I wonder, based on your broad experience, do you think this is possible?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It certainly is and when you have these kind of places there should be special classes for those.

I am a "big brother" being a dad to some kid without a dad. There are 13 children living with a grandmother. Their mother works until very late and they have no one to give them a chance.

They are bad students mostly, they have no one to love them. The great deterrent to juvenile delinquency is the home. We have to have someplace to take care of these people and inculcate in their mind good citizenship.

To make your life important you have to be something so that this great Nation offers you an opportunity if you have the will to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Mr. GIBBONS. I like your quote of Benjamin Franklin, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." I think we place too much emphasis on cure and not on prevention.

I notice in your statement you talk about the problem of mixing children in these institutions, these correction institutions, the young impressionable, unloved, unwanted child in many cases being thrown with hardened criminals. Could you tell me what do you think we ought to do about this?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think there should be segregation in our institutions. Like a little kid thrown in after his first act with kids of 15 or 20. We have a place called Teko for kids who have committed more than four or five crimes, they are really tough kids, and we put them in a place called Teko, some have committed 10, 15, or 20 criminal acts. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you think the Government can play a part before these things happen?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think it is worth a try; we have not tried strengthening the families in these homes before. Many of these boys and girls who become delinquent, it is because they have nothing to do and have no guidance. Some parents have no guidance and some of them need more guidance than the youngsters.

Mr. GIBBONS. About all they know about raising children is the mistakes they learned from their own families.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is right.

Mr. GIBBONS. Do you have any suggestions about strengthening these families?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. We can find the big families and have people go out and give them a program and follow up on it. There must be people who care for people, not just somebody from a university with a salary. There must be people who love people that can recognize the place where they grew up.

Mr. GIBBONS. I want to find out how Columbus is set up. I am from Tampa, Fla. Do you control the school system?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No, sir; but we have a wonderful school system. Mr. GIBBONS. Is this an independent school board or county government?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Independent.

Mr. GIBBONS. How about the welfare?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No, Franklin County Welfare Department, we have a great welfare department in the State of Ohio.

80-799-67-32

Mr. GIBBONS. Your problems is they are just dumped on you? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Yes, and the big trouble is we don't have the cooperation. Our police can arrest juveniles, but the juvenile court is so crowded a lot of these kids needing attention are turned loose. Mr. GIBBONS. Is the juvenile court under your jurisdiction? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No, sir; under the county.

Mr. GIBBONS. Your system is organized about like mine then. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. My brother is a Lutheran pastor in your city. Mr. GIBBONS. I notice you referred to the problem of the multiplicity of committees and routing of funds through various agencies. Are you suggesting that the best way to get funds in to help you solve the problem is straight from the Federal Government to you or straight from the State to you?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think the best way is to send it to the city after the city has proved its sincerity and willingness to work. Why go through the State then to the city? I have been up here to Washington a number of times to get an international airport. We are fighting all the time, and I think it should be judged on the integrity of and judgment of the city.

We can draw up a plan that will either convince the committee here in Washington or not convince them. I would like the shortcuts in the Federal Government.

Mr. GIBBONS. Have you ever tried to go to the State for assistance, the State legislature?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I have not personally.

Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Scherle?

Mr. SCHERLE. Good morning. We are happy to have you, Mr. Mayor. We are happy to have you here. I am from the State of Iowa. I have worked with both of these men and feel Ohio was quite fortunate to have men of this wonderful stature.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I, as a Democrat, agree and will say both have worked with us, they are interested in our State and our city and our government.

Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask you a question or two in regard to the State's responsibility in regard to law enforcement. Do you really feel that the money going from the Federal Government to the State would be a bottleneck in trying to evaluate programs that you feel could be handled from the local standpoint?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Why should it go to the State first? Mr. SCHERLE. You mentioned the fact that you have a fine educational system in the State of Ohio, do you feel there would be a difference in the educational system operated by the State and the lawenforcement problem operated through the Federal program?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. No, I don't think so, but I think the juvenile problem in any city is a personal problem; the city of Columbus and every city, I think, has to assume its own responsibility in that. We have the brainpower, the committees are set up to answer this problem in our city with help. I think all other cities must do the same thing.

The State of Ohio would have to have surveys of all cities. I think we can submit our case better than the State of Ohio. They could verify the problem or back us up in our demands after we prove ourselves to them, but I don't know that that is necessary. I just like to run my own city with my council.

Mr. SCHERLE. You like local control?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You bet.

Mr. SCHERLE. I noticed in the Sunday Star yesterday the headline in section B where "D.C. Moves To Form Delinquency Agency." They have done this because they feel that to handle this on the local level will require local development. They know the problem and can work with it. What do you feel the Federal Government could offer you other than the money, when they have the highest degree of crime right here in Washington?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think the biggest problem is to try to educate these parents. We must have close communication with the parents of these children causing this trouble. Also we must provide these places where you can take a boy or girl, such as one of these homes as recommended in this bill.

This is a good bill. Some things may have to come out but there are a lot of tremendous suggestions which will be a great help.

I just happen to think in my city we can answer our own problems on this.

Mr. SCHERLE. The reason I ask is that from the Legislative Reference Service I have here in front of me there are 20 Federal programs relating to juvenile delinquency. My question is: Why would another program be any more beneficial-I will mention just a few such as the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency, the Executive Office, OEO, Judicial Branch, Education and Welfare, Children's Bureau, and so on. Fifteen now.

There can't help but be duplication and overlapping now. What would one more agency do?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I think in my estimation they should coordinate those 15, find the duplication and cut out the duplication. I don't know any of these bills that will do what this new bill will do.

