supporting him. These same universities in many cases are forbidden to pay their own faculties on the same basis.

3. Given expectations for the same educational product, the cost to the public is higher when private contracting is used. Institutions of higher education could not and would not have cause for protest if private organizations could deliver the same or better educational product at lower cost.

Inasmuch as complete data are not available on this point, we believe it merits further consideration by this committee.

4. In our dealings with private organizations who have contracted to manage a number of national training programs such as Headstart and Job Corps, we have been seriously disturbed by the lack of understanding of institutional needs and requirements on the part of the

contractors.

This has resulted in unnecessary agonies for all concerned and a waste of extremely scarce staff and faculty resources on our campuses. The additional cost to the Government has not as yet been measured but we believe it to be considerable.

Our members have no desire to become embroiled in a struggle with private organizations. The cause of education would receive a setback and ultimately the people of this country would suffer from such a conflict.

We are convinced that our nonprofit educational institutions and corporate enterprises have a mutual need for each other. It is our hope that this committee would take cognizance of the problem before it develops further and provide the leadership to resolve it in the best interests of the people of this country.

Madam Chairman, those are our prepared remarks.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Goerke.

I must say I am in agreement with many of the comments in your statement and I think your points are well taken.

Let me turn to two questions. On page 4 you support the allocation of 10 percent of the appropriated funds to the Commissioner and, if I understand what you are saying correctly, that there would be a greater chance to carry out innovative, experimental and regional projects if the Commissioner had this authority.

Why is this true? Why wouldn't a grant to an institution result in just as innovative and just as experimental and good a project if it were given on the allocation of funds State by State as if the Commissioner deals with it directly!

Dr. GOERKE. The way the act is structured it specifies program areas in the legislation and sets up broad categories in order to direct programs. It delegates responsibility to the State level to the Governor, or designated State agency who in turn appoints an advisory committee. Everybody submits programs on a State plan which further outlines requirements on specific proposals.

A State plan is a little outside this framework of dealing with community problems. University and community leaders pretty much have to come up through these channels as outlined now. This might be changed. It does not provide for work on an area basis.

In other words, the administrative structure is in-State, Florida and Georgia could not go to work on one program that might be beneficial as it now stands.

Mrs. GREEN. Aren't those categories outlined so broadly that they would include everything the mind of man could conceive?

Dr. GOERKE. They have a way of being very broad until they are interpreted.

Mrs. GREEN. Interpreted by whom?

Dr. GOERKE. In one case at the State level; further refinement at the Federal level.

Mrs. GREEN. Who at the Federal level?

Dr. GOERKE. The Office of Education.

Mrs. GREEN. You say on one hand they interpret these categories so narrowly they limit the programs and on the other hand you would give the Commissioner the funds or authority so they would be more innovative?

Dr. GOERKE. No; I say it would give more opportunity for innovative programs. There is opportunity as set forth in the legislation but it does not provide for opportunity outside individual State areas. Mrs. GREEN. We could amend it so it would be on an area basis. Wouldn't that take care of it so there would be funds for direct allocation by the Commissioner?

Dr. GOERKE. I don't know. You then put them in the position where you would have clearance of projects through several States to accomplish this. You would still have several State administrations where projects would have to be submitted and be cleared through advisory committees.

We don't have the ability now, for instance, for one of our schools, either public or private, to come in and be operating with someone outside of the State.

Mrs. GREEN. You are the executive director, Mr. Pitchell?

Mr. PITCHELL. Yes.

Mrs. GREEN. How many grants or contracts does your organization have?

Mr. PITCHELL. We have one right now.

Mrs. GREEN. What is the amount there?

Mr. PITCHELL. For the current fiscal year, it is $1,055,000. We just had this renewed for a second year at $1,400,000.

Mrs. GREEN. Is that within the funds which the Commissioner of Education has at his disposal to allocate?

Mr. PITCHELL. Not under title I but he has it under the Adult Education Act.

Mrs. GREEN. Adult basic education?

Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. GREEN. This is where you received the million dollars?

Mr. PITCHELL. Yes.

Mrs. GREEN. What is the purpose of this?

Mr. PITCHELL. To conduct a national program for teacher trainers and for administrators of adult basic education in all of the States and territories of the United States. This is carried out in two institutions of higher education in each of the nine Office of Education regions of the United States.

Mrs. GREEN. How many universities or colleges belong to the national association?

Mr. PITCHELL. We have 133 including four in Canada.

Mrs. GREEN. Under this million dollar grant which has been extended, which amounts to $22 million, could these teacher training programs be carried on in any institution in the United States or only in those institutions which are members of your association?

Mr. PITCHELL. They can be carried on in any one. In fact, Montclair State College is not a member of our association and it is carrying out one this year; the State University of New York at Albany is also carrying out an intitute this year. It was selected before it became a member. It just became a member last week.

Mrs. GREEN. In the contract you sign with the Office of Education, doesn't it say only your members can participate in the program under this grant?

Mr. PITCHELL. No; on the contrary, the contract specifically says the Office of Education will have full authority to name institutions without consultation. As a matter of fact, I insisted on that since I would not want to be in a position in my association of selecting specific institutions, nine or 18 with 129 eligible. Most of them were fighting to get into this program.

Mrs. GREEN. Why would only 129 be eligible?

Mr. PITCHELL. I am sorry. I didn't understand your question.

Mrs. GREEN. You said you would not want to choose 18 out of 129 eligible?

Mr. PITCHELL. If the Office of Education came to me and asked which of our institutions were interested in getting into this program, which would I recommend be considered? I didn't want to be in the position of selecting among my institutions and making recommendations as to which ought to be involved.

