not in terms of the problem, but as a beginning step, and if these funds do become generated the needs for qualified, competent persons are so

enormous.

I think all of us have had adequate evidence of the programs that have been so sensible and sound in inception which have failed not because of any error in conception but error or inability to have sufficient numbers of qualified manpower to carry out a very sensible legislative mandate.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Parrish?

Mr. PARRISH. I would like to call at this time Miss Pharis to make a few remarks, and then Mr. Sinclair.

STATEMENTS OF MISS TANGRA PHARIS AND RONALD SINCLAIR, SENIOR NEIGHBORHOOD WORKERS, UPPER CARDOZO, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Miss PHARIS. My name is Tangra Pharis. I am a senior neighborhood youth worker in upper Cardozo.

Mr. SINCLAIR. I am Ronald Sinclair, a neighborhood youth worker in the lower Cardozo area.

Miss PHARIS. I will tell you what the program is. The NDYP has 10 centers throughout Washington. Mine is located on Georgia Avenue, which is a cross section of incomes, a Negro and Spanish community.

Our focus is to involve youth in decisionmaking affairs that directly concern them, to help them identify and be more aware of the social structure that they are involved in.

We do this by means of five functional fields; education, recreation, jobs, police relations, and administration of justice.

Each worker is supervised by another youth, a neighborhood worker, and two neighborhood workers are supervised by a senior worker. There are two or three adults in each center. They are the YCO's, the directors and assistant directors of each program.

In dealing with the subjects that I mentioned, the functional needs, we have meetings, we talk over problems as they affect them, or how they affect them. We sit down and try to draft ways on the best approaches to the problems.

A lot of times it is just showing the young people something new and showing ourselves something new. It is a new experience not only for the community youth, but for the youth on staff on ways to approach problems.

We have become more involved in our adult society. We are aware of what is going on and the proper procedures of how to get involved and work with the adults.

Mr. SINCLAIR. I would be glad to answer any questions concerning the subject Miss Pharis has described.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Are you in the same program?

Mr. SINCLAIR. Yes.

Mr. PUCINSKI. What do you feel in the legislation before us would be of greatest help in carrying out the programs you have described? Miss PHARIS. Right now we only have 10 centers. I am on the edge in my area, what is known as west of Rock Creek Park, and up above the uptowners. They are not involved in such a structured program or organized program. We don't have a center there.

It would be beneficial not only to them but to us to be a part or to have them a part of this group, to make this truly metropolitan and a citywide program.

I would like to have seen when I went home to Philadelphia, or went to New York, or as I visited Chicago in this program, that there was someone there who had the same type of program. We could interchange ideas, we could identify the true problem, what it is, and how it affects us. I see you helping us not only to continue our program, but to make it a national thing or a model program.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Hawkins?

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask Mr. Parrish a question. This keeps coming up about the funding being terribly inadequate. Keeping in mind that the current program will expire this year, now we are talking about $25 million not to continue the program as such. but to do the planning.

This is the explanation of why it is only $25 million. Not only in Mr. Parrish's case, but in the case of the other witnesses, aren't we prepared at the present time to continue these programs without having to plan? There are programs that have been in operation as demonstration programs in many instances, we recognize, but certainly some have proved their value.

Aren't we in a position now to go ahead at a level somewhat greater than $25 million? Perhaps Mr. Parrish can tell us whether or not his program will suddenly get into a planning stage rather than getting into real support to continue some of these programs.

Mr. PARRISH. I believe, obviously, there is a necessity for planning, but I also would like to point out with respect to some of the programs, the demonstration programs, of the United Planning Organization, that from the very outset there was every attempt to build in mechanisms by which the various public agencies and so on with whom we cooperated in setting up some of these programs could continue them. We are fortunate that in a number of instances this has occurred. In the roving leader program, for example, there are a number of addition roving leaders who have been assigned to the several sections of the city.

