very temporary in nature, no estimate of shortages is available. Two projects are currently exploring the possibility of including selected social information in basic legal training. In a few States consultants on the staff of a State agency are available to give advice and information to judges, to help them in improving the program and procedures of the court as related to juveniles. Psychiatrists and psychologists

People from these disciplines are in short supply for other community services, as well as the correctional field. The valid data of the shortages in the latter are limited to institutions; based on figures for the year 1957, it is estimated that 266 full-time psychiatrists and 266 full-time psychologists are required for all institutions for juvenile delinquents. Approximately 9 full-time and 54 part-time psychiatrists, plus 112 full-time and 34 part-time psychologists are currently employed. Since Federal funds are already available through the NIMH for the training of such personnel, it would seem appropriate to limit training through a juvenile delinquency program to institutes for orientation to the juvenile delinquency field and to inservice training.

Mrs. OETTINGER. I am very glad you asked for that because one of the points I think it is very important to recognize in the broader training possibilities that already exist is that we do need something that is narrowly focused in relation to juvenile delinquency.

You are familiar with the difficulty of recruiting, but we need also to train people who have already committed themselves to the field of delinquency. Very often these people work in relative isolation and do not have a stimulation, and it is easy to detract from their interest if we do not have opportunities for these people to continue training that will specifically prepare them, through schools of social work or other schools, for the field of juvenile delinquency.

The schools themselves need an upgrading of their courses and a specifying of the content of the material, and giving them some kind of financial support for this is extremely important in order for them to move ahead as many of them are eager to do.

Senator CLARK. I have memorandum here I would like to give to you, which outlines what we have been talking about and might provide a framework as to the information we would like to get before the subcommittee, to the extent it can be done reasonably promptly. I do not think I will put this statement in the record. It will just be an aide-memoire for you.

Let me ask you and Assistant Secretary Richardson this:

Some of the bills before us call for the channeling of funds through the States. Others indicate a preference for a direct approach from either the locality or even perhaps an educational institution. Do you have any administrative preference for either of these approaches?

Mr. RICHARDSON. I think, Mr. Chairman, the answer must depend a good deal, in the first instance, on the amount of money to be made available.

Senator CLARK. I am afraid we can assume it will not be much.
Mr. RICHARDSON. That certainly would be a factor.

A second consideration, as a practical matter, derives from the recognition that broad legislation in this field covering research and demonstration projects and training grants on a direct Federal institutional or individual basis, as well as formula grants to the States, has been pending before each of the several recent Congresses.

Exactly why it has never gone through the Congress is, I think, not entirely clear. The fact is that it has not, and if we are going to hope

for action in this Congress, it may be that a bill that did not attempt to cover quite such a wide front would have a better chance.

But I think, to answer the question more directly, we would feel that there are distinguishable needs for research and demonstration funds on a direct Federal institutional basis which could provide funds both to public agencies and to voluntary nonprofit agencies in the field.

There is also a need for support of training which, again, could involve stipends, fellowships, or traineeships for individuals, and the support of training programs under a direct relationship with the training institution.

Thirdly and concurrently, formula grants to States which would make available funds to the State for its disposition for any one of these three purposes, and including, of course, the training of its own personnel.

I think, in terms of useful headings under which legislative authority could valuably be employed, we would say that each one of those would offer constructive opportunities, but that in choosing among them there must necessarily be taken into account, (1) the availability of funds, and (2) what it is in fact that can be hoped for in securing

enactment.

Senator CLARK. It occurred to me that, in the light of the limitation on funds which probably exists, it might impose on the Department an almost embarrassing choice if you were directed to channel these funds through 50 State offices, a large number of which do not seem to have any critical problem of juvenile delinquency.

I do not mean to say our problem is entirely concentrated in densely populated urban areas; it is not. But that is where the heat seems to be.

I hazard a suggestion for your comment, that it might be wiser in the first instance not to provide for the channeling of funds through the States.

Mr. RICHARDSON. I would agree, and I am sure Mrs. Oettinger would agree, too, that in making a choice in the initiation of a program between the support of particular undertakings, either in research or demonstration or training, and formula grants to States, it would be better to begin with the former. I think we would feel that a limited amount of money would go much further that way since, under any formula grant approach, you must necessarily start with some minimum sum that is to be made available to any State and then scale the allotment in a manner that will presumably give a significantly larger amount to the big States.

