such as the techniques we begin to use in connection with the dropouts in school, begin to prevent these criminal tendencies by working with the child and working with the family.

This to me seems to be a much more humanitarian way of solving the problem, rather than having to first incarcerate the child or first bring him under the gun, so to speak, of a juvenile court, before society really takes a deep interest in his problem.

I would like to have some response to that, sir.

Mr. CLARK. Well, let me say that I would certainly share your hope that we can work with those people at a very early age, that we can at least attempt to identify them and know who they are, and that we can devise ways of working at them.

I would add to your thought that I believe this is the more humanitarian way by saying that it is also the best way to protect society, because for better or for worse, these people are going to be wtih us, and we had better get them straightened out.

It is our best chance to protect ourselves, because we know that 99 percent of the people that go to jail are going to be at large some day, and we hope we have done something with them before they come at large again, and we can help them go straight.

Within what you said there may be the idea that we can continue to identify and segregate these people at an early time. I think our experience to date shows that that has high risks in it, too, that that very fact has an effect that makes it much more difficult for these young people, and we ought to try to work with them at their precrime period, you might say, in a way that would bring them into the full social life that the other youths in the area have for them, and not earmark them, not identify them, so that they can have a full opportunity.

Mr. BRADEMAS. We would want to work with them as we do any other educational or social problem, not by withdrawing them from participation in the schools and the playgrounds and the social activities, but by including them in a more constructive way in those areas.

That seems to me to be the way to get at the problem, but we just fail to recognize that the child having problems in the kindergarten, in the first, second, or third grades, is the same child that is going to be facing a judge or a counselor or an arresting officer 10 years later.

That child, if you go back and face his history, has had trouble all through school, has had trouble in his family, and these little tendencies that finally blow up are something easily identifiable way back in the early ages.

I realize that we always as lawyers have had the attitude that crime was something that was extremely repulsive, that these people were dirty and unwashed people, and that we really could not touch them, and that we sort of brought them into jail and brought them into criminal courts, but that is just an old theory. It does not work. And we are saying every day that it is working less and less.

I wonder, now that we have the reporter here, if you could go back and give those statistics about the number of people in crime at an early age, the ones that you gave a minute ago.

Mr. CLARK. Yes. We think we know that half of all crimes against property are committed by minors, people that have not reached adulthood.

We think we know that a very substantial part of all crimes against persons are committed by minors.

We think that that 13 percent of the population that is between 11 and 17 commits half-13 percent of the people, and these are really kids, commits half of these crimes burglary, larceny, car theft.

We think on pretty hard statistics that of 500,000, roughly-there are more than that-car thefts in 1965, 64 percent were committed by people under 18, and that 88 percent were committed by people under 25.

Arrest statistics are the most reliable statistics we have, because that is at least reporting on what they themselves do. You don't have to report on whether somebody else reports something to them.

But of all ages, from the cradle to the grave, the most frequent arrests in proportion to the total population is age 15, and it declines a little bit every year from there on up.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Would you touch on that problem about recidivism in the early years?

Mr. CLARK. Yes. Recidivism is highest among our youth. In other words, crime repetition is higher among young people than it is among adults, and we believe that probably 4 out of 5-some surveys indicate 3 out of 4, but the range is very, very high, tragically high-between 3 out of 4 and 4 out of 5 persons convicted of felonies, our most serious crime, were convicted at an earlier age, usually as youths, of a misdemeanor, and there we had an opportunity

Of course, we had the best opportunity before that. It was not rehabilitation before that; it was habilitation, you might say, but there at least we had our first chance at rehabilitation, and we did not do very much with it.

We know, for instance that 83 percent of the juvenile courts in the country have no regular access to psychologist or psychiatrist help. We know that one-third don't have any caseworkers, any probation officers, to help them. They are just there all by themselves. They pass sentence, and that is it.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Scherle?

