Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Not as far as OEO is concerned. I think OEO allotted to New York precisely what its guidelines and I think they are fair guidelines-permitted it to allot. The problem is not one of discrimination against New York by the Office of Economic Opportunity, but a lack of funds. Senator JAVITS. So that the problem is one of discrimination by the Congress, not by OEO? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. That's right. Senator JAVITS. We need more money? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. That is right. Senator JAVITS. Now, if this bill passes as was reported in the other body, do your calculations show we would be getting even less money for the programs regarded as most desirable by New York City? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. That is correct. Senator JAVITS. Even less than the well-advertised $36 million? Senator JAVITS. How much less do you think we would get if we adopted the House allocation and restrictions? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Well, we would get less in the way of-I hate to use the term "walking-around money," but that is the term that has been used in the Congress. We would probably get as much, if not more, in Headstart and the Neighborhood Youth Corps, so that the net amount would probably not be appreciably less. What would be less would be-and substantially less-would be the money left for programing by local determination. Senator JAVITS. And this is Mr. SVIRIDOFF. This means that the community corporations which we hope will be established in New York will be will be seriously starved for funds. Senator JAVITS. And you believe that for New York City the programs which would suffer in funding are more important in terms of the overall antipoverty effort than the programs which would be improved in funding? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. That is correct. Senator JAVITS. That is the essential burden of your testimony; is it not? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. That is correct. Senator JAVITS. You want us to give more money for Community Action programs without necessarily reducing the funds for the Neighborhood Youth Corps? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Yes, and it may very well be that with more money certain aspects of the Neighborhood Youth Corps would be expanded, but that ought to be left to the city of New York to determine. They know best what their needs are. Senator JAVITS. Have you found any evidence of political motivation in the allocation of these funds? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. None whatsoever. Senator JAVITS. Incidentally, I would like to compliment you on your analysis of the impossibility of the restrictions of the House bill and to join you in that. I assure you that I will do my utmost-and I think that perhaps I will have some help-to undo those restrictions. Mr. Sviridoff, I am sure the other body assigned reasons for these changes, and I notice that in your analysis of the situation you did not necessarily analyze their reasons. We cannot assume arbitrariness there, and I am sure no one else does. Is there any observation you would care to make on that? In other words, is there some central theme or idea which commended itself to them, but which you do not think is valid or which you ought to advise us on? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Well, I think this other body, to use your term, was quite properly impressed with the Headstart program and the Neighborhood Youth Corps program. These are fine programs; they have had remarkable successes in many parts of the country. So, perhaps somewhat carried away by their enthusiasm for successful programs and perhaps being somewhat reluctant to endure further the trials and tribulations of those less successful and those rather controversial, they put their chips on success. But in the process, as I have already said, I think the original and sound objectives of the program are being seriously jeopardized. Senator JAVITS. Now, the big objection made to community action programs is their social action content. I notice you do not deal with that in your statement: the idea that a community action program can be responsible for sit-ins or picketing or similar social protest is what has, in my judgment, brought a shadow over the whole program. Can you give us your views and comments on that? Just to give you the picture, I had a delegation visit me the other day from New York, a rather large delegation, and seemingly quite representative, urging that the one thing that would make the poor feel like human beings and citizens is if the community action programs did allow them this organization for protest. You are familiar with the work of Saul Alinsky, a Chicago sociologist, who is working in Rochester, and may be working in Buffalo soon. You are very familiar with that; I just have to explain it to my colleagues. He organizes expressly community groups to engage in protest and struggle, because he believes that is the best way to strengthen the backbones and improve the brains and skills of the poor. What do you think about that whole idea? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. I think the situation is quite confused, that many people have a tendency to mix roles. Saul Alinsky would ask Sargent Shriver to play Saul Alinsky. I do not think Sargent Shriver should play the role of Saul Alinsky. I think Saul Alinsky has a function to perform; I think social protest performs a valuable function in our society, but I do not think it is correct to necessarily equate community action with social protest. Community action means all of the things I talked about earlier; these three basic objectives. It means, of course, participation, but there are many ways of achieving participation. In fact, we havethere are community action agencies all over the country that could give dozens of examples of participation, which is not necessarily participation of a social action nature. I think there is a serious question whether public funds should be used for social action purposes and I think we ought to examine that question very closely. Now, I am not-I want to make this very clear, questioning the principle of maximum feasible participation. I said at