early received approval on the West Coast and have been operating eeffctively. Within a short time other projects were approved in Washington with funding for staff but with no allocation for expenses essential in getting training or employment, such as appropriate clothing, laundry, carfare, haircuts. Pittsburgh Travelers Aid was informally led to believe that funds for relocation expenses would be available and started its program in May 1965. It obtained the participation of 22 neighborhood families to serve as hosts to the strangers in the community to help them make a new start. The newcomers, hidden poor whose presence no one had been aware of, were found to have serious needs not only for counseling but for practical help, the costs of which were met from funds allocated by the United Fund to Travelers Aid for its regular program. When these funds neared exhaustion the agency was forced to discontinue operations in September, just as the program had gained the confidence of fearful, suspicious people desperately in need of help. Projects have now been held up for over a year while the Office of Economic Opportunity tried to develop an appropriate policy that would deal with this problem, but apparently found that it could not do so without specific provision in the law. As Mr. Sargent Shriver said in a recent letter to the President of the Board of Directors of the Washington Travelers Aid: "The problem before us in not whether cash assistance is just or warranted but whether our particular mandate in the law allows us to provide such assistance." A separate statement from Catherine C. Hiatt, Executive Director of Travelers Aid of Washington describes for you how the lack of funds has hampered that agency in achieving the objectives of the program. All of the local Travelers Aid agencies testify to the essential character of some expenditures in order to help the individual or family to self help and independence. The agencies on the West Coast that have had the benefit of allocation of funds for relocation assistance have found that their projects have met the urgent needs of the least visible of the poor. For example, one of these agencies reported that: "Without the help of Travelers Aid, Manpower Development Training Act consideration would not have been possible. . .. no one else could have bridged the gap to provide uniforms, books, carfare, food and rent for a twenty-seven year old woman from Alabama, who had to await certification so that she might embark upon the current semester nurses training . . . Somewhat the same conditions exist with Newcomer Neighborhood Youth Corps trainees who otherwise would not be able to accept placement because they have a 4 to 6 week period before drawing full pay. They do not have sufficient funds to meet basic needs in the meantime." "When the transformation begins to take place, when pride and dignity begin to reappear in the family, then Travelers Aid has accomplished its intent and purpose." PROPOSAL HR 15111 includes a proposed provision for "Emergency loans to persons and low-income families to met immediate and urgent family needs." We believe this provision is very desirable but particularly relevant for programs serving legal residents of the local community for whom long range or emergency grant assistance is usually available through local public assistance programs. Loans, however, in general can not meet the needs of newcomers and non-residents among the poor as they are too impoverished for it to be feasible for them to assume responsibility for payment. Therefore, in order to meet the needs of the non-agricultural mobile poor who have been left out of consideration in the planning of the anti-poverty program, we urgently recommend the addition of a provision for "Relocation Assistance" to include both loans and outright short-term grants for unemployed or lowincome families and individuals who move to a new community with intent to re-establish for reasons of employment and/or job training. Such assistance should be available for a short time for basic maintenance pending first pay, for personal expenses (grooming, carfare, books, uniforms, eyeglasses, corrective shoes et al) which are related to job-seeking or training and for other costs directed toward social assimilation and economic independence. Travelers Aid experience with such funding suggests that one month to six weeks is a reasonable maximum time to help families make a new start and that average costs would be less than $100 per family and $50 for a single individual. We believe there is a precedent for this item in the "Relocation Allowances" of the Department of Labor in its Relocation Projects, which pick people up at the source where jobs are not available and help them to move to a preplanned location where a job is known to be available. At the request of the Labor Department, Travelers Aid is assisting with supportive services in some of these projects. Under OEO "Relocation Assistance" would be used to help those who are not reached before they move but are picked up or apply for help on arrival, having taken the initiative themselves to move in search of work. The failure to include such an amendment would mean that, despite the Nation's declared purpose to end extreme poverty and provide opportunity for a better life to all, the country will have turned its back on a major group of deprived people who have never had a chance. PREPARED STATEMENT OF MISS CATHERINE C. HIATT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRAVELERS AID SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON, D.C. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1964 This statement from the vantage point of a local community is presented in support of testimony being filed by Mrs. Savilla Simons, General Director, National Travelers Aid Association, relative to the need for the Economic Opportunity Act to more effectively encompass nationwide, the nonagricultural, mobile poor. The agricultural migrant poor have some supports through Title IV of the OEO Act. The nonagricultural migants (i.e., industrial migrants and others who move) have none. Their only possible linkage is under Title II. To date these programs are properly and inevitably focusing on local residents and neighborhood development. The stranger, the new arrival to the urban community-i.e. the mobile poor, are the last to be considered, except by Travelers Aid. We need your help to help them. We believe modifications primarily in Title II of the Act can open the door. We ask your careful and sympathetic consideration of these ideas. BACKGROUND Between February 1 and December 31, 1965 the Travelers Aid Society of Washington, D.C. in collaboration with the Washington Urban League carried out a small demonstration project of service to Newcomer Youth in the Washington area. This project was made possible through a contract