Now, the fact that six out of seven dropouts have dropped in and stayed in the Job Corps I think is a considerable accomplishment and indicates that we are not either proceeding too fast or in a wasteful way as far as money is concerned.

Senator MURPHY. This is again after they have been conditioned for 30 days, is that right?

Mr. WEEKS. Of the total, six out of the seven. out of 100 remain in.

After 30 days 97

Mr. SHRIVER. It is six out of the whole figure. That is a considerable accomplishment when dealing with these particular youngsters. There have been programs somewhat similar to this. There was one in your State as you undoubtedly know where the so-called dropout rate was substantially higher than the rate they are achieving in the Job Corps. There were others besides the one there. There was one in New Jersey I think, a pre-Job Corps effort.

Senator MURPHY. How long have you been established in California?

Mr. SHRIVER. Job Corps camps? I think California had them among the very first. I cannot remember the exact date.

Mr. WEEKS. Some of our earlier camp announcements, the first conservation camps in California opened in early May. In addition the Camp Parks Training Center operated by Litton Industries opened on May 6. The YWCA women's training center in Los Angeles Senator MURPHY. You mean this past May?

Mr. WEEKS. That is right. Opened on June 9. We have a Stateoperated center

Senator MURPHY. We have roughly 2 months' experience with the camps in Calfornia.

Mr. WEEKS. I am concerned because, as you know, I have been dealing at great length with the Secretary of Labor on this program of moving people into farm labor and things of this type, as to what efficiency is, how long they stay, how much we are spending on transportation, how many came for the ride, how many really came to take advantage of the opportunity offered.

Senator FANNIN. Do you have statistics on the Winslow camp? The information I have, I would like to know if it is correct, is that it opened on February 6, is that right?

Mr. WEEKS. That is correct; yes.

Senator FANNIN. Then you say there are how many campers?
Mr. WEEKS. As of last Friday, 149.

Senator FANNIN. Can you tell me how many campers have arrived there in total?

Mr. WEEKS. Yes; 203. Two have been transferred out to urban centers which means that they have completed their program and have moved on to other centers. Seven have been discharged. One was discharged for medical purposes. I believe in this case it involved the fact that he had a recurring nosebleed at that particular altitude. And 45 have resigned.

Now, of the 45 who have resigned from that camp the greater part-I am sorry I do not have that statistic, but the greater part of the 45 resigned during the first 2 months of the camp's operation.

As you know, this was one of the first camps that we opened up where we worked some of the initial bugs out of our system, you might

say.

Senator FANNIN. I will ask one other question on that camp. I have been informed that there has been an effort to get a training program established in that camp for sewing-machine repair work and that they have not been able to carry that program through and all the youngsters are doing now is picking up rocks along the highways.

Mr. WEEKS. I am not familiar with the sewing-machine repair work. I am not aware that we have ever tried to establish such a training program although this may have been some local arrange

ment.

Senator MURPHY. We know it is as hard for you to keep track of these things as for us. That is the purpose of these questions because we will be on the spot because constituents will ask what happened.

Mr. WEEKS. We have not essentially established any sewingmachine repair course there. We do have a welding course which is being administered at the camps in the Southwest through a mobile welding unit now. That is designed to provide vocational training. Senator FANNIN. When I do receive inquiries and statements are made to me such as the 30 percent attrition every 30 days I would like to be able to answer them. Now do you have the statistical information in your office so if the report comes into my office I can contact your office for that information?

Mr. WEEKS. Yes; we can provide that kind of information on literally an hourly basis in response to a telephone call.

Senator FANNIN. As I see here, 45 resigned, 7 discharged, so that is 52 that you acknowledge out of a total of 203.

Mr. WEEKS. That is correct.

Senator FANNIN. Thank you.

Senator MCNAMARA. Senator Murphy?

Senator MURPHY. I would like to go back, if I may, to the problem in California and the remarks that the Governor made at the Governor's Western Conference in which he said that the war on poverty was booming scandals and the politicians including elected officials were fighting each other for what he called fat salary jobs. The Governor said, "it is scandalous that politicians are trying to get in on the program simply to get jobs and thus dispense patronage. I assume Governor Brown is as informed on the war on poverty in California as anybody out there and he certainly should be well informed, he has the right to veto. I can't help but rely on his knowledge when he says part of the program is scandalous. Have you been in touch with Governor Brown regarding these charges and do you agree with the charges or has he made a statement that has no basis of fact?

