The salary of the part-time director of the project will be met out of the annual allocation of $20,000 which the city of St. Louis and St. Louis County contribute toward the regular budget of the Metropolitan Youth Commission.

Other necessary expenses including preparation of written reports, office supplies, postage, etc., will likewise be handled by the Metropolitan Youth Commission out of its regular budget.

INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT TO THE METROPOLITAN YOUTH COMMISSION ON THE EXPLORATORY PHASE OF THE YOUTH GROUP PROJECT

Introduction

(Given orally on July 24, 1958)

THE YOUTH GROUP PROJECT

In March 1955, the juvenile delinquency review committee of the Social Planning Council urged the establishment of a program "to work with hard-to-reach potentially delinquent groups or gangs of youngsters not affiliated with constituted recreational and character-building agencies." By October 1957, the Metropolitan Youth Commission had ready a proposal for a two-phase youth group project to study groups of delinquent youth and to demonstrate methods for modifying their behavior. This proposal was translated into specific plans and commitments by May 1958. The early weeks of the project have been spent in a careful review of the experience in other cities, a preliminary survey of areas with high delinquency rates, and the development of criteria for selecting areas and groups.

Assumptions underlying the project

A program of the nature envisioned in the commission's proposal carries embedded within it a number of assumptions. These assumptions may be made by tacit agreement—that is, without being exposed to formal consideration and/or vote or they may represent the careful and planned attempt to understand the assumptive basis for the program or a mixture of both.

Following are the assumptions identified and affirmed by the staff as underlying the youth group project:

(a) The group members live almost exclusively within the orbit of their groups. Its value system and behavior pattern is dominant in their lives and they are nearly impervious to outside influences.

(b) The standards and goals of these groups conflict with those of the community in which they exist.

(c) Membership in such a group is a principal element of a member's inaccessibility. (There are other elements and other inaccessible persons.)

(d) These groups are accessible under certain conditions.

(e) The standards and goals of these groups can be modified through the use of appropriate methods..

(f) Such groups cannot be destroyed without substitutes being available. If such subsitutes are not available they will develop. Whether or not the destruction is beneficial will depend on the nature of the substitutes.

(g) The standards and behavior of a group are in part determined by its environment-the neighbors, community leaders, peer groups, and significant institutions. This means that the attitudes and behavior of these elements of the community toward the group must be considered and dealt with simultaneously with efforts aimed at modifying the group's behavior and its attitude toward the community.

Initial tasks

Four tasks have been identified as necessary in the exploratory phase of the project. They are as follows:

(a) To locate appropriate starting points.

1. Determine and apply criteria in the selection of areas in which to work. 2. Determine and apply criteria in the selection of groups with which to work.

(b) Prepare for gathering information re

1. The nature of the groups.

2. Characteristics of the members.

3. Attitudes and behavior of the groups toward the community.

4. Attitudes and behavior of the groups toward the existing services.

5. Attitudes and behavior of the community toward the groups.

6. Patterns of social and antisocial behavior.

7. Aspects of community life contributing to antisocial behavior.

8. Programing methods.

(c) Prepare relevant persons and agencies for active support and participa tion in the program.

(d) To set up the project program—

1. Select workers for the groups.

2. Provide supervision for the workers.

3. Develop program resources.

4. Prepare for evaluation of the program.

Criteria for the selection of areas in which to work

Although a completely systematic survey of the city to locate the areas in which work should be done was not feasible, it was recognized that criteria should be developed to guide the choice of starting points. St. Louis covers a lot of ground and a great variety of reasons can be developed to support any number of choices as to where to begin. The following criteria were established by the staff:

(a) The area should have high crime and delinquency rates or give evidence of high potential for higher rates in the near future.

(b) The area should be affected by at least one major cause of social disorder, such as integration, immigration, mass housing projects, high mobility, etc., or give evidence of high potential for such developments in the near future. (c) The area should possess a relatively low status or bad reputation in relation to the larger community of which it is a part.

(d) There should be resources readily available to support the program in' the form of recreational agencies, family and children's services, employment sources, health and psychiatric services, and community organization services. One aspect of the purpose of this project is to demonstrate that existing services can be useful to hard-to-reach persons. It is not primarily intended to show that more are needed or suggest where they are needed.

(e) There should be balance within the total project with regard to racial composition. Work should be carried on in white, Negro, and mixed areas. (f) There should be evident some potential for demonstrating to agencies and the larger community :

1. The nature of the problem.

2. A method of dealing with it.

3. The need for greater coordination of services.

(g) There should be within the area recent, disturbing experience with—

1. Vandalism.

2. Hooliganism.

3. Hard-core families.

4. Etc.

Criteria for the selection of groups with which to work

Within any area with a high priority for project attention, there may be a large number of groups from which to choose. Insofar as it is feasible, the following criteria are to be used in selecting groups for the program:

(a) The group must be known to be currently productive of behavior considered disruptive to acceptable neighborhood or community life.

(b) At least one-half of the members should have records with the police or school officials.

(c) The group be unserved or inadequately served (in relation to its delinquent behavior) by existing agencies.

(d) The group should consist of not less than five members.

