C 1 . 3 i i I FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIAL MEETING -OCTOBER 22, 1968 O WASHINGTON, D.C. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/federaladvisorOOfede FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIAL MEETING -OCTOBER 22, 1968 C. R. Smith Secretary of Commerce and Chairman Federal Advisory Council Douglas N. Jones Special Assistant to the Secretary and Executive Secretary Federal Advisory Council U.S. Department of Commerce December 1968 WASHINGTON, D.C. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $2 PREFACE In October of this year the Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Development held its first meeting at the Department of Commerce in Washington. The Council, which was formed under the provisions of Presidential Executive Order 11386, is designed to link the major Federal agencies responsible for domestic economic programs and the seven regional economic development institutions established over the past few years . These institutions are pointed toward the elimination of economic distress, such as unemployment and underemployment, low family income, low levels of housing, health, and education. They focus on problems which are essentially interstate in nature and they seek to utilize on-going public and private development programs as well as recommend new initiatives. Above all, they seek to obtain efficiencies in the commitment of Federal, state, and local resources by better planning and better integration of on-going programs. In general, the regional approach to the country's economic problems has received little national publicity. The Department of Commerce, which has general supervisory responsibility over regional development commissions, has considered it best that each institution speak for itself and be recognized for the approaches and solutions worked out in the region. A number of varied approaches have been tried in this experiment and government is learning from each. At this time, a comprehensive public document on this new venture in Federal-state relations should be useful and I am taking the occasion of the first meeting of the Federal Advisory Council to publish this report. In the presentations to the Council, in the dialogue within the Council, and in the papers prepared for the Council, the reader will find a variety of approaches, challenges, and facts on this important subject. We are still at an early stage in this enterprise and many basic policies and procedures remain to be solved. The Council itself may become the forum where many of the major policies will be worked out. C.R. Smith Secretary of Commerce in ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONS OCTOBER 22, 1968 MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT C. R. Smith Secretary of Commerce (Chairman) Orville L. Freeman Secretary of Agriculture Stanley R. Resor Secretary of the Army Douglas N. Jones Special Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce for Regional Economic Coordination (Executive Secretary) Joseph H. FitzGerald, Chairman Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska Wilbur J. Cohen Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Joe W. Fleming Federal Cochairman Appalachian Regional Commission Robert C. Weaver Secretary of Housing and Urban Development J. McDonald Wray, Alternate Federal Cochairman Coastal Plains Regional Commission Stewart L. Udall Secretary of the Interior Orren Beaty, Jr. Federal Cochairman Four Corners Regional Commission W. Willard Wirtz Secretary of Labor John J. Linnehan Federal Cochairman New England Regional Commission Alan S. Boyd Secretary of Transportation Bertrand M. Harding Acting Director Office of Economic Opportunity Howard J. Samuels Small Business Administrator William M. McCandless Federal Cochairman Ozarks Regional Commission Harold C. Jordahl Alternate Federal Cochairman Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission VLl DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT John A. Baker Assistant Secretary for Rural Development and Conservation Department of Agriculture Robert E. Jordan, III General Counsel and Special Assistant to the Secretary for Civil Function Department of the Army Edward C. Sylvester, Jr. Assistant Secretary for Community and Field Services Department of Health, Education and Welfare Charles M. Haar Assistant Secretary for Metropolitan Development Department of Housing and Urban Development Grenville Garside Assistant to the Secretary and Director, Program Support Staff Department of the Interior Millard Cass Deputy Under Secretary Department of Labor M. Cecil Mackey Assistant Secretary for Policy Development Department of Transportation Robert A. Levine Assistant Director Office of Research, Plans, Programs and Evaluations Office of Economic Opportunity Wilfred J. Garvin Assistant Administrator for Planning, Research and Analysis Small Business Administration vm TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa ge_ Preface iii Economic Development Regions (map) v Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Development Members of the Council vii Designated Representatives viii Section I - Background 2 Section II - Summary of Meeting Agenda 6 Minutes 7 Section III - Opening Remarks Remarks by Secretary Smith, Chairman 13 Remarks by Dr. Douglas N. Jones, Executive Secretary .... 15 Section IV - Statements on Regional Programs Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska 19 Appalachian Regional Commission 25 Coastal Plains Regional Commission 33 Four Corners Regional Commission 41 New England Regional Commission 45 Ozarks Regional Commission 51 Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission 57 Section V - Dialogue on Regional Program Dialogue on Particular Programs 68 General Dialogue 78 Section VI - Statements by Executive Agencies Department of Agriculture 88 Department of Army 103 Department of Health, Education and Welfare 131 Department of Housing and Urban Development 139 Department of Interior 143 Department of Labor 169 Department of Transportation 176 Office of Economic Opportunity 185 Small Business Administration 228 Section VII - Closing Remarks by Under Secretary of Commerce, Joseph W. Bartlett 240 APPENDIC ES Appendix A - Executive Order No. 11386, dated December 28, 1967, establishing the Federal Advisory Council 244 IX TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Appendix B - Key Dates in the Establishment of the Regional Organizations 249 Appendix C - Key Officials and Addresses of the Regional Organizations 252 Appendix D - Statistical Fact Sheet on Regional Programs 256 Appendix E - Title V Regional Action Planning Commission Funds - Obligation and Budget Level 258 Appendix F - Indicative Summary of Federal Outlays in the Regions - 1967 260 Appendix G - Texts of Documents Authorizing Regional Institutions 1. Extract from Presidential Executive Order No. 11182 Establishing Federal Development Planning Committees for Alaska 261 2. Extract from Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as Amended 263 3. Extract from Title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as Amended 265 SECTION I BACKGROUND BACKGROUND 1/ The occasion for the meeting flows from the President's Order 11386 which established the Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Development with the Secretary of Commerce as chairman. Even more fundamentally, it flows from the need for vehicles to coordinate government's planning and development activities now spread out over many agencies and programs the subjects of which coincide in part in particular geo- graphic areas. The paybacks involve higher developmental returns and more efficient allocation of planning and program resources -- and do not necessarily involve greater and greater magnitudes of funds. The purpose of this initial meeting is twofold: first, to fully acquaint the regional commissions with the major plans and programs of the individual agencies operating in the several regions, as well as to acquaint the executive agencies with the plans and programs of the regional commissions; and second, to devise an effective way to link up the two sets of activities wherever possible to achieve larger developmental gains. As to the approach to the meeting, the idea is to subsequently juxtapose the regional commission plans, programs, and priorities and the agency ones as' they all appear in the written statements asked for. At this first meeting, it is intended that the regional heads speak to their activities and the agency members of the Council comment and question briefly after each short presentation. Finally, a consensus of the group that the task of devising useful link-ups of the regional commissions and executive agency activities be given to the "second-level" committee (the "designated representatives") will be called for. < While the Federal Government has, of course, many and diverse programs scattered among the agencies that could be called developmental in character and which are con- templated in Executive Order 11386, the focus is on the regional commission arrange- ments -- the Appalachian Commission, the Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska, and the five "Title V" commissions. A brief narrative profile of the regional commission arrangements is helpful in positioning these activities. Origins and timing: the Appalachian Regional Commission was launched first under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 and the Alaska Field Committee came into being the same year as a development planning activity under Executive Order 11182. Five development regions have so far been designated under Title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 beginning with Ozarks, New England, and Upper Great Lakes regions in March of 1966 and followed by the Four Corners and Coastal Plains in December of that year. Federal- state regional commissions -were subsequently formed in all five regions as authorized by the law. Thus, only two of the Title V commissions have been functioning as long as two years and two for only a year. Numbers : Thirty-four states comprise the regional commis- sions (including Alaska), embracing hundreds of counties and millions of people. Appropriations for their activities total hundreds of millions of dollars, but other 1/ This background memorandum was prepared for the initial meeting of the Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Development. It is reproduced here as a succinct and current statement on the status of the regional programs. Federal expenditures in these regions over the same period total in the billions of dollars. State and local development expenditures would have to be added to these for any overall total. The legislative history of the Appalachian Regional Development Act and of Title V of the Public Works Act, taken together with subsequent budget hearings and Presidential correspondence and an executive order, provide a rather clear picture of what the regional commissions are established to do. A primary purpose of the commissions is to alleviate regional economic distress, as variously manifested, through a more systematic allocation of available Federal, state and local resources in the areas designated. The commissions have both a planning and (with the exception of Alaska) a project dimension. In the longer term, the method- ology of planning the creation of strategies, the analysis itself prescribed for these various regional programs, may be of at least equal significance to the project activities. The commissions are designed as equal partnerships of Federal and state governments to formulate plans and, later, to direct the flow of public development funds in the regions concerned. The commission structure focuses attention and planning effort on problems and solu- tions interstate in nature. Further, the Congress has explicitly fashioned the regional organizations to upgrade the authority of the states both vis-a-vis the Federal estab- lishment and local government in making decisions on economic development. Thus, the governing legislation explicitly provides that state governors shall agree to the designation of the regions and shall themselves appoint state members of commissions. The governors themselves have become members of the commissions and have taken an active role in commission work. The philosophy of the Title V regional commission program is explicitly linked to the philosophy of the Appalachian program in the various pubHcations , hearings, and statements of the Senate Committee on Public Works. These commissions are ex- pected to produce comprehensive economic development programs of an interstate nature and to formulate programs and projects for implementation by Federal, state and local governments. Except for Appalachia, the commissions were not designed primarily to focus on, let alone implement, specific projects; nevertheless, the appropriation and the allocation of project supplemental grant funds to the Title V commissions has meant some shifting of commission staff concentration from overall planning activities to an examination of specific projects for funding. Of course, the planning effort of the commissions is by no means accomplished by commission staff alone. All the commissions work closely with their counterpart state members, and all states within commission areas have either produced or are producing state-wide development plans which are primarily inputs to regional programs. A definitive appraisal of the validity of the regional commission concept is a major product that can come to government over the course of time, for the concept is in some sense an experiment. Commerce's present judgment is that the concept is basically valid and this conclusion is reflected in both its planned budgetary and legis- lative approaches to the regional commissions for FY 1970 and beyond. Increasingly, government is aware that there are important economic problems that are spatially less than national but greater than local or statewide in nature and are susceptible to regional solution. Finding a workable apparatus that involves a joint effort which is both interagency and intergovernmental, that is effective in pulling together the myriad government programs of similar purpose, and that actually solves the problems those programs are designed to solve, is very likely one of the two or three high-order tasks of government for the last third of the 20th century. There is a confluence of forces that points toward the validity of the concept. From the political science viewpoint , the preservation and strengthening of the Federal system is a good bit more than a matter of ideology -- it is also a matter of appropriateness, balance, and operational workability. Treating the issue of unusual Federal fiscal dominance through recreating a partnership role for the states, reenergizing and buttressing them back toward "where the action is" and enhancing the peculiar "middle role" they have to play, is consonant with the structure and activities of commissions that are our subject. From the public administration point of view , if there really are subnational problems that can be attacked on a subnational basis, then it follows that a Federal-state arrangement that is not merely a token relationship is appropriate. Coordinated planning, reinforcing expenditure patterns, and complementary investment programs are directions toward increased efficiencies and high yields. From the viewpoint of economics , we have come to recognize the high degree of interdependence and sophistication of the national economy, but we also know that it can be usefully disaggregated on a regional basis for purposes of manageability and policy focus. The obstacles and complexities to smoothly operating in such a context as provided by true Federal- state partnerships are many, of course, but this is not surprising where our experiences are so short and our commitment so tentative. This initial meeting of the Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Develop- ment (the real "engine" for coordination established in the Order) has been called to move toward devising ways to usefully link-up in planning and programs ways. Procedures for bringing legislative, budgetary, and planning proposals before the Council for purposes of coordination and review are being drawn up. We intend to make the Order work. The Department recognizes that government