It will be impossible to put the whole thing over until this afternoon. I will come back within, I hope, three-quarters of an hour and take up where Senator Clark has by that time gotten. But I do ask the New York witnesses to make their statements. We will be intimately acquainted with their statements. I will advocate their cause before the committee. Senator Clark has most graciously agreed to stand in for me for a little while in order to relieve me of this problem which I face.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, Senator Javits. I will ask your minority counsel to determine which witness to call first.

Mr. KURZMAN. The next witness will be Mr. Richard Fulton, of the United Business Schools Association.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Fulton, do you have a prepared statement?

STATEMENT OF RICHARD FULTON, UNITED BUSINESS SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION, PRESENTING THE STATEMENT OF HARRISON MYERS, JR., SAWYER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. Mr. FULTON. I do, sir.

Senator CLARK. I will ask to have it printed in the record at this point. The statement of Harrison Myers, Jr., presented by the witness, Mr. Fulton, will be printed in full in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Myers, including exhibits, follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARRISON MYERS, JR., SECRETARY-TREASURER, SAWYER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Harrison Myers, Jr. I am Secretary-Treasurer of the Sawyer School of Business in Los Angeles, California. For more than thirty years I have been associated with business education in public, university and private institutions.

Also, I am a member of the Board of Directors of the United Eusiness Schools Association to which belong nearly 500 of the quality post-secondary independent business schools and junior colleges of business. UBSA itself was founded in 1912. But many member institutions have been serving students for more than 100 years. Sawyer School is now enjoying its 50th Anniversary.

UBSA itself is an affiliate of the American Council on Education. At least one administrator is every UBSA school is a member of the American Vocational Association.

POINTS OF CONCERN

1. To reaffirm our support for any worthwhile program which will contribute to the full development of the capabilities and potentialities of all citizens as stated in our original testimony concerning the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which will be found in Part Three of the April, 1964, hearings before the House Subcommittee on the War on Poverty Program at pages 1675-1678.

2. Express our bewilderment over the apparent reluctance of the Office of Economic Opportunity to utilize pursuant to Sec. 103(b) the existing facilities, know-how, and cost techniques of independent business schools to carry out some of the stated purposes of the Job Corps.

3. To comment on the technical language of the measure now before the Committee with the hope that the language will be broadened and made more flexible to permit greater participation through prime and subcontracts by all areas and levels of the American educational and economic community.

4. To cite examples of other successful, expeditious, and cost-controlled programs of vocational education utilized by other Federal laws.

5. Urge expansion of the program to include broad-based participation in implementing all programs which might be carried out possibly, perhaps, through the creation of an Economic Opportunity Corporation as proposed by Senator Jacob Javits of this Subcommittee.

6. Urge the Committee to supplement its current deliberations with objective fact-finding investigations of the future administration of the program.

"A job, man, a job”

William Raspberry in his regular column "Potomac Watch" which appeared in the Washington Post on April 3, 1966, incisively pointed out what the "poor" hope the Office of Economic Opportunity will provide. That is a job, man, a job. Mr. Raspberry's column is attached as Exhibit "A".

"Antipoverty officials talk in terms of breaking cycles of dependency, strengthening family structure, providing cultural experiences and changing attitudes of the poor. But the poor themselves see their problem as a simple one with a simple solution.

We're poor, they tell you, because we don't have any money. The answer? A job, man, a job.”

Use of local public and private institutions is "practicable"

My own personal experience and that of independent business schools gen erally in dealing with the Office of Economic Opportunity has led us to the conclusion that the OEO has not carried out the mandate of Section 103 (b) of the 1964 Act. This has been a source of frustration and disappoiment to the independent business schools and we think it has been a lost opportunity on the part ofthe OEO.

A portion of the language of Section 103 (b) is taken from the 1963 amendments to the Manpower Development and Training Act. The MDTA program has successfully utilized in many states independent business schools to carry out vocational programs under contract. Subsequently this language, which is taken from Section 231 of the MDTA, was further amended and expanded.

In its present form it appears at pages 45-46 of this Subcommittee's print dated June 1966 to which I will refer from time to time in other portions of this statement. Three examples of successful MDTA programs which have been carried out under identical language as contained in the OEO Act of 1964 are attached as Exhibits "B-1", "B-2", and "B-3."

From the inception of the Poverty Program the Sawyer School of Business has attempted to offer its facilities and services. Our Association, United Business Schools Association, has repeatedly attempted to acquaint the OEO with constructive opportunities for the use of business schools. In the face of actual experience under MDTA and many other Federal programs it seems that the OEO is satisfied to handle vocational training through "prime contracts" with giant industrial corporations in a few isolated Job Corps centers.

