by the Forest Service and Toyon and Lewiston operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, are very favorable. There were many skeptics at the start who have been convinced of the worthwhileness of the program in its approximately 2-years of operation. I hope that this committee will recommend continuation of the Job Cors in essentially its present form. I would also like to point out to the committee that there are many work opportunities in the development of our National Forests and other public lands which would give employment and vocational training to our rural populations. In many parts of the country the forests coincide with areas of rural poverty. They have remained forested because they consist largely of poor agricultural lands and the remaining land in agriculture is marginal. On these forested lands in rural depressed areas, the forest resource represents one of the best opportunities for permanent improvement of the economy. Forest industries are moving into such areas. Training and retraining for modern woods operation and associated jobs are needed in many locations. Thus, other programs to combat poverty, such as the Neighborhood Youth Corps, programs under the Nelson and Scheuer Amendments, Title V Work Experience, and MDTA, fit into this category. They will likewise give an opportunity to further extend our antipoverty war into rural areas where, relatively, poverty is much greater than in urban areas, but our efforts to the present time have not been commensurate with this need. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, DEAR CONGRESSMAN RESNICK: Since receipt of your letter we have reviewed the anti-poverty programs in the State of Illinois. Since only twenty percent of our population is classified as rural, and more recent figures indicate that the rural population is slowly declining, the rural applications of the anti-poverty programs, although great in need are so thinly distributed throughout the State of Illinois it is difficult to say that we would have an effective program except on the basis of more funds for this specific purpose. The very nature of these facts causes larger expenditures for travel or purchase of mobile equipment in order to have effective programs. The reduction in funds for the general program and the "earmarking”, places a great limitation on the specific needs of the area. Illinois in my opinion more than other states, but not necessarily exclusively so, has a greater variety of problems depending upon geographical location. No single or uniform program could be generally effective. In spite of these problems, however, great progress has been made in the rural areas which have received federal funds to organize a concentrated county or multi-county anti-poverty program. Because there is a dearth of local state control over the kinds of programs that can be funded, the effectiveness has been diminished. The programs that would be of greater effectiveness would be homemaker services programs, recreational programs, or programs developed to support the activities of other agencies, and these have fallen into the low priority category. To summarize what I have been saying without belaboring it in detail, the basic need at this time is more funds, both urban and rural, to build on the extremely fine beginnings in rural communities already made. I do hope this information will generally be helpful to you. Respectfully, OTTO KERNER, Governor. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN RESNICK: Thank you so very much for your letter of May 31 which had obviously crossed in the mail with my letter to you of the same date. In view of the closing date of the General Session of our legislature being so near, June 30, it would be impossible for me to appear at the hearings or to send a representative. It is unfortunate for us that this happens to be so. However, my previous letter reviews the anti-poverty programs in the State of Illinois. In addition to that, I would like to mention that the rural areas have suffered particularly because of the denial of initial program development grants to local community action agencies, as of June 30, 1966. This, of course, would have an adverse effect upon many rural areas because they were slow in submitting program development grant requests, which in part was due to lack of technical know-how in these rural communities. I hope this information with that given you previously will be helpful to you. Sincerely, OTTO KERNER, Governor. OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Salem, June 9, 1967. Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, DEAR CONGRESSMAN RESNICK: The citizens of Oregon have a definite interest in the hearings that you are scheduling regarding the effects that certain Federal programs are having on rural America. Oregon has made effective use of many of these programs. We have thoughts as to how some of them could be improved. Rural communities have faced far greater difficulty in finding out about available Federal programs and in determining how to make use of them than have more populous centers. There is an apparent need both for better communication and for training of rural leadership in the techniques and procedures of community action. One effect of Federal programs relating to poverty and discrimination has been that community leaders have become more widely aware of problems of poverty, alienation, and discrimination. Various types of local action to deal with these problems become possible as a consequence. Such programs as Operation Head Start for disadvantaged children and the Neighborhood Youth Corps to provide employment for young people have been particularly helpful. Oregon's economy is much affected by Federal policies because more than half the land area of the State is administered by Federal agencies and our two basic industries of forestry and agriculture are heavily dependent upon Federal timber and grazing lands. There are, we believe, opportunities for expanding the economy output from these lands. Regarding specific programs in rural areas I have asked some of our department people to prepare more detailed information. I will forward this prior to the close of your hearings, rather than sending someone to testify. Sincerely, TOM MCCALL, Governor. