children out there who can take the job. So we are going to have to take people right out of the neighborhoods and train them.

All I am saying is, it can be done, and they can be very effectively trained. Now most of them, however, are not going to have access to a place like Bank Street College of Education-which sounds boastful, but we have to face that fact, that it is one of the few institutions which for many years has been working and building expertise in this field and there aren't too many organizations like that in the country. Therefore, in the first 2 years there ought to be funds for identified places in different parts of the country which will be the trainers of trainers.

In other words, we need, for example, to get professors from community colleges all over the country who will be designated by their institutions as trainers for day care, of day care personnel.

And they, in turn, need practical training at places where there is a great deal of expertise and this training needs to be, not taking the typical course. It needs to be training which is field-located, out in the field, out in the centers. It can be partly theoretical, but it has to be very practical. What we have learned about the training of adults is that adults more than children, or older children, 16 to 24, demand that things be practical and that training be practical. This is certainly very greatly needed.

So we have to have a setup where we have something that would train trainers all over the country, and they in turn will be available so that the persons in West Virginia or Minnesota can go to a nearby community college, or a relatively nearby community college-otherwise you have vast expenses in travel, in maintenance, per diem, all this sort of thing.

It seems to me that with a relatively small expenditure of money, institutions can be identified that would train the right number of trainers of day-care personnel, who themselves would be drawn out of the parent groups and the communities in which the day-care centers are going to be located.

Now, that can be done. I am not prepared to give numbers off the top of my head, but there are many people who can sit down and figure out what would be necessary here. I just urge that, to the extent that that would need any special wording-and maybe. it doesn't need any-in the bill, that you look into it, because, I think without that there is something missing.

That, sir, is about my statement. If you have questions, I'd be glad to try to answer them.

Senator MONDALE. Thank you very much, Mr. Niemeyer, for a most able statement, and for a statement which I think has concentrated on the central issues as I see them.

Mr. Sugarman is in the audience, and I am hoping he can respond to that same question-how do we get the trained personnel?

I agree with you strongly that there are strengths to be found among the poor that we don't accept or know about.

As a matter of fact, I don't see any long-range solution to the problems of disadvantaged unless such strengths exist. I have always been enormously impressed and sometimes astonished by the good will that the poor still have toward this country, and the good, oldfashioned, middle-class aspirations they have for their children, and the commitment that they have to do something about it.

And the ingenuity they have in understanding their own resources and their own situation far better than any of us could possibly do. And with a commitment that far exceeds anything that any of us could possibly sustain.

Because, after all, when a liberal visits a ghetto or a migrant camp, it is kind of interesting-but those folks live there; it's their children; and they want something done about it. When we are gone, they still live there.

And I think a strategy that does not tap that enormous resource isn't going to work. In my opinion, unless we recognize that this enormous paternalistic strategy has been a fundamental source of failure with respect to present American institutions which deal with the poor, we will fail again in our efforts to reduce poverty.

With respect to your comments about training authority, shortly amendments to the EPDA and NDEA to authorize additional staff training under the Higher Education Act, which is now being marked up in the Education Committee, will be introduced. We left them out of this bill for jurisdictional reasons alone and we hope to make some progress in that bill as well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Niemeyer, for a most useful statement. Our next witness is an old friend of ours, one of the Nation's leaders in this field, Mr. Jule Sugerman, who runs a small operation in New York.

Mr. Sugarman, we are delighted to have you with us this morning. Mr. SUGARMAN. Thank you. I am not at all sure in what capacity I appear this morning, whether as an old bureaucrat from the Federal days, or a new bureaucrat from city days.

I have a formal statement for the record which I will submit, but I think rather than take the time of the committee to read that statement, I would like to concentrate on some of the issues which I believe need fuller consideration by the committee.

Senator MONDALE. Your statement will appear as though read in the record, and you may concentrate on those points that you feel appropriate.

Mr. SUGARMAN. Fine.

