Mr. TWINAME. I am not a professional in the field, sir. I really came into Government as a concerned citizen. Concerned in many of the same ways that you expressed at the opening of this hearing-that the Government should be more effective in delivering the services that were promised by law, and in solving some of the serious social problems such as this one. That is my basic concern, and that is the reason I am here.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Have you had occasion to read any of the testimony that was presented to this committee on the legislation now on the books before the committee and the Congress adopted the present program by a unanimous vote?

Mr. TWINAME. Yes, sir; I have read parts of that. At any rate, I am familiar with the background of this act.

Mr. PUCINSKI. You see, the thing that disturbs me about your statement is that this is the same thing that I have been hearing for the 13 years I have been here, and I am sure that my predecessors have been hearing it much longer.

Mayor Stokes of Cleveland put the thing properly most succinctly after his meeting with the President the other day when he said that we were-what we need today is operating funds.

Now, I don't know of any subject in the history of our civilization that has been more thoroughly studied than juvenile delinquency, crime, for 2,000 years.

We go back to the ancient writings and hieroglyphics on Egyptian tombs, and we find they were studying juvenile crime. Here we have again a proposal that is going to try to coordinate and bring together you talk about $750 million in other acts. None of this is going to juvenile crime and you know it and I know it.

It is not going to any juvenile courts. It is not going to any State training schools, and you have got in Chicago, since you come from Chicago, the school for truants which you and I know is a monument to sadism. It has not saved a single kid. If anything, it is a refresher course for crime, and the thing that I can't understand, and I would like to spend this morning with you and your two associates, when are we going to get down to the nitty-gritty of things?

When are we going to start sending some money down to the local level communities and give them operational money?

I want you to know somebody. I am not blaming you or this administration, because the previous administration was derelict in this, too. I want to make sure this is not a partisan issue.

I saw President Kennedy come before Congress, and the first act that he proposed to the Congress and the first act that was enacted under his administration was a $10 million a year research project on juvenile crime.

It was a 3-year bill, and then it was renewed for 3 more years and the President at that time said that he wants once and for all to develop the techniques that are going to give us these answers on why young people become antisocial.

It was a magnificent speech, and the Congress responded, and I remember myself working very hard for legislation. We went through $30 million of research. Then we went through $30 million more of research. We have got research coming out of our ears on this subject.

So now we have structured a bill which is Public Law 90-445, which all of us had worked very carefully and very hard on, and it is an

operational bill. It is designed to give local communities the kind of help they need to become operational.

Why is it, then, that we cannot get the Federal bureaucracy under Democrats or under Republicans to realize that you have got a crisis in this country in youthful crime, and as nice as your statement is, it is just another wad of paper. It does not tell us a thing about what you plan to do to help local communities.

As Mayor Stokes said, "We need operational funds." That is the great problem in America. We keep building a new program on top of another, on top of another, on top of another, and these local governments have all kinds of programs, all disjoined, when what they really need and I don't mind telling you that I agree with the President on his revenue sharing concept. I support the President on his revenue sharing because I believe the time has come when we ought to give those local governments the money.

Now, we have in this bill set up some broad criteria on how this money is to be spent, but what is wrong with giving local communities some money and saying, "Then go to it, Tiger, get going with this program"?

Instead of what you are talking about here. This is another one, another model systems. You don't have to tell a local mayor or a local police chief or a local school superintendent, or the director of the Arthur Audy home in Chicago, or the director of the Illinois State Reform School. You don't have to tell him what he ought to be doing. He knows what he ought to be doing, but you ought to give him some money to do it with.

What is wrong with that approach?

Mr. TWINAME. Mr. Chairman, I think you will find when we get into the details that we agree very much with what you have said, and that we are trying to find a way to overcome the problems you mentioned. I am not surprised that you support the President's program on revenue sharing, knowing that you come from a city where these problems are most prevalent. Local people need flexibility to address these problems directly, and that is why the $5 billion revenue sharing and subsequent revenue sharing bills have been introduced.

I think operating funds for these purposes is what the President has in mind. As you have further stated, one of our problems has been that we have layered program after program at the Federal level, and have made it difficult for local people to get a sizable staff to try to figure out how to get the various funds from these different programs and categories and in some way to satisfy federal requirements to make a coordinated program at the local level.

