quently does not even meet their minimal needs. The programs, structure, and organization of the Office of Economic Opportunity must be developed and defined in terms of the people the program is attempting to help.

These people are not those with job experience, rather they are people who in many cases have never held a job or, if they have, have held only menial and low-skilled positions. Thus they are people who have little prior experience upon which a training program can be built. In addition to this, they will frequently lack adequate education, they will lack acculturation, they will lack a knowledge of living in a large urban center, they will have health problems, they will have emotional problems, there will be marriage problems---in short, above and beyond the lack of a job and the lack of an appropriate skill, they will have many other problems that must be met and must be handled. Job training alone, or even primarily, is not the answer. It is but a small part of the answer.

It is because of these facts that I disagree so strongly with the proposed amendment to section 502 which, in effect, transfers to the Department of Labor administrative responsibility for those aspects of title V projects which involve manpower functions and training already being performed by the Department under the Manpower Development and Training Act. I have two major reasons for this disagreement.

In the first place, if the social services needed and the job training needed were two independent and parallel approaches to the problem of poverty, there would be no problem. But they are not independent and not parallel. They are closely intertwined and the job training cannot advance or, in some cases, even begin until the social problems have been met. And even when the social problems have been met and programs to deal with them have been developed, the individual still needs continuing assistance while undergoing training, and even after the completion of his training. The people to be dealt with in this program are not those usually dealt with in vocational programs nor are they the people that the Department of Labor usually serves. As Secretary Gardner has stated: "The people that are served by these programs are people who have traditionally been neglected by the employment agencies of all kinds and by all of the normal channels through which people enter the job market. We are dealing in the work experience program with a segment of the population that has not appealed to the traditional vocational educators, has not been a source of interest to the employment services in the past, and it is just in the nature of their problem that they are not of interest to these people."

Consequently, even the training programs developed for them must be hand tailored in terms of their other needs and their other problems. The creation and the administration of job training programs must be in terms of the whole person and not merely in terms of the economic and employability aspects. The Department of Labor by its very nature and history does not have this knowledge of the whole social person. Secretary Wirtz himself in his testimony before the House subcommittee admitted this in so many words. "I think it is perfectly fair to say that we still don't have as much experience as we need in connection with the administration of these public service employment programs." But the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare does have this experience and this knowledge. Its whole history has been one of dealing with those for whom the Economic Opportunity Act was created. Dr. Winston, in her testimony before the House subcommittee, has pointed this out. "Actually, what happens in the work experience program is that we are dealing with the 'bottom of the barrel-the people who do not have education, who do not have work skills, who have serious family problems, often health problems. They need a wide range of services in order to have any opportunity, really, for coming into the job market. So, one of the distinctive features of this program besides the range of services which is offered is that it is basically a family centered program. You can operate a family centered program within a welfare setting as you would not have the same resources in other types of settings that are directly work training and employment oriented."

My second major objection is that this amendment will create duplication and many problems of administration. The House subcommittee report claims that this "transfer of authority for the sake of increased coordination and avoidance of duplication is not intended to create two distinct title V programs, one conducted by Health, Education, and Welfare and the other by Labor." But the report also goes on to state that the amendment will "envision two active agencies in place of one." I believe that this would be a grave mistake.

The programs being developed are, in many cases, of one piece and they cannot be fragmented without affecting essential aspects and without creating duplication. The two agencies can and do coordinate but the development of the program must reside in but one of the agencies.

I would like to expand a bit upon these two objections and give to you some of the experiences we have had in Cook County in operating some of these programs.

Currently, we have in Cook County a pilot project financed under the terms of Title V of the Economic Opportunity Act. The goal of this program is to: (1) reunite deserting fathers with their families and (2) where necessary to upgrade the employment skills of the father to the point where he can adequately provide for his family and assume his proper role as head of the house. The project is known as the Parents' Opportunity Program (POP). Personally, I call it our Bill Bailey program. To illustrate what is involved before a training program can begin or, for that matter, even be considered, I would like to tell you briefly of one of these cases.

