delineations of bureaucratic programs which make sense on a Washington level, but no sense on a local level in the communities.

Our ABCD program of integrated interrelated services with this bill would have to be split up, and the manpower aspect of this program would have to make some kind of political deal with the rest of the metropolitan community in Boston, because the city of Boston represents only 27 percent of that community in 1980, and it is probably less now.

So that it would mean, in effect, that our manpower program would have to be divested, broken away from the rest of the community action program, of which it is an integral part.

Senator MURPHY. I think the people at the local level know more about the problems than somebody 3,000 miles away from Washington as is the case with my State.

Mr. COARD. The organization charts and the bureaucratic divisions of labor which are convenient to the bureaucracies in Washington are not good and convenient to the person who is seeking service.

Senator MURPHY. We found in Los Angeles in some of the vocational schools that the thing that made the difference is good counseling.

You train a fellow and put him on a job, and maybe he doesn't have much confidence in himself. He has never had a job before. Maybe he misses a little bit.

They take him back and give him other help. Maybe they take him to another area, and stay with him, and they are getting great results out there now.

I have been a great sponsor of vocational education. When I was a young man in Philadelphia, the Drexel Institute had a program where you would go to school for a month and then you would work for a month. It took you a little longer to get out of school, but when you did, you didn't start as an apprentice. You had a trade, you were a journeyman, and you had a job to go to.

In spite of the problems now, some caused by fighting inflation, the problems of unemployment, it still is working in California. I don't know an area out there where they aren't looking for good workers and skilled men. There are always jobs for them. This is our problem, to get them trained and started, and then we can pick up more and get them started.

Mr. COARD. I think we are all agreed on the objectives that we are trying to achieve here. I think we are all trying to do the same thing.

Senator MURPHY. You should have a definite advantage now, having had the schooling and also having had the practical experience. You should be of great help to this committee.

Mr. COARD. Yes, Senator. Our operation in Boston is called "Dropout University," because the people we serve have been pushed out of society, dropped out, and we aregiving them a second chance. We are able to teach them things like upholstering, welding, electronics, the Spanish people get special programs for them.

Industry has backed us 100 percent. We feel that the experiences we have gained over the years as a matter of fact, we got started before the Economic Opportunity bill was passed. We got started in 1961, and we think the experience we gained, we would like as

much as possible to share it. We feel that what has been proposed in the manpower bill, in some aspects of it, can be very pernicious to a program that I know the makers of it-the intent is to make it a successful program and not to destroy it. We would agree with that a hundred percent.

The CEP guidelines look like law, and we hope they can be made flexible, giving as much as possible some relevance to performance standards.

We can challenge any kind of need. We are not saying we are perfect, but we will try our best, and we have highly dedicated people. Senator MURPHY. I am going to be as helpful as I can to see that you will get to talk to people and will be called by people.

I have had several meetings with the Secretary of Labor, and I find him to be highly intelligent, certainly eager to find the solutions. I am going to see if I can't arrange to have a meeting set up, so that he can have the advantage of your experience and training and knowledge, because I know that he, as we on the committee, want to find out the right way to do it. We ought to be able to say, "We are doing fine," rather than sit here and say, "What can we do to make up for what we were doing wrong in the past?"

Mr. COARD. We have at the local level an operating program. There is no feedback mechanism to the key decisionmakers in the Federal bureaucracy in Washington. We would like a chance to talk to Mr. Shultz.

Senator MURPHY. What happens in California is that they say, "We have a Senator there called Murphy," and then they write to me or call me up. Try that on your Senator, and I think he will react. Mr. COARD. Thank you very much, Senator.

Senator NELSON. Are there any further questions?

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to state that the concentrated employment program came into being in our committee as the result of the work of the late Senator Kennedy and myself in the Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn, and I have had an occasion recently to evaluate the performance of that project, and I would like to submit for the record that it bears out precisely the point made by the panel.

