Daniel R. Fusfeld, 309 Brookside, Ann Arbor, Michigan, (Vice-president, Professor of Economics, College of Literature, Science and Arts, the University of Michigan). Barton R. Burkhalter, 4530 Dexter-Pinckney Road, Dexter, Michigan, (Secretary-Treasurer; Executive Director, Community Systems Foundation, Ann Arbor). VIII. STATEMENTS OF SUPPORT FOR THE GENERAL CONCEPT "Let me start by congratulating you for investing a lot of your time, some deep and constructive thought and a willingness to stick your neck out to solve a serious problem facing our times. Too often people in the academic world, as well as people in business, look to the government to solve problems, and some problems are not going to be solved with just money. There is needed inspiration, organization, brains, and effort with some money, of course." Tyrone Gillespie, Assistant to the President, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan. "Your proposal is imaginative and well thought through . . . I believe your proposal is sound enough to warrant a thorough trial." Robert C. Angell, Professor of Sociology, The University of Michigan. "I commend you for the work you have done in laying out a pilot demonstration project for alleviating unemployment . . . I am thrilled when I find someone thinking constructively about the problem." Robert P. Briggs, Executive Vice-President, Consumers Power Company, Jackson, Michigan. "It combines imaginatively various ideas and programs. . . it certainly deserves a try and is worthy of support." Jack Rothman, Associate Professor of Community Organization, School of Social Work, The University of Michigan. "I find your proposal a stimulating one and it is refreshing to find someone who is doing more than belaboring the obvious problem." Donald M. Baker, Counsel, Subcommittee on Labor, United States Senate. "What is needed now is not further theoretical thinking and research... be interesting to try this out on a pilot plant basis." Paul McCracken, Professor of Business Conditions, The University of Michigan, and former member of the Council of Economic Advisors. "I regard this proposal as logically sound and thoroughly deserving of a full scale empirical test." E. Lowell Kelly, Professor of Psychology, and Chairman of the Willow Village Apartments, Inc. "It might be worthwhile to extend the application of the work-aid concept and it is possible that social philanthropies could assist you in experimenting with this approach." Walter W. Heller, when chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors. Others giving moral support-General Lester Bork, President, Economic Club of Detroit; Willis Hall, Executive Director, Detroit Board of Commerce; and Bishop Richard Emrich, Episcopal Diocese of Michigan. THE STATE OF KANSAS, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Mr. DON THOMASON, Regional Director, Office of Economic Opportunity, DEAR MR. THOMASON: This letter is to express the appreciation of my office for the City of Topeka for the services of the Job Corps in helping to clean up the debris from the recent tornado in Topeka. Whereas I did not have direct contact with the Job Corps nor visited with property owners assisted by the Corps, I am aware of the substantial contribution these young men made to the City of Topeka. This contribution includes their assistance in helping restore public property, as well as private property in the areas previously designated as low income areas by the Office of Economic Opportunity. I was especially appreciative of the fact that they could be permitted to work on private property, as the public property was in the final stages of cleanup when they arrived. One of the most significant factors of their assistance was the fact that sufficient supervisory personnel was available, and that they were organized and could be on hand five days after the disaster occurred. It would be appreciated if you would convey these comments to the parent agency of the Kansas City Office. Yours very truly, WM. H. AVERY, Governor. Mr. ROBERT E. HOFFMAN, Regional Administrator, Job Corps, Office of Economic Opportunity, Kansas City, Mo. CENTRAL GREYHOUND LINES, DEAR MR. HOFFMAN: Last week I had the pleasure of arranging bus transportation to and from Topeka, Kansas for some of your Job Corps boys. According to the accounts given us by some of the drivers, it was indeed a pleasure. One driver in particular could not praise these boys enough. He said they were pleasant and polite, and created no problem on the bus. This driver was told by several individuals in Topeka that these young men did a great deal more work than had been anticipated, and did it well. I feel that we should all be grateful to these young men, who until now, might have been a burden to society. They have shown many of us that it doesn't take an extended education to be a compassionate American. Cordially, J. W. POTTS, Charter Representative. [From the Kansas City Star, July 7, 1966] CONGRESSIONAL COLD FEET IN THE POVERTY WAR A Senate subcommittee now is considering the poverty program requests, going over much the same ground covered by the House education and labor committee two months ago. The emphasis still seems to be on restrictions for Job corps and Community Action programs, and we hope the Senate will make appropriate changes. In general, the House committee seemed to be suffering from election-year jitters. There has been some fear of untrustworthy "new left" types burrowing into the Community Action programs from within. But we can't see that the House committee has done much to prevent this sort of thing. Trying to place an arbitrary blueprint over Community Action is no answer, for conditions vary from city to city. Community Action, in fact, is supposed to represent the will and needs of the community. Thus the provision that would require at least 20 per cent of CAP funds to go to agencies outside the local CAP structure (only after approval from Washington) would tend to put money on the shelf instead of into projects. Everyone, most especially Congress, should have known from the beginning that the Office of Economic Opportunity and its local poverty organizations would not be able to work immediate miracles in an atmosphere of love and gratitude from the poor. The fact is, poverty is an unpleasant, dirty element of society. That is what it is all about. The poverty program is intended