in homes in which the father is absent. Among these millions are hundreds of thousands of boys who need the guiding influence of a concerned and mature male adult if they are to grow up to well-adjusted manhood. This is the main concern of the Big Brother movement, and through the one man-one boy concept of a therapeutic friendship under professional supervision between a volunteer and a boy, we seek to develop a healthy personality.

Not all juvenile offenders, of course, are delinquent because of the lack of an adult male influence. It is estimated, however, that about 75 percent of all juvenile delinquents come from homes without positive male influence. Therefore, you can well imagine that we who are engaged in Big Brother work are most interested in the problems that this committee is reviewing.

I am certain that you know that approximately 20 percent of the boys in the United States will be legally designated as a delinquent before reaching the age of 18. I think, too, we must recognize that this represents only a small and special segment of all those who violate the legal norms. This is important, for as a Nation, we may have to consider the consequences to our existence as a free society if the law violating minority continues its upward trend and eventually constitutes the majority of the members of our country. Ironically, we may find ourselves in a positon of having created a military defense against foreign aggression through the expenditure of billions of dollars, only to discover that we are cracking from within because of the shortsightedness of failing to appropriate a fraction of this amount for the most vital resource the Nation possesses-its youth.

I have read and studied in detail the five bills that are being considered by this committee. I believe that the Senators who have developed them have sought to come to grips with a severe crisis that our Nation is facing in this area. As forward a step as this may represent, it is my opinion that some of the stipulated funds proposed in the various legislation may fail to cope with the magnitude of this problem.

Most of these bills provide assistance for projects to State and local agencies which hopefully will demonstrate or develop techniques leading to a solution of the Nation's juvenile control problem. To begin with, I believe that we are presently faced with the necessity of a crash program in this area. A nation which is confronted with a threat to its very existence cannot leisurely spend a period of 5 years determining which project or technique may be most suitable for coping with a particular situation in a certain geographic area.

Several of the bills reflect one of the most acute needs of meeting the problemthat is the development of qualified, skilled, and professionally trained personnel. Wisely, the expenditures of this dire need is left in terms as "such sums as necessary." I believe we should be fully aware of the scope of these shortages and the reasons for their existence.

The chronic underpayment of professionals in the social welfare field has during the past few decades created this desperate situation so that today we find ourselves without the adequate personnel to cope with the social pathology of our society. For example, in all of the United States there are about 30,000 trained social workers in a great variety of settings. A small percentage of these are directly concerned with delinquency. If we assigned 30 delinquents to a social worker, we would need more than the total number of social workers that presently exist in the entire Nation. A bill which would appropriate $5 million annually for training personnel could only turn out approximately 800 social workers per year. Again, unless these future professionals are assured of an adequate salary range and a reasonably secure position after completing their 6 years of study, they will not enter the field, or will transfer to a more remunerative vocation. What I am proposing, therefore, is that along with the funds which you appropriate for the various projects, you qualify them with a salary range that will induce individuals to enter the social welfare field and give them an additional incentive to remain on a specific project for a reasonable period of time.

In appropriating funds to Federal, State, and local agencies, I think it is most important that they be carefully supervised so that they are not dissipated in supporting or supplementing the budgets of existing programs. You are well aware, I am sure, that it is quite simple for many agencies to lay claim to the fact that they are preventing delinquency without necessarily establishing additional services.

I was pleased to learn that, contained within much of this legislation, was a desire to coordinate the planning among our public and voluntary agencies. Be

cause of the many contributing factors to delinquent behavior, this is essential if we are to come to grips with solving this problem.

In granting funds for these programs, I would like to tell you that many of our private agencies throughout the United States are in dire economic straits. Our united funds and community chests throughout the country raise a total of only $400 million which supports the bulk of our private welfare and health agencies. These groups are currently faced in many localities with an inability to expand their services. For example, 50 communities throughout the United States eagerly want to develop a Big Brother program. Because of a lack of $20,000 in each of these communities, the program is blocked. I am certain that many of the agencies which also deal with delinquency are in a similar position and may not even find it possible to secure part of the matching funds which may be necessitated by some of the legislation.