is at the relatively early evolutionary stages of regional institutions and views the regional action planning commissions as an "experiment" in an important sense. This is to say that we are not at the point of tidying up a near -perfect governmental creation, but rather are participating in the shaping of an enterprise along the way. Douglas N. Jones SECTION II SUMMARY OF MEETING AGENDA FOR THE INITIAL MEETING OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (Under Executive Order 11386, dated December 28, 1967) Chairman: Honorable C.R. Smith, Secretary of Commerce Time and Place: 9:30 A.M., October 22, 1968 Secretary's Conference Room I. Introductory Remarks: Secretary C.R. Smith The purpose and approach of the meeting. II. Statements and Discussion of Regional Commission Programs: A. Regional Commission oral summary statements and distribution of written statements - the plans (strategy) and immediate programs of the regional commissions set out in terms of sectors (e.g. , transportation) and activities (e.g., vocational training). B. Agency comments and questions on regional commission programs and distribution of agency summary statements (the immediate priorities and major expenditures of agencies set out in terms of the several regional commission areas. ) III. Closing the Circuit : Assignment of the task of devising useful link-ups of the regional commission and agency activities. IV. Other Business: Statement on (a) the status of follow-on legislation on regional economic arrangements; (b) regional designations and delineations. MINUTES OF THE INITIAL MEETING OF THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HELD IN THE SECRETARY'S CONFERENCE ROOM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, D.C. Tuesday, October 22, 1968, 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Honorable C. R. Smith, Secretary of Commerce and Chairman of the Federal Advisory Council. All members of the Council were pres- ent or represented as follows: Ted J. Davis Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Consumer Services Department of Agriculture Robert A. Levine, Assistant Director Office of Research, Plans, Programs and Evaluations Office of Economic Opportunity Robert E. Jordan, III General Counsel and Special Assistant to the Secretary for Civil Function Department of the Army Wilfred J. Garvin Assistant Administrator for Planning , Research and Analysis Small Business Administration Edward C. Sylvester, Jr. Assistant Secretary for Community and Field Services Department of Health, Education and Welfare Howard Ball, Deputy Director Office of Intergovernmental Relations and Urban Programs Coordination Department of Housing and Urban Development Grenville Garside Assistant to the Secretary and Director, Program Support Staff Department of the Interior Millard Cass Deputy Under Secretary Department of Labor George Chandler, Chief Special Projects Division Office "of Planning and Program Review Department of Transportation Joseph H. FitzGerald, Chairman Federal Field Committee for Develop- ment Planning in Alaska Joe W. Fleming, Federal Cochairman Appalachian Regional Commission J. McDonald Wray Alternate Federal Cochairman Coastal Plains Regional Commission Orren Beaty, Jr. , Federal Cochairman Four Corners Regional Commission William M. McCandless Federal Cochairman Ozarks Regional Commission Harold C. Jordahl Alternate Federal Cochairman Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission Invited and present also were the following representatives from other interested Federal agencies: Roger Adkins William F. Hellmuth Assistant Director for Economics Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Bureau of the Budget Policy Department of the Treasury M. Wheelock, Budget Examiner Bureau of the Budget James R. Poole, Director Youth and Economic Opportunity Program L. T. Wallace, Senior Staff Economist Civil Service Commission Council of Economic Advisers James J. Stout, Chief, Division of River Basins Federal Power Commission Secretary Smith noted that several days earlier the President had personally expressed his interest in the work of the Federal Advisory Council. The Secretary had hoped that the first meeting of the Council might be held at the White House; unfortunately, the press of other duties on the President made a White House meeting of the Council im- possible at this time. Presidential Executive Order 11386, said the Secretary, provides that a Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Development shall be established as a vehicle for liaison and coordination on regional matters among the Federal departments, and the various regional economic development organizations. The Council, he noted, also has respon- sibility for policy guidance and policy review of the regional programs. The Secretary recalled the two-level structure of the Council, with Federal department heads person- ally holding membership on the Council, but also charged to designate policy-making representatives to act on a continuing basis on their behalf. The purpose of this meet- ing, he concluded, was to familiarize all relevant parties with the regional commission program and to strengthen and initiate (where required) linkages among the departments and the regional organizations, thus establishing orderly and formal relationships within the entire regional program. The Secretary then turned the meeting over to his Special Assistant and Executive Secretary of the Council, Dr. Douglas N. Jones. Dr. Jones said that the on-going, very substantial level of Federal expenditures necessarily has major impact on regional economic development within the United States. It follows that these expenditures should be planned and coordinated for their most effective development impact. However, given the centralized nature of Federal decision-making, coordination of Federal programs can be achieved only partially within the regions. The Federal Advisory Council, designed as an intra-Federal forum for policy determination on government's regional development arrangements and as a vehicle for securing Federal agency coordination of and commitment to regional plans, can cause increased pay back from Federal funds being spent in the designated regions. The comprehensive economic development plans prepared by the new regional organiza- tions can be a material input into more efficient planning and spending by Federal agencies where these plans and analyses are truly superior products. Dr. Jones then outlined the format of the meeting. The Federal regional representatives would deliver statements on the problems, prospects and priorities of the regions, following which there would be discussion among agency and regional representatives. Written statements on their respective programs had already been distributed by all regional organizations and the executive agencies present. (There followed the presentations by the seven Federal regional representatives. For texts, see Section IV. ) As each representative concluded his presentation, the Federal agency members posed specific questions, most of which had general relevance to all seven regional programs. (For verbatim dialogues see Section V. ) Following the discussion addressed to specific regions, each agency representative present was asked to give his general observations. (For verbatim observations, and dialogue thereon, see Section V. ) Following the general discussion Under Secretary Bartlett took the chair. He said that the Department of Commerce intended to pursue vigorously the President's establish- ment and activation of the Federal Advisory Council. He noted that generally only a fraction of needed coordination among all Federal programs was being accomplished and therefore, he urged that the operating machinery of the Council be institutionalized as soon as possible. To this end he urged that the "second level" of the Council (i.e. the agencies' designated representatives) meet at the earliest date to begin work with the Executive Secretary of the Council. Mr. Bartlett called the Council's attention to certain current policy issues: First, legislation is presently being drafted to modify the Public Works and Economic Develop- ment Act, scheduled to expire in 1970. Legislation for particular regional programs is also being prepared by the commissions and will be distributed to the Council member- ship for review. Second, the Department is currently considering a request to extend the boundaries of the Ozarks Commission to state lines. A brief discussion then ensued on the matter of continuity in the face of a change of Administration with particular reference to the composition of the "second level" committee. It was agreed that both the policy-makers were required to ensure that decisions 'would be made, and the senior career officials to ensure continuity. Mr. Bartlett emphasized that, given the clear and urgent need for coordinating tne regional programs, the Secretary of Commerce felt the Council should move immediately in discharging its major responsibilities now even thougn a change of Administration was imminent. There being no further business, the Under Secretary adjourned the meeting at 1:00 p.m. SECTION III OPENING REMARKS _ t S i f; ■ 1 •r • r - r I I Li TVie Honorable C. R. Smith, Secretary of Commerce, addressing the initial meeting of the Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Development. Seated, beside Secretary Smith, is the Honorable Joseph W. Bartlett, Under Secretary of Commerce. OPENING REMARKS BY HONORABLE C. R. SMITH SECRETARY OF COMMERCE First, I would like to welcome you here. I had the privilege of seeing the President on Sunday and told him about this meeting. I had hoped it would be at the White House. Due to the fact that he had other chores, that could not take place, but he is very much interested in the subject of our meeting and in this organization, and he asked me to send you his greetings. I think this is a unique opportunity for all of us. I think we have all found that the govern- ment of the United States is a very complicated affair. There are a lot of areas of duplication, and a lot of places where one arm doesn't know what the other is doing; and I think today we have the chance to take a look at our own situation to see if we can't clarify some of our working relationships and thereby give ourselves a better operat- ing government. The occasion of our meeting stems from the President's Executive Order No. 11386, which states that one of our responsibilities is the coordination of the activities of the Regional Commissions, and activities of the Federal Government relating to regional economic development. The key arrangement provided in the Order was the establishment of the Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Development. This is what we are launching today in our initial session. By the same Order, the Secretary of Commerce is charged with, among other things, the task of 1) providing continuing and effective liaison be- tween the seven regional development organizations and the rest of the Federal Govern- ment in regional economic matters, and 2) obtaining a coordinated review within the Federal Government of the plans and recommendations of the regional organizations. You agency members of the Council are charged with fully participating in the policy guidance, review, and coordination aspects of the tasks ahead of us -- including keeping all of us informed with respect to the development plans of your agencies as well. This is, of course, a somewhat large order, but the Order wisely provided for a "second level" committee of "designated representatives" of which some of you are members, and I think that that organization can be of great benefit and can really make our whole effort work. The need is clear for finding useful vehicles to coordinate government planning and development activities now spread out over many agencies and many programs, but frequently aimed at the same people, the same problems, and the same places. I am sure that each of you could recite a story about some of the deficiencies in many of these areas. We have an opportunity to do better, and that is the purpose of meeting today- - to devise ways in which that coordination can be achieved. The pay back, of course, is 13 higher yields on all of our programs through more efficient application of agency plans and resources. Taking turns on rediscovering something over and over again is not a very good way to proceed. The purpose of this meeting then is threefold: --to fully acquaint the Regional Commissions with the plans and programs of the individual agencies operating in the regions; --to acquaint the executive agencies on the other hand with the plans and programs of the Regional Commissions; and --to devise an effective way to link up these two sets of activities in order that we can have larger developmental gains. I know, of course, that many of the commissions and the individual agencies have already worked out some individual relationships. The Department of Agriculture, for example, has had a senior committee with established procedures for servicing and relating to the Regional Commissions for some time. Other relationships are undoubtedly carried on on a more informal basis. In addition to acquainting each other with what we are doing and what we are trying to do, we want to see if a more orderly, more formalized relationship between the executive agencies on the one hand and your own commissions on the other, might subsequently be devised. We are very fortunate to have Dr. Doug Jones serving full time with us in the shop. He has had a great deal of experience in the economic field and is a very well qualified man. It took quite a while to get him out of "the territory" and into "the home office", but we are glad to have him in my office and as Executive Secretary to the Council. We look forward to his doing a good bit of the work. Doug. 14 REMARKS BY DR. DOUGLAS N. JONES EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT My purpose is to briefly underscore a few points made by Secretary Smith, and also to set out quickly what the format is for the morning session. The notion of coordination is probably only slightly less maligned than the notion of planning itself. Yet both of these are high order. Coordination is, of course, not a per se good. Many times coordination takes place just as an exercise for administrative cleanliness or to diffuse responsibility or some other such purpose. But the real purpose of coordination ought to be for very particu- lar cases -where particular returns can result from coordination that wouldn't result if you didn't do it. For our purposes, the basic fact that government expenditures have impacts that are not neutral makes coordination necessary. It's this economic impact that government programs have -- whether they are designed to have it or not, whether they are part of an economic program or whether a non-economic program -- they invariably have economic impact on a region and on a clientele. As affluent as the United States is, it is still bound by the financial problem of having a limited amount of money to deal effectively with unlimited -- and sometimes conflicting -- demands. There would be no problem of economizing if you had an infinitely abundant productive capacity. One incentive for economizing is that it yields (or can yield) some returns from a particular direction of a program that would not otherwise be yielded, that is, doing some things with others -who have similar purposes and clientele , may have the happy result of a larger yield for everybody. And not necessarily at the cost of increased monies. How then does coordination relate to the Federal Advisory Council structure that we are launching today? I don't think we really have to -worry much about the incentive for coordination around government agencies. Government agencies are typically rather used to coordination, most are quite prepared to do it, and when it doesn't happen, it generally isn't because of ill -will or conspiracy. To me, two things are required: first, to provide a forum in which coordination can readily take place, and second, to generate specific, clearly understandable issues on which we can all focus. The Federal Advisory Council is designed to do both of these. It's designed to contribute a better rationale and increased payback in one particular field, economic development, and most particularly within the framework of the seven regional areas around the country that are the focus of this meeting. In looking at this, I think there are at least a couple dimensions that require particular attention: one is the planning side, and the other is the program/project side of agencies and Regional Commissions. In both cases Washington level commitment is required for coordination to really work. For it's not enough to merely enjoin the field activities to deal well with each other. 