We also hope that funds provided in this bill would be given directly to the cities and localities rather than go through the states. The Council feels that the channeling of such funds might defeat the purposes of this bill which is to prevent and control crime and delinquency in our large metropolitan and suburban communities. Finally, we certainly hope that the Senate will see fit to provide some research, evaluation and training funds in this bill, since the shortage of personnel and skills in this field as well as need to evaluate what is being done is a crucial problem and concern. The Council would be most happy to testify on the bill. ROBERT M. WOOD, Chairman. Hon. THOMAS J. DODD, SEATTLE-KING COUNTY YOUTH COMMISSION, Senator, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR SENATOR DODD: I am writing to you in regard to the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 (H.R. 6162), (S. 1248), which I understand is being studied by your committee. In April of this year, a group of individuals, personally and professionally concerned with the general area of delinquency prevention and control, met to review and comment upon this proposed piece of legislation. As a result of this meeting, there were certain general comments and observations, relevant to this bill, which we felt should be passed on to you and your committee for consideration. Enclosed is a list of our committee's participants and a summary of their comments. Although these comments do not reflect the official position of any agency represented in our group, they do reflect the considered judgment of individuals with many years of experience and training in this field. General support of this bill was given by our committee. Hope was expressed that this legislation is passed, that it is adequately funded and that its provisions be such that long-term, coordinated planning, demonstration and evaluation can be undertaken on the local level. It was also hoped that any administrative guidelines developed to implement this bill be such that local project efforts can relate themselves to local need rather than to an arbitrary set of regulations. Any support you and your committee can give to H.R. 6162 and S. 1248 will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, BRUCE C. WELLER, Director. COMMITTEE PARTICIPANTS AT MEETING ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1967 (HOUSE BILL 6162) (SENATE BILL 1248): Tsuguo Ikeda, Director, Atlantic Street Center, Seattle Howard E. Senter, Assistant Director, Seattle-King County Youth Commission Gary Mackie, Planning Specialist, United Good Neighbors, Seattle Robert Tropp, Superintendent, Cascadia Juvenile Reception Diagnostic Center, Tacoma. Thomas Pinnock, Supervisor, Division of Juvenile Rehabilitatiton, State Dept. of Institutions, Olympia. Lt. Richard Christie, King County Sheriff's Department, Seattle Daniel Jensen, Assistant Supervisor, Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation, State Department of Institutions, Olympia J. E. Fenswold, Chief Probation Officer, Kitsap County Juvenile Court, Port Orchard Ron Whitener, Caseworker, Kitsap County Dept. of Public Assistance, Child Welfare Jerry Esterly, Counselor, Juvenile Parole Services, Seattle Charles Krobel, Director, Victoria Ranch, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Stanwood Denzel Scott, Consultant, Delinquency Prevention, Division of Community Services, Department of Institutions, Olympia Claudia Canouse, Counselor, Juvenile Parole Services, Seattle Mack Knutsen, Supervisor, Division of Planning, Department of Institutions, Loren Ranton, Executive Director, Washington Citizens' Council, Seattle Robert Koschnick, Assistant Superintendent, Fort Worden Treatment Center, Port Townsend Bruce C. Weller, Director, Seattle-King County Youth Commission James Huey, President, Kitsap Youth Homes, Inc., Silverdale, Washington Beverly Olson, Director of Nursing, Olympic Center, Bremerton Dana Hanford, Director of Education & Program Development, Olympic Mental Health Center, Bremerton Bernard Saibel, Supervisor, Community Services, Department of Institutions, Olympia Dr. Richard Conte, Director (former), Department of Institutions, Olympia E. G. Lindquist, Superintendent, Fort Wordon Treatment Center, Port Townsend Roger Thibedeau, Director, Planning Division, United Good Neighbors, Seattle SUMMARY OF REACTIONS AND COMMENTS ON H.R. 6162, JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1967 1. Any federal legislation that is drafted should be flexible enough so that it can be adapted to local, state and community needs. Conditions imposed by some past legislation have been so restrictive that local need has had to be altered to meet legislative conditions, rather than the reverse being true. 2. Provisions for funding under the proposed Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 should specify whether or not local share can be "in-kind" or must be in cash. 3. Planning, demonstration and evaluation phases of juvenile delinquency prevention and rehabilitation projects require adequate length of funding period. Previous legislation in this field has placed unrealistic time limitations on such activities thereby precluding any ability to adequately develop, implement or evaluate a given project. As a result, inconclusive findings have been the main by-product of these projects. 4. Funds for planning activity should be adequate enough to enable state or community to define its delinquency problem, e.g. the nature and scope of delinquency and the youth involved in such activity. Based on this understanding of the problem, means to deal with the problem can be developed intelligently. 