If I may point out one other additional fact of work I have done with the Crime Commission this summer, I have looked over the data on increases in delinquency, and over the past 5 years the rate of increase is twice as high in small cities as in large cities. We have been averaging about a 4.0-percent increase in cities of over 1 million, whereas cities between 10,000 and 50,000 population have been increas ing at a rate of about 6.2 percent a year.

There is a tremendous increase in the phenomenon in the outer areas of our Nation. This is not simply a problem of metropolitan America. Mr. GIBBONS. Certainly your testimony is a breath of fresh air here this morning. I see so many things in your statement I agree with I hardly know where to begin.

Let us say from the number of beer cans you see lying out around the road in the area I live in, I would say the juvenile delinquents in my area are on the increase. I applaud you for pointing out this is not only a problem of the ghetto and a problem of the slum, but a problem of all of our Nation.

I also applaud you for pointing out the necessity for beginning this process at an early age and tying in with the school system.

Could you elaborate on your statement on page 2, where you say, "A pattern of school failure appears as a dominant theme in the life histories of many delinquents."

This ties in with a piece of legislation from last year.

Mr. POLK. I am concerned with our educational system and its goals. I am not sure this is what you have in mind, but let me elaborate a little. For a large proportion of our youngsters, the educational system does not have any very meaningful goal. For the youngsters in the noncollege bound track, it is hard to justify what the diploma means. Many have a realistic understanding that getting a high school education does not mean very much.

The unemployment in the ghetto areas is just as high for those with diplomas as those dropping out. One thing which we have to have is an educational system offering youngsters some kind of good educational experience. That is part of it.

Also, the educational, the institution has a primary responsibility in the preparation for our youth for adulthood and it should be a major arena for the focusing of any major delinquency program.

Mr. GIBBONS. I have talked to many teachers about juvenile delinquents in the early grades, and they tell me those who have made a study of children passing through their schools say they can predict with reasonable accuracy those that are going to end up in trouble later on.

Have you had any experience in this field?

Mr. POLK. Yes, and I am not sure exactly what is going on. One of the things I see very clearly in our information is that the system begins to punish youngsters who misbehave and lean on them pretty hard. This system of leaning progressively pushes the youngster out. I have written a paper on juvenile delinquency and failure.

First, there is failure. Then a host of attitudes toward the youngster both by teachers and his peers, all of which pushes him out the system. I think this process of stigmatization is very important. I think many teachers recognize this and can see it happening early.

If funds were available and programs available, they could turn this sequence around. The system would have to have a program of educating youngsters. I am not sure all schools have that commitment. If they did, I think the school could turn this sequence around.

Mr. GIBBONS. You called for evaluation money on page 3 of your statement. You say for every dollar put in programs, we ought to have a dollar put in evaluation. This is something I have a little trouble understanding. Would you please elaborate on that?

Mr. POLK. Well, I really draw this by the statement in the legislation itself. If we think that present programs are failing and if we are concerned about the rise in the rate of delinquency, then it seems to me we are in a position where we are seeking solutions. How are we going to know if we have a solution? I don't think we will know if we have an answer to a problem unless we set out to study the program and analyze the effect the various programs have.

I would look at this legislation as a chance to gather some information. It seems to me that is one of the ways you can justify the Federal Government being involved in it. This is one of the areas where the Federal Government has a responsibility. My participation with actual problems is that unless you fund the evaluation of the problem, you cannot evaluate the effect of the program. How will you know 5 years from now-if this legislation is passed-5 years from now people will want to know the effect of the Juvenile Delinquency Act of 1967, people will want to know the answer.

Mr. GIBBONS. We have been putting money in this since 1961, I believe. What are your views as to the failure of our not getting that information out so far? Do you know what we have developed in that area?

Mr. POLK. You have to know the history, and I think you do, of the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency. In our own area, the Lane County youth project originally funded by the President's Committee, we started under the assumption we would have a year's planning and then a 3-year demonstration period. We were told for the major components of our program we had to go to other Federal agencies to put a program together; to the Office of Education for an education component, employment, and other Federal agencies, and what happened was they started piecing a program together and it was impossible to carry out a coherent evaluation plan, particularly when the funding was shifted to the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Our evaluation went out the window. We were told we were to carry out the evaluation for a year or two after the program. This is a formal type agreement, OEO said, your evaluation finishes at the same time of the program. How do you stop evaluation at the same time the program stops? The evaluation should go on to find out the effect.

