Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

1 Includes capital outlay as follows: 1965, $1,000; 1966, $1,000; 1967, $0.

1966, $279,000; 1967, $279,000.

2 Selected resources as of June 30 are as follows: Unpaid undelivered orders, 1964, $167,000; 1965, $279, 000

Mr. FOGARTY. We will now take up juvenile delinquency and youth offenses.

Mr. Russell, do you have a statement?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes.

Mr. FOGARTY. Do you want to read it?
Mr. RUSSELL. Yes.

GENERAL STATEMENT

The Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1961 called for demonstration projects and training programs which would develop new methods and techniques, imaginative approaches, and innovative ideas for the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency. Fiscal 1967 represents the last year for which we have authority under this act.

DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

The demonstration projects initiated and supported during the first 3 years developed an approach and techniques for dealing with the variety of social problems that underlie juvenile delinquency and youth crime. These programs have been adopted and extended by the antipoverty program. For the past year and a half we have concentrated on smaller projects that focused on specific aspects of the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency.

Through these projects we have tried to do three things:

1. Change the motivation of youth and channel his efforts into socially acceptable behavior;

2. Help change community agencies and institutions so that they can help youth more effectively; and

3. Help youth learn how to cope with community institutions as they exist today.

We have, therefore, directed our efforts in a number of categories including studies of community violence, drug addiction, and other forms of youth deviance, youth violence and protests, policecommunity relations, and the whole gamut of correctional rehabilitation.

For example, a project in Hampton Beach, N.H., to control youth riots resulted in the first quiet summer that Hampton Beach has had in 5 years.

In El Paso, Tex., we are providing funds for a program aimed at breaking down ethnic barriers between Mexican-American and Anglo youth. Professional youth workers have taken up residence in four neighborhoods which have a history of ethnic gang fighting. workers lead a variety of interethnic activities involving boys who are largely unreached by any organized program outside school.

The

In Brooklyn, N.Y., a youth violence control program has a decided community twist. There, rival leaders of Negro, Puerto Rican, and Italian youth gangs have received special training to lead interethnic group activities in a neighborhood where ethnic hostilities have frequently exploded into street violence. But beyond that, Spanishspeaking youth are being used to teach Spanish to the police in three precincts with large Spanish-speaking population. Youth are also being used in community cleanup campaigns, as home tutors, and as escorts for adults going to and from evening meetings.

These are some of the more than two dozen projects underway which are demonstrating the feasibility and methods of dealing with delinquent youth.

TRAINING CENTERS

The training centers and other organizations have developed a wealth of information in such significant areas as the relationship between economic dependency and juvenile delinquents, the pioneering of family treatment techniques for the rehabilitation of sexually promiscuous girls, and techniques for training neighborhood people to work with problem youth, among others. The knowledge developed has been included in some 59 short-term training institutes and workshop grants which have reached over 19,000 personnel up to the end of fiscal year 1965. The continued education of these people in new methods and knowledge is of the utmost importance.

In conjunction with the demonstration and training programs, we have underway an intensive program to organize, analyze and disseminate the information that has been developed from our demonstration projects and training programs. The first intensive analysis of a comprehensive project will be ready this spring. Over 12 publications are currently available, and it is expected that many more may result from this effort.

Of particular interest are two programs mandated by amendments to the original legislation.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

In fiscal 1966, the emphasis of the United Planning Organization program in the District of Columbia focused sharply on delinquency control and prevention while programs dealing with broader community problems now receive financial support from the Office of Economic Opportunity. The programs funded in 1966 and 1967 will include the Junior Citizens Corps, Roving Leaders program, Group Foster Family Homes, Prerelease guidance centers, and court of general sessions program. These and other programs such as the creation of a youth organization which develops social and business skills, preVocational employment training, and additional projects in court settings will be directed to reaching the hard-core delinquent and predelinquent youth. The activities of the previous year will be used as a basis for the development of these programs. Encompassing the previous year and remaining years of this program will be an intensive evaluation effort to determine their effectiveness.

Finally, we have completed a study of the relationship between child labor laws, compulsory school attendance, and juvenile delinquency as required by section 8 of Public Law 88-368.

BUDGET REQUEST

A total of $8,207,000 is requested for fiscal year 1967. Of this, $2,550,000 will be for demonstration programs, an increase of $450,000 from fiscal year 1966; $3 million is requested for training, an increase of $1 million. An additional $1,750,000 is requested for the special project in Washington, D.C.

