Bureau, and the aid-to-dependent children program administered through the Bureau of Public Assistance in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Recent amendments to the Social Security Act extending child welfare grants to urban as well as rural areas and emphasizing the development of social services in the public assistance programs are significant measures in delinquency prevention and control. Although these are not the immediate concerns of your committee, it is important to note that in some instances no appropriations have been made and in others appropriations have never reached the limit of the authorization. No matter what else is done in the field of child welfare, which includes juvenile delinquency, there is no substitute for the strengthening of the basic child welfare services which are given by the public welfare agencies in every county in the United States. In this I concur with the points of view which have been expressed by the American Public Welfare Association and the National Association of Social Workers emphasizing that it is the public welfare agency, the one agency meeting human needs in every county in the United States, that together with the juvenile court, the police, and the school represents the main social agency force which in concert with private agencies and religious groups can best serve America's troubled families and children.

Local communities and States are the primary instruments in developing programs in this field. Their hands must be strengthened by the national interest of the Federal Government without whose stimulation the increasing clamor will continue without effective solution. You have the information and the facts. You will have recommendations from these as well as previous hearings. I urge that you not let another session of the Congress pass without action. Mr. LOURIE. Yes, sir.

Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate being asked to

come.

I bring you greetings from our Governor and our secretary of public welfare. They share my views, I believe.

I will not deal directly with my prepared statement. In it I have suggested the areas of demonstration and research which I believe the Congress ought to be interested in, and I have made comments on our specific interest in Senate bill 694 and its companion bill in the House.

As you were questioning the former witnesses, some things came to mind, and I would like to comment on them.

There isn't any one panacea for juvenile delinquency. a good deal that we know about it that we are not using. a good deal that we do not know.

There is
There is

You were very specific with Mr. Beck on the matter of definition of delinquent, and I think one of the things we sometimes get caught in is that we think of the term "juvenile delinquent" as describing a child. Actually, juvenile delinquency and juvenile delinquent are, in my mind, social and legal terms and do not describe a child. They describe an act.

I think that, as Mr. Sharp said, if we went about the business of being concerned with the child we would really tackle this problem in some sensible way.

The other thing that occurs to me is that when you talk about who is responsible, whose responsibility this is, whether or not the States and the local communities could really deal with this matter alone, I call attention to the many, many areas in which local communities and States have not been able to properly approach a broad social problem without the leadership of the Federal Government.

Senator CLARK. I would like to stop you there because I know it is going to be said that the failure to make any better progress than has been made in this field is because the localities and States do not have the will to do it; they are not sufficienctly interested to devote the money and to raise the taxes so that this work can be done.

But I know you have had a wide experience now at the State level in this field, and can you tell us what your thinking would be as to why, between the localities in Pennsylvania and the State, this problem cannot be handled without the intervention of the Federal Government, mentioning, to the extent you think pertinent, the tax factor? Mr. LOURIE. I think the larger our country gets, the larger our population grows, the more years we experience, the level of sophistication and understanding and the broad view of these problems moves from the local community up to the State, up to the Federal Govern

ment.

I do not think we could have handled social insurance at the State level, no matter how great our desire. I don't think we could have handled public assistance, and it is becoming apparent that we are not going to be able to handle education without more stimulation and leadership plus dollars from the Federal Government.

Although we talk about the American way, the American concern and the deeply religious and social interest we have in the family, we actually do not have one family policy in the United States; we had 48, now 50, policies.

For solving these social problems which affect family breakdown we need the leadership of the Federal Government. Each time the Federal Government concerns itself with these problems it helps set a national policy for handling family problems. This, I think, is a main issue.

With respect to taxes: I am obviously not a tax expert. I have had Senators and Congressmen question me on this and ask me why we couldn't keep the dollars home and do the job ourselves.

When somebody says "Why don't you do it at the local level and not with the Federal tax dollar," I say it is the same dollar.

Maybe that is not an expert approach to taxes, but it is the way I look at it.

Senator CLARK. There is also the problem of the availability of tax sources. You are going through now, are you not, the problem of substantially increasing taxes in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?