I am sure Mrs. Hicks knows that from Boston. It is a difficult job trying to work with the Federal Government when there are many different sources of funds for the same purpose from different places.

I think when we look at what has happened since the act was passed in 1968, we can see some conversions of forces that have brought us to this idea on how to get more action and more results from the money we invest. Perhaps we could review a little of that history.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Let me ask Mr. Peyser to ask a few questions, and then Mrs. Hicks, and then we will spread this out.

Mr. Peyser?

Mr. PEYSER. Thank you very much.

I am looking at the existing act and the proposals. To a certain degree I agree with the chairman's comments here of getting money out into the field where the problem really is.

One of the things that concerns me very briefly in the Department's report here where we list crimes, juvenile crimes, that cover everything from murder, rape, larceny and so forth, no where in this do we reflect one of the primary causes, what the primary cause today would be for much of the juvenile delinquency that is going on.

Would one of you gentlemen care to answer that?

Mr. GEMIGNANI. Yes. It is difficult to ascribe any one cause to delinquency. Certainly there are a lot of causes. There are those youth that for some reason, becuase of psychological and emotional reasons do

Mr. PEYSER. Isn't there one thing you can point to?

Mr. GEMIGNANI. If one looks at prevention, which is the primary concern of our administration at the present time, because this is an area that I think is the most neglected of all, then we can begin to focus on such things as the institutional structures of the community— these social institutions that focus on youth and youth development. We ought to examine if these institutions, such as schools for example, allow or impede access to socially acceptable and personally gratifying social roles on the part of young people.

The lack of access to socially acceptable roles oftentimes begins to cycle a youngster into delinquency. The school dropout, for instance, who is not getting his needs met in school gets frustrated with that institution resulting often in alienation, estrangement, and so forth.

That same youngster gets labeled as a school "dropout," or socalled, "bad boy." Labeling results in his being locked into a role that locks him out of the general stream of the community.

Should additional difficulties move him into the juvenile justice system, he gets further labeled and further locked out of the community, and the process becomes more difficult in moving him back.

Mr. PEYSER. If I may interrupt, I know you are giving me a background of what happens as this problem develops. In New York, I believe that one of the primary causes today for the crime that we are talking about in here relates to the field of narcotics, which is what I am trying to bring this point around to.

In other words, this is where the today, and this is different from where it was 20 years ago-but today in New York one of the primary problems is drug abuse.

What I am interested in knowing is, within the scope of this new program or the old program, is the availability of money to get to areas that are working at this problem in the field, that are working in the area of narcotics, because when you talk juvenile delinquency today, I say in the crime area, the serious crime area, which is what we have listed down here, you are talking about drugs, and I would like to know what is done in this program in relationship to drugs, and is there anything in this program that gets money down directly to the areas that are handling these problems, or trying to? Mr. COHEN. Could I interrupt?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I would like to support what Mr. Peyser is saying. The statistics show the portion of young people arrested as abusers of dangerous drugs between 1964 and 1968 has doubled.

The percentage of arrested abusers in 1964 was around 12, and in 1968 it is 24 percent of all those arrested. Obviously Mr. Peyser is absolutely right when he points out that the largest single increase in the incidence or cause of arrest has been drug abuse, and I think his question is a very valid one.

Mr. BELL. May I ask a question here?

Mr. PEYSER. Did you get an answer?

Mr. COHEN. Before we specifically answer Congressman Peyser's question with regard to the drugs, I think it is important to realize that he prefaced that question talking about, in a sense, a cause and an effect relationship. I think it is very important to realize that drugs, while they may seem to be a cause of the crime, are in themselves a result factor, rather than a cause factor. We could come up here with drug people from HEW and look at that as a cause of crime, and someone from Justice, or ourselves, could defend the fact that the system is reinforcing to make kids more bad or less bad-usually more bad-and then we could look at the schools and say they are not doing their job.

The important thing to realize here is that drugs are a result, as much as a cause, and that you have the entire impact of all the social phenomena of technology in an increasingly urban society as the

cause.

