and I agree with you on the importance of cooperation between our two committees. We are all interested in the same problem, and I feel certain that we can contribute much to its solution by working closely together.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks on the bill under consideration concerning the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1961.

Let me say at the outset that I strongly support this program; indeed, I have joined Senator Clark in cosponsoring S. 1967 to extend the life of the Delinquency Control Act for 3 years. I believe that every member of this subcommittee should support this program and its extension for two very compelling reasons.

First, unless we extend the provisions of this law, the national master plan of delinquency prevention and control it created will be stopped short at the very point where we will begin to benefit from the effort that has gone into it.

Second, the prevalency of delinquency and related youth problems today demands that the concerted action this program promises must be taken.

When the original law was contemplated, members of the Juvenile Delinquency Committee and I envisioned a measure that would allow extensive planning of demonstration and training projects based on careful study of the actual conditions in high delinquency communities across the country.

This was to avoid the type of piecemeal approach to the problems of delinquency which was evident in the often conflicting, overlapping, and uncoordinated effort of the many separate programs already existing in each city.

It was recognized that the necessary planning would take time and that returns on the investment would not be immediately forthcoming. My legislative proposal asked for a 5-year program rather than the 3year provision contained in the final version of the bill. It was feared that a program based largely on community organization and cooperation might not get off the ground unless it were given sufficient time to design plans and convert them into action. This contention now seems verified.

Today we are confronted with the following problem. Some 16 cities throughout the land have received demonstration grants under the delinquency bill. They have worked and organized and designed plans costing millions of dollars. However, only three of these projects are now in the action stage to any appreciable degree. Unless we extend the program, I fear we may have wasted much of the initial effort, thus cutting short the first major attempt on a national scale to curb the growth of juvenile delinquency. Unless we extend the program, many of the plans so carefully made will not materialize.

As a Senator from the State of Connecticut, I want to emphasize that New Haven was the first city to obtain a Federal grant under Public Law 87-274. I have talked to the people responsible for the New Haven project. I think they are doing a good job, and I do not

want to see my State or any other State leave the work only half done or done only on paper.

I submit that we cannot allow a situation to develop where million dollar studies and plans collect dust in municipal archives until they are outdated, unworkable, and forgotten.

But there is a second and even more compelling reason why we should pass a law extending the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Act. We must do this to face the multitude of problems, both old and new, confronting the youth of our land.

It would be foolhardy if Congress, having passed an ambitious law designed to reduce the Nation's youth crime, were to abandon it 2 years later, when the delinquency rate has reached new heights; when young people are dropping out of school in growing numbers; when youth unemployment has sent a million boys and girls into the streets in a hopeless search for work, and when the lack of opportunities which plague minority groups have created not only an explosive crime problem, but has turned our urban areas into hotbeds of racial conflict, of tension, and of violence.

The studies conducted by the Senate Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee show that delinquency rates have increased close to 200 percent over the past 10 or 15 years. Just over a week ago, the Federal Bureau of Investigation published a report indicating a 9 percent rise over last year's arrests of young people under 18.

I learned, only yesterday, that preliminary figures on juvenile court cases show that the delinquency rate skyrocketed in 1962. We know that the average age of juveniles appearing before the court is 15, and that because of the baby boom of 1947, we could expect a surge in court figures. However, the data presently available would indicate that the flood has become a tidal wave, that the numbers of children before the court far exceeded what we had anticipated.

This actually means that during 1962, delinquency increased more than three times the 4 percent growth recorded in 1961 over 1960.

At the same time, we know that the unemployment rate for the age group between 16 and 20 is more than twice as high as that for any other segment of the population in the labor market.

We know that youths from racial and ethnic minority groups are subjected to vicious discrimination in the employment field.

We know that there are areas in our cities where 90 percent of minority group youths are unemployed.

We know that a million young people throughout the country are unemployed at present. And we have been told that this number is expected to grow to 1,700,000 by 1965, and to 2 million by 1970.

I cite these figures, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that a trend toward greater deterioration of conditions surrounding a large segment of our youth is well established. These are not conditions and problems that will solve themselves. The school dropouts will not return unless we establish courses and programs to overcome the handicaps that made them leave in the first place. The young people looking for work will not find it unless we create positions for them, and then

train them to fill these positions. Many of our delinquency and unemployment problems do not stem from individual weaknesses, from lack of ambition, or from an inherent tendency to break the law on the part of our young people.

These are conditions which have grown out of the advances of science, of technology, and of automation. They are problems universal to urban areas throughout the country. They are the residual effects of our phenomenal progress. Our fast changing technology and economy have created new jobs and new positions for trained workers. However, there is a reverse twist to this advance. While we have more opportunities for those with skill and training, there are less jobs for the boys and girls who drop out of school before graduation and who are not even eligible or qualified to undertake training.

There is need for new measures to adjust these inadequacies. There is need for educational and employment projects. There is need for trade training, and, above all, there is need for coordination between the various parts of the economy.

The Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1961 has provided us with an apparatus to deal with each of the various problems I have mentioned.

The President's Committee has documented evidence regarding the level of development of each of the programs undertaken as a result of Public Law 87-274.

There were no plans and projects of this scale available anywhere in the country before this law was passed.

We have no assurance that there would be any action undertaken now, had the Federal Government not provided the mechanism for coordinating the efforts of States and municipalities.

Having committed the Congress to this effort, I believe we owe it to the Nation to complete the job we set out to do.