to eliminate it so far as possible. The people in the Job corps are not always cleancut, appealing American youth. That is why they are in the Job corps. Through the poverty program, as it was originally outlined, the United States is for the first time facing some of the unappetizing facts as they concern the chronic, hard-core poor. It is not a pretty picture. But Congress cannot stand aloof from the situation and expect to change it. The Office of Economic Opportunity cannot be confined narrowly in its authority to put money where it believes money is needed. After the first year or so of painfully setting up the machinery to wage the poverty war, some segments of Congress are getting cold feet. For the sake of the poor, and in the interests of the general public, let us hope that the original antipoverty goals will be allowed to stand. Hon. CHESTER L. MIZE, TOPEKA, KANS. U.S. Representative, Second Congressional District Cannon Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN MIZE: As the Mayor of the City of Topeka, I want you and the Congress to know of the great assistance which has been provided to us by the Job Corps during our time of disaster. They moved into Topeka on the heels of a large volunteer effort on the part of hundreds of people who worked the first weekend after the storm. The Job Corps made it possible for us to keep up a high pitch of activity which was and is important to the morale of the city. At the same time they contributed substantially to the general cleanup in the city. One group has become closely identified with the people of one of the distressed areas, and they are now reluctant to leave until every yard and parkway has been cleaned up. We have certainly been pleased with the hard work put out by the men from Job Corps. They have given our city a real boost. Sincerely, CHARLES W. WRIGHT, Jr., Mayor. COMMUNICATIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOSEPH S. CLARK, a U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., New York, N.Y., June 17, 1966. Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CLARK: I am writing you on behalf of the more than 280 member agencies of the Child Welfare League of America. These agencies are the accredited public and private child welfare agencies in the United States. The nation's child welfare agencies are of course very close and deeply concerned with the problems of the disadvantaged child in our country. There is a consensus in our membership of the great value of the Head Start program of the Office of Economic Opportunity. We believe that it has provided new hope for hundreds of thousands of children. Our agencies have observed the program closely in their local communities, and the staff of the League itself has studied the effectiveness of some of the programs. We respectfully wish to urge your committee to give favorable consideration to expanding and extending the Head Start program. We are concerned that, in some areas, it seems to be slowing down. Communities cannot reach out into new parts of their areas which have not been served in the past, and there seems to be difficulty in extending the Head Start program to new communities. Although it is a notable achievement that almost one-third of the two million children needing such help have been served to date, the very success of the program mandates every effort being made to extend it to all children. We are particularly interested in the full-year program. Although the summer program has been valuable, there is, in our view, infinitely more value in a continuous, year-round program. Only approximately one-tenth of the communities have been able to establish such a program because of lack of funds. We strongly urge that funds be made available so that the Head Start programs can be run from seven in the morning to seven in the evening, and thus doubly serve as day care centers, particularly for the children of working mothers. As you know, perhaps the most critical need in child welfare services in the United States is adequate facilities for the daytime care of children. There are more than nine million mothers, including more than three-and-one-half million with children under six, who are employed. Yet there are only approximately 200,000 places available in day care centers. Extending the Head Start program so that it can help meet this need can have an important effect in protecting children. We hope that your committee will recommend a major expansion of the present Head Start program. Sincerely, Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. JOSEPH H. REID, JUNE 17, 1966. DEAR SENATOR CLARK: In response to the suggestion of your Administrative Assistant. Mr. William Smith. I am expressing in writing the substance of our conversation in your office on Monday, June 13. My purpose in visiting you was to emphasize the importance to the national welfare of continuing the expansion of the Head Start program. As a social psychologist who is a member of the Head Start Planning Committee, I have had an opportunity to observe at firsthand the effects of Head Start, not only on children but on their families, and, indeed, entire communities in different parts of the country, including the Deep South. In my professional work I have been concerned with problems of tension reduction and intergroup relations. I have been especially impressed by the almost unique capacity of this program to accomplish objectives along these lines. I refer, first of all, to the program's ability to reach the hard core poor and, secondly, to its ability to draw together, in cooperative relationships, groups which previously were unable to work with one another. The ability of the program to do this was not immediately apparent to many communities when Head Start began just about a year ago. They have taken time to develop. We are now at a point where many communities want to begin Head Start programs and we simply should not be in the position of having to turn down the communities which are knocking at our doors. It would be tragic, indeed, if the Office of Economic Opporutnity had to shatter the aspirations of so many people among the poor who have at last begun to believe that somebody cares about them and about what they say. Yet, unless the present limits on funding in the House Authorization Bill are raised, OEO is not going to be able, for the following reasons, to