is to emphasize more the catalytic support function and the interface mechanism function we have argued for earlier.

Given the over 20 billion dollars worth of volunteer time contributed by Americans each year, is it not very shortsighted to fail to support an adequate range of high quality evaluation studies of the impact of various kinds of voluntary action not affiliated with ACTION? And is it not similarly shortsighted to fail to support a reasonable amount of more basic research on the nature of voluntary action? We would argue that the answer to both these questions is affirmative. If any single industry in the business sector was worth $20 billion in manpower per year and had a gross cash flow of $80 billion, it would be considered simply mindless if it did not support at least 3-5 percent of its total cash flow worth of research and development. The Federal Government presently supports billions of dollars worth of research and development serving the business sector, but probably less than a few millions' worth of research and development serving volunteerism and voluntary action specifically.

The National Science Foundation a few years ago supported a project to iden tify the most important policy research questions relating to voluntary action and the voluntary sector ["Voluntary Sector Policy Research Needs," 1974]. That study involved a cross section of over 150 of the Nation's leading researchers and leaders concerned with voluntary action and volunteering. Neither NSF nor ACTION nor any other governmental or private research-supporting agency has begun to fund the needed research outlined there to a significant degree. Yet how can voluntary action be optimally effective in dealing with public needs in our Nation if we simply do not know such things as how best to recruit and motivate volunteers volunteers for different kinds of activities, how to organize different kinds of volunteer groups for goal accomplishment most effectively, how to relate paid staff to volunteers in a proper cooperative partnership, and so forth?

In the last century, before Government funds began to support medical research in a substantial way, physicians were applying leeches to patients to cure them of various ills because that treatment was effective in terms of common medical knowledge in the last century. What sorts of analogous acitvities are going on in voluntary action today, implemented by well-meaning paid or volunteer leaders who simply lack the relevant sicentific knowledge about how voluntary action really works? And in what areas is ACTION basing its programs and expenditures on a similar level of basic knowledge? Only research can tell us.

There are many Federal agencies-particularly NSF that should help to pull more of their share of the burden of research and development support for the voluntary sector and for volunteerism in particular. But whatever these other agencies may do, we believe that a reasonable start toward adequate support of voluntary action research should be made by ACTION in fiscal year 1977. If it does not start here, where will it start? And if it does not start soon, even more voluntary sector resources as well as Federal budget dollars in ACTION are likely to be partially wasted because of inadequate knowledge of voluntary action in America-or elsewhere.

Therefore, we recommend that Congress give serious consideration to authorizing significant funds-$3-$5 million-for basic and applied policy research on volunteerism and voluntary action in general in the fiscal year 1977 ACTION budget, rather than the very low levels of support presently requested in the President's budget. It is striking that at the same time the President has issued a call for more support to basic research, volunteerism and voluntary action research-dealing with an important and growing sector of our society-receive no attention at all. There will be billions spent on the technical aspects of energy production and conservation, for instance, but virtually nothing on finding out how voluntary action could lead people to wasteless energy and other resources. At least 3-5 percent of the ACTION domestic budget should, in our view, be devoted to applied, policy-related and basic research on volunteerism and voluntary action if we are to learn how to use volunteerism wisely and effectively in America to raise the quality of life of all our people and to meet human, social and environmental needs, especially poverty.

Finally, there is some question among voluntary action researchers regarding the adequacy of the present research contract and grant letting procedures of ACTION. We recommend that Congress instruct ACTION, therefore, to bring their procedures more into line with the current standards of the National Science

Foundation and other research grant-letting agencies, insofar as ACTION disburses grants or contracts for research or the procurement of informaton. Crucial to the system that ACTION very much needs in this area, but does not presently have, is a fully operative outside professional peer review system with proper safeguards against conflict of interest on the part of reviewers. The soon-to-beissued report by a committee on social sciences in the National Science Foundation provide some excellent guidelines that might well be incorporated into any ACTION research or information procurement activities. It is our view that research and information gathering supported by ACTION should involve the use of outside experts in defining research needs, creating requests for proposals or research program descriptions, selecting the best proposals for funding, monitoring research progress, and deciding the quality of research completed. This kind of professional peer review process is responsible for the overall high quality of research supported by other Government agencies, including NSF, NIH, NIE, and so forth. Further, ACTION needs to have more experienced researchers in the field of voluntary action on its staff in order to help it deal adequately with research grant and contract letting of various kinds. Without more of this kind of staff person, the ACTION agency runs the risk of misallocating research funds even if it does set up a better outside professional peer review system.

