JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION AND CONTROL THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1959 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph S. Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Clark (presiding) and Morse. Committee staff member present: Samuel V. Merrick, professional staff member. Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will be in session. We are honored this morning to have as our first witness the distinguished senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Morse, whose interest in this area of our public life is well known and of long standing. The additional hearings today have been called at the suggestion of Senator Morse to hear two witnesses whose competence in this field is known nationally. Senator, we are very happy to have you here and I will ask you to proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. SENATOR OF OREGON Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify as a witness and also the opportunity to serve as your associate on this subcommitte. However, because of the two expert witnesses we have here this morning, Mr. Chairman, if it meets with your favor and pleasure I would like to ask permission that there be inserted at this point the testimony that I have prepared for this hearing along with certain communications that I have recived on the bills pending before the subcommittee. Senator CLARK. The testimony referred to will be incorporated in the record at this point. (The statement by Senator Morse follows:) STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE MORSE ON S. 694, S. 765, S. 766, S. 1090, AND S. 1341, BILLS RELATING TO THE PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY Mr. Chairman, although I do not assert a professional competence in the field of the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency, I am deeply concerned, as a legislator, to determine what the facts of the matter are. I want to find out what the needs of such a program of prevention and control are and how much they will cost. Given this data, then I have the duty of determining in conjunction with my colleagues, what legislation is best suited to correct the situation. 41638-59-14 I should like to preface my statement, which will be a brief one, because I wish to give as much time as is possible to the distinguished and qualified witnesses we have with us this morning from whom I expect to learn much, with a few words of commendation for the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member of the minority upon the subcommittee. The chairman brings to our deliberations a wealth of practical experience as the former mayor of a great metropolis, the problems we meet together upon today he has met formerly in a distinguished and responsible capacity. So, too, the Senator from New York, who as a former attorney general of a great State, has from his position in the law-enforcement arm of the State government, garnered much valuable experience appropriate to the subject under discussion. I feel sure that although we may have varying views as to precisely what should be done, and in what order it should be done, and how much ought to be spent to accomplish our common objective, that nevertheless we will be able to bring from committee sound legislation which we can defend upon the floor of the Senate and enact. To begin with, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote from a report to the Senate of the United States dated March 15, 1954. My reference is to be found upon page 14 of Senate Report 1064 of the 83d Congress : That was said over 5 years ago, Mr. Chairman, and it bears repeating. Even though, as you pointed out earlier in the hearing, 97 percent of our boys and girls are healthy law respecting youngsters, the remaining 3 percent are a tragic waste of a valuable natural resource. They, and we as a nation, cannot afford the waste of lives and hopes that the 3 percent represent. We certainly cannot afford the cost to our society of the adult penitentiaries and jails to which this 3 percent will graduate, or the hospitals for the emotionally sick to which they will go unless we find a solution. This is a case of being pennywise and pound foolish. It is far better to spend to prevent than it is to spend to incarcerate. The situation is even more shocking to me when I read the projections which have been made by previous witnesses such as Bertram Beck, associate director, National Association of Social Workers, to the effect that the rate of delinquency is expected, in the next decade or so, to climb to double the present figure. A 3-percent figure is at best intolerable, a 6-percent figure is one which we must take steps now to avert. They had better be pretty big steps too, because if they are too mincing and small, in my judgment, we will not do the job that needs to be done. As I read the testimony, I am impressed by the stress which has been placed upon the necessity for demonstration projects. I wish to make it quite clear that I am not opposed to this approach. It is a good one. But, and here I enter a caveat, I wonder if this is the only solution? On pages 28, 33, 38, 53, 54, 75, 79, 83, 100, 102, 136, 142, 149, and 153 of the transcript I noted over and over again the witnesses who had something to say about the need for trained personnel. People will be needed to man the projects. These people will have to be trained and should be trained. Trained not only for work on the firing line, so to speak, but trained to evaluate the programs which are undertaken. Our colleges and graduate schools will need to turn out social workers, statisticians, sociologists, probation workers, psychologists, and public administration experts. I ask: "Can the job be done unless we provide grants to students, yes, and grants to schools to set up and run the types of programs which will give us the trained and dedicated men and women we need?" Granted that there is much to be learned in on-the-job training programs, I still raise the question of whether we would not, in the long run, save much time and money by providing for these demonstration projects young men and women who have mastered in schools the essential social science disciplines. Why is it unreasonable to do both concurrently? If $5 million a year for 5 years won't permit us to do what we know ought to be done, then maybe we ought to reconsider that amount and raise it to the amount necessary to do what should be done. I stress the