with the United Planning Organization of the National Capital Area and was funded by the President's Committe on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development. A copy of the report covering the first contract period (Feb. 1-Oct. 11, 1965) is attached. The total grant expenditure for the Travelers Aid portion of the Project, Feb. 1, 1965 through December 31, 1965 was $16,017. As of January 1, 1966 the joint contract was renewed by UPO, but funding was transfered to the Office of Economic Opportunity. It is anticipated that it will be further renewed for fiscal 1967. Under the OEO the program is not limited to work with youth but is still geographically restricted. During the first year of operation since there was no precedent for work with mobile youth, the program had to concentrate on learning how to hold the young people, on identifying what their problems and strengths were and on what was required to help them achieve economic stability and social maturity in the Washington area. During the second year we are able to build on progress made in one-to-one counseling and to broaden the basis of our undertaking to helping newcomers become a contributing part of their new community; at the same time pointing up and coming to grips with some of the roadblocks in our community structure, which preclude newcomers from educational and job training opportunities and which deter them from full community participation. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS On the basis of 18 months' intensive experience with newcomers in our UPO Project, coupled with many years of wider experience with mobile people from all over the world in the ongoing agency program (over 20,000 persons from 48 states and 37 foreign countries were served by Travelers Aid in Washington in 1965), the Travelers Aid Society of Washington, D.C. respectfully submits the following comments and recommendations for the consideration of the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, as this Committee considers amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964: 1. Community action program (title II) We believe that in general the Community Action Programs under the Office of Economic Opportunity have proven a most valuable departure from the traditional patterns of Welfare services; they hold promise for further substantial advance in the well-being of people throughout the country and for helping the disadvantaged members of our society to move from dependence to achievement. We see the variety, flexibility, inventiveness, and potential for experimentation among the many programs already under way, as well as the involvement of all levels of our citizenry in determining their own destiny, as cornerstones of both present and future progress. We earnestly hope that the potential of this aspect of the OEO Program will be strengthened, not jeopardized in any new legislation that may be enacted. 2. Increased job training and employment opportunities Our experience with newcomers, both within the Special Project and with others seeking to relocate shows that (1) many people move because of lack of vocational training and employment opportunities in their home community; (2) many are lacking skills to compete or to advance in the urban employment market; (3) they have the drive and potential for stable employment given training and opportunity. We, therefore, welcome the kind of proposal represented by the Nelso-Scheuer Amendment to HR 15111 pending before the House of Representatives and hope that some such provision will be included in the Senate bill. However, because in many communities, including the District of Columbia, newcomers are effectively blocked out of present adult education and job training resources, we urgently ask that any new provisions for training shall be made available to all who have the interest, the will, and the potential to benefit from them without regard to residence or other restrictive eligibility requirements. 3. Independent agency participation Being ourselves an independent, subcontracting agency in a Community Action Program, we are aware of both advantages and disadvantages of being tied to the local community action agency. It is our feeling that increased capacity for independent agencies to negotiate contracts with OEO apart from the established community action agency, as is proposed in HR 15111 should be favorably considered by the Senate. We are conscious that there might be certain hazards in such an arrangement. However, we believe that OEO itself could assure avoidance of duplication in funding and optimum use of available resources to achieve our common goal. Without such freedom to propose programs growing out of intimate knowledge and specific needs and reflecting particular creativity, some valuable chances for further innovation and breadth of program have already been lost, when they were screened through the understandable preconceptions and program designs of the local, governing CAP agency. Also, with a responsible, independent agency, some of the present awkwardnesses, contradictions, and delays in administration and utilization of committed funds would be avoided and maximum effort devoted to carrying out the project itself. 4. Relocation assistance HR 15111 includes a proposed provision for "Emergency Loans to persons and low-income families to meet immediate and urgent family needs." We believe that the intent of such a provision is highly desirable, if not imperative. We see this as being particularly relevant for programs serving legal residents of a community. Longer range or emergency grant assistance for such residents is, presumably, available through the Public Assistance program of the local Department of Public Welfare. Such provision, however, does not meet the needs of the newcomers and nonresidents. We urgently recommend the addition of a provision for "Relocation Assistance" to include both loans and outright grants for unemployed or low-income families and individuals who move to a new community with intent to re-establish for reasons of employment and/or job training. Such assistance should be available for basic maintenance pending first pay, for personal expenses (grooming, car fare, books, uniforms, et al) which are related to job-seeking, or training and for other costs directed toward social assimilation and economic independence. We believe there is a precedent for this item in the "Relocation Allowances" of the Department of Labor in its Relocation Projects, which pick people up at home where jobs are not available and help them to move to a preplanned location where a job is known to be available. Relocation assistance would be used to help those who are not reached at source, but are picked up or apply for help on arrival, having broken from circumstances of deprivation on their own. OEO does not now have any