15 Our approach here is not just one of asking what the executive agencies can do for the Regional Commissions, but also asking what the Regional Commissions might do for the executive agencies. On the first score, it's quite possible, with the exception of Appalachia. the really big expenditures from the regions presently come, not from the Commissions themselves, but from the many executive agencies operating in the regions. It may be that the most important task is to find ways for the Regional Commissions to tap into the executive agencies around the country. On the second score (that is, what the Regional Commission might do for the executive agencies), we can at least look to the Regional Commissions for providing the very best analytical background for govern- ments developmental expenditures in these several regions. One further word on format. It's easy to become too ambitious in formulating an initial agenda for an initial meeting. In order to try to make this one manageable, we asked the Regional Commissions to prepare written statements on the problems and prospects and priorities of their programs, and also to make short tight oral statements this morning. We also asked the executive agencies to prepare written statements on the direction of their own programs, region-by-region; and these will be distributed this morning. It may be that in the course of the discussion after each presentation you people may want to draw on those statements. Our intent, however, is to subsequently juxtapose these written statements of the executive agencies and the Regional Commissions and see what the plans and programs and perhaps the priorities of each of these might be when related to the other. We may be able to learn a good bit just from having done this. In going to the presentations of the Federal Cochairmen and the Chairman of the Alaska Field Committee it seemed the way to do it was alphabetically, and so we look to Mr. Joseph H. FitzGerald to speak first on the Alaska case, and as always we enjoin each to hold reasonably close to the time period allowed so that we can have some brief period for discussion after each presentation. 16 SEC TION IV STATEMENTS ON REGIONAL PROGRAMS STATEMENT BY JOSEPH H. FITZGERALD, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL FIELD COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN ALASKA My remarks today will focus on the work of the Federal Field Committee for Develop- ment Planning in Alaska, on Alaska's economic development needs in the coming period, and on the kind of regional planning structure which will best meet these needs. In the few minutes devoted to these remarks, I cannot of course set down detailed suggestions relating to the Public Works and Economic Development Act, but I hope we will have a further opportunity to discuss the legislation. Two of my colleagues, Mr. Robert Arnold and Dr. Arlon Tussing are with me at this meeting. In addition to my own statement, I -would like to submit for your considera- tion draft papers which each of them drew up during the Field Committee staff's own discussions in preparation for this meeting. Mr. Arnold's statement is a more detailed treatment of the work of the Field Committee itself, and Dr. Tussing takes up the general philosophy and machinery of regional development planning. I would emphasize that this latter paper was submitted for discussion only and should not be considered the final word on the subject from our staff. Finally, I have distributed to you a topical outline of the work and accomplishments of our organization so far. The Alaska Scene When Alaska became a state in 1959, the economic base of the new state was virtually founded on national defense and military construction together with salmon fishing. There was no regional economy as such, and the economic links among the various Alaskan communities were often weaker than the ties of each to Seattle and the rest of the Nation. The record since statehood is good. Forests are now under intensive commercial development and the rate of development is satisfactory. Fisheries, which had been declining, are now in the process of diversifying and expanding. While there are many problems, we see a healthy growth ahead. Most spectacular of all is the develop- ment of oil production ■within the state; and there are today, as you know, producing oil fields in the Cook Inlet Basin. These may be overshadowed by the major oil discoveries being made on the Arctic Slope. In the next decade these latter may make Alaska the largest oil producing state in the Union. Neither the state's economic viability nor the state' s fiscal viability is any longer seriously in doubt. But these conditions will not necessarily result in an economy free of problems. There still exists the need for coordinated planning. Probably the most obvious first steps toward coordinated planning and resultant programming in the field are to insure that agencies have (1) facts upon which to base their planning, and (Z) a forum for continuing exchange of information. Coordination proceeds from a knowledge of what others are doing and contemplating, and an aware- ness of the broad implications of what may be but narrow agency plans. It is this base which the Field Committee provided. 19 Our summary view of the Alaskan economy was followed by analyses and policy papers dealing with transportation, recreation, minerals, joblessness among natives, and a number of other subjects. These papers and others make available to Federal agencies, state agencies, and local governments accurate and new informa- tion to contribute to their planning. Aside from achieving that important measure of coordination that is realized in the field through the sharing of knowledge and contributing to an understanding of the broad implications of agency decisions, the Field Committee undertakes also to act as coordinator of planning for specific projects in Alaska, particularly in those areas requiring an interagency approach and in those areas in which there is a need and opportunity for new directions in government. Our thrust has been to increase know- ledge as a basis for policy and action. A good example of coordinated planning in Alaska, and of particular importance to government at this time, is the successful effort of agencies here to provide job opportunities to Alaska natives. The analysis was done largely by our staff, but all principal agencies participated. Their review of the analysis and recommendations resulted in recommendations that were realistic and attainable. Agencies then followed up by increasing the number of natives they employ by 15 percent over the number they employed a year ago. An unusual example of coordinated planning -- because our focus is not community planning -- was the Field Committee sponsorship of a series of meetings on Dutch Harbor-Unalaska between Federal, state, and local officials triggered by plans of the Defense Department to dispose of prime property that could contribute, we believed, to the development of a growth center in the Aleutians. Under a staged disposal program that was arranged, processors obtained what land they needed immediately; the remainder of the property is to be disposed of once planning for its future is complete. There are other examples: aerial surveys now being performed of interior forests to determine what commercial values exist is the result of pooling funding from a number of sources, state and Federal. The Alaska Land Law study, due this December, was inaugurated with multi-agency participation. Our soon-to-be completed analysis of factors affecting Congressional resolution of native land claims and protests (being produced at the request of Senator Henry Jackson) is an outstanding example of inter- agency coordination. In addition to coordinated planning realized in the field, we have had the benefit of responsive executive action in Washington, D.C. owing principally to the leadership of Assistant Secretary Ross Davis. Let me cite two recent examples; One of the action recommendations that the Field Committee presented to the President's Review Committee last year was founded in the knowledge that too few training opportunities existed in Alaska, and the most penalized were unskilled natives 'who ■were jobless. Out recommendation called for expanded use of Federal agencies to be hosts to trainees with a subsistence allowance to be paid trainees by the Bureau of Indian 20 Affairs. With the encouragement and support of Assistant Secretary Davis, the Civil Service Commission joined with representatives of other agencies in Washing- ton, devised a detailed plan, brought its plan to Alaska and got commitments, and two months ago announced that Federal agencies in Alaska would provide over 900 training spaces for Alaska natives. That plan will train and put in jobs 100 men and women this year. Another recommendation made to Washington officials resulted in coordinated planning by seven agencies and stimulation of a much needed project in Bethel. What we urged was the creation of a Federal interagency task force to draw detailed plans in coopera- tion with the State of Alaska for the establishment of a housing components fabrication plant in western Alaska. That plan was devised and agreed to by particpating agencies, and now, as it is being implemented in Bethel, coordinated planning continues with Federal and state agencies, local officials, the Rural Alaska Community Action Program, and a citizens' committee to insure that broad benefits are the consequence of a single project. Despite the very clear progress that is being made, Alaska has serious development problems which cannot be resolved without major assistance from the Federal Govern- ment. The native population (approximately 53, 000) has not been absorbed into the economic and social systems of the state, and the solution of their problems is of the highest priority. New oil and mineral discoveries are in areas that are entirely undeveloped -- lacking surface transportation and adequate harbors and located hundreds of miles from the nearest communities of adequate size to act as service bases. Capital demands will multiply and will be on a scale that can only be met by Federal participation. Without sound state -Federal coordinated planning, it is doubtful whether government can discharge its role in a timely and efficient manner. As we view the future, an effective state -Federal planning organization is a necessity. In summary, what emerges today is a clear need to provide for two types of programs in Alaska. On the one hand, there is the need to provide capital funds for growth. On the other hand, there is the equally clear need to institute new programs or to mold existing programs to deal with the problems of bringing our native peoples fully into our economy. This is a structural problem and cannot be solved alone by a general expansion of our economy. That structural unemployment, or more properly in the case of Alaska natives, non- involvement in the economic process, cannot be dealt with by a general expansion of the economy is now largely beyond debate. This was not so five years ago. In the early sixties, economists were debating whether the key to reducing unemployment was to be found in increasing demand through fiscal and monetary means or in structural factors. Five years of general economic expansion in the United States have in fact created almost eight million new jobs, but without effectively removing structural unemployment in the rural and urban areas. Similarly in Alaska, general economic development has been spectacular, but its benefits have hardly touched the rural population. Thus, growth and development of the kind we seek generally in Alaska can be achieved by a combination of private and governmental capital programs; but the structural problem of native economic development must be handled specifically. 21 Given the nature of our capital needs and the central involvement of government in such programs, they can and should be dealt with in a manner to achieve rapid growth in Alaska and an assimilation of native peoples in our economy. Before closing I would like to comment on some of the lessons we have learned 'which are relevant to the structuring of any future regional planning body for Alaska: 1. We believe legislation should be flexible enough to permit the location of the commission in Alaska and not in Washington, D. C. The state is physically separated from the rest of the United States and its development problems are peculiar to it. To deal effectively with them requires an intimate knowledge of the geography and the economic structure of the state. It can only be obtained by living in the state and dealing day by day with its problems. 2. Alaska the Region and Alaska the State are one. This creates the opportunity to establish a state -Federal relationship on the basis of truly equal participation, and we think this should be the objective in Alaska. Organizationally, we believe that the commission should be headed by cochairmen at the highest levels of government -- preferably the governor of the state and a Federal official appointed by the President. The commission itself should have the muscle and authority of the major Federal agencies operating in or having programs in Alaska and their state counterparts. On the Federal aide, this is the present organizational structure of the Federal Field Committee; we believe it should be continued and expanded to include the state departments having authority in areas affecting development. With respect to the staff for the commission, I would like to suggest an approach which has not, to our knowledge, been used elsewhere. The experience of the last three years indicates that the governor of the state, in providing the leadership which he seeks and must give to the state government in the field of economic development, must have an adequate planning staff as an arm of the state government. It is neither practical nor efficient for him to seek to rely upon an independent staff composed of people appointed jointly by the state and Federal governments, nor is such an approach consistent with the separation of powers between state and Federal Government. We can have creative federalism and coordination or planning by separate and equal state and Federal Government bodies brought together formally by an agreement of understanding without seeking to make Federal and state planning and programming one and the same. We believe this approach is fully consistent with the review structure created under Executive Order 11386 dated December 28, 1967, by which the President created the Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Development, to deal with the work of all regional commissions. The state must independently review recommendations and so must the Federal Government. 22 3. Unlike other regional commissions, the Federal Field Committee has not had supplemental grant-in-aid funds to use as a means of directing economic development. The questions arises, Would such funds be of material aid in achieving economic development in Alaska? The question does not admit of an easy answer, but our judgment is that the best approach in Alaska is for the Federal Field Committee to seek to achieve interagency coordination of policies and planning -without specific fund- ing authority. There are several reasons -why we reach this conclusion. First, we believe there are enough operating agencies in Alaska and that the problem is to make the most efficient use. -of these agencies and their programs to achieve specific results. As long as we are not competing with operating agencies, we are in a better position to provide a forum for joint planning. Our role is accepted by agencies precisely because we are not competing and because our efforts can and have in the past resulted in a more effective effort by all agencies. Secondly, while the holdback in development comes largely from the lack of funds to carry out needed projects, these are on the whole of such large dimensions that they require special consideration by the Administration and Congress. To name two such projects: (1) the needed construction of a power grid system for the railbelt and the Kenai areas; and (2) the provision of integrated transportation systems for the North which can only come about as a result of specific authorization and funding. The Federal Field Committee -- or any regional planning commission -- does need an adequate budget so that it does not have to supplement its operating funds by requesting help from other agencies. In the past this has not been a problem for us, but it could become a very serious problem if agencies such as the Economic Development Admin- istration should not in the future have sufficient funds to assist us. 23 SMN? \ v--' - , - V' >> U ' ' >-7>^^v 'V ./ / 1 — y — I — < ' _l -■"* ■ W ■jfSA^f »A i^f V ST OWIOUl*' jr^/"^^. -.fry* yJ'rr-K N».