STATEMENT OF JULE SUGARMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, NEW YORK CITY, AND FORMER DIRECTOR OF PROJECT HEADSTART

Mr. SUGARMAN. I do have to say initially that I think this is a great bill; that it really goes all the way toward objectives that many of us who have been interested in the child development field are trying to achieve; and that it has the kind of flexibility, breadth, scope, and comprehensiveness we need if we are going to have a truly sound child development program in the country.

I am particularly impressed that it would extend to the needs of all families over a period of time and that it is not directed to any specific means of providing child development services, but rather encompasses all of those means which we now recognize and even those we might develop in the future.

Thus, if this bill were enacted today, I would be grateful. Nevertheless, there are areas in which some changes and improvements can be suggested.

I will speak first to the role of the States, which is, of course, always a controversial issue in the child development field, where the pattern of development has differed from our other Federal assistance programs.

Actually, from the early days States have not been significantly involved in the child development field, and most of what the Federal Government did, at least until recently, grew out of a direct Federallocal relationship, particularly through the Headstart program.

As I understand the bill, the role of the States is essentially that of a review and advisory function, and I think that is a sound role for States to play with respect to larger jurisdictions. But I would suggest to the committee that there probably is a need for some minimum population requirement for a prime sponsor.

It is very difficult to arrive at any scientific formulation of what that environment should be, but in my own judgment, 100,000 represents about the level which would facilitate good administration of the program.

Senator MONDALE. In Minnesota, that would only leave three cities: Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth.

Mr. SUGARMAN. I understand that, unless it were possible for a combination of jurisdictions to put together a program on their own behalf.

Senator MONDALE. Let me ask a few questions, because that is an important issue.

Are the States equipped to be competent prime sponsors in all instances? How do you have meaningful parent participation with State prime sponsorship? What happens in States like Mississippi, or others, where State leadership is opposed to the needs of minority population?

Mr. SUGARMAN Let me start with the last of those questions. I think that States like Mississippi are unlikely to submit applications under this bill, because I do not believe they are prepared to do what this bill requires at the State level, including parent participation. Therefore, what will be necessary is the organization of either groups of communities which may be willing to do it-and even in Mississippi there are some communities which would be willing-or, more probably, the organization of private prime sponsors with a great deal of technical assistance, both official and unofficial.

Most States are not equipped to be prime sponsors; but, equally true, most local governments are not equipped to be prime sponsors at this moment.

A great deal of learning will have to occur, and I think Jack Niemeyer's testimony was very much to the point on technical assistance and training as being absolute essentials here.

There are many more States now than there were 5 years ago who are philosophically attuned to do the things this bill calls for, and as I have traveled around the country-and I still try to do that when I can-I meet many State officials in the education departments, health education departments, and Governors' offices who do believe in parent participation, the use of nonprofessionals, and the comprehensiveness of early childhood programs.

Therefore, I think it is "real" to say there has been progress over the years. But it will take tough administration. It will take an administration and I hope that this will be the case with the present

administration-that is willing to enforce the purposes and philosophies of this bill.

Conceivably, they could simply turn to the States and say, "do it your own way." But the bill is perfectly clear, and if the administration will carry out that bill, then I think we will not have a problem. Senator MONDALE. Suppose Mississippi applies to be the prime sponsor for all communities less than a hundred thousand. They then control the program in Mississippi, don't they?

Mr. SUGARMAN. Your bill provides, first of all, that if they fail to conform to the act, they can be delisted and removed as the prime

sponsor.

We provide numerous options for challenges to the way in which they carry out the program.

The question is whether Mississippi or South Carolina or Alabama or other States like that will accept the terms and conditions of this bill. My own judgment is that a number of them will not.

They will simply pass it by and not apply, because if the bill is really followed, if it really prescribes democratic selection, if there really is a majority of parent membership on the child development council, then they are going to gain a form of control that those States ordinarily not wanted them to have.

