Senator JAVITS. I am talking about the U.S. Office of Education. Mr. SHRIVER. I am, too.

Senator JAVITS. You say you cooperate at the local school board level?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is part of the cooperation between title I, which the Office of Education administers, and our program, which takes place not only in Washington but at the local level, because the programs are developed at the local level.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Shriver, would you be good enough to file a statement for the record-and I ask unanimous consent that it be included-along with the Commissioner of Education, which will state what the collaboration on Headstart is between the two agencies, and I make the same request, Mr. Chairman, of the Commissioner of Education.

Senator CLARK. I would certainly encourage that to be done. Do you think you can arrange that, Mr. Shriver?

Mr. SHRIVER. I feel confident I can.

Senator CLARK. The memorandum is requested on behalf of the subcommittee and when received will be made a part of the record. (The memorandum subsequently supplied follows:)

MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION ON COOPERATION BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION WITH RESPECT TO THE HEAD START PROGRAM There has been a continuous dialogue between the Office of Education and the Office of Economic Opportunity about the Head Start program. The Office of Education has been actively involved in the development of program guidelines and the preparation of technical publications. Both agencies require applicants to coordinate programs at the local level and provide assistance in resolving disputes between local educational and community action agencies. Office of Economic Opportunity training programs are also serving local school personnel.

It should be noted that coordination also takes place between the Office of Economic Opportunity and other Federal agencies. Dr. Julius B. Richmond, Head Start's program director, has met on a number of occasions with the Commissioners of Education and Welfare, the Surgeon General, and the Director of the Children's Bureau.

Cooperation between the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Office of Education on the Head Start program began at the time the program was originally conceived. Members of the Office of Education staff, including Dr. William Rioux, Dr. William Johnston, and Dr. James Mauch worked actively with Office of Economic Opportunity staff in the development of the original "Invitation to Help" booklet. That booklet contains the basic policies and guidelines for the Head Start program. Office of Education personnel have reviewed many of the other Head Start publications. Dr. Minnie Berson and Dr. Dwayne Gardner of the Office of Education's staff have written pamphlets which will be included in the Head Start series.

Both offices have prescribed procedures which require coordination among agencies prior to applying for a Head Start program from the Office of Economic Opportunity or a preschool program from the Office of Education. In the case of Head Start, the applicant agency must include in its application a list of the agencies with whom it has consulted and a list of other agency funds which are being used. Office of Education regulations require, in accordance with Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that the local Board of Education consult with the Community Action Agency in the formulation of their plans and programs, although the final authority to approve such plans rests with the State Department of Education. In addition, a recent agreement between OE and OEO requires that education programs planned by Community Action Agencies be developed cooperatively with local school systems. Both the Office of Education and the Office of Economic Opportunity have offered their good offices in resolving disputes between local education and community action agencies.

At the local level, a number of communities are using funds from both the Office of Education and the Office of Economic Opportunity. In some cases, these 65-922-66—————6

funds finance programs for different groups of children. For example, Washington. D.C., wil use Head Start imlas this summer for 5-year-old children; it will aiso use Title I funds for younger ehli tret in other eases, the funds of the rw? agencies are being comic De SETT TD- suze chlidreL. Thus, Dade County, Fiorida, used Title I funds to provit aines but the operating costs Lave been financed througi. Head Start. Sumariy in New York City this summer. the Board of Education will pay teacher salaries for some 28,000 children, but Office of Economic Opportunity will provide health social services, and food programs for these children.

As a result of agreement between the agencies. Head Start summer orientation programs were opened to personnel participating in Elementary and Seeondary Education Act programs It is estimated that approximately 1,000 school employees wil participate this summer.

Arrangements are now being made to relate more directly the research activities financed by the Office of Education and those financed by the Office of Economic Opportunity. A permanen liaiso position has been created in the Office of Education and filled by Miss Joan Schwartz Her responsibilities are to assure that the two agencies are continually informed of the work being done by each other and that all questions which shouić involve a joint decision are appropriately handied. Several research and demonstration projects have been jointly funded by the two agencies.

During the course of the authorization hearings before the House of Representatives, the Office of Economic Opportunity was asked to prepare a report on the expansion of the Head Start program to serve all children who could potentially benefit from the program. This report was prepared in close consultation with the staff of the Office of Eduertion, the Public Health Service, and Wel fare Administration. including the Children's Bureau. Head Start, of course, draws upon many of the services which are available through the latter agencies and close cooperation with then has been the rule. The Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are now in the preliminary stages of a joint survey of the health components of Project Head Start to determine whether they can be more effectively coordinated with ongoing programs.

