areas or fringe areas of small cities based on past experiences. We think this might be a good idea but for now we believe a non-profit corporation such as Self-Help Enterprises can develop this program faster because of greater flexibility and provide a yardstick for government development on a broader scale. We would appreciate an opportunity to discuss these proposals with members of the United States Senate Subcommittee on Migratory Labor and with others in government who have a concern about rural housing.

Sincerely,

HOWARD WASHBURN,

Executive Director.

(Ce: Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Gaylord Nelson, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Senator George Murphy, Senator Winston L. Prouty, Senator Thomas Kuchel, Congressman Harlan Hagen, Congressman B. F. Fisk, Congressman Phillip Burton, Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Mr. Thomas Karter).

STATEMENT PREPARED BY J. K. SMITH, MANAGER, KENTUCKY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION, LOUISVILLE, KY.

Chairman Lister Hill and members of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Senate of the United States, we would like to file a prepared statement in regard to the Economic Opportunity programs.

With the committee's permission, I should like to place our organization's interest and concern in the above matter on record.

Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation (the State Association of Rural Electrics) is a service organization serving rural electric cooperatives in such areas of common interests as area development, group purchasing, central billing, public relation activities, member services, and job training. We strive to assist local rural electric cooperatives to better serve the rural areas. Considerable emphasis is placed upon total rural area development, including economic development. These rural electric cooperatives have brought electricity to most everyone in these areas at parity rates.

We introduced a credit plan for consumers in the rural areas in 1954. We conceived and developed a program designed to provide new electrical equipment to be used for instructional purposes to all high schools. This is a self-supporting service. We are presently participating in the development of rural water services. Recently we assisted with the formation of a state association of water districts, the Kentucky Association of Community Water Districts, Inc. Our involvement in these services has made us aware of many rural problems including that of a lack of adequate housing. Adequate housing for the rural poor needs the consideration of this committee. New programs need to be devised to meet this problem. There are today 15 to 20 million Americans, half of them rural, who live in substandard housing and have incomes at the poverty level.

The magnitude of this problem indicates the necessity for the full mobilization of all agencies of government having any concern with the poor or with housing. New programs must be conceived. The entire housing industry together with all the related industries and organizations should focus attention upon this problem. The problem has been developing faster than the limited action taken to meet it. Solutions must be found soon, or the taxpayers will be further burdened with the cost of corrective action.

The Office of Economic Opportunity, charged with improving the opportunities of the lower income groups, should (1) study those factors contributing to the housing problem, both rural and urban; and (2) seek new techniques, ideas, and proposals which have as their objectives better housing for the poor. Emphasis should be given to involvement of industry to augment the present programs. This would result in avoiding complete dependence upon federally appropriated funds; thereby (1) providing decent housing for poor families at an earlier date; (2) stimulating involvement of private industry; and (3) avoiding heavy expenditures at some future date for the taxpayers.

Small communities offer many advantages for new business ventures and industrial plant locations. However, lack of rural housing is one of the limiting factors which presently discourages the rural-urban industrial balance. Greater and greater population concentration in urban areas is expensive, and need not

be inevitable. It makes for higher taxes and more government controls. This is not to disparage the big city, but rather to indicate the importance of avoiding further over-crowding and additional distortions in our already mammoth urban centers. Failure to provide jobs and housing in the rural counties for the ever increasing numbers from these rural counties who will need non-farm jobs will result in further over-crowding. Availability of decent housing enhances a community's opportunity to obtain new industries and to realize full economic development.

The rural electric systems are dedicated to the full development of these areas. We would welcome the opportunity to direct, co-sponsor or assist in any way in those efforts which will lead to the achievement of these objectives. Thank you for the privilege of filing this statement.

