Page images

Mr. BECK. I would say, Senator, that the small group of young people that we are talking about have one interesting characteristic that they have no doubt about, and it is very difficult for us to understand this. It is that they do not challenge a capitalistic system, you know, the way a Socialist, let us say, does. They are without a pronounced dogma. Their orientation is on what is happening to them now. The challenge, and it has many imperfections in it, but one of the challenges seems to be more of a challenge on a moral level; that is, they are calling attention to the inconsistencies between society's beliefs and society's actions, and then some of them make an effort to do something about this.

Senator CLARK. Let me interrupt to see if my thinking on this is in accord with yours. The challenge to the moral system is twofold, is it not?

First, obviously and perhaps not so importantly, the challenge to standard sexual morals, but secondly, a challenge to the concept Senator Javits indicated that there is the obligation to work for a living. Is it more than those two?

Mr. BECK. Let me draw an example from the VISTA workers that we have in Mobilization. We have about 20 VISTA workers, and they are very good, very helpful, and I spend some time with them.

Now, these young VISTA workers do not come in with any dogma about how society should be changed. They have a passionate distaste for what they define as social evil, for the kinds of housing we all visited when your committee studying poverty came to the lower East Side. They have a passionate distaste for that, and they personally want to do something to correct it. They will do it by giving of themselves immediately, but if you ask them what economic reforms they would suggest, they have no defined economic dogma.

I guess we really have many divisions we cannot probably talk about the young any more than we can about the old as an aggregate group. There are some young people whose distaste is for social evil per se and they are willing to do something about it in a here and now


Senator CLARK. Whether abroad or home, this is really the same concept as the Peace Corps?

Mr. BECK. Yes. In the Peace Corps, I think you will probably find the same type, although I have had no personal experience.

Senator JAVITS. Now, a question. We are talking about a bill and about a program. We constantly have to zero in on that.

I ran through your statement. I was just going to ask you this: Do you really feel that an episodic bill like this for juvenile delinquency really is not to be preferred as an approach to the systems management approach, by which this will be a part of the very broad structure with a centralized place of administration? Of course, that is what we try to build into a poverty program. Do you think that is what we ought to zero in on in this bill, that this should really be a research and demonstration project bill; not a treatment or a program bill?

Senator CLARK. He wants to make it a training bill, too.

Senator JAVITS. A training bill. Again, I do not know whether personnel can best be trained-you will tell us your views-in a single discipline like this or whether even that training would not be better under a much broader umbrella and much broader range of experience.

Mr. BECK. Senator, if I had my choice without considering what is possible, which is not really my field of expertise, I would say that the first thing I would want would be a bill that addressed itself to the systems management approach in the local arena and made it possible to organize services no matter what label the funds come to us under. That would be my first choice.

My second choice would be a series of bills, many of which we already have, that are addressed to specific social prolems; so I would want the juvenile delinquency bill.

On training, again, if I had my choice, I do believe that there could be a bill on training for the human services that would cover the needs for personnel in health, welfare, and education and encompass the so-called new careers approach.

Senator CLARK. That is what we hope to get in terms of recommendations from this group that you and I discussed before Senator Javits came in, the National Commission on Correctional Manpower, which we will hear testimony from next week. Senator Javits will remember that we processed that bill to create the Commission and funded it 3 years ago, and they are about to make a report.

That is right; is it not?

Mr. BECK. Yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. Now, if the Senator will permit-
Senator JAVITS. Oh, yes; I am through, thank you.

Senator CLARK. To get into the specifics of the House and the Senate bill, I take it your view is that the administration bill, which is the Senate bill, is preferable to the House bill in all regards except that it does not have an adequate provision for training; is that correct? Mr. BECK. Yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. Now, I am interested in your view, to which I subscribe, that it is better to have direct grants to interested agencies, public or private, than it is to channel this money through the States. With that I agree, but we are having a terrible time with the House, and not too easy a time in the Senate.

I would like you, if you would to summarize as cogently as you can the reasons you believe it a mistake to channel whatever funds we do authorize to the States as opposed to directing them from the Federal Government to the interested agency.

Mr. BECK. In respect to the problem of juvenile delinquency, there is in most States no State apparatus that is concerned with the totality of the problem of delinquency. In most States, the State apparatus is largely concerned with the operation of correctional institutions for delinquents.

In order to administer such a program as is envisioned in this bill, States would have to create a new mechanism which, of course, is cumbersome and adds to bureaucratic structure. There is a constant danger that new funds would be diverted into a maintenance of institutionalization, which is just the direction we do not want to go in. That is why I believe we would be better off sending funds into the cities.

Senator CLARK. You have some very persuasive arguments.

Now, I take it you share my distaste for the provision in the House bill that no agency which participates in any programs under OEO should get any money under this bill. It would occur to me, and I

wonder if you would agree, that that is just the kind of agency that ought to get money under this bill, one which is already involved in the war on poverty.