In summary, the coordination between the Office of Education and the Office of Economic Opportunity is close and continuing. The results of that coordination have been helpful to both agencies in the successful operation of their programs. There of course have been instances of disagreement between local community action programs and school systems, but the procedures that have been established by Head Start and the Office of Education minimize these differences and provide a mechanism for their resolution.

Senator JAVITS. Would that statement also cover what you have just described as your coordination with the local educational agencies?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes; indeed.

Senator JAVITS. My time is running out, but I would like to ask two other short questions.

One, title II(c), the needy children program, which embodies the idea of having citizens volunteer to see what they can do for needy children, was retained in the act on the Senate's vote last year notwithstanding the thought of your department that it ought to be repealed. Now, could you tell us what has been done to implement

that title?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, actually very little has been done, Senator Javits. Very little has been done because the business of putting families together with youngsters of this type has always been looked upon, I think, in this country as something which was a specialty and u-ually done on a case-by-case basis at the local level. Therefore, we have tended to try and put applications involving this statute over onto the shoulders of those who by a lot of experience are qualified to do it,

We have had very little interest actually expressed in it. We have had very few people write in or comment about it and, therefore, we have not proceeded aggressively in the implementation of it.

Senator JAVITS. You have just given the answer. You have not particularly advertised the fact that this is one of your responsibilities? Mr. SHRIVER. No; we have not, because we thought that this would be better done, as I said, in the way I just described.

Senator JAVITS. But Congress' mandate was that you should do it. We put it in the law; you did not want it, but we put it in, and I think it is essential that agencies in the executive department pay some attention to us, even if they are against an idea to begin with. It's the law; we put it in for a purpose.

Mr. SHRIVER. I agree with you completely; maybe we were not smart enough to carry it out.

Senator JAVITS. That is what we lawyers would call a plea in confession and avoidance, getting up on the weak side.

Senator CLARK. If the Senator will permit the interruption, the plea in avoidance of the law is always invalid. [Laughter.]

Senator JAVITS. I implied that. Would you be good enough to give us a statement of what you have done on this program, and also as to any plans pending in your department dealing with the program, even plans which may have been rejected; but do give us some idea as to what might be done. Let's assume we appropriated the money or we made it very strong that we want you to be aggressive. Would you do that?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir.

(The following memorandum was subsequently supplied for the record :)

MEMORANDUM FROM OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE II-C

Title II-C originally provided for the collection and dissemination, to prospective donors, of the names of needy children. This was, in essence, the program. Amendments made in 1965 removed the provision covering the collection and dissemination of names, apparently in recognition of the problems of implementation that had been encountered. The amendments did not, however, repeal this part of the Act. As a result, OEO was left with a statutory provision which authorized it to encourage voluntary assistance for needy children but which omitted-for what the Congress evidently considered good reasonthe mechanism by which such assistance would be extended on a person-toperson-basis in any national program.

Many of the problems presented by a national person-to-person voluntary assistance program, do not exist for programs operated at the local level. Community action and Head Start Child Development Centers can-and do-actively solicit personal contributions from people in their communities who are willing and able to provide them. These contributions may take a number of forms, many of which are of direct benefit to needy children. For example:

Personal donations of clothing and other essential items to Head Start children and the children of parents participating in other Community Action Program projects.

Big Brother and Big Sister programs, in which responsible families and individuals “adopt" needy children, and provide them with not only material support but friendship and guidance.

Supplies of clothing, furniture and other necessities distributed through "exchanges", manned jointly by the donors of the items and the residents of the neighborhoods, who can target the assistance on those most in need. In St. Louis, three such exchanges have been set up as store-front operations. In Chicago's Urban Progress Centers, paid neighborhood workers and volunteers are on call until late at night and all weekend to convey donated materials and other help to poor families striken by emergencies.

OEO has supported this kind of local effort. Staff members have, in fact. undertaken on numerous occasions to solicit supplies and materials needed or desired locally. Although title II-C is not needed as authority for such activity, we believe that the actions taken do fall within the spirit of that provision.

