Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Senator RANDOLPH. In the State of West Virginia, Alice Smith, wife of our Governor, is the real leader of our Head Start program. She has been very active. She has gone into all parts of West Virginia and has exhibited a real understanding and leadership in this area. While Mr. Shriver is testifying in reference to Project Head Start I wanted the record to reflect the splendid work being done by the wife of the Governor of West Virginia in this program.

Senator MCNAMARA. Thank you.

Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you, Senator Randolph. Of course everything you say is true, Mr. Chairman, for the sake of bipartisanship perhaps I might indicate that the wife of the Governor of Pennsylvania, Mary Scranton, and the wife of the Governor of Michigan, Mrs. Romney, are doing practically the same, if not exactly the same thing in those States. Mrs. Orval Faubus has taken an outstanding interest in this program. She has had a lot of meetings on it and has been extremely helpful in moving it ahead.

Now all these records which we are talking about here are going to be compiled at the local level by a record officer. For each one of these programs there will be a record officer there compiling all these data.

These data will come in for programing evaluations and research on Project Head Start. Let me explain why we are putting all this up. Because this is what we are doing with respect to all our programs. It just happens that Head Start is one that I though we might use as illustrative. On the program evaluation, we have a community program monitoring all those aspects as indicated there. Then we have the Bureau of Census designed statistical report and the development of the governmental educational research program on Project Head Start itself.

To give you an idea of what has to go into making this possible, we will have 150 experts on child development visiting at least 1,200 of these 2,500 communities this summer. These are professors, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and so on, who already have been trained by years of experience but who have been trained specifically for Project Head Start this summer.

They have gone through a 10-day orientation program at the University of Maryland and they are ready now to go out. In fact they are already on the road. There will be 20 social service experts helping the local communities to have social welfare effectively handled.

The American Diabetic Association, the National Home Economic Association will provide nutritional advice to these communities. In this connection I might just show you four pamphlets which have been issued in the last week, each one of these is different.

Each one of these goes to every community where there is a Project Head Start. One of them, for example, is on nutrition. This was compiled by our people working with experts on nutrition. It tells everything that is needed about the kind of diet that should be supplied to the children in these centers; the importance of diet; how to make the kids eat, or if they don't want to eat the kind of things they should be encouraged to eat.

Here is one on the equipment and supplies for a center. There is a whole tabulation in here of inexpensive games and toys that can be

made at practically no cost to the taxpayers and no cost under our program. The kind of equipment needed for outdoor work and so on. In one city I know of, the vocational high school system of that city, both men and women, boys and girls, are building the toys that will be used in Project Head Start this summer.

Here is another one on the kind of staff that is needed, including the kind of volunteer support for a Project Head Start center. Here is another one on the daily projects recommended during the course of the summer for these people to carry out at a local level.

These are all over America today to help communities improve the anality of what is being done for these kids this summer on Project Head Start alone. I will be happy to supply those for the record. In addition to what we are doing, this program is going to be analyzed for the benefit of Congress and us and the taxpayers. At the University of Kansas they will make a comparative study of Head Start children and preschool children from middle-class homes. There will be one done at Johns Hopkins Hospital analyzing the demographic information to study the impact of Head Start programs on specific children.

Cornell University is going to study the relationship between housing and home environment, where there is any connection between these two components and the children themselves.

The University of Iowa is instituting a program for a 5-year followup. One of the techniques to be used by private researchers will be to study the poor children outside of Head Start to evaluate the effectiveness of the program for the children inside of Head Start.

This type of long-run followup is being planned in Texas. California, North Carolina, and also Towa. In fact we may not like the result of some of these studies. They may show one thing or another that will not be very complimentary. Ths material, however, will be available to the Congress.

Another type of evaluation over and above this evaluation in depth of a specific program like Job Corps, Head Start, the Neighborhood Youth Corps or VISTA. another one is to compare these programs. We will compare not only the new ones but the old ones that have been in operation in order to find out what the total result is of this national effort.