What I am saying is there have been few Federal programs which gave funds just for demonstration, there are some, the Children's Bureau has supported some, these are relatively small in nature.

The Juvenile Delinquency Control Act was, over time, organized in such a way as to make it difficult to evaluate the programs.

Mr. GIBBONS. Perhaps it is the fault of this committee, because ever since this program has been in existence we have been the ones who have done the authorizing work on it. I appreciate your criticism.

Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to compliment you for your statement here today. I would like to follow up on the chairman's question and perhaps get some reaction or comments with respect to what you think has been ac complished under the old act which we passed here in 1961, which required the same sort of findings that you suggest here to justify the new bill we now have before this committee.

Mr. POLK. Well, the Juvenile Delinquency Control Act of 1961 I consider to be one of the most significant pieces of social legislation passed by Congress, and the most significant, previous legislation on juvenile delinquency. It set in motion a new philosophy of dealing with juvenile delinquency; namely, the community approach.

It asked what we can do if we organize the communities better. The projects set in motion by that act, mobilization of youth in particular, we have a dramatic effect on our view of the problem of juvenile delinquency. If we did nothing else, we got people to think of how the community could better deal with juvenile delinquency.

The second thing this act did was communicate what a complex task that was, that it is not a task for a few people sitting around a table. I think we have learned some things about getting people to get the job done.

The third thing is there are evaluation reports from projects undertaken by the Juvenile Delinquency Control Act which show some work, some don't, some might. A very effective kind of program the Office of Juvenile Delinquency sponsored was the new careers program at Harvard University. That is the most exciting program to come out of the field of juvenile delinquency in the past 30 years.

I think we accomplished a lot under that bill. We must remember that was funded at a very low level. If I remember the figure for the action part, it would run between about $7 million and $8 million a year which was not an awful lot of money to go to a number of different communities around the United States. I could be wrong on that figure, but I know it was not extensive.

Mrs. MINK. In a sense, what you are saying is although there might not have been a specific policy with reference to evaluation that the evaluation process was built into the program and we have been able to arrive at certain conclusions with regard to the funds that have been spent under the whole bill which was enacted in 1961.

Mr. POLK. Oh, yes.

Mrs. MINK. I didn't want to leave the impression before this committee and in the record that no evaluation had taken place.

Mr. POLK. No, certainly not. The evaluation there was much more extensive than under the Office of Economic Opportunity. If I remember the figures correctly, I saw a progress erosion from the original act now into this one and I wanted to emphasize the importance of going back to the Juvenile Delinquency Control Act.

Mrs. MINK. In terms of the legislation as it was continued and funded up to the end of this fiscal year, what would you say would be the major difference in legislative provisions with the old act and the one now before this committee?

Mr. POLK. The old act, if I remember it correctly, was not as specific on a number of mechanisms involved and the legislative intent was

not worded as carefully as it perhaps needed to be on what the community approach intent. I know those of us in communities were in real trouble starting about 1963 and 1964, because of some trouble that developed in Congress over the comprehensive community approach. Whether that was the appropriate approach, and planning was appropriate at that level. We got caught in a cross fire and it was a very uncomfortable position for us to be put in. We had been following what the administration office had been telling us to do.

This bill, I think, makes very clear the kind of community approaches that would be appropriate and I think by our experience and implication we would know what would be the intent of Congress at

this time.

I don't think we would make that mistake again.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Scherle.

Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Polk, it is a pleasure to have you here this morning. Before I begin, I would like to introduce you to Miss Wanda Anderson, who is representing Congressman John Dellenback's office this morning. The Congressman is back in the district, and I thought perhaps after the testimony you would like to meet Miss Anderson and perhaps go back to his office.

Mr. Polk, is it your impression that the functions handled by the Federal Government concerning the contents of this bill are in line with those you would write if you were writing the bill?

Mr. POLK. I am not exactly sure, because the legislation has not been firmly cast yet. I would do better in responding to your question if I knew exactly what form the bill would take. If the bill is to take the form of experimentation, if it is going to be that sort of approach, I would say without question I would like it in its present form.

I think that is a legitimate function of the Federal Government. Mr. SCHERLE. My reason for that question was, I would like to have entered into the record at this point a page from the Congressional Record of the House, dated March 21, 1967.

Congressman McDade and about 20 other Congressmen submitted testimony to the effect they were very critical of the Federal Government's policy and position in trying to fight crime.