In addition, we have of course continued to respond to individual requests for assistance or offers of donations for various purposes, through Information Center referrals to what appear to be the appropriate national and local agencies. Again, this is not the kind of activity for which title II-C authority is required; it is something our Information Center would do in any event. A major limitation on this kind of general “donation" activity is the impossibility of maintaining on a national level the kind of current information and contacts required for dealing with many thousands of widely varying and different agencies throughout the country. Even so, actions have been taken in numerous specific cases that have undoubtedly benefited the class title II-C is intended to assist. It should be noted that, in addition to title II-C and other authority implicit in various provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act, the Director is authorized under section 602(f) to accept and dispose of in furtherance of the purposes of the Act gifts of money or property. This authority has been employed on many occasions in support of specific programs or program activities carried on under the Act. Very often, however, it is neither practical nor desirable that donations for program purposes should pass through OEO; it would be preferable if they were to go directly to the agency responsible for that activity. This may not always be a simple matter.

A donor who would like to support a particular kind of program activity, for example, may not know just where that support may be most needed. He may have questions concerning the tax status of potential recipients for the purpose of gifts. If the donor is a firm responding to one request, it may want to know whether its response might trigger many other requests which it would be hard pressed to meet. Timing alone may present a major difficulty when programs are operating according to a schedule; a donation that arrives too late may be of little value.

It may well be that some additional attention to this latter kind of approachwhich involves donations in support of program activities rather than particular families or individuals-would be warranted. It could, in effect, extend the possibilities presented of some of the local programs referred to above. It might be particular assistance to community action programs operating in rural areas, for example, which have needs for donations which they cannot meet locally and which lack the contacts or information that would enable them to solicit help effectively from those outside the community or on a national basis. From the standpoint of the donor, moreover, gifts in support of this kind of effort have the advantage of being made with some assurance that they will be utilized in support of a program which is of a fairly definite and known character and is subject to regular supervision and audit.

Assuming that the practical problems in making greater use of this approach could be overcome, we do not believe that it would be desirable to promote such a program specifically as one for "needy children", even though in practice children might well often receive the benefit of the donations made. Donors rather should be free to contribute to any program purpose they might choose. Senator JAVITS. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that a statement of Senator Williams of New Jersey, who is very interested in this program and anxious to support it, may be made a part of

this record.

Senator CLARK. That will be done.

STATEMENT OF HON. HARRISON A. WILLIAMS, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Senator WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I wish to take this opportunity to urge that the program of voluntary assistance to needy children presently authorized in title II-C of the Economic Opportunity Act be implemented without further delay.

For many months now, my distinguished and able colleague, Senator Javits, has labored for the implementation of this program. His efforts have my wholehearted support.

Title II-C of the Economic Opportunity Act authorizes the establishment of an information and coordination center within the Office of Economic Opportunity to encourage individual citizens voluntarily to assist deserving and needy children. The program envisioned in Title II-C would operate along the lines of existing non-Federal programs designed to assist children in foreign lands.

In my judgment, this type of program would be an invaluable complement to present efforts at the Federal level, and those which will hopefully materialize within the near future, to meet adequately the welfare needs of these children.

Despite many commendable programs which have helped create an environment for the full development of individual potential and maximum achievement, a substantial number of our citizens are so far removed from the mainstream of our society that the opportunity for self-improvement and a better life are virtually nonexistent.

Nowhere is this cruel situation more evident than among the children of our poor in both our urban and rural areas. Major Federal programs to meet their needs are woefully inadequate. Funds for maternal and child welfare services under the Social Security Act, for example, provide, on an average, considerably less than $1 million a year to each of the States. Aid to families with dependent children does not begin to reach all those in real need. Action has been delayed until next year on pending legislation such as S. 2951 which I have introduced to provide Federal grants to the States for children in foster care.

It seems to me that the Office of Economic Opportunity is particularly well suited to begin now to help erase many of the problems of our needy children. The staffs of the many community action programs across the country are only too well acquainted with the harshness of poverty. Moreover, they know well many children in desperate need-not only children who receive, or who are entitled to receive welfare. There are also children who, for whatever reason, receive no assistance at all. By making these needs known to the more fortunate and affluent of our society, a central information and coordination center could make a substantial contribution to improving the lives of innumerable needy children.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge that this subcommittee study this matter carefully and take whatever steps it considers appropriate to assure early implementation of this program.

Because I am unable to appear before the subcommittee personally this morning, I have conveyed my thoughts on this matter to Sargent Shriver, and I would ask that my letter be included in the hearing record at this point.

I appreciate this opportunity to express my views.

Senator JAVITS. One other question, Mr. Shriver, if I may. I was responsible for a series of amendments to the act last year, one of which dealt with public hearings, and you construe the amendments to require a public hearing prior to review of applications for community action programs.