meet infrequently. Often there is no over-all plan for coping with many of our welfare situations, nor is there a clear understanding of the functions of many of our governmental agencies. Many times, because we do not know what a specific function of a Government agency is, we tend to blame it for one thing or another without understanding its real purpose.

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.

During the year 1958, in which we had a brief recession, many of our chests raised less funds than they did during 1957, despite the fact that due to the recession there was an increased need.

Senator CLARK. Would you agree with me that as a practical matter we are coming to the end of the road in increasing the sums which our Community Chests can raise?

Mr. ROYFE. It is pathetic to say that this is probably so in many

areas.

Senator CLARK. This is not because of any lack of resources but because the overwhelming majority of the American people are not trained and do not seem to wish to be trained in making charitable contributions.

Mr. ROYFE. When we consider that we have a gross national production of $440 billion and we contribute only one-tenth of 1 percent to our Community Chest, it is pretty sad.

Senator CLARK. The last time I saw the figures they were that while an individual is entitled to deduct 20 percent or in certain circumstances 30 percent of his income for tax purposes as charitable gifts the general average is in the neighborhood of 2 or 3 percent.

Mr. ROYFE. If it was a true 2 or 3 percent, I think we would meet many of our needs. There was once a proposal that the Government give the 2 or 3 percent directly to welfare organizations and then charge the taxpayers.

Senator CLARK. Of course we have to give you a caveat that one of the big problems that faces this committee is how the total load of coping with juvenile delinquency should be divided between private agencies and the municipal governments, the State governments, and Federal Government, and there is still a strong feeling in this Congress that this is primarily a local and not a national problem. I personally do not agree with it, but my guess is that that is the predominant view at the moment.

Mr. ROYFE. I think there is room for private agencies as well as governmental. I think private agencies sometimes have a greater degree of flexibility and a greater degree to experiment with new methods.

On the other hand I have seen some extrmely crditable work on the part of governmental agencies in new fields such as the Highfields experiment in New Jersey in which delinquents live in a group situation. So I think there is room for both governmental and private agencies in sharing in this as long as there is supervision, clasification and joint purpose in mind.

I wanted to point out that the lack of united funds makes it extremely difficult for many of our private agencies to be able to utilize matching funds from governmental agencies were they available.

For example, there are presently about 50 communities in the United States which are seeking to develop a Big Brother service, but because of the lack of $20,000, in each of these communities they cannot develop such an agency. Now, $20,000 multiplied by 50 agencies is about $1 million. There is just not that extra $1 million available from private resources to develop these agencies today.

I think governmental support would make possible these services in many communities. And this goes for Big Brother service as well as other agencies that deal with the delinquency problem.

In coming to grips with the magnitude of the problem and the possible costs that it may entail, it is estimated that 25 percent of the delinquents are emotionally disturbed. This is generally the group from the middle-income classes rather than from the low-income classes and there are many reasons for that. But the cost of treating a child and his family in a child guidance clinic today is approximately $1,000 per year for child and parents. If we treated 250,000 delinquents, or 25 percent of this total group, it would entail an expenditure of a quarter of a billion dollars a year for this therapeutic program alone.

Similarly, if we were capable of assigning a "big brother" to 75 percent of all of the delinquents who lacked a father it would cost $150 million a year to supervise approximately 750,000 "big brother-little brother" relationships.

Senator CLARK. Do you think you could recruit the "big brothers"? Mr. ROYFE. I think it would take a tremendous effort to recruit that many.

Senator CLARK. I doubt if you could do it.

Mr. ROYFE. I think if we had the ability to organize agencies and to gain national publicity, I think we could come to grips with the problem by recruiting much more than we have in the past, and I know that the boards of our new agencies have been able in many instances to recruit people in a community to staff their agency needs. I think if more agencies were created, additional "big brothers" could be recruited.

In conclusion, I would like to state that we are maturing to the point of recognizing that juvenile delinquency represents normviolating 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. Secondly, 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.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, sir.

I take it that the whole burden of your testimony is that our first priority should be in appropriations to recruiting and training social work personnel.

Mr. ROYFE. I think that concomitant with this should be the expansion of already existing services which can cope with the problem. Many communities lack child guidance clinics, school systems lack diagnostic facilities, communities lack "detached workers" to servewith gangs.