For the members who have just come in that were not here earlier this morning, may I remind the committee that the Attorney General has a very important meeting at midmorning and I had promised him yesterday that we would try to get him out as close to 10 o'clock as possible.

So could we please keep that in mind in our questions. I know that we can go all morning with the Attorney General, because of his excellent background in the understanding of his problem, but I do want to try to keep my commitment, if I may, with the cooperation of the committee.

Mr. Scherle?

Mr. SCHERLE. Just a few questions.

Mr. Clark, it is a pleasure to have you here this morning. I wish we had more time, because I do know that you have national background for the many questions that this committee would like to ask you. However, I will ask only one or two.

Mr. first question is this: Did the States request this type of legislation, or is the contents of this bill something that the Federal Government feels they should offer to the States?

Mr. CLARK. I think the whole truth is that it is both. I think there is a clear awareness in State and local government that there is a great

need to devote more resources and devote them more widely to youth problems. I think the Federal Government is aware of it.

I think the State and local governments seek Federal help in this area. We certainly know that is more true in our particular area of crime control, our experience under the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, and our experience with State and local government in connection with the Crime Control Act.

Mr. SCHERLE. We had very fine testimony last week by Dr. Harmon of Kentucky. He recommends a change in the present bill as it now stands and would give more authority to the States or else set up a State agency, rather than deal directly from the Federal Government to the local law enforcement agencies.

Now, what is your feeling on that?

Mr. CLARK. My feeling, in the area in which the Department of Justice is most involved, which concerns, you might say, your law enforcement personnel, your corrections personnel, your court personnel, is that the State, while there is a great need for its comprehensive planning, for its clear commitment, and for its reinforcement of local efforts, really cannot hope to provide a full review for all of the agencies.

In law enforcement alone, for instance, there are 40,000 police jurisdictions in the country. The typical State has not had any real relationship with those police jurisdictions. It has not given them any final assistance. It has not given them any guidance. It is really not familiar, has no personnel familiar with their operations or their problems.

To now try to bring the State into the supervision of all of that would delay the implementation and effectiveness of the act for a long time, I am afraid.

Mr. SCHERLE. In your prepared statement you testify that most of the crimes committed are burglary, arson, and car thefts. Is this not a normal responsibility for the local law enforcement officers to handle?

Perhaps the Federal Government should sit in a position of recommendation, rather than make 90 percent of these funds available to the local State law enforcement agencies, for fear that they may be more interested in the money than they are the information that you feel you can provide.

Mr. CLARK. I am not sure I followed your train of thought. I might have lost the particular focus of your question.

Mr. SCHERLE. I really had two questions there.

First of all, if the main acts of crime are at age 15 in burglary, arson, and car thefts, this seems like a common responsibility that should take place on the local and State enforcement level.

What could you offer the States, other than what they now have, if this is the highest influx of crime?

Mr. CLARK. Well, under this program we would offer them a really high priority incentive to engage in comprehensive planning, in the 90percent grants.

We think they have tended to be so busy they have tended to retain the old ways and techniques, that there has been inadequate comprehensive planning, and that that is of very high priority.

The broadest and most comprehensive survey of this problem has been completed by the National Crime Commission-Mr. Vorenberg

is here and will testify later-that this combination of Federal funds and experience and guidance can provide new planning and comprehensive planning opportunities under this act that will make a tremendous difference.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Eshleman?

Mr. ESHLEMAN. One quick question, if I may.

What percentage of our teenagers nationwide ever get into serious trouble with the law? Is that less than 5 percent?

Mr. CLARK. I wish we knew.

Mr. ESHLEMAN. Is there no measurement of that?

Mr. CLARK. Well, there are a lot of measurements, but I am not sure how accurate they are. That is a matter of great concern to me.

I found a few years ago I was going around saying it was about 3 percent. I know the Bureau has a statistic that has been used rather broadly that says one out of nine under 18 will go before a juvenile court, one out of six boys.

