Page images

VYC unquestionably helps keep disadvantaged youngsters in school. A survey of all high schools in Pittsburgh for the school year 1967–66 disclosed that the dropout rate for NYC enrollees was only a little over 4 percent, compared with an eight-and-one-half percent dropout rate for non-NYC students. A sampling of NYC teenagers from three high schools in Washington, D.C. revealed that fewer than two percent of these young people had dropped out of school during the 1965-66 school year. The normal dropout rate for these schools is nearly 20 percent.

The counseling and remedial education provided by NYC to out-of-schoolers builds a foundation for future work, training or educational experiences. A recent study of out-of-school enrollees by Dunlap and Associates, Inc., showed that approximately nine months after termination from NYC, 35 percent of the former enrollees were working at permanent jobs, six percent were in military service, 18 percent were in advanced training programs or had returned to school and 11 percent were housewives—a salvage rate of 70 percent.

The success of the Neighborhood Youth Corps in rehabilitating such a large percentage of these youths is particularly striking because NYC enrollees in outof-school projects are recruited from the ranks of high school dropouts and the hard-core unemployed. Some twenty-seven and one-half percent came directly from welfare rolls or from families receiving public assistance. At the time of interview, the young people who were working held such jobs as welders, painters, carpenters, farmers, auto mechanics, secretaries, typists, sales clerks, cashiers, telephone operators, cooks and nurse's aides.

During 1967, close to 30 percent of the enrollees in out-of-school projects had only an eighth grade education or less. More than 90 percent had been out of school three months or longer; more than 27 percent had been out of school for 1:3-24 months. The family income of 72 percent of these youths was below' $3,000. Orer 60 percent of these same enrollees reported that most of their earnings were used to help support their families.

The unemployment rate for non-white youth between the ages of 16 and 21 is over 20 percent, five times that of the nation's overall jobless rate. Non-white participants made approximately 50 percent of the total NYC out-of-school enrollment during 1966-67.

Innovative NYC projects now on-going, include:

Enrollment of 1.000 migrant youth in Florida, Texas and California in an attempt to move them out of the migrant stream into the mainstream of American society.

Work-Training-in-Industry, which permits private firms to give enrollees job training.

Pilot programs in 10 cities to couple NYC work-experience with Manpower Developnient and Training Act projects, in order to better prepare the youngsters for the world of work.


The UDTA training program authorized under the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 has been utilized extensively to meet the critical and challenging problem of youth unemployment. Youth trainees, like all MDTA trainees were enrolled in the two standard training programs: institutional vocational education courses and on-the-job training programs. They likewise hare benefitted from the Act's provision for basic education and various remedial services such as counseling, specialized testing, medical and social services, and the like. Special youth training projects designed to meet the particular needs of youth have been an important part of the overall JDTA program in its response to the critical problem of youth unemployment.

The institutional training program, the larger of the MIDTA training programs. has also had the larger youth trainee component. For the almost five years of MDTA training program operations, youth under 22 years of age have comprised 38.5 percent--almost two out of every five institutional trainees. Their proportions have, however, varied year by year with changes in statutory provisions and program direction, and also in the relative proportions of young teenagers under 19 years of age and the more mature youth between the ages of 19 and 22 years, with the latter comprising larger proportion of the total youth enrolled in institutional training.

Initially statutory provisions placed limitations on the MDTA youth training provisions by limiting allowance payments to youth of at least 19 years of age, and further limiting those youth allowance payments to only 5 percent of total MDTA allowance payments. As a consequence, teenage youth under age 19 comprised only 8.5 percent of all institutional trainees in 1963, while their “older” counterparts below age 22 comprised over 22 percent of the institutional training roster. The amendments enacted at the end of 1963 loosened these provisions in recognition of the seriousness of the youth unemployment problem, dropping the allowance provisions to age 17 and authorizing greater latitude in youth training allowance expenditures.

As a result of these amendments, the proportion of teenagers under age 19 advanced under both training programs. In the institutional program it almost doubled in 1964—to almost 16 percent-and advanced even further in 1965 to account for almost 19 percent of enrollments. The 19 through 21 year age group advanced only fractionally and has consistently comprised some 23 or 24 percent of institutional enrollments in the ensuing years.

During 1966 and 1967 enrollments of the younger teenagers again dropped-to 15 percent and 13.5 percent—respectively as the total MDTA training program has been redirected to focus more strongly on the disadvantaged unemployed adult population, and as other programs such as those enacted under the EOA have provided alternative vehicles for serving disadvantaged youth.

But youth training still comprises a major proportion-well over one-thirdof the institutional training roster. Of the approximately 577,000 persons estimated to have been enrolled in MDTA training as of June 30, 1967, 22,215 of them were young people under 22 years of age: 8,828 of them under 19 and 13,387 of them between 19 and 22 years of age.

The smaller OJT program, due to a variety of factors including the element of training sponsor employer participation in the selection process, has not reached quite as great a proportion of youth trainees but has, nevertheless, provided substantial opportunities for youth participation in this ideal training method. Thirty-six percent of the 171,000 persons estimated to have enrolled in OJT as of June 30, 1967, have been youth under age 22-for a total of almost 64,000 youth provided with this training. As in the case of the institutional training program, the larger proportion—22.7 percent and almost 39,000 in. dividuals—have come from the "older” age group between 19 and 22 years of age, and the balance of 13.3 percent and almost 23,000 individuals from the teenagers under 19. The annual fluctuations in youth enrollments in this program followed the same general pattern as that characterizing the institutional training program for similar reasons.

The final score for youth training under the MDTA thus stood at 83,775 youth enrolled.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you very much, Mr. Battle. I appreciate your appearance here and I thank you very much for your response to the questions. You have been very helpful.

