of the conservation department in State projects. It would be for all practical purposes the identical work excepting the person would live at home so you would not be providing any housing or feeding them. Mr. SHRIVER. The closest analogy I think is to the Neighborhood Youth Corps. In the Neighborhood Youth Corps we require training as well as work to be done so that the youngster who is 16 to 22 years of age only works a certain number of hours and the remainder of the time he is required to get job training so that he can progress out of the work relief type of work to a permanent type of employment. We have with us here today George Arnstein, who is here from the Neighborhood Youth Corps. What you are suggesting I think is something like an adult conservation corps. Perhaps he would like to make a statement about it.

I feel, myself, but I would like to study it more before I make the statement that it would not be an appropriate part of this legislation. It might be good legislation but not in ours.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE ARNSTEIN, PROGRAM OFFICER,

NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH CORPS

Mr. ARNSTEIN. As I understand the amendment, it is an amendment merely to eliminate the age limit of the Neighborhood Youth Corps and in effect to give adults a similar opportunity to engage in work and training. This would not be competitive with the Manpower Development and Training Act nor the Vocational Educational Act as I understand it.

Senator NELSON. No, I don't think it would.

Mr. ARNSTEIN. We have some information on it. We would be happy to take on this responsibility if it were the intent of Congress to do this, and to accept the amendment. We have no position on this except to point out that the Economic Opportunity Act does provide for work training for young people, work experience for older adults, and has a variety of programs available.

Senator NELSON. If I remember correctly under the neighborhood section of the act, immediately an individual turns 21 he is forthwith dismissed?

Mr. ARNSTEIN. That is correct. The limitations of the Neighborhood Youth Corps which is administered by the Department of Labor, as delegated under the Economic Opportunity Act, has the same age limitation as the Job Corps, 16 to 22, which in effect means that a 21year-old youth out of school and without a job can participate only for a limited length of time before he becomes ineligible because of the age limitation.

Senator NELSON. It seems to me there ought to be a little more flexibility. Supposing you had invested 1 year or 6 months in an individual; he is halfway through the training program; he will have some skill that is salable on the market if he finishes the program. He turns 22. You kick him out, your investment is gone. Why should not some discretion be left in the Administrator to decide whether he should continue for some period to complete his training?

Aren't we wasting money if we just cut him off halfway through the program?

Mr. ARNSTEIN. If he cannot complete a sequence of training it might well be worth doing.

Senator NELSON. If he must quit when he turns 22 it seems to me many of them will be terminated in the middle of their training program.

Mr. ARNSTEIN. I think administratively the opposite happens. Administratively, in effect, it means we don't enroll these young people to start with if there is not enough time left for them to complete the sequence of training because they may become ineligible when they

turn 22.

Senator NELSON. Then you have a program that backs up a little further yet. It may not be 21 but 20.

Mr. ARNSTEIN. The program concentrates on 16, 17, and 18 year olds. We have some statistics that the median age is approximately 17 years of age.

Mr. SHRIVER. In the Job Corps, just the reverse is true. If a person enrolls and they are 21 and they want to stay for the 2 years which the legislation permits they can stay beyond the age of 22. That is an administrative thing within the Neighborhood Youth Corps. It could be easily altered so that what you fear will not happen. Namely, somebody would be halfway through, has his birthday, and he is thrown out on the street.

Senator NELSON. I understood that to be statutory.

Mr. SHRIVER. For entrance into the Job Corps you have to be between 16 and 22 to enter. That does not mean that if you enter when you are 21 you have to be thrown out on the street when you become 22.

Senator NELSON. Then I misunderstood. I thought that was statutory. Is it an administrative rule?

Mr. SHRIVER. It is a statutory requirement that the people shall not be enrolled who have gone beyond their 22d birthday. They can't be enrolled if they are 23 or 22. But let us say they are 21 and a half. They can enroll. If they want to stay in for 2 years and we believe the program is useful for them for 2 years, they can stay beyond their 22d birthday.

Senator NELSON. I understood that you dismissed them as soon as they turned 22.

Mr. ARNSTEIN. No, sir. I think we have escaped that problem by concentrating on younger enrollees. We now have more than 100,000 NYC enrollees, of whom about 45 percent are female.

Senator NELSON. I understood Mr. Shriver to state that you don't dismiss them at 22. I understand you state you do but you avoid that by starting out earlier.

Mr. ARNSTEIN. That is right.

STATEMENT OF SARGENT SHRIVER-Resumed

Mr. SHRIVER. I was speaking about the Job Corps. He is talking about the Neighborhood Youth Corps.

Senator NELSON. That is what I am talking about.

Mr. SHRIVER. He is talking about the Neighborhood Youth Corps. As a matter of administration and because of demand they are focusing on the 17 year olds.

Senator NELSON. That is what I am trying to get clear. I did not think the statute required dismissal as soon as they turned age 22. If that is correct, I was asking the question whether it would add to the flexibility to eliminate the 22-year age limit.

Mr. SHRIVER. In the Job Corps a person can be enrolled who is 21. He can stay 2 years and come out at 23. In the Neighborhood Youth Corps, participation is the word they use, participation stops when they are 22.

Senator NELSON. That is what I understood.

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right. So these programs are different then in that regard. But the demand for the Neighborhood Youth Corps is so great among the teenage youngsters that they have concentrated on them particularly since unemployment is highest among teenage youngsters. They have so much more demand for their services as a teenage group than they have money. That same thing is true about the Job Corps. The problem of what you are going to do with somebody at 22 does not even arise because you can't get to them for lack of money.

Senator NELSON. Then we are not doing anything with the age group 21 to 22?