I believe that unless we extend the program, we will not only have wasted several million dollars in the planning of projects, but, more important, we will deprive our people of a program which holds more promise than any previous undertaking of providing us with effective tools to combat juvenile delinquency and related youth problems.

As chairman of the Senate Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee, I strongly urge that the members of this subcommittee consider favorably the measure before it today.

Here before the subcommittee today are two distinguished men, Mayor Richard C. Lee, of New Haven, Conn., and Mitchell Sviridoff, executive director of Community Progress, Inc., also of New Haven. These two men are intimately concerned with the problems of juvenile delinquency and have firsthand knowledge of the situation as it exists in one of our larger American cities. I am pleased that these two men are here, for their testimony will be of considerable value and most instructive.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Senator. We are very grateful to you for your support, and your testimony.

Senator DODD. Thank you, sir.

Senator CLARK. Our next witness is the Honorable Richard C. Lee, the mayor of the city of New Haven.

Mr. Lee is an old friend. He was mayor of New Haven, I think, serving his first term, while I was still mayor of Philadelphia. I had the pleasure and privilege of visiting with Mayor Lee, and with citizens from New Haven, respecting what they were then doing in terms of urban renewal, slum clearance, and the resuscitation of the whole city of New Haven, and its environs. He came to Philadelphia to take a look at what we were doing there, and we have kept in touch with each other since.

Mayor Lee, I think it is fair to say, is one of the really great mayors of America, and the progress which the city has made under his inspired leadership is almost unique in the United States.

Mayor Lee, I have had the opportunity to read your statement, which I think is splendid, which illuminates this whole problem very well with the story of what you have been able to do in New Haven. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD C. LEE, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. LAURENCE PAQUIN, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR THE CITY OF NEW HAVEN; MITCHELL SVIRIDOFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY PROGRESS, INC.; AND PAUL NAGLE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED FUND OF GREATER NEW HAVEN, NEW HAVEN, CONN.

Mr. LEE. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Richard C. Lee. I am mayor of the city of New Haven. Accompanying me this morning are Dr. Laurence Paquin, superintendent of schools for the city of New Haven; Mr. Mitchell Sviridoff, executive director of Community Progress, Inc.; and Mr. Paul Nagle, executive director of the United Fund of Greater New Haven.

My purpose is to record New Haven's support for a 3-year continuation of public law 87-274 and to illustrate how the provisions of this legislation are helping New Haven to develop new methods of preventing juvenile delinquency and promoting youth develop

ment.

Moreover, I am here, as well, on behalf of the U.S. conference of mayors, which also supports passage of this legislation.

I am immediate past president of the conference, and was its president when, early last spring, we convened a special meeting here in Washington of the Mayors and Project Directors from the 15 cities which have received demonstration grants under the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Act. At this meeting, it was determined that a continuation of the act was not only important to the cities involved, but, indeed, very much in the national interest.

The conference of mayors has demonstrated its concern in this important matter by establishing within our national office here in Washington a special coordinating center to gather information with respect to the operation of this program, and to make this information available to the Congress.

The full conference of mayors demonstrated its interest in the program when it convened in June of this year and adopted a resolution on this subject. I would appreciate it if this resolution can be made a part of the record of these hearings.

A basic assumption of New Haven's program in youth development is that the problem of juvenile delinquency cannot be separated from the total web of physical and human problems that afflict most American cities.

Surely slum neighborhoods, lack of recreational areas, rundown, overcrowded schools, or even totally incompatible mixtures of industrial uses in residential neighborhoods can and do have, potentially, just as harmful effect on a young man or woman as the chronic unemployment of his father, or the permanent sickness of his mother, or any of the other social causes of delinquency.

We learned, long ago, that an isolated attack on any one of these problems inevitably produces, more often than not, little more than a sense of frustration and defeat.

The complexities of the vicious slum cycles make it difficult for a mayor to know where to start in bringing his city back to a state of health and to make his city as vigorous, as prosperous, and as progressive as life in the 20th century demands.

I speak from the experience of a decade as mayor-a decade of travel to cities all over this land; a decade of activity and ultimately of a position of leadership in such organizations as the American Municipal Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

I speak, also, as one who was fortunate enough to have had the inspiration of work pioneered more than a decade ago by one of the great mayors of Philadelphia, Joseph Clark, who is the presiding officer of this committee today, followed by an equally great mayor, Richardson Dilworth. Their message was a simple one-plan, coordinate, but most important of all, act.

Act we did, and on a scale never before imagined, not only in New Haven, but in all of New England. Our point of departure was urban renewal, and a brief statistical profile of the program will give an indication of what has been accomplished.

Renewal projects underway

Projects planned---.

Total Federal urban renewal grants-.

Total acres, city land area in renewal projects (total city land area, 12,000 acres) –

Total construction completed or underway, as of June 30,
1963-

New commercial and industrial_

New highways and city streets..

New schools__.

New housing_.

75

$40, 000, 000

2, 175

$119, 347, 100

41, 212, 100

37, 340, 000

10, 560, 000

12, 362, 000

Total construction to be completed or underway as of Jan. 1, 1964__ 161, 965, 550

In the vital field of housing, we have eliminated more than 14,000 substandard slum units, and are replacing them with 7,662 units of new and rehabilitated housing, which run the gamut from low cost publicly underwritten senior citizen housing to privately financed luxury housing, to private sales cooperative housing with downpayments as law as $326. This total housing program includes: