are individuals who come from families whose income levels are within the definition of "poverty."

Mr. MATHIAS. Do you feel that the Department of Labor is handling and administering this program better than the OEO?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I think, Mr. Mathias, it would be fair to say they have never administered the program. I think we are doing a very good job of it. I think that the OEO would admit that. Our relationships are very good and very healthy. There is no real opposition. We do work jointly with them in developing standards and procedures and guidelines, so that I think that the program is working very well, evidenced by the fact that they did delegate, subsequently, in March of this year, the additional programs; namely, the Nelson-Scheuer and Kennedy-Javits programs.

Mr. MATHIAS. The OEO has a variety of programs in labor and education, and so forth. As you might know, some people are trying to do away with the OEO-not with the programs, but since the program has been in other areas, for example, the educational program for migrant workers might go into the Department of Education. Do you feel this is justified, from your experience?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I do not think that it is justified. I think, on the basis of our experience and working relationships with the OEO, we are very happy to continue to have the program centrally coordinated in the OEO and in turn delegated to the Department of Labor where we work jointly with the OEO in developing the policies, the procedures, and the guidelines. I think that arrangement has worked out satisfactorily for us. Neither the Secretary of Labor nor myself have in any way indicated an interest in having the program spun off, as the term was used, turned over completely to the Department. We have not taken that position. It is not our thinking at all.

Mr. MATHIAS. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. RESNICK. Thank you. I would like to get back to the MDTA for a moment.

From my previous questions, you can imagine that I have heard from a lot of people with regard to these hearings. I have heard from a number of Negro and Mexican-American leaders, and they tell me that many of the State employment service agencies continue to discriminate against them and their services. The Department of Labor should find a way to bypass the State agencies.

What do you know of that in those cases?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I would urge very strongly that you suggest to those Mexican-American groups and others that they file specific complaints with the Department of Labor. We have a very active title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964 enforcement program where every complaint that comes in is investigated. We take action against the agencies, as you know, under title VI, and, as you know, the administration is authorized to withhold funds from State agencies if they do discriminate against individuals because of race, color, or national origin. I would just urge those Mexican-American groups to submit their complaints.

Having said that, though, I think it is generally true that there has been less involvement of Mexican-Americans in on-going programs than there should be. And within the past year or more, we have taken a very active interest in this and have funded on an experimental and

demonstration basis the program called SER, in five Western States, California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, where we have set up local offices to work closely with the State agencies to see to it that the State agencies involve the Mexican-American communities in all of our programs. We have in the cooperative area manpower planning system, specifically indicated that the Mexican-American groups must be involved in those activities.

In our other job training programs not run through the State agencies, we are funding or have funded Mexican-American organizations specifically for on-the-job-training programs, just as we funded the Urban League, just as we funded the comunity action agencies and the others, as well as the national trade and business associationswe have funded on-the-job training. A significant number of such programs now with the Mexican Americans are in operation, and there will be additional ones that we will agree to fund as soon as the next fiscal year's money becomes available.

Mr. RESNICK. You recognize the problem, and steps are being taken. to alleviate it.

I would also like to say there is a tremendous need in rural areas for housing programs. I know about the self-help programs that the OEO becomes involved in, and the F.H.A. loans under the Department of Agriculture. I am wondering what has been done, if anything, to start training people in skills so that they can get into the self-help program, to build their own homes?

I think that you all recognize that there is a shortage of help, especially skilled construction help.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Off-hand, Mr. Chairman, I cannot respond specifically to that, as I could to the Mexican-American one.

We do, of course, have training programs in occupations, and in the construction trade occupations, too. Specifically, I cannot say whether or not there are local training programs designed to do just what you are saying.

I would have to check into that.

Mr. RESNICK. I think that is a very important point.

Mr. MATHIAS. Will you yield?

Mr. RESNICK. In a minute.

