rationally. Decisions about the future of programs are effected by organizational self-interest, ideological fashions, practitioner defensiveness, and a host of other factors unrelated to program outcomes. Such resistances must give way if we are to be serious about discarding ineffertive approaches, capitalizing on successful programs, and investing society's resources wisely in the effort to deter crime. One of the hard facts that research and experience have taught us is that the positive effects of any intervention, especially official intervention, are usually accompanied, and to some extent vitiated, by potential negative consequences. Delinquency prevention programs, even excellent ones, contain the possibility of labeling individuals as predelinquents and of becoming self-filling prophesies. Because our definitions of delinquency are so variable and since, by some standard or other, almost every youth could be considered a delinquent, we must take care that the measures we propose do not eradically label youth in the process to help him. The stubborn label persists even when treatment is ended, despite efforts to erase it. Official agencies see it as a mark which justifies surveillance and community agencies often view it with suspicion and close their doors to the bearer. For some youth, therefore, the wisest policy might be to refrain from implicating them in the delinquency control system insofar as possible, and to invoke that apparatus only when it is clear that the conduct of the juvenile in question requires it for the protection of the community. While some forms of delinquency always call for official action and public concern, a certain amount of deviance which we label as delinquency is an inevitable by-product of a free society. We cannot nurture individualism, initiative and creativity without expecting some of it to be manifested in ways that sometimes provoke us as adults. Delinquency prevention programs should never be a cover for enforcement of conformity. Much of what we have learned through studies and demonstration indicates that improving the quality of our institutions will do far more, in the long run. to diminish delinquency than programs which separate delinquents out as the prime targets of intervention. As the Crime Commission noted, there are different aspects of delinquener control: from those broad measures relevant to all young people to specialized programs responsive to the needs of youth with special problems. Whether these be intensive services or new opportunities in the community or treatment in a residential setting, any truly constructive and realistic approach must make arrangements to serve both. It is clear that no single level or unit of government has a monopoly on the authority, resources, influence and leadership for coping with delinquency. It is equally clear that voluntary organizations and popular sentiment play an important part. But the success of our combined efforts will depend in large part upon the extent to which State governments exercise their authority and the manner in which they guide developments in the field. [Taken from "Correction in the United States"] A SURVEY FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINIS- 1. CAPACITY The survey covers 220 state-operated juvenile institutional facilities in all states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. These facilities, constituting 86 per cent of the juvenile training capacity in the United States, had a total capacity of 42,423 in 1965 and a total average daily population of 42,389, which was 10.7 per cent more than the population reported to the Children's Bureau in 1964 by 245 state and local facilities.* The overcrowding suggested by daily population figures is not uniform. in 17 jurisdictions, in programs housing total average daily populations of 7,199 children (17 per cent of the total), the average daily population is more than 10 per cent below each system's capacity. Conversely, in 11 states, in programs housing 9.165 children (22 per cent of the total reported by all 52 jurisdictions), the average daily population is 10 per cent or more above their respective systems' capacities. In many states the capacity of state and locally run training facilities is extended through use of private facilities. In some instances these are publicly subsidized, but control of the program remains in private hands. During the Survey, 31 states reported using private facilities for the placement of delinquents. An estimate of the use of private facilities was not possible in eight of these states. The 23 states submitting estimates reported they had placed 6,307 youngsters in private facilities in 1965. Concern about the increasing numbers of delinquents being housed in training facilities is growing. Only eight states at present have no plans for new construction which would increase the capacity of their institutional programs. Construction under way in 17 states will add space for 4.164 youngsters at a cost of $41,164,000. Thirty-one states report that they have $70,090,000 of construction authorized for an additional capacity of 7,090. Projecting still further ahead, 21 states report plans for additional capacity of 6.606 by 1975 at an anticipated cost of $66,060,000. Public institutions for juvenile delinquents' built since 1969-Number and total capacity For the sake of convenience, the total will be designated as "52 jurisdictions." * Statistics on Public Institutions for Children: 1964, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Children's Bureau Statistical Series 81, 1965. The remaining 14 percent not included in the present survey consist of 83 locally operated programs located in 16 states. In 1965 these had a projected capacity of 6,634 and an average daily population of 6.024. Approximately half of these programs are in California, where they are partially state subsidized. |