Page images
PDF
EPUB

the neighbor island counties, there are Community Action agencies in operation. The rural “Grass Roots" projects have been extremely successful and refunding of these programs are now pending.

The Farmer's Home Administration has been very active in assisting the rural poor. This program has been very well received by the established agencies and the people benefiting from the services. As a result of an increase activity by the FHA, the Small Business Administration has stepped up their assistance to some of the low-income areas in this State.

The Neighborhood Youth Corps is in operation on each of the counties although the bulk of the slots are concentrated in the urban areas. The demand for slots is much greater in urban Honolulu than the rural areas.

The Hawaii Job Corps Center is a conservation center. The main camp is located in Honolulu, but there are two satellite camps on the neighbor islands of Hawaii and Kauai. A high percentage of the corpsmen recruited are from the neighbor islands and the rural areas.

Hawaii's poverty program is not a rural or urban problem but rather a general problem of lack of funds to do the job properly. The earmarking of funds in the Community Action Program adds to the difficulty of administering a program which should be based on local needs. In general, we are doing very well with the funds available to us. Sincerely,

WALTER P. S. CHUN, Director.

STATE OF HAWAII,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Honolulu, Hawaii, June 8, 1967.
Mr. MYRON THOMPSON,
Administrative Director,
Office of The Governor,
Honolulu, Hawaii.

DEAR MR. THOMPSON: As requested, I have reviewed the letter of Congressman Joseph Resnick, dated May 13, 1967, and am transmitting my reactions to your office.

Federal Aid to Education Programs under Title I of P.L. 89-10, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Adult Basic Education, Head Start, Manpower Development and Training, Vocational Education, etc., have had considerable impact upon the education and welfare of children and adults in the rural schools of Hawaii. This impact could be greater especially for Title I, P.L. 89-10 programs, were it not for some of the unique problems confronting the rural and generally isolated areas. These problems are:

1. Late federal appropriations in school year is further compounded for rural areas which traditionally have difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified personnel. The short period from the time funds are made available (and the uncertainty as to the amount) and the program needs to be operative makes it most difficult for rural areas to obtain qualified personnel to implement the programs.

2. Rural areas for the most part are lacking in available resource persons, organized community agencies, and accessibility to facilities found in the urban areas. Thus, the use of federal funds is further restricted.

3. The costs of programs for rural areas are considerably higher than for urban areas for similar programs; e.g., field trips, cultural erents, etc., are high in transportation costs for rural areas.

4. Generally, the rural area schools qualify for small amounts of money because of their small enrollments which make it difficult to implement a comprehensive program.

5. The rural areas in many respects have even greater educational problems than urban areas due to the lack of experimental background and

their relative isolation. Because of our single school system, however, the educational opportunities afforded our children and adults are much more equitable than in other school systems across the nation. Sincerely,

RALPH H. KIYOSAKI, Superintendent.

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,

Salem, July 18, 1967. Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN RESNICK: My agency people have not compiled as much information as I would have hoped for. However, the attached does speak for the impact of certain Federal programs on rural America. I hope that it will be helpful in your deliberations. Sincerely,

Tom McCALL, Governor.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS IN RURAL AREAS OF OREGOS

I. Economic Opportunity Act

Neighborhood Youth Corps projects, funded under Title I-B of the Economic Opportunity Act, have provided meaningful work experience and career exploration for approximately 1,500 rural boys and girls 16 through 21 years of age from low-income families in Oregon each year for the past two years. These youth, both in school and high school dropouts, have worked an average of 15 hours a week for 20 weeks at $1.25 an hour. They annually earned approximately $562,500 which enabled many to remain in school and others to return to school. This money moved into the rural economy. The training and education which the youth received better equipped them to assume a productive role in our society.

College work-study programs, initially funded under Title III of the Economic Opportunity Act and recently transferred to U.S. Office of Education, have provided employment for rural college students from low-income families. Approximately 1,375 rural youth annually earned approximately $650,000 for summer work and over a million dollars during each of the past two years. This financial assistance, which enabled rural youth to complete their college education, will have direct and indirect impact on rural America. Many of these highly skilled youth will not return to rural areas but will take productive positions in urban and suburban centers.

Community Action programs established in 15 rural Oregon counties under the Economic Opportunity Act have developed a core of leadership which is concentrating on many rural community problems. Low-income rural residents for the first time are actively participating on C. A. boards administering programs for the poor. Low-income residents are becoming better acquainted with taking advantage of the many services available to them. Most notable examples are the Employment Service and Health Services.