Let me give you some additional estimates of why I believe we should carefully review our appropriations. The FBI indicates that we will shortly have a crime rate of 1 million delinquents per year. It is estimated that 25 percent of delinquents are emotionally disturbed. The cost of treating a child and his family in our typical child guidance clinic today is approximately $1,000 per year. If we multiply this sum by the 250,000 delinquents in this category, we arrive at a figure of one-quarter of a billion dollars per year for treating this group of children alone. If we were capable of assigning a Big Brother to 75 percent of all delinquents, it would cost $150 million per year to supervise 750,000 Big Brother-Little Brother relationships. I am stating these startling figures because I believe the time has come for us to determine whether we will seriously cope with the problem or will jump on the popular band wagon of saying, “I, too, have fought delinquency" without really accomplishing very much.

In conclusion I would like to state that we are maturing to the point of recognizing that juvenile delinquency represents norm-violating behavior and that its seriousness, its form, frequency, and relation to a person's behavior are important to consider in treating the individual. I am glad to say that we have learned that we cannot solve our delinquency problems simply through a punitive approach, curfews, physical playgrounds, or clearing slums alone. What is needed is to put the technical knowledge we presently possess to work at an expanded and accelerated pace. Second, we have to develop additional trained personnel who will utilize this knowledge, staff the new programs and benefit from research which should be concomitant to the program.

Mr. ROYFE. I would make one request. Because our staff was attending our annual meeting in Los Angeles last week, I did not learn of your request to testify until yesterday, and consequently I do not have a full report. I was wondering if we would be able to submit such a report within the next week.

Senator CLARK. How soon could you get it in?

Mr. ROYFE. Probably in a few days.

Senator CLARK. A supplemental statement by the witness may be filed for the record on or before the end of this week.

(The supplemental material referred to follows:)

ADDITIONAL STATISTICAL INFORMATION SUPPORTING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE

PROBLEM

This article is by Richard Perlman, Chief of Juvenile Delinquency Statistics, Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: "In 1957, more than 600,000 cases of delinquency were referred to juvenile courts. These involved an estimated one-half million different children or about 2.3 percent of all children in the vulnerable age group-10 through 17—in the United States. This percentage represents the proportion of children involved in court delinquency cases in 1 year, 1957, and it is frequently cited to show the size of the delinquency problem. A much better idea of the size of the problem can be gained by estimating the percentage of all children who will become involved in at least one court delinquency case during their adolescence. Generally this covers an 8-year period, from 10 through 17 years of age. Allowing for repeaters who are involved in about one-third of all delinquency cases, this percentage is roughly estimated to be as high as 12 percent if the 1957 rate

continues. Considering boys alone it would be much higher, roughly 20 percent." 1

S. E. Hathaway and E. D. Monachesi, in reporting on their work with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, show that 22 percent of all boys and 8 percent of all girls in the ninth grade of the Minneapolis schools had appeared before the court, the police, or both, within a period of 2 years.2

Bernard Lander, in his study of juvenile delinquency in Baltimore, presents the following data:

"Approximately 40 percent of the Negro boys aged 14 to 15 and 26 percent of the Negro boys aged 10 to 13 were registered in Baltimore Juvenile Court on delinquency petitions in the 4-year period covered by this study. Of the white male population group, approximately 12 percent of the 14 to 15 age category and 7 percent of the 10 to 13 age group were in court as alleged delinquents."

993

PROFESSIONAL-VOLUNTEER-CLIENT INTERRELATIONSHIPS IN BIG BROTHER WORK (By Goesta Wollin and Ephrain H. Royfe)

FUNCTION OF A BIG BROTHER AGENCY

The function of a big brother agency is to bring men and boys together in purposeful friendships. While a comparable function is discernible in many of society's instruments and institutions, the distinguishing characteristics of this functions, as carried on by the Big Brother agency, is a one-man-one-boy concept, which, in practice constitutes the basic unit of big brother service: the friendship, with a therapeutic goal, between a selected volunteer male adult and an individual boy in need of this friendship.

In big brother work, each such volunteer offers his own time, character and personality to attempt to influence favorably the growth and development of each such boy. This attempt is conducted in collaboration and systematic liaison with a professional social worker who is a staff member of the organization which makes Big Brother service available in a given community.

The professional staff worker thus acts to support both the volunteer Big Brother and his Little Brother in initiating, maintaining, and strengthening their interrelationship. It is the volunteer big brother who makes the service a going concern. But it is the professional staff member, with his training in the specifics of big brother work, his understanding of the mechanisms of human behavior, and his familiarity with the facilities of the community, who enables the big brother to command whatever resources of environment or technical skill may be needed to bring maximum effectiveness to his friendship with the boy.