Mr. BECK. It would seem to me, Senator, that operational capacity should be the criterion and not whether you get funds from OEO. To me, that is really an intolerable provision.

Senator CLARK. That is a good way to put it; it is an intolerable provision. I hope we can get it out of the Congress.

It was a pleasure to hear you today, Mr. Beck.

Mr. BECK. It was a pleasure for me, sir.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Beck follows:)


S. 1248

The Executive Branch of the Federal government has given attention to the problem of juvenile delinquency since the early 1900's when the U.S. Children's Bureau was established with the enabling statute mandating concern with this problem. At no time, however, has there been a substantial commitment of Federal resources to the prevention and treatment of delinquency. The most extensive program to date was that authorized by the Juvenile Delinquency Control Act of 1961. Under this Act a total of only $47 million dollars was expended in the entire nation between 1961 and 1966. A study of correctional expenditures completed for the President's Committee on Law Enforcement demonstrates that one billion is spent in this country each year by State and local government to deal with 114 million individuals who run afoul of the law. In other words while the major Federal program to deal with the roots of delinquent behavior had $47 million to spend, other levels of government had $5 billion to spend to deal with the fruits of that behavior. Of that five billion, an infinitesimal proportion was spent on treatment or experimentation. Most of the funds were needed merely to lock people up or keep them under surveillance. For the vast majority of persons the life experience provided did not deter them from further crime. Of the 12 million individuals involved, 28 percent were juveniles. If the billion spent each year were being spent with a view to controlling crime not criminals one might expect to see a disproportionate share of the billion being expended on facilities for juveniles. This is not the case. In almost every instance the proportion of funds expended on juveniles is in proportion to their numerical representation in the caseload.

The figure of $47 million Federal dollars expended over a five-year period on discovering better ways to combat delinquency could be extended by adding the amount spent by Federal agencies other than the Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development; but the sum would remain miniscule when compared with the cost of temporary surveillance and storage for offenders. Surely, it I would be sound public policy for the Federal, State, and local government to spend a minimum sum equal to 5 percent of the "lock up" money on experimentation and innovation that may produce a dent in the incidence of crime and delinquency.

A step in this direction is manifest in a bill now being considered in Congress— S. 1248-the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967. This bill would make available $25,000,000 annually for a five-year period with certain matching funds required from State and local governments. The bill provides funds for (1) State and local planning: (2) State technical assistance; (3) neighborhood-based preventative and rehabilitative services, and (4) research and demonstration. The bill makes it possible to carry forward some of the key recommendations of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement as they pertain to delinquency. In my testimony, I will examine the extent to which the provisions of this bill concerning planning, rehabilitation, prevention, and research build upon past experience.

The bill provides funds for comprehensive planning. Such funds are sorely needed. Planning a program for rehabilitation of the delinquent is extremely complex because of the diffusion of responsibility for the conduct of the rehabilitative effort. Although the pattern varies from State to State, diverse local

governmental units are often responsible for detention, court, probation and police service. The State frequently runs the institutional facilities.

Effective planning for rehabilitation inevitably leads to planning for prevention. Many youngsters, for example, who come to the attention of the police require neither court or police services but social services. Planning for prevention involves practically every agency or institution that bears on the childrearing process. No one of the social systems involved-health, welfare, education-is organized in a way that serves the consumer with maximum effectiveness and efficiency. The task of planning for their multiple involvement to prevent or treat delinquency is of staggering complexity.

Some of the pitfalls liable to be encountered in the effort to plan for delinquency control may be avoided by examining past Federal experience in this area. When established by act of Congress in 1961, the Office of Juvenile Delinquency placed emphasis on planning as a prelude to action. It was decided that the small amount of funds available could best be used by providing a few cities with funds to plan. Demonstration funds were made available only after a process of comprehensive planning had taken place.

These decisions had an enormous impact. Conventional social planning mechanisms were challenged and new ones created. Representatives of private and public interests which had not been in communication were brought to the planning table. In city after city a substantial dent was made in the insular quality that pervades the operation of any single bureaucratic structure.

The Nation, however, did not derive full benefit from the planning process set in motion by this earlier effort. First the enabling legislation had not specifically sanctioned planning and there was considerable pressure to launch programs which have visibility. Second, the amount of money involved was so small that many plans made could not be carried out. Third, when the war on poverty was initiated, OEO took responsibility for continuing the comprehensive community programs that were a consequence of broad planning. These programs were then subjected to a variety of stresses and strains associated with the antipoverty effort. The opportunity to view the impact of comprehensive planning followed by action on delinquency was lost.

The new bill provides a fresh start that benefits from past experience. There is clear sanction for planning. There is authorization to finance certain programs that are ready to go in one community while planning may be the only activity for a particular period in another community.

There is nothing in the new bill that reduces the complexity of the task of integrating social systems for delinquency control. The task was complex in 1961. It is even more complex in 1966. Delinquency is still for the most part a ghetto phenomena.