\ ~- / /*•> a ***<>" '< STATEMENT BY JOE W. FLEMING FEDERAL COCHAIRMAN APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION The Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 was designed to set in motion a special effort to narrow the economic gap between Appalachia and the rest of the Nation. Existing programs, both State and Federal, were not achieving this ob- jective. The economic expansion which began in 1961, while of benefit to the Region, produced a higher rate of growth in other areas. The Appalachian effort included: 1. specific programs to achieve precise and reasonable goals to help the Region "catch up"; 2. a public investment strategy which would insure the best use of limited funds; and 3. a new State -Federal relationship to develop and implement this strategy. Elements of the Program The program elements which made up the original Appalachian Program recognized certain "gaps", omissions and failures in existing Federal programs and certain distinct problems which prevented the Region from dealing -with them. For example, the geography of the Region had channeled traffic through the mountains along only a few corridors: East-West paralleling the Maryland-Pennsylvania border where several major railroads, the National Pike and the Lincoln Highway crossed the mountains and connected the East Coast with the Ohio River; the other East-West route near the North Carolina-Virginia border, through the Cumberland Gap and connecting the Shenandoah Valley and the Virginia seacoast with Kentucky and the Ohio River tributaries; the North-South corridors developed in the Shenandoah Valley and in a route that led from Cincinnati to Knoxville, Chattanooga and Atlanta. When the Interstate Highway Program was developed, the major routes through and in the Region -- 1-70, 1-40, 1-81, and 1-75 -- tended to follow these well-established corridors and did not open up isolated, but heavily populated, areas which had been historically bypassed. Because of its uniquely rural character, a large segment of the Region's population will not be served by the Interstate System. About 3. 5 million people, or 20 percent of the Region's population, live more than thirty minutes driving time from an exist- ing or planned Interstate Highway. It was to improve access of this population to the Interstate System, and to improve access within the Region itself that the Appalachian Development Highway System was designed. Without such access the commerce and 25 industry which is attracted by, and relies upon, such highways would continue to bypass many areas, which otherwise would have a potential for growth. When the Development Highway System is completed, more than 93 percent of the Region's population will be served by either Interstate or Appalachian routes. Filling in the gaps in programs aimed at the health of the Region's population is a second major concern of the Appalachian Program. The Region has only about one - half the doctors relative to population as the nation, and many of them are old with no young doctors to replace them. Federal-aid programs, mainly centered in the construction of new facilities, did not answer the great need for doctors, trained para- medical personnel, diagnostic services, out-patient clinics, and various preventive measures. Provision for special demonstration health plans and programs was absolutely necessary for a population whose general health was significantly below national standards. While more health facilities were certainly needed, it was apparent that the needs of the Region went considerably beyond more and better equipped hospitals. Vaccination programs, nutritional studies, home health services, training programs and facilities for para-medical personnel, and comprehensive health planning on an area-wide basis were the elements built into the Appalachian health programs. A final example in the way in 'which the Appalachian Program attempted to deal -with a specific gap between the Region and the rest of the Nation was in the provision of public facilities. Since its establishment, the Federal grant-in-aid system was based on the proposition that Federal -aid should only make up a portion of the cost of a given facility -- with the rest of the funds coming from State and local sources. Some of the larger and more affluent States have significant State funds for matching purposes, but most States rely on the local communities putting up the lion's share for matching Federal grants. The major flaw with this system, obviously, is that all States and certainly all commu- nities do not have the same financial resources. In Appalachia this problem -was a vicious circle: large scale and long-term unemployment plus a large number of small towns which once served the mining industry and which were now losing population, produced an extremely low tax base that prevented them from participating in the available grant-in-aid programs. For this reason, Federal grants normally available to the Region went unmatched for lack of local funds, and the Region continued to drop further and further behind, unable to close even its "facilities gap". The Appalachian supplemental grant program was therefore a necessary first step in providing hospitals, vocational schools, sewage facilities, airports, libraries, and colleges to those areas whose economic prospects •were significant. The highway system, the demonstration health centers, and the supplemental grants-in- aid exemplify the trust of the Appalachian Program. Other programs were addressed to specific resource problems, funds for planning and research, and funds for the 26 operation of the Appalachian Regional Commission. It was never intended that Federal dollars, even in conjunction with required State and local funds, could in themselves close the economic gap between the Region and the rest of the Nation. Any impact from these funds would depend entirely on how, and where, they were concentrated and expended and how they would serve to affect other public investments and the much larger needed private investment. The Appalachian Strategy The Appalachian Program is the first American economic development effort which attempts to channel public funds through an "investment strategy" into those areas where the potential for significant economic growth is most likely. The Appalachian Regional Development Act directs the Appalachian Regional Commission to concentrate its investments "where there is a significant potential for future growth and where the return on the public dollars will be the greatest." To carry out such a policy, the Commission sought to understand the patterns of economic development in the United States and, to the best of its ability, to work with these trends instead of against them so that ultimately the Region could develop the capacity to contribute its fair share to national economic growth by offering competitive services and locations for new enterprise. The Commission recognized, however, that its concern was for people not for geography. Its objective was to help develop within the Region centers that could ultimately attract and then provide the population of the Region with the services and employment oppor- tunities required. It was recognized that in the early years of the program out-migra- tion -would continue and possibly even accelerate as skills and health (and then mobility) were improved, but that within a foreseeable time, perhaps by the early 1970's, a balance could be achived between the existing labor force and available employment opportunities in growth centers of the Region, thus channeling the rural to urban migra- tion away from the big metropolitan ghettos outside Appalachia and toward towns and cities within the Region. To undertake such a strategy, it was necessary to understand clearly the pattern of economic growth that was occurring nationally and to help induce or take advantage of similar patterns in the Region. Briefly stated, the facts of life are: 1. That major employment growth in Appalachia, as in the Nation, will be in the service sector of the economy; though this employment will rest on manufacturing activities which export to the rest of the Nation; 2. That service employment is and will be closely related to urbanization; 3. That the Region is substantially underurbanized compared to the rest of the country and that many of the public and private services common in metropolitan America simply do not exist; and 27 4. That modern transportation and technology has substantially changed the economic geography of the United States (and thus of Appalachia) enlarging effective markets, service areas, and commuting patterns. With some exceptions (and the reasons for most of the exceptions are clear) there is a strong tendency for there to be a rise in the percentage of a county's residents who work in services as the urbanization of the county increases. A specialized service industry (such as education) or proximity to a larger urban place (or the lack of it) provide most of the exceptions; but overall it is safe to say that in Appalachia, as in the United States, service employment is directly related to the degree of urbanization. With these general findings and the Commission policies which they provoked, each Appalachian State has determined what areas it has with growth potential and sought to develop investments which would best realize that potential. Planning districts have been established to assist in this process. Sixty such State planning and develop- ment districts 'were delineated in Appalachia, each encompassing five or more counties. These have become the basic planning units for Federal, State, and related local planning in Appalachia. As these districts have been accepted by the Commission as consistent with its principles, the States have attempted to create within each district the technical competence to plan and administer a local development program. As of September 1, 1968, approximately 40 districts have active development district organizations representative of local government and leadership with staff supported (up to 75 percent of the costs) for a maximum of three years with Appalachian funds. During FY 1969, the Commission and the States are attempting to determine precise potential for development. Using a variety of economic analyses, the locational coefficients for each district are being determined by industrial and service categories. An attempt will then be made to determine gaps in the economic structure of each major growth center, both in services and in manufacturing. This will help guide local devel- opment efforts and also be useful in determining precisely which public investments will be most strategic in promoting development of each area. It is recognized, of course, that not all the barriers to growth are physical; many are social 01 institutional. One of these barriers is the lack of private venture capital. A full investigation of this problem, particularly in the 60 counties of Central Appalachia, is now underway. Similar analyses are being undertaken of the shortage of public capital and of govern- mental impediments to growth in the districts. Statutory and constitutional limitations on tax rates, debt, and budget revenue estimates are being investigated. Powers and limitations on local government cooperation are being analyzed for each Appalachian State, including statutory and constitutional provisions for such forms of cooperation as special districts and authorities, joint agreements, and intergovernmental contracts, between and among jurisdictions. Improved mechanisms for encouraging cooperative efforts in financing and administering local governmental services are being developed. 28 The New State -Federal Relationship It was the nature of the Appalachian effort that neither the specific funds under the Act, nor the strategy for investing them would do what they were supposed to do unless each level of government involved -- Federal, State, and local -- adapted themselves to a new way of doing business. The "old" way of doing business was in some ways responsible for Appalachia's having to be treated as a special problem. Most of the planning that was being done was on a single county basis. Almost every community had a long shopping list of unmet needs for almost every type of Federal grant. Involvement of the States was limited to direct line relationships between State agencies and their counterparts in the Federal bureau- cracy. Projects were approved, once technical criteria were met, until a State's allocation of Federal funds for the purpose 'was exhausted. Federal review 'was on a single program basis , and any regional or area-wide planning that was done "was mostly limited to the area of 'water resources. In the years between I960 and 1964, most of these efforts -were beefed up, new funds appropriated for different programs, and special relief measures tried. It became increasingly obvious that more money, more administrators, and more plans for specific functional programs 'were not the answer. The Appalachian Regional Commission, itself, instead of becoming a fourth level of government and bureaucracy, as might have happened, provided a needed framework within which greater and more effective cooperation between the Federal and State partners was possible. Because of the flexibility provided -within the program by Congress, it has been possible for the States -- for the first time on any comprehensive scale --to achieve a degree of coordination in Federal grants-in-aid to meet local and State problems. At the same time, because Federal participation is a key part of Commission operations, there is improved assurance that national objectives are being met in the provision of local assistance. State planning districts are being employed as the basic planning units. Cooperative plans are being prepared jointly by Federal, State, and local agencies. State plans are being used to allocate a broad range of Federal assistance, establish priorities, and coordinate programs. Through this special State-Federal relationship, it has been possible to improve the availability of competent technical assistance to local and State governments through use of a jointly -funded Federal-State Commission staff, strengthened State agencies, and new multi -county development districts. More effective use is now being made of Federal grants-in-aid in the Region because of the availability of better and more technical personnel. 29 The Impact of the Appalachian Effort After three years in the Appalachian Regional Development effort, it is fair to ask whether this new approach is working. Obviously, the first measure of impact should be an evaluation of the performance of the regional economy since 1965. There have been some improvements in the regional economy. The average annual increase in employment in Appalachia between 1962 and 1965, for example, was 2. 2 percent, the same as the United States rate. Thus, the gap between the Region and the Nation remained the same during those years. In 1966, however, the gap began to close: Appalachian employment increased by 3. 7 percent compared to 2. 5 percent for the Nation. The gap began to narrow even more dramatically in comparable rates of unemployment. In 1962, the United States unemployment rate was 5. 5 percent while Appalachia' s was 8. 6 percent. By 1966, the rates -were 3. 8 percent and 4. 