Our job, after all, is to get people out of poverty and not just to start new programs or continue old ones. If the new ones are not doing the job, or the old ones are not, our job is to get rid of them, not continue them.

This has never been done before, it is extremely difficult to do to comparatively analyze these programs. It is hard enough to do them vertically downward but to analyze them comparatively is extremely difficult.

We have already been in conversation with Yale University, the University of Washington, the Drexel Institute in Philadelphia, and St. Louis University to see if they are interested in analyzing their own cities, at least the poverty portions of the city.

We want to ask them to examine what has happened to the people in the city as a result of the antipoverty programs. We want them to ferret out, if they can, any causal relationship which may exist between the results and the specific programs.

There are such variables in these things, not just in income, which is obviously important but also of unemployment, of the divorce rates, of church attendance, of voting patterns, and so forth.

All of these things from a sociological as well as other points of view are extremely important in determining the changes which are accomplished and the cost of those changes in the total effort to abolish poverty.

Now the bill before you and the new authorizations it proposes for fiscal 1966 are in our judgment extremely modest. We already have completed or contracted for 102 Job Corps centers. At one point we had done one of them every 2 days. We have already made 3,100 community action grants, including incidentally, the 2,500 for project Heard Start. We have already assisted 75,000 students to continue their college education through jobs.

We have funded 260,000 youngsters in the Neighborhood Youth Corps. There have been 10,000 loans made to rural poor people all over the country. We have approved work experience projects for 88,000 adults.

All of these statistics represent resources which the Congress provided and which we already have put to work for the benefit of the poor people. Now from a purely quantitative point of view it is obvious that we can do more in the years ahead. I mentioned at the beginning that we had $55 million in applications sitting in the office for which we will not have enough money to fund with the money available to us in fiscal 1965.

In fact for us this fiscal year was only a 9-month year since we did not get any money at all until the 8th of October. We started from nothing. But what we can do should not be judged according to a simple average over that 9 months. In fact it ought to be judged from the program levels we have now achieved and which we are capable of sustaining.

If measured in this way-namely, what we have been able to do— let us say in the last 4 months, this program of $1.5 billion is extremely conservative.

In fact the question might well be asked why are we asking so little. We are making a conservative request because we are determined to keep a careful control over all of these activities. The budget estimate is based on the recognition that we are still in the learning phase of the war against poverty. Well we will gain experience over the coming years which will enable us to expand when we do expand, more intelligently than we can do so today.

We are convinced that a major expansion should be undertaken when we have had further experience and an opportunity to evaluate that experience. That is the reason why I have spent so much time on the evaluative aspects of our program. The bill before you proposes that the new authorizations be in a lump-sum form. I know that the Congress generally speaking is not too enthusiastic about lump-sum appropriations but I would urge you to give your most serious consideration to the possibility of doing that with this program.

I think it would be extremely helpful because it enables us to deploy the money in the most effective way which these evaluation studies reveal.

50-620 0-65

If it is shown that we can do more for children at a lower cost to the taxpayer and really make more substantial progress on the war against poverty it would be extremely helpful to us if we had the flexibility in the legislation to permit us to do that.

Sometimes we get new programs that are not known today but come along during the course of the year. The flexibility to institute those programs would be extremely helpful.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Shriver, while you are on the subject of money could you also comment upon the House bill which does not do what you said and which provides money for specific programs?

Are we to understand that the administration opposes the House bill and wishes us to amend it in the Senate?

Mr. SHRIVER. We support the bill but we would like, if we could, to have a lump-sum appropriation. We made this same statement to the House. They saw fit not to go that way. I would like at least the Senate to give consideration to it.

There have been new bills, of course, like the medicare bill that is coming up, the Appalachia Regional Commission bill which is already passed, the elementary and secondary school education bill. Those bills permit us to coordinate our efforts at the Federal level far more effectively. Perhaps we can cut down the amount of money we spend on a program because the education bill may come in or Appalachia may come in. We have had a dramatic example of coordination between us and Appalachia where the Office of Economic Opportunity funded 10 hospitals which were about to go out of business in Appalachia.