I would like to quote to you at this time one or two paragraphs.

There are over 20 law enforcement or investigative agencies of the Federal Government, ranging from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Fish and Wildlife Service. At least eight separate Cabinet Departments and four other independent agencies are involved, in addition to the Executive Office of the President.

He continues:

There appears to be little system, little method, little order in the Federal Government's approach to crime. It is a crazy quilt of departments, bureaus, and agencies with competing responsibilities, duplicated staffing, poor communications, and self-defeating jealousies.

This is a very interesting point of testimony in the Congressional Record, and, Mr. Chairman, before I continued, I would like permission to enter this testimony in its complete form into the record this morning.

Mr. GIBBONS. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The excerpt referred to follows:)

[From the Congressional Record, Mar. 21, 1967]

Mr. McDADE. Mr. Speaker, on March 15, 20 of our colleagues joined with me in issuing a statement on the organzation of the crime-fighting apparatus of the Federal Government. It represented an effort to raise a number of questions which had not been treated in either the report of the National Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice or in the President's recent message to the Congress on crime.

The report was the product of an informal study group on crime, consisting of Congressman MATHIAS, of Maryland; Congressman MOSHER, of Ohio; Congressman TAFT, of Ohio, and myself.

The four of us were joined on the statement by Congressman MARK ANDREWS, of North Dakota; Congressman ALPHONZO BELL, of California; Congressman DANIEL E. BUTTON, of New York; Congressman JOHN DILLENBACK, of Oregon; Congresswoman FLORENCE DWYER, of New Jersey; Congressman MARVIN ESCH, of Michigan; Congressman SEYMOUR HALPERN, of New York; Congressman THEODORE R. KUPFERMAN, of New York; Congressman WILLIAM MAILLIARD, of California; Congressman CHESTER L. MIZE, of Kansas; Congressman F. BRADFORD Morse, of Massachusetts Congressman OGDEN R. REID, of New York; Congressman HoWARD ROBISON, of New York; Congressman PHILIP RUPPE, of Michigan; Congressman HERMAN SCHNEEBELI, of Pennsylvania; Congressman RICHARD S. SCHWEIKER, of Pennsylvania; and Congressman FRED SCHWENGEL, of Iowa. I insert the full text of the statement and its appendixes in the body of the RECORD at this point:

"ARE WE ORGANIZED TO FIGHT CRIME?

"The House Judiciary Committee tomorrow begins hearings on the Presi dent's legislative proposals to combat crime. We hope the Committee will expand the scope of its hearings to undertake a full-scale investigation of the ade quacy of the Federal Government's organization to fight crime effectively.

"The Nation's crime rate continues to rise. There is no simple answer because there s no single cause for crime. A comprehensive answer can only be found in a comprehensive attack on the social and economic problems of the people in a determined long-range assault on all of our domestic ills. Crime is only a symptom of other failures of our society.

"In his State of the Union message, in his more recent special message to Congress, and in the still more recent report of his National Crime Commission the President is launching a new war on crime by this Administration.

"We heartily applaud the Administration's new attention to the mounting problem of crime and delinquency in the United States-even though it has been late in coming. The President's Crime message and the Commission report showed Administration awareness that there is some relation between crime prevention and social behavior, between law enforcement and rehabilitation, between progress and research.

"A comprehensive Federal effort to lower the crime rate can be truly effective only with a major reorganization of the Federal Government's departments agencies and bureaus charged with the task. Today that organization is less than optimum. There must be horizontal coordination at the Federal level and vertical coordination with States and cities.

"While this study concentrates on the organization of the Federal responsi bilities in the crime area, we should emphasize at the outset that the goal is not more Federal power at the expense of the States and cities. We are unalterably opposed to an omnipotent national police or any moves in that direction.

"Quite the contrary, the goal of a Federal reorganization to tackle the crime problem is better to enable State and local law enforcement agencies to get the help and cooperation necessary for them to do their job. The police powers, above all, are the constitutional province of the States-and they should be. Crime is a national problem-but its solution depends primarily on the capacity of the States and local communities to function effectively--and their capacity to get help and cooperation from Washington.

"There appears to be little system, little method, little order in the Federal Government's approach to crime. It is a crazy-quilt of departments, bureaus and agencies with competing responsibilities, duplicated staffing, poor communica tions, and self-defeating jealousies

"As government's concern for the attention to the personal needs of people grew, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare emerged as a central