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, U.S. Representative, House Office Building Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. RESNICK: The following is a brief summary of the effects of Great Society programs on residents of rural California. The single major source of funds dedicated to resolving poverty problems of rural Californians has been allocated to the California Migrant Master Plan. This program was originally developed to provide services of housing, day care, education, field sanitation and health services to migrant farm worker families while away from home doing agricultural work in the state of California. This program has been successful in providing the above named services to approximately 12,000 people since its inception in August of 1965. The program to date has been funded in an amount of approximately $8 million; has provided housing services to 2,500 families; day care services to approximately 3,000 children; education programs to approximately 2,000 people; has provided field sanitation services consisting of toilet facilities in the field, drinking water and handwashing facilities to 9,000 persons working in the fields. The health services component is designed to provide health services, comprehensive in nature, to 15,000 migrant families while they are away from home and are not eligible for benefits porvided for residential farm workers. This program annually provides employment for approximately 300 professional workers and approximately 600 subprofessional workers to assist in the needs of migrants. In addition to this program, there are currently funded programs for selfhelp housing activities with an objective to provide low-cost self-help built housing for at least 200 families in California. Educational programs in the counties of Sutter, Yuba, Tulare, Merced, Kern, Yolo, Kings, Stanislaus and Santa Clara represent curriculum in adult education, preschool education and day care activities. While the above named programs represent a meaningful start in services to residents of rural areas, it is my opinion that these programs, provided for by funds from the Economic Opportunity Act, have not dealt in depth with rural needs. The major emphasis in the Economic Opportunity Act has been towards alleviating the probems or residents of urban areas. In California today we have a desperate need for programs directed towards eliminating the major problems of underemployment, unemployment, solutions to rural housing problems and related elements in the areas of sanitation. We have, for example, in California, approximately 20,000 rural families who have no source of water supply and are forced to carry domestic water in buckets, cans or other containers and in many instances are transporting water for as much as 20 miles. We feel that a major emphasis must be placed upon problems of the rural poor. These people, generally, have no advocate for their needs. Sincerely, THERON J. BELL, Director. STATE OF FLORIDA, Tallahassee, June 27, 1967. Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN RESNICK: In regard to the effect of recently enacted federal programs on rural America, the State of Florida does not as yet have sufficient research information to adequately evaluate changes brought about by these programs. As figures will substantiate, urban areas have had resources and qualified persons to actively solicit and absorb federal funds. This has occurred in some isolated instances before rural areas had knowledge of existing programs. By the time rural areas "geared up" to apply for federal funds, these funds had long since been allocated to the metropolitan areas. Another problem confronting rural areas is that of financial limitations necessary to meet the demands for matching funds. Areas having the greatest need for funds are often the ones deprived. Consequently, rural areas having a high priority need for federal funds are often excluded. The statement has been made that 46% of the poverty is in rural areas, but that only 15% of OEO funds have gone to rural America. As a specific example, in twenty-two of our rural North Florida counties there are eight community action agencies and with the exception of Summer Head Start Programs, only two of the counties have received grants, (one each) in addition to Conduct and Administration funding. Federal programs which provide greater opportunities for job training for rural people probably have been most helpful in widening opportunities. Funds made available from the various pieces of legislation dealing with training and education have been very useful in encouraging rural youth to continue training. This includes loans and grants to students for higher education. In some cases the vocational training programs have enabled people to obtain more gainful employment locally, and in others, out-migration has resulted. Society has gained in either situation. An hypothesis is that mass migration to overpopulated metropolitan areas is caused by advanced automation and mechanization of farming operations which eliminates job opportunities in rural America. As a general observation. I believe our rural problems are of a rapidly changing nature and are likely to intensify rather than diminish over the next few years. Considerable proportions of Florida's rural youth quit their home areas for non-farm employment not by choice but of necessity. If industry were widely dispersed, out-county and out-state migration would lessen. There seems to be sufficient evidence from surveys to conclude that young people would not migrate if employment were available in their home areas. The beneficial effects of social stability and economic growth are unquestioned. The broader authorities which have been granted the Farmers Home Administration and the Small Business Administration through their regular programs and through cooperative arrangements with OEO have been most helpful. However, the $3,500 limit established by FHA to farmers of low income is inadequate for today's modern farming operations. Rural housing is also involved with manpower requirements. In certain citrus and vegetable areas, because of the inability to obtain first class transient labor, it is necessary for growers to utilize offshore labor at peak harvest seasons. Perhaps this situation is amenable to resolution. Many people with ability in low-income rural areas of the