I somewhat take exception to my colleague from New York in his views that a politician should not have a role in this function. I think a politician and social workers, working hand-in-hand can make this work.

Senator JAVITS. I did not mean a politician should not have a hand. I question whether the politician should be on the board of the corporation.

Senator PELL. The word politics for the record here is not a word of opprobrium.

Senator MCNAMARA. Since the hour of about 25 minutes to 1 has been reached, I understand Senator Murphy, you have some additional questions. Can you give us any idea how much time you will take? Senator MURPHY. Maybe 15 or 20 minutes. This is so important I think it would be very beneficial all around if we could have another hearing. I know that Senator Prouty would like it. I thank Senator Pell.

Senator PELL. I am through.

Senator MCNAMARA. That answers my question.

It appears that the minority have considerable further questions they want to pursue. I will ask the Director of the operation if he can be back here at 3 o'clock today.

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. I was checking with Senator Prouty now, and he could not make it at 3. I was trying to find out if he could make it at 4. If Mr. Shriver did not mind and Senator Murphy's questions would be a half hour or so, perhaps it would be just as well if he came back at 3:30. If you can give us 1 minute to get the story.

May I ask one question: I wondered if you could tell us how you are dividing your time now between the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Peace Corps?

Mr. SHRIVER. You know the gossip, Senator, that I am in both places at the same time.

Senator JAVITS. Are you?

Mr. SHRIVER. Actually there is a lot more truth to it than there is joke to it. I frequently talk to men who are working with one operation or the other. They don't know in fact whether I am in one building or the other. Whether I am physically in one building I think is not as important as to whether or not I am available adequately to the people who are working in the organization. They have been very kind so far. Nobody has said that I was unavailable. In fact, I think perhaps it is just the reverse. I am too available.

Senator JAVITS. You have no program as to division of time?
Mr. SHRIVER. Program division?

Senator JAVITS. Yes.

Mr. SHRIVER. No; I work all the time on both of them.

Senator MCNAMARA. Mr. Shriver, I have noticed in the last 6 weeks I have not been getting so many calls between 10 and 11 o'clock from your office. Is this an indication that you are not working so late?

Mr. SHRIVER. Actually, I work just the same as I always have, Senator. I think maybe it is probably because I am calling Conway more

often.

Senator MCNAMARA. I have been called several times. I said, "I will call you back at home." You said, "No; I am at my office."

Senator JAVITS. I invite the Chair to call me at my office at 11 almost any night.

50-620 0-65

Senator MCNAMARA. If I have any occasion to, I will do that. Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add that there is a chance that Senator Prouty could come at 4.

Senator MURPHY. Set it at 4.

Senator MCNAMARA. The hearings will be discontinued until 3 p.m. (Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m. the subcommittee was recessed, to be reconvened at 3 p.m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Present: Senators McNamara, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding, Nelson, Javits, Prouty, Murphy, and Fannin.

Senator MCNAMARA (presiding). The subcommittee will come to order.

The hearing will be in order.

Mr. Shriver, you submitted a table dealing with costs of certain programs which you have already given to us for the record. Will you identify that material for the record.

STATEMENT OF SARGENT SHRIVER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY-Resumed

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes. This is a table issued by the Office of Economic Opportunity on the results of the fiscal 1965 program in terms of the number of poor persons directly reached and the number indirectly reached with the money appropriated by Congress in fiscal 1965. It is carefully laid out so as to avoid confusion. Some of these people listed here have not yet been reached but as a result of the money obligated in 1965 they will be reached with that money. It is the basis for part of my opening statement in which I noted the number of poor persons already directly reached by the program.

Senator MCNAMARA. Without objection that table will be included in the record at this point.

(The information referred to follows:)

Office of Economic Opportunity, fiscal year 1965 program

1 Indirect includes other family members and such things as temporary use of rest-stop facilities in the care of migratory workers.

Not adjusted for poor people served by more than 1 program.

Mr. SHRIVER. I have an extra copy here if Senator Murphy or Senator Fannin would like to look at it.

Senator MCNAMARA. Now, Senator Fanning, you may proceed.

Senator FANNIN. Mr. Shriver, You know I have talked with you at considerable length about the project in Arizona. One was the former radar station at Winslow, Ariz. That was one of the first training camps, was it not, at Winslow, Ariz.

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes; Winslow Air Force Base, was it not?
Senator FANNIN. It was a radar station.

Mr. SHRIVER. There were four in Arizona. I just could not remember which ones.

Senator FANNIN. This is the first one, in fact it opened February 6. Mr. SHRIVER. This is Christopher Weeks, Deputy Director. I thought he might have the details.

Senator FANNIN. In the testimony this morning I was interested in some of the statistics you quoted. I have had information from Arizona in regard to the camp there. I was anxious to see why there would be such a variation. I understand that statistics can be very misleading and percentages can too. The report I have is that the camp opened on February 6. On June 17 there were 98 campers living at that camp. It reports the attrition-now this was reported to me was 30 percent every 30 days. That was the report that I had. Mr. WEEKS. I am sorry to say, Senator

Senator FANNIN. Is that in any way what you have?

Mr. WEEKS. No, it is not. The camp you are talking about I believe is Camp Winslow?

Senator FANNIN. Yes.

Mr. WEEKS. There are at present, as of the close of business last Friday, I am sorry my statistics are not up to date as of today but this is as of the close of business last Friday, there were 149 boys on board at Camp Winslow.

Senator FANNIN. This, too, is reported in the Phoenix paper, the Arizona Republic, last week. It was reported, "Interview with a camper who arrived the day before" is the way the article referred to it. According to the report the youngster was asked how he liked the camp. He replied "I like it fine but I am going back to New Jersey. I sure like that jet airplane ride. That was my first airplane ride." I am just wondering if you do have that serious a problem in regard to the campers coming out for a jet ride and then wanting to go back home.

