York that delayed matters for months before they finally got down to who would actually run the program?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, there have been differences of opinion and disagreements in New York; and New York City, as you know better than I, Senator, has not yet reached a final decision on how they wish to organize themselves for this program in order to carry it out.

In fact, Mayor Lindsay appointed a special task force on that subject in January. The task force has not officially, I do not think, transmitted its recommendations to the mayor, nor has the mayor accepted them, nor have they been put into operation officially in any way. So there is no question about the fact that there has been profound differences of opinion in New York City as to how the program should be organized. Yet despite those differences and despite the fact that it is not yet final, the war against poverty projects, Neighborhood Youth Corps, VISTA, Headstart, et cetera, have operated in New York.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I have one other question, but I would like to ask unanimous consent to yield momentarily, to use his own time, to Senator Murphy.

Senator MURPHY. The question I was asking was as a result of a television show I saw last week, on which, I think, it was $600,000 that was stated as unaccounted for in New York.

This has been in the public press several times. It this customary? Is this a fact? In this a figment of some newspaperman's imagination. I believe that one young man who was in charge of the accounting was removed and then was put back on the job.

I am not accusing anybody of dishonesty. I am merely pointing out that from what I read in the press there was obviously gross inefficiency.

Mr. SHRIVER. I do not know of anybody from our office that made a statement like that.

Senator MURPHY. No, this was not the man from your office. The man I saw was the man who was in charge of the funds in New York. Mr. SHRIVER. Oh, you must be talking-are you talking about HarYou and the fact that last summer

Senator MURPHY. Yes.

Mr. SHRIVER (continuing). An accounting is being made of what was done with the money last summer and some have said as much as $400,000 was improperly accounted for and the man who was in charge last summer is back as the Executive Director? Is that what you are referring to?

Senator MURPHY. I was wondering if that has been satisfactorily accounted for and if it has not, is the man still on the job and should he be so?

Mr. SHRIVER. First of all

Mr. CUTLER. The audit is still in process.

Mr. SHRIVER. We have not gotten it.

Senator MURPHY. You mean since last summer you have been auditing this?

Mr. CUTLER. We completed an audit last summer and we pointed out the many areas of weakness, both of the financial and organizational type, and because of the relative chaos that existed

Senator MURPHY. There was chaos.

Mr. CUTLER. Chaos in the financial management area, particularly because of the complex nature of the program. We did point up the many transactions that have to be identified with the specific program involved and the city of New York, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Department of Labor and OEO have combined in a reconstruction effort to determine how every dollar was spent at HarYou.

Senator MURPHY. In my original statement I said I was afraid the speed with which the program was set up would cause this sort of confusion. Then you agree it has caused this confusion. In other words, better planning at the outset might have been much wiser and more prudent?

Mr. SHRIVER. I disagree with that completely and I will tell you exactly why.

This was a summer program that you are talking about in Harlem. How long

Senator MURPHY. Is it no longer in existence?

Mr. SHRIVER. Excuse me, there is no summer program in Harlem right now, no, because it is not summer yet. We hope there will be. Senator MURPHY. The HarYou Act is out of existence for the winter?

Mr. SHRIVER. No, sir; HarYou Act

Senator MURPHY. Was it really a summer program or was it a continuing program?

Mr. SHRIVER. It was a summer program.

Senator MURPHY. Did it continue through the winter?

Mr. SHRIVER. No, it did not. It was a summer program. Now the practical problem was this: Would we have a summer program last summer in Harlem or anywhere; we could not take 2 or 3 years to plan last summer's summer program. It had to be planned before last summer, and since we did not get any money until the first expenditures were the 24th of November. That gave us a maximum, let's say, of 6 months to plan last summer's program, so it was not a question that you could sit back

Senator MURPHY. In other words, you cannot plan until you get the money.

Mr. SHRIVER. I found out that until you have the money, nobody is very much interested in spending a lot of their time making a plan. So this program got started in November, after the presidential election of 1964. The problem then was, would there be any summer program anywhere? Los Angeles, New York, or someplace else; if there was to be one, we had from January, let's say, to June to get it done. So there was never a possibility that one could sit back very sedately and do a lot of analysis, et cetera, et cetera, at their leisure and still have a program last summer.

