way it would cut through some of the machinery and eliminate some of the other possibilities of misuse.

Senator CLARK. I am still not clear, though, as to what you mean by a foundation-type council.

Mr. TUCKER. In speaking of the Federal advisory council this would compare with what we would regard as a board of directors of a private foundation and this Federal advisory council would consider specific program proposals, which would be presented to them in accordance with the machinery which the council would establish. The Urban League for instance, had a project idea that it felt would serve to alleviate the problem of juvenile delinquency. It could then seek an audience with the advisory council, make its presentation and get action purely on this basis.

Senator CLARK. Specifically, would it be your thought that there should be a representative of the Urban League on the advisory council, or not necessarily?

Mr. TUCKER. It would seem to me that any advisory council would be incomplete without a representation from the agency which has concerned itself most directly in 49 years with the problem of pre

vention.

Senator CLARK. In other words, the answer is yes?

Mr. TUCKER. The answer is an emphatic yes, sir.

Finally, may I say this, any amount of Federal moneys-wisely used-is going to help the States and the local communities with the growing problem. Any type of advice and direction, thoughtfully conceived at the Federal level will stimulate the people of our country to invest their local funds and energies to deal with the problem of youth and family. Such moral leadership in itself is meaningful for those who for so long have struggled with this problem. There can be no better investment than in an implemented ideal which wipes out, diminishes, or even deters juvenile delinquency and offers to the youth of our Nation a chance for the fullest exercise of their abilities with which they were endowed.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Tucker.

Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Tucker, there is one fundamental problem on which we would like your advice and that of as many organizations as we can get.

First, let me apologize because of a defective airplane which kept me from being here on time.

That problem is whether or not the idea of financing projects, essentially pilot plan research projects such as contained in the bill which is sponsored by our chairman and the chairman of the committee, is the best plan, or whether it is necessary actually to do what you say, I notice on page 7 of your statement, to back up States and local communities and voluntary organizations with some Federal funds.

Now, this represents a problem of money. It presents a problem of effective action. It is also possible that we could accomplish the same result under the guise of backing pilot plan projects. But I believe that the emphasis of the legislation might well be lost in that it may take a long time and it may be hard to set up the projects and we may frustrate our own objective in not going anywhere for so long that it would not really matter.

This is a most friendly thing. I am in deepest sympathy with my colleagues. Certainly I would vote for this proposal if it is the best we can do. Probably they would vote for mine if that was possible, but we would like all the guidance that we can get on that subject.

Do you think specifically that we ought to spend our money on pilot planned research projects in communities and we can find enough to justify the effort or do you feel as you indicated in your statement that we have to get some Federal money to back up local, State, municipal and voluntary organization money, and that that is the most effective thing we can do, rather than seeking more research experience?

Mr. TUCKER. I believe, Senator, that these are not necessarily incompatible. I think it might, as a matter of fact, be a mistake to limit the expenditures to one or the other area, mainly because I think that there is some unused talent and some unused skill and some unused know-how in both areas. I think some funds, if possible, ought to be made available to pursue both approaches.

I do think, however, that the initiative of implementation of whatever bill is passed need not necessarily be left to a Federal advisory council. Nor to Congress or a committee of Congress. I think if it were generally known that a Federal advisory council would welcome program ideas or program suggestions from local and national organizations interested in the problem, such suggestions would be forthcoming.

I think the Urban League, for instance, if it felt that a program idea would be welcomed by a Federal advisory council would cooperate in every possible way. Our experiences provides us with a good deal of background which could be useful to this program.

Senator JAVITs. On the other hand would you recommend that we confine the program to pilot planned research operations?

Mr. TUCKER. We need both research and program activity. We believe that in the area of research, emphasis should be on action rather than basic.

My comment here on behalf of the National Urban League is that we not place the emphasis on study but, rather, on programing.

Senator JAVITS. You certainly would not confine the use of the funds then to study?

Mr. TUCKER. We definitely urge that use of funds not be confined to study.

Senator JAVITS. To what extent do you think we have covered the field in terms of research? Do you think we have done a great deal or we have done much too little? What is your impression of our progress in the field in terms of research?

Mr. TUCKER. Our impression is that we have more research than we have been able to use. Research, however, must continue in all fields but we are not at the point where we have used up all the research we have available to us.

Senator JAVITS. What is your impression as to the extent to which we have developed techniques for dealing with juvenile delinquency, even though we may not be employing them in our work? Do you think we have developed an adequate number of techniques?

Mr. TUCKER. I think in the matter of cure or programs of rehabilitation we are doing a fairly good job. I think with more personnel

and more finances we could improve our effectiveness in this area of the problem.

As for prevention, we have done much too little. And our plea here in the Urban League is that we develop more programs designed to work with prevention.

