1 Excludes 10 percent State matching required for vocational education costs. Including State funds, the overall estimated average training cost is $1,435; the estimated average institutional cost is $1,851, and the estimated average on-the-job-training cost is $1,019. Mr. RUTTENBERG. What I would like to add is that the fiscal 1967 figure of $1,388 does not include what will become necessary in fiscal 1967 in terms of 10 percent State matching. The 10 percent State matching will apply to the training costs in vocational projects, and that figure will be $47, as now estimated. So that the cost per trainee in fiscal 1967 is $1,388 plus $47, but the $47 being the equivalent of 10 percent State matching on vocational training. Mr. SHRIVER. There is a 10-percent matching in a portion of the training program? Mr. RUTTENBERG. Beginning in fiscal 1967. Mr. SHRIVER. And that has not been heretofore true? Mr. RUTTENBERG. No. It has been 100 percent Federal financing up through fiscal 1966. Mr. SHRIVER. Would you put the figures in, then? Mr. RUTTENBERG. We will put it in the record. OUTREACH PROGRAM Mr. SHRIVER. On that same page, where you referred to the requirement of more intensive outreach and employment security services, specifically how do you plan to reach these people? Mr. RUTTENBERG. I think, Mr. Congressman-Mr. Goodwin might want to augment what I am going to say on this-the Youth Opportunity Centers, which are, as you know, part of the employment security system, part of the Employment Service, is funded under the grants budget, and has for the past year and a half been engaged in doing just this for youth. People are stationed in the Employment Service in the Youth Opportunity Service, who go out into the various parts of the community, knock on doors, knock on doors of clubs or various halls, go even to the extent of finding street-corner gangs of kids that are together, and actually trying to work with these kids and deal with them and stimulate and motivate them to bring them into the Youth Opportunity Center so that they could be then moved into a particular training course where intensive counseling could be conducted for the individual throughout his training to make sure that he would not be a dropout. That is what we are now doing in the Employment Service for youth. This money we talked about, the $15.9 million for fiscal 1967, would be to do these same things for other than youths, for the adults, for the long-term unemployed, for the older worker, for the individual discharged for technological reasons who sort of shrugged his shoulders and gave up hope of any chance to do anything, to go out and find these people and involve these individuals in the program in the way we have been working with the youths. Mr. MICHEL. Will the gentleman yield? TEN PERCENT MATCHING BY STATES Mr. MICHEL. We might back up, really, to the previous question and supplement it a bit. Is there any indication that any of the States will be lagging in coming up with this 10-percent program? Will the program in any given State suffer because it won't be 100 percent Federal money? Mr. RUTTENBERG. As you know, Congressman Michel, we also, in the Department of Labor administer under delegated responsibility from the Office of Economic Opportunity the Neighborhood Youth Corps program, and in the Economic Opportunity Act there is the 10-percent matching in cash or kind. And, to the best of my knowledge, the Neighborhood Youth Corps program has not run into any problems in any State up to now in terms of making funds available. Mr. FLOOD. Will you supply for the record what you mean by "kind?" Mr. RUTTENBERG. Yes. Mr. FLOOD. What do you mean by "kind?" Mr. RUTTENBERG. Cash or kind. For example, if the building, the facility is providing for the training course, that is the equivalent of rent, and that would be in kind rather than cash. Mr. FLOOD. I know. I wanted the record to show what the word means. Mr. DENTON. Do you do that here? Mr. RUTTENBERG. We are not required to do it up to the end of 1966. Beginning in fiscal 1967, Congressman Denton, we would. It is a requirement of law. Mr. DENTON. You mean like light, facilities, heat, or something like that? Mr. RUTTENBERG. Yes. EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OUTREACH PROGRAM Mr. SHRIVER. Many communities don't have the poverty program. How would you reach the people that need training in such communities, the same kind of people? Mr. RUTTENBERG. As you know, there are over 2,000 local offices in the Employment Service throughout the United States. It will be the function of these local employment services in local areas to engage in outreach and finding activities. In the very rural communities there is a very excellent program in the Employment Service of mobile teams that move into local communities. There is a rural program of bringing these activities in to the rural community. This would be expanded under this proposal to find these kinds of individuals to bring them into training programs, and in smaller communities, with the authority that exists under the law, for individual referral on the person rather than having to set up a course. If we can't get enough people to make the course profitable, we can, under the law, take an individual from a small community, where there are not enough to set up a full course, and refer him individually, and even pay his transportation costs and even subsistence if it requires his leaving the community to go to another area to be trained. That authority we have under the act and do use. TRAINING OF PRISON INMATES Mr. SHRIVER. In the justifications on page 2, when you are talking of the groups upon whom you are going to place special emphasis, you mentioned prison inmates. Mr. RUTTENBERG. Yes. Mr. SHRIVER. Heretofore, I take it, there has been no training program other than what the State might have or the Federal Government itself. Mr. RUTTENBERG. For prison inmates? Mr. SHRIVER. Yes. Mr. RUTTENBERG. This