The emphasis on economic accounting in government planning has excluded crucial social considerations. The urban centers need additional time to systematically and rationally attempt to assess their needs and develop programs to solve problems and attack causes relative to these needs. The past few years have permitted to the cities to move from a relatively simple program development approach to complex and comprehensive social planning as a vehicle of social change, with a corresponding change in the structure and quality of "citizen participation" to a stage where they now have a valid and decisive voice.

This is, Mr. Chairman, one of several of the issues which I know your Committee has been examining very closely in these important hearings.

On the matter of continuity-We are aware that the Administration has suggested a one-year extension of this program. We know that legislation has recently been introduced in the Senate that would extend the program for three years. Because we are committed to continuity in our efforts to eliminate poverty, we can only affirm, Mr. Chairman, that this program must be continued until poverty has been eliminated in our nation. In saying this and in urging a long range commitment by the Congress to this program, I am mindful, Mr. Chairman, that both the Administration and the Congress may find it desirable to affect reorganization from time to time, but there should be no slackening in the national commitment.

At the Federal level, OEO should be restructured to give it a high-level planning capability. The Economic Opportunity Act contained a "preference component" provision which was virtually a mandate to other Federal agencies to make maximal use of the local Community Action Agency. It has never really been effective because these agencies failed to recognize and act upon it. Each Federal agency continues to have constituencies and established administrative channels which make it extremely difficult for a local coordinating mechanism to operate. With less than 10% of the total poverty funds relating to OEO, what we have now at best is an ad hoc approach to poverty. This system, given the history and context of the poverty community, results in piecemeal measures developed within a fragmented federal jurisdicitional framework which requires increasingly greater amounts to maintain the status quo and the precarious balance that this in.plies. We need a series of nationally coordinated, locally planned, interrelated measures which are embodied in concrete programs with high visibility in the poverty area and are part of a continuum to improve the lives of our povertyentrapped citizens.

We are aware that the Administration has proposed to reassign and realign major components of the programs currently administered by the Office of Economic Opportunity to other departments within the Executive Branch. As Mayors and Chief Executives of local governments, we have always taken the view, Mr. Chairman, that the Executive branch should have the widest possible discretion and that the program can be given the administrative support it requires only if it has the commitments of the Administration to make it effective. Quite properly, the Congress should hold any administration accountable for its effectiveness in implementing those national goals that the Congress has determined.

The continuance of OEO on a stable basis would have direct, visible benefits both to the poor and to the community.

The poor as "clients" of the CAA would be assured of a stable life influence, permitting them to establish future goals with a reasonable expectation that the "attainment system" they enter will enduer long enough to realize their goal. That is not just another short-term "pie-in-the-sky" promise.

The poor as "employees" of the CAA are a part of a high-risk experiment in developing legitimate and meaningful jobs for people in new roles. In Detroit, over 80% of the CAA employees are drawn from the ranks of the long-term underemployed and hard-core unemployed.

But if the end result is going to be something more than poor people working in poverty programs, the duration must be long enough for the business and service community to recognize the legitimacy of those roles and restructure to accommodate them.

Mobilization and redirection of other community resources is a primary CAA charge. This means working with established and stable community institutions and agencies who are unable to coordinate their long-range activities to uncertain and short-term federal programs. This very substantially reduces the overall impact on poverty, and federal programs tend to compete with rather than generate and support the expansion and redirection of community resources.

We at the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Mr. Chairman, were deeply disappointed that the Administration saw fit to reduce

the budget request for the Office of Economic Opportunity. In summer programs alone, from last summer to this coming summer, Federal support in Detroit alone has been reduced by nearly one million dollars. It would have been our hope that the sense of national priorities would have led to a decision to increase substantially federal support for summer programs-not reduce that support at a time when we need it most. It is our hope that the Congress will share with us the conviction that additional funds must be allocated for summer programs under a priority rank equal to that of our national security.

Looking to the future, Mr. Chairman, the Conference of Mayors, at its Annual Conference last June in Chicago, urged a program to provide at least one million public service jobs for needed social services. We would hope that the Administration's recently announced program called Job Opportunities in the Public Sector (JOPS) would receive funding at least equal to the $420 million it proposes to allocate for private businesses. The President's Commission on Automation and Technology has authoritatively reported that public services in health, education, welfare, recreation, and social services are in need of some five million additional workers. The lack of these public services is contributing to the decline of the urban environment. The reason that they are not being provided is partly that unskilled workers need training and partly that additional funds to provide them are not available at the local level. A national program would be a major contribution in this area.

II. Citizen Participation: An inseparable element in the present urban crisis is the frustration quotient related to citizen participation-it is higher in some cities than in others, but high in all. There is no point in discussing whether there should be citizen participation. The fundamental principle that citizens have a right to participate in and influence the development of plans that will affect their lives is no longer debatable. The social revolution under way throughout much of the world has made this so.