That point is the absolute essentiality of tailoring the CEP program to local community need, rather than having it imposed from above, no matter how gold plated, in a plan that looks good but just won't work. That was the experience in Bedford-Stuyvesant, and if the Chair is willing, I will be glad to join with the Chair in action to direct the attention of the Labor Department to our actual experience.

I am also informed by the staff that this has been our experience in Buffalo, N. Y. I just offer that, Mr. Chairman, as bearing on the point of view taken by the panel.

Senator NELSON. I thank the panel for their very fine presentation. If you have any suggested language for the committee that you think would improve the proposal that is before it, the committee would be glad to receive it and consider it.

Thank you very much.

Senator NELSON. Our next panel is a panel on the Neighborhood Youth Corps, consisting of Edward Lowe and James Chavis. Gentlemen, we are pleased to have you here today.

Is one of the panel members not here today?

STATEMENT OF PANEL ON NEIGHBORHOOD YOUTH CORPS, CONSISTING OF EDWARD LOWE, NYC DIRECTOR, CITY OF CHICAGO; AND JAMES CHAVIS, NYC DIRECTOR, BALTIMORE, MD.

Mr. LowE. That is correct, Senator. Mr. Cogan is not here. This is James Chavis, of Baltimore.

Mr. Chairman, I am Edward Lowe, director of the Neighborhood Youth Corps, city of Chicago. I am also vice chairman of the National Association of the Neighborhood Youth Corps Directors, and an affiliate of the National Association of Community Developers.

Mr. CHAVIS. I am James Chavis, director of the Neighborhood Youth Corps program, Baltimore.

Senator NELSON. Do you have a prepared text?

Mr. LowE. Yes, sir; I do.

Senator NELSON. It will be made a part of the record, or you may present it in any way you desire.

Mr. LowE. Thank you.

My remarks will be based upon a document entitled "A Redesign for the Neighborhood Youth Corps Out-of-School Program-Standards and Strategies" and selected memorandums emanating from the Manpower Administration, Department of Labor.

It must first be noted that implementation of this redesign has already begun. Directives have been received by NYC out-of-school sponsors to begin phasing out enrollees 18 years of age and older. and prohibiting entry of this age group into the program. These directives are in conflict with legislative mandate as provided in title IB of the Economic Opportunities Act of 1964.

Further, this new redesign of the out-of-school program will make it virtually impossible to provide meaningful work experience necessary for the involvement of disadvantaged youth into the private sector of employment. Provisions for much of the enrollee's time to be spent in classroom-type situations precludes the possibility of providing greatly needed work experience.

The enrollees stipend of $25 per week as opposed to the current hourly rate will not provide sufficient incentive to retain his participation in the program nor will it serve as a viable tool to attract the most needy youth to it.

Those of us who have administered NYC out-of-school programs across the Nation have reason to believe that this program which provides greatly needed work experience, training, and supportive services to disadvantaged youth, aged 16-22, is in danger of being subverted into a totally unrealistic imposition of administrative directives designed to ultimately eliminate, for all intended purposes, the whole concept of work experience programing for disadvantaged youth. We speak not only as administrators, but also as residents and citizens concerned with the future of our communities.

Youth raised in poverty have been subjected to three major forces which contribute to their high rates of unemployment. First, their education is inadequate and a lack of vocational preparation provides them with little to offer an employer. Second, consistent previous social deprivation has blunted their ability to accept and utilize opportunity even when it is offered. They see no evidence of the fruits of work and dedication to personal attainment because it has

been nonexistent in their lives. Their past has not been filled with satisfaction or accomplishment and for them there is little reason to believe that the future will be different. Third, they face a labor market limited in job opportunities because of discrimination and an ever-increasing demand for skills.

We can see that all of these forces affect the employability of disadvantaged young people. Three different approaches seem necessary to reduce the problem: First, training opportunities that offer a chance to develop some type of skill as well as the ability to read and write; second, supportive services-that is, counseling and other assistance that enables an individual to utilize opportunities more fully; third, the provision of job opportunities so that new skills can be used to earn a decent income over a long period.

