Information and materials are provided on business and industries, emphasizing employment and the impact of changing technology on adequately preparing for employment. They help youth to gain greater understanding of the world of work. Information dealing with school dropout problems includes ways of gaining training other than in school. To increase the number of youth who use employment services, persons from public and private employment agencies are enlisted to inform youth of the help available. Their offices are visited. Training is given in preparing for and conducting one's self at an employment interview. Supervised practice in filling out an employment application blank is provided. In a study completed recently it was shown that only 5 percent of low-income teenagers in Washington, D.C., participate in nationally known youth organizations. However, 95.4 percent of the low-income teenagers said they have heard of 4-H. The study further pointed out that, since teenagers have strong feelings of wanting to belong, a well-known organization such as 4-H has a distinct advantage in interesting young people in the cities. In summary, the first and perhaps the greatest contribution of the 4-H program has been to help children to be more successful in school by reinforcing their school experiences. The voluntary nature of the program, the smaller informal groups, the home-and-life-related experiences, may be major reasons for this success. This is best summed up by the words of an older girl who had been in 4-H for three years and who was employed as a summer assistant: "These children need love, personal attention, and a personal relationship more than subject matter. At least, they need these before they will respond to subject matter." Parents who urged their children to join 4-H explained, "We have seen that 4-H does things with them, not just for them. You help them do more for themselves." Methodology Educational methods for the District of Columbia will be patterned after those which have been tested and found effective in Extension's developmental projects recently carried out in low-income areas. Home visits and personal contacts will be used extensively in the initial efforts of Extension because the hard-core poor typically do not actively seek out educational opportunities, and they are not accustomed to meeting in groups. Such contacts will aid in gaining the confidence of the people, identifying problems and level of knowledge, and acquainting local residents with program opportunities. Eventually, individuals will be involved in group learning experiences, because research shows that people learn some things better in a group situation. Also, the time of the Extension worker is spent more efficiently in group work. The total family approach will be used. Educational experiences will be directed at the various family members simultaneously, although they may be in different groups. Programs by radio and TV, newsletters, and leaflets will be directed to the family. Educational materials will be placed in such centers as libraries, doctors' waiting rooms, laundromats, beauty parlors, barber shops, grocery stores, youth centers, and neighborhood houses. Tours of supermarkets and thrift shops featuring secondhand clothing will be used to teach comparison shopping. Local advisory groups and potential participants will be used to identify problems so that the program will be responsive to local needs. Other relevant Government agencies and local organizations will be involved by serving on advisory groups, providing entree into homes, identifying problems and participants, reinforcing learning, and serving as volunteers. Extension administration in the District of Columbia Extension work in the District of Columbia would be administered similar to the method authorized by the Smith-Lever Act (7 U.S.C. 341-346, 347a, 348, 349). The Secretary of Agriculture should be authorized to adapt Extension programs to the needs of the District of Columbia. A memorandum of understanding would be signed between the President of the Federal City College and the Secretary of Agriculture. It would set forth mutual working relationships and responsibilities. Administration and programing The director of the District of Columbia Cooperative Extension Service would be located on the campus of the institution of higher learning designated to implement the programs. He would relate to the institution's administration and organization so as to have access to the expertise of the institution not only in home economics and youth development work, but also in other fields. It is envisioned that the Cooperative Extension staff of the institution would be made up of three components-administrative and program leaders; subject-matter specialists in all appropriate academic departments; and field staff located in area offices in different areas of the city. Cost of the program This bill authorizes appropriation of such sums as may be necessary to extend the provisions of the Act of May 8, 1914, to the District of Columbia. Such sums to be appropraited shall be in addition to and not in substitution for, sums otherwise appropriated under such Act, or otherwise appropriated for agricultural extension work. Four per centum of the sum so appropriated for each fiscal year shall be allotted to the Federal Extension Service, Department of Agriculture, for administrative, technical, and other services of the Department in carrying out the purposes of this section. The District of Columbia shall not be required to offset allotments authorized under this section. Conclusion The U.S. Department of Agriculture believes that the citizens of the District of Columbia are entitled to the