I see myself doing research. I see walking into a room like this, sitting here and being involved, which I would have never had the opportunity to do if I was not in the program.

So I see a total involvement. I see research being done, and I see prevention. I see understanding in dealing with that youth.

Mr. HATHAWAY. So you do not think we should narrow the scope? Miss PHARIS. I don't see how you can be effective and do it. While you are researching, you are going to have 50 million youth out there messing around, and while you are dealing with the youth out there messing around, you are not going to know how to deal with them because you haven't done any research. They go hand in hand.

I don't see how you can separate them. You have to have the people who have had the know-how and who have previously engaged in working with people and have had the research, if by being a juvenile delinquent they have had the research, out there dealing with them, and at the same time you have to get other people ready for when that individual moves to move right in and take his place.

Mr. HATHAWAY. In your program, are parents involved?
Miss PHARIS. Yes.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Do they help to teach in the program or what do they do?

Miss PHARIS. They teach us by sitting there and opening their mouths. One thing you learn is you can learn from anybody. If it is a 5-year-old girl that walks in and says, "Listen," you can listen and learn.

In our meetings, that is where I learn the most. I was walking down the street and I got very tight with the adults in the community by the summer planning program. The youths said, "This will give us a chance to find out what the community wants." They gave us that chance. As we walked around and knocked on doors and held meetings, we met a lot of the people in the community.

One of them walked up to me the other day and said, "Listen, are you coming to the education meeting?" I said, "Yes. When is it, and where is it?"

I walked in and there were youth there. Of course, there were children of the adults who were there. They had a gripe about a particular school. They called in another assistant director of the model schools and we sat around there and talked and exchanged ideas, on how the adults feel, what should be going on, what they want their child to learn, and how the youth feel about how they like to feel walking into the school, not as though it is some kind of gold pedestal but a part of that school.

So we are giving and taking in this sort of an affair.

Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you very much, all of you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Dr. Harmon, I am grateful to you and the other witnesses.

In summing up your testimony, I think all of you have made one point very clear, that we have been experimenting and researching now for many, many years, long before the 1961 Juvenile Act. We had substantial research going on in the field of antisocial behavior. I am inclined to agree with my colleague from California, that we are now ready to move, and I am sure that if the wherewithal

becomes available the local communities can come up with some meaningful, time-tested and time-proven programs and start making a contribution.

I was happy to hear Dr. Harmon take issue with the gentleman from New York, Mr. Beck, that we do not want to get ourselves in the posture where we spend all of our money for brick and mortar. Of course we don't.

This is why this bill is written the way it is, to provide for research but at the same time, when we listen to people like you who come in here from the hustlings, who tell us the great need for decent facilities with which to carry on your work, it is impressive.

I find a great deal of comfort in your testimony today. I am certainly going to apprise our chairman of the excellent contributions you have made here, from the very realistic and practical standpoint.

There is an old saying around here that the best way to kill a program is to study it to death. I don't think that is what we want to do with this program.

I am particularly pleased that you captured the full meaning of the warning that I issued here today, that if, indeed, the Supreme Court hands down a decision in the Gault case, as one who reasonably has a right to suspect they will in view of similar decisions, I would like to suggest to my colleagues that the clamor all over America for assistance under this act will be so great that the initial $25 million would just get lost in the shuffle.

If indeed the Supreme Court does address itself to this problem, I would think that the local communities will have no alternative but to take constructive action. They will have to assure the courts that they have the facilities to give youngsters the kind of meaningful relief in terms of diagnosis and rehabilitative programs that would justify this youngster waiving his constitutional rights to due process.

If a local community cannot show that they indeed have the facilities to give this youngster the kind of care he needs in return for his willingness to waive that due process, then I am afraid the courts will take the posture that due process will have to prevail.

I think the chaos that will ensue is beyond description. I am not suggesting that the courts should not address itself to this program, not at all. I am suggesting that all levels of government, Federal, State, county, local, and the private sector, start looking down range and see the problem they will be confronted with in a very short time and start cleaning their house right now.

I agree with my colleague from California that we do have the knowledge, we do have the know-how. I do not think there is a community in America that could not start tomorrow on a very effective program of antijuvenile delinquency if they had the wherewithal. As some witness said earlier in the hearings, New York alone could take the full $25 million and put it to good and meaningful use. So your testimony was extremely valuable this morning.

Mr. Parrish, I am grateful to you for bringing us this excellent panel of young people, giving us an insight of the day-to-day problems that you have.

Dr. Herman, I am grateful to you for taking time out from your busy and responsible schedule.

80-799-67- 20

This will conclude our hearings for this week. We will resume our deliberations next Wednesday with the testimony from the U.S. Attorney General, Mr. Ramsey Clark. I am going to be particularly anxious to see and hear the Attorney General's reaction to some of the statements made today in terms of the prospects of the Gault decision. Obviously, I think we better crank up right now to face the consequences of that decision.