We have never been able to find out directly from the OEO whether any independent business school has ever been utilized to carry out vocational training. As a matter of fact, I personally have conducted a Job Corps secretarial training program at the request of the Los Angeles YWCA who had experienced great difficulty in getting a program going. As far as I know, the program I conducted and a small program carried out somewhere in West Virginia, are the only two isolated instances of the use of independent business schools.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION-ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE

For more than forty-five years independent business schools have been conducting successful programs of vocational training for the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration of the Department of HEW. Attached as Exhibit "C" is a news story reprinted from the St. Petersburg Times of Thursday, May 5, 1966, telling how after counseling with the Florida State Employment Service a mother of four was trained in an independent business school for a job. United States Employment Service "know-how" important

In the examples of successful programs under MDTA and VRA we respectfully point out that in each case the trainees were counseled and interviewed by representatives of the U. S. Employment Service. We feel that this agency is "job oriented" and "people oriented." An example of the flexible and imaginative approach taken by the USES can be seen in the USES Program Letter No. 1758 of January 26, 1966, on the subject of "Individual Referrals." A copy is attached as Exhibit "D".

Under the concept of "individual referral" the trainee is integrated into the total educational and social structure of a regular educational institution.

He trains and lives with the same types of people with which he will work and live with after graduation.

He is not segregated into a huge training center where his only companions are those with similar handicaps. The school he attends is a normal educational institution instead of one of eight isolated complexes. The story of the success of such individual referrals is more fully discussed in Exhibit "B-3" which appeared in the U.S. Employment Service Review, May, 1966. It describes the success of MDTA trainees at the Nettleton Business Training College, Sioux City, Iowa. As the Committee can see, these trainees participated in the full life of the institution.

The Committee might also be interested in the posture of the OEO concerning its Project Upward Bound which limits trainees to attending regionally accredited colleges and universities. Why such a limitation?

Trainee costs need not be a mystery

Much news and discussion has been devoted to the annual cost per trainee in the Job Corps. I understand that it is hoped that it can be reduced to approximately $7,800 per year.

While training costs only constitute a portion of this figure, we submit that the OEO might be able to trim training costs even further if they would look to the experience of other agencies in carrying out "under contract training." For example, the cost per trainee in the program cited previously in Exhibit "B-1" was $474.19 per student. I might add that the predicted annual income tax paid by the trainee after graduation was $456.80. In a mere 13 months the MDTA trainee will repay the cost of her training.

These cost figures should be readily available to officials at the OEO and to the members of this Subcommittee should they wish to contact the agencies that administer such programs as

(1) Indian Adult Vocational Education, 25 U.S.C. 309.

(2) Vocational Rehabilitation Act of June 2, 1920, as amended P.L. 83-565.

(3) Manpower Act of 1965, P.L. 89-15, see Section 231.

(4) Government Employees Training Program, 5 U.S.C. 2301-2319. (5) Economic Development Administration, P.L. 89-15, see Section 241. The facts are available on training costs under other Federally authorized vocational programs. We would hope the Committee would urge the OEO to avail itself of the cost conscious operations of other Government agencies which do administer successful vocational training programs under contract. Amend and implement section 103 (b)

We respectfully urge the Committee to up date Section 103(b) of the OEO so it will reflect the latest language of Section 231 of the MDTA. We also urge the Committee to make it clear through both legislative history and statutory language that the OEO should consider greater utilization of subcontracts for vocational education with local educational institutions, both public and private. Prime contractors only

My personal experience has led me to the conclusion that the OEO is interested only in large "prime contracts" with big organizations. While this may be simpler to administer it is not necessarily the only way to administer a successful Job Corps program.

Another facet to the problem is the difficulty in dealing with the OEO. They will only release the names of prime contractors after the contracts have been signed. By that time the cost estimate of the prime contractors has been "firmed up" and it is too late to consider the benefits of subcontracting the vocational training. As best I can determine there has been no inclination by the OEO to bring to the attention of the prime contractors the cost reducing benefits of subcontracts.

Technical comments on statutory language

Many constructive opportunities to reduce the cost of the program and increase the participation by all sectors of education, business, industry, and labor would be possible if the restrictive language throughout the Act was amended to permit utilization of all private institutions instead of just private, nonprofit institutions. As examples I cite Section 218 and Section 114 (c) at pages 21 and 8 of the Committee print.

It is unnecessary to limit the payment of reasonable training costs to "public O PRAVALEN Bonprofit organizations." This same Subcommittee has twice amended and expanded the MDTA to encourage wider use of all private institutionsnouproift and proprietary. The same expansion would help OEO programs.

Wo respectfully urge the Subcommittee to amend this measure as it did the ADPA last year so that it will reflect the established flexibility of the language found in P.L. 89-15, Section 102 (6) which permits: "grants to or contracts with public or private nonprofit organizations, or through contracts with other private gauizations,"

We feel this should be done in Sections 113 and 114 or any other place in the measure which presently limits payment of costs to "public or private nonprofit organizations."

This restrictive type of statutory language has already prohibited participa tion in the Community Action Program in Boston, Massachusetts, by the Cambridge School of Business. The school was requested to help in the CAP, but at the last minute it was discovered that because the school, an accredited junior college, was proprietary in form and thus ineligible to contribute to the success of the program. A tragedy of form being more important than substance. This same problem of grants and contracts should be amended and clarified in Section 218 (b) and (c).