RESOLUTION CONCERNING RELATIONSHIPS OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM AGENCIES TO OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY

On Saturday, June 4, the undersigned Chairman and/or representatives of Chairman of major community action agencies in California met to discuss issues and problems of concern to all CAP agencies in the State. As a result of this meeting, the following resolution was agreed to for submission to all members of the California Congressional Delegation, with the hope that it would result in a better understanding by these Congressmen of the problems faced by these CAP agencies. It has been suggested that a meeting be held Iwith the Congressional Delegation as soon as possible, with the Chairmen of the Los Angeles and Oakland CAP Boards to be present as spokesmen for the California CAP agencies.

RESOLUTION

Whereas the Boards of Directors of the CAP agencies in California are concerned with the administrative and legislative framework within which OEO programs have had to operate during their first year and a half of existence, and whereas proposals coming out of the House Education and Labor Committee include a number of proposals that appear not to be in the best interest of CAP agencies, the following recommendations are submitted to the California Congressional Delegation for its consideration:

1. The proposal to reduce the amount of unrestricted funds for Title II-A at the expense of more earmarked funds for national programs developed in Washington severely handicaps the functioning of CAP agencies, and appears to be in contradiction to the principle of local determination of community action programs. Although the proposal involves an increase in Title II-A money, it will actually result in less free money being available to local CAP's, just at the time when the involvement of low-income groups in program development is at a new high in most communities, and the demand for new programs is being accelerated.

2. The mandating of unrealistically high standards for Head Start programs, combined with the fact that Head Start will receive such a large percentage of the total Title II-A money, has caused great concern among California CAP's, and seems to again reflect a lack of confidence in local CAP's to determine their own priorities for the use of these funds, and to develop programs designed to meet local needs and conditions. Recognizing the necessity of providing a wellrounded program to pre-school children, the standards now being imposed make it impossible to serve most of the children who need this type of program, and highly unlikely that such a program will be institutionalized through local support.

3. Titles II-B (Adult Basic Education) and V (Work Experience) are not being implemented throughout the Sate of California in the most desirable manner, if at all, in some counties. As a result, it is our recommendation that these funds be made available to CAP agencies directly, as well as to school districts and welfare departments respectively, in order to guaranty that these programs will be taken advantage of through the CAP agencies if the directly delegated agencies do not exercise leadership in developing such programs.

4. A recent community action memoranda eliminating the payment of out-ofpocket expenses for low-income participants in community action programs has seriously handicapped the attempts of CAP agencies to involve target area

groups in a more meaningful way. It is our strong recommendation that expenses such as babysitting and verified lost wages should be reimbursable for low-income members of CAP boards and target area committees, as well as transportation expense. This does not involve paying of a stipend.

5. The proposal to restrict the use of federal funds to the paying of salaries up to $12,500 is strongly opposed by our group, because we are convinced that such a regulation bears no relationship to reality, and assumes that community action staff members are not being paid salaries comparable to other public and private agency officials with similar responsiblity, training, and experience. It is also unrealistic to expect CAP agencies to provide the additional salary funds needed above this level from their local financial resources. This proposal gives the impression that the Congress has no confidence in the ability of local CAP's to administer programs fairly and equitably and without partisan political influence.

Furthermore, the recommendation that local matching be raised to 20% also fails to recognize that most local communities are already at the limits of their local funding capacities, and that the federal government will for some time have to absorb 90% of the cost of these programs, which are federal programs addressed towards the solution of national as well as local problems.

6. The proposal to mandate the allocation of funds outside the local CAP agency is also evidence of an attempt to weaken rather than strenthen the CAP agency, and should not be confused with the administrative issue of allowing areas smaller than a large municipality to be recognized as independent community action agency areas. We feel strongly, however, that once a CAP agency

has been recognized, all Title II-A funds should be administered through it. Judge LIONEL WILSON, Oakland Convener.