Senator JAVITS. And there you feel, if I have your view correctly, that the support of operations preponderates over the need for research, but we certainly should not exclude pilot projects for research? Mr. TUCKER. That is true, sir.

Senator JAVITS. That would be the summation of your view?
Mr. TUCKER. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. What do you think of the sums called for in this Hill-Clark bill, $5 million a year?

Mr. TUCKER. We have had some discussion regarding this matter. We recommend in our testimony that there should be flexibility of the amount of money available; thus providing for program growth.

Our feeling is that in the first year of the project there might be some fixed sum but that after that year the program ought to be reviewed at which time we will have a better idea as to where we are going and what we are likely to accomplish. We would rather the sum be somewhat flexible but with perhaps some type of controlling formula.

Senator JAVITS (presiding pro tempore). Thank you, Mr. Tucker. You have been very helpful and we certainly appreciate it.

The next witness scheduled is William D. Gladden, superintendent of the Pennsylvania Junior Republic Association.

He is not here.

Bernhardt E. Mitler, of New York, also is not here.

Our final witness is Fred P. Amershadian, director of the Neighborhood Youth Branch of the YMCA of Greater New York.

Mr. Amershadian, I am glad to welcome you to the subcommittee. I know you well. You have a very long history of effective work in this field. Certainly I know your statements will be valuable. Will you proceed in your own way.

We will take this statement and make it part of the record so you may feel free to deal with it as you choose.

STATEMENT OF FRED P. AMERSHADIAN, NATIONAL COORDINATOR OF YOUTH TOWNS OF AMERICA

(The statement is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF FRED P. AMERSHADIAN, NATIONAL COORDINATOR, YOUTH TOWNS OF AMERICA

Good morning, Senator Javits. Thank you for this timely opportunity to appear before your Senate subcommittee, as a witness, in support of proposed legislation to alleviate the Nation's No. 1 domestic problem-juvenile misbehavior.

My name is Fred P. Amershadian, formerly a resident of Watertown, Mass., but presently living in New York and working for the New York City YMCA as the youth executive of the Washington Heights and Inwood YMCA Branch. For the past 17 years, I have been connected with youth work in a number of community and church programs, and have also worked as a senior master, under the Youth Service Board, in a Massachusetts' State institution for adjudged delinquent boys. All in all, it has been my privilege to serve over 5,000 different boys and girls in individual and group work programs.

I am a graduate of Suffolk University, having attained part of my schooling at Boston University, with additional State extension courses in sociology and psychology at Harvard and MIT.

I am considered the founder of Boys Town of Massachusetts, Inc., and I feel certain that our organization would like to go on record as favoring all this proposed legislation, found in bills 694, 765, 850, 1091, and 1341, to help immeasurably in the juvenile delinquency situation. However, it is impossible for our organization to do so, because, in acquiring a nonprofit tax status with the Department of Internal Revenue, it is with the understanding that no charitable organization can lobby for any legislation whatsoever. The intent of the law is good, for many reasons, since it eliminates the possible using of such organizations for various unethical political purposes. At the same time, as you can realize, it definitely prevents and handicaps private nonprofit groups from stating their bona fide opinions on pending legislation, such as these bills before your subcommittee. You can appreciate how enactment of all this meaningful legislation would affect many youth groups-both public and private— and could mean the difference between successful or unsuccessful programs. Personally, I think this internal revenue law should be amended somehow so as to give nonprofit groups the right to go on record, pertaining to commonsense emergency legislation such as these bills represent.

As it is, I may be risking the 9-year status of our organization by appearing here today but it will be worth the risk if my testimony is accepted and can contribute in a small measure to future legislative action for the benefit of the United States.

The mere fact that the offices of two leading Senators requested that I personally, be given the right to appear and testify is certainly a great honor and something I shall always cherish. Both Senators, Mr. Javits and Mr. Kennedy are and have been cognizant of the developing Youth Town of America endeavor for several years, along with Senator Saltonstall, Senator Kefauver, and Senator Hennings' Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. Also, a number of leading Congressmen, including House Majority Leader John W. McCormack and Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers have expressed a past interest in our cause and on occasions have tried to help us. Our support from persons in public life, beginning with U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., and Massachusetts State Senate Leader John E. Powers has been truly nonpartisan and nonsectarian and the sincerity on the part of those who have tried to help us, in my opinion, is priceless and appreciated. For the record, I would like to submit the following letters received during the past 3 weeks