What is an educational institution?

Another example of inhibiting and restricting definitions is found in Section 209(e) which restricts eligibility to institutions of higher education as defined by Section 401 (f) of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. May I respectfully suggest that the Committee strike this limitation and permit the participation of any recognized educational institution. More flexible definitions will be found in a host of other Federal statutes such as those previously cited or more recently in Section 10 of H.R. 10721 which was passed by the Senate on Monday, June 20, 1966, by the House on Tuesday, June 21, 1966, and now awaits signature of the President at the White House.

It is our hope that the Committee desires as broad a participation as possible in all phases of all programs administered by the OEO. We feel this can be accomplished by the elimination of such language as is found in Section 209 (e) and by adopting the flexible language found in many other Federal programs which more broadly define an educational institution.

VISTA-College students only!

Possibly by inadvertence the students who have obtained loans under the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-287) have been omitted from the provision which would amend Section 427 of the Higher Education Act of 7965 (P.L. 89-329). The parallel section in P.L. 89-287 is Section 8.

We respectfully suggest that a technical amendment can cure this omission. VISTA Volunteers who have vocational school loans should have the same opportunity to serve in VISTA as would be accorded to students with college loans. OEO should encourage broad scale participation

We are convinced that the broader the participation the greater the probabilities for success of the OEO programs. More than one independent businesss school has experienced disinterest on the part of OEO either because of statutory limitations or administrative noninclination.

It would seem to us that total community acceptance of OEO programs could be better achieved if all economic and social sectors of local communities could be encouraged to participate. This participation is possible only through statutory flexibility and administrative initiative.

Economic opportunity corporation proposal

An imaginative possibility is the proposal by Senator Jacob Javits for the creation of a new Title IX Economic Opportunity Corporation which would have broad and flexible powers. The broad corporate powers enumerated in Section 906 of the proposal certainly provide access to participation for those types of schools and businesses which are now excluded under the existing OEO language.

For example, Section 906(a)(3) provides for assistance to people in getting business concerns started. Under existing law, independent business schools are not able to contribute.

Yet, on this very point, the Senate Select Committee on Small Business said in 1962:

"That privately operated, non-tax-supported colleges and schools of business have a place within the federally sponsored management counseling program was made evident to your committee by the testimony of Robert W. Sneden, President, Davenport Institute, Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1960 and 1961, the institute joined with Small Business Administration in cosponsorship of courses on small business management." (See page 29, Senate Report 2270, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, Small Business Failures)

Expand work experience possibilities

Despite many years of successful participation in "work-study programs" independent business schools would be excluded from helping students acquire work experience as authorized in Title V of this measure, which is keyed into Part D of Title II of MDTA.

Attached as Exhibit "E" is a story of several work-study programs carried on by an independent business school and several large corporations. The article, which appears at page 352 of the April 1964, issue of The Balance Sheet details the job placement success of this and other programs. The salary costs are

$950 and tuition reimbursement (at 50%) is $640 or a total of $1,590 for a thirtyeight week program.

A reading of proposed work-experience Section 251 of the MDTA would limit arrangements to public or non-profit agencies! This is indeed a departure from the continued expansion of MDTA Section 231, twice approved by this Subcommittee !

Innovation and flexibility

If the programs of the OEO are to succeed they must be flexible enough to permit any competent and socially responsible person or organization to contribute skills and facilities. Possibly, this flexibility can be achieved through creation of a national corporation proposed by Senator Javits.

In any case innovation and imagination of the highest order are called for. The need for such innovation was pointed out in 1960 by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, the Honorable John W. Gardner, who wrote in "Goals for Americans":

"All the organizational arrangements, all the methods and procedures that characterize American education today were originally devised to help us accomplish our purposes. If they no longer help us, we must revise them. The arrangements and methods must serve us and not control us" (p. 88).

We earnestly submit that

SUMMARY

(1) Job Corps vocational programs would enjoy greater success and lower costs if Section 103(b) were more fully implemented to utilize local educational institutions both public and private.

(2) Technical language throughout the measure should be amended to permit contracts with all private institutions in addition to grants to public and private non-profit institutions.

(3) Vocational students as well as college students who become VISTA volunteers should have the loan moratorium incentive.

(4) Participation of all sectors of the American education, business and labor community-and at the state and local level-should be encouraged and expressly permitted.

CONCLUSION

Independent business schools have a successful history of cooperating with many government agencies in carrying out Federal programs administered by Labor, HEW, Civil Service, Interior, Vocational Rehabilitation Administration and the U.S. Employment Service. We hope that proposed sections 611 (c) and (d) of Title VI of the OEO will result in maximum coordination.

We feel strongly that the history and experience of these other programs merit the study of OEO administrators. Greater participation, broader acceptance and lower costs can be achieved through such coordination.