Senator CLARK. I note in your letter reporting on bills that you indicate a preference for S. 694 or S. 765 and, with respect to training, S. 766.

We would like, at your early convenience, to have your suggestion for technical improvements in the bills, or perhaps your view as to how two or more of them should be combined.

Again I do not want to ask you to go to a great deal of unnecessary work, if you would prefer to wait until the subcommittee has acted before we go to the full committee.

Mr. RICHARDSON. We would be happy to give whatever help we can along those lines at any time, Mr. Chairman, and would not, by

any means, regard our effort as wasted if we started now and found that, for whatever reason, our suggestions could not be acted upon. Senator CLARK. Then I would appreciate it if you would start now on the three bills which you mentioned you favored in your report, so that we could get such technical changes as may be desirable before us before we go to the full committee, which I guess would be in the next 10 days. I do not imagine it is too big a job to make those technical suggestions.

Mr. RICHARDSON. We would be happy to give them. (The information requested follows:)

SUGGESTION FOR TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS IN S. 694, S. 765, AND S. 766

1. What priority would you give to the need for additional training of persons now working in the juvenile delinquency field as compared to the need to increase our national pool of psychiatrists, social workers, etc.?

Training needs are very great both with regard to persons now working in the juvenile delinquency field as well as in regard to increasing our national pool of trained personnel. Because of the number of persons now working in this field who are either untrained or inadequately trained, the Department believes that training of personnel now working in the field is of first importance. 2. If we did have a Federal program of fellowships and stipends to train more professional personnel, would there be any assurances that they would end up in juvenile delinquency work?

The Department believes that the usual provision in a Federal program of fellowships and stipends for careful recruitment and selection of individuals to be trained, and for giving consideration to their demonstrated interest in the field of juvenile delinquency would assure that individuals trained would work in the field of juvenile delinquency.

3. I understand that there are a number of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare programs under which fellowships, stipends, loans, and other financial help are now being given for the training of psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists, and others who have skills needed in juvenile delinquency work. Could you supply us with some data showing the extent to which such people are being trained?

Following is data for fiscal year 1958 showing the extent to which financial help is being given, some direct or indirect, with Federal financial assistance to individuals for the training of psychiatrists, social workers, and psychologists. These data have been secured from the five unts of the Department whose programs are the most likely to be utilized for training individuals in these three fields:

Neither the Children's Bureau nor the Bureau of Public Assistance currently makes direct grants to individuals for fellowships or stipends. Such grants are made to individuals by the appropriate State agency, through the use of Federal funds available to it.

4. Some bills before this subcommittee propose new Federal training programs, including fellowships, traineeships, and stipends. We would find it

41638-59-11

helpful to have some cost estimates showing the numbers of different categories of personnel for whom training is needed and the cost of providing such training. See statement on "Personnel shortages and estimates of training costs in the field of juvenile delinquency" (p. 149).

5. Will you also indicate what portions of this proposed training can be carried out under existing authority now vested in the various units of the Department if funds were made available for this purpose, and which require additional legislative authority?

None of the existing authority now vested in the various units of the Depart ment contains express authorization for training in the field of juvenile delinquency. Under several laws, the Department has authority for providing Federal financial assistance for training activities. In each instance, the authority is for a broad purpose not necessarily related to juvenile delinquency. For example, the Surgeon General is authorized to provide training and instruction and to establish and maintain traineeships in carrying out the mental health purposes of section 301. However, juvenile delinquency is a complex problem which involves not only disciplines that contribute directly to mental health but also those related to religion, social work, law, education, recreation, and others. Thus, the mental health aspects, while important in many instances, represent only one facet of the problem.

Under the Social Security Act, Federal funds are available to State public welfare agencies for establishing, extending, and strengthening public child welfare services. The States use some of these funds for training of personnel to provide these services. The 1956 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized grants to States for training of personnel for work in public assistance programs. No funds have been appropriated for this purpose. The State agencies to which Federal child welfare or public assistance funds are available are not necessarily the State agencies vested with responsibility for services for delinquent youth. Furthermore, neither the child welfare nor the public assistance provisions of the act authorize the Federal Government to provide funds directly to institutions of higher learning nor to individuals.

