Page images

authorization of this program be extended to a minimum of 5 years and recommends that an even longer authorization be provided for if possible.


Let me turn to the third point we wish to make. H.R. 12120 provides that 80 percent of the moneys received under titles I and II must be devoted to grants within the States and the remainder, 20 percent, used by the State agency to carry out its own program and projects.

If this committee recommends the incorporation of a formula to govern this matter, we feel that the one contained in H.R. 12120 is far too rigid. For certain States, the 80-20 percent formula would be appropriate because more than one organizational unit of State government and local government as well as a variety of agencies are involved in the handling of juvenile delinquency. However, for other States, there may be only one State agency involved in the juvenile delinquency field and the only organizational components at the local level might be police departments and jails. We have States where a single agency of the State provides probation and parole services, operates detention homes and training schools for children, and the municipalities and counties are involved in delinquency only through police departments and other law-enforcement agencies. We suggest the need for a more flexible formula which would be more adaptable to variations within the States.


Our fourth point is training. We note with approval that this element is found in H.R. 12120. We strongly hope and urge that your committee and the Senate will include the provision for training. The manpower needs in the field of juvenile delinquency are great. The training needs are vast and we cannot mount new programs or improve old ones without extended provisions for the training of personnel. We need to train trainers. We need to develop the capacity within agencies for inservice or on-the-job training programs.

But we also believe that there should be two channels through which funds may be made available for the development of personnel, not just one as proposed in H.R. 12120. We endorse the broad purposes for which training funds may be used, ranging from support of college degree programs to the development of inservice training programs.

We urge, however, that this committee recommend that there be legislative provision for grants to be made directly to institutions of higher learning as well as "the State agency."

We believe that giving an operating agency complete control over grants for the support of higher education programs violates certain basic educational principles. We do not believe that degree programs within colleges and universities should be developed according to the dictates of operating agencies. The principle of academic freedom must be protected if the soundest possible development of higher education programs is to be assured.

We are aware that there are other programs within HEW related to the training of personnel but it should be pointed out that these programs have not met the personnel needs in the field of juvenile.

delinquency. Other fields; that is, mental health, have enjoyed longtime Federal support for the training of personnel and considerable gains have been achieved as a result. The training of personnel for the field of juvenile delinquency has been a low man on the totem pole.

We believe that attention must be focused on the development of training programs for this field and that funds must categorically be marked for such purposes. We therefore urge that provision for the support of training with alternate, complementary granting routes, be included in the Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention Control Act of 1967.


Earlier in this testimony I pointed out that many communities would lack sufficient technical knowledge to plan a juvenile delinquency control program of maximum effectiveness, particularly smaller towns and rural areas. Even in urban areas there may sometimes be lack of sufficient knowledge of nationwide experience. S. 1248 authorizes the Secretary of HEW to render technical assistance to agencies in matters relating to prevention and treatment of delinquency, technical assistance which will be essential if experience is to be used positively and past mistakes are not to be repeated. We recommend that this provision be retained.

In conclusion, we would like to comment on the provision of the House bill which would prohibit juvenile delinquency moneys from going to voluntary as well as Government agencies receiving funds from some program of the Office of Economic Opportunity. Not only would this hamper some of the new and creative agencies making pioneer efforts in preventing and controlling delinquency but it would probably be an even greater denial to well-established and traditional Government and voluntary agencies program and institutions who have utilized OEO help to revitalize and reorient their efforts to meet. the needs of today's youth.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I want to thank you, Mr. Wallace. That is an excellent statement. You have covered many of the questions and the points that have come to my mind. You also have touched on the principal differences between the House and Senate bill. I think you give a full justification on the questions of planning, and the limitation of the funds, which is a matter which I am concerned about. I think your dramatic example of the New York experience points this up.

Mr. WALLACE. I might just add as an illustration in the training area. Out of our operating budget-we are one of the larger probation agencies in the country-I estimate I set aside something like a quarter of a million dollars for salaries for personnel on nothing but staff development. This is not the people they are teaching-but this is simply training teachers.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The term of the authorization I am in sympathy with. I think it is terribly shortsighted to go for this 1-year authorization.

Mr. WALLACE. Again, may I say in this connection, on short-term authorization-when we start making investments in certain programs and I am going to take my own experience as an illustration

86-260-67- -20

I sometimes have to figure 7 or 8 years before I start getting some of my dividends. We started education in graduate training and social work, selected senior personnel in the agency. I figure 5 years before I receive my dividends.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. On this question of the formula-would you review that and expand on that to some extent?

Mr. WALLACE. Yes. Under the formulas, as we understand H.R. 12120, the State submits a comprehensive plan, designates a State agency which will receive the funds and disburse them. The limit then is that that statement agency receiving the funds can only retain 20 percent within its own operations. It must distribute the other 80 percent throughout other organizational components-city, county, or State level.

For certain States, this would work out quite easy. I think for example of your home State and my home State-this would not be the problem, because we have many units of local government-your probation services, your juvenile courts in Massachusetts which are wholly operated and locally financed.

I think of Rhode Island, for instance, where the service component to the juvenile court system is contained in a single State agency. For them to be able to retain only 20 percent and yet they are the ones who are having to provide the services in the area of rehabilitation and treatment of delinquents, means that they have no impact that they could make on their own agency.

It is this kind of rigidity that troubles us, because if we look at the country, we have no pattern that makes any sense in how we are organized at State, county, and local levels.

The variations range from the single State agency to sometimes as many as three and four State agencies carrying responsibility in the juvenile delinquency area, plus any number of particularly county units of government, and then the city police departments being involved in the delinquency area.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. So this really penalizes the States that do have creative programs, because it sets the rigid ceiling as to the amount of funds they can actually control?

