to be the executive secretary. The commission was continued in 1957 and seems likely to be continued again this year.

As a result of its investigation of the total problem, the commission concluded that sufficient trained probation officers to serve every juvenile court in Minnesota are indispensable to help reduce delinquency. On its recommendation, the legislature despite its economy-mindedness appropriated $671,000 for a statewide probation program. This may be peanuts in Washington, but is tremendous to us. The act requires that every new officer hired must have passed the State civil service examination.

This is a tie-in between training and practical application. The State is authorized to hire 15 new probation-parole agents I and 7 agents II or supervisors. It seems likely that 10 of the new parole agents I will attend the juvenile officers institute for training this summer. If they do, they will go out on the job with a good deal more skill and understanding than they would otherwise have.

Senator MORSE. I am familiar with those two pamphlets to which you have referred and without objection I would like to have them filed with the committee, not part of the record, but as exhibits for our file so they will be available for us in executive committee discussions. Mr. ELLINGSTON. What we would like to do at the university in connection with this juvenile officers institute-and we could not run this without Ford Foundation aid; the Ford people came out in 1957, paid half the costs, now they pay the total cost of that program, because they think it valuable is to include not only probation and parole agents with the police officers, but also juvenile court judges and county attorneys. No judge would need a 10-week course, but we believe they could use 2 weeks very intensive training at the university on behavior, on court operations, on relations with other agencies, etc. We should like also to train welfare workers who around the State have inevitably to do with delinquent children. Very few of them have social work M.A.'s. We can give them training in several weeks which would make them a lot more efficient and more valuable than they are.

This seems to be to be the fruitful approach to help to meet this immense social problem that affects all children. Incidentally, I would like to make one point: Service by itself is not worth a hoot. You cannot do anything for anybody. The only thing of value is to help others to do something for themselves, to help them solve their own problems.

We have to get away from this concept of just pouring out services as such. We have to find ways of revitalizing neighborhoods, the plain citizens are helped and guided into serving their own kids and the neighborhood kids and in so doing suddently discover that theirs is a neighborhood and they have revitalized the values that have been lost through industrialization.

So this type of training that I am talking of in relation to the Juvenile Officers Institute seems to me to be the crucial type of training. Sure, we have to have professionals and qualified people to do demonstration projects, but it is vastly more important to have every police department have somebody with training to handle little Johnny around the corner. So with the probation officer and the institutional people who have practically no training, these are the

people we have to start with. Then demonstration projects are perfectly sound.

For 13 years I was in charge of the youth authority program for the American Law Institute. We set it up in California and many other States and here in the Federal Government, and I think it is a very good thing. But the longer I worked on that project, the more doubtful I became of the wisdom of setting up youth authorities without personnel. They were not available.

What is the good of a project, sound as it may be, unless you have people that can administer it?

We are not going to get M.A.'s, we do not want M.A.'s for many of these positions. An M.A. as a cottage parent in a training school is a waste of time and would probably have the wrong approach. The cottage parent should have understanding of himself and therefore of the children, of how to handle the kids. Some people cannot learn that if they live to be a hundred, but the great majority can. This we have discovered in practical work. This is where training should begin and I do not think that anything else that the Government could do would be worth 10 cents if it fails to help provide the people who can do these jobs. May I say that Federal aid for demonstration projects alone will make so little impact on the immense problem that it may foreclose future Federal action to aid training of personnel. The tendency may be to say that Federal funds are wasted in the effort to control delinquency.

A demonstration, presumably, is of a program that you want adopted all through your State. If it is going to be so adopted there have to be people locally who understand the problem and who can be taught to administer the demonstrated project.

There is no slick answer, there is no short cut, there is no demonstration that is going to find the total answer to this universal social problem. Therefore, the thing to do is to get across to the greatest possible number of people working daily with children, the basic understandings of antisocial behavior and how to change it.

I am all for demonstration projects, provided I know what the demonstration projects are. It is very easy to say, "Here is some Federal money and would it not be nice if we had this little project." And a lot of professional people get together and cook up something of interest to them but which doesn't contribute much of anything to help a community reduce delinquency.