But recognition of the principle does not mean that the practice will be or is effective. It is easy for citizen participation to be an effective barrier to action, just another layer of red tape, another means of immobilizing ourselves.

It is not unwise in principle nor in practice. It may be unpleasant for those who believe that the poor should "know their place."

It may provide discomfort to public officials but what importance is that as compared to the terrible problems which poor people must face every day of their lives?

Growth and development of citizen representatives as committed and responsible grass roots leaders.

Watch them in the process of policy-making.

Refusing to be buffaloed.

Learned in parliamentary procedure.

Raising penetrating questions.

Putting forward imaginative suggestions.

Vivid example of the kind of talent, and energy, and enormous human resources that exist among the poor.

Spinning off of successful OEO programs must be accompanied by citizen participation.

In the past, the lack of a knowledgeable involvement of the poor has deprived the service agencies of a major relevant source of information and insight. By doing so, we as a society have deprived ourselves of the only form of validation yet devised for a majority consensus-critical scrutiny and rational dissent by those with a different perspective. The stabilization of OEO would place the poor in a substantially better bargaining position with other groups and institutions to make known their needs, to suggest acceptable delivery patterns to meet these needs, and to press for legitimate consultative and occupational roles in the planning, programming, and operational aspect of meeting these needs.

III. National Priorities: Despite whatever explanation is given, it is clear that the War on Poverty and the vast crucial needs of our nation's cities and rural areas do not share the same priorities as the defense programs or the two space programs-NASA and the military's.

The deployment of ABM initially will cost four times more ($8 billion) than OEO's budget of last year.

Conquering poverty will have greater meaning to the underdeveloped and uncommitted nations of the world than a space station.

Putting men on their feet in renewed neighborhoods in our nation is certainly just as important as putting a man on the moon by this decade's end. Such expenditures determine our national priorities.

The remaining financial resources will be unable to cope with the demands of our cities and the poverty of rural America.

It takes money and lots of it to purchase the bricks and mortar; to build those new classrooms; to engage in job training programs; to provide adequate health care;-in short to insure that every American has the opportunity to participate in dignity and derive the benefits of the most powerful and affluent nation ever known to mankind.

We believe, Mr. Chairman, there are few better investments that our country and this Congress could make than the strengthening of our public educational system. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act must be given adequate appropriations if the improvement process started within recent years is to continue. Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, this improvement process is putting increasing amounts of funding into our newer suburban communities in comparison to our central cities. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in its report on metropolitan disparities found in its study of thirty-seven major metropolitan areas that, even with the Federal aid under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the central cities were falling further behind. If we are to be realistic in sharing the educational attainment of the central city poor, a major increase in Federal support will be required. The present 7% contribution towards such an important national objective seems to us inadequate.

IV. Detroit-The MCHRD: Nearly five years ago, the Congress shaped the legislation which began America's War on Poverty. Many people denied its existence. Many said it could never be alleviated-that the poor would always be with us.

No one at that time believed it was going to be a quick and early victory.
This has been true in Detroit.

But progress has been made.

Here are some of the things that have been done in Detroit's anti-poverty program.

In 1968, 135,847 persons obtained services at Community Development Centers.

There were 54,729 new clients helped in 1968.

Approximately 17,000 persons secured jobs as a result of anti-poverty services last year.

Under Detroit's Concentrated Employment Program, efforts over the past two years have been aimed at gaining job placements in the private sector for an additional 4,000 persons.

Additional thousands have entered job training and educational programs. Since OJT has been part of Detroit's anti-poverty effort, some 2,000 trainees have participated in the program.

Trainees were hired by more than 272 different employers.

More than 40 different job classifications were filled by persons who took part in the program.

It goes without saying, of course, that there have been failures as well as successes. Some programs which seemed promising in theory have proved unsuccessful in execution. Even more projects have produced limited results, not because the concept was faulty or administration was inadequate, but because they were given neither enough time nor enough funds to do the job.

If the validity of the total program-whether in this city or nationally—is to be judged by whether or not poverty has been eliminated or even substantially reduced in the last four years, then we would have to agree that the program has failed. But I think that no reasonable person could apply so stern and unrealistic a test. You cannot declare a total war and expect total victory unless you prosecute it with total commitment. And you cannot in fairness cashier a field commander whose battle plan requires tanks and heavy artillery but who is issued only slingshots and popguns.

I submit to you that the poverty program was meant to be innovative and risktaking. As such, it ought to be considered comparable to the research and development programs of industry and government. Such programs pre-suppose that errors will be made in exploring the unknown, that some ideas can be proved or disproved only if one is willing to risk a commitment of resources, that input does not guarantee output.

I hope that the national administration and the Congress remain open to innovation. Let us, by all means, learn from mistakes, but let us not be afraid to make mistakes. Let us try new and different approaches, but let us not, I pray, wash our hands of the tragedy of poverty in this country.

