Mr. CARTER. In making a gross estimate, we have roughly evenly divided it in the first year. There may be some shifts in that, depending upon the readiness of the States.

I might say a word on this first-year figure.

As we become familiar with the field through the various institutions and agencies within the Department that deal with it, there is a varying degree of readiness in the different States to move forward with programs and plans. In some States and communities different parts of a State may be more ready than others.

In some States emphasis may be on planning in the first instance and at other places they may want to move immediately into development of some of the rehabilitative steps. It is fairly flexible. But at the present time, our judgment is that it would be evenly divided. Mrs. MINK. May I ask one final question?

Mr. PUCINSKI. You may.

Mrs. MINK. If the committee, in reporting out the bill, decides to make that division as you have expressed, would the Department have any objection if we made it specific in the law that it be divided equally?

Secretary GARDNER. No.

Mrs. MINK. Thank you.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Secretary, the validity of Mr. Carey's objections and my own objections that $25 million is not enough even for the first year becomes probably very apparent when we look at the tentative breakdown.

As I understand, you would plan to spend $4.5 million for planning and technical assistance grants, $5 million for rehabilitative services, correctional services, $5 million for construction, $5.5 million for preventive services, $4.75 million for research and technical assistance, and $4.25 million for evaluation.

When you break this down through the 50 States, it is not even enough for them to start intelligent planning. I think it would be wise if we advised the President that certainly it would be our intention to increase this in 1968, and we hope the administration will go along with us, and find some other place where we can make the saving.

I think we have ample evidence here in listening to both sides of the committee that the main concern about this legislation is that the very nominal sum of $25 million for the first year is not sufficient.

I am sure that the local communities can crank up very rapidly once they learn there are more funds available than provided in the

bill.

I also understand that it would be your intention to ask for $75 million, tentatively, in fiscal 1969, $100 million in 1970, $125 million in 1971, and $150 million in 1972. This would mean that in the next 5 years we would spend somewhere around $475 million in Federal aid to local communities to help develop projects like those described on page 8, combination detention and diagnostic facilities, halfway houses, or small, special-purpose, residential-based communities for diagnostic treatment or rehabilitation together with the broad-based, coordinated community plans for the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency.

I think even $475 million in the next 5 years is much too little for the local communities. I do not know of a single community in this

country that doesn't have, for example, a crying need for the very institutions you have described in subsection 2 of section 124.

I think the strength in this bill is, in effect, that you are providing them money for bricks and mortar, for personnel, and for techniques as well as coordinated community programs. I think we can make a very, very significant contribution if we will face up to this thing and come up with some realistic figures.

I am mindful of the problems the President has. I am hoping that the Vietnam war will be a nasty memory by the end of this year or certainly in 1969. I am hoping we will be able to convert some of our funds to the unmet needs of America. It would be my hope that this program would receive top priority.

Would you care to comment on that, sir?

Secretary GARDNER. We certainly believe that it is a very, very high priority program. As to the budgetary levels, I simply have to retur to my previous comment.

I would like to say a word correcting the answer that I gave to Mrs. Mink.

Mrs. Mink, I gave you a wrong answer. When you asked me whether we would be prepared to go along with an even distribution between the two titles-that would throw half of the money into researchit wouldn't be our notion of the best way to distribute it.

We would think about a quarter of the money would be going into research. I can actually read you the figures as we have distributed them. Do you have them?

Mrs. MINK. No.

Secretary GARDNER. We have $4.5 million for the planning and technical assistance grants, $5 million for rehabilitative services and correctional service, $5 million for construction, $5.5 million for preventive services, and $4.75 million for research and technical assistance. That leaves $0.25 million for evaluation to complete the total.

Mr. CARTER. I wanted to make one comment on Mr. Pucinski's statement. I certainly understand the position he has taken.

I am acutely aware, myself, of the importance of this program. I have been involved with it over the past year in developing the

program.

But I think it is important to emphasize that the thrust of this legislation is to keep the young people out of the courts, out of the correctional agencies. We don't want to leave the impression that the thrust of this program is a brick-and-mortar program.

The very successful demonstration in your own community, Mr. Chairman, shows what can be done with a kind of cooperative work between correctional and community resources, in cutting down drastically the number of arrests.

Mr. PUCINSKI. But the most crying need all over America-and there isn't a community in this Nation that I know of that wouldn't give its eyeteeth to have a halfway house-is for construction. It is necessary to build halfway houses for youths because of special behavioral problems with a high risk of becoming delinquent or who have been determined to be delinquent and are not yet ready for a full return to society.

Mr. CARTER. There is no question on that point. Yes.

Mr. PUCINSKI. If we cut everything else out of the bill and left this provision in, the bill is worthy of support, it would seem to me. Here we would be coming along with some meaningful assistance.

One question that has come up on that point, which I am sure will be asked, is this, Mr. Secretary:

In section 101, we don't set up any formula, or at least I am not aware of any, as to how the money will be distributed among the States.

Do you feel that it would strengthen the bill to give the Secretary a sort of complete authority to make that decision, or do you think we ought to give some consideration to setting up some sort of a program based on population or some other factors, as to the figures for each State?

Secretary GARDNER. I would like to get Mr. Carter to comment, but let me say first that my own view is that at this point different communities differ considerably in their willingness to move effectively on the focus we are concerned with, this interaction of the community and the local agencies.

I would like to see a high proportion of our funds go to communities that are willing to tackle that difficult focus of concern.

Mr. CARTER. I would subscribe to that completely. I think when one looks across the country, there is a wide variation in the leadership that has been provided at the State level and in the many communities. It is difficult at this time to assign funds merely on the basis of the incidence of delinquency, or on other factors of that nature, without taking into account the extent to which the institutions have been developed and in which they have moved forward with plans and are planning.

