Item one to be completed by the State Office upon disbursement of test booklets to local offices.

Item two to be completed by the local office upon receipt of the Youth Opportunity Program Trainee Test.

Item three to be completed by the local office upon return of test booklets and answer sheet to Washington.

1) Forms must be in triplicate. Please insert carbon in triplicate form to insure all information is transferred to copies two and three.

2) Copy one, item one, is to be completed by the state office. Copy one is then detached and sent to U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Employment Security, Project CAUSE II, Washington; D. C.

3) Copy two, item two, is to be completed by the local office upon receipt of the test booklet. Copy two is then detached and sent to CAUSE II.

4) Copy three, item three, is to be completed by the local office upon return of the booklets to Washington. Copy three is then sent to CAUSE II.

5) ALL COPIES MUST BE SIGNED.

Mr. HORTON. Have you hired examiners for the purpose of giving this test?

Mr. WERTS. I don't know the answer, exactly. The test will be given in local employment offices.

Mr. HORTON. Who is going to "grade" the test? I don't know that that is the appropriate word, but who is going to grade it?

Mr. WERTS. Mr. Congressman, this again, is a question which could be more appropriately dealt with by the experts than myself. Mr. HORTON. Aren't you concerned, as a policymaker, as to who is going to grade this?

Mr. WERTS. Yes, in the sense that we want to make sure it is in conformance with policy. But this, as indicated here, providesMr. HORTON. The point I am trying to find out, are computers going to grade it, or individuals?

Mr. WERTS. This will be graded by the computer.

Mr. HORTON. The computer is going to come out with an answer and you pick people out of the computer, is that right?

Mr. WERTS. The computer will give several scores which will then be used as a part of the process of selection.

Mr. HORTON. What is the purpose of the instructions to examiners that you just mentioned, then?

Mr. WERTS. It has to do with how to administer the test, how to process the test.

Mr. HORTON. So it has nothing to do with the evaluation of the questionnaire?

Mr. WERTS. I could not say, because I have not seen it. But we will make it available.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Werts, you tell us now you have not seen the instructions to the so-called examiners?

Mr. WERTS. I have not.

Mr. HORTON. But you are concerned about this right of privacy and the policy of the Department of not invading that right of privacy? Mr. WERTS. That is 100 percent correct.

Mr. HORTON. You don't feel then these tests invade the right of privacy?

Mr. WERTS. Mr. Congressman, I think it would be fairer for me. to say when I came I had one view; I may have a different one now, after the education I have had this morning with the committee. Mr. HORTON. Thank you.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, I think this goes back to the original point the chairman made, that while it was not the intention of the Department to violate the privacy of the individual concerned-the net effect may well have been just that. And if this committee can serve any purpose at all, it is the hope that we can get the technicians together with the policymakers on this matter and remedy the situation. Government social scientists try to justify their examination of human behavior on grounds that their work is an impersonal thing. And perhaps it is. But their study does not justify the very insidious invasions of privacy of the individuals who are subjected to this type of test.

So, Mr. Werts, on the basis that we have already agreed, we will meet again and you will bring your technical people. In the meantime please reevaluate your CAUSE II application, and furnish us with "the Rosetta stone." And please provide us with the cost on this

latter set of tests, and will you notify the committee when you are prepared and when you have gathered this information?

Mr. WERTS. I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman, and I would like, if I may, after the Congressman asks his questions, to make two points.

Mr. HORTON. Would you also be prepared to answer, the next time you return, whether or not there are any other questionnaires that are sent out by your Department

Mr. WERTS. We will do so.

Mr. HORTON. And also have copies of those available, along with the answer sheets, or whatever information might accompany those questionnaires.

Mr. WERTS. We will do that, yes, sir.

I would like to make clear at this point in the record, some inferences were made that some effort on the part of the Department and the people running Project CAUSE to discriminate against minority groups

Mr. REUSS. If I may interrupt you right there, since I was the person who raised this, you must be referring to me. And let me make it very clear that that is not what I said.

What I said, and what I repeat, is that I am sure the Department of Labor didn't have the slightest intention or desire to discriminate against minority groups, but by the result of this frivolous and illthoughtout use of a test which, on the basis of all I have heard, is at best worthless for this purpose, discrimination did in fact occur, as evidenced by the fact that in a program which takes place largely in the minority group areas of our cities, this test produced such a tiny percentage of minority group members who are to participate in that program.

So be sure to comment on that, but not on something I didn't say. Mr. WERTS. I appreciate that.

But my point is that my knowledge is-and I think this can be supported that this testing process was used to be sure that we did get minority groups into this program. And I think the material which the Bureau of Employment Security must have supplied you has an indication that I think 9 percent of the applicants who took the test were in the process-and as I have indicated, 8 percent of those selected were in minority groups. So, in terms of those who applied, the selection was pretty good.

Mr. REUSS. How many applied for selection?

Mr. WERTS. I understand 9 percent.

Mr. REUSS. No. How many of the 21,993 people who took the test were members of minority groups?

Mr. WERTS. An estimated 18 percent. And roughly 50 percent were selected.

Mr. REUSS. Well, in the first place, this is news to me. Because previously, as the record will establish, the Department of Labor has assured me they couldn't tell how many of the 21,000 who applied for the test were members of minority groups, because they didn't ask. And I accepted this.