The progress we have made since 1964 has been encouraging. It has also been insufficient. A renewed commitment and enlarged commitment are essential. We are confident, Mr. Chairman, that you and your Committee will once again, as you have so often in the past, provide the leadership that will strengthen our national life. In doing this, Mr. Chairman, you will be giving our cities the support and hope that they so badly need.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEROME CAVANAGH, MAYOR, CITY OF DETROIT, MICH.; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD SIMMONDS, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE MAYOR'S COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mayor CAVANAGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee.

Let me first say that I am appearing not only on behalf of the city which I am privileged to represent, Detroit, but here, too, representing the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities, two major municipal organizations in the United States.

I would say to you, also, Mr. Chairman, personally that I am very cognizant of your great interest as well as your past history in support of this legislation and those of us that have fought hard and long to have this legislation enacted are quite cognizant of your efforts and greatly appreciative of those personal efforts of yours.

At this point I would like to discuss briefly some of the very critical problems with which we are faced today from a national perspective. The committee, I am sure, is well aware of the major points of interest and the positions which have been taken by the Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities in support of the Economic Opportunity Act and the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Let me briefly sum them up. Both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities have expressed strong opposition to the earmarking of funds for single-purpose projects. They have expressed certainly strong opposition to the inadequate funding, below what the former OEO Director, Sargent Shriver, called the "irreducible minimum" and, of course, I have opposed in testimony before your committee, Mr. Chairman, when you, I think, have been chairman of it and as well as your predecessor, year-to-year funding of OEO, which really disrupts long-range planning and proper evaluation.

Chairman PERKINS. Do you agree with my thinking that we must have the continuity of programs and in order to accomplish that, we have got to have longer than 1 year and an advanced funding provision so you can sensibly plan in the future?

Mayor CAVANAGH. Yes.

Mr. Chairman, incidentally, in relation to that, several years ago one member of your committee asked me why it was that the private sector wasn't more deeply involved in some of the efforts of the poverty program.

One of the reasons I attributed to that lack of participation at that time was the fact that it was merely funded on a year-to-year basis and no business in America would properly engage very actively in this kind of activity unless it was funded on a longer period of time.

Chairman PERKINS. Yes. Before we leave that point of view, the bill that I introduced calls for an extension of 5 years. What in your judgment would be a reasonable lead time that we should write into law here in your experience as mayor?

Mayor CAVANAGH. Neither the Conference of Mayors nor the National League of Cities has specifically identified a period of time, but I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, but at least a minimum of 3 years and preferably longer from a personal standpoint and from watching the operation of our own Mayor's Committee on Human Resources Development in the city. It would be most desirable, not just for its administration, but more importantly from the standpoint of the community and the people that these programs are intended to serve.

I think that is the real key to the necessity of having greater continuity in this act and in the funding.

Chairman PERKINS. You have been designated to represent the mayors throughout the Nation here today, I take it, from your

statement.

Mayor CAVANAGH. Yes; that is correct.

Chairman PERKINS. Go right ahead, Mayor Cavanagh.

Mayor CAVANAGH. I think in order to emphasize the commitment of the Nation and certainly our Government, our National Government, to the solution of both social and urban problems, the existence of OEO is imperative. The emphasis on economic accounting in Government planning, I believe, has excluded some very crucial social considerations.

The urban centers need additional time to systematically, and I think in a more rational way, a word that seems to be politically quite fashionable today, rationalization, but it is true that we do need to rationally attempt to assess their needs and develop programs to solve problems and to attack causes relative to these needs.

I have been joined at the witness table, Mr. Chairman, by Mr. Richard Simmonds, who up until a day or two ago has been the director of the mayor's committee for human resources development. Chairman PERKINS. We are glad to welcome you here.

Mayor CAVANAGH. He is now associated with Wayne State University in Detroit. I asked him to appear here today in case any members of the committee had questions they might wish to direct to Mr. Simmonds or myself.

But to continue, the past few years I think have permitted the cities to move from a relatively simple program development approach to complex and comprehensive social planning as a vehicle of social change, with a corresponding change in both the structure and the quality of citizen participation to a stage where they now have a very valid and, I might add, a decisive voice.

This is, Mr. Chairman, I know one of the issues which your committee has been examining very closely in these extremely important hearings; this question of citizen participation. But on the matter of continuity, if I might for the purpose of the record, particularly, we are aware that the administration has suggested merely a 1-year extension of this program.

We know that legislation has been introduced in the Senate, for example, that would extend the program for 3 years and because we are committed, as I have indicated earlier, to continuity in our own efforts to eliminate poverty, we can only affirm, Mr. Chairman, that this program must be continued on a much longer range basis until poverty has been eliminated in this Nation.