Mr. GOODLING. Are the educational facilities adequate?

Mr. KRACKOV. Educational facilities, generally, I do not think are adequate; and I think we all realize that, in rural areas. I do not think they are generally adequate on a vocational basis and on a basic education basis.

Now, one of our problems in California is that most of the farm laborers come from or have come from Mexico, in one generation or this generation. There is a basic literacy problem before many of the vocational programs can be evolved, or prevocational programs.

Mr. RESNICK. If the gentleman will yield, I think we heard testimony that the average educational achievement of these farmworkers was something like the fifth grade. Does that ring a bell?

Mr. KRACKOV. I would say that is about it.

Mr. RESNICK. So I would say they are not particularly adequate. Mr. GOODLING. Do you not have compulsory school attendance in California?

Mr. KRACKOV. We have compulsory until 16, I believe. In some places, this is more honored in the breach than in the observation. We have compulsory school attendance, but we also have a language problem. I think in Congress now is a bill that discusses the talks to the point of working, about teaching Spanish in the schools. But we have a tradition within our educational systems that the language of the native would not be used in the training of that person, which has very often redounded against the educational process of the mig rant or the farm laborer.

In other words, educational methods have to change before any mark is made. Just adding education in a quantity is not going to change the problem.

Mr. GOODLING. Is that not the responsibility of the local community?

Mr. KRACKOV. Yes; and as those of us in California know, these responsibilities are getting very onerous on the local communities. They are not passing school bond issues, not involving themselves in these programs except through some of these special congressional programs like ESEA, title I, and the Economic Opportunity Act. Local communities are generally very favorable toward them. They know that they have, in many of these communities, a tax base that cannot handle the strong educational needs of a community.

Mr. GOODLING. That is all.

Mr. RESNICK. Mr. Mathias?

Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say it is nice to have Mr. Krackov here. He is a constituent of mine from the city of Visalia. He has done a tremendous job in this area, and I think Tulare County has used OEO money more wisely than most counties I have heard of. I would like to find out-I do not think I have ever seen these figures--the total moneys Tulare County has received, let us say, during the last 2 years from the OEO for all the varied programs. Is there such a figure as that?

Mr. KRACKOV. Well, it is approximately $1.5 million, Congressman. And this includes programs that we ourselves are not operationally involved in, that are in this so-called satellite of OEO programs, such as Neighborhood Youth Corps and other programs such as that. That

is not including some of the Economic Opportunity loans made by Farmers Home, which are operative out of Farmers Home Administration.

It is difficult to put your finger on it. If you are talking about actual community action programs, it is about $1.5 million.

Mr. MATHIAS. Well, in your presentation this morning, you mentioned that you have quite a few problems in coordination and so forth. But in what I can recall of the programs we have had, we have been doing quite well in Tulare County as far as receiving grant moneys for many, many different programs.

Mr. KRACKOv. I believe that is true.

Mr. MATHIAS. Your dissertation is sort of misleading, because you said you have lots of problems and you cannot get things done; yet Tulare County had had greater success in getting money from Washington than many of the other counties in California.

Mr. KRACKOV. Yes, but the prime thrust of this program is to use moneys from other programs. One of these days, OEO is not going to exist. If you believe in this catalyst approach that these resources such as EDA and other, Farmers Home, such as the other Federal programs, this should be coordinated if this is our intended goal.

Now, actual grant moneys from OEO we have been quite successful in obtaining, except for the few that I mentioned, where the urban areas are favored. But we feel that our prime purpose is not to set up a new bureaucracy, but, if I may say so, to use the present bureaucracies and use the present institutions. Therefore, the troubles we have are not generally with OEO, but in seeing that this coordinative and implementative process goes on with other Federal programs.

As I also mentioned, Congressman-you might not have been in here at the time--we do have many communities, as you well know, that we say fall between the chairs. We are definitely a rural area, as you know, but we cannot serve many of the communities like Tulare or Visalia because of the fact that other than Farmers Home and Farmers Home cannot work in those areas because they are too big by definition. They get no support, or very little support.

