Senator PROUTY. As I understand it, unless these people can be taken out of poverty, as you express it, there would be no programs for the aged because the basis of this is to eliminate poverty.

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right. We feel that we have an obligation to try to show how the programs that we do undertake will be successful in getting people out of poverty.

Senator PROUTY. In your presentation, you say in regard to adult basic education programs, and I quote, "One man already retired says he would like to be able to read the Bible."

Now this man who says that is enrolled in one of your programs. My question is this: Will teaching this old man to read the Bible help him in poverty, or will it just add some spiritual comfort to hís poverty-stricken old age?

Mr. SHRIVER. If all he learns to read is the Bible, it may not help him out of poverty unless he gets activated by the Bible to work harder. I don't know how old he is. I don't happen to know that man. Some people think that reading the Bible motivates them to do a lot of things, including working harder.

Senator PROUTY. I think one of the best ways to assist these older people is to substantially increase their social security benefit. These are the ones who need that more than anyone else.

Mr. SHRIVER. Allow me to agree with you. We have this program called foster grandparents program which we will start pretty soon which does show that there is a possibility of utilizing older people in an economical manner.

For example, we know, everybody knows, that there are lots of babies, not just babies but children, who are suffering from want of attention in State institutions, orphanages, and so on. We also know that there are lots of grandparents who would like to do something for those children. If you could put the two together, you would have the resolution of a current social problem. So we are trying to inaugurate in community action programs, a plan whereby we would authorize them to employ grandparents to do for these children exactly what grandparents like to do with children anyhow.

Senator PROUTY. I would love to see a program of that nature undertaken. It would be very helpful.

Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you.

Senator PROUTY. Suppose a qualified local poverty group gets a program development grant. This grant is made so that the group can hire a man to design the major project. Where does the group find a qualified person for such a job?

Mr. SHRIVER. There are a number of people who are qualified to do, to run these programs. Many of these local agencies are out recruiting people to come to work to do that; because they are recruiting such people, we are also in the business of training such people.. We have given grants to the Council of Southern Mountains in Berea, Ky., to bring to Berea people who are residents of Appalachia to train them so that they can run community action programs and develop programs. We are training them in New Haven. We are training them in Georgia. We are training them in various places.

Senator PROUTY. I think that is one of the problems, particularly in the smaller communities.

Mr. SHRIVER. That is correct. Where do you find somebody? We agree with you. By way of reply all I can say is that we have already given training grants to help prepare people to do that.

Senator PROUTY. And the same problem I think arises when a group of people in a rural area want to get together and apply for funds for a program of this nature. They don't really know how to. They don't have the expertise that is necessary. How much help does your organization render them?

Mr. SHRIVER. We can do a substantial amount. For example, we have made grants to each Governor. Take the Governor of Ohio, we have financed him and all the other Governors so that they can employ people in the State who go out to those rural areas in the State where the lack of competence you describe exists. It is the job of that State office to help those rural communities to develop applications and programs. The Project Head Start, Senator, I think will be very helpful in this regard. For example, in the States of West Virginia that we were talking about, every one of the counties there has a Head Start program. In order to get one you have to bring together to run the program the health authorities, educational authorities, volunteers, and so on. So you have the nucleus right there for the development of a community action grant. Now the director of the State office in that State is out now working with those Head Start groups attempting to bring them forward into community action agencies. The same thing is true over here in Maryland and in a number of other States, in Arkansas, and elsewhere. But first of all I repeat we give the money to the Governor as a technical assistance grant so that his office can go out into the State and help localities to develop these programs.

As we ourselves develop our regional officers more fully those regional office people will be able to go out and help rural communities to develop more effectively. Finally we have this joint task force with the Department of Agriculture on rural poverty, the purpose of which will be to help in stimulating appropriate applications from rural

areas.

Senator PROUTY. Last year you told Senator Clark that OEO administrative budget would be around $32 million and that it would employ 300 to 700 people. I see by your congressional presentation that your general direction and administration ran $52 million in fiscal year 1965 and it is estimated at $81/2 million in 1966. I also note you had 779 employees already on the OEO rolls as of March 27. How many do you have now? How high is this going?

Mr. SHRIVER. I am not trying to back away from what I am stated to have said to Senator Clark, but it is a fact that we provided the Senate with the figure of $5,500,000 for the cost of general direction and administration and management. I am not trying to contest that figure you just mentioned but the record will show that we did submit a figure of $5,500,000 and that was approved by the Senate and the House.

Second, so far as personnel are concerned today, is it not 630 permanent people we have?

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. KELLY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT

Mr. KELLY. We have about 630 of permanent employees.

Mr. SHRIVER. And the total, if you add all the temporaries, intermittents, and all the rest of the titles they have it comes to about a thousand. To give you an idea of what that means, that includes consultants and so on. As of May 31, 1965, I think it was 302 consultants. Three hundred and two consultants-49 of them did not do any work at all, what they call intermittent consultants during the month of May. They are just available when you need them so that in the figure of a thousand there is a substantial number who only worked when we needed them and they did not work at all, 49 of them. But they are on the rolls and you have to put them in.

Senator PROUTY. Do you think you can hold the number of employees to that figure?

Mr. SHRIVER. I think we can do pretty well. I would like to have the Director of Administration and Management, Bill Kelly, testify on that particular point if that is all right.