Now you tell me of the 21,000 who took the test, 18 percent were nonwhites. You also tell me that 8 percent of those who were selected for training were nonwhites. It therefore seems to me that you have perhaps quite inadvertently proved my point, that the Negroes who

came through this test were diminished about 50 percent, about half, percentagewise, over other groups. If the test had operated fairly, 18 percent, not 8 percent of the Negroes, would have been selected for training.

Therefore, I ask you to do what you, to my regret, have not donetake a look at this test, see what the "Rosetta stone" tells you, find out about its method of application, find out how many of the manicdepressives, paranoiac, and other mentally ill in Minnesota were in fact members of minority groups; find out how many of various other groups that were thrown into the computer at one or another time in the last 25 years were members of minority groups.

If you do this, you may have a better answer to the question of why, as you now tell me, 18 percent Negroes applied but only 8 percent made the grade.

Mr. WERTS. Mr. Congressman, I will be very glad to review, as you have suggested. However, my limited mental processes here of handling mathematics would indicate that minority groups were dealt with equally well with other groups.

Mr. HORTON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. REUSS. I would like to yield in a second. But I would like my colleagues to check my arithmetic.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. You are absolutely right.

Mr. REUSS. If 18 percent Negroes applied out of the total who applied, and only 8 percent out of the total who made it were Negroes, it does seem to me that

it.

Mr. ROSENTHAL. They suffered twice as much as others who took

Mr. REUSS. That somehow or other they came out less well than white folks in this test. And since the point of the exercise was to provide people to exercise responsibility over young people in youth opportunity centers, in very largely Negro areas, this doesn't seem to me a result which should be quite the cause for congratulations, that the Department of Labor seems to think it is.

Mr. WERTS. Well, let me just add a comment to that.

Mr. REUSS. May I yield to my colleague?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Perhaps the Secretary would like to answer the question first.

Mr. WERTS. I think the Congressman is correct, that my limited computer up here has not worked properly on the percentages.

But I will still say very positively that this program and the testing process was intended to improve the opportunity of minority groups and ethnic groups to participate in this program.

(The following was later submitted by the Department of Labor for insertion in the record:)

NEGRO APPLICANTS FOR PROJECT CAUSE I

Since it is against policy to ask for a racial designation, the 18 percent figure is based on a sample of 100 applications that was taken and analyzed in order to give the Department some indication of overall racial origin.

Analysis of the applications for indexes of Negro origin revealed that 18 percent of the applicants were Negroes. During the first week of training, university faculties were asked to do a count of trainees by color. On this basis, it was determined that 169, or 9 percent, of the 1,885 trainees on campus at that time were Negroes.

Mr. REUSS. I will stipulate your intentions were of the best. What we are concerned with, however, is what methods you did use and what was the quality of elbow grease and brainpower you put into it.

Mr. HORTON. The question I wanted to ask, I thought I understood you to say that this test in 1964, that process was especially designed to favor minority groups. Is this the policy of the Department? And is this

Mr. WERTS. I don't believe I said favor.

Mr. HORTON. What is the policy?

Mr. WERTS. The policy is to insure that the minority groups, the ethnic groups, have equal opportunities, and we eliminate the kinds of points, which I think the committee has made very effectively, which may tend to stand in the way of equal opportunity.

I would just like to make one final point, if I might.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes.

Mr. WERTS. I made reference to this earlier. I think the policy is clear and the intent is clear, but I am willing to admit, in terms of my own knowledge and experience here today with the committee, that the points of view expressed by the various members have proven very helpful in my education, and I can assure you that the privilege I have had of learning with you this morning will be used to advantage in the proper application of the Secretary's policy. Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Werts. The witness is excused.

(Mr. Werts later submitted the following answers to questions which the special inquiry had posed during the preceding hearing:)

1. Question. Why were personality tests given to applicants for CAUSE I and what benefits or problems came from the use of such a screening device?

Answer. With the expected large number of applicants to CAUSE I, it was thought necessary to use some procedure which would permit selection from the pool of those who passed the cognitive test, since the number of training spaces available was smaller than the expected number who would pass the test. The selection procedures for CAUSE I included a civil service-type cognitive test with a passing point set at the 50th percentile of college graduated Employment Service interviewers. This assured that everyone above that point had sufficient abilities to successfully complete training and to perform well in a Youth Opportunity Center. It was thought that further selection should be geared toward identifying those applicants who would be able use their intelligence and knowledge appropriately and effectively in work with disadvantaged youth. How people use their abilities and knowledge is an aspect of personality. Therefore, scales were selected which were designed to measure the specific parts of personality which were considered to be relevant to the job.

As it turned out, there was no need for this additional selection device. Everyone who passed the cutoff score on the cognitive test received an invitation to accept training. Furthermore, the specific test was not successful in refining the selection of trainees from among those who had demonstrated sufficient intellectual ability.

2. Question.-Describe all tests and questionnaires that will be administered to CAUSE II applicants and trainees, and explain their use, purpose, and by whom they will be administered and evaluated.

Answer. The CAUSE II selection procedures include a 110-item civil servicetype cognitive test drafted by the Division of State Merit Systems of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and a 124-item application questionnaire. A cutoff score has been established on the cognitive-type test. It is expected that all those who score above the cutoff level will have sufficient intelligence and knowledge to absorb the training successfully so as to perform in the youth opportunity program. Selection from among those who have passed this examination was on the basis of responses to an application questionnaire containing 124 items. These items are the result of an effort to convert a