3 percent respectively. Nevertheless, these general statistics mask the continued problems of the Region. While the unemployment rates in West Virginia and Kentucky, for example, have been reduced, the 1967 rate for Appalachian Kentucky was still 9. 1 percent which is not far from being triple of that for the Nation, and for West Virginia it was 6. 5 percent, almost double that of the Nation. Wages tended to lag substantially behind the Nation. For example, in 1963 wages in manufacturing were only 86. percent of the United States average and in selected services 77. 1 percent. The construction of public facilities under the regional development programs of the last three years has contributed to some of this employment. Construction accounted for more of the increase in employment in 1966, for example, than any other sector. While out-migration continues, it is tapering off from the southern and central portions of the Region. Northern Appalachia is where the most significant out-migration is now occurring. At the moment the population in the Region is increasing annually by 0. 7 percent compared to the United States rate of 2. 7 percent These changes reflect the effect of a lengthy period of sustained economic growth in the nation rather than effectiveness of the Appalachian Act. Only about one -fourth of the nearly 1, 000 facilities approved under the program so far are actually operation- al. Thus, the full impact of this effort is yet to be felt in the Region. This is particu- larly true of the Development Highway. The success of the Commission strategy and the investments made under it, will depend on achieving the full impact of the developmental highway system. As of now, only approximately 250 miles of the system are open to traffic, although 93 percent of 30 the system is in some state of planning, design, engineering, right-of-way- acquisition or construction. Looking at the Highway System's impact, in conjunction -with the Interstate Highway System, the improvement in locational advantages for many areas is already measurable. The System will dramatically revise the travel times between key centers of the Region and areas outside. For example, it is only 352 miles from Charleston, West Virginia to Washington, D. C. , but it requires ten hours and fifteen minutes to traverse that distance by automobile. With the construction of Appalachian Highway Corridor "H" and Interstate 79 this time will be reduced to just over six hours. The list of private developments along the Appalachian and Interstate Systems in Appalachia is growing rapidly. Not all of these locations are occurring because of access-to-market advantages resulting from the highway system. Some of them result from the substantial improvements which the high-way system makes in the commuting times from outlying areas to the new plant. This has the effect of enlarging the potential labor force available because of the large areas from which manpower can be drawn. All along the system are new industrial enterprises that are being assisted in this -way. They range from food processing operations, such as those of the new Ralston-Purina plant at Wellston, Ohio, to an air frame manufactur- ing operation in Sparta, Tennessee. 31 STATEMENT BY J. MCDONALD WEAY ALTERNATE FEDERAL COCHAIRMAN COASTAL PLAINS REGIONAL COMMISSION On December 21, 1966, Mr. John T. Connor, Secretary of Commerce, designated the Coastal Plains Economic Development Region, which consists of 159 counties in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The Commission was officially chartered by joint Federal -state action taken on July 29, 1967, at which time the Charter and By-Laws were signed. The extent of the Region is indicated on the accompanying map. The median income of this Region is well below the United States average. The Region has a high percentage of dilapidated housing; its educational attainments are below national levels and it has a higher than average rate of outmigration. The purpose of the Coastal Plains Regional Commission is to foster and induce orderly, accelerated economic growth in the designated area of the three states in order to reverse these indications of lagging development. Since early fall of 1967, the Coastal Plains Commission has been organizing and staffing to carry out its mission. The Commission itself is composed of a Federal member appointed by the President, and the governors of the three states. The first Federal member who served as Federal Cochairman and who represented the Federal Government was Mr. J. Russell Tuten, former Congressman from Georgia, Mr. Tuter died on August 16, 1968. A successor has not yet been appointed. Governors Lester G. Maddox, Robert E. McNair, and Dan K. Moore represent the states. Governor McNair, who took the leadership role in the events leading to the creation of the Commission, was selected by the governors as the first State Cochairman to act on behalf of the states. Governor Moore is currently State Cochairman. The Commission staff is headed in Washington, D. C. , by an Executive Director, Mr. Charles W. Coss, who is assisted by administrative personnel and program specialists. A field office, consisting of a field director and an assistant field director, is located in the capital city of each state. In 1959 the per capita income of the Region was some $860 short of the national figure. Multiplying this shortage by the approximately five million population of the Region results in a figure of the order of magnitude of $3.6 billion -- which indicates the amount by which total income for the Region is short of the amount earned by any five million Americans who earned at the national average. This gap has subsequently widened and was estimated in 1965 to be $5. 3 billion, or more than $1, 000 per capita. Looking at income in another way provides additional insight into the income status of the Region. In I960, 45 percent of the Region's families received incomes below $3, 000, meaning that almost half of them lived in poverty as it has come to be defined. Thirty- three percent of white and 77 percent of Negro families in the area were in this category. The measures just provided incidate the desirability of raising the average and family incomes of the Region. These expressions or measures of economic 33 well-being reflect a series of underlying conditions, which are either the results, or causes, of the level of income. The Region, being more highly rural and more agriculturally oriented than the Piedmont and Appalachian portions of the three states and the Nation as a whole, is one in which 15.4 percent of total employment (I960) was in agriculture as contrasted to 10.2 percent for the three states as a whole and only 6.6 percent for the Nation. Typically, incomes on the farm have been below those of the average non-farm population throughout the Nation. This is true even in spite of amazing increases in farm productivity in recent years. A major effect of recent productivity increases has been the great decrease in the number of workers employed on the farms. It is projected that, in addition to thousands who have already left the farms of the Region, 50, 000 more will leave the farms by 1975. To the extent that these people remain in the Region and equip themselves for the growing numbers of industrial and other non-agriculture jobs, they will be a great asset to the Region. However, the Department of Commerce has determined that 571, 000 persons migrated from the Region between 1950 and I960. Those who remain find housing below national standards. Forty-eight percent of the housing was considered deteriorating or dilapidated in I960 as compared to 26 percent for the entire United States, In I960, 52 percent of the adult population had eight years or less of education. If one reflects on these statistics, it appears clear that the Coastal Plains Commission, or any other group interested in the economy of the Region, would naturally set one easy- to-state goal. That goal is to close or narrow the income gap of the Region by means of accelerated economic development. However, the development of a strategy to reach the goal, the formulation of programs to project the strategy and eventually the design of projects to implement programs do not come easily. It was only after much study and consultation that the Commission staff was able to come forth with recommendations for a regional program. On January 19, 1968, at a Commission meeting held in Atlanta, Georgia, the three governors and the Federal Cochairman approved a staff report on initial action planning. The program approved on January 19 was composed of five initial target areas. They are : 1. Education and Manpower Training 2. Marine Resources 3. Industrial Development 4. Tourist Industry 5. Agriculture These areas were studied and chosen not without regard to other possibilities. However, it was decided that, with conditions as they stand, these areas involve regional resources which demand priority effort from the standpoint of economic return on the public investment. Each of these five areas is immensely important to the development of the Region. A sixth target area -- Transportation -- was subsequently added. 34 Research contracts are presently under way in four of the areas. It seems clear that the further economic development of the Coastal Plains Region, and the narrowing of its income gap, hinges to a great extent on the development of its human resources -- its human capital. The two supplemental grant projects approved by the commission in FY 1968 were in this area. They involved expenditure of $566,186 in supplemental grants for two regionally significant projects --a new technical education center in Cheraw, Chesterfield County, South Carolina, and expansion of an existing community college in Whitesville, Columbus County, North Carolina. The basic grant agency for each project was the Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and the commission supplemented to the statutory maximum level of 80 percent of total project cost in accordance with its stated policy of providing maximum supplemental assistance for carefully screened projects which best meet the test of regional economic significance. A comprehensive strategy for developing the full potentials of the Coastal Plains Region must tie directly to national economic policy. The only basic justification for designating development regions is that the incidence of national economic policy is such in this large country that the benefits are not equally distributed. A comprehensive set of national economic goals has evolved over the years which is the starting point for developing a strategy for regional development. These include: (1) full employment, (Z) price stability, (3) economic growth, and (4) balance of international payments. In view of the flood of new legislation that has recently been enacted, it is apparent that a more equitable distribution of income should be added to the list. Also, in view of the problems that have resulted from migration and excessive population concentrations it seems that a more uniform distribution of economic activity should be an objective of national economic policy. The Coastal Plains Region has been one of the most seriously affected regions of the country from the standpoint of structural changes in the economy. The development of agricultural technology has resulted in massive substitution of capital for labor. It has forced small farmers to become large farmers or move out of agriculture and seek employment in nonfarm industries. The great dilemma has resulted because nonfarm jobs have not been available and the basic infrastructure of the Region has not been conducive to the generation of these jobs. Massive outmigration from the Coastal Plains Region has resulted in a deterioration of rural communities and small towns. The Region has not been able to maintain its public institutions which has resulted in a backwash effect. The declining resource base reduced the Region's ability to sustain its educational, health, transportation, and other public services, which has resulted in a further deterioration of the Region's human resources. Migration has taken the viable leadership and young workers out of the Region to other parts of the country. There are a myriad of things that need to be done to bring the Coastal Plains Region 35 back into line with other regions of the Nation. The solutions can be grouped into two broad categories. The first category is the development of the infrastructure of the Region such that it will sustain and attract private investments. This means that massive infusions of social overhead capital have to go into the development of education, health, transportation, and other public institutions and services. The development of infrastructure is critical at this stage since such tremendous economies of size now exist in the delivery system associated with public services and facilities. It has been estimated that in order to fully utilize a modern hospital of today, it must serve a community of 50, 000 or more. A high school must serve at least 10, 000 people in order to offer the kinds of programs efficiently that are needed. Not only is it important to develop these kinds of public services and facilities, but it is necessary to aggregate them in such a way that they provide a base around which private industry can begin to develop. It is estimated that within the last six years 90 percent of the industrial jobs in this country were developed in cities of 50, 000 or more. A strategy for development must concentrate on developing the kinds of communities around which industry can build and take advantage of economies of agglomeration. The other basic solution involves providing the incentives for private investment at the same time that the basic infrastructure of the Region is being developed. The basic forces of the market in this country are directing investments into those areas where there is the highest rate of return per dollar invested. In order to get off dead center, however, the Region must provide some kind of incentive for industry to locate in the Region, even before the economies of agglomeration and the reduced cost resulting from a well-developed infrastructure are available. Some means must be found to reduce the basic costs of production within the Region. This involves reducing the cost of the basic inputs into the production process including land, buildings, equipment, and variable costs such as labor, utilities, taxes, and transportation. The other side of the coin would be to somehow increase the price of the products that can be produced in the Region through promotion, price supports, or other means. In order to break the cycle of decline in the Coastal Plains Region, the entire mix of public policy instruments that are available must be considered. Certainly a massive does of public investments must be given the Region which will require full participation of state, local, and Federal Governments. These public investments must be channeled in such a way that they move the Region towards the creation of viable community structures. It is not enough, however, to concentrate only on public investments to generate a high rate of economic growth. There is not enough money in the Federal treasury to close the income gap between this Region and the rest of the country without at the same time building an industrial base within the Region that will help support these public investments. In order to get a substantial increase in private investments before this infrastructure is developed, public policy must be used to reduce the cost of production or increase the demand for products that can be pioduced in the Region. This may involve tax policies, monetary policies, and regulatory policies. Liberal usage of tax and monetary incentives must be considered in the mix of policies or 36 programs to move the Region ahead. It is anticipated that preferential treatment i'n terms of taxes and the cost of money can be eventually eliminated as the infra- structure is developed and as the risk of investing in the Region is reduced to the level of the rest of the Nation. A partial, timid, or soft approach will not permit the Coastal Plains Region to close the income gap. Attention must be given to human resources development but this will not be enough. It is apparent that if we do not stress at the same time the creation of new job opportunities we will only result in moving a larger part of the people out of the Region. We will speed up migration instead of slowing it down. Whereas, this may not be inconsistent with the goal of increasing per capita income, it does limit the overall developmental potentials of the Region since it further erodes the total resource base. A concise statement of the strategy that must be followed in developing a program for the Coastal Plains Region is summarized on the attached chart. This chart designates increased per capita income as a basic goal of the Coastal Plains Regional Commission. Progress toward this goal can be measured in terms of the income gap between the Region and the rest of the Nation. 