yet these figures were just handed to me. This is Jack Conway and I will ask him to speak to that.

Mr. CONWAY. Up to June 30, 1965, the community action funds, $16,595,000 went exclusively to exclusively rural areas. In addition, Head Start projects, $27,800,000 went to rural areas. And for migratory grants, $14,944,000, for a total of $59,338,000 up to June 30.

Since June 30, the period July 1 to September 2, additional CAP grants to exclusively rural areas have amounted to $6,493,000, and migratory grants, $3,742,000, for a total of $10,235,000.

As Mr. Shriver mentioned, the leadtime is longer getting in the rural areas because of the capacity in the rural areas to organize groups to take advantage of the programs. It takes longer in the rural areas. But once it gets started, they set up a special rural areas task force. staffed with leaders to facilitate this process, and I think it is coming along quite well.

Mr. MICHEL. Do we have spelled out in the record what you people are doing in the migrant worker area?

Mr. FOGARTY. I think that it was pretty well spelled out.

INCREASES REQUESTED FOR ANTIPOVERTY EFFORT

Mr. MICHEL. In your general introduction you state the $1.5 billion represents the annualization of the first year's program. Do you mean the $793 million appropriated last year has in effect built up to a $1.5 billion level for this year?

Mr. SHRIVER. Not quite. What it really reflects is this fact: We did not spend any money in the last fiscal year until the 24th of November. Then Christmas came, and a lot of these programs did not really start until January. For instance, Dr. Singletary opened the first urban center, Camp Kilmer, on the 11th of February, and he opened the first conservation center, Camp Catoctin, on the 15th of January [indicating], and you could go through the program and see it is almost accurate to say we operated a 6-month year-a little more than 6 months, 71⁄2 or 8 months in the fiscal year. What we are requesting now is the means to operate these programs which started off very well and run them for a full year. If you take $793 million and multiply it by 2, you will find we need twice that to run for the 12-month period. That is what the chairman has been asking me about.

Mr. FOGARTY. You are not asking for enough. That is what I say.

POTENTIAL EXPANSION OF HEAD START PROGRAM

Mr. MICHEL. If you are planning to operate Project Head Start the whole year, what will your supplemental request be?

Mr. SHRIVER. Do not ask me.

Mr. FOGARTY. It should be a big one if they only get the $1.5 billion figure they are requesting now.

Mr. SHRIVER. Dr. Richmond, will you talk about the magnitude of that child development part of American life a little bit ?

Dr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as you know, there are about 560,000 children who will be entering schools this fall who were in the Head Start program this summer. We think in order to do the kind of preventive program that needs to be done,

communities could probably take care of 300,000 on a yearlong basis. I do not project the figure as high as 500,000, because it will take time to get the facilities and the personnel. But if this projection of 300,000 children were to come to pass, we would need about $300 million to take care of those children. Actually, in the projection for next year, there is $150 million for this purpose. So to do the year-round operation, we would need twice the money now being contemplated. This is on the basis of $1,000 per child.

In addition, we feel that next summer it would be highly desirable to have another Head Start program, which would mean at least another $100 million. And to do the followup on the care of the children who were in Head Start this summer, we would need another $50 million. So if we are to do the preventive job that needs to be done it would mean $450 million as against the $150 million now earmarked tentatively for this purpose.

Mr. MICHEL. I was following mostly the chairman's line of questioning. Of course I have never taken a position on this side of the table pushing witnesses on the other side to go full steam ahead on a program if they thought they would lose efficiency in doing it, unless it were a matter of national security, which I do not think is involved here. But can you get a degree of more efficiency resulting in less cost per enrollee if the program were expanded 10 or 20 percent or pushed 10 or 20 percent faster?

On all of these programs could you get a higher degree of efficiency based on cost per enrollee by expanding them 10 or 20 percent or pushing them 10 or 20 percent faster?

Dr. RICHMOND. In the preschool programs it is hard to bring the cost down very much because the favorable results are based on the teacher-pupil ratio and the largest item is teacher salary. If one increases the number of children per teacher, the favorable results fall off.

Mr. MICHEL. Do you think it should go up?

Dr. RICHMOND. I think not. It may be if the program developed continuity we could save on administrative cost.

Mr. SHRIVER. I would like to introduce Dr. Joseph Kershaw, who is trying to do for us what you are asking a question about, namely, do you get greater efficiency with more numbers or faster numbers.

Dr. KERSHAW. I would say most of these programs are now in the area of size where you do not buy many economies as you increase them. Increasing the Job Corps means increasing the camps and not enlarging the existing camps. So whether you get many economies by increasing the size of the program at this point seems to me to be questionable.

Mr. MICHEL. You could reach a point of diminishing returns! For example, I serve on the Agriculture Committee and on the ACP pro grams it takes the same amount for administration regardless of whether there are $100 million of grants or $200 million of grants.

Dr. KERSHAW. I think that is right. That is liable to be a small portion of the whole question.

BUDGET REQUESTS VERSUS PUBLIC RESPONSE TO ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAMS

Mr. SHRIVER. I Would like to answer the question whether the program could be reduced 15 or 20 percent and still be effective.

In the opening sentence of our testimony before the Senate committee we said the program we were proposing was an extremely conservative program, and we maintain that today, that it is a conservative program, and I think the testimony over the last day and a half, whether from the Job Corps or Work Experience or Dr. Richmond, I hope will illustrate to the committee that when we ask for $1.5 billion this is a rockbottom figure and it is not a figure from which the committee, with any degree of wisdom, can cut anything.

