« PreviousContinue »
Senator CLARK. But they do not, do they?
Senator CLARK. And it is clear from your Commission's report that they do not?
Nr. VORENBERG. The Commission's report makes that absolutely clear that if we leave this problem today to the cities and the States to do it without Federal support and very major Federal support, well, a generation from now, we will be almost exactly where we are in dealing with delinquency and we will be have a great deal more delinquency, a great deal more youth crime simply because the population structure is such that in the next 7 to 10 years, younger people, people between the ages of 0 and 10, who are a quarter of the population today, are going to move into the high crime age categories.
So if we just go on doing what we are doing today, no better, no worse, we can confidently predict there is going to be a very substantial crime rate increase.
Senator CLARK. Would you comment on the block grant concept which is in the House bill and, in connection with that make some comment about what you think is the appropriate role of the States as opposed to putting the money directly into the municipalities?
Mr. VORENBERG. I think the block grant proposal in the form of this legislation is very unwise. I think it would work all right for a few States. I think it worked fairly well, as a matter of fact, in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, States that are relatively small, where there is the beginning of some organization at the State level. But in, I would say, more than half of the States, the making of block grants to the States will, as Mr. Beck said, be providing these funds to people who have no capacity at the present time and, as a matter of fact, very few ideas, and in some cases, not even the will to do anything about the problem, notwithstanding the fact that you may have in some cities and in some private agencies both the capacity and the will to deal with the problem.
Now, under this bill, eventually money can be diverted around the State to the local agencies. But that will be cumbersome, it will discourage the people, will lead to delay.
Senator CLARK. You are speaking now of the House bill?
Mr. VORENBERG. Under the House bill. If the State does not act for a long enough period of time, it can go directly to these other agencies. But I think that is going to lead to a major delay in getting changed in most of the States in this country, and I think a totally unjustifiable delay, because I think a mixed program, a program that makes some money available to the States, particularly in those areas such as corrections, where the State agencies are normally in charge anyway, and made other money available to the cities with a general requirement that the cities had to show they had coordinated with the State agency would be far better.
That really is, it seems to me, the proper role for the State agency. The State can play a role even on grants to the cities. But I think in many cases, the effect of this block grant would simply be to confirm the bad practices that are now going on in the States that have made very little progress.
Senator CLARK. How about the problem of rural delinquency? We spent nearly all of our time on big city delinquency.
way it is
Mr. VORENBERG. I have to be honest in saying that I know much less about rural delinquency than about urban delinquency, and I think there is much less of it. I think it is a much less serious problem.
Senator CLARK. Can that be demonstrated ?
If one looks at chapter 2 of the Crime Commission's general report, there are figures laid out there, documented in the task force report, that do show a tremendous difference between rural and urban delinquency. I am not saying it is not a problem and it may not get worse. I think some of the same remedies are called for to deal with it. But I cannot pass myself off as any kind of an expert on that.
Senator CLARK. Well, consider how difficult it is to get a bill which is directed exclusively to dealing with the problems of the cities, particularly the large cities, through the U.S. Senate because of the constitutional composition of the Senate, two votes for each State, which means that the rural States pretty well predominate it. So a practical politician has to think of throwing at least some sop to the
al areas to get a bill through. Mr. VORENBERG. I think one of the sops you can throw at them is where the levels of delinquency, rural delinquency are low, the increase in rural delinquency is as fast as or faster in most places than in the cities. I have no reason to believe that if this continues in the continuing, it will not be a significant problem in the rural areas in years ahead. In fact, in some rural areas, it is a problem now. Senator CLARK. I sometimes think mildly cynically of that song
of the early twenties, “How You Gonna Keep Them Down on the Farm, After They've Seen Paree,” or New York or Boston or Philadelphia as the heart of our problem.
Mr. VORENBERG. I think it is the heart of the problem, because if more people would stay down on the farm, the impaction of the cities would be a less serious problem.
Senator CLARK. Did you have anything to do, either empirically or statistically, with the question as to the extent to which urban juvenile delinquency comes from first- or even second-generation urban families as opposed to families which have been in the city for maybe 75 or 100 years?