If you are going to have a program, it had to be planned and executed in that period of time.

Now the political leaders of New York, among others, were very complimentary about the program, actual results in Harlem last summer. It is a fact that the management, fiscal management and other aspects of management last summer were inadequate in Harlem. There is no question about that, and that is the reason why as soon as we got the audit, the preliminary audit, we required that changes

in personnel be carried out by that organization, and those changes were carried out as of last November the first, at which time a new accounting system was installed, a new personnel system was installed, a new fiscal reporting system was installed, new people were installed. The summer program did not continue, however, on into the winter. Different programs continued on into the winter and are going on now and are being managed by this new team, one might say, under new operating procedures.

Senator JAVITS. One question, Mr. Shriver. We are all anxiousI know our colleague, Senator Kennedy, asked you about this-to bring about the participation of the poor, and I know the practical difficulties which you have had in this regard.

Has anything been done about the setting up of management courses for those among the poor who seem to have talent for participating in these boards and so on, in order to give them some modicum of training which would then enable them to participate rather than assuming that any person who is poor or representing the poor is immediately able to participate in a venture involving multimillion-dollar expenditures?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, the answer is, yes. One of the most important aspects of our presentation to Congress for next year is a greatly increased expenditure for training, exactly the thing you are talking

about.

Senator JAVITS. If you would be kind enough to supply for the record some memorandum as to your planning in that regard, we would appreciate it.

Mr. SHRIVER. We would be glad to do that.

(The memorandum subsequently supplied follows:)

MEMORANDUM FROM OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ON TRAINING OF POOR PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM

OEO's program in Fiscal Year 1967 to train the poor for participation in the Community Action Programs includes three major elements:

(1) Training of CAP Board members and Neighborhood Council Representatives.-In Fiscal Year 1966, an estimated 12,000 CAP Board members and Neighborhood Councils, between one-third and one-half of them poor, participated in programs providing orientation to the purposes of the Community Action Program and the circumstances of poverty in their communities, and training in effective representation. Of these, approximately 10,000 received their training through the community action programs of their own communities. 2000 participated in special Regional training programs conducted under the auspices of such agencies as Community Progress, Inc. (New Haven), the New Jersey Training Institute, and the University of California.

OEO plans in Fiscal Year 1967 to expand both types of training for community representatives to the maximum extent consistent with constraints on CAP training funds under Sections 206 and 207 of the Economic Opportunity Act. In addition:

Area training conferences will be held under the auspices of OEO's Community Representatives Advisory Council, bringing together the representatives of the residents of the areas and members of the groups served by a number of community action programs.

Management Talent Teams will be formed to provide technical assistance to CAP Boards and neighborhood councils on a variety of management problems, including problems of effective representation of the community at large.

Work has begun on a series of pamphlets designed to introduce the newly selected representative to his responsibilities.

(2) Training of workers in local community action programs.—In Fiscal Year 1966, approximately 85,000 men and women were trained and placed in non

podesional polties i se ty dla prigrams. An estimated 90% of Luese workers were selected fe training from the povery-stricken neighborLovvas werted by their programs. Ist diese training programs were designed and mondomed maly, ai sblad vaaten to the purposes of community action and the essentials of respicab participation in the proctam.

Training and emjoyment of no-getters cil werkers in Fiscal Year 1967 will expand e ecotrat podly in promic is the alva of unrestricted funds onder Hersion 25. Iz rezer the projects with the highest ratios of effective employment of pre-professioals are those designed at the local level to meet pealing bal problem

5. Kuite-Purpose Training Centers -Subject to the availability of training fuz de OEO will mount in the coming year, a program of major Regional MultiPurpose Training Centers to provide Lizbegnaling training to professionals and ponge deslocals in all areas of loat anti-poverty wird. Five such Centers have already been funded at relatively modest leves in Fiscal Year 1966; two more are professed. They will be equipped to meet a wide range of community action trading Leeds, including leadership training for the residents of poverty-stricken zelzhborhoods who have the respect of their neighbors and show promise of developing into responsible and effective community representatives.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Shriver, under the current program. under the community action program. percent of the funds are provided by the Federal Government, 10 percent by the local, and under the present legislation in 1967 these funds were to be changed and altered so that there would be 50-50 participation.