When the case was opened, the client was 28 years old, was estranged from his wife and was living in a skid row hotel. At this point one important step had already been taken: the man had been found. I assure you that this first step is no easy task, although it is a task that welfare departments have for many years been meeting. As a child he was one of 12 children born to a Tennessee sharecropping family. He left home at the age of 17 because as he says, "we just couldn't make it on the farm.” He had little formal education and absolutely no job training. He did not even know what type of work he would find interesting. He had existed marginally for 11 years in Chicago and during this time he married and had six children.

During one of his recent periods of unemployment, he and his wife and children moved in with his wife's family. This (as is often the case) proved to be a completely unworkable situation and a great deal of animosity was created which quite literally drove him to drink. At this point, he moved out of the home and took the room on skid row and, as far as concerned the family, disappeared. On top of these problems was yet another. His 4-year-old daughter was dying of leukemia.

When his wife was first approached by the project caseworker, her response was completely negative. She characterized her husband as an irresponsible. abusive alcoholic.

I wonder what employment service or what director of vocational education would consider this man? He has little formal education, no marketable skills. is separated from his wife, distraught over the certain death of his daughter and rapidly developing a serious drinking problem.

There is an old welfare adage that says that the caseworker must start where the client is. In this case it was necessary that many problems be met before any realistic consideration could be given either to job placement, training or, for that matter, a simple decision as to what kind of job he could best handle. Let me outline a few of the steps that were taken.

Once having been located, it very quickly became clear that this man did want to be with his wife and his children and that he desperately wanted to at least see the children. He had left not because he was running away from them. He had left because his inability to function as a husband and father was too much to be faced. The caseworker, though, initially built upon his desire to see the children.

The client was first referred to Legal Aid for advice regarding his rightto see his children since his wife's parents refused to admit him to the house and she refused to bring the children out. This, however, quickly created another problem. He soon became dissatisfied with the slow legal approach and threatened to take matters into his own hands. In this case, his own hands consisted of a loaded gun which he showed to the caseworker. The caseworker stayed close that day and at some length discussed the problem. Most of this discussion took place in a local pool hall. The local pool hall was the background in terms of which the client and the caseworker came to some understanding about his many problems and about the realistic steps that could be taken. It was here that they discussed his current living arrangements, and it was here that the client decided that a rooming house would be preferable to his current skid row housing and that such a move would help convince his wife that she was mistaken about his irresponsibility and his alcoholism The caseworker helped him make the physical move.

It was actions such as these and this type of interest and acceptance that led the client to believe that he was no longer merely a "case" but that he was a human being and that another human being was interested in him and his problems.

At this point, the caseworker arranged a series of six joint and lengthy interviews with the married couple. During these meetings, and under the guidance of the caseworker, many topics were broached and long harbored resentments were aired. Upon the basis of this series of meetings, a trial reconciliation was attempted. During the same time, the caseworker worked independently with the wife to help her become sensitive to her husband's problems and point out the deleterious affects of living with her parents. But she had been disappointed before and was hesitant about leaving the security of her parent's home and taking yet one more chance. At about this time, the one child died of leukemia. The caseworker helped with the funeral arrangements and helped both parents to allay their guilt feelings. It was at this point that the trial reconciliation was agreed upon.

But, there remained the problem of the parents and of living accommodations. Through the efforts of the caseworker and the cooperation of another social agency in Chicago, adequate low-cost housing was secured. Again the caseworker helped in the actual move, obtained speical authorization of funds for needed furniture and supplies and on Christmas eve the reconciliation was effected.

But there were still other problems. The couple had, in the past, always had difficulty with fiscal management. These problems were discussed and help given in teaching them how to budget and how to handle their funds. Problems of home economics were discussed and the wife instructed in proper housekeeping procedures. Medical problems were now also faced. The children were sent to clinics. Medical problems of the husband that could easily create difficulties in future jobs were faced and treatment started. It was only then, almost four months later, that it was possible to give consideration to a training program. Training now, and only now, became a realisic possibility.

