ual conversation with the Department of Justice to assure a comprehensive approach to the problems of crime and delinquency. More broadly, the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice has stressed the importance of linking delinquency prevention and control programs with other Federal programs of greater scope which deal with delinquency by improving educational and employment opportunities and by attacking slum conditions. During the past year the Administration has given considerable attention to the problem of improved coordination in response to local initiative. Study is going on of possible reorganization of programs and agencies to this end. In the meantime, I would expect this Department to take the lead in seeking linkage between the delinquency programs and those of broader scope. How this will best be done will depend, in some measure, on the shape of the legislation that the Congress enacts. I am confident, however, that improved coordination within the Department will ease the problem of interdepartmental coordination. Since early 1966 the Department has given continued high level attention to juvenile delinquency. At that time I asked the Russell Sage Foundation to review the field and to give me their recommendations. Shortly thereafter I assigned responsibility for leadership in this area within the Department to Assistant Secretary for Individual and Family Services, Lisle C. Carter, Jr. I also established an interdepartmental committee on juvenile delinquency under Assistant Secretary Carter. This committee is composed of representatives of the various activities within HEW that have a significant concern with juvenile delinquency. Our initial emphasis has been on the formulation of a new program. This proposal is built on our experience over the past several years, as refined by the work of the Crime Commission, the Russell Sage report, discussions of the intradepartmental committee and outside consultations. We are now concerned about how we will bring the resources of the Department to bear in support of a new and vigorous effort in the delinquency field. We want also to the greatest extent possible to draw on the resources of other relevant Federal agencies. For example, we are learning a great deal from the extensive research going on under the Correctional Rehabilitation Study Act of 1965, carried on under the former Vocational Rehabilitation Administration. I have charged Assistant Secretary Carter with responsibility for developing and maintaining effective mechanisms for systematic coordination across the range of the Department's programs in this field. Such coordination will include the establishment of complementary policies and priorities and provision for regular evaluation. In addition, I expect Mr. Carter to strengthen our relations with other Federal agencies. To carry out these tasks he will have the assistance of not only the intradepartment committee, but also of a deputy assistant secretary whose sole concern will be developing policies and evaluating programs relating to our Nation's young people. The Center for Community Planning, which I set up under Assistant Secretary Carter's direction earlier this year for the express purpose of bringing HEW programs together around specific problems, should be of considerable additional assistance. Perhaps, most significant in the move toward more effective management in the delinquency field is the establishment of the Social and Rehabilitation Service. As I indicated in my testimony before the Subcommittee, I plan to locate the new delinquency program in that agency under the administration of Miss Mary Switzer. The organization of SRS has brought together four activities that are directly related to delinquency; the projects funded under the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1961; rehabilitative services and demonstration grants supported by the vocational rehabilitation legislation: the setting of standards and technical assistance activities of the Division of Juvenile Delinquency in the Children's Bureau and relevant activities supported through child welfare grants to the States. We propose to establish a new office of youth services in SRS that will administer the juvenile delinquency program. In its early stages, the director of that office will report directly to Administrator Switzer. His responsibilities will include operation of the new juvenile delinquency program; the residual activities of the Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, and the activities of the Division of Juvenile Delinquency now in the Children's Bureau. Additionally, the director of the new office will be expected to coordinate the juvenile delinquency activities of the vocational rehabilitation programs and of child welfare services with those of his office and the Department. As both the Social and Rehabilitation Service and the new office gain operational experience, we will want to examine these arrangements to see whether they are the most effective organization of our juvenile delinquency efforts. The figure of $25,000,000 for the first year of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 was arrived at jointly by HEW, the Justice Department and the Bureau of the Budget. Our projections for the succeeding four years would bring the annual appropriation up to $150,000,000 by fiscal year 1972. We realize that one of the most urgent needs in the juvenile delinquency field is money to finance the improvements and innovations which State and local agencies must make in order to deal more effectively with the problem of youth. We have proposed this modest sum for the first year, however, because we are planning a long-range program with increased Federal support each year to keep pace with the increasing capacity of the State and local communities to develop soundlybased programs based on new knowledge and systematic planning. We want to encourage the States and communities to re-examine their existing services and current practices, to introduce innovations and to plan for long-range development. Finally, I would comment on the request for suggestions as to amendments of the Administration bill to include reference to training authority under other HEW programs. As I indicated in my testimony, we plan to coordinate our training programs toward the end of promoting the training of personnel in the delinquency field. However, as the authority for the administration of all these programs is vested in the Secretary of HEW, it would seem neither appropriate nor necessary to provide in legislation for such coordination on the part of the Secretary. On the subject of amendments, I have enclosed a copy of a letter which we sent to the Committee Counsel in which some of the technical and draft errors in the bill were raised. I would appreciate it if the Senate Subcommittee could see that these mistakes were corrected. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to present our views to the Committee. We will be happy to respond to additional questions. Sincerely, Enclosures. JOHN W. GARDNER, Secretary. NUMBER OF PERSONNEL BEING TRAINED UNDER HEW PROGRAMS FOR WORK RELATED TO COMBATING JUVENILE DELINQUENCY The Department has developed recently a Program and Financial Plan which describes the Department's current programs and will make possible realistic program projections for the future. Statistical and fiscal information is now readily available on all the Department's manpower programs. This information is compiled according to occupational category and sub-category. In preparing the information for the Sub-committee, we have compiled statistics from all the occupational categories which relate to the problem of juvenile delinquency. These include teacher education, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, social work and selected sub-categories within the fields of vocational rehabilitation and guidance and counseling. The total number of persons being trained in all of these categories is 73,429. It should be pointed out, however, that this figure represents those who are being trained for occupations which include juvenile delinquency prevention as one of their many activities. For example, all social workers, except those who work with the aged and the physically ill or handicapped are included in the figure above although a large number of this category work with groups such as the mentally ill, mentally retarded, etc. In those programs which have a specific authorization to conduct programs in the area of juvenile delinquency prevention and control, the total number of persons trained in fiscal year 1966 was 9,354. SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, OFFICE OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, FISCAL YEAR 1966 Total number of demonstration grants. Total number of persons served- Total number of training grants Total number of persons trained_ Total appropriations (includes demonstration and training, techni cal assistance and special project in Washington, D.C.). 27 15,000 28 8, 181 $6,750,000 NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH, CENTER FOR STUDIES ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY, FISCAL YEAR 1967 Total number of training grants-- 150 400 Total appropriations for training.... $2,500, 000 Total appropriations for basic and applied research, special contracts and intramural research__. $6,500,000 $9, 000, 000 Total appropriations‒‒‒‒‒‒ SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 1967 Total number of individuals served (trainees reported elsewhere) – 28882 50 $8, 000, 000 14,000 OFFICE OF EDUCATION PROGRAM TITLE: NEGLECTED DELINQUENT CHILDREN IN INSTITUTIONS Grants to State agencies for development and improvement of education programs for incarcerated delinquents, improvement of teacher training and the establishment of channels for closer coordination among staff members and agencies serving a common purpose. Improvements in the education programs of correctional programs of correctional institutions are paralleled by the provision of books and library services which made possible by the 1966 amendment to the Library Services and Construction Act (Title IV, Part A, PL 89-511). AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION ESEA as amended 1966, title I. Fiscal year 1967 Number of State and local institutions eligible*. Number of youth in eligible institutions-- Total Federal expenditures--- *As of September 1967, 1,131 institutions are participating. OFFICE OF EDUCATION 1, 135 105, 580 $14, 000, 000 PROGRAM TITLE: PACE (PROJECTS TO ADVANCE CREATIVITY IN EDUCATION) NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PROGRAM To encourage school districts to develop imaginative solutions to education problems; to create, design and make intelligent use of supplementary centers. AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION ESEA as amended 1966, title III. Fiscal Year 1967 Total number of delinquency prevention projects---- 14 $1,425, 300 OFFICE OF EDUCATION PROGRAM TITLE: EDUCATION AND TRAINING ADULT BASIC EDUCATION NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PROGRAM These programs included training teachers and school guidance personnel to work with youth to help prevent dropouts; strengthening the role of probation officers, training for law enforcement personnel, clarifying juvenile court procedures, identifying, counseling and training culturally disadvantaged and out of school youth; and helping parents to better understand youth and their behavior patterns. AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION Higher Education Act of 1965, P.L. 89–329, Title I. Fiscal year 1967 Total number of youth in institutions receiving funds for this program__ 16,000 Total Federal expenditures for youth in institutions receiving funds____ $10,000 Total number of States participating-- OFFICE OF EDUCATION PROGRAM TITLE: MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PROGRAM 21 Grants to develop and carry out experimental and demonstration programs of training and education for persons in correctional institutions who need such training to obtain employment upon release in order to fill a useful place in society. Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 as amended by P.L. 89-15 (1964; 79 Stat 75; 42 USC 2571–74, 2482–83, 2601, 2610a-2612, 2614-16, 2619–20, P.L. 792 (November 7, 1966) P.L. 89-794, Economic Opportunity Amendments (November 8, 1966). Fiscal year 1967 Total number of persons under 21 in MDTA program*. 50.000 $780 Approximately half of this group are known to have had official contacts with law enforcement agencies. OFFICE OF EDUCATION PROGRAM TITLE: VOCATIONAL EDUCATION Under the Vocational Education Act of 1963, occupational orientation projects designed to prevent dropouts and to encourage droputs to return to school; and under the same Act, vocational education training programs have been initiated in correctional institutions in several States. Beginning in fiscal year 1966, the Expansion and Improvement of Vocational Education Programs supports projects to explore the degree to which vocational education and guidance during incarceration, combined with supportive and placement services following release, may serve to restore youthful offenders to the community as functioning young citizens. AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION P.L. 64-347, 39 Stat 9239; P.L. 74-637, 49 Stat 1488; P.L. 88-120, 76 Stat 586; P.L. 89-287, 79 Stat 1037 ADMINISTERING AGENCY Office of Education. Fiscal year 1967 Figures will be available at a later date. SUPPLEMENT TO REPORT ON HEW PROGRAMS FOR DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND CONTROL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH IN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER PUBLIC LAW 88-210, FISCAL YEAR 1968 When using this information, it should be made very clear that this does not reflect a true picture of the extent to which State vocational education staffs are working in this area. 1. In some States, the State Board for Vocational Education cannot legally work with another State Agency unless it can have complete control over its educational programs. 2. There are States in which all education of the inmates of a correctional institution is under the complete control of the State Correctional Agency with no effort made to cooperate with other agencies. 3. Some of the listed expenditures are part of a multifunded approach involving other agencies such as the Welfare and vocational rehabilitation indicating good cooperative efforts, where it is possible. 4. Some State Divisions of Vocational Education have served as advisors and consultant to the prison institutions. Teachers have been trained and certified, instructional materials reviewed, and advice on equipment and facilities given. 5. Some States are doing nothing in this particular area at all. In some cases however, special needs students may be receiving their attention which might be viewed as an antidelinquency measure in itself. OFFICE OF EDUCATION, BUREAU OF ADULT, VOCATIONAL, AND LIBRARY PROGRAMS, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS FOR YOUTH UNDER PUBLIC LAW 88-210, FISCAL YEAR 1968 |