need for training, Mr. Chairman, not alone on the letters I have received and the testimony I have read in this subcommittee hearing record, but also on testimony I heard recently in the hungry children hearings. The distinguished chairman of this subcommittee was a tower of strength to me in our recent floor struggle to get enough money for that purpose recently and he may recall some of the evidence that went into the legislative history in that battle. I am particularly reminded of what Mr. Shea, of the District Public Welfare Department, told us about the problems he was having in getting trained people and keeping them. Mr. Shea's attention was directed to a criticism contained in a report on welfare problems which stated: "5. The staff of the Public Assistance Division is increasingly drawn from young people who have had no previous employment, no experience in working with people, and very little life experience. To do this job they must quickly acquire accurate knowledge of the law, and of detailed and complicated policies and procedures; increase their understanding of people and put understanding into actual practice; achieve an identification with the purpose and goals of the agency; and learn to represent a democratic government to an underprivileged group in a critical community. "The provision of public assistance for people in financial distress is fraught with stupendous problems. Its administration is infinitely difficult, and is subject to constant criticism from all sides and from every angle." Shea replied: "The question was also raised, sir, as to the caliber of the social workers we have in public assistance. "The social workers in public assistance, as you know, are taken from the civil service register. They have the classification that is the lowest, in terms of grade, of any so-called professional worker. This is the GS-5 grade, which means that the type of person that is appointed to the job barely meets minimum requirements for appointment. "They are taken from the registers. Many of them have an A.B. degree in college, with the minimum qualifications or requirements in terms of either psychology or education or social work or sociology, and they have the minimum number of credits in those areas. "We have a real problem in the District of Columbia with respect to the tremendous competition that we have for social workers in other areas. "What happens is that many of our GS-5 workers, after they have obtained a certain number of years of experience with us, or after they have gone on to get graduate training, which we encourage them to do, they move on to other jobs. "We have a constant number of people in this particular group that are practically fresh in the field of social work. "We also have initiated an effort to meet the impact of these workers who have minimum training and experience with a very intensive in-service training program. We have our own training program in the Division, within the Department, and also a training office in public assistance. No worker goes on the job until that worker has gone through 6 weeks of training courses within the Division. "We are also attempting to have a very careful and all-inclusive internal evaluation going on within the Division so that we can find out actually more of the characteristics of the cases that are on public assistance, so that we can assign the more difficult cases to the better trained workers and the less-complicated cases to the less-trained workers, so that we can get more service to the people who we think have the greatest potential for rehabilitation. "That is a very complicated problem, you can realize. That is something we are looking at, and looking at vigorously in the Department." So, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the demonstration projects would not be meeting up with the same type of problem. And I wonder if the answer is not to be found by increasing substantially stipends and study grants all along the line? The question has been raised also about how the funds should be funneled into the projects. In this connection, I seem to recall that the unemployment compensation programs operate through State agencies fairly well. It occurs to me that public welfare matching funds are distributed through State agencies although they are expended upon local levels. Here again, an eclectic approach may not be unreasonable, but if the projects are to be evaluated, and if statistical studies are to be meaningful, it would appear to me that the job of collecting and evaluating results could well be performed at the State level first and HEW could collate, comment upon, and publish the results of the State experience very satisfactorily. We want to stimulate local awareness and participatin in the challenging job of solving a very pressing problem. If money in the form of grants in aid is advanced to the States, I predict that it could be well spent at the local level and the experience which would be gained could be shared not only among the political subdivisions of each State but also among all the States as they reviewed each others records as I am sure they would. The value to be gained from a standardization of reporting requirements alone seems to be to be a persuasive argument. However, Mr. Chairman, I promised to be brief. I shall conclude with your permission by submitting for the record a series of letters I have received and which have been made available to me through the courtesy of a very gracious lady, the able and distinguished Congresswoman from the Third Congressional District of Oregon, the Honorable Edith Green who is a member and an active one on the counterpart subcommittee of the House. These letters all bring out the same point with regard to training and the need for a program in this field which I have spoken to this morning. In presenting the letters for the printed record of these hearings, Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment upon one of them in particular, although I feel that all are valuable and germane to our purposes, because it is from a colleague on the bench of a witness we have with us this morning. Judge Virgil Langtry, of the Fourth Judicial District of the Circuit Court of Oregon, has this to say in part: "I hope something comes out of this session of the Congress which will at least implement training facilities for people working with children in trouble. One of our greatest needs is for people with the right personalities who are properly trained." He