We presently have these tools to cope with the problem but we do not have the wherewithal in many of our communities for these programs.

Senator CLARK. In general, you feel that the progress of the art has developed sufficiently so we know what to do about juvenile. delinquency, but we are not devoting the necessary resources to it? Mr. ROYFE. I think there is much to be learned, but I think we already have in our armamentarium a group of tools but are not applying it.

Senator CLARK. We have had a good deal of testimony from other witnesses indicating some bafflement as to the approach to the greatest contribution that the Federal Government could make at the present time, particularly in view of the currency of what I like to call budgetitis. Should it be to make a relatively small amount of money available for further research and for the trying out of pilot projects? I take it you would not agree with that?

Mr. ROYFE. Correct. I think there is room for research and pilot projects, but I think there is also a necessity for crash projects. Senator CLARK. I take it if I asked you how would you raise the necessary money, you would say that that was outside of your scope? Mr. ROYFE. No, I think if the American people are seriously concerned with delinquency, they ought to take the responsibility for it.. I think we can well lose our democracy.

At the present time I know that people are afraid to walk down the main streets of their cities at night.

Seantor CLARK. We can agree with that, but that is not a specific recommendation as to where we will raise the taxes.

Mr. ROYFE. Well, I think this is as important an item as defense. Senator CLARK. You still have not told us how to raise the money. Mr. ROYFE. I think it would have to be through taxes. Private welfare cannot meet the load alone.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Royfe.
Senator CLARK. Is Mr. Granger here?

Mr. TUCKER. I am here representing Mr. Granger.

Senator CLARK. Would you come forward and give us your name and qualifications.

STATEMENT OF STERLING TUCKER, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE

Mr. TUCKER. My name is Sterling Tucker. I am the Washington representative of the National Urban League and director of the Washington Urban League.

Senator CLARK. This statement which you have with you is your own statement?

Mr. TUCKER. Yes; as a representative of the National Urban League. Mr. Granger has dispatched me as his emissary today. He is in California.

Senator CLARK. We will have your entire statement printed in the record at this point. I see that it is eight pages long and I would ask you if you would be willing to summarize it for us rather than read it in detail.

Mr. TUCKER. I will do that, if that is your wish.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF STERLING TUCKER, NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Sterling Tucker. I represent the National Urban League, a national social welfare and educational service agency with affiliate in 65 cities.

The National Urban League appreciates the opportunity of appearing before this committee to present our observations about the problem of juvenile delinquency. You may be aware that the National Urban League came into existence 49 years ago because of the recognition on the part of concerned citizens that migrant families who were moivng from rural to urban surroundings needed assistance. In that transition there often was a breakdown in the family. Families were faced with problems of urban living with which they were ill prepared to come. In many areas, particularly employment, housing, health, use of leisure, etc., leadership and counseling were desperately needed. And many of these families made use of the guidance given them, whereas the absence of such help might have caused them to become problems to the communities of their choice, and a drain on limited resources.

The work of the urban league concerns itself with the various aspects of the whole family and its interrelationships with the community, local and national, in the knowledge that enlightened and advanced citizens contribute materially to the welfare of their communities and of the Nation. We know that juvenile delinquency, like other symptoms of disorganization and maladjustment, is a byproduct of confusion in reaction to the influences of the community and the family; that the direction youth takes is determined by the nature of these reactions and the socioeconomic forces which bring them about. We recognize that the problem of juvenile delinquency is no isolated phenomenon but, rather, is inseparable from the total interaction between the family and the whole community.

Facts and statistics confirm that juvenile delinquency has become a national emergency. The bills which have been introduced demonstrate your recognition of the necessity for research, better methods, institutional development, more adequately trained personnel, and, last but not least, activity in the field of prevention. We concur that the need is great. Certainly we must discover broader .approaches and new techniques. And we believe with deep and grave concern that we must be motivated by the very real concept of juvenile delinquency as a preventable phenomenon, with the conviction that those young people who have become already delinquent can be rehabilitated.

