EFFECT OF REDUCTION IN PERSONNEL REQUESTED Mr. FOGARTY. In the past 3 or 4 years we have had sizable increases in personnel. There also have been sizable cuts in personnel, as much as 50 percent of the increase requested. What would happen to this program if this request for 330 positions was cut 50 percent? Mr. KEPPEL. My first answer, sir, would predict something that I profoundly hope will not happen, delay. This is all brand new, that is titles I, II, and III are totally new. Title IV could be said to be an expansion of an existing program, and title V is brand new. A reduction in the number of personnel which we estimate could well mean that in each one of these titles the paperwork in dealing with the individual applicant under title III could be delayed unconscionably. The President feels very strongly about the importance of getting this underway fast. I obviously agree with him, sir. It is principally, No. 1, delay. We have as a result of the White House task force recommendation for strengthening the office I think reasoned optimism that we can get the most out of the individuals we will get. I will have to say, sir, three-tenths of 1 percent of the total cost worries me, if anything, by being very low. We think we can do it, sir, but I would be very hesitant to go below that. Mr. FOGARTY. I think when you have a new program you should have sufficient personnel to run it. If you do not you cannot have a good program. We cut your request in the regular appropriation from 151 new positions down to 100, cutting you a third. So, it is more necessary than ever that we not cut you deeply in this request. Is that so? Mr. KEPPEL. Might I ask Mr. Loomis, the Deputy Commissioner of Education, who joined us 3 or 4 months ago, to speak to this? Mr. FLOOD. Where are you from, Mr. Loomis? Mr. LOOMIS. I originally came from New York. My last experience was as director of the Voice of America. I did that for 7 years. STUDIES OF MANAGEMENT, ORGANIZATION, AND STAFFING I have been here with the Office of Education now a little over 3 months. Much of that time was working with this Presidential task force which had been established about a month after I got there. This gave me an opportunity to see the Office of Education de novo from the outside at the same time as the task force. I think we were all surprised at the lack of depth in administrative support in almost every aspect we looked at. These men from the task force came from the Bureau of the Budget, Civil Service Commission, and from the Atomic Energy Commission. The Chairman was from that agency. The President also brought in as task forces under them some 35 or 40 other people from all over Government, from FAA, from the Office of Naval Research, and so forth, coming not as representatives of the Office but because they were particularly expert on management, personnel handling, or something of this nature. Just about every one of these experts who came in to take a look at our procedures was concerned with the lack of depth and lack of strength in the administration of the Office, and therefore the great difficulty in providing leadership to the States and, in the case of research, the individual groups and universities coming to the Office. We discussed at some length whether this number of 330 that they knew we were requesting, or had requested prior to their arrival for this new act, was in the right ball park. No one could say whether 329 or 331 should be the number, but whether it was in the right ball park. I am certain I am reporting accurately when I say they felt strongly that it certainly was not too much. They thought we probably were not much under. There were so many variables and things changing with this new organization that they certainly did not recommend any increase. Mr. FLOOD. Who is "they"? Mr. LOOMIS. The President's task force, three gentlemen assigned to this task by the President at the time that he was commemorating the signing of the act in the White House. He appointed the committee at that time. Mr. FLOOD. Put their names in the record. Mr. LOOMIS. The chairman was Dwight Ink, Deputy General Manager of the Atomic Energy Commission. The other members were Nicholas Oganovic, who is now the Executive Director in the Civil Service Commission, and a man named Herbert Jasper, from the management part of the Bureau of the Budget. Those were the three members. As I say, they had under them 35 or 40 additional people. Mr. LOOMIS. Yes, sir. They had not been involved with the Office of Education at all before. I should also point out that an integral part of this whole study group contained representatives of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which was with the group at all levels, so this was a joint study in many ways with the Office of Education, the Department, and this group all looking together at the problem of how to organize the old office to meet the new problems. Mr. KELLY. I think we can underline something by an example regarding the danger of launching large-scale new programs with inadequate staff. It seems to us from retrospect that the problems which developed and that the General Accounting Office pointed out in connection with the launching of the title III program for grants to States for the purchase of equipment in mathematics and foreign language and science, and the problems which were developed in connection with the collection procedures in the student loan program, could both have been obviated if we had initially organized with a sufficiently large and a sufficiently well-developed professional staff to carry out the Federal responsibilities. I think there is a real danger when you take the kind of money we are talking about here and get it started with inadequate resources. REORGANIZATION PLANS Mr. FOGARTY. Would you please give the committee a brief statement regarding the reorganization plans of the Office and how it affects the new programs for which you are responsible? Mr. KEPPEL. I can add only a word or two to what Mr. Loomis already has said. The first word I would like to say is that this newly proposed organization, and we would like to enter for the record the proposed structure, will do two things which have been of concern to me as not being adequately done up to now. No. 1, the proposed organization will make it clearer to what I would like to call our clients, that is the elementary and secondary schools, the world of higher education, the research world, those concerned with adult and vocational education, where to go in our structure. It will be much clearer to me that they go to this bureau, that division, or that branch. Prior to this time the tendency had developed, which I fully understand, and indeed was perhaps