Mr. LOURIE. Yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. And it is pretty hard to find, is it not, an equitable tax system with which that money could be raised in view of the usurpation of the fairer and more progressive tax system by the Federal Government?

Mr. LOURIE. There is no question about that, and you add the fact that the State legislatures seem more willing to appropriate State tax dollars when there is some push from the Federal Government and some interest on the part of the Federal Government in a particular problem.

This, I think, has been clear ever since the 1930's, particularly in this field.

Senator CLARK. Would you have any comment on the extent to which juvenile delinquency is an urban problem in Pennsylvania, as distinguished from a rural problem?

Mr. LOURIE. Our impression is that, relative to the size of the population, relative to the economic distribution of the groups of population, there is no difference between urban and the rural incidence of delinquency.

Senator CLARK. This is despite the fact that, as far as publicity is concerned, it is largely pictured as an urban problem?

Mr. LOURIE. I think because it is less protected in the urban communities from the spotlight of the public. When you get the concentration you do in the urban communities, you can't help but get the publicity.

The concentration of economic and social breakdown is greater in the urban community and it is easier to see.

I cannot help but comment on this race question because I think that we sometimes are misled by concentrations of populations and people sometimes tend to feel that we are involved in a race problem.

If we, in any city, imposed on any group, racial, ethical, cultural, or religious, the same conditions we impose on some of our racial groups in our large northern cities, we would get the same degree of angry expression from the children.'

Senator CLARK. In other words, you think this is an environmental rather than a racial problem?

Mr. LOURIE. Yes, sir; very much so. I want to comment on the size of the problem. When you were talking about the number of youngsters you indicated that perhaps we would get to the point where 6 percent of our youngsters were involved in delinquency. We have put much more emphasis, energy, time, and money into problems involving children where less than 6 percent of the population was involved. I think particularly of polio where 2 years ago, or last, there were about 34,000 cases of polio in the United States. We all know what effort we have put into that problem.

In Pennsylvania alone in any one year of the last several, 40,000 children appeared before the juvenile courts. It varies in States by degree, but this gives you some notion of the size of the problem.

Senator CLARK. I think that is an important comment because it does point up the emphasis in our society.

Mr. LOURIE. Another comment I would like to make follows the gentleman from the police department in Ohio. He made the comment that one-fourth of 1 percent of the families in Ohio produce 50 percent of the juvenile cases. This, I think, is an important fact, because in a number of cities throughout the country you probably have heard and you probably will hear again from other witnesses the fact that when we begin to examine the incidence of delinquency we find it generally is taking place in the same groups of families that are using up a substantial part of the mental health dollar, of the relief dollar, and of the general health and welfare dollar. I don't know what percentage we have across the country, but people report that 6 to 7 percent or 7 to 10 percent of the families in communities studied use the largest part of the total health and welfare dollar. This is a very significant fact.

Senator CLARK. Would your experience in Pennsylvania lead you to believe that if the statistics were available they would come pretty

close to those testified to by Captain Davenport with respect to Cincinnati?

Mr. LOURIE. In the few situations where we have taken a look we find this to be true.

We do find that when we look at the last hundred cases, or whatever substantial number you choose of youngsters who get before a juvenile court, we find that about 50 percent of these youngsters would have come from relief families and 50 or more percent would have had judicial, court, police, prison records in their families.

Senator CLARK. A large number of repeaters.

Mr. LOURIE. Yes, sir.

It has been said that 50 percent of the youngsters that go into our State training schools turn up in adult prisons. I don't know what the study authority for that was, but it is very significant.

You asked awhile ago what someone might do with $2 million of money if that was all you had, and you wanted to do some broad training job.

I have often thought of how nice it would be to take a sum of money and go into each one of the States and take one of the State institutions and turn it into a model institution in order to demonstrate what can be done. I am quite convinced from my own experience that most people who work in institutions with these youngsters would join me in believing that a very large majority of these youngsters, particularly if you get them early enough, can be rehabilitated into decent, productive citizens.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Lourie. We appreciate your testimony.

