« PreviousContinue »
But exactly one year later, Mr. Shriver, again testifying before our subcommittee, told us reluctantly but bluntly that if the nation continued to devote its present rate of resources to the anti-poverty program the war on poverty "will never be won."
Larger and more diversified resources, it becomes clear, are necessary for victory.
With the conspicuous exception of the Job Corps, an important group that has made only a token contribution to the war on poverty is the business and industrial community. I pointed out in our Chicago hearings that “the business leaders in the community are insulated from the real conditions of the ghetto because they never see the ghetto and know nothing of it except the little they read in a newspaper."
Recently, however, there have been hopeful omens. The National Association of Manufacturers has decided for the first time to participate in an anti-poverty undertaking which, just possibly, may set a precedent for individual business and industrial concerns.
But most important, in the opinion of many, is for all 50 States to become active, fully-responsible partners in the war on poverty. Malingering by State governments, especially in the area of matching funds, must be halted. States must be induced to accept their moral, organizational and financial obligations to insure the successful operation of the various anti-poverty programs. They should and must become fully committed to this national crusade to erase the blight of poverty from the American landscape.
There is, quite possibly, still time, before the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, to start economic injustice and destitution on their way to permanent oblivion.
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., June 6, 1967. Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, Chairman, Subcommittee on Rural Development, Agriculture Committee, U.S.
House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge and respond to your recent invitation to participate in hearings to be conducted by the Rural Development Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture on the effectiveness of Federal programs in rural areas.
It has always been my position that the development and strengthening of our rural areas is an essential part of the overall growth and progress of our Nation. We must have broad population distribution and basic dispersion and decentralization—including people, industry, business, traffic, and all the other elements of our fast-paced civilization-if we are to plan for long-range, orderly growth.
The alternative, of course, is the continued crowding and congestion of our metropolitan areas where 7 out of 10 people now live—and where, it is predicted, 4 out of 5 will live by the turn of the century.
The simple, elemental fact is that the development of our rural and small town areas is the easiest and surest way to assure a broad population distribution and to ease some of the pressures on our metropolitan areas.
At the same time, of course, the development of Rural America will assure a better quality of life for our people there.
Speaking as the Representative of the Fourth Congressional District of Tennessee-a District of small town and rural composition—I want to go on record as saying that the Federal programs of grants and assistance have played an important and significant role in the growth and progress of our area.
It has been my objective and goal to assure an equitable distribution of Federal funds and programs between urban and rural areas. Much has been accomplished in this direction.
However, rural areas and small towns are at a disadvantage in the preparation of applications for Federal programs because of the immense resources and expertise available to the municipal governments in our larger cities. In this connection, it might be worthwhile for agencies to coordinate their efforts and set up joint circuit-riding teams to make periodic trips through rural and small town areas, instructing and assisting officials in making applications for the various programs.
In addition, where possible, it would seem desirable to locate similar programs in one agency. There are, for example, now a variety of water and sewer assistance programs scattered throughout government.
In conclusion, I want to commend you and your Committee for your work on this most important matter of the impact of Federal programs in rural and small town areas. With kindest regards and best wishes, I am, Very sincerely yours,
JOE L. EVINS, Member of Congress.
STATEMENT OF Hox. JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
In the past few years, the Economic Opportunity Committee of Clark County, in my district of Washington State, has been involved in the administration of federal anti-poverty programs related to the development of rural areas. I asked the Clark County Committee to comment on and evaluate some of these programs, believing this information would be of interest to your subcommittee.
Before summarizing the committee's report, I would like to point out that Clark County's rural situation is rather unusual. Instead of migrant families and small subsistence farmers, the county has a large number of seasonal workers who apply for state support during the off-season.
In general, problems in these rural communities are common ones—lack of adequate education, job skills, transportation, health and other community services—coupled with a corresponding lack of economic and social opportunities. These communities lack diversified industry and offer limited employed opportunities. In Yacolt and other small rural communities—with the exception of some farming and a few small businesses--the only industry is logging. There is not one military installation in my district.
Accelerated economic development programs would ease employment, housing and education problems. However, many of the federal programs to foster economic development are not available to the county. The northern half of Clark County, which includes about 40 per cent of the county's population, is rural. But because the southern part of the county is industrial and urban, it has not been possible to qualify the northern half for benefits provided under the Area Development Administration and other federal programs. More flexibility in federal regulations is needed so that the rural sections of such counties may qualify for federal assistance.