Mr. SCHERLE. When I sent the questions over there to LRS, my question was to send me the programs already covered in the Juvenile Delinquency Act since 1957. This is the answer I received.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I would like the answer to some of those; I have not seen any of these programs come forward to help my city. Mr. SCHERLE. They are there; I think it is a case of eligibility. I certainly appreciate your testimony; it has been an honor to listen to you.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you; it has been an honor to be here. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you again, sir.

Mr. Kenneth Polk, will you please come forward?

STATEMENT OF KENNETH POLK, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, LANE COUNTY YOUTH STUDY BOARD, EUGENE, OREG.

Mr. GIBBONS. We welcome you this morning, Mr. Polk. We understand you are a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, and you have quite a reputation as a researcher in this field.

One of your fields of expertise is in the rural youth, certainly one of the areas this committee tends to overlook from time to time.

We welcome you this morning, and you may proceed as you wish. Mr. POLK. This statement is in support of the proposed Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967.

The existing draft of the legislation points out two facts which are supported by the existing empirical data on juvenile delinquency. First, there is an alarming proportion of youth who are becoming involved in juvenile delinquency. This is a fact not only in the large cities but in other areas as well.

In Eugene, Oreg., a city of roughly 75,000, our information indicates that up to between 20 and 25 percent of our male youngsters in the various high schools will be referred to the juvenile court before their 18th birthday.

Second, this rise must be interpreted as an inability of the present control mechnisms to meet adequately the task of preventing and controlling delinquent behavior.

There appear to be five especially significant aspects of the proposed legislation:

(1) It serves to call attention to the problem of delinquency as one of the priority items for national attention. It indicates clearly that the reduction of juvenile delinquency has an important place in our conception of what constitutes a healthy society.

(2) This legislation calls for an examination of new methods and techniques for dealing with the problem of youthful misconduct. The inability of current institutions to control the rising rate of delinquency indicates by direct implication the need to experiment with alternative procedures. Only if we are willing to experiment with alternative methods are we going to have any chance of finding effective prevention and control techniques.

(3) The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 emphasizes the importance of community-centered programs. The existing evidence on juvenile delinquency emphasizes the importance of community experiences both in the development and maintenance and delinquency careers. It seems quite clear that the community will provide the battleground where delinquency must be controlled, not institutions isolated from the community both by their distance and the foreignness of their environments.

(4) The proposed bill makes explicit the need for coordination with other human service agencies in the community, especially those dealing with education and employment training. Such coordination is essential. Of particular significance will be the coordination developed between the educational and correctional systems. A pattern of school failure appears as a dominant theme in the life histories of many delinquents.

The correctional system, to put it in other words, often is charged with the care and treatment of casualties of a defective educational in stitution. Dealing with the youngster without somehow simultaneously coordinating efforts with the school system would yield, in all prob ability, little significant improvement in his behavior.

(5) This legislation calls for participation of youth in development and execution of program. All too often people exclaim about the "irresponsibility" of the youth of today, without realizing the youth have precious few opportunities to participate in a responsible and meaningful role in the community.

Youth participation, as proposed, would have positive benefit not only by bringing into the program the viewpoint of youth-that is.

by contributing the unique knowledge that you have about their situation and their problems-but it would also provide an arena for the development of youth responsibility. Unless youth have such potential sources for the development of responsibility, we should not be too surprised if their behavior is irresponsible.

There appear to be two primary problem areas in the proposed legislation. Firstly, there may not be enough of an emphasis on experimentation and evaluation. We need to be oriented to a search for solutions to this problem. How will we know if one or another of the programs developed as a result of this legislation is effective? We will know the impact of the program only if adequate data are available. Such data can exist only if moneys are available for careful evaluation. Without question, this job cannot be done with a mere 1-percent level of funding.

Instead, the programs should be viewed overall as experiments in dealing with the problem, and each dollar for program should be matched with a dollar for evaluation.

In making a decision in this matter, we must ask ourselves what is the purpose of the proposed program? If we are seeking answers to a pressing problem, is it not appropriate to ask if we are proceeding in a way which will give us answers to the questions we pose? Only if hard data are available will we be able to say that programs undertaken under this legislation have dealt effectively with the problem of delinquency. Obtaining that data is expensive, but without it, how will we know if we have answers when these programs are completed? Secondly, the legislation must be written so as to provide as table resource base for the planning and operation of prevention or control programs. Recent history with delinquency, education, and antipoverty legislation indicates the chaos that can be created in local communities, and in action programs, if stability cannot be provided. If a program is to be successful, the energies of the staff must be given to the task of planning the program, careful consideration of the necessary implementing steps, the problems that occur when the program is initiated, and difficulties that emerge as the program is carried out.

These tasks are not going to be dealt with sufficiently if the staff must be orienting themselves constantly to the shifting grant winds in Washington, wondering from year to year, month to month, how much money they will have and where it will come from.

Some stability might be obtained if (a) there is clear understanding of the legislative intent, and (b) the program were funded for the tot al project period, rather than on an annual basis.

We have only begun to see the emerging problems of juvenile delinquency in our society. The rise in rates of delinquency is being accompanied by the spread of juvenile misconduct into suburbia and into rural areas. We are beginning to discard some of our obsolete myths about the nature and character of delinquency. For example, in the work we have been doing recently in Oregon, we find that delinquency is just as often a problem of middle class as it is lower class youngsters. There is a need for adequate services to correspond to our developing ideas about delinquency. This legislation would be an important step in strengthening the ability of local communities to both prevent and control juvenile delinquency.