CONCLUSIONS

Volunteering and voluntary action in America today are a large and important part of the voluntary sector, involving over $20 billion worth of donated time each year for a wide variety of public needs. The ACTION agency has great promise and vital functions to perform in American society, but current legislation-the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973-needs revision if that promise and those functions are to be optimally fulfilled. In particular, we believe that the public interest will be served if Congress passes legislation implementing the following points:

(1) Stating more explicitly the full range of human, social, and environmental needs in America which, when addressed by voluntary action and volunteers, constitute ACTION's basic mandate of concern or field of activity; and funding such a broader range of voluntary action related activities through ACTION. (2) Emphasizing more clearly that ACTION should play a catalytic resource support role and an interface mechanism role with regard to private voluntary action in America; and funding more activities consistent with these roles and fewer volunteer or quasi-volunteer programs directly operated or controlled by ACTION.

(3) Insisting that ACTION support a broader range of research and information gathering activities regarding all of private voluntary action in America-as does the Department of Commerce, for instance, in regard to the business sector-so that ACTION's policy decisionmaking and program implementation are based on the best available knowledge; and funding substantially more basic, applied, and policy relevant voluntary action research through ACTION.

(4) Directing ACTION to establish a research and information gathering contract and grant-letting process that involves more staff qualified in voluntary action research and that involves an outside professional peer review process more similar to that used by NSF, NIH, NIE and other Federal agencies supporting external research; and funding these developments as necessary adjuncts to increased support for voluntary action research through ACTION.

Thank you for your attention to the views of our association. We hope our testimony will be of some benefit in your decisionmaking process.

Mr. MORGAN. I should at this time like to summarize this statement and answer, as well as I am able, any of your questions.

If there is one point which our association would like to make, it is that the independent, voluntary sector of American society has played, and continues to play, an extremely important role in our national and international life. Voluntarism, however, is a resource which has not yet been fully utilized because not enough research has been conducted to determine the essential ingredients.

70-075 076 pt. 7 44

THE 1976 FILER COMMISSION ON PRIVATE PHILANTHROPY AND PUBLIC NEEDS

In 1974 U.S. volunteer sector estimated total income-$80 billion, plus additional $20 billion in volunteer time. It is estimated that today there are anywhere from 36 to 100 million volunteers and that there are nearly 6 million in volunteer associations in the United States.

A uniquenes of voluntary action and the voluntary sector is that it constitutes the social risk capital of our society. Voluntary action provides socially innovative ideas, tests them at low risk, and at low investment costs. Voluntary action and volunteer groups have produced nearly all of the social innovations in human history. Indeed, nearly every major function of the Federal Government was invented by, experimented with, or generally popularized by the voluntary sector; for example, volunteer fire departments, EPA, and health agencies. ACTION is the principal Federal agency directly and primarily concerned with voluntarism. This agency has the opportunity to serve as a liaison and as a catalytic function. This agency, however, should in our opinion not attempt to control or direct voluntary activities, since it is precisely this constitutional guarantee of freedom of association that encourages individuals to voluntarily participate.

Under current legislation ACTION is mandated to be concerned with voluntary action in human, social, and environmental needs, especially poverty.

We believe the mandate needs to be spelled out more explictly. Voluntarism can play a critical role in the entire development process. We recommend that the mandate encourage, through an appropriate amendment of language, an integrated approach so that linkages can be developed between voluntary actions directed toward eliminating poverty, and voluntary actions which focus on the achievement of other human needs. Poverty does not exist in isolation, neither does voluntarism.

We further believe that the principal emphasis of the ACTION programs should be the provision of technical assistance, training, small grant funds, information, and other types of catalytic support activities. We do not believe the role of ACTION, as a Government agency, should be the direct operation of volunteer programs. To do so is to misunderstand the proper respective roles of government and the voluntary sector. Experimentation with creating and operating new kinds of volunteer programs and groups is far better if left exclusively with the voluntary sector. ACTION, on the other hand, can most importantly serve as the official interface mechanism between the Federal Government and the voluntary sector. It can facilitate the existing and emerging voluntary sector experimentation in meeting public needs through voluntary action. We recommend that title I language be amended to reflect the emphasis.

We further recommend that Congress appropriate substantially more money than the $800,000 presently requested for the volunteer

mobilization programs and the technical assistance for private voluntarism. These subprograms are precisely the types of catalytic support functions mentioned before. In our prepared statement we suggest how increased funding could be achieved by the transfer of funds from budget items, particularly from volunteer programs operated by ACTION. A good example or model of a catalytic type program is the national student volunteer program.

If ACTION is to play a more catalytic and interface role, then the agency will need to have an adequate research data and information base if it is to make the best decisions and use its resources effectively. Without sufficiently detailed, accurate and up to date "mapping" of the voluntary sector, ACTION will never be able to respond properly or in time, except by sheer chance. It is our association's considered opinion that at present, very little is known, relatively speaking, about voluntary action in America or elsewhere. Yet the fiscal year 1977 budget contains virtually nothing for research, only $50,000 in total, is set aside for studies on voluntarism and only $500,000 is set aside for ACTION to evaluate itself.

Considering the $80 billion dollars in cash and $20 billion in volunteer time presently donated by the American people, we recommend that Congress give serious consideration to authorizing significant funds, in the range of $3 to $5 million, for basic and applied or policy research on voluntarism and voluntary action in general in the fiscal year 1977 ACTION budget.

We cannot help but point out the recent call by Government requesting the people to voluntarily reduce their energy consumption, yet no funds are spent on research to find out how to do this (mass flu program).

Finally, there is serious concern among voluntary action scholars regarding the present research contract and grant letting procedures of ACTION. Of major concern is the lack of a professional peer review process which would oversee and establish high quality research, the lack of professional voluntary organization research personnel on ACTION's staff. We therefore recommend that Congress instruct ACTION to bring their research contract and grant procedures more in line with current standards, such as those of the National Science Foundation.

Mr. Chairman, thank you, and on behalf of AVAS we appreciate the opportunity to present our views to your committee, and we hope they will be of benefit in your decisionmaking process.

Mr. PATTEN. Thank you, Mr. Morgan.

It is something to think about.

Mr. MORGAN. It is a tremendous resource and a potential.

Mr. PATTEN. It is a resource we want to encourage for others, especially others in our country, in order to develop new leadership.

Mr. Russell, president, National Community Action Agency Executive Directors' Association.

Mr. Russell, how would you like to proceed?

Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. Leatherwood will testify first.

TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 1976.

NATIONAL COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY LEGISLATIVE FORUM

WITNESS

JOHN LEATHERWOOD, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY LEGISLATIVE FORUM

Mr. PATTEN. All right, Mr. Leatherwood. Let us hear from you. Mr. LEATHERWOOD. My name is John Leatherwood, Jr. I presently experience Community Action from three roles: My 7 years as executive director of the Community Action Agency in Hendersonville, N.C., my 2-year tenure as president of the North Carolina Community Action State Association and my position as chairman of the National CAA Legislative Forum. The perspective I have gained from these responsibilities reaffirms my conviction that the fiscal needs and the program potential of Community Action are absolutely interdependent.

Community Action prides itself in the ability to do more for less. It is a documented fact that for every $1 invested by the Community Services Administration (CSA) in Community Action Agencies (CAA's) more than $2.50 is generated by COO's for the support of other locally developed antipoverty programs while maintaining an average staff salary of only $6,000 per annum. We have stretched our program dollars as thin as they will go. The job gets bigger but our past appropriation fails to acknowledge that fact. Our program gains in popularity among local communities and elected officials as documented in the testimony by the National Association of Counties before the Senate Subcommittee on Labor-HEW Appropriations, March 15, 1976. They testified that "NACO recommends full funding of antipoverty programs under the Community Services Administration." They further testified that "NACO strongly opposes a reduction in the Federal cash share for local Community Action programs." Yet we now face a reduced budget from our Federal sponsors. We certainly appreciate the terrible budget pressures the Congress faces. It is the kind of pressure we face daily in Community Action. We have faced them for the last 5 years. We request that you consider, as we must, funding first that which most directly, efficiently, and effectively serves human needs.

The National CAA Legislative Forum, which is responsible for reviewing, analyzing and recommending policies relating to national legislation for the CAP World, has soberly and thoroughly considered our current fiscal situation and the President's budget proposal. The appropriations level which we recommend to this Committee reflects a community based, programmatically oriented understanding of what is essential, as well as possible, for the poor of our Nation, in fiscal year 1977. Since a more in-depth summary of our recommendations is attached to my testimony, I will take this opportunity to only highlight several issues of particular concern to CAA's. And I would like to ask, sir, that an attachment be made a part of the record. Mr. PATTEN. Without obiection, so ordered.

[The attachment follows:]