is echoed in another letter from Mr. Stuart R. Stimmel, State director of the Boys and Girls Aid Society of Oregon who said: "I was particularly glad to see that it (H.R. 772) included an appropriation of $5 million toward the training of personnel in the field of juvenile delinquency prevention and control. It is so very clear to those of us who are working with children that there is an acute shortage of people with adequate training to carry out effective programs in this area." Dr. Roy E. Buehler, an associate professor at the University of Oregon, who serves also as consultant on training of the Oregon Juvenile Judges Association, has a most moving appeal for training funds. He writes: Mr. Chairman, I submit the complete.correspondence for the record. (The correspondence referred to follows:) UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS, Hon. EDITH GREEN. Congresswoman, House of Representatives, DEAR MRS. GREEN: I have been informed by Judge Joseph Felton that you have introduced a bill which would provide funds for training and research in the area of juvenile delinquency. I would be most appreciative if you would provide me with a copy of your proposal, and some indication of the possibilities of its being adopted by this session of the Congress. As Judge Felton may have told you, the Oregon Juvenile Judges Association has been making some very constructive moves in the direction of training, both on the inservice and the preservice levels. Upon the invitation of the association's committee on training and research, the University of Oregon cosponsored a 1 week, intensive, inservice training institute last summer for juvenile judges and juvenile court directors and counselors. Funds for defraying the minimal costs of the institute were provided out of each participating court's budget. The institute was apparently successful because the association is inviting us at the university to cosponsor another institute, for the same court personnel, this coming summer. Also, we are jointly planning a graduate training program, specifically focusing upon training personnel for work in juvenile correction and rehabilitation programs. A 2-year program leading to the master's degree is being planned. 1 year of which will be an oncampus academic year, with a prescribed interdepartmental curriculum of psychology, sociology, education, and law. The second year will involve internship experience in selected juvenile courts, detention homes, and/or correctional institutions under the supervision of university staff members and the staff of the selected internship agency. We have a joint committee working on the details of this graduate training program, the members of which represent the Oregon Juvenile Judges Association and faculty members from the participating departments here at the university. One problem, the major problem in fact, which we are facing is the problem of financing, of both the summer inservice institute and the planned pre service graduate training program. Graduate stipends are plentiful these days, seemingly for every purpose except to support persons who aim at service and research on the critical problems of delinquency. In the apparent absence of any other source of funds we are planning to present our needs to the National Institute of Mental Health, and request funds for stipends for students in the program and for the university consultants who will be required to supervise the students in the internship situations. It would be of immeasurable help to us here in Oregon if some Federal funds could be provided and earmarked for these specialized training and research needs in the area of juvenile delinquency. It is our belief that none of the existing graduate training programs meet the peculiar needs of personnel in juvenile correction work. Present graduate training in the social sciences (sociology, psychology, social service, etc.) as well as in law and education do not include integrated and intensive training for juvenile programs. We feel that our program is on the order of a rather unique and pioneer effort. We have been following with appreciation and approval your efforts in regard to juvenile problems. It is for this reason that I have taken the liberty of writing to you in detail regarding our plans. Any suggestions which you may have, in regard to programing, financing, or any other aspect of the problem, will be most gratefully received. Sincerely, ROY E. BUEHLER, Ph. D., Associate Professor, Consultant on Training, Oregon Juvenile Judges Association. CIRCUIT COURT OF OREGON, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR WAYNE: I have a notice from the American Parents Committee, Inc., calling attention to the fact that juvenile delinquency prevention and control bills will be heard in the subcommittee of which you are a member, today and tomorrow. Without having studied the bills in particular, I am of the impression that the one that Edith Green is interested in is a somewhat better draft than Senator Clark's bill, which, I believe, is numbered S. 694. In any event, however, these bills all are pretty good, and I hope something comes out of this session of the Congress which will at least implement training facilities for people working with children in trouble. One of our greatest needs is for people with the right personalities who are properly trained. Another of the greatest needs is something along the line of Senator Humphrey's bill, of which you are a cosponsor, for youth camps. Incidentally, I had not heard of the American Parents Committee before, and from a perusal of their board of directors and national council, numbering somewhat over a hundred people, I would say that they have not heard of any of the United States west of the Mississippi River except Los Angeles. Sincerely yours, VIRGIL LANGTRY, Circuit Judge. THE BOYS AND GIRLS AID SOCIETY OF OREGON, Hon. EDITH GREEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. GREEN: Thank you very much for your letter. It is always a pleasure to hear from you. I have studied H.R. 772 which you introduced and I would like to express my full support of the bill and my hope that it will receive favorable consideration at this session of Congress. I was particularly glad to see that it included an appropriation of $5 million toward the training of personnel in the field of juvenile delinquency prevention and control. It is so very clear to those of us who are working with children that there is an acute shortage of people |