They have got a broad experience. That must be based on a broad statistical survey. But I don't think we know. I think statistics are one of our really great problems in crime control.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Brademas?

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am not going to take the time to ask the Attorney General any questions, but only to make one observation, and then if I may I will yield to Mr. Carey.

I just want to say, Mr. Clark, as one member of this committee, how enormously I have been impressed by the statements you have made and the positions you have taken on the variety of issues with which you have had to deal in your new position.

You greatly encourage me in respect of continued first-class leadership in the Department of Justice.

I want to yield to Mr. Carey.

Mr. CAREY. I would concur in the statement just made by my colleague from Indiana, General Clark, and indicate that I think it is most helpful to us to have you at this point in our hearings, so that we can gain some idea of how your Department intends to work with the administering agency in this bill to truly direct it and help it come to the law enforcement level with all the aid and assistance possible.

To what extent does this bill represent the considered judgment of law enforcement agencies, in particular county district attorneys and prosecuting officers throughout the country, in these 40,000 jurisdietions, all of whom I believe run into the problems of court delays, backlogs, overfilled or overinhabited detention pens, and so forth?

Is this bill going to be sent down to them so that they can engage in the planning after the Crime Commission bill has passed, or would you say you have had the full benefit of their recommendations?

Is this the kind of bill that the district attorneys, such as Hogan Koota, want?

Mr. CLARK. Our communications with law enforcement have been more related to the Crime Control Act, which is closer to their direct responsibility, as it is ours, in connection with the act that we are discussing here this morning.

My judgment from that continuous communication is that there is no broad consensus, there has been no general conversation among

all of these people, that we are really only bringing that about now, with conferences and meetings and the work of the task forces in the Crime Commission and the efforts that we are making to prepare for implementation of the Crime Control Act, and the efforts I am sure Secretary Gardner is making to prepare for implementation of this act.

In my judgment, law enforcement recognizes clearly that youth is the heart of the crime problem, that if we can work effectively there, we can hopefully retire from the business with some sense of success in later years.

We need to work with youth before they go into crime, and we need to work with more resources, and more effectively.

I think you will find that law enforcement, when its attention is brought to bear on this part of the problem, will agree with that. Mr. CAREY. I agree, but the crime resources involved in this bill are in the area of OEO and so forth. This bill does not tend to go to that degree of precrime assistance.

I would hope that if we could do nothing more in this bill, we could zero in on those 15-year-olds who are committing most of the crimes, and today I would believe that at least in my experience, going through a contact with the law which is neither beneficial nor instructive their contact with the law I believe is that they are apprehended, they wait for trial of some kind, arraignment, and then they are released with a probation officer who already has 75 or more others of the same type.

So they learn first, the law is slow, tedious, and unavailing to them, and second, that there is no certainty of rehabilitation. So their contact with the law right now is in no way beneficial to them or to society. Is that not correct?

Mr. CLARK. No. I could not agree with that as a conclusion. I think there is some truth in it, but I think it overstates the case.

Mr. CAREY. Well, I want to find out if I do overstate the caseand I don't think, with all due regard to your knowledge and proficiency, here, General, we can find this out, at your level of law enforcement.

That is why I asked this question, because I believe, Mr. Chairman, that if we want the answers to these questions, we are going to have to talk to some county attorneys who are dealing with these people.

Mr. PUCINSKI. We not only have county attorneys, but we have juvenile court judges coming in, people who live with this problem day in and day out. They are the people who don't know where to send these youngsters. Those people are coming in.

Mr. CAREY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, General Clark.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Meeds?

Mr. MEEDS. I would like to take this opportunity also to welcome the Attorney General, and to compliment him for his work, as Mr. Brademas has stated, in a lot of other fields.

Mr. Attorney General, do you know, and is information available indicating how many States have any statewide or central agency planning or directing a statewide attack upon the problem of juvenile delinquency, such as planning and carrying out this plan, or rehabilitation on a statewide level?