has been a wide gulf between the two systems-and the result is that many youth are lost in between. Now, there exist in some communities neighborhood-based service teams to keep track of these youths to make sure that they receive the help they need. Based in neighborhood centers, police, court workers, correctional personnel, and community service workers are working together perhaps for the first time; and more important, they are providing help to delinquent youth and their families when and where it is most needed. These programs have helped to shape the dimensions of the community-based youth service agencies which the Crime Commission has recommended for every urban community.

Of the scores of programs that were planned as parts of the multi-faceted attack on delinquency, not all have been successful. Some were too ambitious and some weren't bold enough to break the bonds of obsolete traditions.

Each of the comprehensive programs experienced some failures and some successes. Some programs have eluded evaluation; others will require the passage of time until their impact is felt. Perhaps we shall never have all the answers, for definitions of delinquency are vague and slippery and they change with the passage of time.

But even if the final results are not in, we do know that these programs have provided thousands of young people with the confidence that comes from achievement; the satisfactions to be gained from making a worthwhile contribution in their community and the hope for the future that springs from the acquisition of knowledge and skills. And that, after all is what all Americans want for youth. The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 would enable us to make good use of the knowledge developed under the previous legislation and to continue developing new approaches through support of State and local efforts.

There are four principal elements in this legislation: planning, rehabilitative service, preventive services and research. Each of these provisions attempts to build on past experience.

One of the greatest needs in the juvenile delinquency field is systematic planning. The responsibility for delinquency prevention and control is not located in one or even a few agencies. Within each State and locality there are many different approaches to the problems of delinquency, some have competing programs; some programs overlap, and often there are wide gaps between programs. Last year at the request of Secretary Gardner, Stanton Wheeler and I undertook a review of current developments in the field of delinquency prevention and control. At all levels there was general agreement that the quantity and quality of planning and coordinating mechanisms are inadequate to the task. The legislation before you would offer States and communities much needed incentives to plan for a coordinated and comprehensive network of prevention and treatment programs. In the past the community and its institution all too often have dealt with problem youth by shunting them off into the correctional system. But the experiments conducted under the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1961 have shown that many delinquents can be worked with in the community without undue danger to society and that the behavior of a large number of delinquent youth can be changed without having to subject either them or the State to the costly and negative consequences of confinement.

This legislation would 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.

For example, grants could be made to improve the prejudicial dispositional handling process. The police and the courts are the two most important 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.

S. 1248 would 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.

The legislation 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 must 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 individuals, probation and parole officers could be assigned to specific target communities to act as advocates and mobilizers of resources for problem youth living in these communities. The proposed legislation could make it possible for courts and correctional agencies to recruit and train both 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.

Most authorities in the field 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 legislation before you could 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 community 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. The legislation would assist States and communities to develop newer types of residential facilities geared to the requirements of different types of delinquents.

The legislation requires agencies seeking support for the development of such rehabilitative facilities to link their 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.

The legislation would 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 experiences to not disconnect offenders from society. It would 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 by 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 non-judicially 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.

The legislation, which you are considering would 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 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 service agencies. The legislation requires that States and communities which receive funds for the creation of such mechanisms must 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. Our experience has shown, for example, that youth can participate effectively in efforts to create shifts from delinquent to conventional behavior; that they themselves can help to stimulate changes through their work in neighborhood organization projects; and that they can benefit from serving as helpers.

Finally, the bill would encourage 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. Under the provisions of the legislation it would be possible to develop long-term commitments to a research and evaluation system, and to try out arrangements such as university-based institutions tied directly to community service agencies. Equally important, it would encourage ongoing research as a significant part of State and local programs.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation, if enacted and properly linked to broader prevention measures would be a major step toward implementing the recommendations of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice; it would build in a systematic way on the lessons learned during the past six years.

In contrast to S. 1248, I believe that the bill passed by the House, H.R. 12120, fails to take into consideration the learnings of the past, present needs or future goals.

For example, H.R. 12120 contains no provisions for planning, without careful planning, there is the danger that the funds available will be used for short-term stop-gap programs and that the problems of fragmentation and piece-meal program development will be perpetuated.

Secondly, H.R. 12120, under its provisions for rehabilitative services mandates that funds be spent on adjudicated delinquents only, whereas S. 1248 enables law enforcement agencies and other public agencies to help youth before they become labeled as delinquents. By requiring that a youth be a known delinquent before help is extended under H.R. 12120, Part A, Title I, the bill may do much harm. Under our vague loosely drawn definitions of delinquency there is the likelihood that youth would be drawn into the correctional system in order to provide them with the benefits provided in H.R. 12120. The labeling of a youth as delinquent may do him more harm than good.

Part B of H.R. 12120 provides funds for the development of community-based programs, but only for youth in danger of becoming delinquent. This arbitrary separation between Parts A and B of the House Bill would work against the

integration of agencies and their clientele and would widen the gap between law enforcement, correctional and community agencies.

One of the most serious differences in H.R. 12120 is the absence of the provision for appropriate participation by youth. Of course there are problems associated with youth involvement, but it is the most promising means of developing effective prevention programs. Youth today are seeking involvement. They do not want to have things done to them or for them. They want and deserve a share in shaping their destiny. Of all the programs funded under the Juvenile Delinquency legislation of 1961, the most effective are those where young people are doing things for themselves and not subjected to the status of recipient. I strongly urge you to restore the provisions for appropriate participation.