37 • CO — i i-i CO Li 4-1 0) Pol icv Variables >s3 >.c 1-H 1-H - « CO CO MO Ci-I CO 014-1 i>X I L O w I •iH-rl -H-rt 4J c O CJ U CO T3 co- to cj 2 in 00 O C'H OtH C3 oo 0---I o u PhO a, l 4) In-Q CLCC ~ . ,, . . , oi p- c o> Target Variables CO CO 4J 4) ft) 4J Q to H Q CO CJ 4J 0) CO 3 -iH 3 y C O Li 4J C O -H 4J -iH CO •H c 1 1 j 1 | ) r 1 •H E I •H CO CO 4J 4J 4-1 CO -H CO CO y. < oo I 1—1 CO -iH *3 C 1-1 i-H g M CO m r- o c CO oi E >. 1—1 o G pi O -J J-> < u c O • u c c c 3 o o - t-l 1-4 4-1 •1-1 4-1 0> 3 0) > 3 «H o oo o E «o C.T C CO CO 4-1 i-l — «*■ • -iH 1 O -iH Z H u E 1-1 H a. o -H CJ 4J 1-1 CO i-l Li C -H — C 4> C 4J 01 X! 4J co i-H > y CO ih C C i-H 3 0) 0) o c i-l 4J I-l p-l I-H CL S O H a z •H x C « u oi o c ^^ c CO M CO E oi I-H 3 co 1-1 5 >, E O 4) ft) a 3 CO 4-1 CL In CO to 2 01 01 1-1 O 4-1 CO 3 1) c > i-l t-l CO C i-H 4J 4J CJ U 0) Lj oo H p. O* 0) >. co ii u to to 3 < 01 T3 u In 4J 00 C to 3 41 a) •iH •J u 05 C to jh e o 3 to oo u 4J IX, 4J c 41 CO TJ tH 4> C 4-1 01 CO 1-i 4J O -H O H « X CL to ^3 3 c co Z CO iH hJ /^N 01 5 w c en o < -H w 4-1 O CO 1-1 1-1 i—l o 3 -i-l 00 r-i oo E c Li •iH 1— 1 4) T3 "0 O Oi 1 O C X c V-i 3 CO 1 X o Cd *J S CO < •^ u o 41 Ll X 1-1 Ll CO CO 1-1 C 2 1 o cj "3-1 4J 01 Li Oi CL h H J Pi J fj 2 l-H td CO c CJ S-( z 3 co co P> u CO M z oo H -H 0) CO 41 o •rl w 4-1 C o 6 o cj co 0) C 4-1 01 o i-i u 53 4J 3 ol 01 S -J z w 1—1 i-l c C 4-1 *J£ E • O 3 M > 3 4-1 3 CO CJ ■rl Cm 4-1 CJ O z o <0 E CL O X o 4-1 O 41 3 ^ CO z < M c 4-1 E T-l CO CO |-J 4J hJ co i.8 fc o cj w t4 Q H E 3 < E M Ph a Sxi O 03 CL L, 41 01 3 CO U u H) ■< "O to co 0) C 1 M H Z g •-H >. 01 H -H < < CO - 0) Oi Oi Li CO co 3 <^ T3 D.O u rH H C u > C CO TJ — 3^ -O h 3 CL, E i- 1 iH 41 X Oh —i i—i CO 01 CO >> co 4J 4J CO C C w CO o W 6 i-H u CO < E OS pj U 4-1 1) Li 01 C CO C co O 0) e-i •J i-l C 4-1 CJ Cd cu 4J ■u CO i-l CO 1-4 3 0) M CC CQ > <: to u H C J « •1-4 X! Q-. IH C l-l 4-1 O O Li 1h H 41 > i— I O CO i— i 3 y 4-> co 3 Pi w Cd iH O 01 E r-H u X co 41 -i-l e r-i O 01 • • • 0) CO 4J > > > CO W •H y u Q t< u cn pa Cd PM S >, 5 4-J O O co u Xi i-i O o o S P4 •H C O 01 0) 0) Q H U Q Q Pi J c 4) 55 TJ L, r-H -H CO > — CO i-H r- 1 CO L-l Cd oo < o (X 3 C - 4-1 O ■ * P 4J ft o- w CO 01 .-1 X. C « Li o C 4) cj 3* h •H CO iH U £ -u Oi CO o 1— 1 4) 1 H u 4-1 4-1 M CO O IH < <*H X > OT o E 3 a co HH C CO CJ "4-1 03 TJ CO 0) O O H CD 4J "O O 3 O to CO U •1-1 CJ 1 iH 4J 41 4J Ss CO C 3 CO 13 E U CL 4J c - OJ 0) •i-l i-l 4J CO |H 4J •H -i-l O CO Li O 4J td o> u 4J 4-1 E Ph 3 oi C Q Oh C to 01 01 i-l > E -a oi CO in oi i-< X Cl > CO CO 0) C 41 CL 0) i-l H H O H Pi equi term ach co i-i c - » t4 C o CO O 4-> 00 - IH 1 C CO y c C to J 4J CO O 4J CO vi u g CO 41 •H CJ tu -rH -o oi u 0) i-l 4J CO 4J 1-4 .M 3 > o CO 41 Li <4H O i-l Li -O C -H C 4J CO 4-1 O 3 3 CO 01 M i-l _ O Li co C >% •o Xi E — — •HO P3 o Li ~j P>% o o a •u ax; o to i-H L) - l-i CO -r4 CO CO 4J c 4J CL Oi "O 01 i-l i—l 4-1 y C l-H CO • -r4 a c E -a X C 3 CO CO X T3 i-H 3 MH CO 3 0) 3 41 X) Li 41 Li 4) --4 CO O i-l to E Oh E Cd H K C3 to S View of Federal agency representatives at the Federal Advisory Council meeting. View of the Federal members of the regional organizations at the Federal Advisory Council meeting. STATEMENT BY ORREN BEATY, JR. FEDERAL COCHAIRMAN FOUR CORNERS REGIONAL COMMISSION The Federal-state commissions which administer the affairs of the economic develop- ment regions (created under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965) were given a mission by Congress to determine what has inhibited normal economic growth in those multistate regions -- and to develop a correctional program. It is a unique experiment which has received mixed reviews so far. But even though it has not had time to prove its value in meeting the growing complexities of govern- ment, it has won increasing acceptance from the states. More than the law which created the commissions, though, the concept of Federal and state governments working together in an equal partnership to attain goals unreachable by either acting separately, has won growing attention because of concern at both levels over the need for better Federal -state relations. This is not intended as a success story, and will not be one. But it is fair to report -- and is helpfully informative as well -- that those at the state level who are involved in the work of the commissions find that here, if nowhere else, they can influence Federal decisions. If asked, they would testify to that effect, and I would cite as an example the office of the Republican Governor of Arizona. New Mexico's desire to include the entire state within the Region is additional testimony. By providing that the Federal government would pay all administrative expenses the first two and a fraction years, Congress set, in my opinion at least, a loose deadline for the initial study and planning effort. Both research and planning should continue beyond that period, but hopefully a first-effort overall economic development plan should be finished and ready for review by the Administration, if needed, before the end of the third full year of a commission's life. As the newest of these organizations, the Four Corners Regional Commission is not trying to tell its older brothers what to do, nor what can be done. It_is_ saying, 13 months after being organized, that it expects a year from now to have on hand completed studies which will support a plan for materially increasing the level of commerce in our 92 -county region and substantially reducing the closely related triple ills of unemployment, underemployment and low wage levels --a plan which already has taken shape in the minds of members of the Commission. In the. meantime, we have planned enough and studied enough to identify our most damaging problems and to map a tentative course toward overcoming them. Even more important, I think, we have established excellent working relationships with pertinent state offices and the Federal agencies which have responsibilities in our 41 region and have developed a relationship of trust between our Federal and state members . We are prepared to move ahead to do the job, working with the offices and bureaus of all the Departments represented here today. More than working with your bureaus, we are prepared to be of all possible assistance to them and the state and local organizations with which they work, to enable both to do the jobs we can all agree are necessary. We do not expect to conduct the program ourselves. You and your state and local counterparts will build the roads, construct and operate the vocational- technical schools, improve the airports, install the industrial parks and all the other things we believe are needed. A brief explanation about the makeup of our region may be helpful here. It is the largest of the group, containing almost 290, 000 square miles -- roughly eight per cent of the Nation's land area. It is also the most sparsely settled, its less than two million persons constituting less than one per cent of the Nation's population. Most of the statistics on which the Region was created are based on the I960 census and 1950-1960 trends thus disclosed. We have completed an elementary manpower study, and employment problems to 1967. Some of its findings may be greeted with skepticism. If you accept them, you will be appalled. Looking at only the standard findings you will note that in I960 the Nation's unemployment rate was 5.1 per cent but the Region's was 5. 9 per cent. At the end of last year, while the national rate had been brought down to 3. 8 per cent, the Region's had edged upward to 6. 3 per cent. But this tells only a small part of the depressing employment story. The oldest European settlements in the United States are in this region. The settlers were Spaniards by way of Mexico, and the population of northern New Mexico and Southern Colorado is still heavily sprinkled with their descendants. When the Spaniards arrived, they found Indians in the region, and the descendants of some of these aboriginal dwellers continue to live today in villages that were in use long before the Spanish arrived. Eighteen per cent of the Region's population is of Spanish or Mexican extraction. Another seven or eight per cent is Indian. Large segments of both groups in this tricultural area reside in small, partially isolated villages and towns or on rural ranches and farms. The children in many cases are first exposed to the English language only when they start to school, and this obvious language handicap leads to many of the Region's problems. These people have been hampered in efforts to participate in the economic gains of 20th Century America by -- a lack of sufficient all-weather roads, -- school and health facilities that, taken as a whole, do not begin to approach the 42 standards -which have been taken for granted in most of our nation, and -- an overwhelming lack of employment opportunities. Whatever the contributing factors may be, there have been so few jobs over such large areas of the Region that many able-bodied adults are idle today but not counted as unemployed because by Bureau of Labor Statistics criteria, they are no longer part of the labor force. If they still had hope of finding jobs and were looking for work, we would have to have 147, 200 more jobs available than existed in the Four Corners Economic Development Region last year to meet the need. Lacking those additional jobs, the true unemployment rate would have been closer to 23 per cent. We face other, seldom-stated problems caused in part by these varied racial patterns and the fact that one group -- the Indian -- has many Federal agencies working to help it. There is the suspicion on the part of some Indian leaders that the additional benefits the Commission may be able to obtain for the Region because of Indian problems will be used largely to benefit the non-Indian . And there is a sizeable number of non- Indians in cities and towns near the Indian reservations who are equally suspicions that this is "just another Indian program" which will bring advantages the white community cannot hope to match. Easing these fears and bringing all groups closer together is one of our jobs -- one, though, which will be made easier by close coordination between our efforts and all of yours. For this reason, I have welcomed implementation of the executive order by which President Johnson set up the Federal Advisory Council. We can help you broaden the application of your programs and, in so doing, take important steps toward achieving our goals. I have mentioned many of our problems, some of which also are areas of opportunity. Officially, the Commission, meeting early this year at Farmington, New Mexico, the site of our regional headquarters, adopted a resolution which expressed the unanimous views of the Governors and the Federal Cochairman as to the areas to receive priority attention. These are: -- Transportation, including adequate primary and secondary road systems, less- than-satisfactory air service, and freight rates which hamper industrial development. We are working with all appropriate state and Federal agencies in developing our plan. -- Tourism and Recreation. These four states have an outstanding array of unparalleled scenic attractions but insufficient transportation and tourist facilities to fully reap the benefits. The Commission believes this is one of the most promising areas for development. -- Education. To increase employability and upgrade earning power of large 43 numbers of residents, we are placing great emphasis on occupational training programs --or vocational -technical training. This will be in partnership with the states and localities, with cooperation from the Bureau of Indian Affairs where that is applicable. -- Industrial Development. This is occurring on and near Indian reservations and in some of the larger cities and towns in the Region, but the movement is slow. We propose to accelerate it through identifying needed industrial park and transportation facilities and assisting communities which lack adequate local matching funds to obtain them. -- Agriculture. Newly authorized Federal reclamation projects, plus some others now under construction, will mean many new agricultural jobs in the next 15 years. Much land long in use can become more productive by a shift to specialty crops with higher cash value. Working with various agencies of the Department of Agriculture, we plan to foster these developments to increase income of people in the rural areas and help maintain a proper rural -urban balance. We already have been working with Agriculture's Regional Technical Action Panel, and their framework plan with which you have been provided is, I am told, the first of these produced. On page 5 you will find a very useful map of the Region. -- Mining and Other Natural Resources. Uranium, oil and natural gas and coal are available in many parte of the Region. Much is undeveloped. The potential for power development and resultant industrialization is great, and we plan to capitalize on this. -- Health and Sociological Needs. The relative isolation of many of the residents, the language difficulties and other problems already cited have hampered the population in these areas, and our planning will be directed toward correcting unfavorable conditions. The Commission does not expect to produce overnight cures for the Region's economic ills, but it is convinced that under its charter and through interagency cooperation major achievements are within reach. 