tied in with the VA and the Labor Department and other Federal agencies making similar efforts? What problems have you run into? What are your plans for this fiscal year? Are you setting up more programs in other cities? What about the rural areas? (The information follows:) OEO VETERANS PROGRAM In February 1971, the Office of Economic Opportunity obligated $1,016,375 for a program directed at low-income and minority Vietnam-era veterans. The program, administered by the veteran education and training service (VETS) of the National League of Cities-U.S. Conference of Mayors (NLC/USCM), in cooperation with the National Urban Coalition, sponsors projects through subcontracts in 10 cities. The project cities are Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, Miami, Newark, and Providence. The Denver, Miami, Newark, and Providence projects are cosponsored by the National Urban Coalition through its local affiliates. The Veterans' Administration found that the number of Vietnam-era veterans taking advantage of the GI bill and other programs was far below the number of veterans that took advantage of these benefits after the Korean conflict and World War II. Since a greater proportion of the veterans returning home now are from low-income and minority families, it was felt that different recruiting techniques and additional support (tutoring, counseling, stipends, et cetera) would be necessary to assist these young men and women. The objectives of the OEO-VETS program are threefold: 1. To work with Federal, State, and local agencies and national organizations to bring about institutional change and the commitment of additional resources to veterans education programs for low-income and minority veterans. 2. In 10 pilot cities, to use Vietnam-era veterans as outreach workers to attempt to reach, recruit, and place low-income and minority Vietnam-era veterans in GI bill education and other programs offered by the Federal and State Government. 3. Through the NLC/USCM, to work with cities (other than the 10 pilot cities) to disseminate information and to encourage replication of the peer outreach concept and other assistance to the low-income and minority veterans. Partly through the efforts of the VETS program many cities have provided PEP job slots which are shared by veterans attending school. A $5 million Upward Bound programs directed at Vietnam-era veterans was recently launched by HEW. There have been problems in getting the VETS program underway in two of the pilot cities, Wichita and Washington, D.C. However, we are continuing our efforts in those cities and hope to get these programs underway in the not too distant future. In June of 1972, OEO refunded the VETS program for 997,735 for another 14 months of operation through fiscal 1973. The program is now due to terminate August 31, 1973. No new pilot cities are expected to be funded this year. However, the VETS program has approached the Appalachian Regional Commission and the National Council of Churches to investigate the possibility of cooperative funding in order to reach selected rural areas of the country. In addition we expect the VETS program, through the NLC/USCM to increase their information exchange with other nonpilot cities. The VETS program also intends to conduct a number of conferences for nonpilot cities in an attempt to broaden the scope of the programs within existing resources. Regarding coordination of the VETS program and OEO's role in the total Federal veterans program. OEO is a member of the Federal Inter-Agency Review Task Force on the President's veterans program which was set up in June of 1971, under Executive Order 11598. The task force is chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Manpower at DOL and all Federal agencies having an impact, directly or indirectly, on the Vietnam-era veteran participate and attempt to coordinate their activities. In addition, OEO through the Federal regional councils coordinates their veterans activities at the regional level with other Federal agencies setting on the Council. In August 1972, OEO issued two policy instructions to all regional offices and another to all OEO grantees and contractors directing that priority attention be given to hiring and placing in training slots Vietnam-era veterans, and setting up a monthly reporting systems to measure the results of this effort. CONTINUING RESOLUTION Mr. MICHEL. In a lighter vein, you have been operating under a continuing resolution for how long, 15 months? Mr. REDENIUS. Yes. Technically the current continuing resolution will apply for the first 3 months of this fiscal year, however, OEO has been without a basic authorization for nearly 15 months. Mr. MICHEL. Weren't you better off under the continuing resolution? Mr. REDENIUS. Right. Mr. HJORNEVIK. With the act passed, though, whether continuing or appropriation, the ceiling applies in either event. COMMUNITY ACTION STRATEGY Mr. MICHEL. I think we need some further explanation in the record of what you refer to as the "new community action strategy to establish the community action agencies as independent self-sustaining local institutions." (The information follows:) A central feature of the community action program has been the locally established, locally controlled CAA, designed to provide local leadership in strengthening the community's response to problems of poverty. CAA's have in fact been working to build strong ties throughout their communities and have been growing less completely dependent on OEO as the sole source of assistance and support. Continuation of this natural and healthy trend will bring the CAA ultimately to a strong and lasting role in local problem solving, drawing strength from the community it serves. The community action strategy does not alter the basic goals or direction of community action. It merely takes account of the current general trend toward decentralization and decategorization of Federal programs, and seeks to accelerate the strengthening and evaluation of CAA's as solidly established local institutions, so they may share in the local opportunities and contribute to the success of decentralization. While the strategy aims to help CAA's adapt to the changing environment of the new federalism, it does not represent in any sense a withdrawal of OEO interest in or support of CAA's. On the contrary, it represents a renewed dedication by OEO to the original community action principle of local initiative, and an intensified OEO effort to assure the continuing growth and success of community action