mer stages-was that the provision should only be invoked when a The intent of the Congress-I sat in the conference as well as the

was requested authoritatively. You wrote me on May 3,

reply to my request and said you were suspending the manda

equirement and you would see how it goes. Now, is there any SHRIVER. We suspened the mandatory requirement because beMay and June it was a practical impossibility for local comaction agencies to have all of the public meetings that might Work done in time to get their applications in this fiscal een requested by various people at the local level and still get Ive not suspended our idea that it is desirable and I think this Mr. SHRIVER. Hearings are not mandatory— Senator JAVITS. Do you require madatory hearings now? Senator JAVITS. Public hearings?

port as to what you are doing on this matter and why?

year.

& representation from somebody in the commuity, some responsible group ich requests such a hearing for a responsible purpose. And Mr. S RIVER. Public hearings are not mandatory. There has to be ces that they should have public hearings, yes. when that is done, it is our directive to local community action agen

Senator

between

JAVITS. Well, Mr. Shriver, there seems to be a difference the regulations and the practice. Would you, therefore, be

manda tory.

good enough to give us an authoritative statement reconciling the reglations and the practice? Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, the differences I tried to describe was our desire not to so impede the progress of the community action agencies at the local level in May and June of this fiscal year as to make them inoperaLive, you might say. Therefore, the practice has been at the local level to have public hearings in most cases, but they have not been (The following memorandum was subsequently supplied in response to Senator Javits' request:) MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ON REGULATIONS FOR implementing Section 202 (5) of the Economic Opportunity Act, a 1965 amendOn March 16, 1966, OEO published in the Federal Register a set of regulations ment requiring agencies engaged in the development, conduct, and administration of local community action programs to provide the public with reasonable

to

access hearings lished

The

PUBLIC HEARINGS

their books and records and with reasonable opportunity for public at the request of appropriate local groups. The regulations were pubas interim rather than final regulations in order to give interested perSons the opportunity to comment before permanent rules are put into effect. regulations published on March 16 included a requirement that grantee and applicant agencies hold a public hearing prior to the submission of an application to OEO for assistance under Sections 204 or 205. This requirement was believed necessary to ensure individuals and groups interested in the community action program the opportunity to comment on an application in a manner that would be both timely and orderly. On balance, it was felt that the delay to the application process resulting from such a hearing would be preferable to the substantial delay and confusion that can result from having to suspend the reconsider and satisfy requests for a hearing on the proposal. The requirement viewing process once the application has been submitted to OEO in order to

that a

clude

hearing be held prior to the submission of an application does not prethe holding of subsequent hearings on the conduct of the program when ate requests are received.

Within a short time after the regulations were published in March it became clear that it would be a practical impossibility for grantee and applicant agencies to hold hearings on applications for either refundings or new applications scheduled to be submitted to OEO Regional Offices in April and May. On April 15, therefore, OEO issued Community Action Memo 32-A suspending the requirement for a pre-application public hearing until further notice and extending the time available for comment on the interim regulations until June 30. The suspension applied only to the requirement for a pre-application hearings and not to regular hearings that are required by an appropriate local group. Nor does the suspension apply to the requirement for public disclosure of certain program records and information.

Those comments that have been received to date on the hearings regulations have been generally favorable. However, OEO is waiting for the full results of its invitation to comment before making a final decision on the requirement for the holding of pre-application hearings. Based on comments already received, OEO does not intend to change the procedure as it applies to the other type of hearing those held on request of a local group.

COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Memorandum No. 32.

Date: March 25, 1966.

Subject: Interim Regulations on Access to Public Information and on Hearing Requirements.

The interim regulations attached to this memorandum are issued by OEO pursuant to a 1965 amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act. This amendment included the following phrase as part of the definition of "community action program":

(5) which includes provision for reasonable access of the public to information including, but not limited to, reasonable opportunity for public hearings at the request of appropriate local community groups, and reasonable public access to books and records of the agency or agencies engaged in the development, conduct, and administration of the program, in accordance with procedures approved by the Director.

Paragraph (b) of the regulations contains provisions on access to public information. These provisions are applicable to all grantee, applicant, and delegate agencies under Titles II-A and III-B of the Economic Opportunity Act.

Paragraph (c) contains provisions for public hearings. These apply only to grantee or applicant agencies under Sections 204 and 205 of the Economic Opportunity Act.