Mr. SHRIVER. Very little. I don't know what the actual figure would be on 21 year olds in the Neighborhood Youth Corps or the Job Corps. Teenage unemployment in this country I think is the highest of any segment of the population and therefore there is a tremendous demand both in the Neighborhood Youth Corps and Job Corps in that group. We don't have the money to even meet that demand, much less try to take on others.

Senator NELSON. It would seem to me that the young man or woman who is still unemployed or has no skill at age 21 or 22 is in a much more serious circumstance already than the individual who is 17.

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right. So is the fellow who is 30 and has no skill and no job. He is in bad shape, too. We have applications for the Job Corps from people who can't get a job who are in their fifties, who don't have a skill. They are in worse shape. Title I, however, in our bill was focused on the youth problem. As I said earlier, that does not mean that there should not be another title focused on other aspects of the unemployable people in our economy today including the older ones. It might be extremely desirable to have such a title. Now the work experience program under HEW does reach grownup people who are out of work and whose families are on public relief. That is a program which has reached about 88,000 people this year, 88,000 adults. That program we hope will be expanded to reach more adults who are out of work.

Senator MCNAMARA. Now does the Chair understand you need time to study this and you will give us an answer for the record? Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir.

Senator MCNAMARA. Does that satisfy you, Senator?

Senator NELSON. Yes. I will see that he gets a copy of the amend

ment.

(The material requested follows:)

STATEMENT OF THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ON AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY SENATOR NELSON AND OTHERS TO ELIMINATE AGE RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE WORK-TRAINING PROGRAM

This amendment would eliminate the age limitations under the work-training (neighborhood youth corps) provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act and provide an additional $150 million for projects under that title for "chronically unemployed poor adults." Special provisions are also included to facilitate and encourage employment of these enrollees on Federal lands and beautification

projects.

The Office of Economic Opportunity is sympathetic to the purposes of this amendment. We cannot, however, favor its adoption. If the objective is, as we assume, to provide the chronically unemployed poor with a form of temporary assistance that will permanently enhance their capacity for self-support, we believe that what is proposed can better be done under existing programs, including the work-experience program authorized under title V of the Economic Opportunity Act. These other programs, in our opinion, are better calculated to enhance the employability of chronically unemployed poor adults with poor employment prospects than a program carried on as an extension of a work-training program designed to serve youth.

There are, of course, several existing programs designed to enhance the employability of adults. Prominent among these is the Manpower Development and Training Act, which is focused upon adults and which contains statutory limitations designed to maintain this focus. To the degree that it can be effectively directed to the needs of the long-term or chronically unemployed, this program offers some clear advantages over other training or work-training programs, since it provides a kind of intensive, relatively high level skill development that is most likely to be of lasting benefit to the individual.

For the unemployed poor adult who is otherwise unable to secure or benefit from the type of training provided under the Manpower Development and Training Act, but who can with appropriate assistance enhance his capacity for selfsupport, the program most likely to be relevant to his work and training needs is the work-experience program under title V of the Economic Opportunity Act. This program is designed to expand opportunities for constructive work experience and other needed training and is directed to those who are unable to support or care for themselves or their families. It authorizes Federal assistance covering the full cost of projects which include not only work experience but also training. The training provided, according to the needs of the individual, may range from such things as instruction in basic literacy skills, simple arithmetic, and work attitudes, to advanced courses under the manpower development and training program. In addition, supportive social services are available to aid the family whose adult member or members are participating in the program. These may include such things as child care, medical assistance, home management counseling, and counseling in family problems that could interfere with effective participation in the program.

In our opinion, as a method of enhancing the employability of the unemployed poor, the proposed work-training program would substantially duplicate, though in a less effective way, what is already being done under the work-experience program. That program, like the one proposed, is directed to the poor. Those whom it serves are adults, and most, in fact, would fall within the same group of chronically unemployed persons with poor employment prospects who would be reached under the amendment. It is, moreover, fully possible under the workexperience program, as presently constituted, to take advantage of conservation and beautification needs in structuring projects. Beautification and conservation activities are now being carried out as part of projects in Kentucky, Rhode Island, Colorado, Arkansas, North Dakota, and Louisiana. Many more such projects are planned.

As compared with the program proposed in the amendment, the chief limitation on the work-experience program is that it has been restricted so far to those who are receiving, or are potential recipients of, public assistance. An extension of the program to all needy persons is, however, feasible, and in our opinion fully consistent with the statutory purposes. Such an extension, we believe, will not require legislation.

In light of these circumstances, we see little to be attained by adding adults to the work-training program authorized under title I-B of the Economic Opportunity Act. That program was designed for youths, few of whom will have had any prior record of employment and most of whom primarily require effective assistance in getting a start. While designed to provide training and related supportive services appropriate for meeting the needs of young people, it typically does not provide the high-level training available under the Manpower Development and Training Act, nor does it offer the kind of family-centered services available under the work-experience program. We believe that it would be a mistake to attempt to cover under this program adults with earning needs and family responsibilities which could better be served, with more long-range benefit to the individual and his family, in some other ways. However useful the program might be in providing immediate and temporary work opportunities for those who may now lack them, it is not in our opinion well calculated either to provide adults with the skills most useful in securing permanent employment or to assist them in making the kind of basic adjustment needed to overcome a long history of privation and unemployment.

We would express no opinion on whether a special Federal program directed simply to financing work opportunities for the poor may be warranted. Similarly, we would express no opinion on the desirability of Federal assistance to programs designed to promote employment in conservation and beautification activities. Assuming, however, that such programs are justified, they would in any event have to be considered in the context of limitations and conditions different from those appropriate for programs focused on increasing employability. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the program of the President.

Senator NELSON. I have a couple more brief questions. On the conservation camp, can you tell us where the camps that now have been allocated are located by States?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. Could that be submitted for the record?