In the ghettos of America today aspirations have never been higher nor anger so intense. Great Society programs have multiplied opportunity services. At a neighborhood level, however, one is appalled at the distance between the programs and the people.

Many of these programs operate in vertical channels stretching from the local neighborhoods to Washington, D.C. Each program has its own style and method of service delivery. The systems are not integrated. No one of them has the authority, responsibility, or technology to deal with the entire person or family.

These systems cannot be integrated around the treatment of the delinquent. Such an effort puts one set of operating agencies in the position of coordinating another set. Each group of agencies addresses a particular need or problem. Some are concerned with poverty. Some with Mental Health. Some with physical well-being. Some with crime and delinquency. In actuality, they all serve the same families and individuals or parts of them. The task of integrating these programs around human need cannot be done on a State or Federal level since Congress and State Legislators must act on particular problems or issues, passing particular laws setting up particular agencies.

It is possible that they might be integrated on a neighborhood level. I would suggest that the next most needed Great Society legislation will be the Act that puts money into urban neighboroods for the creation of neighborhood service systems; integrating-not just coordinating services. Such a neighborhood service system, supplemented by an independent community organization program, would be a giant step forward in conquering the problems of the innercity.

The planning provisions of the new Juvenile Delinquency bill need to be augmented by this broader approach. Within such a broader approach the

planning provisions will be most effective as will be the provisions for rehabilitative service.

Past experience demonstrates the wisdom of making funds available specifically for rehabilitative service. In the first phase of the Federal anti-delinquency program launched in 1961, programs were heavily influenced by the ClowardOhlin Opportunity theory. This theory places great weight on the notion that ghetto delinquency can best be curbed by opening up legitimate opportunities for social achievement to the exiled. Programs which attempted to operationalize the theory were perforce involved in the job of producing major changes in social institutions. They could not give substantial attention to the treatment of the delinquent as such. In the later years of the Federal program when OEO took on the broad planning and comprehensive action programs, attention was given to today's delinquent and valuable results were achieved.

The earlier years, however, reflected a tendency that has always plagued efforts to combat delinquency. These efforts tend to shift attention from the delinquent to preventing delinquency either by working with the so-called "predelinquent" or by changing the world. The urge to prevent is almost irresistible since there are so many easy ideas that come to mind to justify an accent on prevention. In fact, we do not know how to prevent delinquency anymore than we have any sure fire way of treating the delinquents. There is a terrible temptation, however, to work with a population of docile children who are not about to be delinquent. These programs may be rationalized as delinquency prevention. The hard-core delinquent is not an attractive candidate for help. For most people, his impulsive hostile behavior is psychologically upsetting. He is frightening. He's a con artist. Efforts to incorporate him into an essentially rejecting society are bound to be disappointing. The general public view of the delinquent who threatens person and property is understandably negative.

Under such circumstances there is no mystery why many programs launched to do something about delinquency turn to the more rewarding field of preventing delinquency amongst "nice children." Other anti-delinquency programs quite understandably see delinquency as a symptom of grave social disorders and turn to the task of creating a better world.

This leaves the task of dealing with today's delinquent mainly with the correctional system at a State and local level. Despite the vigorous efforts of such forward looking organizations as the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, a narrow, controlling point of view, limited funds, and limited manpower insure that the rehabilitative effort is minimal.

The Act before Congress seeks to correct this by providing funds for rehabilitative services for adjudicated delinquents. This is done, however, in a way which seeks to insure a spectrum of related services. There is an emphasis on services being offered in the neighborhood where the delinquent lives. Funds are available for prevention as well as rehabilitation, but existing services must be fully utilized. The agency which receives funds must coordinate preventive and rehabilitative services. Construction funds are available but only for unusual, special purpose, or innovative facilities.

In other words, every effort is made by the drafters of this bill to insure that the actual delinquent is not ignored. At the same time, the drafters were mindful of the danger that should Federal funds merely enhance rehabilitative services for delinquents, youngsters might be pushed into the correctional system merely to get services.

This attention to the impact of the auspices under which service is given on the service consumer has much to commend it. The recent Supreme Court decision concerning the civil rights of youngsters before the Juvenile Court marks the end of a period. This period was characterized by a common belief that as long as the authorities viewed themselves as acting in the interests of a delinquent, they were acting in his interests. The concern of the Court for dependent as well as neglected and delinquent youngsters; the absence of legal defense for those alleged to be delinquent and the loose wording of State statutes defining delinquency brought many youngsters unnecessarily into the correctional system. Some alleged delinquent acts are best overlooked. The mere labeling of a youngster may do more harm than the treatment found within the system. We must strive, therefore, to have a correctional system which incorporates within it only those youngsters and adults whose behavior is such that correctional intervention is demanded. Whenever possible, persons within the correctional system should be kept in their own communities and should be released from the system at the earliest time permitted by considerations of public safety.

« PreviousContinue »