Head Start programs for approximately 1,100 pre-school age children from low-income rural areas have been held in approximately 15 rural areas. Rural children have been better prepared to enter first grade, have learned many social skills, and have received medical attention so often neglected in rural areas. Program aides, many of the mothers of Head Start children, have learned how to better feed, clothe, and care for their children as a result of Cooperative Extension Service educational programs.

Education and training programs for former migrant farm workers and their families have contributed much to the economy of rural Oregon. Approximately 500 families, formerly migrant Mexican Americans, have settled in rural communities in western and eastern Oregon. Training programs under MDTA and special educational programs designed to qualify participants for GED certificates have reduced the rural welfare load and provided more highly skilled workers for rural areas.

Day Care Centers have been established in approximately 12 rural areas to provide supervised care and training for pre-school age children of seasonal farm workers.

Approximately 200 youth from low-income rural families in Oregon have participated in the Upward Bound program at Oregon State University.

A special community action program, Title II-A of the EOA, Green Thumb, has provided part-time employment to approximately 90 low-income elderly men from rural areas. They work on beautification projects on major arterial highways.

II. Higher Education Act, Title I

A Towns and Small Cities Project designed by the Cooperative Extension Service of Oregon State University has been funded under Title I of the Higher Education Act and is currently being operated in the Clackamas, Marion and Linn County area.

The program provides two Community Developinent Agents in this tri-county area to assist small towns and small cities in the identification of problems that prevent them from making adjustments to share in the benefits accrued from Oregon's social and economic growth.

The agents are working directly with 35 communities in solving problems and establishing training programs in federal aid assistance, parks and recreation, sewage disposal, municipal planning, water systems and leadership training.

Specific assistance requested by these communities—by order of frequencyis federal aid, parks and recreation, sewage disposal, municipal planning, leadership assistance, water, youth employment, legal organization, housing, business development, community survey, library, community study and urban renewal. Educational material and programs include the development of a monthly newsletter to inform city councils of successful activities in other communities, radio programs, newstories and circular letters.

In addition, short courses or formal training programs have been presented in budget development, recreation and parks for the small community, and land use planning and zoning.

Although the program has been operative less than one year, success is measurable in communities that now are building libraries, sewer systems, parks or developing recreation programs.

The program is enjoying its success because it stimulates and develops organizational patterns and leaderships, enabling citizens to analyze and effect programs of social and economic improvement in the small community. III. Farmers Home Administration

Groups in Oregon rural areas have made particularly good use of the loans and grants available from the Farmers Home Administration of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop or improve water supply and distribution systems and waste disposal systems. During 1966, a total of 23 community assistance loans were closed in the amount of $2,760,540 and the total of all rural community assistance applications handled was $20,676,330. In the range area of eastern Oregon, a significant innovation has been the organization of grazing cooperatives through which groups of ranches have joined in borrowing FHA funds to purchase grazing land for their cooperative use. Small ranches have thus been enabled to expand their operations as today's conditions required. An example is the Hampton Butte Grazing Association in Deschutes County through which 16 ranches will take over the 86,000 acre Jackson ranch and increase its carrying capacity from 1400 animal units to 1900.

BOARD OF NATIONAL MISSIONS,
OF THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

New York, N.Y., June 19, 1967.
Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAB CONGRESSMAN RESNICK: Thank you for the opportunity you offer to testify on the effectiveness of rural development programs. Time would not permit preparation of an adequate presentation, so I will confine my comments to this letter.

My impressions from travel and reading are that most of these programs have been very helpful, though somewhat uncoordinated. The problems of bringing together various federal agencies and local governmental units into some sort of rational area or regional planning are not easy.

I do believe that the Department of Agriculture must find ways to appease the political pressures to "stick to technical agriculture” and move extensively into a program of education for grass-roots planning in non-metropolitan areas. The Rural Areas Development Program and the Federal Extension Service have made a good start on these concerns, but they must have greater resources and more time to develop a strong leadership corps across the nation with adequate social science skills to effectively educate citizens, politicians and bureaucrats, in the processes of dealing with public issues. This is basically suggesting erpanding and up-grading present programs of Rural Areas Development, Resource Development, public affairs and training.

One of the goals emerging in our own policy development is the support and assistance of those groups and agencies that provide the framework and forum for local people to responsibly participate in social and public decisions making processes. We would expect to encourage a similar position in other denominations and councils of churches.

We will be interested in following the results of the hearings on Rural Development. Sincerely yours,

JOHN C. MATTHEW, Associate for Town and Country Ministries.

LUTHERAN COUNCIL IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Chicago, III., June 21, 1967. Hon. JOSEPH Y. RESNICK, Member of Congress, Washington, D.O.