United States are often seasonally underemployed. It is realistic to believe that they may be encouraged to migrate to higher income areas if (1) they could migrate as families (2) they could live in homes which are conducive to dignity and self-esteem and (3) if earnings from employment were fundamentally attractive. Coordinated federal and state programs would be necessary to provide the impetus for this transitional development. The need for attention to housing in rural areas appears in quite another area. One deterrent in rural development is the "freezing" of retirees on farm consolidation; hence effective land-use is foregone. Many retirees permit their farms to decline to total disuse because of institutional restrictions. Sponsorship could be encouraged for certain small-scale retirement housing developments in critical rural areas. A rural retiree could then sell his farm, using the proceeds to acquire a home elsewhere. Possibly, a rural public housing authority may have to be created. Digressing for a moment, one solution to difficult rural housing problems may be for the Federal Government to delegate authority to local banks to handle and disburse federal funds for low-cost rural housing. This matter may require further study. The programs of housing, welfare and rehabilitation obviously have not been utilized to the same extent in rural areas as has been done in urban areas. An exception to this is the Medicare Program which has received wide acceptance by rural residents and is of inestimable benefit to them. In more concrete terms, the Medicare Program has done much to relieve anxiety previously noted among some of our older rural residents. One adverse effect of the Great Society programs is a certain measure of uncertainty introduced by social legislation. One major minority group is rapidly disappearing from the rural scene, but a degree of anxiety persists. In general sociologists are of the opinion that public action programs must be defined in terms of traditional values and beliefs shared in common by the people effected. There is a need to utilize the services of persons able to carry out programs on a neighborhood basis, where the felt needs of people are rooted in the social and psychological setting of the home. An often voiced comment is that some of the Great Society programs, particularly the anti-poverty ones, tend to ignore these basic cultural approaches. As a more positive approach, far greater progress could have been made in most of the south and particularly in Florida if the Federal agencies had been willing to let local people implement these programs in a manner compatible with local goals and objectives. It is not inferred that local communities in the south should be permitted to violate the Civil Rights Act or to conduct programs in a discriminatory manner. Radical viewpoints of both segregationists and integrationists should not be permited to neutralize worthwhile programs. In order to achieve constructive, cooperative, voluntary work by responsible citizens in many southern communities there must be an understanding of local conditions by program administrators. There exists a great need for more flexible policies and closer interagency cooperation. It is worthy to note that you are conducting a series of hearings concerning rural America. It is sincerely hoped that the participants will not be limited to those who necessarily concur in present federal policies. Let us hope that some who feel the need for more local direction of these programs will have an opportunity to participate. Actually, in my opinion these rural programs should be designed to coincide with comprehensive state plans relating to the total needs and economic development of a state. In closing, I regret that Florida at this time has no criteria to measure the impact of recently enacted federal programs on rural America, but I trust my comments may prove helpful. Sincerely, CLAUDE KIRK, Governor. EXECTIVE CHAMBERS, Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, Member of Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN RESNICK: Governor Burns has asked me to respond to your letter of May 31, 1967, as he is presently away from the State. We enclose testimony from the following State Departments: 1. Department of Planning & Economic Development 2. Department of Agriculture 3. Department of Health 4. Hawaii Office of Economic Opportunity 5. Department of Education We regret not being able to be present to offer testimony, but we appreciate the opportunity to do so in writing. To: Mr. Myron B. Thompson, Administrative Director, Office of the Governor. From: Shelley M. Mark. Subject: Letter from Congressman Joseph Resnick dated May 13, 1967. Attached are comments regarding our financial assistance programs which relate to our direct participation in Great Society programs in rural areas of Hawaii. Additionally, we are involved in the planning aspects of some of the Great Society programs cited in Congressman Resnick's letter, although implementation of our planning actually involves many other State agencies. These other agencies, will, no doubt, comment specifically on the effects that these Great Society programs are having on rural America. Should you or any of the other State agencies require statistical data relating to our rural areas, we would be glad to furnish whatever data that we have developed. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS I. Economic Development Administration Program The Economic Development Administration which was formely the Area Redevelopment Administration has been of considerable assistance to the development of rural and underdeveloped areas in the State of Hawaii. The County of Hawaii has been designated a redevelopment area under this program. Two resort hotel developments were made possible because of Economic De velopment Administration loans. These two resort developments added a total of 100 new rooms to the hotel inventory in the rural area of Kona, Hawaii. This has not been the complete extent of the development because the developers have already indicated their intentions to expand their operations because operations have progressed so well. The 100 new rooms provided job opportunities for approximately 125 employees, which added over one-third of a million dollars to the payroll of that area. |
