status offenders and neglected or abandoned youth youth who are wards of the State We believe that the formula should be made more reflective of local realities; that the law should require recipients to explain how they will serve these groups in critical need, and that some funds must be set aside to the states to be used for those youth who are wards of the State. We have had bad experiences under the CETA structure where the national office is given the discretion of deciding which of these special need groups it wishes to serve. Offenders and juvenile delinquents are among those who have been sorely neglected because they have no advocates and are not "popular". The law should require that these groups be served by the states and/or local recipients. We cannot depend upon the largess of the bureaucracies to exercise "options" in favor of the youth who are not attractive for one reason or another. I have served on the Colorado Council on Criminal Justice, and while one can be critical of LEAA over the years, it has developed a process of establishing national priorities which must be addressed by state and local government. These "priorities", such as the de-institutionalization of status offenders, were not treated as options, nor were "incentives" provided to the states who chose to meet this need. Rather, states were simply required to develop a plan to alleviate the problem. It was made a condition of funding. Some issues of youth unemployment are so critical that they should be made national conditions. The local units of government should be allowed to create responsive and imaginative solutions, but they should be required to respond. On Program Content My last major concern today relates to the issue of emphasis with the initiative on the "vocational" rather than the "educational" side of a If complex equation. Neither time nor my present limited mandate allow Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Mr. Passarelli. Would Mr. Poulard kindly return to the witness table, and would you remain, Mr. Passarelli. I think we overlooked indicating that questions would be asked at this point. Is Mr. Smart or a representative of the National Collaboration for Youth present in the audience? Mr. Passarelli, in your statement you referred to extending the population of the target group. You indicated handicapped youth, and you said 10 million teenage mothers, status offenders, and youth who are wards of the State. This, of course, would substantially increase the target population. Do I understand what you are suggesting is that these, by definition, be included? I believe they are already roughly included in the President's proposal. Is it true that they are now included in a broad way? Mr. PASSARELLI. Yes. Our reading of the legislative specifications indicates that they are. The point that we are suggesting, sir, is that those target populations really need to have a more clear definition of inclusion in the formula. Mr. HAWKINS. Would that not greatly increase the projected cost of the program? Mr. PASSARELLI. Yes, in all probability. Mr. HAWKINS. So what you are saying, in effect, is that we are dealing with a small part of the problem, and not adequately reaching the many that should be included. I don't know how academic this is at this stage of the game, but we are worried about getting the money for the more limited group. Do you see an injustice if they are not included? Mr. PASSARELLI. One of the difficulties that my colleagues had, in reviewing the legislative specifications, sir, were that there really needed to be, in some cases, more ability for the States and the local jurisdictions to determine which of those target groups in their own areas ought to be addressed. Mr. HAWKINS. As most of the other witnesses, you also touched on the issue of coordination. In one section you say that the coordi nation should be such that it would be included in the entire programs, including the planning, delivery of services, and so forth. Do you see that type of coordination already included in the law, or do you think that the language in the current proposal is inadequate. What is your feeling about the language as it now stands? Mr. PASSARELLI. Our view is that the intent is there. I think in remarks by Secretary Hufstedler to this committee previously that that intent is clear and well articulated. The problem is that we find that that mandate and that articulated direction really does not become translated in terms of the language of the bill as it currently stands. What we are looking at, sir, is a method or a systematic approach to really effectuate the kind of cooperation that we think is required if we are to have any kind of a totally coordinated effort. A mere discussion of cooperation among existing agencies at the local level we don't feel is sufficient. There really needs to be some stronger definitions of methods for bringing about that kind of unified and whollistic approach to the problem. Mr. HAWKINS. Of course, in the existing law there is the financial incentive, which is being changed somewhat in the new proposal. Mr. PASSARELLI. Yes. Mr. HAWKINS. Do you believe the financial incentive is sufficient, or do you think the current proposal is strong enough in providing the financial assistance for the coordination? Mr. PASSARELLI. What I think we are talking about, Mr. Chairman, is the difficulty of institutional change at the local level. Previous testimony here today has indicated some question about local institutions being able to respond adequately. I think if there is that kind of difficulty at the local level, there really needs to be some stronger motivation than financial incentives. I feel oftentimes if there is just that element of incentive to a local institutional organization, unless there is really strong local representation of the target groups within the bodies who govern those institutions-oftentimes that is not the case of those most in need-then they would just elect to either minimally address those problems, rather than substantively begin to deal with the problems. Mr. HAWKINS. Are you suggesting representation on councils. Mr. PASSARELLI. That certainly would help. Mr. HAWKINS. What else? Mr. PASSARELLI. What I personally would like to see would be some sort of mechanism established to show a national commitment to a level of some institutional change to provide the kinds of effective coordination at the local level that I think is required. Really just sitting down in a committee structure and discussing those, and leaving coordination at that level really does not begin to effect the changes to the existing delivery system that we are currently in. Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Poulard, may I first of all apologize to you that I was not here at the opening of the hearing this morning, and failed to be able to, at least, commend you on the efforts that you and your group have made, particularly in the community which I represent. Certainly, I want to join many others in commending, and recommending for attention the contributions that you have made in the field of employment and training services, and real community change. Mr. POULARD. Thank you. Mr. HAWKINS. In your prepared statement, you indicated that the legislation should be more explicit in the use of CBO's in all aspects of the education title. You included the delivery of educational services as well. Do I understand that a substantial amount of educational services is now being performed by CBO's? Mr. POULARD. Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman. I would not take up the time required to refer to an adequate number of them, and illustrate what they do effectively. I can offer to submit a supplemental statement which would provide you with an illustration of an adequate number of CBO's and their track record. I would like to mention just one in particular. It is an organization in Buffalo, N.Y., called BUILD. It is an acronym meaning Build Unity, Independence, Liberty, and Dignity. It established an alternative school, even with the blessing of the Buffalo School Board. It utilizes an abandoned school building, once used by the public school system itself. The community organization named BUILD, beginning from A to Z, curriculum design, teacher screening and hiring, performance, standards, and the like, fared so well that by the year 1979 the waiting list for admission to that school more than quadruples the number of students enrolled. The test scores of graduates challenges in an embarrassing way the test scores of students graduating from the public schools in that city. The number of students going on to college is phenomenally high and exceeds the national average. Students request to be bused from where they live to attend that alternative school. The board of education in Buffalo elects to provide supplemental funds to the operations of that alternative school run by this community-based organization. The governing body of the school recognizes that because of the profile and character of most of the students attending the school, reading, writing, and arithmetic do not represent the total education and job-readiness needs of pupils. So there are enlightened and innovative counseling and support services routinely provided to augment the classroom activities. In a word, it is an ideal model for what can happen at the neighborhood level when there is the flexibility, the accountability which a community-based organization projects when it runs this type of institution. There are still others. There is an institution in Chicago called the Alternative School Network; a key staff member is Mr. Jack Wiest, who has provided us with information relating to the 34 or 40 some members. We could, by referring to that laundry list, prepared by that network of services, as well as referring to what the Center for Community Change has done with other independent groups like the one in Buffalo, provide you with a list of what CBO's are doing in running alternative mechanisms. Thus, when we propose that CBO's can assist in the education title of the administration's bill, to do more than merely recruiting and orientation, and providing support services, but to in fact also address more content-related issues. We do that based on our intimate knowledge of particular groups in adequate number to buttress our suggestion. Mr. HAWKINS. Are you, in effect, saying that already included in the proposal there is not sufficient mandating language to make sure that they are going to be used? Mr. POULARD. I am going to yield to Ronnie who has read the bill a little bit more critically than I. Mr. HAWKINS. Would you identify yourself, for the record? Ms. KWELLER. I am Ronnie Kweller, and I provide information and clearinghouse functions for CBO's regarding the CETA program for the Center for Community Change. According to my reading of the administration's bill, there is no explicit language in the general program, or provisions that suggest or encourage the use of CBO's or alternative educational institutions for the delivery of basic skills instruction. CBO's and alternative schools are mentioned in the part of the bill that addresses vocational education, but I believe that that is the only explicit mention of them. Whereas, as you are familiar with the CETA legislation, it goes much farther in suggesting and even encouraging the use of CBO's in all aspects of the program, from planning through delivery and evaluation. So we would like to see similar language to the CETA language throughout the education aspect of this program, should such a program emerge from Congress. Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you. The Chair is going to yield at this point, but will try to get back to further questions. I understand that Walli Klores is here representing Mr. Walter Smart of the National Collaboration for Youth. Ms. KLORES. Mr. Smart had to leave, and I would like to answer your questions. Mr. HAWKINS. You will be representing and answering questions for the National Collaboration for Youth. Ms. KLORES. As far as I can. Mr. HAWKINS. I just wanted to clarify that fact. Mr. Goodling. Mr. GOODLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Poulard, on the next to the last page of your statement where you have made recommendations, you say that the legislation should contain explicit language requiring the use of CBO's in all aspects of the education title. Then you finally say that they are to include the delivery of educational supportive services. As I read these proposals, you are charging the State education department with monitoring title II. I am not sure how your recommendation would fit in with that. I can see where it would where dropouts are concerned, but, I am not quite sure how your recommendation would fit in with the administration's mandate |