(e) The members should be male.

(ƒ) The majority of the members should fall within the ages of 13 to 17 years, inclusive.

Selection of areas

On the basis of crime and delinquency figures, certain areas immediately present themselves. These areas happen to fall within, but do not correspond exactly with, existing police districts. When the remainder of the criteria are applied the areas arrange themselves in priority as is shown below.

High priority

I. South: Ann Avenue-Kingdom House-Darst Complex.-Lies in the third police district; primarily white; acculturation of inmigrants (white and Indian) a major problem; high-rise, mass housing projects a problem; numerous hardcore families; high rate of vandalism; many agencies available; ChouteauRussell Council provides community organization potential.

II. North: Cass Avenue-Fellowship Center-Cochran Complex.-Lies in fourth police district; mixed white and Negro; integration a major problem; acculturation of inmigrants a problem; high-rise, mass housing a problem; numerous hard-core families; high incidence of vandalism; many agencies available; North Side Community Council offers limited potential for community organization.

III. West: Carver House-Vashon Center-Vandeventer Avenue Complex.Lies in (inclusive virtually all of) ninth police district; primarily Negro; acculturation of inmigrants a major problem; large number of families with limited capacity to cope wtih existing problems; high incidence of vandalism; some reports of teen-age use of narcotics; limited number of agencies (particularly recreational) available; Urban League with block plan offers high potential for community organization.

Medium priority

IV. West: Fountain Park-Tandy Park Complex.-Lies in (includes virtually all of) 10th police district; integration a major problem in western sector; acculturation of inmigrants a greater problem in eastern sector; high incidence of vandalism; almost no agencies; high mobility; Urban League offers high potential for community organization.

V. North: Grace Hill House-Hyde Park-Fairgrounds Park Complex.-Lies in fifth police district; primarily white; integration a potential problem; high rate of vandalism; numerous agencies available; Hyde Park Council provides some potential for community organization; area is the object of considerable stabilizing activity.

Low priority

VI. West: Sherman Park-Council House-Wellston Complex.-Lies in the 12th police district; primarily white with rapidly increasing number of Negroes;. growing incidence of vandalism and hooliganism; almost no agencies; growing mobility rate; some potential for organization in West Side Community Conference and now defunct Wellston Community Council. Selection of Groups

There is sufficient information now in the staff's possession to indicate the existence of groups of some sort in the areas just described. While there appear to be no gangs in the traditional sense—i.e., highly organized with a clearly defined membership and leadership structure-these are modes of getting together (group forms, they are being called by some), hanging around, socializing, and performing their delinquent acts. This suggests that the absence of gangs in itself may be misleading in the search for the relationship between groups and delinquency. One of the group forms tentatively identified is a large, loosely organized aggregation of pairs, trios, and possibly groups of four or five. The total number of persons involved may run from 75 to 200. The entire group is probably never seen together although a high proportion of them may show up at the same dance.

The second group form identified tentatively is made up of from 8 to 20 males, who run together and may even appear in a recreation agency under a club or. team name. Their agency life and their community life are in separate compartments and there may be little resemblance between them. For example, such a group may participate very acceptably in the agency program and at the same time be a continual source of difficulty in the community. Looking ahead

A look ahead reveals certain problem areas which should be noted and steps taken in their anticipation. It may be necessary, for example, to devise new programing techniques. Most of the reports of this type of work are focused on working with quite stable, well-defined gangs. Only recently, and particularly in Chicago and Cleveland, is experience with larger and/or more loosely organized group forms being reported. These reports indicate somewhat less positive results when methods developed with traditional gang forms are used.

Secondly, it is already apparent that there will have to be readily available a number of resource services. Probably the easiest step in the programing will be making contact. Using the contact effectively will be quite another matter. Where members of these groups need jobs, there must be ways of getting them jobs and helping them stay with the job. Where help with the family is called for, it must be available, and not simply on the basis that it must be called for in the agency's office. It is at this point that the active support and participation of many agencies and services is required.

Thirdly, there will be agency problems such as the development of an adequate supervisory program, of high morale within the staff, and of effective relations between staff members and the many kinds of people with whom they must get along. As an example of this latter point, staff workers will necessarily associate with persons who have been and may currently be engaged in extralegal activities. It is vitally important that the local police understand why they are there and that policies and procedures be worked out for handling knowledge of such extralegal activities. The staff workers are not intended to be informers, but there is no legal basis for withholding information from those responsible for law enforcement. This is not an insoluble dilemma, but it will require great understanding by all parties involved. Consideration of these problems suggests that an important decision for the near future will have to do with the extent to which the project is centralized or decentralized. One extreme would be to start work in five or even all six of the areas described earlier in this report. This would tend to exaggerate the agency type problems for obvious reasons, even though it might constitute a far more convincing demonstration. At the other extreme, all the work could be concentrated in one or two of the areas. This would simplify administrative, supervisory, and community relations problems, but might open the project to the criticism of being too local or too limited. This consideration is further complicated by the fact that the extent of saturation of an area may be a basic factor in the effectiveness of the work. There is mounting evidence that dipping or sampling is relatively ineffective in modifying group patterns in a given neighborhood and that all groups (or at least all the key or high status groups) must be hit at once.