I should mention this is, I believe, one of the reasons that both you and Congressman Sisk and Congressman Brown support us in the self-help housing HUD bill, which you introduced, that would allow some of the larger rural communities to take advantage of a loan and grant, a loan program and a technical assistance program for selfhelp housing. Right now, all we have is communities under 5,500 that we can work in. But we do have rural communities that are over 5,500. Therefore, Bob, I meant that OEO, in its grant-in-aid program, as you might say, we have been successful with. The real purpose, I feel, of the agency is not to continue a bureaucracy but to use the institutions that are available, such as the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. MATHIAS. I was just curious. The chairman commented that it would be disastrous to split up the administration of the OEO.

Mr. RESNICK. No, I asked if the gentleman would yield, I simply asked the opinion of the witness. I have my own opinions, which I'll be happy to tell you.

I am just interested in the opinion of a man who is working in the field and is vice president of the CAP programs throughout the State of California.

Mr. KRACKOV. No, this is an unofficial type of title. We have an association

Mr. RESNICK. Right, I mean an association, and you are vice president of that association.

Mr. KRACKOV. Yes.

Mr. RESNICK. So you are aware of the problems of all CAP direc

tors.

Mr. KRACKOV. Oh, yes.

Mr. RESNICK. I have my opinions that I would be very happy to state. But that is the opinion of this particular witness. Unfortunately, you were not here yesterday, but the State Director of the OEO of Arkansas, who was representing Governor Rockefeller down there, pointed out the same thing. If you will look in the hearings, you will find that he also stated that it would be a complete disaster for rural America in particular if the OEO were dismembered.

Mr. MATHIAS. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I thought you were stating your opinion and were asking the witness to say yes or no to it. Mr. RESNICK. No, I am sure the record tomorrow will show I was asking for his opinion. I shall be very happy to state my opinion.

Mr. MATHIAS. Well, anyway, getting back to the subject, we have one program in Tulare County that concerns two or three different agencies.

Mr. KRACKOV. Yes.

Mr. MATHIAS. I think it was three or four agencies that are combined to give up money and talent to form a very good program.

I am curious, though, Mr. Krackov, what is your opinion of the stipends that are being used in these particular programs to the schoolchildren themselves, and also to the adults?

Mr. KRACKOV. Congressman, I think you are confusing two programs. There are no stipends, as I understand it, in this demonstration project you're talking about, included in the Cutler-Orosi School District. This is a so-called dropout program. There is a so-called eight-county adult education program that involves stipends or the possibility of stipends. This is traditionally the type of program that would be in the Manpower Development and Training Section, or OMAT.

What I personally think of stipends is that when they are needed, they are needed. Maybe I'm not answering your question. I have nothing philosophically against stipends. Our own program, we feel, our adult education program, we generally feel, will not involve stipends for the first year.

If a stipend is needed, I think a stipend should be looked at as a living amount so that the particular farm worker or worker can have enough to eat during the training period. Stipends have been very low, and they have never been successful from that point of view. In fact, $45 a week is a stipend that would be allowed under the eightcounty program.

Now, I doubt if most of the farm labor families, which usually arerage five or six or seven, would be able to live on that. They will have to work anyhow. So, in that respect, stipends are not successful, because they do not do enough.

My general feeling is a stipend is not a sufficient element to make

a program successful. It may be a necessary element, though, in some situations.

Mr. MATHIAS. Well, the eight-county program is actually seven counties. Tulare County is not involved in the eight-county program. Mr. KRACKOV. We were the author of the program, but we are not involved, because we would not duplicate the same types of programs. Mr. MATHIAS. Why was this not coordinated so that Tulare County was included in the eight-county program which you initiated? You believe in coordination. Why did you not coordinate the eight counties, and why did you exclude Tulare County?

