My complaint about them is that they don't yell and cry out loud enough.

Mrs. MINK. Well, on that point, supposing you found someone of this description, who was keenly interested in the problem and was an excellent juvenile judge, and if he did scream and yell and holler and get people aware of the problem, what kind of a proposal would you envision that he would recommend to his community, and what would be the dollar figure that such a system would cost that boy?

Judge BAZELON. I don't have that. I am sorry. I don't think anybody has that. Maybe these gentlemen do. These gentlemen live much closer to the problem than I do. I am in the apppellate court, and the juvenile courts are only a very small part of our jurisdiction, but I have an interest in this problem and I have been interested generally in the problem of mental health.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Judge Bazelon, I don't want to belabor the point, but think that the answer to the young lady's question and your own statement that the judges don't yell loud enough--it is entirely possible that the Supreme Court may very well do the yelling for them very shortly because if the decision follows the lines we have talked about here, every community in this country is going to be jarred right into the realization that they have got a crisis on their hands and have to do that, quickly or otherwise.

Judge BAZELON. I don't follow that.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Well, if the court rules that the local communities are not fulfilling their pledge of giving a youngster adequate rehabilitative care

Judge BAZELON. I don't understand that that is involved in the Gault case. It is there indirectly, but, as I understand the Gault case, the Goult case simply is: Were the rights, the procedural rights, afforded at the hearing did the procedure comport with due process? And the second question: Do they have to?

Mr. PUCINSKI. But I think it goes even a step further, if you will forgive me. I think that when we study how this whole system of juvenile courts evolved-as you know, it started in our own city in 1900 it will raise an even greater problem. The first such court in this country was in Cook County. We agreed, or I should say the judges agreed, to take away the constitutional rights of due process in return for an adequate program of care. And society accepted that concept. Now that whole concept is being challenged, simply because society is not keeping its share of the bargain and providing these youngsters with the care and rehabilitative facilities. And the Gault case only proves that here is a youngster who has been detained for 6 years. And I am not aware of any showing that anything has happened to him other than, for the most part, custodial care. This is, I think, what the heart of the issue is going to be, whether or not communites can keep their bargain. If they can't, I don't know what the court is going to do. But I think the communities will have to show that when they take away a youngster's constitutional right of due process, they must be prepared to give them something in return.

And as I said earlier, community after community in this country at this juncture is unable to give him something in return. And I think that is really the issue that is involved.

Judge BAZELON. I think we understand each other. What you are saying, which I would agree with, is that this is going to bring us one great big step closer to the real problem.

Mr. PUCINSKI. It will put it right in our lap.

I am just going to ask you one question, and then I may have to run. My good friend from Detroit painted a rather grim picture of the situation in the District. I wonder if you can tell us very briefly. Judge: What do you have now in the District to view as the problem. and what do you think you would need, to come close to the model plan that you discussed? What facilities do we now have in the District for dealing with juvenile offenders?

Judge BAZELON. What kind of system? We have the National Training School. We have the Receiving Home.

Mr. PUCINSKI. But the National Training School takes them away from the District and from the whole country.

Judge BAZELON. Not from the whole country, but more than the District I guess. But in any event, for instance a receiving home. Delinquent children and dependent children, as I understand it, are lumped together.

Up until recently, and maybe even now, there hasn't even been a psychiatrist or a psychologist on call. I don't know how many hundreds of disturbed kids there are.

I don't think that getting that kind of help is going to solve the problem. But it is humane, and it is necessary as a first step. You are not going to solve this problem simply by the kind of care they need just for their existence. But you have got to provide that first. And humaneness requires that you do it.

And what I am suggesting is that we haven't even started to crawl in the direction of a program.

I don't think that the District of Columbia, so far as I am advised-and I must remind you that I am not a great expert in this field but from what information I can give, the District of Columbia isn't much better and isn't much worse.

Now, gentlemen, the gentleman from Detroit may have a better program in Detroit than we have had in the District of Columbia, but I am not advised that that is so.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Judge, the testimony that we have had before this committee clearly shows that there is really no community-I haven't seen a scintilla of evidence before the committee that any community of this country is really prepared-any major community, any community of larger size. There may be some small communities that do a good job. I don't know.

But we haven't any evidence that any community here in this country is capable of dealing with the enormity of the problem. They are all short of funds, short of personnel, short of programs, short of facilities.

Judge BAZELON. And brains.

Mr. POCINSKI. And that is what this legislation is trying to plug up. And the only criticism that we have here is that it is not enough.

But I might just conclude with this statement. You have shown us, on the basis of your expert experience, how this problem over

laps the various jurisdictions. This is not just a problem of a juvenile judge, or a juvenile court judge, or a school or a detention home. And, Judge, I would like to tell you that this subcommittee, the members of this subcommittee, have an opportunity to make a tremendous contribution.

There are three bills before this subcommittee that compliment each other, and if enacted could make the first meaningful contribution. We have the Vocational Education Act. We have the Juvenile Delinquency Act. And we have the Handicapped Children's Act, which includes retarded children. And I think that if we look at these three bills, as a package, and see how they complement each other, and are successful in getting them through the Congress, we may then make a significant contribution toward this problem. Because you have shown how the problems treated overlap the specific boundaries outlined in each of these bills.

Judge BAZELON. There are many, many fronts, so many fronts to cover that it sometimes seems very discouraging. But we have to start some place and the discouraging part is that no matter where you start you are not going to see the results very soon. It takes a great deal of patience.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am most grateful to you for taking time out from your very busy schedule. And because we have such a high regard for your good judgment, we know that this testimony will go a long way in helping us to better understand the bill and the need for it. Judge BAZELON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much.