Mr. KELLY. Senator Prouty, our manpower ceiling as it was established by the Bureau of the Budget this year is 1,150 permanent, anywhere near that in in terms of permanent numbers of people on the payroll. We got up around a thousand in terms of both permanent and temporary oppointments of one kind or another, consultants, et cetera. It seems to me that as this program expands there will probably be a slight expansion in terms of manpower next year, in terms of the permanent number of people. My guess would be at this point in time it will probably run around 1,600 to 1,700 permanent people total, across the board.

Now, the important impact of this is going to be in the field. Our field officers are only beginning to be developed; at the moment in order to fight the war on poverty it seems to me that we are going to have to get out to the grassroots and subregional locations. The manpower additions for the next year will be significant acquisitions in terms of getting to the field offices in order to assist the communities in just the kinds of activities that you were mentioning here a few moments ago.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Chairman, I apoligize to you and to other members of the subcommittee for taking so much time. I have no more questions. I think I should yield to my colleagues.

Senator MCNAMARA. Senator Javits.

Senator JAVITS. I have a few.

Mr. Shriver, we talked this morning about the role of the Economic Opportunity Corporation of New York. Your view expressed then was that it was essentially performing the job of financial control.

STATEMENT OF SARGENT SHRIVER-Resumed

Mr. SHRIVER. Administration.

Senator JAVITS. In its release of June 6, 1965, the Office of Economic Opportunity it seems to me describes a very different role. I will read it to you.

You announced

* $9.1 million fund will go to the Economic Opportunity Corporation of New York, the operational arm recently formed of the New York City Council Against Poverty.

According to Shriver. Then if you turn to page 3 of the release you read as follows:

Paul Screvane, chairman of the Economic Opportunity Corps, which will administer the community action program under the council's direction—

And above that the statement

Dr. Arthur Logan, the chairman of the New York City Council Against Poverty, the city's policymaking commuinty action agency.

This would indicate to me that the corporation occupies and I am not complaining about it-a very much more consequential role than just being comptroller.

Mr. SHRIVER. I think I said this morning it would be charged with the financial or fiscal responsibility and with the administration, which is what I think that release says. Now, the administration of it means that under policies established by the Arthur Logan Committee, the big committee, this corporation would carry out the dictates of that policy committee with respect to the operation of the program. If we give $9 million to that agency we give it in accordance with a previonsly agreed upon apportionment of that money. The corporation would have to give the money out to the agencies which the big committee had stated the money was for. They could not just say, we are not going to give it to them, we will give it to somebody else. In that sense their job is a ministerial job. We thought that was desirable because we felt that rather than burden that overall committee with the financial accounting, auditing, et cetera, responsibilities that that could be done effectively by persons who have been doing it all along in New York City.

Senator JAVITS. In your opinion, in the handing out of the money the Economic Opportunity Corporation of New York would have a lot to say about who was hired to administer the program?

Mr. SHRIVER. They have no choice. That would be a personnel policy, for example, which would be established by the overall committee.

Senator JAVITS. Within the personnel policy, you are dealing with people, men and women who have to be identified and hired. Do you wish us to understand that, notwithstanding these statements as to the role of this corporation, it would or would not have anything to do with the actual disbursement of the money to individuals who would be hired to do these jobs?

Mr. SHRIVER. They would have the job of drawing the check.

Senator JAVITS. And that is all?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right.

Senator JAVITS. You wish us to believe that they have nothing to do with the designation of the people who will be carrying out this program? I am not talking about the agencies. I am talking about the people, the Johns and the Marys that would do it.

Mr. SHRIVER. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. That is what you wish us to understand?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is not only what I wish you to understand. That is the fact. For example, its says here in the agreement

The corporation shall be the employing and reimbursing entity subject to the policy direction and recommendations of the community committee, the overall committee.

Therefore, the overall committee is the committee which determines what is to be done. For example, if we make a grant, as we did under this umbrella agency, to employ subprofessionals in a particular part of the city the employment of those subprofessionals is not under the control of that corporation.

Senator JAVITS. But of the agency which is getting the money from that corporation?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is correct.

Senator JAVITS. Your statement to us is that the corporation will have nothing to do with whom that agency hires?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right.

Senator JAVITS. That is your statement?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. I only hope and pray it proves out that way, but I doubt it very much.

Now, I would like to ask you this question: You said that you conditioned this grant upon the fact that they would supplement their overall policy board with representatives of the poor. The only thing I can find on that score in your release-and you correct me if there is anything else on the subject-appears at the very end of it under the title "Resident Participation." It says:

Within 60 days of the opening of each community progress center or other neighborhood centers the applicant shall furnish a report on the kind of resident participation in the program planning and operation of the center.

As I read it, it does not relate to this antipoverty operation board at all. There may be something else, but that is all I find here.

Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Berry, who runs that aspect of our program, points out that on the 28th of May 1965 a letter was addressed to me signed by Dr. Arthur Logan, the chairman of this committee in which it was stated that the council, that is the overall council which sets the policy, has directed that 32 members of the target population and 10 representatives of the neighborhood groups should be chosen as soon as possible. It is the intention of the aforementioned actions of the council to assure maximum feasible participation for themselves and their immediate representatives on the council.

So this condition that you have just read, which is exactly correct, was in followup of that statement by them and we said that that had to be done within 60 days.

Senator JAVITS. The word "council" is not even mentioned in your conditions. It just says "resident participation" in the program planning and operation of the proposed community centers.

Mr. SHRIVER. That has to do with the neighborhood center operations; namely, that those have to have people on them as well as on the overall council for the city.

Senator JAVITS. I don't see any condition in your release regarding the overall council for the city. Do you want to add anything to your

answer?