provision for funds for direct service purposes. As Mr. Sargent Shriver said in a recent letter to the President of our Board of Directors, "The problem before us is not whether cash assistance is just or warranted, but whether our particular mandate in the law allows us to provide such assistance." The absence of such funds since January 1, 1966 is seriously hampering our local ability to get families started. Whereas during the period that our Washington Newcomer Project was funded from the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, such funds were available and found to be indispensable. Our experience with such funds suggests that one month to six weeks is a reasonable maximum time to get people started-with the possibility of occasional extension for cause and that a maximum of $300 to $500 per family should meet the need, providing training costs do not have to be included, and, again, with the possibility of occasional exceptions. (The average expenditure for newcomers in our D.C. Project, except for training, during the first year was $50 total per case. We were, of course, dealing primarily with single youth. The average for families could be expected to be somewhat higher.) Most of those we know are penniless on arrival or have used up their own meager resources in a bootless effort to get squared away on their own before we see them. They are ineligible because of residence restrictions for any form of public support. To send them back where they came from would simply perpetuate dependency and destitution. On the other hand, to saddle them with a loan during the initial period of resettlement, our experience indicates, in most instances is totally unrealistic. It should be noted that two-thirds of those we have worked with are now successfully re-established, earning their own way and contributing to the life of the community in which they now live. 5. General considerations Unless, through programs such as we are pioneering, some means can be found of breaking the pattern of futile wandering or costly, chronic dependence among the mobile poor at home or through handouts on the road, the War on Poverty will never be won. The type of provisions we are recommending are obviously not the whole answer, but they would open the door for agencies such as Travelers Aid to effectively spearhead the way to the involvement of the mobile poor in solving their problems of poverty. Until these and other provisions, notably the elimination of residence restrictions for the wide range of community public services, can be enacted, the mobile poor will remain outside and largely untouched by anti-poverty efforts. PREPARED STATEMENT OF MRS. ALBERT H. LASDAY, STATE CO-ORDINATOR, WOMEN IN COMMUNITY SERVICE, INC., RICHMOND, VIRGINIA Richmond WICS1 thought that you might be interested in the experiences of the Virginia women who have been screening girls for the Women's Job Corps, providing suportive services to them and their families while the girl is at the Job Corps Center, and helping them on their return to the community. We are aware that once again the Congress must review the poverty programs before appropriaations are made for FY67. We are also aware that the Job Corps in particular has been under heated attack. 1 WICS was organized by National Council of Catholic Women. National Council of Jewish Women. 65-922-66-38 A. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION WICS screening centers, established by the contract for FY66, are in operation in Richmond, Norfolk and Roanoke. Sub-stations were opened to provide service to wider areas of the state: Richmond services south-west Virginia through Bristol WICS, with an office in the Bristol Office of Economic Opportunity, starting operations in mid-February. Norfolk has opened sub-stations in HamptonNewport News and Virginia Beach. Roanoke has a sub-station in Christianburg, and will organize another soon in Danville. Northern Virginia girls are screened through the Washington (D.C.) Screening Center. In addition, Richmond has a WICS Committee helping girls in the Petersburg area and home visitors in Emporia, South Hill, Lawrenceville, Kenbridge, Charlottesville and Amelia-women who help girls in a wide area around them. Bristol has organized WICS committees in the 14 county area through most of the Community Action Program agencies (9 in all), eliminating the necessity of a separate phone, but enabling the women to reach girls in the isolated Appalachian communities. Norfolk has a similar WICS Committee in Portsmouth and home visitors in Chesapeake, Suffolk, and Yorktown. All of these women are volunteers interested in extending a helping hand to disadvantaged young women who want to help themselves. We found that local training programs were non-existent for these girls a year ago and are now at least in the planning stage in many parts of the state. Job Corps was the only program open to most of these young women. B. VIRGINIA ENROLLMENTS On May 23rd the 100th Virginian Corpswoman was enrolled in the Job Corps, when 4 young women were administered the Job Corps oath in Richmond. June 28th, enrollments were as follows: As of 1 From 103 applicants screened acceptable from central Virginia. For geographic distribution, see attached table. Also see Profile, first 80 screened acceptable, Richmond WICS. C. THE HIGH COSTS-WHY? We have clearly seen all over the state why so many of the estimates of costs were too low. Examples: 1. Dental Services.-We have been appalled at the condition of the teeth of most applicants. Many rural girls have come in with teeth rotted to the gums. During the routine health screening, which includes in Richmond inspection of the teeth at the City Dental Clinic, most charts are marked "gross decay". During the period Aug. 1st to mid-January, when only 7 of 48 accepted candidates were assigned to Job Corps Centers because the centers were filled, WICS referred a pretty 19 year-old to a dental clinic. We found that conservation of teeth is not usually part of the service. Soon she had less than 2 her teeth remaining she was now truly unemployable. There was no plan made to rebuild her mouth. WICS has been told that the average dental bill of the enrollee at a Women's Job Corps Center during her first month there is $200. This does not include the high cost of dentures, which are not undertaken until the Corpswoman has been at the Center 4 or 5 months, because of the long waiting lists. WICS have been encouraging church groups and PTAs to develop yearly dental examinations as part of health education in the schools. 2. Medical Services.-Very few of those girls have seen a doctor in years. Many have minor nasal "drips", ear infections, etc., which are quickly cleared up on treatment. Since most have never had an eye examination until the physical exam at the Center, it is not uncommon for vision deficiencies to show up, |