The Pre-Release Guidance Center, which is a decompression chamber for youthful felons who have been sentenced under the Federal Youth Corrections Act will be continued, provided Congress gives authority for it.

There are several other programs like this. Toward the end of our demonstration effort, with the initiation of the youths, we got into this whole area of neighborhood development of youth and the involving of youth in decisionmaking and so on.

At this point in time, the development of that program is such that its full potential has not yet been realized. It would make a very good demonstration effort that the whole country could benefit from. This is the kind of thing that I think is applicable to this section.

Mr. HAWKINS. Perhaps Dr. Harmon and also Dr. Herman might also wish to comment on whether or not they are now in a position to go ahead on some of the programs that have been evaluated without the necessity to retool, as it were, keeping in mind, obviously, we do want to do some real comprehensive planning, but at the same time there is a transitional period in which we cannot lose the value of what we have already done.

Dr. HARMON. Yes, Congressman. Your remarks are most appropriate. I would like to relate your remarks back to what the chairman has repeatedly mentioned this morning, which actually has not been responded to by any of the witnesses yet; namely, how the Supreme Court may view the Gault case.

Should they decree in favor of young Gault, this will create, as the chairman suggests, a relative revolution in the way we have handled juvenile cases for some 67 years.

This would create a problem for all States and the District that I hate to think about at the moment, in terms of the chaos that that is apt to create because of the confusion, because it will differ from what we are all used to. This, among other things, getting back to the bill, itself, suggests that we are going to have to be able to rely on agencies, community services as the bill speaks, State programs, and so forth, without involving the juvenile in the legal apparatus that we have all used for these many years.

In this regard, Congressman Hawkins, yes, there are many States, there are many local communities, with programs such as Mr. Parrish speaks of in the District, where planning is not needed.

I can think of programs in existence that harken back since the inception of the Social Security Act in 1933 that have proved themselves in terms of their value.

The only reason that they don't show themselves more dramatically is plainly the lack of the ability to fund themselves. I like to think of many of the programs that the United States has stood for and fostered, going back to the days when President Teddy Roosevelt inaugurated the thing. Much of the inability to properly fund those programs now results in much of the delinquency that we see.

Sometimes we sort of equal ourselves in these days of Federal funding by assuming when we have different semantics for old programs we are really into something new. But we are really not in anything new at all, though I grant there are splendid features in some of the newer programs.

But basically, many of these things are ready to spring from their platform as soon as they are able to be funded. We don't need all of the necessity of going through the gamut of planning, so on and so forth, because what you say, sir, is correct.

Mr. HAWKINS. I wonder if Dr. Herman would like to comment. Dr. HERMAN. Yes, very briefly. I am also concerned, Congressman Hawkins, about this particular fact. As we know, under the earlier legislation some 200 demonstration and training grants have been given, under the earlier juvenile delinquency legislation.

I am not prepared to suggest that all or even most of these demonstration programs ought to be continued. On the other hand, many of them have proven to be very exciting, innovative, and, I am sure, useful.

I am concerned that these programs will find that there will be no way for them to continue to be funded. I think what would happen, by the way, as a consequence, is what we have already seen, that, unfortunately, programs do at the local level, and I guess at all levels, have a way of gravitating in definition to where the funding sources are.

I think what will happen to some of these programs that started off with a commitment to delinquency will now redefine themselves and

go to poverty terms; they will redefine themselves in vocational rehabilitation terms, or other kinds of terms where funding becomes available.

I think the inevitable consequence will be a reduced commitment, perhaps, and, if you will, even preoccupation with the problem of delinquency.

of

So I do think some appropriate method should be found to insure the kind of continuity and the payoff that has come out of 5 years demonstration and training efforts under the earlier legislation. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Hathaway?

Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Since there is only $25 million to be authorized, which may not be increased, should we concentrate our attention on areas where these limited funds are most needed?

Dr. HARMON. Your question would be, What is the top priority within the limitations of the money available?