benefits of Cooperative Extension programs, particularly in 4-H-youth development and home economics, which are now enjoyed by citizens in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Guam. We believe these Extension programs can assist materially in providing greater fulfillment for the people working and living in our national city. We also believe that Federal City College, as the cooperating institution of higher learning, should have appropriated research and teaching activities to support effective cooperative extension work. Mr. SISK. Thank you, Dr. Ralston. Does that conclude your statement? I have only one question in line with the question I had asked earlier. You, representing the Department of Agriculture, of course, will have certain jurisdiction over approval of some of these funds or transfer of funds. Do you have any question with reference to the legal position of the Federal City College as the language is at present written in the bill in connection with its cooperative effort with the Technical Institute in making funds available to them? Do you have any reservations at all? Dr. RALSTON. We have no objection to this at all. Our Memorandum of Understanding would be with the Federal City College, and we would work that program out together so that if there were questions and concerns, I am sure these could be resolved on this kind of a basis. Mr. HARSHA. Doctor, I do not mean to belabor this point about appropriations, but the bill provides for what we sometimes call an openend appropriation, and we run into problems on the floor with it. And just authorizing the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary kind of leaves the door wide open, so that we are going to be confronted with this as we try to get the bill passed on the floor. That is why we were hoping to find appropriate answers with which we could advise the other members of the House. Since you do not have any suggestion as to what sums will be needed at this time, how do you arrive at the .04 percent conclusion for administrative and technical expenses of the Department. Dr. RALSTON. This again follows the format of Smith-Lever law. Mr. HARSHA. Does it? Dr. RALSTON. And, incidentally, the Smith-Lever law also is an openend law. Mr. HARSHA. Is it? Dr. RALSTON. Yes, sir. Mr. HARSHA. Well, that is some help. Dr. RALSTON. So that, as a matter of fact, this is why we appear before the Committee to justify what it is we are doing, and this kind of thing so that complete control we think is in the hands of the respective Committees. Mr. HARSHA. Thank you. Mr. SISK. Well, Dr. Ralston, we thank you, very much for a very excellent statement. I think it was quite explanatory and certainly was helpful to the Committee. Thank you for coming over. Our next witness is Dr. Russell Thackrey, Executive Secretary of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. Dr. WIEGMAN. He was unable to make it today, Mr. Chairman. Dr. WIEGMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SISK. All right, without objection his statement will be made a part of the record. STATEMENT OF DR. RUSSELL THACKREY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND LAND GRANT COLLEGES Dr. THACKREY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Russell I. Thackrey. My occupation is, and has been for the past 21 years, that of executive director of the National Association of State Universities and LandGrant Colleges. My statement is submitted as an individual resident of the District of Columbia, since the appropriate committees of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges have not had opportunity to take formal action authorizing me to offer testimony on behalf of the association. The association has, however, consistently supported the legislation authorizing the establishment of the Federal City College and the Washington Technical Institute. As a resident of and taxpayer in the District of Columbia I am strongly in favor of measures to increase educational opportunity for the young people of the District, and to provide educational services to the people of the District characteristic of those which the land-grant and other public universities and colleges have long provided for the various States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, House bill 15280 and Senate Bill 1999 would make funds available to the Federal City College for two major programs: campus instruction and cooperative extension work. CAMPUS INSTRUCTION H.R. 15280 and S. 1999 would make available to Federal City College annual appropriations for the "further endowment" of institutions established under the Morrill Act of 1862 or the Morrill-Nelson Act of 1890-1907 as subsequently amended and supplemented. These funds are available for a wide range of instructional programs. The legislation would place the District of Columbia on the same basis as the 50 States and Puerto Rico in receiving support for such programs. The legislation properly increases the statutory ceilings on appropriations for these purposes, so that the District of Columbia may share in them without reducing the funds available to the States and Puerto Rico. The legislation also authorizes appropriation of a sum for permanent endowment of the Federal City College, in lieu of the endowment deriving from the sale of Federal lands as provided under the Morrill Act of 1862. The provision is comparable to that made for the University of Hawaii, in view of the nonavailability of Federal lands for the original purpose, and is based on a formula similar to that approved by Congress in the case of Hawaii. My understanding is that a memorandum of understanding or agreement is planned with the Washington Technical Institute, under