you have done to bring about coordination, it would be of help. The Executive order refers to the Committee. I am wondering if you think that having this interagency group is helpful and effective, and, if so, whether you feel that it might not be worth while to reactivate that group. Secretary GARDNER. Well, Senator Kennedy, I think that interdepartmental committees vary in effectiveness. Some are quite useful and some are rather relatively useless. It is hard to tell the difference by looking at them on paper. I think that the President's Committee has played a very useful role and I see no reason why it should not be made more active if problems arise. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Then, I think we ought to have the administration's position on whether you feel that the Executive order should be carried out, or whether you do not, and, then, what it should be, rather than to say, "Well, we like parts of it, and other parts we do not like." It states in part There is hereby established the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). The Committee shall be composed of the Attorney General, the Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Each member of the Committee shall designate an official or employeee of his department as an alternate member who shall serve as a member of the Committee in lieu of the regular member whenever the regular member is unable to attend any meeting of the Committee; and the alternate member shall, while serving as such, have in all respects the same status as a member of the Committee as does the regular member for whom he is serving. The Chairman of the Committee shall be the Attorney General. We have just now had the study that has been made on crime control that has come up with a number of suggestions and recommendations. Their own report said that if there was one area of crime that was not fully developed it was the problems of juvenile unrest and delinquency, and that they did not have the chance to go into that and give it the kind of careful study necessary. This Executive order is one of the instruments which, I think, certainly could be used toward that effort; and I would like to find out what the atitude of the Department is in regard to it. I am not going to go into detail on it. There are a number of what I think are extremely worthwhile suggestions, and I think we ought to have, at least, some kind of an idea as to what the attitude is in regard to that order. Secretary GARDNER. I will be very happy to put together something for the record that will reflect the administration's position. I will talk with the Attorney General and the others involved and submit something for the record. (The information requested appears on p. 82.) Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. There are some differences between the House bill and the administration's bill. In the section. with reference to rehabilitating youths, you have a 75-percent Federal share. The House does not have a provision for the youth part. Would you give us the reason for that? Secretary GARDNER. I would like to ask Mr. Carter to comment on that. Mr. CARTER. There are factors involved. The 60-percent matching figure for services dealing with the juvenile justice system parallels the crime bill's matching provisions for developing services in the criminal justice field. The 75-percent matching provision for community services is consistent with the Federal trend for matching in similar programs. This provision is designed to encourage the development of communitybased programs as alternatives to judicial handling. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. In regard to youth participation, give us some examples of what you meant by the youth participation in this program. Secretary GARDNER. Well, as I have pointed out in my testimony, Senator Kennedy, there have been a series of rather striking demonstrations of the fact that you can instill in young people a sense of responsibility if you enable them to play roles in the community or in some organization that give them a sense of pride and concern and that to meet certain standards of community responsibility and accountability. You have heard of the most dramatic of these, such as Pride Inc. and White Hats, and a number of others. The examples are really quite numerous, and we would like very much to have this bill encourage that kind of participation. Mr. CARTER. I might add that under a number of the programs which have been supported under the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act involved in many ways; as staff in programs, as service aides, homework helpers, or teacher aides. Many youth have been involved in one way or the other in helping other delinquent youths. Here in the District of Columbia youth are helping to decide on policies affecting youth. These efforts have had dramatic effects on the behavior of the youths, their ability to learn and to perform effectively on the job. For all of these reasons, and because of growing community concern about the behavior of the youth in the society, it is extremely important that programs in the field of delinquency today provide opportunities for youth involvement. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. You also do not have any provision in the administration's bill for training grants. Do I understand the position there is that there are sufficient training programs at the present time? Is that your position? Secretary GARDNER. We feel that we have ample authority to carry on such a thing. We are eager to consolidate some of our training authorities, rather than to proliferate them. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. You do have authority for that? I am wondering. Do you have such programs now? Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Could you give us some description in regard to that, how many? Secretary GARDNER. I will ask both Assistant Secretary Carter and Miss Switzer to comment on this. Mr. CARTER. AS Senator Clark remarked in his colloquy with Senator Dodd, Mr. Chairman, personnel in the delinquency field range all the way from nonprofessionals to highly trained psychiatrists. We have programs in the Children's Bureau. We are expanding the training programs which hold promise of making a contribution, such as those in the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration to which Miss Switzer will speak. There has been great emphasis on the National Institutes of Health's increasing the number of professional workers in the country. The Office of Education through the Higher Education Act and other legislation, supports both short- and long-term training programs for personnel preparing to work in this field. And in cooperation with the Department of Labor, we are developing new careers of activities, which happens to be one of the main ways of dealing with our extreme shortages, so that we have a variety of training authorities which provide short- and long-term training for all types and levels of personnel people in this field. This does not mean that we do not have shortages in these fields. We recognize that we have acute shortages, but there are other problems related to the shortages rather than a lack of training authority. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Could you give us some idea, Mr. Carter, of how many people are actually being trained, or going into youth work? Do you have that information in the Department? Mr. CARTER. Yes, we can give you that. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. So that we will have some idea as to what actually is being done in various training programs that are available, how they are related directly to the problems of the young people. (The information requested appears on p. 82.) Secretary GARDNER. I would like to have Miss Switzer speak to this subject. Miss SWITZER. You will recall 2 years ago this committee was responsible for initiating a correctional training study. It is now in its third year and will be completed in March 1968. It is a study of the correctional manpower field's current manpower situation; its need at all of the levels. It is a very far-reaching comprehensive study which has already stimulated, as studies usually do, collateral action even before the study is completed. This will be an excellent base, I think, for the decisions as to whether we need a separate training program for correctional institutions or activities; whether we can build onto existing programs and at what level we need to focus the training. A very important area for emphasis-and this was initiated when I was still Commissioner of Vocational Rehabilitation, is the involvement of the undergraduate in liberal arts colleges. I am not talking now of technical programs or with master's degree programs in specialized areas. Rather, I am talking about the need to involve juniors and the seniors in comumnity work across the board in a variety of areas in which we need manpower. College students constitute a great pool of manpower. We will not solve the manpower problem by trying to make everybody the recipient of advanced degrees. We need a number of highly trained, professional people, but they cannot do the bread-and-butter work in any of these programs. In the rehabilitation program we have recently begun to work with youthful offenders by providing such services as counseling and social work. What is even more important, we are supporting short-term institutes to give the people already in the field, or coming into the field with a rehabilitation focus. We have the authority and I believe we have the insight, into what is needed, and a great deal more will be known when this correctional manpower study is completed. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. When will that be? Miss SWITZER. It will be completed in March 1968. It is very comprehensive. It has already produced a good many findings that have given us some guidance as to where we should place our emphasis. This study is not a small one. It is expensive; a lot of public money has gone into it, and we need to be extremely sensitive to its results. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I would like to have submitted for the record a record of the delinquency programs, outlining those programs and giving us authority for them. I wonder if you could submit that, together with the amount of money that is being expended in each of one of those programs-the number of grantees that come under those programs, and also the number of personnel who are involved in them. If you could submit that for the record, I think it would be helpful in giving us at least some kind of an idea where we are, in this. Secretary GARDNER. I will be very glad to do that. (The information requested appears on p. 82.) Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I will ask another rather fundamental question: Who do you believe is going to administer the 1967 act? Do you feel that you are going to administer it? How do you feel it will be administered and who will have the final responsibility? Secretary GARDNER. I am not really sure what you mean. Who in my Department will administer it? Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Where will the 1967 act be administered and by whom? Who will be the administrator of it? Secretary GARDNER. It will be administered by Mary Switzer. We have under Mary Switzer today the new Social and Rehabilitation Service which has just merged three out of five major delinquency programs in my Department; and it is our intention to develop a coordinated arrangement and find a first-class person to manage them. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. If you could give to us a breakdown of an organization chart under Miss Switzer, how it will be administered and also the relationship of Mr. Carter to that, so that we will have that information? Secretary GARDNER. For what date would you like that? I am trying to keep my options as open as possible as to how the new legislation will be administered, and I have not yet settled where I will place this organizationally. I could describe the alternatives which I am examining, if that will help. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. That would be helpful. Secretary GARDNER. The main thing is that I plan to coordinate the relevant delinquency programs. (The information requested appears on p. 82.) Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Is the recommendation for $25 million? Would you tell us how you arrived at that figure? Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Yes, sir. Secretary GARDNER. Well, this is a long and tortuous path, the same way that you arrive at any other budgetary figure. We debated how much we could spend in regard to our priorities, and we had long talks with the Budget Bureau and came out with the first year figure that the traffic would bear, finally. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Obviously, that was your interest and the interest of the Department. I suppose that someplace there is some sense of priority over in the Justice Department as to what they are going to do with regard to their position; Labor has a similar thing to consider. The thing which is of concern, certainly to me, is the question of whether or not this is going to sort of float around. Who, within the administration, made the determination as to the kind of priorities that the whole program ought to achieve ! And this relates back to the earlier question with regard to the interagency coordinating committee. At least, someone in the top administration being able to make that kind of assessment. It does appear to me that the original question is that in so many of these considerations as to whether you will have $25 million or $50 million or $75 million, that somewhere in between your shop and that of Justice and that of Labor, I would think that decision would have to be made. It is of concern, certainly to me, how we are resolving that. It does not appear to me that you have one agency or one czar, so to speak, who says "I am juvenile delinquency, and as to criminality of the youth, this is what really has to be done, and this is the way that this thing ought to be handled." Secretary GARDNER. Well, you are describing an organizational problem in the Federal Government, but I do not think it applies particularly to this case. I think that we have as good communication with the other departments as is possible and we have as many discussions on delinquency than on any subject that I have dealt with, particularly with the Department of Justice. As to what will be located in our Department and what will be located in the Department of Justice, there has been a very good meeting of the minds. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. This is, perhaps, not so much relating to the question of the division of the responsibility which, I understand from some of your earlier comments, had been worked out amicably. What I am talking about is whether Mr. Carter or Miss Switzer or someone within the Justice Department will say, on questions of juvenile delinquency, "This is really what we have to do; this is where we have to go." And who will be able to review in detail the kind of recommendations that have been made in the crime study that relate to the problems of juvenile delinquency and to say "Well, this is what we really have to do," rather than being in a situation where this part will be done in the Justice Department, and some part with you, and some part over in the Labor Department, and some in ŎEO. It just seems to me that, although, as I understand from what you have related, the adjustments in responsibility have been worked out satisfactorily within HEW, the question will then come down to this: Who, in the administration, is really thought of as carrying the ball on the fundamental questions as to young people's criminality and juvenile delinquency? Secretary GARDNER. You are raising again the question of whether we should not make the President's Committee more active and make it the instrument of this kind of joint decision. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The question is whether there is someone within the administration who really knows how much is really being expended on the juvenile problem and how. This is |