Mr. WEEKS. There are two things I think here that are important. First, do we send a boy by jet from New Jersey to Arizona? In the first place at the time that he went a survey was made of camp openings and the camp openings, that is, where the camp openings were available. Considering the fact that almost all of these young men have rarely been more than 15 or 20 miles from their own homes previously, jet air transportation is the cheapest way to transport them across the country.

Now, as to why a young man might have such a trip and then decide to go home, we come back to the problem which we mentioned earlier, which is the basic problem of homesickness. Many people in thinking of the kind of young men who come into the Job Corps, the average age is 17, the average Job Corps enrollee has been out of school for

6 months, and had gotten as far as the ninth grade in school and even though he had only gotten as far as the ninth grade he still had only a sixth grade educational level. Seventy-five percent of Job Corps enrollees come from families where the primary wage earner is unemployed or severely underemployed. Forty percent come from families where one or both of the parents have a serious physical or mental health condition.

The reason I give you these facts, and these are facts based on the present Job Corps population is to paint you a picture of what the boy who comes into the Job Corps is like.

Senator FANNIN. I will say this. I am quite familiar with_what is involved and I did approve this particular camp because I was Governor at the time. I discussed the location with the people in the surrounding community and had considerable information regarding what would take place in this camp.

But

Mr. WEEKS. It is true in some cases homesickness during the first few days in camp is a serious problem with these young men. this is something which most of them get through.

I think it is important to recognize that the average cost of transportation for getting a Job Corps enrollee from his home to his place of duty is $64.90 at the present time. This is the average cost of transportation for the enrollees who are in the Job Corps now.

Senator FANNIN. Mr. Shriver, the reason that I wanted to preface my remarks with a little information is because I was going to ask a question as to whether you have a problem, and this has been reported to me as a problem, because of having three different agencies that you work with. For instance in Arizona the Bureau of Indian Affairs is in charge of the Winslow Camp, the Bureau of Land Management at Safford, Ariz., the Forest Service at Heber. It is reported to me that you have considerable difficulty because of the lack of unity or lack of uniformity in the programs with the different agencies. Is there anything to that report?

Mr. SHRIVER. There would not be anything to it, Senator Fannin, with respect to whether a person is selected or whether he is transported by jet or by bus or whether he signs up for a ride on an airplane. The fact that different agencies are involved would have no relevance to that point because we handle the selection and the assignment of them, ourselves. Do you mean it with respect to that question? Senator FANNIN. As far as administration, though, I understand you do have a problem. For instance, at Winslow you now have a third Director in charge from February 6 to June 17. In other words are we having personnel problems because of the diversion that would be involved by having so many agencies working with you?

Mr. SHRIVER. The reason I am trying to be very specific is that we don't have a problem about personnel because of different agencies because the personnel are all selected jointly between the Job Corps and each of these agencies and they are all subjected to a training program before they are in charge of a Job Corps center, whether it is run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or Land Reclamation, or any other agency. So there is no problem of coordination or administrative difficulty responsible for the fact that there have been one, two, or three directors such as you cited in that particular camp.

Senator FANNIN. In other words, you feel one agency or another agency is just as well qualified to handle the administration?

Mr. SHRIVER. So far, and I stand to be corrected here by Mr. Weeks, if this is wrong, so far I don't think there is any measurable difference in the quality of the performance by one of these agencies versus another. If I am wrong say so, Chris.

Mr. WEEKS. No; we are very happy with the cooperative arrangements we have had with the various bureaus in the Department of the Interior and Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture in operating conservation camps.

Mr. SHRIVER. There is this to be added I think, Senator, and that is they have contracted for 102 camps. Is that not correct?

Mr. WEEKS. 102 total as of today.

Mr. SHRIVER. I think if they had just selected, let us say, one agency, they would never have been able to move the program forward adequately or this fast. It was because they were able to tap the personnel and the experience of these three different groups that enabled them to open up such a substantial number of these camps.

Senator FANNIN. Of course, as you realize better than I we perhaps were a little too impatient in moving it forward too rapidly. You covered that when I visited you in Washington here while I was still in office in Arizona, that perhaps we were moving a little too rapidly and we should have perhaps been a little more patient in getting the program underway.

I

Mr. SHRIVER. I am sorry if I left you with that impression. don't feel that we have moved too rapidly personally. I certainly don't think we have moved too rapidly with the Job Corps. Today there are about 8,000 youngsters in the Job Corps. That is a modest accomplishment by comparison with the need for that type of service for young men and women. The need is exemplified by the fact that there are at least several hundred thousand who have volunteered. Even if you cut that figure and say that you only have 50,000, that you really want to do something with promptly, then we are only one-fifth of the way toward 50,000.

Every day that you leave one of these kids walking around in a slum or hibernating on some farm someplace without any education, that is a day that kid is never going to get back.

Senator FANNIN. If the ones that are in need are recruited I agree with you wholeheartedly but I am concerned whether or not we are moving too rapidly and we are not recruiting the ones that are really in need. The way it is reported and, of course, I am giving you the information given to me

Mr. SHRIVER. I think the figure is as of today six out of seven people who have been brought to a Job Corps center have stayed there. Is that right, Chris?

Mr. WEEKS. That is right.

Mr. SHRIVER. One could say it should be 7 out of 8, 8 out of 9, 9 out of 10, but I think for a new program to have accomplished a 6 out of 7 ratio in terms of people staying in, especially people of this type, is extremely good. You have to start off remembering that all of these youngsters have dropped out. They have dropped out of school. They have dropped out of our society. So we are not dealing with an ordinary cross section of the population. We are dealing with drop

outs.