in whatever future contexts CAA's may need to operate. The strategy not only aims to strengthen CAA's as local institutions, it also aims to strengthen two core concepts and practices which have been central to community action from the beginning. It places increasing emphasis on actions to mobilize a range of Federal, State, local, and private resources for antipoverty programs. It also seeks to establish self-help participation of the poor with a genuine life and vitality of its own in local communities, continuing to develop on the basis of local understanding and commitment, not simply in pro forma response to OEO regulatons. With substantial local community action capabilities and experience to build upon, and with CAA's reaching new levels of maturity and strengthening community ties, the OEO relationship to CAA's will become less directive and more supportive. We have taken important steps to increase the freedom and flexibility of grantees to plan and carry out local initiative programs. We are eliminating unnecessary paperwork requirements to free both grantees and our own staffs for more productive support activities. We are strengthening the responsibilities of local governing boards not only for establishing specific plans and priorities but for reviewing progress and accomplishments against the locally determined plans. Instead of directives regarding the kinds of programs CAA's should undertake, OEO is increasing its effort to provide CAA's with timely information about Fed eral legislation, policies, programs, and resources, so that CAA's will be better able to form their own judgments regarding opportunities that fit their local needs. We have eliminated the bulk of OEO-directed training and technical assistance replacing it with resources which the grantees can use to acquire or provide their own T. & T. A., much more closely related to their actual needs. Our approach to strengthening CAA institutional capabilities is becoming more selective. Taking into account the substantial progress already made by most CAA's and the overriding need to focus OEO resources on other supportive actions in the months ahead, OEO will not attempt to continue an across-the-board effort to build institutional and management competence of each CAA. Rather, we will focus on a few high priority concerns. For example: 1. As CAA's become more fully local institutions, the importance of the local board as a source of authority and direction will increase. While OEO cannot play the decisive role in strengthening local boards, we will place greater emphasis on the powers and functions of the board, and will conduct our own business in ways which strengthen the authority and impact of the board in CAA affairs and in the broader community. OEO will also encourage more active participation by public officials and private sector leadership on CAA boards. Finally, OEO will urge CAA's to improve the operational effectiveness of their boards by such means as reduced overall size or better use of committees to carry out the work of the board. 2. OEO will increase its effort to encourage and assist CAA's to realine boundaries to coincide with those of State or metropolitan planning districts. In some cases, this may involve mergers between CAA's, which could contribute both to improved boundary alinements and to internal administrative economies. 3. In all aspects of direct support for individual CAA's, OEO will do everything possible to increase the resources available to rural CAA's whose development has been inhibited by special shortage of financial, technical, and organizational resources. We are encouraging the exchange or pooling of expertise and other resources between CAA's in the same geographic area, and between urban and rural CAA's. Besides the foregoing changes in the nature of OEO's support for individual grantees, we are shifting some of our staff effort into new initiatives to create a more favorable and supportive environment for community action at National, State, and local levels. This includes substantially increased efforts to strengthen CAA working relationships with State and local governments, and to involve major public and private interest groups in the work of community action. At the national and regional levels, we are increasing our own contacts and efforts to make the policies and resources of other Federal agencies more responsive and effective in meeting the needs of the poor. We are also increasing similar efforts with State governments and with major private groups, including the business community at the national level. The new kinds of support effort now underway and planned for the future has required some organization and reorientation of OEO headquarters and field staffs. We believe we have established a sound course of action, and we have made a good beginning. We hope to further sharpen and improve our efforts in fiscal year 1973 and fiscal year 1974. Mr. MICHEL. But, when you say "independent," you don't mean totally independent of OEO, do you? (This information follows:) The community action strategy does not and, of course, cannot make grantees completely independent of OEO under the provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act. We are really trying to do three things: (1) Give our grantees the flexibility for creative local planning which is not arbitrarily forced into a national mold, (2) encourage grantees to mobilize and use other public and private resources, and (3) help our grantees become capable of future independence from OEO so they will be able to continue and expand their important work under revenue sharing or any other funding arrangements which might in the future cut the direct funding tie to OEO. Mr. MICHEL. I ask this because you go on to talk about "increasing the freedom and flexibility of CAA's to plan and carry out local initiative programs. . ." Your authorizing legislation contains a minimum funding reservation for local initiatives at a level of $328.9 million, nearly $31 million above the 1972 level. I'm wondering how you can maintain adequate control over expenditures of these funds and at the same time give the CAA's more "freedom and flexibility." Are these consistent objectives? Perhaps you could give us some examples of how this would work in specific instances. (The information follows:) "Increasing the freedom and flexibility of CAAS to plan and carry out local initiatives" is a very important aspect of the OEO Community ACTION Strategy. OEO has increased this "freedom and flexibility" of