the outset that this is a vital part of this legislation. It ought to be preserved, but what I am trying to do is distinguish between maximum feasible participation and social action and social protest of the Alinsky variety. I repeat again, I am not saying there is not a legitimate role for the latter; there is. There is a very serious question, though, whether public funds ought to be used for this purpose. And I think we ought to be looking very carefully at this one and not limiting community action, as I think the House bill does, because of a concern for the social action aspects of community action. Senator JAVITS. Would you undertake the task of writing down, as nearly as possible in legislative language, what restriction you would place on community action programs, in order to avoid the worst aspects of social protest being financed by Government, in order thereby to free the program, should we choose to go that route, for the most favorable consideration, without the restrictions which we can now understand had a rational basis-although we may not agree with it in the other body? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. I would point out, Senator, I would be willing to do that. I will try it; it is not an easy thing to do, because I think this question needs a great deal of discussion and, incidentally, I will put into the record a paper which our national organization prepared on this question, entitled "The Community Action Agency and Resident Participation." It deals in some detail with the philosophical aspects of this question. Senator JAVITS. I ask unanimous consent that that be included, and I ask unanimous consent that the witness' memorandum on legislative language for use in this field also be made part of the record. Senator CLARK. Without objection, that will be done. (The memorandum and statement follow :) MEMORANDUM FROM MITCHEL SVIRIDOFF, RE THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY AND SOCIAL ACTION* At the hearing of the Senate Subcommittee, you asked me to provide you with a memorandum about possible legislative language dealing with social protest being financed by the Government. I have considered this question carefully and have conferred with a number of my colleagues, who have had practical experience in this matter. Our conclusion is that it does not seem possible to draft adequate language to handle this problem by statute. There is far too much diversity among the communities of America to place statutory restrictions limiting the way in which maximum feasible resident participation can be achieved. Moreover, there is a great danger of overstepping the limitations of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law ** abridging the freedom of *Sources: House Hearings. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Hearings before the Subcommittee on the War on Poverty of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 88th Congress, 2d Session. Three parts. House Committee Report. Report No. 1458. Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 88th Congress. Senate Hearings. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Hearings before the Select Committee on Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 88th Congress, 2d Session. Senate Committee Report. Report No. 1218. Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 88th Congress, 2d Session. War on Poverty. Compilation of Materials Relevant to S. 2642, prepared for the Select Subcommittee on Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate. 88th Congress, 2d Session. (This document includes the Presidential Message on Poverty, the Administration bill, and a Congressional Presentation. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. Public Law 88-452, 88th Congress. Congressional Record. Proceedings and Debates of the 88th Congress, 2d Session. Community Action Program Guide. Community Action Program, Office of Economic Opportunity, February 1965. Workbook. Community Action Program, Office of Economic Opportunity, March 18, 1965. speech or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Almost all of the forms of social protest we have seen this decade are an expression of these basic rights. However, there remains the question of what actions can be done appropri ately with the use of Government funds. This question is brought into focus by the way a few community action agencies are proceeding as they implement the requirement for resident participation. It may well be that there should be greater clarification either in the form of administrative policy issued by OEO or by the language in the report of a Congressional Committee. A policy statement of this sort should consider the following matters. One of the basic reasons for requiring resident participation is to encourage people to help themselves. This is in the historic tradition of the American frontier, which was formerly the geographic frontier in the Western lands but is now a social frontier in cities and poor rural areas. This approach can take a program form by providing education and occupational training which helps people achieve employment opportunities and thus to earn an adequate living; this is the foundation for solving many other problems. It can take the form of self-managed service programs, such as Head Start, neighborhood houses, recreation activities, basic education, and even occupational training, such as the Opportunities Industrial Centers which Rev. Leon Sullivan originated in Philadelphia. It can also take the form of community corporations, which operate as miniature umbrella community action agencies, as has been proposed for New York City by the Human Resources Project, which I directed. In this context, another method of promoting resident participation is by providing technical guidance and consultation to residents so that they can be assisted in organizing block groups and neighborhood associations. Such citizens' groups can then study neighborhood problems, recommend solutions, and take action to put these solutions into effect. The primary role of staff is to serve as an enabler and to give assistance on such technical matters as obtaining a meeting place and getting out meeting announcements, agendas, and minutes. It is improper for staff to make the decisions for the people, for this would defeat the