It is our firm conviction that the Federal Government can make its greatest contribution in the area of "prevention." For it is in this area there is the most infinitesimal amount of money available for help. Preventive programs are hard to sell to local governments. Private agencies and institutions, handicapped by limited funds and personnel, found themselves sorely handicapped from doing an adequate job. For the most part, these limitations have confined Government and private agencies to working with the problem "after the fact," so that a spiraling and seemingly never-to-end stream of funds is being poured into the work of "cure." We recognize that for a long time to come "cure" will have to be our concern, but unless adequate time, care, and attention are given to "prevention" we cannot see how we can ever begin to diminish the magnitude of the problem we are discussing today.

For example, with proved techniques we can identify the children who most need assistance if their delinquency is to be averted. This means time and attention devoted to the adjustment of the entire family to its surrounding community. It implies knowledge of the adjustment of different types of families, and the needs of those families in terms of their composition, their cultural backgrounds, the breadwinners present, their potentials, the facilities available to them, etc. For example, can we assume that a family of seven children with only a mother as a breadwinner and no father present can be expected to fit adequately into the community patterns without certain specific services which

take into consideration the need for male guidance and leadership. Does this imply that the mother needs either a supportive relationship from some agency to provide the guidance which a father, if he were present, might give? Or is it necessary that the community provide a substitute who can give to this family the support and understanding they need from a male figure? Certainly, agencies attempt this on a limited basis, but how much do we really know about this type of activity until all such programs are in a position to pool their findings and recommendations, and then establish criteria based upon the results of already sought out and identified specific needs to be met?

Or, again, how much do we know of what can be accomplished on a broad scale in families where fathers are present, where their inadequacies are recognized and their need for guidance and help established, but where limited funds, knowledge, and personnel prevent that kind of help from the appropriate agencies?

Already to a considerable extent, we can delineate the communities and pinpoint the homes where the potential for delinquency is extremely high. We can predict, with sometimes perturbing accuracy, the trouble spots. Our local governments and social work agencies often know what needs to be done, but funds for programs of prevention are not available and we are powerless to head off the trouble. Regrettably, I say again that now our efforts must be centered around "the child in trouble." This is, working with problem "after the fact," and our communities are ever sliding downhill into deeper and deeper trouble.

Over the years the National Urban League has developed and supported programs of community organization and coordination as a means of providing prevention. Our trained social workers have been attempting to "work before the fact," in many areas with projects similar to the following:

In city A, a slum clearance program gaining momentum began relocating families in a new area or subdivision. Available data demonstrated overwhelmingly that the mere relocation of large numbers of families from slums did not mean that there were no longer problems with which they needed help. In fact, it became clear that prospective "trouble spots" might be created unless something were done to assist the families with their "problems of adjustments." The urban league went into the area where it established and staffed a community center; organized teenage clubs and mothers' clubs; interested fathers in home improvements and maintenance; saw to it that counseling and guidance as to proper use of health and welfare resources was provided; and worked for close cooperation between the schools and parents.

This was a program of prevention-a program in which trained personnel emphasized the use of available statistics, surveys, and reports to avoid anticipated results. Great emphasis was placed on establishing "group consciousness." Youth and adults were helped to "identify" with the larger community. In other such programs, we are trying to establish recreation facilities so that natural gangs may develop leadership and become groups geared to constructive exercises of their natural teenage gregariousness, rather than left to their own devices so that each juvenile becomes a crime statistic and the groups become the menacing "street gangs," so great a problem to a large part of the Nation.

The urban league is convinced that emphasis should be on programs and on projects which use the available data at the home and community level. Basic research is, of course, important but there are too many unused statistics lying about. Reports and surveys multiply and deliberations are continuous. We cannot help but feel that the problem of juvenile delinquency is being written and talked to death.

Certainly, too, availability of trained personnel is part of the problem. But many of our trained young people, graduating from schools of social work, are "passing through" the field because social work is monetarily unrewarding. This coupled with the frustrating experience of working in a field without established criteria for "getting at the heart" of the problem has caused us to lose a great potential.

And the number of misguided youth piles up and has become mountainous. Only by giving relief at the source of the problem may we hope to reach a happy solution. Communities have backed away from the problem. They have blamed our schools and our police departments; they have blamed parents and the young people themselves. But they have said too little about making available the money for programs and tools which can aid the difficult job of rebuilding families.