And the question was raised, "Why do you beat?" and it is not the fact that they hate the victim; it is when the gang gets together somebody can say, "Did you see how John laid it on that boy he was beating up?"

It is a matter of status, big shots.

The first thing we have to do is to have them talk and ventilate and find out that the guy next to you would like to stop beating but he is afraid to because he will be called chicken, or yellow.

The next thing is, we have to find out ways through their discussions so that they will accept standards of status or being big shots with something positive rather than negative.

That is one important area and this group-conscious technique should be on a project basis, tested in schools as well as institutions, to determine the effectiveness of its particular structure.

The second thing is in terms of institutions for delinquents. Throughout the country there has been a pressure of population, and many institutions have had to reduce their length of stay. The funny part of it is that we have found there are certain advantages, and I would like to see them tested by a concerted study, what length of stay in an institution is most opportune; that means, of course, the intensity of the program within the institution and the degree of careful management and supervision after their release.

Right now, all over our country there are States planning to spend millions of dollars in construction in their planning activities. I personally feel they could save money both in operation and construction if we had definite facts to prove that a short-term stay is just as effective as a long-term stay.

In other words, an institution for 200 in which your average stay would be 1 year, you could take care of 400 children within that same institution with the capital investment and a little more operating expenses.

In Great Britain, and recently I received from Sir Lionel Fox of the Home Office a study relating to the same type of study—I would like to know if the British one is just as applicable to our children as to the children in Great Britain.

And the third thing this I mentioned here before-and that is again the serious need to be able to recognize in institutional clinical structures the potential homicidal juvenile.

Just within the last 4 months I received a 12-year-old youngster who killed a 5-year-old girl and put her in a trash can adjacent to the residence in which they were living. Yesterday morning, before I left the institution, I received a 17-year-old boy who attempted to stuff a 5-year-old boy down a sewer. I do not know the details of the case yesterday, because I left shortly after the child was received. But there is a very definite need for a thorough study of these youngsters who have these potential homicidal tendencies. These children are not mentally ill. There are not enough of them occurring in any one State to have an intensive study; it would have to be nationwide and would have to be coordinated by one central person.

In closing my remarks I just want to emphasize to you that we are going through in this field a most expensive kind of an attempted program-one that is on the basis of trial and error. We have to have more facts and we have to test. In all our communities, in all

our States, we are lucky if we get operational appropriations and there are no appropriations for testing to find the efficacy. In addition to that, it is so important that we share in the experiences of others. Many times people think that this problem of delinquency is primarily a city problem.

In the first place, cities overlap into a peripheral area, so what is a problem in the city is a problem in the suburbs.

In addition to that, the delinquency rate in rural areas has even exceeded the delinquency rate in our urban areas.

In just thinking again of one future potential, this is like a snowball and unless we stop the snowball it will tend to accelerate.

Getting back to the chief's statement, I would be very happy if we could go out of business and I am sure my colleagues share that feeling. Just in summarizing this statement that Mr. Lourie made, there is no question that there is hate in many grownups toward these children and hate breeds hate, and love and understanding breeds sympathy and trust. That is a foundation today we have to seek for in this area of activity.

Thank you.

Mr. BECK. Thank you, Dr. Sharp.

These projects that you have added to those that have been already mentioned here, the need for experimentation with group counseling, the idea that one or two institutions might offer shorter lengths of stay with substantial savings resulting in States throughout the Union, the need for a nationwide study of youngsters with homicidal tendencies and the rationale for it being nationwide because you don't get enough cases within any one State.

I would like now to introduced the next member of our panel, who is a judge of a juvenile court, and it is Judge Alfred Noyes.

The judge of the juvenile court, as most of you know, has one of the most difficult roles in this whole picture of treatment of juvenile delinquency.

On the one hand he is called upon to protect the civil liberties and to, in his courtroom, bring to bear on the individual before him the majesty of the law and the structure of the law as created through the history of civilized man.

On the other hand, he is asked to bring to bear on this youngster before him understanding that will help him know what is the best things to do in terms of his rehabilitation.

Judge Noyes is known throughout our country because of the courageous stand he has taken on pressing issues that have come before his court and issues with national significance.

Judge Noyes is going to speak to us from his point of view as a judge of the juvenile court on projects that might be helpful toward improving this key social institution.

Judge Noyes.

Judge NOYES. Thank you, Mr. Beck.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I too want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing here today.

We, who sit as judges in the juvenile courts, see the child and receive him after he has become delinquent.

We have a threefold task; first, to determine why this child is delinquent, or rather, what has he done.

This is the most simple part of our performance because in most instances the children readily admit that they have committed a delinquent act. Over 90 percent of the children fall into this category. So we do not have many contested cases to determine what has happened.

However, we do have the duty to determine what has caused this youngster to become delinquent; and then, a third, what should and can the court do in the way of starting and putting into motion a program of control and correction for this child.

Now, these last two duties are the ones that give us the greatest difficulty. It is not easy for a judge who is untrained as a social worker, who has never had a major course in psychology, to look at a child and be able to tell why he stole an automobile, went down the road at 100 miles an hour, wrecked it, did injury to other people. We have a difficult time trying to determine why two boys leave their homes in the middle of the night and break into a store and steal guns.

These things are in the realm of special knowledge for the people who can tell us something about these children. We are not able to formulate a practical program for these young people until we know something about them. And in addition, we must know something about his family, because we know that these children do not live in a vacuum all to themselves, and that he is influenced by the environment in which he lives.

And so we must rely upon someone to give us an understanding of the child himself in order that we may try to do what should be done for this child so that the end result will be a mature self-respecting citizen.