Now, our next witnesses we will ask to come up to the table together, and I am going to ask some of my colleagues to introduce these gentlemen. Judge Lincoln will be introduced by Mr. Ford and Mr. O'Hara, and I am delighted to see with us today a very distinguished Member of the Congress, Congressman Vanik of Ohio, who will introduce Judge Whitlach. Also I wonder if Mr. Lumbard would join the panel, and I will introduce Mr. Lumbard.

Mr. Ford.

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real pleasure to have our own juvenile court judge. However, I am not from Detroit. I am from Wayne County, and he serves in Wayne County. I am his constituent although he is not mine. I did vote for you, Judge, and I hope you remember that when I talk to friends in my district.

I have known Judge Lincoln ever since I started practicing law. He has been very active in our State. He is not a newcomer to Washington. I believe that he had part of his education here at Georgetown when he was here with a great Michiganite, Frank Murphy, and he came back again with another great Michiganite, Senator Blair Moody, for a period of time and returned to Michigan after Senator Moody's untimely death. In Michigan he became involved in the politics of the great city of Detroit. He has been actively involved with the problems of juveniles ever since I have known him, and that goes back to before he was a judge.

It is hard to pick up a newspaper in Detroit without finding him directly or indirectly complaining about the problem. Unfortunately, we have so many other problems these days that he is not always heard.

80-799-67-26

I hope that after his testimony today they will hear him back in our State, and I am very proud to be able to welcome him to this committee. Mr. O'HARA. Will the gentleman yield for a moment before he does that?

Mr. FORD. I wanted to yield to Congressman O'Hara who has even more in common with the judge. They went to the same little law school, the University of Michigan.

Mr. O'HARA. His real distinction, though, is that he is a former resident of my former congressional district. That may seem like a tenuous relationship, but it is one that we both feel and we frequently discuss problems of that area in which he has deep roots.

As a matter of fact, his father along with Frank Murphy, and I am sure my friends on this side of the committee will realize the importance of this, were the last two Democrats elected from Huron County, Mich., until I was elected from a congressional district which included that county. That was in 1896, wasn't it?

Judge LINCOLN. Actually my grandparent and Frank Murphy's father, and it was 1884 and after they got through no Democrat was elected for 80 years.

Mr. O'HARA. I think that that is a good enough relationship and I want to simply reemphasize that Judge Lincoln has done a tremendous job in not only being a good juvenile court judge, but in bringing to the attention of the people of Michigan, the problems of juvenile delinquents and wards of the juvenile court. I think he has done more than any other man in recent years to make this a matter of public concern. I think that is why it is so important he is here today.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Very good. We are very happy to have you, Judge Lincoln. I wonder if I could call upon our colleague from Ohic, Mr. Vanik, a very distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, to introduce Judge Whitlatch.

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to present Judge Walter Whitlatch of the juvenile court of Cuyahoga County. As far back as I can recall in my community Judge Whitlatch has been associated and concerned gravely with the problems of the young people.

Prior to being elected to the juvenile court he was its principal administrator. I think he has given all of his adult years to this problem and we consider Judge Whitlatch one of the great experts in this area. He is at the present time president of the Ohio Juvenile Court Judges Association and I understand he is vice chairman of the National Association of Juvenile Court Judges.

In my community we are extremely concerned with this legislation and its impact and its need. A greater and greater percentage of the crime and problem in the community is resulting from the juvenile sector. Just a few weeks ago there were a number of juveniles who apparently set fire to a schoolhouse, and cost the community almost

$300,000 in damage, in one single act. As I understand it this was an act perpetrated by youngsters between the ages of 12 and 17.

We are very, very gravely concerned with the effects that the lack of adequate care, and control, and custody, and retraining, and rehabilitation of this particular group of young people have upon the entire community.

I am solidly behind the objectives of the legislation which is before this committee and at a later time I would like to file a statement in support. At this time I know that your committee will be very pleased and informed with the statement that Judge Whitlatch will present.

Thank you.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much, Congressman Vanik.

I might add that both of our witnesses, Judge Whitlatch and Judge Lincoln, are members of the executive board of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. We had wanted to get testimony from the juvenile court judges because they are the people who very often are most closely related to the enormity of the problem and have to make those agonizing decisions every day as to what to do with youngsters that need help.

Our third witness on the panel is Mr. Eliot H. Lumbard, who is from New York City. He is a trustee and former vice president, former acting Big Brother of the Big Brothers, Inc., of New York. He is also a member of the law firm of Townsend & Lewis, of New York City,

Mr. Carey and Mr. Scheuer are tied up in other committee meetings and couldn't be here this afternoon, but they asked me to extend their regards to you. Of course they will want to hear some of your views on this legislation.

Gentlemen, both of you have prepared statements. Mr. Lumbard does not. Your statements will go in the record at this point in their entirety, including the exhibits that you have appended to your statements, and if you wish we may start with Judge Lincoln in summarizing your statement as you wish, Judge, and then we will proceed with some questioning.

(The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT BY JAMES H. LINCOLN, JUDGE OF PROBATE, JUVENILE DIVISION, WAYNE COUNTY, MICH.

This statement is being made in behalf of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. It is a statement implementing the purpose of the official position adopted by the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges at their annual convention in 1965. (See attached Resolution XVI 1965)

Honorable Chairman Pucinski and members of this honorable committee, my appearance here today is to state as forcefully as I can the position of the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges.

I speak for an organization that is nationwide in scope and whose members have as much day to day working knowledge concerning the problems of delinquency as any organization in the nation.

I speak for the group that is on the firing line.