The juvenile delinquency legislation before this committee would enable somewhat more narrowly focused training activities aiming at juvenile delinquency as such to the extent that it is a problem involving children with courts, correctional institutions, social agencies, and police.

Senator CLARK. I have interrupted both of you in the course of what you wanted to say, and I would be happy to withdraw now and let you continue in your own way.

Mr. RICHARDSON. We have already covered, Mr. Chairman, everything I had in mind saying, and I would like to ask Mrs. Oettinger to begin at whatever point she now feels to be appropriate.

Mrs. OETTINGER. I know you have had a great deal of testimony. However, the testimony which I have for you today is recent information about the problem of juvenile delinquency, and, in turn, some of our thinking about the priorities for more effectively dealing with the problem.

If you like, I will read the statement for the record or will file it, according to your suggestion.

Senator CLARK. If it is agreeable to you, I would like to have it filed in the record, and then just conversationally between us, if you would give it the emphasis which you feel is desirable, I assure you I will read it, and so will the staff and the other members of the subcommittee.

Mrs. Oettinger's statement will be placed in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF KATHERINE B. OETTINGER, CHIEF OF THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very happy to have the opportunity to appear before you today as you consider Federal legislation in the field of juvenile delinquency.

I would like to share with you some of the most recent information the Children's Bureau has about the mounting problem of juvenile delinquency, and, in turn, some of our thinking about the priorities for more effectively dealing with this problem.

For the ninth consecutive year (1948-57) juvenile delinquency court cases have continued to rise, reaching an all-time high of 603,000 cases involving 520,000 children. The increase in the number of these cases coming before the juvenile courts was almost five times as great as the increase in the child population of juvenile court age (10-17) during these 9 years.

Not only the number of cases, but the proportion of children involved, has steadily risen. In 1948, about 12.6 out of every 1,000 children (10-17) came to the attention of juvenile courts for alleged juvenile delinquency. By 1957 this rate had mounted to 23.5 out of every 1,000 children-almost double the 1948 rate.

The FBI reports of police arrests of juveniles under 18 show a similar upward trend in the number of arrests. Additionally, these reports show that young people under 18 are committing an increasingly disproportionate number of serious offenses. These FBI reports show that by 1957, young people under 18 were arrested for 68 percent of the auto thefts, 55 percent of the burglaries, and 20 percent of the rapes.

We are sometimes prone to think of juvenile delinquency as an urban problem. The statistic from the FBI reports, as with those from the juvenile courts, show greater increases occurring in smaller communities than in large urban areas. The FBI reports show, for example, that in 1957 as compared with 1956 juvenile arrests increased 8 percent in the large urban areas, in contrast with a 16 percent increase in smaller communities.

At one end of the spectrum, police handle about 1.7 million cases of misbehaving children a year-only a fourth of whom are referred to the court.

At the other end of the spectrum, some 52,000 delinquent children are committed by the courts to training schools for delinquent children each year. At least 15 percent of the children admitted to public training schools within a single year are being returned there because of a new offense, or violation of parole.

What may we anticipate in the immediate years ahead with regard to the number of delinquent youth? By 1965 there will be an estimated 30 million children in the United States in this high-risk vulnerable age group a third more than in 1957. If juvenile court delinquency cases continue to increase at the same rate as they have since 1948, then by 1965 the juvenile courts will be handling delinquent children at an annual level of about a million cases. And by then, a much greater number will be police cases which never reach the courts.

Even if the rate of juvenile court delinquency cases does not continue to increase but remains fixed at he 1957 rate, juvenile courts will be handling delinquent children at an annual level of about 800,000 cases per year by 1965. The problem of juvenile delinquency has already reached major proportions. But even more serious is the increase that may be expected to be in the immediate future.

Because juvenile delinquency has multiple forms and multiple causes, no one remedy will suffice. We shall have to continue to seek multiple answers through multiple means. Two things are clear, however. First, the knowledge we now have must be applied more vigorously. Second, the knowledge we lack must be sought more productively if we are to make substantial progress.

I shall limit my remarks to a few of the priorities, as we see them. I shall not attempt to cover all the possible approaches to solving this problem. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that your committee is fully aware that a many-pronged attack is needed. Such an attack, using a great variety of approaches is the