To select projects wisely, I believe we have to understand the nature of this problem and its cause, then we can decide how well the project hits at the core of the problem. We have to have perspective.

Thirdly, as Judge Long quite rightly pointed out, no State has enough essential services-police, probation, and the rest, to work with children who are already delinquent, to say nothing of effective preventive services. Ongoing projects everywhere need aid. Also they need trained staff. A new probation service is set up. Someone says, "Well, now, we have a probation department and the situation. is just as bad as it was before we had that probation office." Why? The probation officer is an ex-deputy sheriff and does not know the first thing about the problem. This sets back the whole concept of treatment. There has to be education.

Senator MORSE. I have these two questions I would like to ask, based upon our earlier conversation this morning.

Earlier this morning Senator Clark raised the point in regard to how much, after all, should the States do about these matters, and I think we shared the point of view that the States should do all they possibly can.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. Pushed to the very limit; yes, sir.

Senator MORSE. Is it your opinion that the Federal Government also has a share of responsibility in regard to facing this problem? Mr. ELLINGSTON. Sir, it seems to me as I have tried to analyze it, that this is really the No. 1 national problem, more so than the atomic bomb. Despite all the platitudinous repetition, our youngsters are our future, and the only way we can be destroyed is from inside. This Korean story indicates there are grave weaknesses in our social structure. The Federal Government has got to move into this field. Weaknesses in the social structure affect every youngster, so you move on delinquency in a broad attack because it helps control and improve institutions and situations from which all youngsters suffer.

Senator MORSE. Just roughly, what would be your division of funds in the hypothetical situation that Senator Clark put this morning? Out of $5 million of Federal money, we will say that might be made available, how much of it would you spend for training and how much would you spend for research?

Mr. ELLINGSTON. Sir, I would answer that very much as Judge Long did, that at the very minimum there should be 4 to 1; there should be a minimum of $4 million for the type of training I am talking about, not demonstration projects, but pushing universities to do those things. I would personally see the whole $5 million there, but there is real value to demonstration projects properly done and related to training, so 4 to 1 at the very minimum. There should be at least $4 million for training out of $5 million.

Senator MORSE. Having heard your entire testimony, I want to thank you very much for what I think will prove to be, along with Judge Long's testimony this morning, a very, very valuable contribution to our executive discussions.

Senator CLARK. First, let me address my expression of thanks to you, Senator Morse, for being chairman while I was called to two other committee meetings.

I have leafed through your testimony and heard the last part of it, Mr. Ellingston. I would like to share the commendation which Senator Morse has given you for being an extremely helpful and useful witness.

I have a few specific questions I would like to ask you which I do not think will detain you long.

I note with interest the statistics which you cite in the first part of your prepared statement and they tend to agree with some testimony which I thought was shocking, and perhaps inaccurate, when given from the representative of Big Brothers Association at a hearing last week.

It was then testified that approximately 20 percent of the male population of this country would have been arrested by the time they are 18. That seemed to me to be a highly extravagant statement, but as I look at the figures in your statement, it seems to me maybe they are right.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. Would have been arrested?

Senator CLARK. Would have been arrested by the time they reach their 18th birthday.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. Of course, if you include traffic, surely. And I would guess that-California, of course, has a very difficult problem, as you know.

This is the production of our industrialization and mobility. It is all focused in California so their situation is without question more difficult than that of any other State.

Senator CLARK. I am happy to hear it intimated that young Californians are worse than young Pennsylvanians.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. I do not think they are. I think the situation there may be one which would push the young Californian into an obvious position which the young Pennsylvanian might be in without being recognized.

Senator CLARK. In a lighter vein, you do not have any figures on Texas?

Mr. ELLINGSTON. The famous Porterfield study on Texas college students-you are familiar with that?

