Senator NELSON. Do you have a projection of where the Interior Department and Forestry Service camps are going to be and the total number, whatever total number we have?

Mr. SHRIVER. We will have, but whether we are going to be able to project much beyond what we already have depends on what Congress gives us in the way of money. We may not be able to project anywhere beyond what we already have in the way of capacity if we don't get the money.

Senator NELSON. I noticed Mr. Weeks in naming the criteria being used, listed the poverty of a particular area. Based on the information I had some time back about projections for the Forestry Service, they couldn't have given the poverty of the area much consideration because as I recall they were projecting 17 camps in California and 8 in the 3 States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan. The northern tier of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan has the same percent unemployment now as Appalachia.

As I recall it, it was just a coincidence that there are 17 forests in California and 17 camps. Can you explain that to me?

Mr. SHRIVER. Seventeen forests and seventeen camps? There is one in each forest?

Senator NELSON. This is my understanding.

Mr. SHRIVER. What about that?

Senator MURPHY. I think there are more than 17 forests; I know that.

Senator NELSON. Federal forests. I understood there were Federal forests and 17 camps. Would you explain the poverty factor involved there in that allocation?

Mr. WEEKS. They may have spotlighted 17 places where they would like to locate camps. I was speaking of the criteria which Job Corps applies to the recommendation made to us by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior.

Senator NELSON. That is what I am trying to get at. You listed the poverty of the area as a factor. I was wondering what kind of factor it could conceivably be-what weight was given to the poverty factor?

Mr. WEEKS. For the camps which we approve announcements for we generally review four to five times as many camps that are recommended to us by Agriculture and Interior than the number that we announce. For instance, if we determine that we have funds and the program calls for an announcement of 15 more camps, Forest Service and various bureaus of the Department of the Interior have already identified sites according to their criteria, 60 or 70 camps which we will review, and in making our review of those sites and other sites which are recommended to us by Congressmen or Senators or mayors or Governors or other local citizens, we will apply the poverty criteria again at the same time as applying the other kinds of criteria. But this is a criterion to which Job Corps applies.

Senator NELSON. Let me state it this way: When I went into this in some detail almost a year ago it was perfectly clear to me that the Forestry Service was using as its most significant factor the total acreage of forestry lands in a particular State. That so far as I can see, was the only criteria they had plus the weather.

I am wondering if that policy still prevails. We objected very strenuously to this a year ago, last August. I am wondering if this policy of allocation still prevails. It is rather ironic to be placing 17 camps in California and half as many in the three States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.

I am wondering if that policy is still in effect.

Mr. WEEKS. We have approved no plan for 17 camps in California. I am unaware of any such plan.

Senator NELSON. This was the projection by the Forest Service about a year ago.

Mr. WEEKS. This may be the Forest Service's own projection. Again I can only testify as to the criteria we apply and we ask them to apply to give us information on as they gather information on the various sites that they propose.

Senator NELSON. Who makes the decision finally as to where the camp will be?

Mr. WEEKS. The Director of the Job Corps and Sargent Shriver. Senator NELSON. And recommendations come to the Director from Interior and Forest Service?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes.

Senator NELSON. Then the decision is made by you as to what selections you would make; is that correct, Mr. Shriver?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right. What he was saying is that the Forest Service makes recommendations about where they think good campsites should be located. However, they are only one of a number of groups that do make recommendations. Then those recommendations have to be costed out. Some of them are extremely expensive and some of them are not so expensive. They have to be evaluated on the basis of the criteria which he mentioned a minute ago, one of which is the poverty of the area.

So that it is quite possible that the Forest Service has recommended 17 camps for California. But that does not mean that there will be 17 camps in California because we have to make a final decision. Mr. WEEKS. Again let me emphasize that while the Forest Service may have identified 17 sites there are also local mayors and city

councils which are doing the same thing, the State is proposing sites in Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, other States, for instance. We have local citizens groups which are asking us to locate Job Corps centers nearby. There is a variety of different sources for making proposed campsite selections to us. We use all these.