The husband was given a series of vocational tests that would assess both his abilities and his interests. On the basis of these tests and upon the recommendations of both the psychologist and the vocational counselor he was placed in a training program developed in Cook County that would teach him the fundamentals of being a service station attendant. He completed the course at the top of his class. Today, some six months after the case was opened, he manages a service station in the southern suburb of Chicago. He still lives in the housing which his caseworker helped him to secure. He has purchased a second-hand car which is necessary for transportation to and from work. Public assistance was suspended in April and the case closed in May. At that time, he proudly informed his caseworker that he had netted $654.00 the previous month. I cannot help but add that this is probably more than many caseworkers get.

This is not, however, the whole of the story. For this training program also has built into it the possibility that the graduate can himself be licensed by the oil company as a station owner. Arrangements are currently being made for a small business loan and the husband, it seems clear, will himself soon own his own service station.

I assure the members of this subcommittee that this is not a typical case, at least as far as concerns the multitude of problems that had to be faced. Such a multitude of problems, even though the details vary, are common to many of the poor and to the vast majority of those the Economic Opportunity Act was created to help. The variety of services that must be provided can only be provided by an agency specifically geared to handle such social problems. And the social problems are part and parcel of the training problems. The two must be approached together. This can best be done through the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the welfare departments across the country.

We have in Cook County another special program which I wish to contrast with the one I just outlined. But in developing this contrast, I do not wish to give the impression that the program is not working. It is working and is working well. But this is after months of careful planning and coordination and represents some of the difficulties and problems that can arise when responsibility for a single program is fragmented.

The program to which I refer is known as Project 3000. Many months after programs were started under the Manpower Development and Training Act, it

became apparent that there were many thousands who could not benefit from the regular vocational programs even though some were relatively simple. These were the people who lacked fundamental literacy. It was decided that a special project should be developed for these people. The program as presently structured consists of an initial course of twenty weeks in basic education and in prevocational training. Classes meet five days a week for six hours a day with three hours devoted to basic education and three hours to pre-vocational training. There are five prevocational areas and the student spends four weeks in each of these areas. These cover: clerical and marketing, machining and fabrication, service trades, electricity and electronics, and mechanics. Where necessary. training is extended beyond the basic twenty weeks and also, as appropriate, the training is shortened or, in cases of very rapid progress, the student is transferred to one of the regular training programs.

Upon completion of the basic twenty weeks, the student is then placed in one of seventeen special vocational areas specifically set up for Project 3000 trainees. Training in these areas varies in duration from 16 to 48 weeks. These include such trades as electrical appliance repair, clerk-typist, hospital ward clerk. electronics assembler, drapery operator, typewriter service maintenance and garment alterations. In April of this year, there were 874 students enrolled in the basic phase, 850 students in the special vocational training phase and another 150 to 200 in the regular vocational training program.

The administrative structure for carrying out this program is quite complex. The program is administered by the Illinois State Employment Service under the Manpower Development and Training Act. This service has contracted with four vocational schools in Chicago to give the needed training. It has also contracted with the Cook County Department of Public Aid for caseworkers to supply supportive services to the students. Thus each student, in a sense, is handled by three different sets of counselors. The counselors of the Illinois State Employment Service handle the initial interview, the placement in the program, the necessary forms for payments under the terms of the Manpower Development and Training Act, other technical and legal matters and the final job placement. The counselors at the vocational schools deal with the student in terms of his class work, the need for tutoring and other such educational problems. The caseworkers are concerned with family problems. health problems, attendance problems and any and all of the multitude of personal and social problems that can arise.

Those in this special program face many particular and unique problems. They have been educationally deprived; many of them are older persons; most have been unemployed or underemployed for long periods of time. They are being called upon to enter school again. The fears and self-doubts are immense and the slightest illness or family emergency is sufficient to persuade them to miss a class and thus avoid what can be an anxiety provoking situation. All of these problems must be met.