The committee will be in recess.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:45 a.m., Wednesday, May 10, 1967.)

THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT

OF 1967

WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1967

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

GENERAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn Building, Hon. Roman C. Pucinski (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Pucinski, Brademas, Carey, Ford, Meeds, Scheuer, O'Hara, Hawkins, Gibbons, Hathaway, Mink, Quie, Goodell, Scherle, Dellenback, and Eshleman.

Present also: Margaret B. Sugg, director, and Mattie Maynard, clerk.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The subcommittee will come to order.

We are today starting the fourth day of hearings on the administration's proposal to strengthen the Nation's programs to deal with juvenile delinquency.

The hearings thus far have clearly demonstrated, in my judgment, that unless this legislation is enacted, unless local communities are given some meaningful assistance in strengthening their programs and facilities to deal effectively with youthful offenders, this Nation is faced with a crisis of major proportions in the field of juvenile delinquency.

I believe that we must consider the pending Supreme Court decision in the case of Gerald Gault, the Arizona youth who contends that he was denied his constitutional right to due process of law when he was taken into custody by juvenile authorities 6 years ago for making lewd telephone calls.

If the Supreme Court should hold with young Gault, the decision could affect treatment of juvenile offenders throughout America, and this legislation then becomes of paramount importance in helping local communities to meet this problem.

We are fortunate this morning to have with us Attorney General Ramsey Clark and James Vorenberg, Executive Director of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, whose report "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society" was recently issued.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Will you proceed, Mr. Attorney General?

STATEMENT OF HON. RAMSEY CLARK, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. CLARK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The statement of Attorney General Clark follows:)

STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL RAMSEY CLARK

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Disraeli once said "The youth of a nation are the trustees of posterity”. Of this, there can be no question. Our children are our future.

To enhance that future, President Johnson on February 8 sent to the Congress his message on the welfare of children. Among its recommendations is the Juvenile Delinquency Act of 1967, the subject of your attention this morning. Administration of the Act will be primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, who testified on the measure in detail before the Subcommittee last week.

Let me focus on the relationship between this legislation and the Administration's proposed Safe Streets and Crime Control Act.

The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act is aimed at problem youths, whether determined to be delinquent or not, and whether or not they have been the subject of police referral or judicial determination. It provides for grants to support the preparation of comprehensive state or community plans relating to juvenile delinquency; grants to public agencies for treatment and rehabilitation of delinquent youths committed to the control or supervision of law enforcement agencies, courts, or correctional institutions; and grants to public agencies and non-profit organizations for treatment or rehabilitation services for delinquent youth or youths in danger of becoming delinquent.

The Crime Control Act is focused on law enforcement and criminal justice. It would authorize grants for comprehensive planning and plan implementation to meet state and local needs in police, corrections, courts and prosecution.

In order to avoid possible overlap of grants, the legislation before the Subcommittee requires that the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare consult with the Attorney General on matters of policy and general administration in connection with 90% planning grants and in connection with 75% grants for special diagnostic treatment or rehabilitation services for youth. In addition, the Attorney General must concur in grants which provide for support for diagnostic treatment and rehabilitation of youths who have been determined to be delinquent by courts, police departments or other correctional, law enforcement, or welfare agencies.

Sections 403 and 404 of the Crime Control Act provide further coordinative potential affording a full opportunity for the two Departments to proceed simultaneously and effectively in the same direction toward the same goal.

We must begin with youth. They are our future, our most precious resource, and our most lawless citizens.

We are failing our children. While arrests of adults declined one per cent in 1966, arrests of juveniles increased nine per cent. Youths between 11 and 17. comprising 13 per cent of the population, were convicted of 50 per cent of all burglaries, larcenies and car thefts. Half of all crime against property were committed by minors. Of all ages from cradle to grave, our 15-year-olds are arrested most frequently, and the rate drops at every older year.

Today we know four of five felons were convicted of misdemeanors, generally as youths, before committing their more serious crimes. We know most of this could have been prevented. We know four of five juvenile courts have no psychologist or psychiatrist available, and one-third have no probation officer or case worker. Of the 400,000 youths in jails last year, 100,000 were imprisoned with hardened criminals.

From such disturbing statistics it must be clear that strong affirmative action is needed now. We have an immense task and an immense opportunity.

As we proceed, our commitment must be firm and, as President Johnson has said, "Our goal must be clear-to give every child the chance to fulfill his promise".

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Brademas?

Mr. BRADEMAS. It seems to me in this matter we should start at the very early years. No one wants to put a sign on anyone saying, “You are a potential criminal," but we can, through many other techniques.