44 STATEMENT BY JOHN J. LINNEHAN FEDERAL COCHAIRMAN NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COMMISSION Mr. Secretary and Distinguished Members of the Advisory Council. I think I can best discuss the New England Regional Commission's approach and prospects for economic growth by covering two general topics: First -- the overall economic development strategy we are trying to work out , and Second -- our overall approach to program development to carry out that strategy. The phrase "trying to work out" is a deliberate one, for the social and economic variety of our region clearly indicates that there are no simple one-shot solutions. First -- our overall development strategy. We have recently completed a broad and reasonably thorough appraisal of the Region's economy -- by geographic subregion and key industry groups -- with appropriate projections to the year 1980. In addition, we have in hand six initial State Public Investment Plans, -which portray reasonably well each State's view of its economic problems and opportunities. It is clear from this material -- and I do not wish to over-simply, for there are many grey areas -- that we must deal with two essentially different situations. There are areas within the Region which, by means of the usual economic indicators, can be considered depressed areas. In these areas we can safely assume that raising per capita income will raise the overall well being of the population. Consequently, our likely focus in these areas will be upon the expansion of earning opportunities, if possible through the promotion of high-technology and high-income economic activities. However, depressed areas do not really characterize New England, which generally is a well -developed and highly sophisticated Region. Consequently, if we are to help promote the development of a Region with mature economic centers, we must pursue an essentially different course throughout much of the Region. The free market forces that have worked to sustain New England will continue to insure relatively high per capita income levels. It does not follow, however, that these areas should be left to purely market forces. The great concentrations in our industrial centers continue to achieve economies for both private and public resources, but often, these economies are realized at un- acceptable costs to society. The social costs associated with great concentrations of economic activity are familiar: congested highways, polluted water and air, decaying central cities are outstanding examples. Since these social costs do not respect traditional political boundaries and are, therefore, only partially responsive to single State actions, we believe that we are in an excellent position to lead a coordinated 45 1 SUWOl"*' ^JSS^ •^ >* «UI»| MX"** ', OCt«N I effort to balance the benefits of our concentrated economic growth with the social costs of that growth. Our evolving strategy then, which we are testing, modifying, and sharpening, con- templates a two-pronged objective for the Commission: first , to provide high income earning opportunities in those presently disadvantaged parts of the Region that can and wish to support these activities, and second, to balance the benefits of economic growth with the social costs of that growth being incurred by society. The first approach is likely to be the Commission emphasis in much of northern New England and certain portions of the southern tier of States. The second approach is aimed primarily at southern New England. Before going on to program development, I should stress one vital aspect of the Region's overall economic condition: the entire Region is dependent upon a highly skilled labor force. New England's labor force has been and is today its greatest asset. New England generally offers industry a lower wage-rate labor force, particularly in skilled and semi-skilled labor. Furthermore, New England's labor market consists of unusually well-educated and -well-trained workers. Our growth industries depend on small supplies of raw materials transformed by our labor force into high value products . The continued growth of our highly developed areas and the uplifting of our depressed areas depends on the maintenance of our supply of labor force skills. Despite a continuing increase in labor force participation rates (primarily female), a migration into the Region must take place if labor shortages are to be avoided, or if economic activity is not to be curtailed. Accordingly, increasing the supply and quality of skilled labor, and assuring its proper distribution throughout the Region must be a major goal of the Commission. Our program development effort involves the usual constraints of uncertainty --in cost, in capability to perform, and in scheduling of activities. At the moment, ap- proximately fifteen programs requiring legislation are in varying stages of development. I estimate the need for $50 - $75 million to carry out these programs over a three-year period. I want to add quickly that these cost estimates are highly tentative, and can go up or down depending on the final product. Our approach to programming involves primarily the generation and advocacy of program proposals by the Commission staff. Our efforts to generate proposals from the States have, by and large, proved unsuccessful. Understandably, our State Government agencies have not thus far begun to think in regional terms. Accordingly, the staff, sustained by a substantial study program and expert advice from certain State and Federal agencies, generates program proposals in rough-cut form and refers them to the State Alternates for action. The usual hammering and bending takes place, and a different and often improved activity emerges. I will not burden you with details, since they are constantly changing. But, let me 47 give you in a single phrase a description of some of the proposals you will have before you shortly. *First, the development of a regional airport plan to identify airports with regional significance, and the concentration of public investment in the designated airports, ^ Second , Federal backing to implement the Boston-New York high-speed rail service, *Third, an economic development impact study of possible routes for an East- West Highway in northern New England, *Fourth, a mass transit demonstration project in which Boston would be more effectively linked with four major cities -- Worcester, Concord, Portland, and Providence, *Fifth, the establishment of a New England Trust to assist in preserving open space and historic sites of significance to the Region, * Sixth, the establishment of a River Basin Authority for the Nashua River, empowered to undertake comprehensive pollution control activities, ^Seventh , the establishment of a regional residential school for technical training in selected labor skills, * Eighth, a survey of desirable new town locations and detailed analysis of a small number of potential new town sites, *Ninth, the establishment of a nonprofit corporation to assist in developing job opportunities in the Region's 16 model cities, and *Tenth, a major demonstration of the delivery of comprehensive health services in a three-state rural area. These proposals can generally be allocated against our emerging two-pronged strategy. For example, the East-West Highway proposal and the rural health demonstration project fall in the traditional economic development category. The river basin approach to a severe water pollution problem, the stimulation of job development in model cities, and the interstate mass transit project deal with the problems of our highly developed southern Region. I emphasize that this is neither a complete nor final list of program proposals. Several will be dropped, some added, some greatly modified. I would like to make one further point concerning this matter of program development. We are trying to initiate activities in which the Federal Government has an active involvement and clear interest. If, for example, the six states wish to promote tourism on a regional basis, and the Federal Government does not have clear 48 objectives calling for the promotion of tourism in New England, then perhaps it is best if the States cooperate among themselves through the New England Governors' Conference. If, however, the Federal Government regards New England's shortage of sewerage treatment plant operators, for example, as urgent and requiring immediate improvement, then we feel the Regional Commission, through its resources, should bring together the FWPCA and the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission to initial a balanced and effective training program. The mutuality of Federal and State interests in these areas makes the Commission role a vital one. Let me conclude by saying that regional programs are hard to develop. To be regionally relevant is to sponsor new ways of doing things. The Region's vested interests -- both State and Federal -- do not necessarily welcome change. Our Commission programs will have to build on many existing programs in order to gain acceptance and support, but must remain somehow separate in order to guarantee their integrity. As you all know, this is not an easy balance to achieve. 49 STATEMENT BY WILLIAM M. MC CANDLESS FEDERAL COCHAIRMAN OZARKS REGIONAL COMMISSION The President and Congress took an historical step forward when they decided that planning and action for economic development of under -developed regions should be shared equally by the Federal and State governments. The Ozarks Regional Commis- sion's goal, as one of these new partnerships for economic growth, is closing the gap between per capita income of the Ozarks and that of the Nation in the shortest possible time. To reach this goal, the Commission seeks new, imaginative ways to stimulate economic development. If the old approaches had worked, the need and demand for such regional organizations would not have come. We are not content to be simply another passive conduit for additional Federal funds. We are concerned with oppor- tunities rather than need; with risk and not safety. We intend to respond to change and seek out for the Region those opportunities which will close the income gap and bring the people of our States fully into the mainstream of the expanding American economy. The position of the Commission is that the income gap is a workable measure which we can use to chart our progress toward our goal. The presently designated Region of 134 counties in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, with a I960 population of 2, 696, 878, had a total annual personal income of $3. 4 billion in that year, or $1, 260 per capita. This compared to a national per capita income of $1, 850 and results in a per capita income gap of $590. The magnitude of the gap is better visualized if the population is multiplied by the average per capita income gap. A total annual gap of $1. 6 billion in I960 results. The gap, based on realistic projections, increased to at least $2. 7 billion by 1967. Conversion of this gap to an Index of Underemployment shows the Region lagging 32 percentage points behind the Nation. This underemployment underdevelopment of human and physical resources results in an estimated tax loss to the Federal govern- ment of almost $500 million in 1967. The need for effective public and private investment in the Region is simply a matter of sound public and business policy. If the Ozarks Region is expanded, as is requested by the Commission, to include the total States of Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma, several new metropolitan areas will be encompassed. But a 1967 income gap of at least $3. 9 billion would result. This reflects, in part, a population rate of growth 30 percent less than the Nation because of major and serious underemployment of human and physical resources. We are aware that it is far simpler to state this regional problem than to solve it. This is especially true when circumstances have prevented the Commission from pro- ceeding full steam on its proposed programs. We are, therefore, utilizing this period for developing our plans and beginning, in small measure, our programs. 51 The Commission's program strategy has two main aspects: the Commission as an energizer or catalyst for economic development, and the Commission as a coordi- nator of governmental programs. This is a strategy which is now developing in the Region and one, we believe, will also fit into the proposed expanded Region. A. The Commission's economic development strategy has four major thrusts. They are: 1. Expansion and improvements of education in all of its aspects with an immediate attention to technical and occupational skills training. 2. Development and upgrading of public facilities related to economic development in areas or centers of potential growth. 3. Creation of attitudes on the part of both the private and public sectors for economic growth and expansion. 4. The identification and promotion of those products and services which will create the largest number of quality (high wage rate) jobs with an emphasis on those which can and must be provided by private enterprise. The experience of the Commission is that a statement of a goal (closing the income gap) against which progress can be measured and the formation of an economic development strategy is one thing , but the development of programs and projects within that strategy reaching toward that goal, is quite another. This is because economic development is an action process and not a formula. An effective regional economic development program must constantly adjust to fit changing conditions and circumstances and the knowledge gained through experiment, experiences and the involvement of a wide variety of participating interest groups and individuals. This is what we are trying to do in our economic development programs and projects. The Ozarks Regional Commission has constantly adjusted its program and approach. For example, with less than two years' experience and even within a presently severely limited budget, it is evident that for this Federal-State partnership to grow and prosper, the understandably sensitive relationships on program development and project implementation must be carefully built by the State and Federal members, It is for this reason that each of the following programs and projects which fit into the economic development strategy are being implemented in each State through the State member. Examples of programs and projects we have completed, begun or planned within each part of our strategy are: 1. Expansion and improvement of education 52 a. A critical analysis of existing vocational education systems in each of the four States and a preliminary design of new technical education systems specifically related to existing and potential growth industries of the Region. Secondly, a full-time effort by a skilled team of resident consultants, working with the four States, evaluating, modifying and developing skills centers to fit the job needs of existing and potential industries. Through the very limited supplementary grant program of fiscal 1968, the Commission was able to fund the creation of eight such new skills centers. The State interest in this program was demonstrated by the enactment in the State of Oklahoma of legislation providing for a new framework for technical skills training to carry out part of the recommendations contained in a Commission- spon- sored report. b. An analysis of how institutions of higher learning can relate management and curricula to the economic development demands of the Region which they serve, and how they can best re -orient such curricula and management of their limited resources for the good of the institution and of the Region. c. Creation in the near future of a regional task force on research and development built upon suggestions of the Subcommittee on Research and Development, the Government Operations Committee of the Senate. Development and upgrading of public facilities a. A generalized design study for a developmental highway system for the Ozarks related to major market centers, and the identi- fication of needed initial road starts, especially access roads to industrial and recreational sites. b. Use of the, so far, severely limited supplementary grant appropriation to help finance the construction of several smaller projects such as regionally significant airports and industrial parks. A longer range effort to create an optimum system of airports in growth centers of the Region awaits more effective funding. c. A unique cooperative effort of the Commission and the Smith- sonian Institution to establish a regional branch of the Smithsonian at Hot Springs, Arkansas, is now getting underway. 53 3. Creation of attitudes for economic growth and expansion a. Through cooperation with banks outside of and within the Region, a comparison is being made of how loan officers assess the risks in making working capital loans to new enterprises based on modern technology. Test areas out- side the Region with which the comparisons will be made include the Bay area of California and certain Texas cities including Dallas. The purpose of the project is to assist loan officers in the Ozarks to consider more aggressively the financing of new types of enterprises. 