I think housing is a very important part of the overall problem. That is a severe problem in the rural areas. A self-help program has proven to be pretty successful. I think that there should be great interest in that. I am hopeful that the Department of Labor will take into consideration that subject when they plan their programs.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I was discussing with my colleagues here this subject, and I am reminded of, and I recall, talking with Tennessee A. & I. State University, that had a demonstration program with us. One of the things that they were engaged in was helping people to develop their skills in building. I do not know how far along that has gotten. That was about a year and a half ago.

I referred previously to 11 universities, local colleges, that are doing something. I think that we would find some of this in these programs if we examined them carefully.

Mr. MATHIAS. In my district I think that this program has been very good. They had over 100 homes built in one of the counties. As a result, they have had maybe three or four people who are supervisors now.

They have been hired by the self-help people to become their supervisors in the building of other units. All the families join in to build houses. However, the period of time is short. In other words, you built in a short period of time, you move in, and then they have this regular job. They do get fine training, but the supervisors have been people who have gone on.

Mr. RESNICK. I agree with that. I am sure that the skills available to those in your county are not greater than in other areas, in the delta area, for example. It seems to me that this is an area where skill is needed; that is, skills are needed in the construction trades, et cetera. I would like to come back to a subject that we discussed previously, the 1,000 names that I have to get for you who were trained in Mississippi by the OEO. I would like to find out really what happened to them, and what happened to the 4,200 workers who were trained by the OEO down in Texas. I think that we can get those names as well, and see what really happened, whether they are back in the valley, or what have you.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Are you talking about the Rio Grande Valley? Mr. RESNICK. Yes.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I just came from Texas yesterday. I met with the Governor and his staff people, talking about these programs. We have jointly worked out with OEO on the Rio Grande Valley a program of EOE funding basic education, while we fund occupational training. We have put into the Rio Grande Valley a little over $2.1 million of MDTA money for occupational training, to handle the individuals given basic education by OEO.

Mr. RESNICK. How many people is that?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. How many will end up in MDTA?

Mr. RESNICK. Yes.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. If we apply the general cost of about $1,500 each, $2.1 million would give roughly about 1,400.

Mr. RESNICK. One-third will wind up

Mr. RUTTENBERG. About 1,400, that is right.

Mr. RESNICK. With the normal dropouts, what happens to these other people?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. They may very well go into on-the-job-training programs. That would be on-the-job training as against the so-called institutional training that I have mentioned. They may very well drop out and may be individuals who will be migrating and going back on their original homes. So that the proportion seems about right.

This has been worked jointly with the State people, the local people in the Rio Grande Valley, and the Federal people from both the OEO and the Labor Department. We have had people down in Texas working on this special program.

Mr. MATHIAS. I notice that this is a very nebulous thing, as to numbers. You have no idea of what happens to these people when they get out of this? You do not know what their thinking is. You may still upgrade the people, because of the things done; so far as knowing what happens to the people, nobody really knows, even though they do not have a job. I am sure that it helps them on their way through life, somehow.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I think that is true. I think also that we ought to realize that we have a very careful history about people who complete the MDTA program in terms of placement of these individuals.

We follow those up in 6 months, in 9 months, 12 months, after they finish training, to keep a record of what has happened to them, and our figures show that 75 percent of those who come through institutional training programs are placed and continue employment through the first year and that 88 percent of those that go through on-the-job training programs continue employment after they finish, and this is an indication of what you are saying that they do get help and they do continue. We have a fair number of people that are jumping out of occupational programs after 8, 10 or 12 weeks. That looks like a large dropout, but when one follows one of those individuals we find they are moving into employment using what they learned up to the point of their dropout, because they figure that they could get a job that paid them more with a little bit of training that they got maybe in 10 weeks, more than they were getting in the training program.

Mr. MATHIAS. There perhaps should be a definition of what they learn on the job. A very similar thing is when they are in the poverty program, as to how many years it takes to get them out of the depths of poverty. Would you say 5 years, 10 years, or forever? You might say it would take forever. All you do is upgrade the definition of poverty. You never know what good comes to these people from the programs.