DEAR SIR: Thank you for your letter of June 2. We appreciate your invitation to testify at the hearings that will be examining the effectiveness of the different programs which have been designed to better the lot on individuals in the countryside and to further community development in rural areas.

It will not be possible for us to testify in person, but here is a statement we have prepared. We ask that this statement be included in the Record of Hearings. The different programs will not achieve their maximum effectiveness until:

1. We have viable planning units in the countryside.

2. We have educational programs that give leaders and key people in the countryside the ability to remove obsolete social structures and design new social structures that fit the needs of today.

3. We identify the problem of human relations in rural areas.

4. We encourage rural people to make a firm commitment to group action taken to solve economic problems. I want to commend you for your part in these hearings. Sincerely,

E. W. VUELLER.

STATEMENT ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

(By E. W. Mueller, Department of Church and Community Planning, Lutheran

Council in the United States of America) By the turn of the century the first patterns of rural America had been established. In a relatively short time the Indians were dispossessed, our vast land area divided into family farm units, and towns and small cities emerged as trade and service centers for the farm population. Political systems, including state and township governments, were established. A network of primitive roads laid out and a continental system of railroads formed to haul farm products to market. Millions of people scattered across the landscape- 30 million living on farms and another 15 million in trade centers.

Since the turn of the century rural America has experienced an aimless transition. It has been changing but it has not been developing. Changes came as a result of the more extensive and the more efficient use of tools and machines. It made possible the continual exportation of materials and human resouces from rural areas.

FALLACY OF COMPOSITION In 1908 Theodore Roosevelt realized that all was not well in rural America and appointed the Country Life Commission. Its findings helped people to under. stand their needs. They contained germ ideas that gave us Cooperative Extension Service, 4-H, Future Farmers of America. The leaders of these programs thought in terms of the development of people. Commodity-minded people and leaders were more interested in production as an end in itself than as a means for the development of community. As a result production-oriented programs received more attention than people-oriented programs. It gave us more efficiently-operated farm units, but what is good for the farm unit may not be good for the farming industry and may not contribute to community development. This has been referred to as the fallacy of composition.

To illustrate : I go to a football game. To see a certain play I get on my tiptoes. Now I can see until everyone else also stands on his tiptoes..

A farmer initiates a more efficient practice on his farm. He has a temporary advantage, but as soon as the agricultural industry adopts it and it becomes a general practice the advantage is gone. In the long run it means that the farm unit is enlarged, gross income for the farm unit goes up, but the net income for the farm unit remains about the same. Usually only the net income contributes to the development of communities.

MANY CHAMPIONS

Many are concerned for the well-being of the rural community. Rural America as developed numerous organizations, agencies, foundations, and associations. While they have been helpful, no group seems to come up with answers to our rural problems that catch the imagination of the people. Is it because they are tinkering with rural social ailments rather than seriously seeking solutions? Is the future of a group more important to the members than the development of meaningful country life? The various approaches to the development of more meaningful town and country communities have not yielded the desired results because each group has a piece of the answer but no group has the whole answer.

We need more research. We need more education. We need efficient production of food and fiber. We need to use legislation. We need adequate credit. We need conservation of soil and water. We need the savings provided by the consumer cooperative. We need more bargaining power in the market place for the producer. We need individual initiative. We need organization. We need group action.

In rural America each one of these needs has a champion. This is good. What is disturbing is that these champions of rural needs often negate each other's efforts.

BASIC VALUES

Have we all been too ready to join the cult of adjustment? As long as alternate courses of action are open to people they will be initiating change. This is the way we want it. However, we must not equate change with progress. Responsible people are not for keeping the status quo. They are for change, but they carefully evaluate change.

What criteria do we use to evaluate change? If rural society is to progress its adjustment must be measured in terms of basic values that contribute to the enrichment of people's life and that make for true community.

INITIATIVE

People are not going to agree automatically as to the criteria to be used in evaluating change, nor as to the basic values that contribute to the enrichment of life. We must be grateful for differences. They encourage initiative and make possible the type of creativity that we find in rural areas, both among individuals and in communities.

A case of individual initiative we have in Erwin Wenske, a Nebraska farmer, who has taken an empty set of farm buildings and has developed them into a hunting and farm-vacation lodge. The lodge is located four miles north of Edgar, just off Highway 74. It is not visible from the road, is nestled behind a hill among trees near the Big Sandy. It is ideal for a restful vacation. It gives seclusion, privacy, good hunting, and fellowship with a farm family. Though it has been in operation only a year there already have been guests from Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Michigan.

In Minnesota we have a case of area initiative. “The people of five Minnesota counties are prodding dorment economic opportunites into life through a Resource Conservation and Development Project.

« PreviousContinue »