Mr. FOGARTY. Thank you, Mr. Russell.

The appropriation for 1966 is $6,750,000 and the request for 1967 is $8,207,000, an increase of $1,457,000.

PROGRAMS TRANSFERRED TO OEO

It is not clear to me from the justifications just what part of your program is being taken over by the OEO and why. Can you explain

this?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir. The first 3 years we funded 16 comprehensive demonstration projects in 15 communities. These developed programs to deal with what we considered the underlying bases of juvenile delinquency-poverty, the relative inexperience of people in slum areas to know how to get along in the city, and so on. When the poverty program started, these organizations served as a good base to begin the poverty program, and all but two have been picked up by the OÈO program. These two are scheduled for completion this year, and we anticipate they will also be picked up.

Mr. FOGARTY. Are you satisfied with this arrangement? What do you think?

Mr. RUSSELL. Our program is a demonstration program. It was never intended to be a continuing program. Apparently we demonstrated enough to convince many people that the program had usefulness and effectiveness that should be spread out around the country. We never would have had the resources to spread it out the way OEO has. They have also attacked other aspects of needs of families that our programs was never intended to attack.

Mr. FOGARTY. Why shouldn't they take over the whole program, then?

Mr. RUSSELL. I think there are specific aspects of juvenile delinquency that are not related to poverty or are only peripherally related to poverty. Some of the riots at beaches, Hampton Beach, for example

Mr. FOGARTY. They have had trouble there.

Mr. RUSSELL. This is the first summer in 5 years they did not have a riot there, though Laconia, 30 miles away, had a riot. I think there are some aspects of juvenile delinquency that are only reached if you concentrate specifically on them and there are a lot of people involved who are not poor.

Mr. FOGARTY. How much of what you are spending in 1966 on the part of the program being transferred to OEO!

Mr. RUSSELL. We have not spent any money in 1966 on new programs on poverty.

Dr. WINSTON. The transfers were made under the last budget. Mr. RUSSELL. In many of the projects they are still spending money in 1966 that was awarded in 1965. These are particularly for the research and program analysis.

PAYMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. FOGARTY. You are paying $37,500 to the Department of Labor this year but nothing in 1967.

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes.

Mr. FOGARTY. What are they doing this year that they will not do next year?

i

Mr. RUSSELL. According to Secretary Wirtz, who discussed it with Secretary Gardner, they have enough funds in their program now to enable them to continue giving the attention to delinquency and crime that they did before.

FUNDING CHANGE UNDER REORGANIZATION PLAN

Mr. FOGARTY. I see that under the President's Reorganization Plan $72,500 that was given to you this year is being shifted to the Department of Justice.

Mr. RUSSELL. The President's Reorganization Plan No. 4 provided that the Department in which the chairman of any committee resides should provide the money for that committee.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN JUSTIFICATIONS

Mr. FOGARTY. On page 5 I do not see any of the reductions we have been talking about.

Mr. RUSSELL. I believe the summary of changes would be reflected under the technical assistance services. If you are talking about the $72,000 for the President's Commission, for example

Mr. FOGARTY. This chart on page 5 does not show that.

Mr. SMITH. No; but on page 23 that is set forth. That could have been put on page 5 just as well.

Mr. FOGARTY. Page 5 is what we are supposed to look at, to get a summary of the proposed changes, not page 23.

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

NEW TECHNIQUES FOR DEALING WITH DELINQUENCY

Mr. FOGARTY. On page 8 you say the demonstration grants are prepared to make other significant inroads in the delinquency problem. What inroads have been made and what are your plans for the future?

Mr. RUSSELL. I do not think it is possible for a small program like this to have an effect on the overall rate of delinquency. We go into certain communities. I think we have made real inroads in developing methods and techniques and new ways of dealing with delinquency. For instance, the bail project has been spread to over 60 communities, and the summons project, which enables people to stay out of jail without putting up bail also gives promise of wide use. It has been shown that most people released through this project have come back and this has enabled fathers and young people to continue to work instead of having to stay in jail.

Mr. FOGARTY. Is that working out pretty well?

Mr. RUSSELL. It is working very well.

Mr. FOGARTY. There was something in the paper about that today,

I think.

Mr. WYNKOOP. This has spread to several foreign countries, Mr.

Chairman.

« PreviousContinue »