When we come up here and say that only $10 or $15 million dollars are being spent for JD, and then expand it to show you what other programs are doing, it is imperative for us, I think, to realize that the whole atmosphere that kids grow up in today is having a cause and effect relationship. There are hundreds of causes running around.

You can't just point to one. Admittedly, drug use is going up, and admittedly crime is, you could say an outgrowth of the drug problem. But the problem itself is an effect and a result. The chairman raised the question of our background. I taught criminal law for a year, and I looked at the problem of youth crime. What you find, when you cut underneath, is that drugs are the cause, bad schools are the cause, the judicial systems are the cause-it is the whole impact on that little kid growing up in an increasingly urban and technological society over which he has little or no control that gives rise to the pent-up feeling that has been going on since the Egyptians were studying the problems with their kids.

Mr. PEYSER. I recognize that drugs are a symptom of the problem. But we are talking about juvenile delinquency here, and I am saying that if you applied the 24-percent figures that the chairman just gave, if you applied that percentage against the serious crimes listed in here, you would find the murders and the thefts and so forth represent far higher of 24 percent of those who are involved with drugs.

In other words, the drug becomes the biggest single factor in any of these crimes listed. I recognize the symptom argument which takes in a much broader scope of the whole program, but in juvenile delinquency my question really is, is there anything in the program today, and this could be a yes or no kind of answer, that is directly putting money the field where drug problems are involved and can be worked on to, hopefully, eliminate some of the juvenile delinquency.

into

Mr. GEMIGNANI. Let me speak for YDDPA. We do fund some drug programs, but although drug abuse might be the behavioral form in which the program is interested, it goes to a much broader

concern in terms of the community-those things that are affecting young people in that community that are causing them to use drugs.

Yes, drugs are a concern, because they are a behavioral form today that does concern us tremendously, and they ought to. But I think any behavioral form, regardless of whether it is drugs, or auto theft, or burglary, or gang activity, necessitates a broad community approach.

Mr. PEYSER. Thank you.

Mr. TWINAME. I am introducing to the committee the chief of the Center for Studies of Crime and Delinquency, Mr. Saleerm Shah. It is very hard for us to give testimony on any part of our effort, here, especially as a Department, with so many agencies involved. I would like to invite him to sit with us and perhaps participate.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Fine.

I might follow up on the question asked by Mr. Peyser. Reading from the report on juvenile problems, they point out that the law enforcement assistance administration, too, feels that juvenile crime is a proper area for its activity. All grants in fiscal 1970 were made for juvenile delinquency programs.

In fact LEAA has poured over a hundred thousand dollars into Philadelphia to combat the juvenile crime problem, while the response from the Department of HEW has been virtually nil. I believe the point Mr. Peyser is making is that if you are going to rely on safe streets and other bills you are going to force these youngsters into a program designed primarily for adult criminals.

It has always been my contention and my belief that if you have any hope of saving a young person, you ought to try and develop programs in that direction, and I am interested in seeing that the other committee says its contribution has been nil in this field.

Mr. TWINAME. I would comment in this way. I guess it is hard for Congress and for an agency to think in terms of the total effort because here the committee is setting HEW as over against Justice or other agencies, while we are trying to think of the effort quite sincerely as a total administration attack.

Perhaps, that is a new view, but I think it might be a practical and effective one because of the block grant authority that is flowing through essentially to the same groups at the state level. You mentioned Mayor Stokes, or perhaps the Philadelphia people. You say they have ideas of what they want to do.

It is the operating funds that they need, and through this block grant program of the Safe Streets Act, they have moved from, I believe it is something on the order of $3 million in 1969 to $33 million for juvenile delinquency prevention and control in 1970. This year it will be double, up in the sixty millions of dollars, for action programs. What they really need, and what we are saying, is not competition in the sense of giving them these funds and special directions, it is a way of complementing activities of that block grant and some of these other activities to bring them together in a more coherent and cooperative way on the local level that really gets somewhere, instead of setting up a lot of bureaucratic competitions over who gave the money to whom. We are really trying to keep our eyes on the ball and get to the problem.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We will have the LEAA people before us, and I am willing to bet now that when the record is completed we are going to

62-853-71-3