CAAS by a number of changes to the grant administrative procedures, including application paperwork reductions, increased flexibility in the use of local planning formats, requiring OEO approval only for major changes in program, and a limited increase in grantee budget flexibility to make changes which do not affect program goals and objectives. Parallel to these administrative improvements, OEO staff time is directed to specific needs and requests, to aid CAA's in carrying out locally developed plans priorities. OEO insures that this increase in grantee responsibility is balanced by a commensurate increase in accountability through a number of managerial requirements, including (1) regular validation of grantee compliance with statutory requirements and OEO regulations, (2) quarterly grantee financial reports of expenditures by program area against approved budgets, and (3) selected OEO evaluations to determine the effectiveness of grantee programs such as housing and manpower. A very important recent supplement to these requirements is a strengthened grantee reporting system which measures actual progress against CAA plans. This reporting system provides for regular, internal grantee self-assessments of program progress conducted by or under the direction of grantee boards; and also permits OEO to assess grantee program in relation to local goals and national mission effectiveness standards. In summary, the objectives of grantee "freedom and flexibility" and accountability over the expenditure of Federal funds are consistent. Grantee "freedom and flexibility" is restricted to planning and carrying out local programs, but grantee accountability for accomplishing plans and objectives, and for administration of grant funds have been strengthened by improved regular reporting of progress. Mr. MICHEL. One final question. EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS Isn't it required that the State of California pass enabling legislation in order for that voucher system to go into full effect? Mr. GLENNAN. Yes, sir. To have it affect private schools. Mr. MICHEL. If you don't get that enabling legislation the whole thing will be washed out? Mr. GLENNAN. We believe the public school system is an interesting system in and of itself and are treating it that way. Our decisions on future funding will depend upon that. Mr. MICHEL. Thank you. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Conte. Mr. CONTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CURRENT DIRECTION TAKEN BY OEO The critics of the OEO program have declared it is just drifting along, no sense of direction or purpose, and it would be best to give it a merciful death. How would you respond to these contentions? Mr. HJORNEVIK. I wish the Director were here. Mr. HJORNEVIK. He is just out of the hospital. Mr. FLOOD. He advised us that he could only stay a short while. Mr. HJORNEVIK. He could be much more eloquent than I. Mr. CONTE. On any of these questions he can elaborate. Mr. HJORNEVIK. Let me say a few words. It is true that for the last 3 or 4 years in general the appropriation level for OEO has been roughly equal, level. In that sense there has not been a massive momentum from new money spent. There has been momentum and it is very real but in a direction that is quite different than the direction in which this program started out. The old days of confrontation tactics, old days of "loose as a goose" are over. The new strategy we have been taking with community ACTION agencies, for example-which Mr. Michel referred to one of bringing community action, not as a stone thrower of the community but as a member of the community. It means getting closer to State and local government and getting the keys to the city hall, as the Director said in his statement-working with local government instead of fighting them. True, they still disagree, but we are moving in the direction of much more sophisticated and pragmatic view as to how change is brought about. You don't throw a brick in the mayor's window and then ask for a favor. I think we are getting through to people. I think we are changing materially the way community ACTION agencies and grantees generally are perceived around the country Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Sanchez may wish to expand on that. (The following statement was submitted:) I truly think that the people who see OEO in a "drift" or "status quo" posture are completely unaware of the great momentum that OEO appropriationslimited as they may be have generated in terms of antipoverty expenditures of other segments of Government. As a matter of fact, HEW, Agriculture, Labor, and HUD are now pouring millions of dollars more than in previous years through the conduits of OEO's community ACTION agencies. While it is true that the OEO itself is not running many of the programs it initiated in past years, it is important to the poor people that they continue to be provided these services from the larger budgets of HEW, HUD, DOL and others. Actually, I think OEO's brightest days are ahead of us. There are exciting new prospects for some really meaningful and significant research and development initiatives in our long-range plans. The President has given us very definite marching orders that this is the direction in which we should proceed. It is unfortunate, of course, that many people perceive this as "drift." It is especially unfortunate since drift would be a good characterization of the initial helterskelter directionless days of a highly publicized and much ballyhooed “war on poverty" that ended up as not much more than a series of skirmishes and little battles. If I, as Director of this Agency, had no heart for these initiatives and no feel for the future of these programs, obviously, I would not be making so strong a plea before this committee. My initial days as Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity have been almost disproportionately expanded in a three-pronged objective to restore its visibility, credibility, and audibility. I have done this because I think it provides the proper backdrop for the new directions of the Nation's antipoverty agency. I am pleased to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that I look to the future of this agency with optimism. Mr. HJORNEVIK. One point I wanted to make is that the hiring of people for the local community action is done by the local board. It is important that we try to make that board assume responsibility for both employment actions and hiring actions. Normally what OEO |