And I am well aware that these things can be manipulated and sometimes are. But I think there are now enough people publicly alerted to this question so that events of 5 or 10 years ago could not be repeated.

My basic problem with going below the 100,000 level is one of pragmatic bureaucracy. I just do not believe the Federal Government will ever staff up to handle the volume of applications that will accumulate if they go much below that level.

As you know, I have been through that war in both administrations, and it is just a rule of thumb that you never have enough staff to do this job properly.

I estimate that, at the levels you are talking about here, you could get by. This would require an increase in the present staff of the Office of Child Development, but not an enormous one. If there is some way to assure that the Federal Government will in fact provide adequate staff, then I would revise my views accordingly.

Senator MONDALE. We hear these complaints. We had a panel of former Commissioners of Education. I think they were pretty unified in their view that these programs ought to be coupled with far more adequate staff than they have in the past, ought to be given funds for adequate planning and adequate evaluation and the rest.

If that were done, you might change your recommendation, is that correct?

Mr. SUGARMAN. That is correct. There are some programmatic reasons, as well, for the larger jurisdiction. If you have very small jurisdictions-very small counties, let's say, or cities-there may not really be enough children to develop comprehensive programs. That's the old problem of the unified versus the one-room school district.

So, I think you have to take this into consideration if you reduce the size too substantially.

On levels of financing, the bill proposes a range of $2 billion to $7 billion, over the next 3 years, and I never like to testify against large amounts of money, but I have to say

Senator MONDALE. You don't have to, you know.

Mr. SUGARMAN. I understand that. But I do think, in candor, that I must say this is an unrealistic set of figures. I have made a number of analyses of my own, trying to figure out what an attainable rate of growth is in this field, and I basically conclude that you cannot go much beyond $250 million to $300 million a year in growth in early childhood and day care programs.

Senator MONDALE. What do you base that on?

Mr. SUGARMAN. Well, I base it partly on some of the things Mr. Niemeyer was saying. I started with what we know about the number of people who are graduating in the early childhood field, where there has been growth. Then I extrapolated that in terms of the number of people that would be required at various levels of financing. I used Jack Niemeyer's approach of having trained people train others.

In addition, I have tried to interpolate the amount of construction that would be necessary. You put all these factors together, and it says to me that, at least in the first 3 or 4 years of an expansion period, you are not going to be able to develop enough people.

I am not talking about fully trained professionals, but in giving people a basic 1 year or few weeks of preparation, you cannot accomplish enough fast enough with the staff and resources we have.

Senator MONDALE. Do you have a work sheet on which it is based? Mr. SUGARMAN. I do have a rather voluminous white paper which can be extrapolated.

Senator MONDALE. Could you submit that for the files of the subcommittee?

Mr. SUGARMAN. Yes, I would be pleased to.

Senator MONDALE. What about this vast pool of unemployed teachers in this country? Couldn't they be quickly retrained?

Mr. SUGARMAN. I think many of them can.

Senator MONDALE. In Minnesota alone, we have 3,000 unemployed teacher graduates this year. Many of them are elementary schoolteachers. There are no jobs.

Mr. SUGARMAN. I think that is a good beginning base, and with a reasonably short period of additional training, they may function very well.

The first bottleneck, though, is finding people to train the teachers. There just are not very many experienced people around.

There are many elementary school teacher trainers, but early childhood is significantly different, and I think you need people with a special expertise.

Senator MONDALE. You recognize that in this bill we have a year's interval-after its adoption-for training. You don't start the funding level buildup until after a year, to try to get ahead of the training pool problem, so when the money starts building there is a supply of trained personnel needed to do the job.

But even with those calculations, you stick by your figure?

Mr. SUGARMAN. In the early years, yes. I think this 1-year period is excellent. I have to say to you, however, that like Dr. Niemeyer, I feel you grossly underestimated the amount of money that is necessary for training.

Senator MONDALE. Would you take a whack at that, and maybe by letter give us what you consider the numbers to be?

Mr. SUGARMAN. Sure.