I said, for my survival in the association and the best interest of our association we believe that the Office of Education should have full and complete authority to select the institutions.

In 1966 this was a crash program; it was one you might call a supercrash program. We had less than 30 days to get organized for it. At that time in our discussions with the Office of Education on the program-they came to us, as a matter of fact, and offered us this contract because there was no administrative way whatsoever in the available time to notify institutions about the availability of this program, the characteristics of it. We provided our facilities, our know-how, and our communication processes for communicating with our institutions. We were able to advise them within 60 hours as to which of the institutions were interested in coming in and they selected from this group because there was no other way of doing it, as far as we knew.

Mrs. GREEN. I know the Office of Education makes the final selection, but are you saying it is not in the contract that only the members of your institution are eligible?

Mr. PITCHELL. I am absolutely certain of that. As I say, they just selected two institutions who were not members and we subcontracted with both of them.

One has become a member since. One still has not and has not applied.

Mrs. GREEN. I may be wrong, but I sent for a copy of the contract. I have a copy of an application submitted to the Office of Education in regard to the adult education programs. I have been advised the application I have has been approved.

In this application it says the regional training institutes will be carried out by nine or more member institutions of NDEA, adult basic education. This is under your million dollar grant?

Mr. PITCHELL. This is 1966?

Mrs. GREEN. Yes, 1966 summer training program.

Mr. PITCHELL. This was the understanding in 1966 that this was the only way it could possibly be done.

Mrs. GREEN. 1966, the only institutions that were eligible were the members of your association?

Mr. PITCHELL. The only ones that were contacted; yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. The contract provided it would be limited only to your members?

Mr. PITCHELL. I think that is a fair statement of intent if not of specific language. I don't think there was much of a possibility of developing a communications system at that time to carry out the program as it was planned. Actually North Carolina State University at Raleigh was selected by the Office of Education even though not a member, because of its well-known, special competency in adult basic education. At the time it had already applied for membership in NUEA and was admitted in July.

Mrs. GREEN. Do you have a new contract for 1967?

Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. GREEN. This sentence is not in it?

Mr. PITCHELL. I can't remember exactly on that point but if it is there, it is clearly qualified by the authorization, by the unqualified statement that the Office of Education will select institutions.

Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Quie.

Mr. QUIE. You say on page 3 of your testimony that the National University Extension Association is aware that a major purpose of title I is to bring about community change as a part of the process of solving serious or persistent community problems.

And then going on to the rest of your testimony there in support of this new section (107), it seems that you have a different idea of the purpose of this act than I do when it was passed last time.

I thought it was to enable institutions of higher learning to expand their program in order to meet particular community need problems especially in the urban-suburban area and they would be continuing their education program, not as it sounds here, to start running some programs of their own to solve the problems of Appalachia, or other large regional areas larger than one State.

What do you envision that the university or college would be embarking on here?

Dr. GOERKE. These are only given as examples of larger regional problems. I can think of one in our State, the migrant problem which travels across State lines where there is need for cooperation and where agencies have dealt with this without Federal funding all the way up to Delaware.

I don't think this is a major emphasis of the money. I think it would provide opportunity. I think your statement was absolutely correct. Mr. QUIE. Now you are cooperating all the way up to Delaware. Why can't you cooperate all the way up to Delaware under the present act? I don't see anything in there preventing you from doing so.

It is true you can't get funds from Delaware for a program in Florida but, if you are cooperating with institutions in Delaware, what is to prevent your cooperation when you secure funds from your State and they get funds from their State?"

Dr. GOERKE. Only that it comes up through channels and the agreement is not there now.

Mr. QUIE. Who brings agreement about? Does the Commissioner come to you and say here is a program I like and you people should cooperate in it?

Dr. GOERKE. I think it would be based on need primarily. I think they certainly see need on some occasions.

Mr. QUIE. If this new section 707 was adopted, who would actually be doing the cooperating? Would you be working with an institution of higher learning in another State or would the Commissioner come to you and say, here is a program I think we ought to get into. Dr. GOERKE. I actually see both.

Mr. PITCHELL. I think both would be possible and I call your attention again to the first paragraph on page 4 in which Dr. Goerke mentioned that the proposition we think holds here is that the possibility of innovative experimental programs being approved is in inverse ratio to the number of layers of bureaucracy and the size of the committees through which approval must be obtained.

What we are saying here is it is not impossible but you have increasing difficulties as you have to go through advisory committees to do this and then have State agencies review it again.

Many of the people on these committees are sensitive about experimental programs in sensitive areas, say areas such as Watts, for example. It took a major riot there before someone had the courage to do a project there and they finally have accepted one from the University of Southern California, which is right on the border. Mr. QUIE. We didn't have this act in operation when the first Watts riot occurred.

Mr. PITCHELL. That is true but there were not many projects in any of the Federal programs in that area because of sensitivity of people in that area.

Mr. QUIE. I think you should use an example where you were unable to have a program under this particular act, not an area before this program came into operation.

Dr. GOERKE. This is a problem in itself. We just had applications in 1967 submitted in Florida from 38 institutions, roughly $1,038,000. These go thorugh a committee constituted of people from the public and private sector, health, you name it. If you, as an institution of higher education, were to start a program you want to operate broadly, your chances are pretty slim of even getting a program through under the amount of money now available.

Mr. QUIE. You think going to the Commissioner would be easier? Dr. GOERKE. I think it would allow institutions cooperating together to have the opportunity if they come up with something.

Mr. QUIE. You haven't come up with anything definite as to how this could possibly be easier through the Commissioner.

Let me go on. You raise objection to the Commissioner contracting with private profitmaking organizations but you don't seem to object

80-155-67-pt. 1—23