(J. E. Ross, Vice Chairman, Economic Opportunity Organization, Berkeley Area; Primo Ruiz, Representative, Contra Costa County Office of Economic Opportunity; Henry H. Mitchell, Chairman, Fresno County Economic Opportunities Commission; Daniel D. Hernandez, Representative, Hayward Area Economic Opportunity Organization; Howard Day, Chairman, Economic and Youth Opportunities Agency of Greater Los Angeles; Lionel Wilson, Chairman, Oakland Economic Development Council; Henry Suozzi, Representative, Sacramento Area Economic Opportunity Council; O. E. Brown, Representative, San Bernardino Dependency Prevention Commission; Charles Reid, Chairman, Economic Opportunity Commission of San Diego County, Inc.; William C. Hern, Chairman, San Mateo County Human Resources Commission.)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES E. KENDRICK, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMS, KNOX COUNTY ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL

The Anti-Poverty Program is essential to Appalachia and other Poverty Areas of the Nation. It promises to be a lifeline for persons who would otherwise be doomed to hopelessness and to exclusion from the greatness of America.

I shall limit my comments to four areas-directions of the Anti-Poverty Program, National Administration, Long-term planning, and scope of the AntiPoverty Program.

The direction of the Poverty Program is affected by the fact that poverty is a very complex problem and is difficult to conquer at a significant level. For persons who live up a hollow or in a slum, programs standardized at a National level often fail to take into account the individual problems of individual communities. Therefore, there is a significant need for Community Action Programs developed by local residents.

An objection to the Community Action Program had been that there is not enough legislative control of funds by Congress. Therefore, it has been suggested that Community Action Program funds be restricted. Quite frankly, I feel that this would be disastrous. While national policies and programs are important to a War on Poverty, the War will not be won without flexibility at the local level.

A major problem of Poverty is that low-income persons feel hopelessly alienated from society. They feel powerless to change their future; helpless in escaping from a life of dependency upon welfare, unscrupulous business interests and

petty politicians; shut off really, socially and psychologically from opportunities, and useless to the progress of society.

Therefore, it is imperative that there be maximum feasible participation of the poor and that this participation be expressed in program development as well as Board representation and employment. This can be accomplished only if Programs are flexible and responsive to the suggestions of target area residents who are experts on the problems of their local deprived community.

Our Community Action Agency has been to the Mid-Atlantic Regional Office concerning matters of Administration. We have found the office very helpful and cooperative in working with us. The staff has been unusually dedicated to an enormous job.

The National Administration probably has not been perfect but the solution seems to be management improvements and time rather than legislative retaliation.

In fighting an effective War on Poverty, I would like to emphasize the need for a strong OEO. The OEO must be of enough size and power to be respected as a leader of the War on Poverty. Transferring programs from the OEO to other agencies might threaten the leadership role of the OEO.

Concerning National Administration it might be appropriate for legislative action to be taken to insure full cooperation and coordination of Federal Agencies. Because the War on Poverty is such a big effort, the nation cannot afford the loss of National resources in inter-agency conflicts and jealousies. Long-term planning is one of the real needs of the National Anti-Poverty Program. Sargent Shriver took an important step in setting tangible long-term goals in calling for the elimination of Poverty in ten years. A monumental task remains however, in determining what long-range efforts are needed to bring about this goal. I am by no means implying that we should delay a War on Poverty in order to do more research. With the disaster at Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt could not delay starting a War until adequate research had been done-the nation was forced to commit itself to a total War and determine its strategy while in the midst of battle. Poverty is a disaster of nothing less than Pearl Harbor diminsion. Action cannot be delayed, but we are obligated to improve and refine our strategy as we struggle.

A major tragedy is that the scope of the War on Poverty has little relationship to the scope of the problems of Poverty. As with entry into World War I, we expected victory too soon and at a very small price.

Our Nation would not fight armed aggressors with pocketknives; yet the resources committed to the War on Poverty are pocketknives. An adequate War on Poverty would cost the Nation far more than the $1.75 billion proposed.