STATEMENT OF RALPH W. WHELAN, COMMISSIONER OF YOUTH SERVICES, NEW YORK CITY; EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK CITY YOUTH BOARD; BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES

Our next witness is Mr. Ralph Whelan, who is Commissioner of Youth Services of New York City, executive vice chairman of the New York City Youth Board, and board member of the National Conference of Catholic Charities.

Mr. Whelan, we are happy to have you here.

I would like to thank the two remaining witnesses for their courtesy in postponing their testimony so that you could come on and get away. I have your statement here, and it will appear in the record at this point.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT BY RALPH W. WHELAN, COMMISSIONER OF YOUTH SERVICES, NEW YORK CITY, EXECUTIVE VICE CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK CITY YOUTH BOARD, BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today as you consider the various proposals which have been included in the 86th Congress concerning Federal grants for juvenile delinquency prevention and control.

The intelligent responsible action taken by the several Congressmen who are sponsors of these bills has underscored the seriousness of juvenile delinquency on a national basis. I will, therefore, not discuss data which are already known to you about the extent of the problems nor will I theorize in terms of causation or

outline various diverse approaches to the diminution or cure of crime among our youth. Such interpretation is certainly not needed by this committee.

I would like to confine my remarks to the several needs in the field of juvenile delinquency prevention and its control which requires attention. I will present these needs on a priority basis inasmuch as I realize only too well that the availability of funds determines the extent to which programs can be initiated or developed. As I present these needs I will refer to the legislative bills which relate to them.

RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION

Important strides have been made in pinpointing the source of delinquency to a relatively small segment of our population and in identifying the potential delinquent at an early age. No factor has been more important in this progress than the systematic application of scientific techniques of research and study. We have now reached the point where we can point with a high degree of certainty to the nature, location, causes, and extent of the problem. This is an essential and indispensable first step.

As yet, however, we know far too little about how, effectively, to meet the problems we have uncovered. We can predict when a boy is first entering elementary school that, because of ascertainable factors in his home life, he has a high probability of becoming delinquent unless effective measures are taken. We do not know, however, just what measures will prove most advantageous.

We need considerable research to determine what techniques and methods are most effective in working with the disturbed child at a very early age, particularly the child most likely to become delinquent, what type of person can best relate to such children and their parents and what kind of training such a person requires.

Research has shown that juvenile delinquency, together with a host of related social problems, is concentrated in approximately 1 percent of our family population. We can describe the constellation of symptoms such as alcoholism, mental illness, physical disability, drug addiction, criminal behavior, out of wedlock children, and broken homes which these families exhibit. We have yet to develop comprehensive techniques which will enable us to cut through their rejection, hostility, and resistance to help and come to grips with the sources of their difficulties. To my knowledge, there is no current research in this area.

We need considerable research and demonstration to determine the most effective methods of working with these multiproblem families. We need to know much more about the types of personalities that can best relate to and work with them and the kind of differential training that such workers would require for this important task.

We are well aware of the particularly serious nature of delinquency among teenagers and of their pivotal relationship to the problem. As a group, however, we have been far less successful in working with the young people in this age range than with the preadolescents who make up the bulk of the membership in our youth-serving agencies. Here, again, we need to learn new and more effective ways of reaching and influencing people. We must evaluate the personalities of those who are able to establish contact and gain the confidence of this age group as well as determine the kind of training such workers require to be effective.

Finally, it is important that we develop better methods and techniques for establishing contact with and working with the citizens of our communities, particularly in those neighborhoods characterized by apathy, dislocation, blight, and a high incidence of juvenile delinquency. We must broaden the base of the delinquency prevention effort by getting neighbors to work together to resolve the problems of their own local communities. It is only through the enlistment of local groups to work not only to improve environmental conditions but to help with the problems of their neighbors that we can achieve maximum impact. Such self-help programs have not been sufficiently developed in the United States. Not only do they afford neighbors the opportunity to face up to their own problems but there is a remarkable chance for various religious groups to work together in dealing with problems in their own communities.

It is very possible that we need to develop a new kind of personnel in this field. The type of personnel that is sparked by a dedication to guide people to resolve their own difficulties. The type of personnel that is willing to work around the clock, to go where they are needed, to work in the marketplace with the difficult problems of children, families, and neighborhoods.