say yes to very many new communities. As you know, the Head Start program has experienced a very rapid growth, from practically nothing 18 months ago to nearly 600,000 summer enrollees in 1966 and almost 180,000 children in full year programs. The point, however, is that there are 2,000,000 children who could and should benefit from the program. As I understand the workings of the legislature and the budget, there are whole states where expansion of the program will be stopped dead in 1967 (e.g., Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana). These, and in fact practically all states, desperately need to reach many more families. The increases in the House Bill, while they appear very large, will not in fact accomplish much more than re-funding the numbers of children currently funded for summer and full-year programs, because most current programs operated for shorter periods of time this year than they will next year. I would like to emphasize, as a specialist, that it is very difficult to develop an approach at the national level which can at the same time find active acceptance from families at low socioeconomic levels and at the same time not be obstructed by defenders of the status quo. Head Start is such an approach. It has been accepted by all kinds of people. Please do not allow the momentum of this wonderful program to slow down to the traditional pace of so many routine underfunded Federal programs. Sincerely, URIE BRONFENBRENNER, Professor, Psychology and Child Development and Family Relationships, Cornell University. COUNCIL OF JEWISH FEDERATIONS AND WELFARE FUNDS, INC., Hon. Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Manpower, Employment and Poverty, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CLARK: I am writing to you in connection with the hearings which your Committee is holding on amendments to the Economic Opportunity Act and the appropriations required for its continuance and strengthening. Our General Assembly, the governing body of our Council, has called for "continued and strengthened cooperation among the federal government, states, municipalities, and voluntary agencies, to assure that: (a) These (anti-poverty) programs will deal with priority needs; (b) They will be under the auspices of the most representative and responsible bodies; (c) The poor themselves will be involved as stipulated by the Congress; and (d) These programs will be administered by agencies most competent to carry them out effectively with due regard for the principle of separation of Church and State." Our Board of Directors and Public Welfare Committee at their meetings this month studied the amendments proposed by the House Committee on Education and Labor. Our Board now respectfully urges your Committee to consider the following: 1. Increased appropriations for the programs under the Economic Act: The Office of Economic Opportunity originally estimated that on a "building block" approach, by the third year of operation, the over-all expenditure would be over $3.5 billion. We urge upon you the need for a larger appropriation which would make it possible to fulfill the intention in the Act, Sec. 202 (a) (2) to the effect that a community action program is one which "provides service, assistance and other activities of sufficient scope and size to give promise of progress toward elimination of poverty." This will hardly be possible under the proposals to authorize $1.75 million. 2. Strengthening of the Community Action Programs: The amendments propose that 20 per cent of the funds be spent independently of the community planning and coordinating machinery. We would urge the need for the coordination and planning on the citywide level, with an effective appeals procedures so that, within the context of community-wide planning, there will still be freedom for quick development of independent programs where necessary. We urge that increased funds be made available for community action programs. We note that the Administration's request of $466 million was reduced to $323 million in the bill proposed by the House Education and Labor Committee. This would require cut-backs in community action programs throughout the country and make it impossible for new programs to be started. 3. The primary responsibility for the Work Experience and Training Program Under Title V should remain with the Bureau Of Family Service in the Welfare Administration of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. We appreciate the need for the closest cooperation between HEW and the Department of Labor. This is a program of family rehabilitation involving the public welfare amendments of 1962. The special services required to enable those on public assistance to achieve self-support should continue under HEW, which can utilize all the training job placement resources available through the Department of Labor, under the Manpower Development Training Act. 4. We are opposed to the proposal which would set five per cent limitation on demonstration and training grants. Imaginative innovation is the heart of the anti-poverty program requirement. There should be no such ceiling on it. 5. We urge the removal of the ceiling of $12,500 annual salary for staff persons in the anti-poverty programs. Our experience has indicated to us that efficiency and economy are best achieved through the employment of people with the necessary professional skills to administer these programs. The anti-poverty problems are among the most complex and difficult the nation must overcome. Programs cannot be better than the quality of the personnel administering them. We, therefore, regard any such ceiling as a most serious block to the accomplishment of the purposes of the Economic Opportunity Act. We appreciate the careful consideration being given by your Committee to the nation's program for reducing and eliminating poverty. We hope the expression of these views will be helpful towards that end. Sincerely yours, LEWIS H. WEINSTEIN, President. A STUDY OF AMERICAN EDUCATION, Senator JOSEPH S. CLARK, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CLARK: I am writing to you as a member of the National Advisory Council of the OEO. At a recent meeting I learned of the recommendations which the Committee of the House of Representatives have embodied in H.R. 15111. This bill sharply limits the flexibility of the action of the Director. |