Addendum

In the discussion following the report, two questions were asked which led to comments that might well be included here. The first inquiry wondered whether this program would get at the sex delinquency so prevalent in some of the schools. It was pointed out that sex delinquency was not commonly a group activity. The youth group project is intended solely for those groups of persons whose group behavior constitutes or supports delinquent activity. While this might include some individuals who would be considered sexually delinquent, it would miss a great many of them. The program is aimed at modifying group behavior patterns, value systems, and goals rather than the elimination of any given delinquent act. This aim or focus must be kept in mind constantly or the project runs the risk of wandering about, almost aimlessly, attempting to prevent almost every kind of juvenile behavior that someone thinks is objectionable.

The second question inquired as to the meaning of the observation that there are no gangs in St. Louis. In reply, it was pointed out that if it was reasonable to expect gangs or, at least, some gangs it would be important to account for their absence. The staff has been considering three hypotheses which alone or in combination could account for the absence.

(a) It is the result of continued police pressure on the traditional gang-type groups. If this is so then it would be only logical to look around for new forms that have developed to avoid the pressure.

(b) It is due to the cultural experience or background of the populations involved. Our expectancy with relation to gangs probably stems from what we have observed in Irish, Jewish, Polish, Italian, and Puerto Rican populations, all of which are experienced with participation in organized groups. The areas of St. Louis under consideration are dominated by inmigrants from the rural South who have little or no background of organized group experience. If this is so, then it may be necessary to reconsider some of the assumptions relating group membership and delinquent behavior.

(c) It represents an emerging phase of a delinquent youth subculture. This would follow the thinking of Albert K. Cohen in "Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang," which suggests that a delinquent subculture is one response to the dilemma for many working-class male youths who are confronted with

middle-class expectancies as regards behavior and achievement, but denied the opportunity to achieve and the rewards for behaving appropriately.

While it is not the primary function of this project to test the various hypotheses, it is incumbent on the staff to be aware of the different possibilities. To proceed, for example, on the basis that (a) above holds when (b) is what really. accounts for the condition would result in many faulty observations and much bad programing. It cannot even be said that it doesn't make any difference as long as the gangs are gone, for in the first instance we may find other group forms carrying out the same functions and in the second we may have to look for entirely new programing techniques to get at the people involved.

SECOND PROGRESS REPORT TO THE METROPOLITAN YOUTH COMMISSION ON THE YOUTH GROUP PROJECT, FEBRUARY 1, 1959

INTRODUCTION

The interim progress report of July 24, 1958, described the assumptions underlying the youth project, the criteria developed for the selection of areas and groups in these areas, and the areas which were under survey at that time. In the 6 months since that time the survey of the areas has been carried forward to the point where priorities have been confirmed and those areas in which operations will start have been selected. The search for groups within these areas has been carried as far as is feasible without staff workers who are able to spend considerable periods of time in carefully selected neighborhoods. Programs in Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Chicago have been closely studied either through visits or correspondence. Recruitment of staff fieldworkers has been carried as far forward as administrative and fiscal considerations have allowed.

SELECTION OF AREAS IN WHICH TO WORK

Originally six areas were identified as those from which the final selection would be made. During the intensive survey of these areas, a seventh was added lying south and west from downtown, extending from Jefferson Avenue to Grand Avenue and south of Chouteau. Locally the area is known as Compton Heights. Three areas were recommended by the staff and formally approved by the advisory committee as those in which operations would be initiated. These areas represented slight modifications of areas I (south), II (north), and III (west) as described in the initial report.

I (south) now bounded by Chouteau Avenue (north), Broadway (east), Pestalozzi Street (south), and Jefferson Avenue (west). This includes such troublesome locations as Lafayette Park, Park Avenue, Pontiac Square, two housing projects, and the intersection of South Broadway and Ann Avenue.

II (north) extends from Franklin (south) to Hebert and St. Louis Avenues (north) and from Jefferson (west) to Broadway and 11th Street (east). Included are five housing projects, Franklin Avenue, North Market Street, Clinton Street, and the intersections at 14th Street, and St. Louis and Jefferson and Cass. In addition, the east end of Fairgrounds Park is close enough that it could easily be included.

III (west) is bounded by Olive Street (south), Sarah Street (west), St. Louis Avenue (north), and Jefferson Avenue (west). This includes much of the ninth police district in which lie troublesome parts of Franklin Avenue, North Market Street, Grand Avenue, and Vandeventer Avenue. It is adjacent to II (north) at the west end of the housing projects (Pruitt and Igoe apartments)—a particularly troublesome location.

These three areas more clearly meet the seven criteria as established than any of the others. In addition, their proximity to the downtown area and to each other eliminates some concern about supervisory and administrative problems which would arise were the areas widely separated.

SELECTION OF GROUPS

The survey of the areas under consideration confirmed earlier impressions regarding general conditions. They are the victims of the movement of popula-. tion, although not all in the same manner. The residents are relatively new to the area and often they have been in the city only a few years. Those whom they have replaced moved away-usually taking their institutions with them.