Mr. SHRIVER. First of all I would like to make clear that as I understood what you quoted he did not say that part of the program was scandalous. He said it was scandalous that politicians were trying to get in on the program.

Senator MURPHY. He said that the war on poverty was brewing scandals and that politicians were fighting each other. No, he said it was brewing scandals. He did not say the program was scandalous. Mr. SHRIVER. I wanted to be sure. I don't believe he believes the program is scandalous. On the contrary he believes that the program is very effective. What he says about politicians in California I am not qualified to speak about. That is something between California politicians.

Senator MURPHY. Being a Washington politician now I am not qualified to know about it either particularly since we are all of the opposition party. Has there been anything done to find out the basis of his remarks and to correct them?

Mr. SHRIVER. No, sir, I have not personally looked into that. Senator MURPHY. My point is that the Governor of California by making these utterances certainly is not helping the program or helping you or helping the Congress that originally voted the funds for this program and want to see it work and want to see it done on a proper basis.

Mr. SHRIVER. My interpretation of those remarks, although I don't have them in front of me, from what I have heard you say of them, my interpretation of them is that he is criticizing the efforts of some politicians, he does not say of which party, in California who are trying to get in on some of the aspects of the war against poverty. He does not even say they have gotten in. He just says they are trying to get in.

Senator MURPHY. Let me go further. There has been a disagreement in Los Angeles as to who is to administer the program. As I understand here again, the mayor has gotten into this. He says— this is according to an editorial broadcast of June 17-he says that there are two groups out there, one of which will be acceptable to the mayor, the Youth Opportunity Board which Mayor Yorty seems to feel will do a good job. Then there is another group that is called the Economic Opportunities Federation which is supported by delegates named to that body by Governor Brown. So this is not an interparty argument, these are members of the same party. There seems to be a difference of opinion.

For instance, have you recognized either the Youth Opportunity Board or the Economic Opportunity Federation who operate it at this point?

Mr. SHRIVER. No.

Senator MURPHY. Who is operating it?

Mr. SHRIVER. What we have done is this. We said that the agency in Los Angeles should be, as Congress stated it should be, broadly representative to include representation from various groups within the community.

Senator MURPHY. A new agency then.

Mr. SHRIVER. No; I said whatever agency had to be broadly representative. The fact is that the situation you describe was resolved last week. We received word, Friday I think it was, or Saturday, I can't remember which, that there had been a change in both of those groups and that either a third group-there was either an amalgamation of them or they kept the title of one or the other. So that the situation about which you are concerned, which is described in the words you just read a few minutes ago, no longer exists.

This is Theodore Berry.

STATEMENT OF THEODORE BERRY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMS

Mr. BERRY. There was a meeting last week between all of the parties involved in the development of the Community Action Agency representing the county, city, State and private agencies. We are advised that they had reached an agreement and we wired for confirmation.

There would be a new body composed of the 5 powers; namely, the county, school board, city, State, representatives from private agencies and 6 representatives from the target areas of the poor making a total board of 19. We advised them by wire that this met our guidelines so long as the subsidiary groups within the municipalities in Los Angeles County had representative bodies which would pass on the programs emanating from those communities. We wired them to that effect and we assumed that their agreement now will be put into operation. Essentially there was a basic dispute on the precise structural form between the private agencies, the federation and the group that was at least recommended by Mayor Yorty. They have now accommodated their views to a mutually acceptable community action agency which will be representative of the entire community.

Senator MURPHY. Then you are satisfied that Mayor Yorty's remarks about a political boondoggle, that that possibility has been eliminated?

Mr. BERRY. I believe so. I am reasonably certain.

Senator MURPHY. On June 17 the New York Times quoted another political figure from California, Congressman Sisk, charging that the antipoverty program "is not working well." He said "the program is bogged down in nine different directions in California." Have you any comment about Congressman Sisk? I will make all these parts of the record if I may, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCNAMARA. Without objection they will be inserted in the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

[From the New York Times, June 17, 1965]

POVERTY PROGRAM IN CALIFORNIA HIT-IT ISN'T WORKING, MEMBER OF HOUSE COMMITTEE SAYS

(By Joseph A. Loftus)

WASHINGTON, June 16.—The antipoverty program ran into opposition today in the Rules Committee. Some of the opposition came from an unexpected quarter. Representative B. F. Sisk of California, a Democrat who usually votes with the committee's slim administration-liberal majority, said the program was not working in southern California.