Mr. KRACKOV. We are in it, Congressman. It is because a grant was given to us earlier for adult education and, in order to be businesslike, they do not want to duplicate money so that Tulare County will get twice as much as the other seven counties. Therefore, our program will be phased into their program next year, we understand. It was just that we previously, we got our program previous to the other programs. So in order not to give us more money than the other counties, we were excluded from some of the benefits of it.

Mr. MATHIAS. I have no further questions.

Mr. RESNICK. I want to thank you, Mr. Krackov, for a very fine statement and for coming all this way to be heard. Some of the statements you made are very interesting, particularly the one with the fact that these seasonal workers are left out. We know they are the forgotten men in many Federal programs, but now they are even forgotten when it comes to counting them as part of the labor market. I think that was a very important suggestion you made, and I assure you that that will be in at least my final report, and certainly we will communicate it to the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Agriculture.

Thank you very much.

Mr. KRACKOV. Thank you.

Mr. RESNICK. The next witness will be Mr. Charles L. Crangle, director of planning program, Office of Planning Coordination, New York State.

I want to welcome you, Mr. Crangle. I would like to ask you this question. I have in parenthesis that you are representing Governor Rockefeller. Is that correct?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. CRANGLE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION; APPEARING ON BEHALF OF CHARLES T. LANIGAN, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION Mr. CRANGLE. No, sir, Mr. Lanigan was to represent Governor Rockefeller and I am representing Mr. Lanigan, as my statement will show.

Mr. RESNICK. In other words, any answers you are going to make will be on behalf of yourself or Mr. Lanigan rather than Governor Rockefeller?

Mr. CRANGLE. That is right, the office of planning coordination. Mr. RESNICK. Might I ask what you do? That is a mighty fancy

name.

Mr. CRANGLE. It is the State planning agency, Mr. Resnick.
Mr. RESNICK. I see. Proceed.

Mr. CRANGLE. Gentlemen, I am Charles L. Crangle, assistant director for program operations, New York State Office of Planning Coordination. I am appearing for Mr. Charles T. Lanigan, director of the office of planning coordination.

Mr. Chairman, we wish to commend you and the members of your committee for taking the initiative to explore rural problems and the impact of Federal programs on rural America.

The scope of these hearings is broad; encompassing many different types of social, physical and economic programs. I will not attempt to comment on all of the many aspects of rural development, but will largely confine my observations to the planning aspects.

The key need is to assure that the various programs are in fact, bringing about the sound development of rural areas that the programs are coordinated and do not cause duplication, confusion and delay.

We are conscious of this need in New York State. The office of planning coordination has the responsibility to coordinate development planning activities at the State level and with municipalities. Federal programs are an important aspect of this process and I accordingly welcome this opportunity to comment.

In New York we are currently developing and implementing plans for the present and future well being of all citizens of the Staterural and urban.

Our approach is to actively encourage local planning efforts on the part of villages, towns, cities and counties. This provides a firm basis of local interest and contribution to a planning process which moves upward through the county to culminate at the regional level with State coordination.

The State has been divided into 12 regions for planning purposes, each of these regions having a common economic identity. At the regional level, it is possible to achieve interaction between the local planning process and the programing of State departments and agencies. This process is already underway for some regions of the State, and is proving an effective means of bringing into focus common needs and aspirations and providing a foundation for developmental decisions.

To facilitate this process, and to meet the needs of rural New York, Governor Rockefeller has initiated and supported a number of farreaching constitutional, statutory and administrative measures.

Changes which can significantly facilitate the coordinated development of areas of the State include a constitutional amendment adopted in 1963 which permits local governments to enter into cooperative arrangements with one or more other governments within or without the State, to perform jointly whatever undertaking they may perform separately.

Such authorization enables rural communities to join with each other or with cities to participate in the construction and operation of large water supply and waste treatment systems, for example, or in the development of an integrated regional plan.