H.R. 12120 has one provision, which I consider superior to S. 1248, and that is Title II, which provides for training. Shortage of manpower is a major obstacle toward improvement of program. This Title might even be expanded. It should make specific provision for the development of new careers, in delinquency prevention and treatment especially for persons from poverty neighborhoods with limited formal education. Persons who have been close to delinquency themselves are often highly effective in helping other delinquents.

H.R. 12120 has, no provision for research, demonstration, technical assistance, or information. We can no longer afford social programs in America that do not have some research components. In the report which Stanton Wheeler and I prepared for Secretary Gardner, we pointed out that the importance of research cannot be overemphasized. It is inconceivable to me that the House would propose $25 million program without allocating any of that amount for the development of knowledge, systematic assessment and dissemination of results.

H.R. 12120 would funnel funds through the States with block grants being made to the States. Such a requirement would block the flow of funds to the local communities and stifle local initiative. In the delinquency field the State agencies are concerned primarily with institutionalization. Police, courts, and prevention are the business of localities. Mechanisms, especially at the State level, for dealing with delinquency are in most instances-and this has been documented by the President's Crime Commission-antiquated and cumbersome. If funds are channeled through such agencies, the result would be more of the same in most instances. Experience tells us that money should flow directly into those States and localities which are willing and able to develop plans for community-based prevention and treatment of delinquency.

H.R. 12120 prohibits funds from flowing to any organization which has received funds from OEO. To me, there is no justification for this limitation. Funds should be entrusted to agencies which can do the job. It is inconceivable that agencies and the young people involved should be penalized because they have received funds from a legitimate agency of the Federal Government. I urge you to strike this crippling provision.

Finally, I would like to comment on what I believe to be one of the most restrictive measures in the House Committee Bill-the one-year authorization. This would seriously hamper our ability to administer the program. The Administration Bill calls for a five-year authorization.

Juvenile delinquency, like poverty and related social problems, is rooted deep in the fabric of our society and will not yield to short-term solutions or crash programs. It takes months and sometimes even years of planning before some programs can be properly designed and successfully carried out.

The urgency of the problem calls for immediate action, but our current knowledge and the complexity of delinquency indicate that there is no quick and easy eradication of the problem. It is therefore necessary to think in long-range terms, and to plan for a continuing and enlarged commitment of time, funds, and other resources.

Short-term funding is likely to encourage short-term solutions to long-range problems. The end result is apt to be disappointment, frustration and failure. For this reason, I strongly urge the Senate to adopt the President's provision for a 5-year authorization.

Mr. Chairman, you have two bills before you S. 1248 and H.R. 12120. In my opinion, H.R. 12120 would wake it difficult to put into practice the best that we have learned. On the other hand, S. 1248 with minor changes such as the addition of provisions for training, would build on the lessons of the past and enable us to

carry out the major recommendations of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice.

Personal Data

BIOGRAPHY OF LEONARD SLATER COTTRELL, JR.

Born December 12, 1899, Hampton Roads, Virginia.

Attended Public School, Richmond, Virginia.

Graduated John Marshall High School, Richmond, Virginia, 1918.

Father: Leonard S. Cottrell, born New Kent County, Virginia.

Mother: Ruth Ella Roane Cottrell, born King & Queen County, Virginia.

Married: Anita Rucker of Bedford, Virginia, August 27, 1927.

Children: Leonard S. Cottrell, III and Susan R. Cottrell.

Hobby: Sailing.

Academic Training

B.S. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1922 (Biology).

M.S. Vanderbilt University, 1926 (Sociology)

Ph.D. University of Chicago 1933 (Sociology and Social Psychology).

Research and Academic Positions

1928-29 Associate Research Sociologist, Institute for Juvenile Research, Chicago, Illinois.

1929-31 Part-time Instructor in Sociology, University of Chicago and Clinical Sociologist in branch clinics of the Institute for Juvenile Research.

1931-35 Instructor in Sociology, University of Chicago.

1935 Spring and summer: Research Analyst, FERA and WPA, Washington, D.C. 1935-38 Assistant Professor of Sociology, Cornell University.

1938-39 Professor of Sociology, Cornell University.

1939-42 Professor of Sociology and Chairman of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Cornell University.

1942-45 Leave of absence from Cornell University; Chief Sociologist and Director of Survey Analysis, Research Branch, Special Services Division, Services of Supply, War Department, Washington, D.C.

1945-48 Professor of Sociology and Chairman of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and the Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University. 1948-51 Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, Cornell University.

1951- Social Psychologist, Russell Sage Foundation.

1959- Secretary, Russell Sage Foundation.

Memberships

Cosmos Club, Washington, D.C.

Sigma Xi.

Phi Beta Kappa.

American Sociological Association (President 1950) (Fellow)

American Philosophical Society

Sociological Research Association (President 1949)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (Fellow) Member of Committee for Section K (1955-59)

Eastern Sociological Society (Annual Merit Award 1965)

Official Positions

Social Science Research Council, Board of Directors (1944–52) Chairman, Committee on Problems and Policy (1948-51)

Study Section, National Institute of Mental Health (1951-55)

Advisory Group on Psychological and Unconventional Warfare, Research and Development Board, Department of Defense (Chairman 1952-53)

Adjunct Professor of Sociology, New York University (1952- )

Scientific Advisory Board, United States Air Force (1954–58)

Technical Advisory Panel on Special Operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Research and Development (1954-60)

National Advisory Mental Health Council, National Institute of Mental Health (1955-60)

Army Scientific Advisory Panel (1956-58)

Editor, Sociometry (1956-59)

Advisory Committee for Social Sciences of the Office of Social Sciences, National Science Foundation (1959-61)