Page images


88-210, FISCAL YEAR 1968—Continued




VEA funds


Types of programs






New Hampshire...
New Jersey
New Mexico.
New York.
North Carolina
North Dakota..

Pennsy vania.
Rhode Island.

3 $9,000 Auto mechanics, building construction, Also technical assistance.

landscape gardening, machine shop,

0 None..

Certifies teachers. Now working

certifying programs which will volve the expenditure of funds

reimbursement. 120 246,000 Building trades, shoes repair, metal

trades, automobile mechanics. 60 12, 300 T.&l., office, home economics, gainful. Give help on developing curricul'l .. 60 17,818 T. &1., business education. 220 12,300 Office, cafeteria, service station, land

scape gardening. automobile me

chanics, carpentry.
0 None

No programs or assistance.
0 do.

147 24, 620 T. &1. in girls' and boys' institutions.
0 None

0 do..

37 1,008 Home economics
478 $ 21,014 T.&l., office, gainful home economics. Give technical assistance, super v.5:

provide teacher education. 0 None

No programs or assistance. 0 do.

Do. do

Done by correctional institutions. 0 -do

Working with State funds. Ho 15

economics supervisor working via

boys and girls.

Cannot legally do so under State


Working with a correctional insti

tution where some youths are il


Working with VRA and correction

institution in Nashville.

No programs or assistance.

Youth programs are under the wel

fare agency do

Have had exploratory discussions
0 .do

Serve in advisory capacity.

Certifies teachers, serves in ad

visory capacity.

No programs or assistance.
0 do.

Youth programs under State welfar

serves in advisory capacity. .do..

No programs or assistance.


South Carolina.....

South Dakota....




[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

1 For construction.
2 Not ascertained.
3 Salaries.
4 Includes equipment and facilities,

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The subcommittee will stand in recess until next Tuesday, when the Attorney General will testify.

(Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene Tuesday, September 26, 1967.)





Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in room +221, New Senate Office Building, Senator Edward M. Kennedy presiding pro tempore.

Present: Senators Kennedy of Massachusetts and Clark (chairman of the subcommittee).

Committee staff present: William C. Smith, counsel. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. The subcommittee will come to order. We are delighted to welcome to testify this morning the distinguished Attorney General of the United States.

We welcome you here, Mr. Attorney General. We have had the comments of the Secretary of HEW and we will also have testimony of the Secretary of Labor on the Juvenile Delinquency Control Act.

I think the great stress that has been placed upon prevention and control of crime makes this piece of legislation absolutely mandatory, and so we are delighted to have you here speaking on this question and in support of the measure before us. We have your testimony and will be delighted to have you proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. RAMSEY CLARK, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL;


Attorney General CLARK. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. It is a pleasure to be able to testify on this important legislation. I have with me Mr. Edward Bumn of the Deputy Attorney General's pitice and others from the departmental staff. I can read the statement that has been prepared if you please.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Fine. It is a brief statement and I think it would be worth while having you read it.

Attorney General Clark. Nothing so exposes the failure of one generation, or assures such trouble for the next, as widespread youth crime. Its children are the destiny of every nation. Those who don't care about their young don't care about their future. When lack of care and effort degenerate to permitting lawlessness, the parental generation reaps the harvest of its own neglect. Our whole experience confirms the finding of President Johnson's Crime Commission that "America's best hope for reducing crime is to reduce juvenile delinquency and youth crime."

The way, indeed, the only way to substantially and permanently reduce juvenile delinquency and youth crime is to act before they occur. Once a kid has been arrested and brought before a court his chances for fulfillment, for a law abiding life, are slim.

a We are failing our children.

An 8-percent increase in arrests since 1960 represents a slight decrease in adult arrests but a 59-percent increase among youth under 18. Last year arrests of adults declined 1 percent, while arrests of jureniles increased 9 percent.

Our 15- and 16-year-olds are arrested more frequently than any other age group from the cradle to the grave. The rate drops slightly for several years after that age, then sharply and steadily thereafter.

Last year, eight of every 10 automobile theft arrests, seven of every 10 arrests for burglary and larceny, and five of every 10 arrests for robbery were of persons below 21.

Today we know four of five felons were convicted of misdemeanors, generally as youths, before committing their more serious crimes. We know most of this could have been prevented. We know recidivism, crime repetition, is highest among the young. We know four or five juvenile courts have no psychologist or psychiatrist available, and one-third have no probation officer or caseworker. Of the 400,000 youths in jails last year, 100,000 were imprisoned with hardened criminals. Clearly, there is an urgent need for more resources to improve correctional efforts with youthful offenders.

The Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967 was recommended by President Johnson last February in his message on the the welfare of children. The act will be administered primarily by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. Since Secretary Gardner testified in detail before the subcommittee last week, my remarks will be limited to the relationship between this measure and the administration's proposed Safe Streets and Crime Control Act. The two proposals are complementary. They provide a legislative formula for effective coordination.

S. 1248 is directed toward problem youths whether or not adjudged delinquent. It would provide grants to support the preparation of comprehensive State or community plans relating to juvenile delinquency; grants to public agencies for treatment and rehabilitation of delinquent youths committed to the control or supervision of law enforcement agencies, courts, or correctional institutions; and grants to public agencies and nonprofit organizations for treatment or rehabilitation services for delinquent youth or youths in danger of becoming delinquent.