The committee will recess subject to the call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)





Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in the Foundry Methodist Church, Northwest Washington, D.C., Senator Joseph S. Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Members present: Senators Clark, Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Pell.

Staff member present: William C. Smith, counsel. Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will be in session. Senator Kennedy and I are anxious to be in close communication with all of you. As I said a little earlier, I am Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and' Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

We have before us a bill passed by the House of Representatives dealing with the general subject of juvenile delinquency. The administration, the Johnson administration, has made recommendations which are somewhat different than the bill passed by the House. Some of the members of our subcommittee have still different ideas.

This is a public hearing to get the benefit of the thinking of this conference as to what we should do in the Senate about this bill.

I would like to pay my heartfelt tribute to the Foundry Methodist Church for being willing to devote its facilities to this conference and to all of you from all over the country who have come in here to participate. I understand the name is the National Youth Heartline in cooperation with Mobilization for Youth of New York City, and United Planning Organization for Washington, D.C.

Senator Kennedy, who is on my left, and I, have the pleasure of continuing this hearing. We have had a number of hearings already in the committee room of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. We are here for you to educate us and tell us what is on your mind and what you think your Congressmen and Senators in Washington ought to be doing to help solve the very difficult, complex problem of juvenile delinquency, how to prevent it, how to cure it.

I think that is about all that I want to say before proceeding with our witnesses, but I am sure my colleague, Senator Kennedy, who has somewhat the advantage of youth as well as good looks over me, may have something to say.

Senator Kennedy.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you very much, Senator Clark.



Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today not to speak but to listen, so I will say just a very few words. The development of the youth of our country is something which many of us in Congress consider to be one of our highest priorities. The future of the Nation lies with every one of you here today and with the members of your generation all over the country. If we who help to run this country fail to make it possible for every young American to realize his full potential, then we are compromising the future of the United States.

Every young person has a right to be educated, and to be educated well and to the best of his ability. Every young person has the right to get the kind of training and preparation he needs to earn his own way in life in a dignified and productive manner, and to enjoy the fruits of the tremendous economic growth of America. And every American youth has the right to be helped when he needs help; to be given an opportunity to prove that, even though he has made one mistake, he can still be a constructive citizen if he is given the chance; and to be considered still as a resource for the future rather than being consigned to the scrap heap because he has been in trouble.

None of us would claim that the world we have now is perfect, or even approaches perfection. But we do believe that with concentrated effort by those of us in the Congress, in the executive branch, and in State and local governments, we can meet the demands before us. We have faith in the future and we have faith in the young people who are the future. That is why we are here today.

As most of you know, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to help State and local governments prevent and combat juvenile delinquency. That bill is now before the Senate and has been referred to our committee for hearings and review. We have listened to the Federal officials who will administer the bill, and we will be hearing from people who are considered to be experts in the field.

But you are the real experts. You know what it is like to go to school that just does not teach you what you need to know. You know what it is like not to be able to find a job. You have seen the vocational training programs, the youth development programs, the community action programs, the counseling programs. And some of you have seen the police youth bureaus, the juvenile courts, the training schools, the halfway houses, and the youth probation and parole services. You can tell us what was good and what was bad, what helped you and what frustrated you. You can tell us which programs and projects you think are worthwhile, and which are not. You have the facts. And it is facts that we want to hear today.

We are especially interested in the kinds of programs you have participated in which had varying degrees of youth involvement. We want to know exactly what you consider youth involvement, how it should work, and how it can fit into the world you live in.

Let me just thank you in advance for cooperating in this effort. I am confident that the transcript of today's hearing will provide an important source of information for us in Congress, not only in our consideration of the bill before us now, but also in our work on many other bills which affect you.

And now it's your turn. We welcome you here today and we look forward to hearing what you have to say. Senator CLARK. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. We are going to have to try to establish a few ground rules, largely because there are so many people who would like to be heard, and time is limited. I am not going to impose any ground rules, I am just going to suggest them.

The first witnesses are this young lady and these two gentlemen next to her, Barbara VícCoy from Washington, D.C.; Louis Chappell from New York; and Marshall Brown from Washington.

We hope to have an opportunity before the morning is over to let ererybody who wants to make a contribution have the chance to be heard. But you have selected, as I understand it, your own witnesses to speak for you in the first instance. I do not have the complete list, but there are a good many others besides these three. I am going to suggest that you three decide among yourselves who will speak first, who second, and who third, and that you try to limit yourself to 5 minutes each, so that when you get through, Senator Kennedy and I will have an opportunity to ask you any questions which occur to us. Then there will be an opportunity for the other witnesses who want to be heard also.

I should make this sort of parenthetical comment. I am a member of the Subcommittee on Education of this same Labor and Public Welfare Committee. That subcommittee is meeting right now in the Capitol to mark up the education bill. I have promised Senator Morse of Oregon that I will get there as soon as I can, but Senator Kennedy will be very happy to stay here through the entire morning. So if you see me suddenly get up and walk out, you will appreciate it is not because I am mad, but because I have other duties which I really must perform.

Which one of you would like to speak first!
Mr. Chappell?



The main reason why we feel that this hearing is necessary is because, due to the fact that the House bill seems very insufficient to meet the needs of youth across the Nation and the United States today. They leave out all types of youth participation. The only way that I feel that

you can stop juvenile delinquency is to make sure that youth has a prospective role in everything that affects them. It has been proven in the past programs that every time youths are on a planning committee of this program or have an effective role where they can look up to themselves, they do a much better job and the job is quicker dene.

We know that the administration bill, which is the only bill submitted by HEW, is not the greatest bill in the world, but it has a far better outlook on youth development than the House bill. Then, when you get to other things, other bills such as planning, where it says they have no money for planning or technical assistance, stuff like this is

« PreviousContinue »