Your attention is particularly called to the following points:

1. The regulations in paragraph (b) governing access to public information because effective on the date of their publication. Every agency should thoroughly familiarize itself with what information it is required to disclose, and should be prepared to act on any request for disclosure it receives.

2. Paragraph (c)(1) of the regulations requires that a grantee agency hold a public hearing at the request of any person. This provision also became effective upon publication.

3. Paragraph (c) (2) of the regulations requires that a hearing be held prior to submission of a grant application. This provision applies to all applications under Sections 204 and 205 which are submitted to OEO after April 15, 1966. Any application received after April 15 which does not include a statement that a public hearing was held in conformity with these regulations will be returned to the applicant agency.

4. Note that OEO has issued these provisions as interim regulations. Permanent regulations will not be issued until all interested persons are given an opportunity to comment. You are invited to express your views in writing by mailing them to the General Counsel, Office of Economic Opportunity, 1200 Nineteenth Street, N.W., Washington. D.C., 20506, in time to arrive on or before April 15, 1966. You will be notified when permanent regulations are issued.

THEODORE M. BERRY, Director, Community Action Program.

Do you feel there is a case for consolidating Headstart under the direction of the Office of Education?

Mr. SHRIVER. I do not think there is a case at this time, although I know the case is being made.

I think that although Headstart is a popular program, as I pointed out in my opening statement, Senator, it is still a fairly misunderstood

program.

Headstart is, as I say in my statement, not just a preschool program; it is not a public kindergarten, the German-the 19th century variety brought down to the poor. It is really a community action program, and the success of Headstart is precisely because of its nature as a community enterprise rather than strictly a school enterprise.

There are five ingredients, as I point out in my statement, that comprise Headstart.

First of all, it is a medical and dental program; secondly, it is a social service program which brings social services not only to the child but into the child's home; third, it is a program that is aimed at developing the child as a whole human being, not just his intellect, but his whole psychological makeup; fourth, it involves the use of a tremendous number of volunteers, last year more than 100,000, at no cost to the taxpayer, volunteered; and finally, it is a school preparedness program. It is headed by a pediatrician who happens to be the dean of the Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse. As a doctor he brings to the concept of Headstart an appreciation as a pediatrician of the whole child.

It has been our belief that Headstart has made an unusual contribution not only to American education, but to American life by focusing on the whole child and developing for the first time in our country a whole new group of people, known as child development experts, rather than primarily schoolteachers who go and get special training in child development. So we are not just talking about education; we are talking about mobilization of all of the resources of a community.

For example, when it comes to a question of social services, the Bureau of Public Welfare in a community is just as much involved in this as the schools. The medical society in the community is equally involved, volunteers are equally involved, food which comes to the Department of Agriculture is involved.

So, this is a microcosm of a community action program and its success rests on that, I think.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Shriver, do you use the Office of Education at all in respect to Headstart?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, I am sure that people from the Office of Education have cooperated with us in the development of some of the materials for Headstart, but it is a program which was developed principally by this Office together with the use of about 300 consultants, who are consultants in child development. They are psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, and educators.

Senator JAVITS. But you do not use the U.S. Office of Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in respect to the Headstart program?

Mr. SHRIVER. I tried to say we do use them, that we do use them in collaboration in developing the programs. We do coordinate Headstart at the local level with the school board.

Senator JAVITS. I am talking about the U.S. Office of Education. Mr. SHRIVER. I am, too.

Senator JAVITS. You say you cooperate at the local school board level?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is part of the cooperation between title I, which the Office of Education administers, and our program, which takes place not only in Washington but at the local level, because the programs are developed at the local level.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Shriver, would you be good enough to file a statement for the record-and I ask unanimous consent that it be included-along with the Commissioner of Education, which will state what the collaboration on Headstart is between the two agencies, and I make the same request, Mr. Chairman, of the Commissioner of Education.

Senator CLARK. I would certainly encourage that to be done. Do you think you can arrange that, Mr. Shriver?

Mr. SHRIVER. I feel confident I can.

Senator CLARK. The memorandum is requested on behalf of the subcommittee and when received will be made a part of the record. (The memorandum subsequently supplied follows:)

MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION ON COOPERATION BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION WITH RESPECT TO THE HEAD START PROGRAM There has been a continuous dialogue between the Office of Education and the Office of Economic Opportunity about the Head Start program. The Office of Education has been actively involved in the development of program guidelines and the preparation of technical publications. Both agencies require applicants to coordinate programs at the local level and provide assistance in resolving disputes between local educational and community action agencies. Office of Economic Opportunity training programs are also serving local school personnel.