The Crime Control Act is focused on law enforcement and criminal justice. It would authorize grants for comprehensive planning and plan implementation to meet State and local needs in police, corrections, courts, and prosecutions.

In order to avoid possible overlap of grants, the legislation before the subcommittee requires that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare consult with the Attorney General on matters of policy and general administration in connection with 90-percent planning grants and in connection with 75-percent grants for special diagnostic treatment or rehabilitation services for youth. In addition, the Attorney General must concur in grants which provide for support for diagnostic treatment and rehabilitation of youths who have been determined to be delinquent by courts, police departments, or other correctional, law enforcement, or welfare agencies.

Granting authority under the two bills would overlap to a certain extent. HÈW would assume primary responsibility for all grants concerning youth while the Crime Control Act would be focused on law enforcement and criminal justice agencies. There would be sufficient flexibility to insure a comprehensive approach to the problems of crime and delinquency.

The problems are national in scope and must be treated through a coordinated national effort. The task is immense. Our wholehearted commitment is essential. No national effort can command higher priority. As President Johnson has said, “Our goal must be clear-to give every child the chance to fulfill his promise."

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General. I think that is a very effective statement in support of the legislation we are considering.

In The Challenge, Crime, and a Free Society, which is by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement, in the first line under Juvenile Delinquency is “America's best hope for reducing crime is to reduce jurenile delinquency and youth crime.”

One of the things that I would be deeply interested in is the kind of coordination that is taking place within the administration generally and your role in that coordination for this attack on juvenile crime. There are a number of different programs, there are a number of different agencies, and I would be interested if you would at least develop to some extent the kinds of coordination and communication that exists between the various agencies in trying to focus in on the problem.

Attorney General CLARK. The coordination is effected to a very large degree at staff levels. I think there is continuous communication between people in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, for instance, and the people in such Federal agencies as the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, as to the relationship of programs that each of these departments is administering.

Also, we have had formal, and sometimes informal, coordination at the Secretary level.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. We still have, as I understand it, an Executive order establishing the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime; the Executive order that was given in 1961. In Section 2 of that provision it says:

The committee shall review, evaluate, promote coordination of the activities of the several departments, shall stimulate experimentation, shall encourage cooperation in the sharing of information between federal agencies, state, local and private organizations having similar responsibilities and interests.

I am wondering what the status of that Executive order or that coordinating group is today, if it is in operation, whether you feel that it would be helpful to activate it.

Attorney General CLARK. The committee represented a coordinated move by the administration into this vital and terribly important area of youth crime. It was a useful device. Its original direction was toward legislation. It was largely responsible I think for securing the 1961 legislation which started the Federal Government moving forward in a meaningful, effective way in the area of juvenile delinquency. It was also important in a number of other legislative areas--making contributions in the concept of OEO and its role with youth, and other legislation of the mid-1960's.


By 1965, demonstration grant techniques had brought us to a place where, with the pending study of the President's Crime Commission, it appeared that we were ready to go, or would be ready to go, on the basis of this most comprehensive study of crime and its causes ever made, into a major grant program that would go beyond the demonstration grant technique. Therefore, much of the staff activity of the committee during 1965 and after was diverted to the Crime Commission and to its study.

Growing out of the study of the Crime Commission, plus our experience with the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, for instance, which is quite analogous to the 1961 Juvenile Delinquency Act, we now come forward with a combination legislative proposal that would be by far the largest, most important, and venturesome effort of the Federal Government in the total crime picture; and also most importantly in the juvenile delinquency and youth crime picture_the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act and the bill before this committee this morning.

These two measures provide a method of coordination by their legislative terms that, based on our experience, is the most effective way to bring about the coordination that is necessary to insure the success of the programs under the bills.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Senator Clark.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Attorney General, we are very happy to have you down here, and I think your testimony is going to be most valuable to us.

I have been concerned for some years with legislative coordination as well as executive coordination in this general field. As you knoir, Senator Dodd has been the chairman of the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee dealing with juvenile delinquency, but has never had legislative authority over the subject. This authority has been vested in the Labor Committee's Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty, which I chair.

Senator Dodd and I have worked closely together over the years, but it is a messy situation to have two different committees vested with jurisdiction over the same subject, even though this subcommittee has had legislative jurisdiction over the juvenile delinquency acts which have been passed in the 11 years I have been in the Senate.

We are verv fortunate now in having Senator Edward Kennedy as a member of both subcommittees. Therefore, I thought it was peculiarly appropriate to ask him to step into my shoes, particularly because of my present occupation with the poverty bill which I am floor managing this week, to chair these hearings which will give us a much better understanding in the Judiciary Committee when it comes to marking up the bill on the Crime Control Act.

There are a couple of matters, a couple of things which are not in your testimony which I would like to get for the record when we come to mark in this bill. First, there are your views on the changes made by the House in the administration draft of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act of 1967.

Attorney General CLARK. Perhaps the most systematic way would be for us to review the changes, change by change, and submit some


« PreviousContinue »