Mr. VORENBERG. I do not have the figures with me, but we did report on one study that bears directly on that point, based on Chicago where, in a study that has been carried on over a long period of time—as a matter of fact, it goes back to the work of the Wickersham Commission and has been carried forward since then, it was shown that while the highest rates of crime and delinquency in Chicago in general were in the areas where Negroes live in that city, it was concentrated in those districts where there has been the fastest migration, where people had moved in faster, and that in two or three Negro districts in Chicago, where you had, as you say, second- and third-generation people living, where you had an established community, the crime rate was among the lowest in the whole city.
So I think to the extent there is evidence on anything in this field, it seems to me there is compelling evidence that the first-generation disruption is an important factor.
(The prepared statement of Mr. Vorenberg follows:)
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES VOREN BERG, PROFESSOR OF LAW, HARVARD UNIVER
SITY; AND FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
I will confine what I have to say in these introductory remarks to certain general statements about the need for legislation to deal with juvenile delinquency and certain comments on H.R. 12120.
The Crime Commission found that the key to controlling crime in this country is to prevent jurenile crime and to provide effective rehabilitation for juvenile defenders. The great bulk of crime is committed by young people and the relative distribution of the population today makes it clear that for the next few years, the relative increase in the number of young people between their mid-teens and mid-20's--the high crime age range-threatens us with even higher crime rates. Our best opportunities lie in diverting young people while they are still on the margins of trouble, and many of the Crime Commission's recommendations point in this direction. Since the Committee has the Commission's Report “The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society" and the Task Force Report on Juvenile Delinquency before it, I will not dwell at this point on those recommendations.
H.R. 12120 in its present form seems to me to have serious defects which prerent it from serving as an effective force against juvenile crime. First, the initial authorization of $25,000,000 for the purpose of the Act is clearly inadequate to meet the enormous needs and opportunities for change in this field.
Second, it seems to me to be most unwise to exclude Poverty Program projects and agencies from the operation of this Act. In many cities these projects and organizations have the greatest present capacity to develop and carry out programs against delinquency, either on their own or in conjunction with other agencies.
Third, the limitation of Section 103(a) to public agencies is both inconsistent and unwise. In many states effective rehabilitation programs are now operated by private agencies, and I see no basis for excluding such private agencies under Section 103( a), particularly in view of the fact that Section 113 authorizes financing of private agencies in the preventive area. For example, it is not clear to me that the act in its present form would permit the support of the rehabilitative programs of the Youth Services Bureau where those programs are carried on by private agencies. To fail to provide such support would be inconsistent with one of the major recommendations of the Crime Commission.
Fourth, I have serious reservation about the rigidity of the block grants to states under this Act. In many instances I fear this will lead to substantial delays at starting preventive programs at the city level.
Fifth, perhaps the most serious and most glaring omission is the failure to provide funds for research. The Crime Commission recognized that we are a long way from knowing what should be done to reduce delinquency and that research and demonstration projects were important in developing that knowlEdge. In view of this, the omission of research from the Bill seems particularly short-sighted.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Professor Vorenberg. You have been very helpful to the committee. I can assure you, although I seem to be holding forth alone, that the other members of the committee are going to give careful attention to what you have told us.
I am very grateful to you.
Mr. VORENBERG. May I make just a note in the record? That is that the committee staff originally asked Prof. Lloyd Ohlin, who is among the Nation's leading criminologists, who also teaches at Harvard Law School, to be here today. He had commitments there, and I simply want to say that I reviewed what I was going to say with him, and what I have said here reflects his views, as well as my own.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much.
Now, Mr. Haskins, I apologize for keeping you waiting. You have been very courteous and very kind.
Mr. Haskins, I have had an opportunity to read your excellent statement, which I would like to have printed in full in the record.
I have the greatest admiration for the work being done by the National Urban League. Your general summary of the problem is very helpful to the subcommittee.
I wonder if you have any specific comments on the bills which are before us?
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. HASKINS, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
WASHINGTON BUREAU, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE Mr. Haskins. Well, in regard to the administration bill, first of all, we feel that there are private organizations like the Urban League that do have a certain amount of expertise in the areas of juvenile delinquency through our 58-year history, who would be able to make certain analyses and help in this area of juvenile delinquency prevention. We do feel that the $25 million, which is the amount in the bill, is not big enough to work with the problem.