The personality of hte volunteer, when he is accepted as a Big Brother, is carefully matched with the needs and interests of the boy, whom he agrees to see on the average of once a week. By the precepts, and examples set by Big Brothers in planning, working and playing together with their Little Brothers, thousands of boys begin to acquire habits of living that lead to maturity, and productive adulthood. In short, the reciprocal regard, attention, interest, and responsibility which the Little Brother experiences in the give and take of his interrelationship with his Big Brother is conducive to the boy's wholesome development, and preventive of much antisocial behavior.

A study made by the Philadelphia Health and Welfare Council of the local Big Brother Association underscores the usefulness of the program. An inportant finding from the sample studied was that where boys had been assigned to Big Brothers, 83 percent showed some degree of improvement. Moreover, further analysis of the sample indicated, in the opinion of those conducting the study, that in the situations showing improvement, such improvement was attributable to the services of the program in a very heavy proportion, 94 percent.

The successes as well as the failures of the growing number of Big Brother agencies underline the fact that the effectiveness of any service based on interrelationships depends upon the strength of the motivations which the participants

"Delinquency Prevention, the Size of the Problem," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 322. Mar. 1959. p. 3. 2S. E. Hathaway and E. D. Monachesi, "Analyzing and Predicting Juvenile Delinquency With the MMPI," University of Minnesota Press, 1953, p. 109.

3 Bernard Lander, "Towards an Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency," Columbia University Press, 1954, p. 20.

bring to these interrelationships. For this reason, the boy who becomes a Little Brother, must, in the first instance, have a need for the friendship and guidance of a Big Brother. He must also have the capacity to perceive his need, and, thereby, to become able to respond appropriately to the Big Brother's interest. While need, within the context of the Big Brother program, pertains to a boy's having been deprived of wholesome adult male influence, not all boys so deprived are capable of such perception or response, nor can Big Brother agencies in the predictable future, hope to serve all boys who merely lack such wholesome adult male influence.

These considerations point to the inescapable conclusion that the availability of Big Brother service must be limited to situations in which the absence of the male influence can be seen as a contributing factor to problems which have begun to manifest themselves in a boy's adjustment. These considerations imply, also, that Big Brother service is applicable within a range of situations, determined at one extreme by the minimal emotional maturity and intellectual capacity which a boy needs in order to respond adequately to a man; and at the other extreme, by the strngth of his motivations in reference to other interests and relationships which would distract him from pulling his own weight in his friendship with a Big Brother. Broadly interpreted, these extremes are rendered specific by all Big Brother agencies which conduct their programs in serving boys between the ages of 8 and 17 years.

During their early years, Big Brother agencies confined their activities largely to boys referred by the Children's Courts. Later, the emphasis shifted to boys referred by school authorities, social agencies, clergymen and parents who recognized the need for friendship and guidance from a Big Brother. The program, never intended solely to help boys only after committing antisocial acts, has grown in its capacity and understanding, so that the volume of preventive effort has increased considerably over the years. Today about 80 percent of the boys referred to Big Brothers agencies for guidance have never appeared in a Juvenile Court.

As to the volunteer Big Brothers themselves, they are ordinarily described as mature, stable, personable men of good character who are willing to take time to help unfortunate youngsters along the road to good citizenship without assuming any legal or financial responsibilities. But the most important factor to emphasize about a Big Brother is that he is a man of average human endowments and not a superman; a man, who, conceding his human frailties, is stirred to the knowledge that he is wanted, that his human potentials are needed, and that they can begin to be realized in his friendship with a boy.

In the early years, Big Brother work was carried on solely by its volunteers. Experience has been convincing, however, that Big Brother programs gain much in reliability, continuity and effectiveness of service from the working partnership between professional staffs and volunteers that now exists.

The "heart" of a Big Brother program lies in the effective interrelationships of the Big Brother to his Little Brother. This effectiveness cannot be gaged simply by counting the number of men assigned to a like number of boys. Rather, it is the relative intensities of these various interrelationships and experiences that point up their effectiveness. The pertinent question here is: "How involved is the Big Brother in his Little Brother's life?" Involvement implies not only frequency of contact, but the kindness, good judgment, tenacity, sincerity of feeling and the objective projection of himself into his Little Brother's mental and physical world. The Big Brother must, to be successful, take into consideration his young friend's needs and attempt to relate them to his personal potentials. Sometimes the Big Brother is dealing with emotions, at other times with attitudes and at still others with a boy's natural growing pains.

