Senator CLARK. I am pursuing the subject because Senator Morse and I, and our colleagues on this committee, are going to be met on the floor of the Senate, if not in committee itself, with the claim that localities and States are loafing on the job, that localities and States will say the thing is to lie down too, and get the Federal Government to pick up the tab; that we, in Congress, should not encourage this trend, but force the States and localities to pay their share.

Then at that point you get into the old argument as to whether the Federal system of taxation is progressing or regressing. You find there are a number of local areas that are not progressing as they should, but you find a number that cannot do what they should. And this is true in areas of my Commonwealth.

We have so much chronic unemployment in some local districts, that they are pretty much exhausted and in other ends of the State we have richer areas that are doing well, but could do better.

We have some kind of State equalization program but it is not as effective as it should be.

I do not know that what I said calls for any comment from you, but maybe you want to say a word.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. With respect, for example, to the training program in which I am particularly interested, would it be feasible for the Federal Government to launch a university project such as ours if it thought this makes sense, and guarantee it for 3 to 5 years with a definite understanding at the end of that time Federal aid is going to stop? If you had a really successful program, public support would insure that the local legislature would step in. This may not be realistic, but it is a way of getting more programs than you are going to get if you depend on matching funds.

Then, is it possible for the Federal Government to make grants varied by States and projects-by State and community with respect to local or State participation? Could the Federal Government give a hundred percent to one area which might be a distress area and 50 percent to another for a comparable project?

Senator CLARK. These are interesting suggestions which I think we would want to consider, and I would not want to make a categorical answer at this time. But thank you very much for the thought. Now, to move to another area, I gather that you agree with Judge Long that training should have the first priority; and perhaps you spelled out to the extent you think desirable the kind of training you have in mind.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. I hope I did, sir.

Senator CLARK. I would not go further on that.

Now, you have mentioned the Youth Conservation Corps and that legislation is not before this subcommittee. It is, however, pending and I am on that subcommittee, although not the chairman of it.

We are looking forward to marking up the bill tomorrow, and then it will come before the full committee where Senator Morse and I both serve.

I am wondering how you would react to this dilemma which confronts us over there: There is an apparent conflict between the thought of conservation and bringing youth into a conservation corps which will improve our national forests and forests, our State lands and the like, give an opportunity to young people who have perhaps been

unable to seek employment; to get a job during the summer perhaps, or, if they are out of school and have no job, to get a job the year round. That is one objection.

The other is to have a definite emphasis on taking young people with records of delinquency into the corps and to make it primarily a welfare project as distinguished from a conservation project.

Then the question arises, Can you do both within the same system? I would like your thinking on that.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. Sir, I would be heartily and flat-footedly against a separate facility for so-called delinquent kids. I keep trying to get across that delinquent kids are no different from your kids and mine; that the CCC had plenty of youngsters who had gotten into trouble because they did not have a penny in their pockets; and they did splendidly. They were not sent there as delinquents; they were kids who needed jobs. These are the kids who are hurt worst, the fringe kids, the 16- or 17-year-old who does not have any special skill—the school dropout.

We had, as I pointed out in this statement, 14,000 Minnesota youngsters under 20 looking for jobs and without work last March. A lot of those kids are in trouble, or will be in trouble because they do not have jobs. I would not send them up there as delinquents. I would give these kids the thing they most need-a job of work.

Senator CLARK. If you were in charge of re-creating policies for a youth conservation corps, what would be the basic principles on which you would re-create membership in the corps?

Mr. ELLINGSTON. First, need for work-the fact that he cannot get jobs elsewhere. Two, his physical condition; he has to be able to do this kind of work. And three, in terms of his behavior, if he had been a homosexual or a murderer, or something of that sort-sure I would say he is not for a conservation camp. But if he had been a burglar or thief or gotten into trouble related to the fact that he was on the loose and had no job, I would make no bones about taking him. I would not want it to be an institution for delinquents, but I would not keep the youngster out just because he had been in trouble; and, I would want other kids that did not have any record.

Senator CLARK. On this I would agree and I think everybody else would, too. You come down to this problem of legislation. Is it desirable to try to spell out in the act, principles, standards, percentages, or should it be just left to the recruiting agent for each particular camp or each particular project to try to strike an appropriate and happy medium in terms of the local need, or is there a point at which you get so high a percentage of delinquents in the group that you prejudice the success and future of the other members of the group, so that in a sense Gresham's law takes over?

This is something I have had considerable experience with, myself, in connection with integrated housing and this is perhaps a sad comment to make, but you can successfully integrate housing projects in my experience if the percentage of minority groups in any particular project is held somewhere between the 35- to 50-percent level. If you get above that, it would not work because nobody else will go into the project.

Now, this is perhaps un-American, it is perhaps unjust, but it is there and you have to deal with it. How would you comment on that!