5. Statewide planning for the prevention and control of delinquency should be undertaken. This planning should involve: a. a statewide planning commission close to the office of the governor. In Washington State this might be the Governor's Committee on Children and Youth or the proposed state department of planning. b. this statewide commission should develop a comprehensive and coordinated plan for the prevention and control of delinquency. c. the statewide plan should be developed in cooperation with parallel, local planning commissions in order to avoid duplication of plans and/or thinning of effort. d. these local planning bodies should bring together local citizens whose task it is to share in determining local need and developing proposal plans. On all levels of planning, there should be emphasis on citizen involvement in the study of delinquency problems and planning for its solution. 6. Specific projects or portions of the statewide plan should be subcontracted out to individual counties or communities for implementation. Such action would insure individual counties or communities operating demonstration programs most consistent with local need, interest and available manpower; make it possible for a wider variety of demonstrations to be operating simultaneously throughout the state; reduce duplication or demonstration programs in the state. Tsuguo Ikeda, Atlantic Street Center, suggests for your consideration that a recommendation be made to: a. Set aside 75% of the funds allocated for the proposed legislation for nationwide planning and strategy. This would be to develop basic com ponents needed in any program of prevention or rehabilitation. For example, early identification instruments, typology of delinquents, typology of services for these delinquents, types of recording instruments and methods to evaluate the impact of the program. b. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare should select specialists from the general field, representing such areas as treatment, research, community organization, etc., who will make the decisions as to what basie areas of knowledge need refinement. c. Once these components have been agreed upon, each should be subcontracted out to agencies and universities to develop and test. These agencies should be ones who have demonstrated their competency to undertake the specific task and they should be given ample time and money to do a thorough job. d. Assignment of these components should be coupled with quality control to maintain high level of performance and to tie each individual activity into the related whole. If you have any questions on Ike's suggestion, he can be contacted in Seattle by phone at EAst 9-2050 or by writing to him at the Atlantic Street Center, 2103 South Atlantic, Seattle, 98144. Mr. BRUCE C. WELLER, Director, Seattle-King County Youth Commission. AUGUST 24, 1967. DEAR MR. WELLER: Senator Dodd has forwarded to me your letter dealing with S. 1248, the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967, which Senator Dodd, I and four other Senators have cosponsored. As Senator Dodd has written you, hearings on this bill will be held by the Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty, which I serve as chairman. Because of the current-and important-Subcommittee study of the antipoverty program, a date has not yet been set for the start of the juvenile delinquency hearings. I am deeply gratified, of course, that your meeting last April endorsed the proposed legislation and expressed hope that after it is enacted it will be adequately funded and that its provisions be such that long-term, coordinated planning, demonstration and evaluation ban be undertaken on the local level." I completely share this perspective on what the legislation should be and do. When the hearings begin I intend to place your statement into the record to have it become a part of the printed hearings. For that reason I would like to inquire whether your distinguished group has organized itself into any kind of permanent committee or, if not, whether there is an intention in this direction. Again thank you for your support which I am sure will contribute greatly toward enactment of the legislation. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH S. CLARK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty. JUNE 12, 1967. Mr. BRUCE C. WELLER, Director, Seattle-King County Youth Commissioner, Seattle, Wash. DEAR MR. WELLER: I have forwarded your letter regarding the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act to Senator Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania. Senator Clark is the Chairman of the Subcommittee that will hold hearings on this legislation. I am certain that he will give your letter and the attached material the most careful consideration. Sincerely yours, THOMAS J. DODD. Chairman, Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. [S. 1248, 90th Cong., first sess.] AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. McGovern to S. 1248, a bill to provide Federal assistance to courts, correctional systems, and community agencies to increase their capability to prevent, treat, and control juvenile delinquency; to assist research efforts in the prevention, treatment, and control of juvenile delinquency; and for other purposes, viz: Amend section 305 by adding, as subsection (3), the following: (3) The terms "State", "county", "municipal”, or “other local public or nonprofit private agency or organization", or any combination of such terms, shall include an Indian tribe unless civil and criminal jurisdiction of the area occupied by the tribe, in whole or in part, has been assumed by the State pursuant to congressional authority; and if the Secretary is satisfied that an Indian tribe does not have available funds to match the Federal grant the Secretary may, in his discretion, waive all or part of such requirement. (Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.) |