Senator CLARK. Would you agree with Professor Vorenberg that a sensible start, if we were able to do it, would be about $250 million?
Mr. HASKINS. That is more like the figure that we would go along with, because after you take $25 million and talk about 50 States, just as you indicated at the beginning, it would be about $250 per community, which would hardly even scratch the problem.
Senator CLARK. Will you comment on what the Urban League's position is on the House and the Senate bill?
Mr. HASKINS. Well, we would have a tendency here to go along with the administration bill.
Senator CLARK. Assuming it was funded at an adequate level?
Mr. HASKINS. Right. It does have provisions for involvement of private organizations. We do feel that, certainly, OEO would have a history to draw upon. They certainly could make a fine contribution to solving some of the problems of JD in local communities.
Senator CLARK. Do you think we ought to write a training provision into the administration bill?
Mr. HASKINS. I would have to go along with that, because I think one of the major causes of juvenile delinquency in the local community is the inability, especially of minority groups, to get not only job opportunities but to get the necessary training to assume those job responsibilities.
Senator Clark. Do you think there is a shortage of skilled personnel in this correctional field?
Mr. HASKINS. Definitely. I had the privilege of working for 10 years with the Boys Clubs of America, where I was quite involved in youth and youth crime prevention. I also was a youngster who grew up in a situation where Boys Clubs of America helped me get on the right path.
Senator CLARK. What community did you grow up in? Mr. Haskins. I grew up in the community, Binghamton, N.Y., which had at that time only approximately 2,000 Negroes. But there was still a problem because we were still forced to live in a Negro community and there was a wall that we had to operate within. This is the wall the Urban League still works in the framework of, the
black curtain, that we are having to move in and work in for the most part, for the rest of our lives.
Senator Clark. Segregated housingMr. HASKINS. Segregated housing and segregated schools. This seems to be the crux of the situation. If more minority families were able to move out of the ghettos that have become prisons for them, some of the problems of perpetuation of crime and delinquency would be prevented.
Senator CLARK. What do you think of the possibility of staffing this sort of juvenile delinquency control effort with young people from the slums?
Mr. HASKINS. Well, I would have to go back to my experience with OEO. I think probably one of the great things that happened in OEO, of course, was the involvement of the poor. Although there has been great controversy with community action programs, this is still one of the programs that is most close to the hearts of Negro citizens. We can draw upon that experience and talk about the involvement of youngsters in programs. They do not want to sit back and have programs developed for them. They want to be a part of the development.
Senator CLARK. Do they have the skill to be a part of the development, or can they be trained in that skill? This is not child's play. You really have to know what you are doing.
Mr. HASKINS. I think we underrate many of our youngsters, especially our ghetto youngsters, when we say they do not have the ability. I think, first of all, they have to be given the opportunity to show whether they have the ability or do not have the ability. Many of these assumptions are made by people who really do not have close contact with these people. In far too many cases, these are people who are college professors, who design programs for people and do not include people.
I think there are many youngsters in the ghetto who have leadership qualities. The whole concept of indigenous is something that social workers have begun to believe in, as a result of the OEO programs.
Senator CLARK. Were you down at the hearing we had at the Foundry Methodist Church yesterday?
Mr. HASKINS. No, I missed it, but I understand that it was a tremendous hearing from the standpoint of everybody who was there.
Senator CLARK. I was there, myself, and I was quite impressed by the testimony of the young people.
Mr. Haskins. They continually surprise you by their articulation and by a complete knowledge of the problem. I think nobody knows the problems of youth like youth themselves.
Senator CLARK. I am sure that is right.
Mr. Haskins. I did want to take issue with something I heard. It was relating to the fact that the original difference between youngsters of today and the youngsters of yesterday
Senator CLARK. How old are you?
Mr. HASKINS. I do feel that when we are talking about ghetto young. sters, they do have some real unique aspirations. I think that the $30 pair of shoes and the Cadillac car and the Botany suit are still some