Mr. ELLINGSTON. I would-speaking off the cuff, sir, without having given it due thought, of course-I would hesitate to have a bill spell out that no more than a percent shall have delinquency records. I would want to have it set up for the double purpose for providing indispensable employment of the most valuable kind to youngsters who do not have it, and to do the conservation work that goes with it. I would hope that any intelligent administrative agency would have discussion with Members of the Congress who are most interested, would work out an intelligent set of recruiting principles and procedures. Anybody administering one of these programs does not want it to fail, and some people would say we do not want anybody with a record. This is precisely what I hope would not be permitted. Senator CLARK. It might in your judgment be desirable to write such a prohibition into the act, or not?

Mr. ELLINGSTON. I would think not. I am sure that the CCC legislation did not spell out standards with respect to the delinquents.

Senator CLARK. No, it did not but in those days we were not as aware of delinquency problems as we are today.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. Senator Clark, this winter the Minnesota Legislature set up two emergency committees because the problem of employment in our States for the youngster is so serious, a House and a Senate committee, and I would like to turn over a report on them to you.

Senator CLARK. They may be filed with the record, for the information of the committee but not incorporated in the record.

(The report was retained in the subcommittee files.)

Mr. ELLINGSTON. These committees dealt with this very problem. We had a meeting of the committee members and public officials and others concerned about unemployment for youth. The question of admitting boys with a record to CCC camps came up. One participant asked, "Would you want your children to be in the camp with delinquent kids?" I suppose the answer would be to cite the Porterfield Study referred to above.

What is delinquency and who are delinquents? You do not want a homosexual or a murderer in a camp with your boy, but he is very likely not to be very different from the boy who has been caught for car theft or burglary or malicious mischief.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Professor.

Senator Morse, do you have any further questions?
Senator MORSE. No.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much.

Judge Long, thank you very much.

Your testimony has been most interesting and helpful.

The hearings on this bill are closed, and the subcommittee will meet in executive session at the call of the Chair to mark up the bill. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the subcommittee adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

APPENDIX

STATEMENT BY SENATOR HUBERT H. HUMPHREY BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY OF THE SENATE LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to testify on one of the most crucial problems facing our Nation-our rising rate of juvenile delinquency. This problem and the steps needed to deal with the problem should rank high on our national agenda. My bill, S. 1090, the Delinquent Children's Act of 1959, is an effort to help in solving this problem.

First, I would like to make it clear that I believe we must attack the root causes of delinquency. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we can offer challenging opportunities and activities for America's youth, I think we will have far less juvenile delinquency to worry about.

Therefore, I would like to call you attention to my proposal for a Youth Conservation Corps, S. 812, on which hearings by this committee are being held. Quite apart from the valuable conservation work to be achieved by this youth corps, it would, I believe, enable the United States to take a gigantic step forward in prevention of juvenile delinquency by putting 150,000 teenage boys and young men out in constructive, healthy, outdoor work. This conservation work would give them a sense of purpose and accomplishment-a sense of participation in the great American adventure.

Many young people who drop out of school, and even many high school graduates, find it very hard to get employment in constructive, satisfying activities. Many young men who do not go on to college enter a labor market which is indifferent at best and often in time of recession actually hostile. Should we be surprised that some of our young people turn to delinquency when American society is delinquent in offering them a chance to be useful citizens?

Mr. Chairman, my bill on juvenile delinquency, S. 1090, is a part of the youth opportunity program I introduced in the Senate on February 17. In addition to proposals for action on delinquency and on the Youth Conservation Corps, I also urged action by this Congress to provide college scholarships, aid in school construction, and liberal tax writeoffs for those parents or students who are paying for higher education. I believe these proposals will help to solve some of the basic causes of juvenile delinquency and will help America to provide the young people of our Nation with constructive alternatives to delinquency. The delinquency problem has seriously accelerated into a national problem during this decade and we face even more profound delinquency problems in the 1960's if we fail to act now.

From 1952 to 1957, arrest of young people under 18 years of age increased 22 times as fast as the population growth in the 10 to 17-year-old bracket. Since 1949, we have seen a steady increase in national delinquency statistics— a rise that far outstrips the growth of our child population. Statistics from the Children's Bureau indicate juvenile delinquency cases increased more than 200 percent between 1948 and 1956 while the child population increased in the same period by only 19 percent. An FBI crime survey shows that police arrests of young people under 18 years of age in 1958 increased by 6.5 percent over the previous year. In 1952, police arrests of 10- to 17-year-old children totaled 477,000. Recent FBI surveys indicate this arrest rate has increased by 55 percent and predict more than 1 million arrests of juveniles by 1962.

Testimony before the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee during the 84th Congress showed that 1 out of 13 children in the Nation between 10 and 17 years of age was in trouble with the law in 1954 and the report of the committee warned that more than 2 million children a year would soon be in trouble with police.

All this is well within the compass of Federal legislation to check. Juvenile delinquency is not solely a big-city problem, although, of course, it is more