This, he said, caused him "real concern," and he questioned whether the history of the young antipoverty agency warranted a doubling of the program's financing at this time.

The Rules Committee is moving toward a decision whether to clear the $1.9 billion poverty bill for House action. The committee chairman, Howard W. Smith, Democrat, of Virginia, called another meeting for tomorrow.

"For some reason," Mr. Sisk said, "this program is bogged down in nine different directions in California."

In Los Angeles the program is caught up in Mayor Samuel W. Yorty's resistance to Federal requirements for involvement of the poor in program planning. Another member of the Rules Committee, Representative William M. Colmer, Democrat, of Mississippi told today of receiving a letter from Mrs. Nareatha W. Naylor, Negro schoolteacher in Hattiesburg, Miss.

Mrs. Naylor, he said, complained that "lack of participation in the civil rights movement" was being used as grounds for rejecting applications for a part in the antipoverty program.

Mr. Colmer, a consistent foe of liberal legislation, said he has asked Sargent Shriver, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, to comment on the letter and had been waiting nearly a month for a reply. Mr. Shriver's office administers the antipoverty program.

Mr. Shriver told a special Senate Committee on the Aging today that his agency was moving forward with two programs to help the elderly people.

One program, to be announced soon, will employ poor persons 55 years old and over to aid in the care of children in charity wards.

The other program would employ the elderly poor to help other elderly poor persons who are chronically ill or physically disabled. The abler group would help the shut-ins by cleaning, cooking, and shopping for them.

Mr. Shriver recently established a commission to recommend a program to help the older poor. A member of the commission, John W. Edelman, president of the National Council of Senior Citizens, told the Senate committee today that current antipoverty projects were "too youth oriented."

Helping youth is only half the battle, Mr. Edelman declared. "People can also become poor as the result of being too old to work and too young to die,” he said. Mr. Shriver also announced today a program to help students of college caliber whose advancement has been blocked by poverty. This is chiefly a summer program, but the quota has been filled for 1965. Sixteen colleges have received $2,194,640 to help 2,370 of these students.

Mr. SHRIVER. I think that Congressman Sisk was focusing his attention primarily on the fact that we have not activated a full-fledged regional office in the far western States. I do not think, although I may be mistaken-I did not talk to him-I don't think he was talking about the overall program in California. Because California, at least in my judgment, has moved ahead rather rapidly and sucessfully in carrying out the various parts of the program.

Senator MURPHY. He seems to disagree and this is again a Democratic Congressman.

Mr. SHRIVER. We don't always agree, we Democrats. There is no party line.

Senator MURPHY. I have found that out in Washington. For some reasons, Mr. Sisk says "this program is bogged down in nine different directions in California." Would you know to what he is referring? I don't, quite frankly.

Mr. SHRIVER. I was trying to explain I thought he was referring about a regional office out there. I may be wrong on that. In fact, I have not talked to him, therefore, I don't want to read his mind. I am informed by the general counsel here that that quotation you read was something he said in a meeting in the Rules Committee and that he was talking about the regional office in the far western States. I gather that his comment was directed exclusively to that point. Is that correct?

STATEMENT OF DONALD M. BAKER, GENERAL COUNSEL

Mr. BAKER. Yes. Congressman Sisk felt we should have moved more rapidly in the development of regional offices. Actually he spoke about the rest of the Nation as well but his interest was particularly directed at California. He thought that if we had regional offices we could have been a little more effective than we had been in organizing and getting programs underway out there.

STATEMENT OF SARGENT SHRIVER -Resumed

Mr. SHRIVER. I might say for the record that California has already received $29,965,000.

Senator MURPHY. How much of that has gone into Los Angeles now?

Mr. SHRIVER. I don't have that figure offhand but we can get it for you. There are 40 community action grants in California aggregating $12,723,000. There are 21,000 children in Project Head Start.