It should be noted that coordination also takes place between the Office of Economic Opportunity and other Federal agencies. Dr. Julius B. Richmond, Head Start's program director, has met on a number of occasions with the Commissioners of Education and Welfare, the Surgeon General, and the Director of the Children's Bureau.

Cooperation between the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Office of Education on the Head Start program began at the time the program was originally conceived. Members of the Office of Education staff, including Dr. William Rioux, Dr. William Johnston, and Dr. James Mauch worked actively with Office of Economic Opportunity staff in the development of the original "Invitation to Help" booklet. That booklet contains the basic policies and guidelines for the Head Start program. Office of Education personnel have reviewed many of the other Head Start publications. Dr. Minnie Berson and Dr. Dwayne Gardner of the Office of Education's staff have written pamphlets which will be included in the Head Start series.

Both offices have prescribed procedures which require coordination among agencies prior to applying for a Head Start program from the Office of Economic Opportunity or a preschool program from the Office of Education. In the case of Head Start, the applicant agency must include in its application a list of the agencies with whom it has consulted and a list of other agency funds which are being used. Office of Education regulations require, in accordance with Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, that the local Board of Education consult with the Community Action Agency in the formulation of their plans and programs, although the final authority to approve such plans rests with the State Department of Education. In addition, a recent agreement between OE and OEO requires that education programs planned by Community Action Agencies be developed cooperatively with local school systems. Both the Office of Education and the Office of Economic Opportunity have offered their good offices in resolving disputes between local education and community action agencies.

At the local level, a number of communities are using funds from both the Office of Education and the Office of Economic Opportunity. In some cases, these 65-922-66—————6

funds finance programs for different groups of children. For example, Washington, D.C., will use Head Start funds this summer for 5-year-old children; it will also use Title I funds for younger children. In other cases, the funds of the two agencies are being combined to serve the same children. Thus, Dade County, Florida, used Title I funds to provide facilities, but the operating costs have been financed through Head Start. Similarly, in New York City this summer, the Board of Education will pay teacher salaries for some 28,000 children, but Office of Economic Opportunity will provide health, social services, and food programs for these children.

As a result of agreement between the agencies, Head Start summer orientation programs were opened to personnel participating in Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs. It is estimated that approximately 1,000 school employees will participate this summer.

Arrangements are now being made to relate more directly the research activities financed by the Office of Education and those financed by the Office of Economic Opportunity. A permanent liaison position has been created in the Office of Education and filled by Miss Joan Schwartz. Her responsibilities are to assure that the two agencies are continually informed of the work being done by each other and that all questions which should involve a joint decision are appropriately handled. Several research and demonstration projects have been jointly funded by the two agencies.

During the course of the authorization hearings before the House of Representatives, the Office of Economic Opportunity was asked to prepare a report on the expansion of the Head Start program to serve all children who could potentially benefit from the program. This report was prepared in close consultation with the staff of the Office of Education, the Public Health Service, and Wel fare Administration, including the Children's Bureau. Head Start, of course, draws upon many of the services which are available through the latter agencies and close cooperation with them has been the rule. The Office of Economic Opportunity and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare are now in the preliminary stages of a joint survey of the health components of Project Head Start to determine whether they can be more effectively coordinated with ongoing programs.

In summary, the coordination between the Office of Education and the Office of Economic Opportunity is close and continuing. The results of that coordination have been helpful to both agencies in the successful operation of their programs. There of course have been instances of disagreement between local community action programs and school systems, but the procedures that have been established by Head Start and the Office of Education minimize these differences and provide a mechanism for their resolution.

Senator JAVITS. Would that statement also cover what you have just described as your coordination with the local educational agencies?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes; indeed.

Senator JAVITs. My time is running out, but I would like to ask two other short questions.

One, title II (c), the needy children program, which embodies the idea of having citizens volunteer to see what they can do for needy children, was retained in the act on the Senate's vote last year notwithstanding the thought of your department that it ought to be repealed. Now, could you tell us what has been done to implement that title?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, actually very little has been done, Senator Javits. Very little has been done because the business of putting families together with youngsters of this type has always been looked upon, I think, in this country as something which was a specialty and usually done on a case-by-case basis at the local level. Therefore, we have tended to try and put applications involving this statute over onto the shoulders of those who by a lot of experience are qualified to do it.