partly responsible for myself, to establish a separate branch or administrative unit for every new responsibility placed on the office by the Congress. As these separate responsibilities grew in number the problem developed that no one administrative officer was responsible for seeing the coordination and interrelationship. For example, title III of the National Defense Education Act, which deals with matters of equipment for elementary and secondary schools, as Mr. Kelly was saying, and, for example, the new title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act we are speaking to here. The reorganization has put administrative direction over several acts of Congress which affect the same schools, or the same group of students. That is one thing that worried us a good deal. It gives them better administrative direction and also gives a flexible structure which can absoth other responsibilities Congress may give us in the future. That is the first comment. The second comment about this general organization is one which I hope you will understand, perhaps a mixture of being the statement of a man in my position and a personal statement. I have confidence in the administrative judgment of this group, Mr. Ink, Mr. Oganovic, Mr. Jasper, as well as Mr. Loomis, who just joined us. They are very experienced Government administrators. The Office of Education several years ago administered programs of $450 million, and now if the committee recommends and Congress acts on our proposals they will go to $3.3 billion in a very short time. Clearly in its earlier days, the Office was not necessarily organized in this administrative sense. I am then saying that my second point is this: As a man who could not pretend to be a skilled or experienced Government organizer, I now have confidence that we have a piece of machinery here that has been looked at by as good men as we could get, and first rate men they were. Confidence makes quite a lot of difference to all of us. (The new organization and narrative description referred to follow :) Introduction ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION The present organization of the Office of Education was established in 1962 and modified in 1964 and 1965. The structure is based, in large part, on a study conducted during 1960. In that year the Office was responsible for approximately 20 separate programs which resulted in expenditures of less than $500 million. Approximately 1,100 employees were engaged in those programs. In the year ahead, the Office will be responsible for more than 40 programs and a number of others are under consideration in the Congress. Expenditures of over $3 billion are authorized in connection with these programs and a staff of about 2,300 employees will be required to prosecute them. Pending legislation, if enacted, would add more than $300 million to the program level. Upon the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-10), with its four new programs and its substantial enlargement of a fifth program, it seems apparent that a basically new and different structure must now be provided to meet the heavy demands placed upon the Office by the President and the Congress. To the extent possible, that structure should be designed to permit the rapid assimilation of any new responsibilities to be assigned by the Congress. Concept of new organization The tremendous growth in the size and scope of agency programs has significantly extended the responsibilities of the Office upward and downward from the elementary and secondary level. Programs from preschool through adult education are now underway or in the planning stage. Higher education programs have already grown to very substantial proportions. Adult education programs are becoming increasingly important and future growth is anticipated. A number of the basic considerations involved in staffing and managing education programs vary depending upon the level of education involved. By and large, each program now authorized is aimed at supporting but one level of education. We believe that the principal resources of the Office of Education can best be organized along the lines of these levels of education. Accordingly, we recommend that programs of the Office of Education should, to the maximum practicable extent, be organized within three major bureaus-each based on one level of education. A fourth bureau-for research-and a center-for statistics-are also recommended for reasons discussed below. This type of organization structure will result in the maximum concentration of resources in relation to the several purposes authorized by law. It should permit the recruitment of the most outstanding leaders in the Nation to serve in positions of great challenge and significance. It will permit the assignment of bureau titles which will clearly convey the responsibilities which they bear. It will also greatly facilitate the relations of the office with the educational community. In an organization as complex as the Office of Education, with dozens of programs authorized under a large number of statutes, it is impossible to develop any organization pattern which will eliminate all problems of coordination. No way could be devised for assigning all aspects of each of the various programs to a single organizational component. Accordingly, under any pattern of organization, it will be necessary to continue and strengthen the staff offices available to assist the Commissioner in assuring that related elements of the Office's programs are drawn together as necessary. We believe that the Commissioner will also need several special assistants to extend his range and impact and to reduce the personal demands upon him. In addition, we believe that both the rules and customs of the Office should facilitate the widest possible communication among staff-at all levels and across organization lines. In proposing that the performance of staff functions be strengthened, we would emphasize that it is the bureaus which have the primary responsibility for program operations. The staff offices should be oriented toward assisting the bureaus and the Commissioner and toward facilitating the work of the Office of Education. One practice which has been prevalent in organizing the Office of Education is the establishment of a separate organizational unit for each new statute and, frequently, for each separate title of each statute. With the great expansion in programs the organization has become fragmented and unduly layered with consequent delays in action. In designing a new organization structure, we have attempted wherever possible to assure that two or more related programs will be assigned to units at the branch level. In that way, we anticipate that the |