Obviously, if you are talking about a permanent program, or moving down the road to the point where you will give the money to the major institutions to carry on the program, that is one thing.

But at this stage, when we are just beginning to move from demonstration to support, and in view of the state of development in many areas, it would seem to be a difficult thing to do.

I would certainly hope if the committee felt inclined to do that, there are the circumstances that the Secretary indicated which should be of concern in that. Also, a method of allocation that is really responsive to the fact that some States will not pick up the program and others will, should be considered.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Before anything that should be done within a State. as in title I, section 101, are you requiring that the States and localities prepare and adopt comprehensive plans covering their respective jurisdictions?

Does this mean that you are going to ask a State to first have a State plan before we move?

Secretary GARDNER. It is not a prerequisite to community action; no. Mr. PUCINSKI. You merely encourage it.

Secretary GARDNER. Yes.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Also, there is provision in this bill for the Secretary to to enter into agreements with private, not-for-profit organizations i the community. Is there anything in this bill that provides some sor of a review procedure by the public agencies or by the local govern ment so that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing?

We always get ourselves into these problems-and you know the problems we are having in the poverty program-simply because the mayor of a community, or whoever happens to be the responsible elected official in the community, is not aware of the programs that are being financed by the Federal Government in his own community. Would you think, Mr. Secretary, we ought to have some sort of a plan where that at least local officials should be advised or informed when applications are filed for Federal assistance by private, not-forprofit agencies?

Secretary GARDNER. There is not such a specific provision in the bill, but it would certainly be our intention to proceed in that way. We would have every intention, always, of working through the community, because of our deep concern for relating the correctional system itself to these other agency attitudes.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I see there is a provision in the bill that I am not. sure I understand, but I see the possibility of it giving us as many problems with this bill as we have had in the poverty program. That is

section 5 of section 142:

(5) will provide for appropriate participation by youths in the formulation and operation of the project or program.

That was the sleeper that we found in the OEO bill dealing with "maximum feasible participation of the residents of the community." You know the kinds of problems that we have had with that provision ever since that bill was passed.

I am wondering, Mr. Secretary, how strongly you would insist on this language, and whether or not we wouldn't be wise to avoid the kind of difficulties that we have had with the poverty program by excluding this kind of language in the bill before us.

I think that responsible local officials, whether they are public or private, certainly can be counted upon to use their good judgment. I am just wondering if this language, when translated into guidelines sometime later, isn't going to create a real Pandora's box for us.

Secretary GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, the evidence available from experiments which have been made suggest that the participation by young people in these programs, in the formulation and operation of the programs, has had a very good effect and has not been disruptive. It may be that young people are better behaved than adults, but they have not played a disruptive role in the experiments which we will supply for the record. So we are inclined to believe that the payoff, which is a sense of being a part of something and having some responsibility and getting all the steadying influence that responsibility gives, is well worth it.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I have no quarrel with the fact that we ought to certainly take into consideration the views of everybody in the formulation and planning of programs. But, I am wondering whether or not we want to make it a part of the legal requirements in this legislation.

As you know, Mr. Secretary, long after the President signs this bill, when the guidelines start flowing down range, the Congress then says, "Did we pass this?" The administrators say, "You sure did." Then we ask "Where?" They show you this nice, seemingly harmless, nonprovocative language, and say, "This is the requirement."

The first thing you know, someone, after you have relinquished your responsibility, may come along with differing ideas, and I can even see in this language the requirement that there will have to be elections of delinquent youths to a board of governors who will sit in judgment over the determination of these programs. I am sure that neither you, I, nor any member of this committee would want to provide for something like that.

Secretary GARDNER. I can readily see the kind of catastrophes that may occur after I am no longer Secretary. It is perfectly legitimate for you to do anything with this language that you want to, including cutting it out. But I would hope that you would examine the possibility of modifying it to suit your concern, but leaving in the possibility of participation because it has had such a good payoff.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Secretary, I think a lot of these things could be avoided. As I said, I would have no objection to this language remaining in if proper safeguards were added to it. I have often felt that if we, here in the Congress, particularly in committees, could devise some way to see the guidelines that the administrators are going to promulgate to implement this legislation, it would be helpful to us. I so often think that Members of Congress really legislate in good faith, only to find that when the guidelines come down, any similarity between what we thought we were legislating and what the administrators have put out as guidelines is purely a coincidence.

I think it would help the Congress if the administrators would come in here with the bill and also with at least a good, broad outline of the guidelines that they contemplate issuing if the legislation is passed, in the form suggested by you people. I think it would eliminate many of the problems that develop down range after the legislation is adopted.

I think it would also remove much of the suspicion which frequently surrounds legislation simply because Members of Congress don't know what the administrator is going to do with this bill after he develops the guidelines. The poverty program offers an excellent example of what I am speaking about.

Mr. Carey?

Mr. CAREY. I have just one question on the bill.

Under part B, title I, in section 121, and I know about the obvious drafting error that you acknowledged to Mrs. Mink, is it your intent to make grants to public agencies only in carrying out the aforementioned purpose of the act, to urge the courts, to assist law enforce ment agencies, and so forth, to make full use of the facilities available in the community, the community resources and services generally available, and to encourage new designs, new methods of operating full or part time, and so forth?

In many urban centers we already have such residential or part-time, community-based facilities, not necessarily with title in public agencies. Wouldn't this exclusivity of grants to public agencies only rule out grants or contracts to many of these that are under private auspices? Is it your intent to do this?

Mr. CARTER. The intent is to support the correctional system, which is a public system.

I recognize the point you are making, that they are often run by private agencies. There is nothing to prevent the correctional system.