Mr. HATHAWAY. Yes.

Dr. HARMON. That is almost like seeing six holes in the dike and you only have five fingers.

It comes to me that-well, it is hard to say. I can speak of priority and think of another one immediately. One priority that we have to begin thinking about, even before we implement any of these programs. is the development and training of personnel to be involved in these programs.

The programs can't support themselves without adequate personnel. At this point, as the chairman agrees, the matter of training of personnel is not even in the bill.

Secondly, in terms of the early discovery, the early diagnosis, and the early treatment of these children before their delinquency becomes so hard set that it takes obviously much more to help the youngster is extremely important.

Possibly some of the aspects of the bill that speaks of the coordination, of the getting together of community services, both with local community agencies and with State planning authorities, would be extremely important. This is in the bill.

I can see this as a meritorious part of it. The innovative aspects of rehabilitation, such as the programs that both Dr. Herman and Mr. Parrish represent, are extremely important, although there are many things necessary to aid and abet the 1961 legislation in terms of what is an able and effective demonstration program.

There are many programs that are written skillfully by persons who have the expertise, with the proper words, that please the authorities who provide the funds.

But many of these programs and projects are ineffective. So there needs to be careful thought in terms of this total apparatus of screening and approving certain projects.

I don't know if I have answered your question, but those are a few prospects.

Mr. PARRISH. Several programs have had to do with rehabilitation in the 3 years' demonstration that we have had. It seems to me our experience has underscored the emphasis in section 2.C. which talks about the involvement of youth, giving them meaningful opportunities to be engaged in designing and programing.

It seems to me as we talk about prevention, the whole business of involving youth, letting them spell out what some of the problems are, and maybe getting some ideas from them as to how to best go about answering some of these problems, not only is from the firsthand source, but it also lets them know that some of their thinking counts. It gives them a stake. So you both prevent the arise of the delinquency, while at the same time preparing these youngsters to take a meaningful place in our society.

Dr. HERMAN. Again, it is so difficult to try to suggest priorities in such a complex field.

However, I think my own biases would lead me in the direction of much more effort, a further demonstration, a further innovation, a further research and evaluation of beginning efforts.

The reason I say that is that I think there is just a lot that we don't know as much as we would like to know. The injection of $25 million or $125 million is not necessarily going to produce useful results unless we have reason to believe it is in a useful direction.

I think thus far we have some important leads. For instance, I do think there is strong reason to believe, if not to know, that communitybased treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation is probably the direction in which we ought to move.

I think there are strong reasons to believe that the nonidentification of delinquents as delinquents is probably a useful way to go. I think we have strong reason to believe that there are ways in which the community, meaning parents and other members of the community, can be helped to handle delinquent acts away from the official ways, outside of the officials assistance.

I think they are having some interesting efforts in this direction. One I am thinking of is out in California.

I guess in answer to your question, sir, I would feel that certainly the programs that have proven themselves need to be supported and expanded.

However, as distressing as it may sound, in spite of all the money that has been spent on demonstration and research, we need more.

The reason we need more is not to support universities, but because of the fact that only through competent work will we begin to make some of the breakthroughs that I feel we need.

Miss PHARIS. To answer your question, I have to disagree with just about everybody here. I don't think you can isolate and say that research is necessary more so than dealing with the problem at hand. Nor do I say you can deal with that child out there on the street and not worry so much about research.

What I am trying to say is that people are complex and youth in their confusion are more complex. I think, when you are dealing with a complex problem, you are going to have to hit it at all angles and sort of peel away at it.

I would suggest that an intense program, with research, with prevention, and with understanding of that child, dealing with it, should be designed. I think it has been designed.

I look at my own program that I am involved in, and I see juvenile delinquents in it as staff members, learning. I see juvenile delinquents coming to it, potential, if you want to categorize people, potential juvenile delinquents, who say, "Gee, this is better than," and involving themselves. So you are preventing.