which instructional funds made available under this provision will be available for use in certain programs of the technical institute. This seems to be sound procedure, in that it provides funds for support of programs which are completely within the purposes of the act, and at the same time avoids most complex and serious problems which would be raised by the designation of the technical institute as a land-grant institution. There are many precedents for the procedure proposed, under which the land-grant institution of a particular State has by cooperative agreement utilized the facilities and staff of other institutions to carry out its authorized programs. COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK The provisions of H.R. 15280 with respect to cooperative extension work in the District of Columbia seem to me to be sound. They provide for the direct Federal funding, entirely outside the formula generally used for cooperative extension work, for the conduct of such programs as are appropriate to the needs of the District of Columbia and are agreed on by the Federal City College and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Certainly there is a great need within the District for work on problems of home and family life, nutrition, and in the field of youth work. Although the problems of agricultural production do not exist in the District of Columbia, the cooperative extension service is also heavily involved in urban areas with helping city families make wide use of their food dollars in terms of cost and sound nutrition; with working with food processors and retailers in improving the quality and reduce the cost of their operations; and in youth work. Cornell University, the land-grant institution of the State of New York, has a substantial extension staff in New York City through the New York State College of Agriculture, for example, and the same is true of many other metropolitan areas. The formula under which extension funds are made available to the various States and Puerto Rico would, however, not be appropriate for the District, since it is based heavily on agricultural production and rural population. In conclusion, may I repeat my enthusiastic support of the proposed legislation, and express appreciation to the members of your committee for their past and continued interest in providing educational opportunity for the residents of the District of Columbia. Mr. SISK. Next, we have Mr. Thomas Moyer, Assistant Corporation Counsel, on the part of the City government. We appreciate your being here this morning, Mr. Moyer. If you have a statement, why proceed to make your statement. We have here a letter directed to the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. McMillan, signed by Mr. Fletcher. Without objection, this will be made a part of the record. (The letter from Mr. Fletcher follows:) GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Washington, March 13, 1968. Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, Committee on the District of Columbia, DEAR MR. MCMILLAN: The Government of the District of Columbia has for report H.R. 15280 and S. 1999 (passed by the Senate on December 8, 1967), 90th Congress, identical bills "To amend the District of Columbia Public Education Act." Each of the bills amends the District of Columbia Public Education Act approved November 7, 1966 (Public Law 89–791; 80 Stat. 1426) so as to add at the end of such Act a title IV providing that the Federal City College shall be considered to be a college established for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts in accordance with the provisions of the Morrill Act approved July 2, 1862, as amended, thereby enabling the college to be entitled to benefits under various stated Acts. The District Government understands that the proposed amendment of the District of Columbia Public Education Act will make it possible for the District to be eligible to receive the benefits of programs administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture relating to land-grant colleges. In particular, it would allow the Federal Extension Service of the Department of Agriculture to extend its programs for home economics and 4-H youth development to the District of Columbia. We are of the view that the bills have great potential for the people of the District of Columbia, particularly the hard-to-reach poor. In the belief that the bills will operate to improve greatly the condition of many of the residents of the District of Columbia, and particularly the poorer residents, the District Government recommends the enactment of one of them. The Government of the District of Columbia has been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that, from the standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely yours, (s) Thomas W. Fletcher, THOMAS W. FLETCHER, Assistant to the Commissioner, (For Walter E. Washington, Commissioner). STATEMENT OF THOMAS MOYER, ASSISTANT CORPORATION COUNSEL, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT Mr. MOYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Thomas Moyer; I am Assistant Corporation Counsel, and I have been designated to present the views of the government of the District of Columbia on this legislation. I have a brief statement in addition to the letter which you have made a part of the record. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving the District Government an opportunity to testify on H.R. 15280 and S. 1999, bills to provide the District of Columbia with its own land grant institution. The bills would amend Public Law 89-791, which created the Federal City College, naming this college as the land grant institution for the District of Columbia. |