Senator NELSON. I don't want Senator Murphy to think I am picking on his State. From the information I had at the time the Forest Service itself was projecting 17 for California. That is why I happened to use California as an example.

Senator MURPHY. May I possibly shed some light on the answer which may or may not be true. I would imagine one of the considerations would be the number of unemployed and the number of unemployed in California, unfortunately, was quite high.

Mr. WEEKS. I would like to emphasize that if you look at the location of Job Corps conservation centers on the map they are grouped primarily in three areas: One is the Appalachia running from West Virginia down through western North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, which is an undoubted area of poverty.

Another is the area of the northern Great Lakes region, northern Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. A third major area which is also an area of poverty is northern Arizona and northern New Mexico and certain parts of California which do in fact have relatively high unemployment rates.

Senator NELSON. You will submit for the record the location of all the camps?

Mr. WEEKS. We will be glad to submit this for the record. (See p. 87.)

Mr. SHRIVER. My figures show six in California and nine in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

Senator NELSON. Yes; after we discussed this at some length they announced three more camps which were in their original plan. I was trying to clarify whether California was still on the list for 17.

Mr. WEEKS. We have no formal plans for locating any specific number of camps in any State.

Senator NELSON. This was the Forest Service recommendation that I am talking about.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Shriver, there is one other question I want to ask you. The report of the minority staff indicated that the OEO regional offices were not yet organized and that they were staffed by senior staff personnel without real authority. The Regional Directors, or whatever you might call them, had not been officially appointed. What is that situation now?

Mr. SHRIVER. There are only seven regional offices proposed. As of today they are staffed with what one might call the nucleus or the skeleton staff rather than with the top regional officer in any one of those seven. As a matter of fact, I think there is only one deputy which has been designated.

What is there, therefore, is a skeleton office where in most places we are still in space being loaned to us by the Post Office Department. Senator JAVITS. Your regional setup really, for all practical purposes, is nothing but staff agencies for Washington?

Mr. SHRIVER. We have some people of our own there. They are doing very good work.

Senator JAVITS. You mean people out of Washington?

Mr. SHRIVER. Well, people who have been here for a while and who have gone to the regions, not temporarily, however, they have gone there permanently.

Senator JAVITS. But you have not appointed a single regional director?

Mr. SHRIVER. That is right.

Senator JAVITS. Why the delay?

Mr. SHRIVER. Because we have had other things to do.

Senator JAVITS. You now feel that that rates the highest priority? Mr. SHRIVER. I think it is important but I think it is much more important to try to get people out of poverty than to appoint staff. Senator JAVITS. As a practical matter then, almost everything of an executive character has to be done directly with Washington?

Mr. SHRIVER. I would not quite say that because a great deal of work is done at the local level and programs are now coming to us and have been for the last 60 days, pretty well finished at the regional office level.

Senator JAVITS. It is my understanding that that only applies to smaller cities and that the really heavy work that the regional offices might ultimately do is not being done.

Mr. SHRIVER. I don't think that is universally so. The Rochester plan was handled pretty much through the regional office with headquarters in New York.

The program of Indianapolis came pretty heavily through the Chicago regional office for the Middle West. Similar instances could be cited from other places.

For example, the office in the Southeast which happens to have its headquarters in Atlanta has been extremely productive in terms of generating programs which come to use pretty well finished.

Senator JAVITS. I would suggest to you, Mr. Shriver, that it is not necessarily a diversion of effort for poverty to have a good deal of regional autonomy. That is just one suggestion from an old hand in the game. I am not finding any fault with you but I would strongly urge you to establish these regional offices. I think if they were established there would be a certain added measure of local confidence by the top city officials in dealing with the Regional Director. He would then have a certain amount of authority. You may find, too, he is very helpful to you since, as usually happens, such officers can be delegated a certain area of responsibility for programs below a certain amount, whatever that might be. I really believe it would be well worthwhile, especially in this kind of program, giving that some attention.

Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you.

Senator MCNAMARA. The hearing is adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

We are all through with you, Mr. Shriver.

Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m. the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Tuesday, June 29, 1965.)