We funded them for $1.200,000. The result of that funding is that the Appalachia Regional Commission can come in now and not only maintain those hospitals for the future but even construct new ones, including dresser stations and medical clinics which will reach out from those hospitals into parts of Appalachia where there are no doctors at all.

There are counties in Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia where there is only 1 doctor for a population of 10,000 people. Now these dresser stations, which the Appalachia Regional Commission can construct from scratch, can coordinate with these hospitals, which we have managed to keep alive, in bringing health to the rural population of Appalachia in a manner that has never been accomplished before.

In fact, the Governor of Kentucky, the University of Kentucky Medical School, the Governor of West Virginia, and others who are knowledgeable about these matters, including the U.S. Public Health Service, tell us that this program, in a 10-year period, could even reach a 300-million size and bring health and better living and get people out of poverty in Appalachia more effectively than has ever been done in the history of the country.

That is the kind of coordination which can be achieved today which could not have been done before. That is the reason why we would like to have the maximum flexibility in the appropriation proposal. Senator MURPHY. Could I ask a question?

Senator MCNAMARA. Go ahead.

Senator MURPHY. I would like to preface my question by saying that I think your undertaking is magnificent. I am impressed by the size, scope, and approach. At the same time, I hope you will be patient

with me as a representative from California who continually gets the question from my home base as to what is happening. For instance, on June 13 Governor Brown was critical of the so-called fat jobs in poverty war. I imagine this is one you have heard a good deal about. His remarks were not very complimentary. I ask that this be made a part of the record, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MCNAMARA. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.

(The document referred to follows:)

[From the Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1965]

BROWN HITS "FAT JOBS" IN POVERTY WAR-CHARGES EFFORTS BY SOME POLITICIANS TO SNAG HIGH SALARIES

(By Carl Greenberg, Times political writer)

PORTLAND, OREG.-Governor Brown of California Saturday branded as "scandalous" the efforts of politicians, including State legislators, to get fat-salaried jobs for themselves or their friends in the war on poverty.

At the same time, the Governor said it now appears that the California Legislature will adjourn next Friday without reapportioning the State senate as ordered by a three-judge panel of the U.S. district court.

This means, Brown believes, that as of next July 1, the deadline fixed by the court redistricting, the State senate as now constituted will be legally dead.

HITS POVERTY SQUABBLE

Brown said in an interview at the Western Governors' Conference here that "it's a tragedy" that the politicians are fighting in Los Angeles and in some other areas in California over jobs in the poverty war.

"It's scandalous that politicians would try to get in on a program to help the unfortunate simply to get jobs for their friends and thus enhance their patronage," Brown said. He, however, refused to name the legislators.

Asked just how the poverty war helps a low-wage worker with a wife and four children living in some slum area, Brown replied, "I can't tell you."

[KNX editorial No. 236]

THE POLITICS OF POVERTY

(Broadcast on KNX: June 17, 1965, 8:15 a.m., 6:30 p.m., 8:55 p.m.)

A bitter struggle for political power is blocking the antipoverty campaign in Los Angeles at a very crucial time.

Because of this conflict, Federal money is being held up in Washington; money that should be flowing into Los Angeles for assistance to the poor and the underprivileged.

Unless this scramble for money and power is resolved, Los Angeles may lose out permanently on some badly needed projects.

Here is the background of a very confused situation.

Back in 1962, the youth opportunity board was organized here to direct programs under the National Delinquency and Manpower Training Act. The five directors represent the city, the county, the State, and the city and county boards of education.

This board functioned without much friction. It handled several million dollars in Federal money. It developed a trained staff directed by an experienced $25,000 a year administrator.

When Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act last year-the socalled antipoverty bill-it was presumed the YOB would act as the local agency for that program. It was well established, it was experienced, it represented a broad spectrum of interest.

There was no reason to question the fitness of the YOB. The legislative act establishing the antipoverty program said it should be and I am quoting

« ForrigeFortsett »