I wish now to contrast this with the procedures under the Parents' Opportunity Program. In that program one caseworker dealt with all problems. He called upon the services of other specialists, counselors and psychologists. But the case was completely handled by him. In Project 3000, three sets of counselors are involved and their various activities must be coordinated.

Now, I wish to make it clear that I am not speaking against this present structure. It is realistic in terms of this particular program and represents the type of coordination that already exists between the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Department of Labor. Yet, the proposed amendment has as its stated goal the development of such coordination. The coordination exists and I feel certain that it would create administrative confusion to change the structure now.

In addition, the proposed amendment would make such a three-fold strueture mandatory for all training programs. But such a structure is just not appropriate to all training programs. Three different counselors dealing with the many complex problems of the man from Tennessee would have created nothing but confusion. In this regard, I wish to call the attention of the subcommittee to the testimony of Dr. Winston before the House Subcommittee: "I would just like to comment that one of the things we do if these people come to us is to explore the use of other training resources in the community. If they can go into a Manpower Development and Training Act Program and we can put in some health services or perhaps needed counseling for the family,

that is just splendid. If there is an opportunity for vocational training under other auspices we would use that other resource rather than making arrangements to provide it directly.

"In other words, the more we can do to work ourselves out of a job here by helping people either get into other training settings, if they are ready for them, or to become equipped to move into the training settings, the better off everybody is. So it is not really an either/or proposition; it is a fact that we have people who, because of the complexity of their problems, are not able to meet whatever the requirements are of certain other types of programs."

To separate the administration of the Title V program and place one part in the Department of Labor and another part in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare is the creation of just such an "either/or" situation. The very nature of the program and the people who must be served requires great flexibility and coordination. The flexibility exists when a single agency is responsible. The coordination exists because it has already been developed. The goals of this amendment are already attained.

This represents my major objection to the proposed amendments. I would, however, like to comment quite briefly upon two other aspects of the amendments. The last sentence of the proposed Section 502 states: "Provided, That such funds may not be used to assist families and individuals insofar as they are otherwise receiving or eligible to receive assistance or social services through a State plan approved under Titles I, IV, V, XVI or XIX of the Social Security Act." It is the obvious intent of this amendment to prevent some states from transferring persons eligible for, for instance, Aid to Dependent Children Assistance, to the Title V program. In effect, this would mean that the Federal Government which only partly matches expenditures under the Social Security Program would be giving full matching for those under the Title V Program. I agree with this goal. But the proposed amendment has a small side effect with which I disagree. In Chicago, persons in Title V Programs who are eligible for Social Security Programs continue to receive the full grant that is due them. However, the Title V Programs frequently involve expenditures above and beyond basic needs. Transportation allowances must be met, special clothing allowances exist and other special grants must be made. Since these needs arise exclusively from enrollment in the Title V Program, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare has ruled that the local agency can receive full reimbursement. In Chicago and Cook County, this amounts to about $2,000 a month. It is a small amount, but in many jurisdictions it could be a significant factor in the development of local programs. I should hope that the amendment could be rephrased to eliminate this impact. Finally, I note in the report of the House Committee that Title V is to be funded in the amount of $119,000,000. This is $41,000,000 below the President's budgetary request, and I hope the Senate will restore this amount. The program deals with a most difficult group of citizens. It has demonstrated a great deal of success and should be kept at its present level.

Senator JAVITS. Our next witness is Mr. Archie W. Hardwick, executive director, Westminister Neighborhood Association, Los Angeles.

STATEMENT OF ARCHIE W. HARDWICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WESTMINISTER NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. HARDWICK. I would like to thank the subcommittee for inviting me here this afternoon.

Westminister Neighborhood Association, Inc., is a settlement center and a multifunctional agency located in the heart of Watts.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Hardwick, will you be good enough to cooperate by confining your statement to 5 minutes?

Mr. HARDWICK. Yes; I will.

Senator JAVITS. Your statement will be included in full in the record.