The Economic Opportunity Committee of Clark County sees a great need for bet. ter government-community cooperation in federal projects such as public works. Many dam-building, irrigation and reclamation projects are underway in rural areas where unemployment exists; yet often outside workers are imported to project areas. The committee feels :
1. That the federal government should make a greater effort to present project plans and needs to the communities, giving residents an opportunity to prepare themselves for jobs and
2. That the government could offer job-training to local residents for specific project jobs. The committee feels that often skills exist in these rural areas, but that they simply are not tapped.
There are many problems in rural areas that cannot be answered solely by economic development. The committee believes emphasis must also be put on programs that promote a more positive and hopeful outlook among rural people, which in turn will provide more favorable circumstances for new industry and economic growth. Yet those federal agencies which provide programs affecting individual outlook and attitude-programs in education, health and job-training—often do not reach rural communities and the rural poor. Federal agencies tend to be located in urban areas. Many rural residents—because they lack access to public transportation systems or because they find big cities threaten. ing-do not travel to urban centers.
The Clark County committee feels this communication problem can be reduced by decentralization of federal programs—by bringing service units to the rural communities. The committee has set up neighborhood centers in a number of rural areas to offer and to inform residents of available public services and to
involve communities themselves in problem-solving. The committee feels this approach is an extremely useful one and that it helps bridge one of the many gaps between rural and urban areas.
I agree. I recently attended a meeting in Vancouver and heard forty women tell their impressions of an anti-poverty program Community Center, One woman commented : "Before the center, we thought there was not chance for us-that we'd only be smacked down if we tried.” The women who spoke were extremely enthusiastic about the Community Center program-which allows them to earn part-time salaries instructing other low-income women in such areas as home management and sewing. The fact that these women are now able to earn a few dollars seems to have elevated them to a place of respect not only for themselves but also for the community in which they live.
STATEMENT OF Hon. Harold T. (Buzz) JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy extended me today to testify to the effectiveness of some of the anti-poverty programs which are operating in the Nation and my State of California and particularly in the Second Congressional District which I have the honor to represent.
As you may be aware, the Second District covers approximately one-third of the State of California and includes most of the timber lands, much of the recreation lands, and mountainous area of our State. Approximately 60 percent of the land area in the District is owned by the Federal Government itself and consists of National Parks, Bureau of Land Management lands and most of all lands under the administration of the National Forest Service.
It is obvious, therefore, that we are extremely interested in conservation programs and I appear here today to support those related to conservation in rural areas.
Such anti-poverty programs use healthful, outdoor productive projects as a means of developing vocational skills and motivating our youth in proper work habits and promote both physical and mental improvement of our disadvantaged youth.
Specifically, the 88 rural Job Corps Conservation Centers, with 15,000 Corpsmen, under the supervision of the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and the land managing agencies of the Department of the Interior, are proving to be highly successful. When one considers that the Job Corpsmen are school dropouts, many of whom have been in trouble locally, and are youths who need a change of environment, the Job Corps Conservation Center program is proving to be a most effective method for motivating and training these youngsters to make them employable. The rate of successful employment after graduation is steadily increasing. It, in our opinion, will be even more successful with the further delegation for complete operation of these Conservation Centers to be made to the old line agencies (Agriculture and Interior) as of next July 1. I understand that OEO's role from that time will be one of monitoring the Centers' operations rather than direct line authority in their administration.
Conservation Centers have about half of the male enrollees in Job Corps. They are the most successful part of the total program. Their current operation costs are 20 percent l'ess per man-year than Urban Centers. They are teaching better work habits and provide a better program of social adjustment than other Centers. The on-the-job work skills traning in such vocations as carpentry, masonry, welding, heavy equipment operation, and cooking has proven very successful. Work skills training is directed toward conservation work and has provided recreation facilities and other conservation improvements valued at $26,000,000 through April this year.
In addition, Conservation Centers have been taking the least educated youths and providing the most comprehensive remedial educational program in Job Corps. Almost all youths who cannot read at the seventh grade level are assigned to Conservation Centers. One third of them cannot read or write when they enter. The average entering Corpsman reads at the third grade level. The remedial education program is working well and Corpsmen are learning at a rate several times greater than they did in the public school system.
The reports that I receive and my own observations of the functions of the several Centers located in my District, including Sly Park and Five Mile operated 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,
Springfield, May 31, 1967. Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
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,
Springfield, June 14. 1967. Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, House of Representatives, 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, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.
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,
Sacramento, Calif., June 15, 1967.
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