At this point, I wish to state that I have dedicated my future life to helping youth with problems before they become problem youth or, in boys' work terminology, it is my intent, to "smarten up" predelinquents so that they won't become involved again and end up as adjudged delinquents-over 70 percent of whom eventually find themselves as long-term inmates in our very increasingly costly prison systems and mental hospitals throughout the Nation. This personal decision of dedication came as a result of an unfortunate situation in the year 1950 (see exhibit No. 1) which occurred in the aforementioned Massachusetts State institution where the unwritten policy of some of the staff, at that time-in relation to their young charges-seemed to be that "You are no good and never will be any good." Of course you tell any youngster, mine or yours, over and over again, "You are no good," and so forth, and he is going to believe you after a while and play the part. Fifty thousand copies of the conditions of this unfortunate situation were published and publicized throughout the Commonwealth, at private expense, with not one word being refuted by the institution personnel. I am able to report that since then, under new and capable leadership, some various and marked changes have come about in the presently overcrowded State institutional program. Certain sources of prominence in Massachusetts have commended my associates and myself for having the courage to speak up and call a spade a spade-so far as the welfare of all youth is concerned.

It was as a result of this situation that an effort was made to establish a BoysTown type of program in Massachusetts. (See exhibit No. 2: Chronology of the Massachusetts Boys Town Project, as documented for hearings held by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee To Investigate Juvenile Delinquency in Washington, D.C., on July 10 and July 11, 1956.) This statewide effort began in 1950 and, at present, I am compelled to admit that there is no Boys Town program, as such, in Massachusetts-even though 9 years of tireless effort and unbelievable personal financial sacrifices of 35 thousands of dollars have been made which

have acted only as an "investment" in laying the intensive groundwork required for this vitally needed, contemplated national program.

To try and sum up the difficulties, in fact form, I submit the following reasons as to why we have been unsuccessful, up until today-even though some of these reasons have been overcome in the very recent past:

1. We lacked preliminary funds-for starting, security, and endowment purposes and, consequently, we were subject to strange and unbelievable opposition from two of the largest fund-raising organizations in Massachusetts which contended that there were only a certain number of charitable dollars and they could barely take care of the existing organizations so that any new effort would have to be discouraged. Of course, this is a fallacy and contrary to the American way of life and growth. (As exhibit No. 3, along these lines, I submit these two recent feature stories which appeared in the New York Journal-American.

2. We were victims of a geographic humanitarianism factor which was also fallacious. Some of this type of opposition is to be expected by any public effort but, in our particular situation, most of this so-called opposition was positively traced to certain sources and was actually planted by these persons with ulterior motives. In other words, everyone thought it was a good projectbut "in someone else's backyard."

3. We also had to contend with the usual professional jealousy factor which, unfortunately, is too prevalent among many social workers-especially, those referred to as the "theorist" group.

4. We ran into the most unexpected and unwarranted "religious" opposition. Since this unfortunate opposition has been mostly cleared up-I do not wish to say much about it here. The fact remains, however, that, for almost 9 years, our Boys Town group, made up of members of the three faiths, was obliged to change its name to Youth Town and had been mercilessly persecuted from one end of the State to the other. A documented record of those taking part in these persecution tactics, especially up at the Massachusetts State House, has been submitted to the heads of the three faiths and all prominent judicial, educational, business, civic, and labor groups. (Upon request-we can supply some of this data. However, no publicity is requested.)

5. In spite of the fact that we have accomplished many good things in our effort, through inexperience, we have made several mistakes. "To err is human." Too often, it has seemed that it becomes a crime when a person who lacks money or power (and connections) and tries to do something worthwhile makes even the slightest mistake.

6. Finally, we found it almost impossible to line up enough of the high-caliber of key persons who would represent us on our board of directors. Certain key people belong to so many organizations that they have stopped taking on any new responsibilities. Even if they would, they could give very little actual time and effort because they belong to so many groups. To comprise your boards and committees with comparatively unknown names-no matter how sincere and competent the individuals may be seems to violate a secret code of charity requirements. Many large givers, especially business corporations and foundations, won't give any funds unless they are familiar with or impressed by the names on the letterheads. In many instances, these same key persons who belong to large, successful charities hardly know what's going on in the organizations themselves. Along the line of what a name means, you can imagine how right the late George Fingold, former attorney general of Massachusetts, was when he said, in the presence of the chief counsel of a Senate subcommittee and his associate, who were visiting Boston in 1957. "Fred, let's face it. The name of Amershadian is a great drawback to your Massachusetts Boys Town project since you are considered by many in this State as a member of a minority group." Even though I countered with the facts that I was proud of my name and that I was born in Boston, Mr. Fingold, based on his own trying personal experience, had a valid point.

All of these past difficulties of ours tie in with much of this proposed legislation. If such legislation involving sites and funds had been in effect, we might not have fallen prey to many of these unwarranted situations and we could have been able to get into operation years ago and help thousands of needy youth by 1959. Our past experience has proven that when one doesn't possess sufficient means-various somewhat tragic things happen which could discourage almost any civic-minded person who wants to help society. Is this fair when the situation is all-society's problem? We have been showered with millions