To be sure, there are boys who can benefit from the interrelationship with a Big Brother only if the agency can also deal with the boy's total problems. Therefore, many of the Big Brother agencies have developed closely related supporting services. These are: (1) individual conseling to the whole family by professional caseworkers; (2) vocational and educational guidance and placement service; (3) summer camping; (4) health supervision through programs of physical examination, staff followup and referral to community health facilities; and (5) neighborhood club activity under staff supervision.

NEEDS BEING SERVED

The potential need for Big Brother services in the United States is suggested by the fact that there are 7 million youngsters under the age of 18 who are 41638--59--12

growing up in homes in which one or both parents are absent. In the total, 600,000 reside with their father, 2,400 live with relatives, in institutions or foster homes, and 4 million children live in homes where only the mother is present. Among these millions are hundreds of thousands of boys who need the guiding influence of a concerned and mature Big Brother volunteer if they are to grow up to well-adjusted manhood.

The lack of a father or adequate male figure in a boy's life may often leave him vulnerable to antisocial behavior because, as Erich Fromm points out, the father stands for conscience, duty, law and reason.1 The Big Brothers provide the stabilizing and helpful influence which all young boys need.

Albert K. Cohen and other experts on juvenile delinquency consider that confusion and anxiety about sex role is a frequent causative factor in antisocial behavior.' The Big Brothers help to convey to boys the assurance of their male identity.

In families lacking an effective father, there is often strong contempt for him, and, indeed, for all men, on the part of mothers left to support and rear his children unaided. The direct services of the Big Brothers to the Little Brothers of such families do much to restore the male image to proper perspective. At the same time, many of the mothers need the supportive casework help which is an important task for the professional staff worker in the Big Brother agency.

AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY

When a Big Brother volunteer is introduced to the agency, his relationship with its social worker is somewhat unique. Although the professional worker can be termed a "supervisor" of the volunteer, his supervision is not exercised in the traditional caseworker-supervisor, or therapist-patient sense. On the contrary, the professional must exhibit his competence in such a manner that the volunteer will regard him as a resource person, available to motivate him and to see that his Little Brother receives the maximum potential a Big Brother has to offer. This relationship between the volunteer Big Brother and the agency begins in what is termed "the screening" interview of the volunteer. The interviewer's role during this process is to explore with the volunteer his motivations for becoming a Big Brother.

Individuals who are seeking to work through their own personal problems by becoming a Big Brother or who are rigid, punitive, or have a need to dominate others are encouraged to seek their gratifications through other agency channels, or elsewhere.

In many Big Brother agencies, before a volunteer is accepted for assignment, a meeting is held in his home in the presence of his wife and children. The attitudes of a Big Brother's family concerning his assignment as a volunteer can have a marked influence upon his effective performance. In addition, since Little Brothers often join in the activities of the Big Brother's family, the feelings of its members are carefully evaluated.

After the screening interview is completed, the caseworker generally holds another conference with the volunteer to furnish him with additional orientation. At this time or at a subsequent interview, several specially prepared case summaries are presented to the volunteer for review.

While screening and orientation are going on, an intake process involving the Little Brother and his family simultaneously takes place. In a series of interviews both with the boy and his mother, the caseworker determines whether or not the boy can benefit from a Big Brother service and whether the mother's understanding of the Big Brother function is sufficient to enable a successful effort with the boy.

In considering a potential assignment the social worker takes into consideration psychological and physical factors, such as similarity of religion, race, interest, surroundings, and backgrounds. The fact that the Big Brother has a choice in determining which boy he selects is extremely significant for the future of the relationship. Once the selection is made, the prospective Big Brother is then discussed with the mother and boy. If both agree that they would like to have Mr. X as a Big Brother, a meeting is arranged between the Little Brother and the volunteer so that they may be introduced to one another. The outcome of the meeting is carefully evaluated on the basis of separate discussions with

1 E. Fromm, "The Sane Society." Rinehart & Co., Inc., New York, 1955.

2 A. K. Cohen, "Delinquent Boys, The Culture of the Gang," Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1955.