Mr. RESNICK. It is true that you get the training. The OEO has spent money bringing them up to a certain level, and I would not like to see that money wasted and the people drop back. You and I both agree that there are not that many job opportunities for men and women with a fifth-grade education. It is hard enough for a high school graduate to get a job, and some have sixth-grade educations and some have less.

I would like to ask this question: In your rural America, are you taking advantage of the facilities of the schools-any of the night schools and things of that sort, as was done during the war?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Yes. As a matter of fact, in the smaller communities when the mobile office comes in various facilities of the communities are made available. As a matter of fact, even rent-free facilities for 2 or 3 months are made available to them. We do then set up a training program where the school facilities, of course, are used. That is the way that the institutional program is run, so that this smaller community program, which we are very happy with, presents our only problem that we cannot do as much of it as we would like to because of resources, but where it has been done, I think that the record will show that most of the communities will testify to the fact that much assistance has come from that to the local communities.

Mr. RESNICK. Just a general question, Mr. Secretary.

I believe the migration from the rural areas has led to the overcrowding of the urban slum ghettos. Would you care to comment on that?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I agree with you fully. I think that one good example is that Mr. Borda and I were recently out to Los Angeles, meeting there with businessmen prominent in the area who have taken a great interest in the Watts area, for example. One of these men was telling us that big progress was made in the last year and a half in getting people in Watts into training, into jobs. One of them said that as one looks at Watts there seems to be an additional influx of people coming in, new people arriving. Where are they arriving from?

I guess, in the main that they are arriving from rural America, because they see that some progress is being made to help those that are in in that urban slum area. Thereforer, you have got to work at both sides of this coin.

As you pointed out at the very outset of this hearing, the better job we do in the urban area in providing employment opportunities, unless we are simultaneously doing an excellent job in rural America to help those people to be retrained or to provide them with opportunities, we just increase the migration flow to the cities-unless we can simultaneously do good work in the rural areas.

As I understand, from what you are saying-I agree with that fully. This is really one of our problems.

Mr. RESNICK. You see this in a migrant stream when you get up in my area. Every year more people stay there, and every year there are fewer jobs. Some are coming from the city, but most are from rural

areas.

The question is: Would it be better to offer them training where they are? You might say getting them before they leave and before they get to the cities.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. One of the reasons why we are moving our MDTA program, I think, significantly, the figure 45,000 out of 135,000which you do not think is enough-into the rural areas is to accomplish that very purpose, giving them a feeling that there is a possibility of employment and to be able to maintain themselves in the area, so that you reduce as much as possible the migration stream into the urban areas of America.

Mr. RESNICK. Do you have any questions, Mr. Nichols?

Mr. NICHOLS. No, Mr. Chairman, I apologize to you and the other members of the subcommittee for being late. We had a meeting of the Livestock and Grain Subcommittee in executive session.

Mr. RESNICK. I think that much has been gained by this meeting today, in these problem areas. I think that we will all benefit from it. There seems to be some sort of problem of coordination between the OEO and the Department of Labor as to who picks up what, when and how. I hope that can be worked out.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. We are working on it.

Mr. RESNICK. I am certainly glad that you do recognize the problems inherent in rural America.

As I say, and I seem to be coming back to it: I do not want you to get the impression that I am not for the State exercising its rights. The problems I have seen are somewhat different, of the State not choosing to meet its responsibilities. This hinges on the State's responsibility in these problems. The problem here in Washington would be a lot less severe than it is if this was done in the States. I was hopeful that we could get directly to the small communities of America who are not represented or have no voice in this, where these training activities would be of help. My briefcase is loaded with facts and figures on that. There is a lot of help needed all over the country. This is the point that I was trying to make. I hope that we will get information out which is better and pay attention to the needs of the smaller communities.

The meeting will now adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, a recess was taken until 10 a.m., Thursday, June 8, 1967.)