And I am afraid that in many instances we judges, because there are not sufficient facilities available to us, play Russian roulette with the lives of many children and the safety of our communities. Too often do we take risks in releasing children to the community who may be real potential gangsters to themselves or the community. There may be times when the program of institutionalizing a child is not what he needs at that time. Sometimes the child who is the most aggressive youngster who has to be controlled in an institution is the easiest for the court to service because it is so obvious. But the youngster who is distraught underneath is the one that we have the greatest problem in trying to determine what should be done.

There is hardly a case that comes before us that we do not think, "What risk is this child in the community? What is going to be done and be the most effective thing in helping this young man or young woman to live in the community in accordance with the standards that the community expects?"

We often wonder why are our children out late at night in automobiles; we often wonder why the parents do not take more responsibilities. Maybe we should know more about some of the things in the family life, maybe special studies could be made to get at the cause of delinquency.

We have heard some say, "Yes, it is caused by too many comics, too many crime films," and we enumerate 50 and a hundred influences. Some of them have some validity, but I am afraid that too often we treat symptoms rather than causes.

Courts need help, courts need facilities. In the small courts in the rural areas, where can the judge turn to get diagnostic facilities, where can he turn to, to receive treatment facilities, where can he get adequate probation officers to carry out this performance in working with the child and family? Are traveling clinics feasible? Should detention be planned on an area basis? What kind of institutions should we have besides the training school? Is there a place for emotionally disturbed children in existing institutions?

These are some of the things that cause us today to take practical

concern.

I am sure that if projects that are put into motion come up with suggestions that are too expensive, that are not realistic, we will waste our time and money. I think it is time that we get down to finding out what we can do with existing facilities and resources in our communities. How can these be made available to the courts for the children?

Should we as judges hand over to other agencies some of our responsibilities?

These are some of the things that are being studied.

Or should, within the court structure, there be clinical services? Should the court try to operate detention facilities in institutions? And there may be another thing that possible could have been mentioned earlier. What about the judges themselves? We have come to our work, as I have said, without specialized knowledge in the fields of the social sciences. Maybe some project could be undertaken to determine what basic qualifications judges should have, what areas of jurisdiction is proper.

Now, I hope if something like this is undertaken the legal profession will be considered so that all other professions will not be telling the judges what they should be doing.

May I take 1 more minute. The National Council of Juvenile Court Judges has organized a Juvenile Court Judges Foundation. This organization is for study and research in the field of juvenile delinquency and juvenile courts.

For the last 4 years Judge Gustave Schramm, of Pittsburgh, has, as chairman of the foundation, operated an institute about twice a year for juvenile court judges, a training institute. This experience for the judges who come is to work and learn together.

I cannot help but feel that there should be such an institute in every State of the Union for juvenile court judges. Judge Schramm has had come to his institute over 300 judges. There are 3,000 in the United States. We need training and we need help. We need facilities within our reach that will be effective.

I wish to thank you for the opportunity of expressing to you and commiserating about some of our problems.

Mr. BECK. Thank you, Judge Noyes.

Your statement that many judges are forced to play Russian roulette with the lives of children certainly applies in those jurisdictions and in the majority of jurisdictions where the judge does not have auxiliary services to help him make these decisions.

The projects you have suggested would give us an opportunity to experiment with different forms of organizations, particularly in rural areas, where we cannot have the elaborate facilities that we might have in some of our major cities.

Now, I would like to turn to a man who has operated the kind of project we have been discussing here today, and that is David Austin, who prior to assuming his present responsibilities took a neighborhood in the city of Boston-Roxbury-a neighborhood which was believed to have a high delinquency rate, to see what could be done on a project basis.

Dave is going to talk to us out of that experience as well as his present experience, for today he is working in Cleveland and is concerned with the coordination of efforts in that city, not only to control delinquency, but all health and welfare efforts.

Mr. Austin.

Mr. AUSTIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have had the opportunity to be associated with two special demonstration projects in the field of juvenile-delinquency control, first in Boston, where I was immediate director as Mr. Beck has referred to, of a project, and more recently where I am the head of a department in Cleveland which includes a similar program as part of the project and is now a regular part of the service in that city.

Both of these programs have focused in particular on the problem of the delinquent street corner gang.

In Boston we took a staff of young men and women, professionally trained, and sent them out into the community to find, become acquainted with, and become counselor and helper to, these juvenile gangs.

The experience in Boston and the similar experience in Cleveland where a program has now been going on for over 412 years have shown that if certain basic conditions are met, the immediate problem of the fighting street corner gang can be met and dealt with, either in a single neighborhood or across the city.

Not only have these projects demonstrated for themselves and in their own cities that something specific can be accomplished with the right money, the right staff and intensive effort, but the projects themselves have stimulated study and action among a whole range of agencies in those communities which have resulted in raising the whole level of the attack to juvenile delinquency in the entire community.

These two projects that I have had some part of are examples of what is needed on a much greater scale across this country.

We have already had well established-you had established in your previous hearings that law violations by children and young people are not the result of a single cause. There is not a single virus that produces delinquency like the poliomyelitis one. In the same way there is no one exclusive treatment or cure; there is no Salk vaccine for delinquency.

Actually there may be a wide variety of programs that can work and can have a great impact on this problem. In one city it may be special services under the juvenile court. In another city it may be a special program in schools under the police department. In another city it may be special programs growing out of settlement houses or family counseling agencies or treatment for families with a multitude of problems stemming out of a public welfare department.

The important thing is that we do not know enough in terms of all these different approaches, all of which may have the elements of successful treatment. We do not know enough about the minimum