upon policy than an OFO · lot). Instead, there m These are the process Workbook. Another democratic participation few who serve on th. viewpoints, and their be done in lots of block groups, neigh pre-school parent ways accumulate, " techniques for not receive the a local initiative. We have alr Resident Pariz organizations ": toward the int that most cor crusading S tiveness." organization their own - only tov presen not s It h the men of r thin - then mayors, county comrival political machines are support of community action ration is an invalid approach for in important method for resident Sit must be done within a framesion agency. Such an effort would tie processes related to considering icipating in new opportunities in that can lead to self-sufficiency. It in strength and certainty they will 2ey will do on their own and not at staff member of the community action and not the community action agency. y action agency can more easily handle arget of the political action. it is most needed is a clear statement of th the CAP Guide and the Workbook are i instead concentrate on methodology. Hower understanding of the underlying ration- the means of achieving the goals most ap which would form the basis for this, but asistency. For example, there is an excellent w-income life that act as restraints to effective preoccupied, and frequently overwhelmed by o not believe they can affect the world in which why is long established and difficult to change." "ding and acquaintance with the social policies with the means and procedures for changing them." <ders' is increased by the shortage of trained political oor seek opportunity for participation but they "are » :he character of groups generally available to them." sems to follow that poor people need a bigger stake in s will come by achieving a better education, better emg and better health. If these can be achieved, most wer will not want to become active in politics or serve on snow with middle class citizens. Those that do should to a variety of ways of participation, but the majority 54t receiving a fairer share of society's resources will lead vidac or ip dopelessness. angul, the achievement of maximum feasible resident parbe seen as an evolutionary process. It must utilize a variety prousty. Success can be achieved overnight. 12.050 would be well advised to adopt a greater time perspecCouch to resident participation. If OEO would clarify its statevy yes and the underlying purpose of resident participation, each Son be required to state how these objectives were achieved in An application and how they would be further achieved during When the community applies for renewal of its grant, it could pare the progress made in carrying out its own plan for resident ow and to specify the plans for the next year. Annually OEO would 20% pa and 'd, if necessary, request a strengthening of the methods what over several years a strong community program is develwe wou'd respect the individual dynamics of each community Se comount of local initiative while at the same time pushing forward te (rue spirit of resident participation. Mr. SVIRIDOFF. I would point out that the mayors who expressed grave concern with this problem last year are not concerned with it this year. In fact, they have given a ringing endorsement to community action. I think Congress may be lagging behind the mayors; they may be reflecting the sentiments of the mayors last year rather than the sentiments of mayors this year. The mayors generally are satisfied that community action, resident participation, even certain kinds of social action have had a positive effect rather than a disruptive effect on local communities. Senator JAVITS. Now I notice you make a big plea for innovation, with which I thoroughly agree. May I ask you whether you consider the proposal made yesterday, in the bill introduced by myself and a number of my colleagues, to create an Economic Opportunity Corporation to be a legitimate field of innovation? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. It is a legitimate field for innovation, absolutely. Senator JAVITS. I realize that you have not had a chance to study that bill. Would you be kind enough to do so and let us have your views on it? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. Yes, we will. Senator JAVITS. I ask unanimous consent that that may be made part of the record. Senator CLARK. Without objection, that may be done. (The information subsequently supplied follows:) COMMUNITY PROGRESS, INC., Hon JACOB JAVITS, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: You asked for my comments on your proposal for the establishment of a public corporation which could handle specific responsibilities in the antipoverty area. The corporation you have proposed could well introduce some invigorating pluralism into the conduct of the War on Poverty. I would hope that it could have sufficient flexibility to undertake special projects which have not yet been done on a large scale with public financing. An example would be contracting with an industry to run in-house skill training programs combining both classroom instruction in the plant and on-the-job training. Another example would be limited profit housing for low and low-middle income groups. Sincerely, MITCHELL SVIRIDOFF. Senator JAVITS. Since you are serving my hometown, before we close the record let me ask whether there is anything I have not asked you that deserves some comment? Mr. SVIRIDOFF. I am sure there is, but I think we have covered the subject very thoroughly. Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Sviridoff. Your appearance here has been very useful to the subcommittee. I am sure your ideas will be carefully considered when we come to mark up the bill. The subcommittee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., when we will hear from Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare John W. Gardner; and also Mayor Lindsay, of New York. (Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday, June 23, 1966.) AMENDMENTS TO THE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, MANPOWER AND POVERTY OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph S. Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Clark (presiding), Randolph, Pell, Kennedy of Massachusetts, Javits, and Murphy. Also present: Senator Smathers. Committee staff members present: Arnold Nemore, professional staff economist; and Stephen Kurzman, minority counsel. Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will be in session. Our first witness this morning is the Honorable John W. Gardner, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Secretary Gardner, perhaps you would like, before proceeding with your statement, to introduce your colleagues. Secretary GARDNER. First, Mr. Ralph Huitt, Assistant Secretary for Legislation; Ellen Winston, Commissioner of the Welfare Administration; Lisle Carter, Assistant Secretary for Individual and Family Services. Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, sir. I have read your statement and I want to commend you and thank you for having gotten it in ahead of time, so that it would be available to members of the subcommittee. We are making a pretty good record in that regard now. All the witnesses to date have complied with the subcommittee rules and submitted their statements early. Now, without objection the statement will be printed in full at this point in the record. (The prepared statement of Secretary Gardner follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. GARDNER, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Economic Opportunity Act Amendments of 1966 as they affect the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Any condition that diminishes the individual or that makes him less than he might be is of concern to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Poverty is such a condition. My Department spends a substantial proportion of the funds entrusted to it in programs that are directly or indirectly aimed at ending or preventing poverty. We have, nevertheless, supported the establishment and continuance of the Office of Economic Opportunity. During the past two years, we have had a number of fruitful relationships with OEO that have sharpened our own awareness of the problems of the poor and have emphasized innovative ways of coping with those problems. Our poorest citizens are individuals and families with multiple problemspoor health, no education or marketable skills, broken homes, intolerable housing and the like. These multiple problems require multiple solutions. Jobs, for example, are extremely important. In an economy where jobs are plentiful and training is available, there is still serious unemployment in our urban centers. It is plain that getting and holding a job is crucial for the poor. But to suggest that jobs are an embracing solution is to over simplify. We need approaches to the problems of the poor that take account of the variety of their needs, but that represent integrated, coherent efforts. We cannot afford to continue to fragment poor people to fit our specialized programs. We should fit the programs to the people. In short, we have to develop effective ways of organizing services so that they are comprehensive and readily accessible. Since 1964, the Office of Economic Opportunity has been carrying on a number of activities which are in a sense experiments. A substantial part of this experimentation at the local level has been aimed at developing new ways of meeting the multiple needs of the poor. The Administration has urged that these efforts be extended and expanded for another year. I strongly support this position. I will now discuss briefly the programs under the Economic Opportunity Act for which the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is responsible. TITLE V-WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM The stated purpose of the Work Experience Program is "to expand opportunities for constructive work experience and other needed training available to persons who are unable to support or care for themselves or their families." The Program is described by the Act as experimental, pilot, and demonstration in nature. Administrators of the Program are charged with helping "unemployed fathers and other needy persons to secure and retain employment or to attain or retain capability for self-support or personal independence ***." Responsibility for the Program has been delegated to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Bureau of Family Services in the Welfare Administration administers it. Most of the persons in the Work Experience Program are unemployed and needy mothers and fathers with dependent children, who belong to the hard-core, chronically unemployed segment of our population. They are the least skilled and least trained. Even under the most favorable economic conditions these men and women would not qualify for or be able to hold jobs requiring more than minimal skill and ability to communicate. The Work Experience Program therefore encompasses the life of the entire family of a participant. It seeks to raise the social, economic, educational, and cultural level of every member of the family while it helps the head of the household become employable. As of June 3, 1966, 293 Work Experience Program projects have been approved. Their goal is to make employable about 199,000 persons with approximately 597,000 dependents. These projects are located in some 600 localities in all States and territories with the exception of Alabama and Guam. Approximately one-third or about $76,500,000 of the projects approved were located in rural areas, where more than one-half of the Nation's poor live. Title V trainees are engaged in a large variety of work experience and training assignments. Eighty percent are assigned to service-type occupations such as in the para-medical health services, food services, child-care facilities, and to unskilled occupations such as building maintenance. An additional 10 percent are being trained in skilled and semi-skilled occupations. The remaining 10 percent are receiving training in sub-professional, technical, clerical, and sales occupations. Title V takes people "where they are" in terms of work experience and training needed. A service occupation assignment is often the first step toward occupational upgrading. By May 31, 1966, about 93,000 persons had participated in Title V projects. Of these, an estimated 35,400 are no longer participants. Of this number ap proximately 11,000, or about 31 percent immediately obtained gainful employment after completion of training, or improvement in work habits and motiva |