Poverty is now costing our nation an enormous price. Our National growth is curbed because of the loss-in tens of billions of dollars-to the producing power and consuming power of our people. More pressing, millions of natives are alienated from the opportunities of America and have been condemned by the ignorance and apathy of the larger American society to lives as wasted Americans Therefore, I urge you to act in ways which are significant to the 35 million Americans now living in Poverty.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAVILLA MILLIS SIMONS, GENERAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TRAVELERS AID ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N.Y.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964-TITLE II

The National Travelers Aid Association respectfully urges that the Committee give attention to the tragic and anomalous situation that the poor who are newly arrived in urban slums are excluded from the benefits of the Office of Economic Opportunity. These impoverished people constitute a group who particularly need the kind of help that can be made available under the Community Action Program. They would make good use of any opportunities as they have uprooted themselves and moved to new localities in search of a job and opportunity. Travelers Aid, as the voluntary agency with special responsibility for services to uprooted and moving people needing help in a strange place, has had a long and unique experience in serving these people, generally overlooked in all community planning. We serve more than 900,000 people a year through an intercity chain of service.1

1 From every state in the United States, Puerto Rico, Canada, and over one hundred other countries on all six continents.

We respectfully recommend an amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 to provide for relocation assistance for unemployed and low income families and individuals who move to a new community in the hope of securing employment and bettering their lives.

BACKGROUND

Poverty, unemployment and under-employment, and displacement by automation, often compel people to uproot themselves and relocate. In general, the in-migrants to our cities come from rural areas and very small communities where life is relatively simpler and the culture different. They have little education and few skills, they are sometimes only semi-literate. Without labor market information, they move without any constructive plant. They are tragically unprepared for life in an urban industrialized community. Many newcomers to the city have an additional handicap in that they are of a minority group-Negro or Spanish-speaking. They are fearful, suspicious and unwelcome. In order to prevent or reduce the serious problems stemming in part from unplanned and unaided relocation, these people must be given intensive services, including orientation in city ways, such as using escalators, dial telephones or supermarkets, and transportation new to them. They are bewildered and baffled by such things as the forms they must fill out and directional signs, especially those who cannot read.

Conditions of urban life, from which all the poor suffer, such as lack of adequate housing, are greatly aggravated for the new arrival because of his unfamiliarity and lack of preparation for the new life. Consequently, the new arrivals among the poor especially need immediate practical help and intensive counseling services. Paradoxically, very little aid of a constructive nature is available to them. They are usually denied public assistance and other public services because they do not meet the legal residence requirements of most programs.

OEO has failed to recognize the difference in the situation of the non-resident poor and of the local residents, who are generally eligible for existing community services and public assistance which will provide essential subsistence costs for those participating in new opportunities for bettering themselves, such as job training. In contrast the impoverished, unemployed newcomer has no such recourse. He has frequently exhausted his resources in making the move, often having had unanticipated costs for repair of the family jalopy. Expenses essential to successful relocation and securing employment must be provided at least for a short time to enable the mobile poor to take advantage of the various opportunities for self-help recently opened up.

The fact that OEO has not provided for these temporary but very essential expenses incidental to relocation and job placement has resulted in the antipoverty programs by-passing these people just as they have been by-passed as strangers for years in all of our national community planning to meet human needs.

The tragic exclusion of these people who especially need help in finding jobs and resettling successfully does not result from a lack of interest and concern of the local communities but from the absence of a constructive policy and specific provision in the Act.

The Act specifically makes provision for special programs for agricultural migratory workers but not for displaced and unemployed workers seeking jobs in the cities. Travelers Aid which has had long experience serving the poor who are moving has found it necssary to provide some material aid to them in order to help them stabilize themselves. Without practical aid as well as skilled counseling to help them cope with their problems, they tend to give up hope or move on into a pattern of aimless wandering, extremely destructive to the family and individual, and especially to the children. Nearly three-fourths of the families and individuals assisted by Travelers Aid have incomes below the poverty level as currently defined by Government agencies. We do not have a conclusive figure on the number of people in this country moving from one locality to another in an effort to make a new start in life, but we know it is very large. It is part of the continuing migration to the large cities, especially from farms and rural areas.

In the early months of the Community Action Program last year planning agencies in many communities asked the local Travelers Aid to give settling in assistance to recent arrivals among the poor. Several projects of this kind