Senator CLARK. No; I am not.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. While I do not have the figures at hand, the study was made of some 300 college students in Texas. Taking the offenses for which youngsters in juvenile court in this particular city had been arraigned that year, everything up to homicide; the study found that every college student had been guilty of some of the offenses for which kids were in juvenile court at some time in their career, including homicide. Every college student that was included in this category had been involved in 1, and some even as many as 10, of these offenses for which kids were in juvenile court.

Senator CLARK. I would like your comment on the statistic which encourages so many people, and had encouraged me until we had these hearings that the overwhelming proportion of our youth are fine and upstanding boys and girls and that no more than 2 or 3 percent of the total of our youth are problems in the delinquency area. This, I suppose, is a little deceptive, is it not?

Mr. ELLINGSTON. Yes, indeed. Figures for juvenile court ap

pear

Senator CLARK. Let me rephrase that. Referring to your prepared statement, I wonder if you could reconcile the figures to the effect that 2.35 out of every 100 children in 1957 appeared before juvenile courts with the statements which I referred to earlier that the percentage of delinquency among our youth is far higher than that statistic standing by itself would indicate.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. Sir, it is understood, of course, that the youngster gets to juvenile court usually only after he has been in very serious behavior or repeated behavior in most instances. There are exceptions.

So that 2.35 of all our youngsters in this age group in juvenile court reflects a vastly larger number of youngsters who have been arrested or not arrested. For example, a youngster in school steals money. A good visiting teacher will try to work this out, not with the police but with the family and the child, so you get a vastly greater proportion of youngsters involved in the behavior for which only some youngsters are arrested.

41638 0-59- -17

Senator CLARK. Not only that but these figures are not cumulative, just year by year, and any one individual might not have come before the court in one year and might the next.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. A study was made by Peter Lejins, at the University of Maryland, and his findings were that instead of 2 or 3 percent having juvenile court appearances, it ran up to 8 or 9 percent of a particular age group, considering the total period for which they were eligible for juvenile court hearings.

Senator CLARK. Let me shift to another subject-that is, to get your opinion unless you have already expressed it. If you have, say so, and I will read it in the record, as to whether any Federal legislation should require matching funds from (a), the State, or (b), the local unit of Government, or (c), the private institution, as a condition for grant.

Mr. ELLINGSTON. Sir, I have not been asked that question. Initially I would say "No," provided the aids are carefully granted with this perspective of the problem in mind. I think that there are several universities which could develop a program such as Minnesota's, but which could not get a penny from their State legislatures until they had demonstrated the soundness and value of the project. If the Federal Government would make it possible for 3 or 4 years to operate a police officers' training school, for example, then the local people might take over. I think this has happened in our State. I think this year we could have gotten money for the J.O.I. because of its success over the last few years. We could not have in 1955.

Senator CLARK. How about the suggestion that your university, for example, could obtain the matching funds from a foundation grant. You said you had Ford Foundation money. If we could make the Federal Government money go twice as far, this would be desirable.

The argument has been made that you cannot expect the legislatures to put up the money. On the other hand, in an allied field of urban renewal, we have been able to find localities to put up some of the money. Perhaps this would be true for some of the larger cities if you acquired a grant-money from them as well as from the Federal Government. What is your opinion on that?

Mr. ELLINGSTON. I am convinced there should be a minimum amount of handout-localities should do the job as much as possible. I believe, in some areas Federal aid might be based on matching funds, but I believe in other areas and other projects you would not get the project launched unless you prove its soundness.

Let me give you an illustration of what I mean: In Wisconsin in the 1930's there were no such personnel as county social workers, so the Federal Government provided funds which made it possible to send a trained social worker to one of the rural counties in Wisconsin. The county supervisors said "Nuts, this is free; we will let her stay as long as the Federal money lasts." Then the social worker turned up a family of 12 living in a one-room hut in a dirt cellar, both sexes sleeping in rags on the floor. People had known this family was in trouble, but a little publicity like this and the county commissioners said "We need this sort of help." So they hired the worker permanently. But had you said to the county, "We will pay half of the social worker's salary if you pay half," you would not have gotten to first base.