In your own experience and in the experience of the Office, do you think that community action could possibly survive under a 30-50 kind of participation with local communities?

Mr. SHRIVER. I do not think it could, except in maybe one or two places. It is too new; it has not-in most places-had the time to establish itself the way it has in exceptional places. I would look upon a 50-50 ratio as being lethal to community action.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. So you see at least for the enduring future, the necessity for 90-10 matching funds.

Mr. SHRIVER. I would not say it quite that strongly, Senator. If I might, I would not say the enduring future. I would say that we consider it desirable for the immediate future that the 90-10 ratio be continued.

We have, however, gone on record as seeking to get more than the 10 percent wherever it seems to be practical and possible. In fact, we have gotten more than the 10 percent in a number of communities.

I can get exactly how many for the record. There is a substantial number, both of communities or goods or services or money rendered, and we will continue to do that because we think we should be aggressive in that way.

But for the immediate future, certainly for next fiscal year, we think the 90-10 should be continued."

(The material subsequently supplied for the record follows:)

MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ON COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM GRANTEES CONTRIBUTING MORE THAN 10 PER CENT NON-FEDERAL SHARE

Of the 975 regular community action agencies in operation on June 10, 1966, approximately 640 have contributed 11.0 per cent or more of total costs as nonfederal share for their programs.

The average non-federal share provided by grantees for all CAP programs (under Sections 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, and 311) is 11.0 per cent, in spite of the fact that programs under three of these sections do not require any non-federal share from recipients.

Nevertheless, CAA's receiving grants under Sections 206, 207, and 311, where no local share is required, have provided an average of 4.7 per cent of total costs in non-federal share.

Under Sections 204, 203, and 209, where a non-federal share of at least 10.0 per cent is required, CAA's have provided an average of 12.3 per cent of total program costs in local share for their grants.

We will continue to seek contributions above 10 per cent, because we think we should be aggressive in encouraging growing local commitments to community action.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I have one final point. We have a vote at 12:20, so we will try to split up the last question or two. There is in my mind, and I know in the minds of many of the members of the Aging Committee, a feeling that the problems of the aging ought to be given a greater sense of priority.

We are aware of the programs which have been recently initiated to give them, various employment opportunities. But still it does seem that these are of somewhat limited nature.

The Aging Committee, under Senator Smathers, has recently released some of their observations about the administration changes in the OEO that must be made to satisfy the urgent demands of the aged. I am going to introduce an amendment to this legislation which will provide for an Assistant Director for the Elderly.

I am aware that you have expressed some reservations about it, recognizing there are some other groups around the country, like the Indians, who should be given a sense of priority. I would certainly hope that you and those in responsible positions in OEO could once again renew this suggestion and consider some of the points we have been suggesting and then perhaps give us a response to it.

I will not ask you at this time to comment; I would like you to submit that in either the form of a letter or memorandum and hope that you would take an additional look at these recommendations.

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

MEMORANDUM FROM OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGING

1. The Committee recommends that there be established within OEO a highlevel position or positions charged with responsibility and authority to assure adequate consideration of the needs of the elderly in the war on poverty, with tenure and security for the occupant of this position.

On July 15, 1966, Mr. Dan Schulder assumes his responsibilities as Coordinator for Older Persons' Programs. This position is newly established at a GS-15 level within the Community Action Program.

Mr. Schulder will report to Mr. Theodore M. Berry, Director, Community Action Program, a Presidential appointee. Mr. Berry has full responsibility for ensuring that the needs of the elderly in that segment of the war on poverty which most directly affects them-the Community Action Program-receive adequate consideration. He has the authority to take such special action as may be required. The creation of an additional post at another level of administration would only result in redundancy and bureaucratic confusion.

2. The Committee recommends that the Director of OEO make the Task Force on Programs for Older Personnel permanent.

The Director, OEO, concurs in the recommendation, and proposes to establish a permanent Advisory Council on Poverty and the Older American which will report to him through the Deputy Director for National Councils and Organizations.

3. The Committee recommends that OEO develop to their full potential programs for the elderly already begun. These include the Foster Grandparents Program, Project Green Thumb, and the Home Health Aides Training Program.