These three approaches are, of course interrelated. Woven together they form the basis for a single comprehensive effort, whose program components should include: counseling, work experience, either on-the-job or in-training programs, basic academic training, job placement, and supportive services such as casework, medical, and legal aid. Vocational evaluation through psychological testing and work sample assessment should be utilized for selecting the most appropriate type of trade training or placement.

In the past for many disadvantaged young people, the Neighborhood Youth Corps has been a method of entry into further training programs and to vocational counseling services designed to encourage the development of additional skills. By being able to offer a job quickly, the Neighborhood Youth Corps program accomplished two goals.

First, the youth was working and off the street. Second, he was back in an agency structure and was no longer on his own. A third goal, that of the agency, has been to involve the enrollee in some type of planning where he can make best use of his skills within whatever opportunities the community has to offer. In many instances, the young person does not in any way share this goal because he views his problems in terms of the need for immediate gratifications, namely, to get a job and get some money in his pocket.

Thus we see conflict which manifests itself in the enrollee's conceptualization of his problems versus the reestablished goals and objectives of the program as embodied in the new design.

The new design appears to be geared to youth whose dynamics are categorically different from those of the typical enrollee who has come into the program in the past. Experienced personnel in the field have seen that as a result of industrial specialization, labor mobility, continued urbanization, working mothers, ghetto life and the lure of materialism, the role of family in educating its young and in modifying and shaping their behavior has drastically changed. An increasing number of youth are now considered psychologically deprived or disadvantaged; many also suffer from a combination of economic deprivation, education deprivation, and from racial and vocational

discrimination.

Such persons might be characterized as being products of: (a) inadequate emotional support, (b) too many social learning demands without face validity, (c) too few social learning demands the spoiled weakling, (d) too few social learning demands combined with inadequate emotional support, (e) no true sense of community, (f) inade

quate man's work to apply themselves to, (g) the required use of abstractions such as words without a sense of relevant real experience. As a result, many of such youth either reject work values and material rewards with no positive substitute or insist on immediate material reward at no personal cost or effort. Not only do such youth lack internal control over their behavior, they lack a sense of discipline responsibility and identity.

To the extent that such controls are not internalized, the individual then must become subject to the whims of the moment and more formal external controls such as police courts and probation officers. It seems that the social structure in major metropolitan complexes is geared toward growing increasing numbers of rejected urban youth, with limited ego strength, uncertain personal identities and weak internal control over their behavior. They are further disadvantaged by a limited facility in dealing with symbols as well as few salable skills to feed into an increasingly complex technology.

The new design of the out-of-school program does not address itself to those individuals who comprise a significant portion of our out-of-school population and who must continue to be fed into the program such as the Neighborhood Youth Corps as long as our social systems and institutions remain as they are.

The first priority for enrollees in the out-of-school program under the new design is a return to school. Yet the great American dream of a quality public education for all children to the upper limits of their potential has never been realized. And for disadvantaged minorities Afro-Americans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, American Indians, and poor southern whites-American public education has been pitifully ineffectual.

Judged by almost any critical factor-number of dropouts, level of achievement, number of college entrants, type and duration of employment, and life style the schools have failed the dispossessed minority pupils.

Why do young men and women drop out of school? Contrary to popular opinion, relatively few leave school because of ecomonic reasons such as unemployment in the family or inadequate family income. School-connected reasons such as lack of interest in school, poor grades, and difficulties with school authorities were cited most frequently by dropouts as their reason for leaving school. Most young women dropouts leave school because of marriage or pregnancy or because of factors connected with school.

How realistic, then, is this first priority in view of the actual situation that exists in many parts of the country?

The new design is geared toward directing most work-training slots into the private sector. Yet, at the same time, the authors stress that the majority of the trainees should be 16 at the time of enrollment and about half as many should be 17. A youth may drop out of full-time school at age 16, but must attend continuation school 1 day a week until he is 17. If he is absent from continuation school he is required to stay beyond his 17th birthday to make up all the time he has missed.

When a 16-year-old youth applies for a job in private industry, his employer must require him to submit a work permit. Work permits are acquired through the board of education and in order to get one