is an interesting area. We have had three experimental programs to work with prison inmates, youths who are about to be released, either to be paroled or to be discharged. We work jointly with HEW in the location of people at Lorton Institute out here in Virginia, which is a District of Columbia correctional institution. We had a program at Rikers Island, N.Y., and another program at Draper Institute, Alabama. The results of these programs have been so encouraging to us that, as a matter of fact, yesterday and today I think there is a conference here. Mr. ALLER. It was postponed because of the snow until February 17. Mr. RUTTENBERG. There was to have been a conference 2 days this week of individuals from correctional institutions to explore further how we might extend the success we have had in the Lorton and Rikers projects to this type of individual who is really disadvantaged in the sense-if he comes out with a record, what is he going to do? Mr. SHRIVER. This is a tremendous program, I would think. Mr. MICHEL. The emphasis, though, is on those who are to be soon released, not lifetermers? Mr. RUTTENBERG. Yes. Mr. MATTHEWs. It might be well, also, in relation to the gentleman's question earlier, to show that the project at Elmore. One of its features is the development of specialized materials which take into account the language handicaps and the cultural handicaps of these people, and those materials will be disseminated to all the States planning similar programs. Mr. RUTTENBERG. I cannot help, for Mr. Flood's benefit, to add a comment, if I might, sir. It is this kind of research and experimental work with individuals in correctional institutions that the money suggested in the research area, planning, research and evaluation, will be used and have been used. So that it is working in developing and trying to find techniques of helping these kinds of people that we have used the research and experimental for and will in the future. APPORTIONMENTS TO STATES Mr. SHRIVER. I am not sure I understand the chart on page 19. Funds obligated for a State, and the last column is the apportionment obligated. Let's pick out Kansas: $3,796,000 for 1966, and up to now specifically obligated $1,712,000, with 45 percent now obligated. Would you explain that? Mr. RUTTENBERG. What this means is there have been so far this fiscal year through the end of December 31, 1965, 35 projects approved in the State of Kansas, for 813 trainees, at a cost of $1.7 million, and that represents a commitment of the moneys available to Kansas, which is $3.8 million, or 45 percent. In other words, 45 percent of the money apportioned to the State of Kansas has been used and there still remains 55 percent unused in the funds of Kansas. Mr. SHRIVER. And you anticipate there will be this much or more, $3.8 million, approved for 1966? Mr. RUTTENBERG. We would hope before fiscal 1966 ends Kansas will have committed the full amount of $3.8 million. We are authorized, under the legislation, during the last quarter of the fiscal year to establish a national pool of funds, withdraw funds from those States that have not used them for purposes of making sure the funds are used in those States that will. We are also authorized under the law any time after January 1, with 30 days' notice to the States, to also go to a national pool. It is our intention now to begin to withdraw funds around about March 1 from those States that are not fully using them so they can be used in other States where they are being more fully used and they have more programs. I would hope Kansas would not have funds withdrawn, but they would be sent to withdrawal if they did not use them. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECTS Mr. SHRIVER. What are the steps taken after the application is made? Mr. RUTTENBERG. The application for a project is made? Mr. SHRIVER. Yes. Mr. RUTTENBERG. Until we go to a national fund, the projects are developed locally, jointly through the State Employment Service and the State vocational educational people, and when a project has the approval of both, the signatures of both of those agencies, there is then a Federal review team, made up of the representatives of the Secretary of Labor and the representatives of the Secretary of HEW, that goes into the State capital and looks at the projects that have been approved for funding by these State people. That Federal review team then has the authority to fund or not to fund the projects that are brought before it. At the moment we go to a national pool, instead of the Federal review team going into the State capital, once those projects are signed by both the Employment Service and the Vocational educational people, they will come to Washington and at that point we will approve or disapprove out of the national fund. DEVELOPMENT TIME FOR A PROJECT Mr. SHRIVER. What would be the average period of time that would be required? Mr. RUTTENBERG. To develop a project? Mr. SHRIVER. Yes. Mr. RUTTENBERG. I think it varies by State. Mr. SHRIVER. The average. Mr. RUTTENBERG. Sixty days. In certain areas it would run much longer and in other areas it would be less. Mr. SHRIVER. That is all I have. Mr. DENTON. I want to congratulate you on the program as it turned out in my district. I have heard very good reports on this program. I have had two or three calls this week about how the program is working out, and I have had very good reports in my district. Mr. RUTTENBERG. Thank you. Mr. DENTON. Thank you very much. JUSTIFICATION MATERIAL MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES Amounts available for obligation Appropriation or estimate. Proposed transfer from "Unemployment compensation for Federal employees and ex-servicemen" for pay increases (Public Law 89-301 effective Oct. 10, 1965) . . Appropriation available from prior year. Total fund availability, 1966 ! Estimate, 1967 Change 1 Includes funds available from prior year of $1,383,727 for activity 1. |