With $1.5 billion we will barely be able to survive, and some of the directors of the programs feel they will not be able to survive the pressure from Congress and from the Nation to enlarge the programs. I am sure you see from your mail the pressure for enlargement of the Neighborhood Youth Corps. I can assure you that will be duplicated in the spring in connection with Operation Head Start. This is not because we are trying to build up a big budget but because the initiation of these programs has uncovered some very real needs in American life. Nobody could have said in January that Head Start would have 500,000 kids in July. That was a national response that nobody could have predicted or controlled. The same is true of Work Experience and the Job Corps. When Dr. Singletary announced the Job Corps we did not know if there would be 50,000 guys wanting to get in or half a million. Some said nobody would want to get in it because they did not want to work or learn anything. These were unknowns when we started but we have found the demand is colossal.

RELATION OF YOUTH PROGRAMS TO LEVEL OF AMERICAN ECONOMY

Mr. MICHEL. We are in a period of prosperity now. What would your prediction be if we were in a period of recession or decline? Would not more be ready to come in?

Mr. SHRIVER. I have my house economist here. He will answer that.

Dr. KERSHAW. I think if sizable unemployment were to develop what we are now doing in training boys for jobs would make less sense. This would happen in Work Experience and the Neighborhood Youth program as well. This program has to have a prosperous economy.

EXPENDITURES IN RURAL AREAS

Mr. SHRIVER. Could I say, the figure was cited of 2.8 percent in rural programs. A more accurate figure is 15 percent of the total is spent in rural America, and that is broken down in a table.

Mr. MICHEL. Put that in the record.

(The following was submitted for the record :)

Rural expenditures in 1965 were $113 million:

Rural areas, community action program up to June 30, 1965:

SALARIES OF ANTIPOVERTY PERSONNEL WORKING IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. DENTON. I want to put in the record your statement showing the number of State and local people working on the antipoverty program who are paid over $18,000 per year. One-fourth of the people making over $18,000 work in the District of Columbia program. How do you account for that?

(The table referred to follows:)

ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM

Officials of cooperating organizations earning salaries of $18,000 per year or more

Mr. SHRIVER. Of those people, the Executive Director makes $25,000. We pay only 6 percent of his salary.

The Deputy Executive Director makes $23,000, and we pay only 26 percent of his salary.

The Assistant Director makes $22,500 and we do not pay any of his salary, zero.

The next two people who make $18,000, we pay 26 percent of their salaries.

The next man who makes $18,000, we pay 100 percent of his salary. And the last man who makes $18,000, Director of the Cardoza Division, we pay none of his salary.

Mr. DENTON. The table you gave us shows that is all paid by the Government.

Mr. SHRIVER. The table was incorrect.

for the record?

(The list referred to follows:)

Could I submit this list

UPO SALARY AND PERSONNEL INFORMATION

1. Position titles and incumbents of UPO positions with salaries above $18,000. Name and title

Jaines C. Banks, Executive Director___

Hyman H. Frankel, Deputy Executive Director_.
Ralph Showalter, Assistant Director__
Hugh Johnson, Associate Director__

Paul Hart, Controller__

James Carper, Program Development Associate_.
Seymour Rotter, Director of Poverty Programs_.
Vacant, Director of Manpower Programs___

Salary $25,000

23, 000

22, 500

18, 000

18, 000

1

18, 000

118, 000

18, 000

1 These positions financed by OEO. All other positions financed by OEO (15 percent) Labor, HEW, Ford Foundation, and Meyer Foundation.

more:

2. Biographic information on UPO personnel whose salaries are $18,000 or James C. Banks, Executive Director: 1945, B.S. in sociology, Howard University; 1947, M.S. in sociology, University of Pittsburgh; 1961-63, Assistant Commissioner for Relocation and Community Organization, Urban Renewal Administration, Housing and Finance Agency; 1949-51, Chief, Rehabilitation and Project Management Division, District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency.

Hyman Frankel, Deputy Executive Director: 1946, B.S. in sociology, University of Illinois; 1948, M.S. in sociology and economics, University of Illinois; 1957, Ph. D. in sociology and philosophy, University of Illinois. 1962-64, Training Coordinator, President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime; 1960-62, Director, National Research and Information Center, National Council of Crime and Delinquency, New York City; 1957-60, professor, department of sociology, Southern Illinois University.

Ralph Showalter, Assistant Director-Metropolitan Area Program Development and Manpower Division: 1940, B.S. in psychology, University of Washington; 1940-41, University of Washington, graduate school of sociology, economics and city planning; 1942, 1945-46, University of Chicago in sociology and economics and city planning; 1963-64, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Housing and Home Finance Agency, Consultant; 1962-64, President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime; 1947-62, international representative, United Auto Workers Union.

Hugh Johnson, Associate Director, Cardozo Project Division: 1938, B.A. in social science and speech pathology, Coe College, Iowa; 1947-50, Graduate School in Sociology, Psychology, and Anthropology, New School of Social Research; 1954-58, M.SW., Columbia School of Social Work, New York; 196264; director, Millbrook Center, East Side Settlement House, Bronx, N.Y.;

1 Does not include Paul Hart who is acting in the position of Controller.