very concept of self-help and be nothing more than a new type of welfare paternalism. It is up to the citizens to identify the problems, with the staff, if requested, supplying whatever statistics and other information may be useful. It is up to the citizens to decide what solutions to recommend, with the staff, if requested, suggesting several choices and stating pros and cons of each. It is up to the citizens to decide what course of action to follow, with the staff, if requested, indicating alternatives and describing the advantages and disadvantages of each. If the citizens decide to exercise their freedom of speech and make demands upon city hall, or even upon the community action agency itself, it is their decision. If the citizens decide to exercise their right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances, it is their decision. If the citizens choose to assemble peaceably on a picket line in front of city hall or some other location, it should be made clear that it is the citizens acting for themselves. Therefore, it is preferable that staff do not participate in picketing and do not appear as spokesmen for the residents in meetings with the mayor and other officials. The basic concept of self-help loses its meaning if staff takes over the roles which properly belong to citizens. It is the citizens acting on their own and not the community action agency using government funds to organize social protest. I realize that this is a subtle distinction to make, but I believe that it is important one. What it requires is common sense and good faith on both sides. If properly applied, there can be a balance between what the people do in exercising their basic freedoms and what is done with funds supplied by the government, which must maintain its posture in behalf of the total public interest. THE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY AND RESIDENT PARTICIPATION A POSITION PAPER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Two of the most important aspects of the Community Action Program of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 are the way in which the community action agencies around the nation are able to mobilize and utilize public and private resources and the methods used to achieve maximum participation of those served by the program. In this paper, the Board of Directors of the National Association for Community Development (NACD) reviews the policies and practices of the Office of Economic Opportunity on these matters, states its own positions, and makes certain recommendations. Local initiative From the very beginning, the Johnson Administration has stated that maximum local initiative would be encouraged in carrying out the Community Action Program. On March 17, 1964, the first day of Congressional hearings, Mr. Sargent Shriver discussed the intent of the Act: "The community action program that it proposes calls upon local leadership and local initiative to formulate local plans to eliminate poverty in each community. "We will review these plans and help to finance them. But the initiative to determine and execute plans, to call upon local and State resources and institutions to carry the plans forward, depends on the will, the energy, and the management of each community." The essence of this statement was repeated many times during the course of the hearings, and it rings clear and true in the reports of the House and Senate Committees and in the Congressional debates. For example, the House Committee report explains the desirability for programs at the community level, as follows: "This is based on the belief that local citizens know and understand their communities best and that they will be the ones to seize the initiative and provide sustained, vigorous leadership. It is based, too, on the conviction that communities will commit their ideas and resources and assume responsibility for developing and carrying out local action programs. Thus, the role of the Federal Government will be to give counsel and help, when requested, and to make available substantial assistance in meeting the costs of those programs." " The Senate Committee report contained a similar statement and the following amplification: "Differences in local programing are to be expected because of variations in the nature of the problems, the character of the populations, and the capacity of existing public and private organizations in the communities. Thus, as much flexibility as possible will be given communities and local organizations in developing their own programs ***" 3 Thus, it seems accurate to conclude that the Congress clearly intended that there be a maximum degree of local initiative and flexibility. We affirm this position. We believe that the complexity of the problems of poverty and the variation among communities in size, region, local economy, degree of urbanization, and composition of the poverty population necessitate considerable flexibility in the way a community action program is organized and the program components it stresses. We believe that the Office of Economic Opportunity should exercise restraint in promulgating regulations that requires only one way of operating a community action program. This is particularly important in a new program, where there is much to learn and where a variety of approaches are desirable so that the best methods can be learned through the test of actual experience. The community action agency The concept of a community action program, as defined in Title II-A of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, emerged from the experience in a number of communities across the nation during the early nineteen-sixties. In the Congressional Presentation, the Administration drew upon this experience and stated: "One crucial lesson has been learned from this community experience. Since the causes of poverty are complex, the solutions must be comprehensive *** Poverty is a web of circumstances, not the simple result of a simple condition. "The most successful community action, therefore, usually includes the political, business, labor, and religious leaders, the school board, the employment service, the public welfare department, private social welfare agencies, and neighborhood houses in a coordinated attack on local poverty. Above all it includes the 1 House Hearings, Part 1, p. 21. |