Mr. WALLACE. That is right. For example, Minnesota now has a single State agency that covers both the adult and the juvenile area. They provide probation services to most of the local communities or rural counties that are not large enough to have their own probation services.

They provide all of the aftercare or parole services within that agency.

In contrast to that-and I am taking Maryland, where I also worked the aftercare program was in one State agency, the probation service for the juvenile court is in another State agency. There are, both in Minnesota and in Maryland, local communities, either city or county, that have their own programs and services. They may even be a local institution for children, or they may be the local probation service. So that for Minnesota it would mean that the larger communities, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, would be able to be eligible for funds, but the smaller communities that are dependent upon the State for services, only the police and the sheriff are eligible.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. How do you interpret what was intended by the formula to make sure it did get down to the local communities?

I suppose what you are suggesting is that given the problem, and the realities of these various special State and local relationships, we should not have a kind of rigidity that is suggested by the formula.

Mr. WALLACE. It troubles me both on the formula and the fact that if you had a single State agency, where are those funds going to be used if they are granted in that single State agency? I think of Dr. Cottrell's point. I would share with him his concern, that if it went into the State, and they turned that money into the building of a new training school, you and I, looking at it as citizens of this country, are not receiving dividends from the investment that particular State is making. This is the problem that we have with both the idea of the formula, but also the idea that the funds go to the State agency.

And there is, I think, tremendous value to consider that the funds go from the Federal Government for the distribution and disbursement, particularly if you see the need for priorities, and are in agreement of our point-either the legislative act must provide those kinds of priorities, or the legislative act must provide the intent that the disbursing agency has to establish priorities within which these funds can be disbursed.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. You did not comment on the youth participation in the various programs.

Mr. WALLACE. We did not, because we want to make an impact on three or four points.

But I would say and I do agree, both from my own personal standpoint as an operating agency, and from the standpoint of the association, that there is tremendous value in the youth participation.

I think that we have a great deal to learn from them. I think we are only beginning to learn.

One of the gains that we got from the Juvenile Delinquency Act of 1961 was learning what-I am going to use the term-peer group influence, what the influence of other kids has upon kids in helping them straighten up. This is one of the things that in our own agency, for example, we are moving more toward. Because we have the knowledge that we gained out of the 1961 act, the research that was done. Our task now is to keep on finding the ways for this kind of youth involvement. Creating the opportunity, literally, for these kids to get in, give them a chance to give their views, give them a chance to be heard.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I am not sure whether you touched on the restriction that is placed upon the contribution to agencies that are receiving OEO funds.

Mr. WALLACE. Yes. We would hope that would be eliminated. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That applies also to the voluntary groups, organizations like Big Brother and the other groups. Mr. WALLACE. Yes.

I am talking now from the standpoint of one of my staff, a probation officer. When he is dealing with a youngster who is delinquent, if he is really going to help this youngster, he has to deal with the youngster in the context in which this kid lives. And a part of that may be

job training, teaching him how to get a job-not only just how to hold a job, but first how to get a job.

It may be the school issue.

And if we stay in this thing, as Dr. Cottrell has said, on this traditional pattern of this 1 to 1, the medical model, we do not really see these kids in the context in which they live. And this is one of the things that social work has learned, and we are getting in a sense a new breed of cats. The social worker has got to not deal with the kid who is on probation because of the delinquency alone. He may have to deal with the school, he may have to deal with the employer-far beyond what we have had in the traditional pattern of staying just either with the kid or with the parents of the kid.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Well, let me just say, Mr. Wallace, that your statement is very comprehensive. It is a very inclusive statement. I think it is very powerful and helpful commentary on the matters which are before this committee.

I say that I am in sympathy with most of the points you have raised, as I have been with most of the other points raised this morning.

I think your organization obviously has a great background and interest in these problems, and wealth of experience. And so it is helpful to all of us to have these suggestions.

Mr. WALLACE. It is our pleasure.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I do not know whether you would like to make any comment.

Miss TAVANI. No, I think Mr. Wallace has covered everything. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you. I want to thank you very much for your appearance. This concludes our hearing on the legislation. We now move into the markup period.

At this point in the record I order printed all prepared statements and pertinent material on hand or subsequently supplied for the record. (The material referred to follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NED GOLDBERG, FIELD CONSULTANT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SETTLEMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, NEW YORK, N.Y. The National Federation of Settlements (NFS) has 246 member agencies and services 16 more, operating 399 neighborhood centers in 94 cities and 30 states and 22 metropolitan or regional federations of neighborhood centers are affiliates, too. In addition, NFS operates a National Training Center, based in Chicago. NFS works nationally for neighborhood conditions favorable to family life and helps its member centers to serve their neighborhoods effectively through a wide range of direct and advisory services. Most of our member centers are engaged in Juvenile Delinquency prevention programs and have been for many years.

Passage of an effective Juvenile Delinquency Act is a critical need because legislative authority for existing federal programs in the Juvenile Delinquency filed lapsed on June 30. Further, there is dire need for expanded and enriched programs of juvenile delinquency prevention, corrections and rehabilitations as has been amply demonstrated in the report by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice and in the book, "Juvenile Delinquency-Its Prevention and Control," by Wheeler and Cottrell, written at the request of the Honorable John W. Gardner, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

When social controls disappear in a neighborhood-the controls that come from within the community out of its folk ways and mores, its institutions and its local leadership-young people act out more vigorously, more violently than would be possible in another kind of neighborhood. In the kind of vacuum that exists in the community that cannot institute these controls from within, the

« PreviousContinue »