4. Identification and promotion of products and services a. An analysis of those products and services which appear to have the greatest potential for profit -making enterprises in the Region and which will produce higher paying jobs. This technical assistance effort should, hopefully, identify these opportunities that can be capitalized by the private sector. A companion effort is the organization of private sector work groups to evaluate these findings and hlep make them known to the business community within and without the Region. An example of these task forces is one now engaged in attempting to encourage vegetable production on a 30, 000 acre tract along the Arkansas River in cooperation with the Ozark Canners and Freezers Association. b. The construction of a recommended program to carry out a strategy for commercial tourism development so that this generally labor-intensive industry will have maximum impact on the Region and provide the highest quality jobs possible. B. Coordination of governmental programs Section 503 of P. L. 89-136 recognizes the potential of the regional economic development commission as an instrument for creating effective inter -governmental planning and coordinating of programs. The direct relationship between economic development and relevant public planning and investment is statutorily recognized. It is the Ozarks Commission's view, based on its experience, that this function of the Commission may ultimately be its most important. The October 1967 meeting of the National Governors' Conference was labeled by John Fischer in Harpers (January 1968) as "a shipload of doomed men. " This ob- servation was brought about by the expression of many Governors that the problems facing the Federal and State governments in the next decade were virtually insur- mountable, unless new structural relationships could be developed. One Governor 54 was quoted as saying "a whole generation of political leadership will be wiped out in the next five years" in the coming struggle to make needs and costs meet. At this and succeeding Governors' Conferences, the need for new institutions, new structures of government was increasingly voiced by State leadership. The rapid on-rush of technology has already overwhelmed governmental structures which were created for a simpler time. The problems of integrated transporta- tion systems, air and water pollution, manpower movements and development, and health maintenance are no respectors of state boundaries. The increasing difficulties of the Federal and State governments in meeting and solving these accelerating problems is a recognition that an effective linkage between the two segments of the Federal system for operating programs is not yet secured. The Ozarks Governors' firm involvement in the Commission is based, in addition to their strong interest in its economic development benefits, on their reasoning that Title V of P. L. 89-136 establishes, within a Federal-State Commission, the be- ginning for an effective coordination of many programs of government. The sharing of responsibility for policy and program development, administration and imple- mentation is the major factor which can lead to the fulfillment of this potential. The Commission intends to fully develop itself as an instrument for the effective coordination of governmental programs. Much of the impetus for the Commission's request for designation of the total states of Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma had its origin in the awareness by the States that coordinated planning and programming of public funds was never more essential. The Commission's interest in the design of a "public investment data system", now underway, was based on this interest. The recent forming of a regular "working group" between the Commission and the U. S. Corps of Engineers is also of interest. The great domestic task is to solve the gigantic and interrelated problems of rural poverty and decline of small towns, the chaotic sprawl of suburbia, and the ex- plosive core centers of old cities. Part of that solution is to halt or at least slow the rush to older urban centers and to create expanded and new cities in the open-spaced areas to house part of approximately 100 million new Americans who will be with us by the end of the Century. The Ozarks Regional Program will become more effective as we move ahead to strengthen the entire Federal interest in all regional economic development programs, Commissions such as these are the only existing instrumentalities of government in which the Federal Executive and the Chief State Executive have an equal voice in both policy and administration. They can be the means to carry out a rationaliza- tion of economic development, public planning and public investment. The strong support they are receiving from the States who are closest to the problems of area and regional planning and development is indicative of their potential for getting the job done. 55 STATEMENT BY HAROLD C. JORDAHL, JR. ALTERNATE FEDERAL COCHAIRMAN UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COMMISSION In my brief remarks, I intend to cover the following points: 1. First, to acquaint you with the objectives and general strategy of the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission -with respect to its economic development mission. 2. Second, to describe the basic planning underpinning which guides our efforts and which, we hope, provides a sensible basis for bringing together an effective and coordinated contribution to regional develop- ment from your agencies and those organizations at state and local levels . The 119-county area included in the northern portions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan form the geographical land area of the Upper Great Lakes Region. The core of this Region, once called the "cut-over area 1 ', has long received the attention of various groups including the National Resources Planning Board during the thirties. In fact the group here today, in some respects, is the 1968 model of the Board as it existed in its latter years. There are important, differences. N.R.P.B. was located in the Executive Office of the President, while the Council is chaired by the Secretary of Commerce. The Board, however, had its origins in an interagency mechanism such as this. The Region, once richly endowed 'with magnificant forests, high-grade mineral resources, and a valuable commercial fishery, has suffered from resource exploitation and subse- quent depletion. Like other lagging regions, there has been steady out-migration; jobs have not been available. Out task is to formulate a planning and action program which will: 1. Slow down the rate of decline. 2. Achieve regional stability 3. Stimulate growth in those areas of the Region with meaningful choices as to where they wish to spend their lives. Other goals include raising educational and health levels, increasing per capita income, and the like. We do not, for example, intend to duplicate the mission of any agency, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission or the Great Lakes Basin Commission. Rather, our philosophy is to work in concert with existing institutions and, there regional opportunities exist, 57 to accelerate their mission. As a consequence, our Commission staff is small and actively solicits ideas and expertise from existing institutions. Although this is a slow and difficult route for program development, we will have a solid program which will be acceptable to the Region and in line with goals important to the people of the Region. Our development strategy is simple. Through a scheme of strategic public investments, conditions will be created which will stimulate a greater amount of private investment in productive growth-generating industries. It is not sufficient to have human resources, and resources of scenery, climate, water, forests, minerals, and soils, if the scenery is not accessible, and the facilities to enjoy it are not at hand; if the location and extent of the minerals are unknown; if the costs of transportation to outside markets discour- age new enterprises; if the technology for profitably using wood is not being applied; and if available manpower does not have necessary job skills. Underpinning our objectives are several recognizable elements to -which public and pri- vate investments must be related if our goal is to be achieved. I refer specifically to the following elements of our regional plan (some elements of which are depicted in the attachments to my statement which you have before you). First, growth areas and centers . We have, in a preliminary way, identified areas in the Region most likely to attract private investment and to become the location of signifi- cant future employment opportunities. These areas will form focal points for the loca- tion and planning of Commission projects and activities so that these projects will serve the maximum number of people, -will reinforce each other, and will maximize regional growth. You will note that our growth areas are not limited only to the urban-industrial growth center concept. Second , and closely related to the growth areas, is a concept of a regional galaxy of star attractions -which will attract tourists from inside and outside the Region. The attractions are outstanding scenic and historical areas in the Region which need to be acquired, developed and tied together to provide a basis for an expanded and prosperous all-season tourist business. Third , responding to the President's charge, the Commission has developed a prelimin- ary system of planning districts . These multi-county districts for planning and economic development purposes are the product of years of study by the three states. We are hopeful that observance of these district boundaries will lead to a more unified planning effort by all levels of government and by all organizations and that the organizational proliferation so common today -will be reduced. Fourth , specific sector tactics are being developed around the preceding strategy. These tactics provide further reference points to which investment programs -- Federal, state and local -- need to be oriented. For instance, the transportation departments of the three states have come together and produced highway and airport plans to provide swift and easy access between growth areas in the Region as well as the necessary linkages with the major metropolitan markets outside the Region. 58 We realize that there may be problems for Federal agencies and programs to conform completely to the strategy and pattern of regional development as I have briefly described it. These difficulties may arise from certain constraints in your legislative, your administrative rules, or your budgetary capabilities. For instance, the Commis- sion's transportation tactic would involve the construction of high-ways in anticipation of demand, not in answer to user's demand -- either present or projected. In another instance, legislative constraints of the Corps of Engineers preclude their cooperation with the Commission in the planning and construction of harbors of refuge which we feel are essential for recreational boaters using the Great Lakes system. Other examples could be noted. Suffice at this point to indicate that we must work together to overcome these problems. Several points need emphasis. The national policy decision has been made by the President and the Congress that greater investments will be made in areas -which lag in the face of national prosperity. Our three Great Lakes Governors have concurred and concomitantly have pledged state resources to the effort. Governors and state officials now toil with us on regional problems, and together we make decisions. Thus, decision- making power, in part has been reallocated in line -with legislative interests. When our proposed program is funded by the Congress and the three states, there may be, in part, a shift in power from agencies and the groups they serve to the Commission. In the process, state government and the role of the governor as the state chief execu- tive will be strengthened, -which is highly desirable. In the end, the role of the Congress is crucial, with respect both to the substance of the program and its funding. Although traditional grant-in-aid programs -will continue in our region, our Commission -will stimulate expansion of programs which fit regional goals and strategies, and no longer ■will decisions be made exclusively along traditional functional lines. Our Commission's use of $2. 76 million -which resulted in a total impact of $30 million in the region is illustrative, as is our Early Action Program -which you had under review. Your active cooperation and participation are essential if this concept of government is to work. In closing, I want to say that under the Commission's adopted approach of a minimal staff and a maximum of outside participation, we need your help and cooperation. We are already working closely with many of your people in Washington and in the Region. Many meaningful contributions to our efforts are coming from Federal agencies. I hope to formalize this cooperation at both the Washington level and field level in the near future. I believe, however, that it might be appropriate to note that cooperation -will be helpful if it proceeds in two major directions: 1. How can your programs be directed so that they -will make a maximum impact to regional economic development? This concerns both the content of the program and its location aspects in regard to the regional reference points which I have briefly described. 2. If your programs are constrained from making a significant contribution to regional growth because of legislative policy and budgetary constraints, how can -we help you? Keep in mind, that through our Governors state 59 actions can be influenced, and our basic legislation requires the Commission to report program and legislative recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce and the Congress. Attachments 60 H > H Pi Pi to O z u z O Q£ o LU 1— n l/> o z Q LU < LO LU Q£, o CO 1— z O Z to Q. LU z 0£. LLi 2 < z < Z> Q. Q_ -J t— _l o. z O LU 1— < O LU LU s Q. > LU LU to 1— o -J LU Q o z -) > LU -J tt V U < LU i— Q_ Z u Q_ 3 u_ 3 o u o *- E F oo I/) a> en o r- to to en o tu to o o o »^ CO en te o o I— «x o J3 ■o •*- CO to a an c a. < t= cu z o LU t/> UJ a CO c o w O cu E a. o UJ to tu XJ E a> o e tu ra a> o aj UJ or c 1= > ♦^ or •X o z => o so UJ «« _1 1— UJ ►- «s i— t/> -J o 00 c B c a. o o o OO t= '= cu ■a OB c **^ to X tv> > o CD O ■a o Z en b Z E E ■a «S E o J3 O to to a E o +- ►— C9 R3 ■o ■o s= o o to a. 06 o p o o z O O m a < -> —I LU > LU LU O - « o Ul Z 2: ° Q. D ui z o o 5 ** z n o v_y / / o I / (J v_y CO h- o> CT 01 tx. c <" o 0. ?s =g« s CO o E - a: - ° 5 LU ^ .* =1 c o t- O CO O CO O z 5 + • i...^i--i'- (T o _> o o m 01 CD o o t- Q cx> CO 0> m oo i o in CD S o n 111 o o o n C o in o > V => in CM m o LU oo CD CD <•■> %*r% to CD to a o a, O O o > o I Q 5 >» Z ui o 52 o = ir Ui 5 o « _J 2 * * n tun *' — , — ' V < CO 0» uj -= & .E «-» g "5 a <* > ? •- %. J _1 w "o 5 e o a. t s u £ J! 1 © — a o ^ 1 Vr*%<"^ '**■& I < y^^ *£ $ J ^ V (£>-*£ N \ / < jSjj^N < / 4 > +j nj 0) U Q QO O u >H >H nj en 2 nfl JD CU T3 g Hi 0) CD ft) m o u Oh g CD .,H !-l 4-> -4-> nj en a, ,5 CD o j2 "Sow Si nj co in co ■ee- CD CO in in m M £ •* r^ I s - s i— i -* N (M r^ £ i i CO to CT> i i "t CQ m I i ^o O O co H in u <# O o I s - o i — i . — i o h o ON I s - -tf 2 s j-H fN) fNj QN ""T <*> (NJ ro r0 On a g u I J nj Oh ft nj X 5 nj nj a ■iH t— I o ^i nj O U nj nj ti S ° nj -H PI tn nj PI 0) >, U m -d > o ,2 § 9 O^^^ZOfttoH>^ o o o o o o o o o o o m CO f^ On O f^ 00 o o -v sO 1 — 1 rf (NJ (NJ %o t~~ ■— 1 (NJ CO (NJ £j I s - |N- m _i ui in j I s - oo ^ (M - p u oo vO - «* « 3 o ,3 id bC| o Oh 0) >-> U2 n S-H^ -i-> rrt in m M r! cr* tl) ■rH CI ft o 2 CO o in 5b w CO c\) CO s0 tj< ^ r- co CO ^ £ SS ° ^ O CO ' ™ O LO ^ r- ^ l> r^ ■>* o m tJi tJi CO - 3 o ^° o co s° in os CO* _T <* m vO (NJ m 1*- r»- r~ vO vD , — i -V U in m en on s0 t in o in co o o °° 1< H CO CO ■— ' 00 ■st< sO < C- OnC CO t~ ^ co rf oo •^ vO CO n) £ W 5 "g oo u ' g .rt D O . ^> o 5 co pj J -H 'H -H Ph Ph n) ft A ° oo >-j -S3 •H n, a-- •H a, S n *« c 2 a t3 O n t ^ o - pq °9 NO S g .2 § oo hj "0 h co C >H lo .H ' 00 % in o u ft a W ■H U GO a u 4) ■— i to +j h $ . S cu nJ O Jh 00 CD * T3 Ph iS u ^ CD CO ^ +J (sj +J 1) . o .H 3 -h fl hi 172 to d o ■H M) C 0) o r— I > a) Q M o Fh Ph 00 .a H a> 0) W m id •r-l 0) X) >- to id oooooooo o o <5f "tf o o o o o 00 ^o • •— I o o o o o o o o o o o ■— I ■— I 00 <— I CO o o o 5 O O o ° ^. "* O ,-H oooooooo oooooooo OcOOOOOOOOvOO oo^foo"oo^-x>^o OOOOOOOOOO oooooooooo o o o o o o ^NiflNHinTfONNrOhvO i—l CO) i-H ^ o ° ° § o ° ° I s - 00 qOOqOOOOO qOOqOOOOO ^Hino^^HOOco^coMD co tJi -^ oj in s (d m .5 3 i-J cd Ph < id ^ S •H M TO o a b a, Oh h* •H U o U >,U to 03 (d -H O^S^ZZOPh 173 o CO OJ R r d §■ H > £ 2 2 o o o o o o o o o o o H H N o o o o o o 00 ^O O so r^ vo o o o o o o o oo co o o o o o o CO O vD r^ s v£> CO d ^H id c >H . — I < o J a 1-4 nj Ph nj U •rH O < DO X 3 H Fh o ft Ph O 00 a nj Fh M| O u Ph to M a) V ni 2 u o £ • rH rH ni to o S C h-> O n! •rH 4-> oo w V rrt ni o o o o o o o o o I I I I o o o o o o ° ° so r- ^ ^ p-T ^h co ° "*< o o o o g o o o ^^t I i — t ■ — i . — ( . — r o o o o o o o o v£) O "- 1 O rH ri- ^O _T o o o O o o o o o o o N in o ro in m ro ■* N i — i o o oo o o o o o §2§§§§ ° .n 1 O H O ^ M 00- cO o o o o o o N N N o o o^ •<# o I s - ^ o 0) Cfi rH +J • rH o Q ■4-> H-> 0) rP X) CD C o 2 3 10 Ph ni O 'y. < o ■rH 3 X C 03 a c o X id OJ 3 a o 13 2 W c c u • rH tfl ni ni IS w 2 O o ° o o o o ° X r-H CO o o o in m r^- (M -* o o o o 'o CO o o o o o o o o o in o co b 8 01 O a) O j- 2 ™ «3 P «> r-H ni o o o o 2 ° co s ^> o o o o £ o g © o 00 ^h vO CO (M o o o o o o 00 CO CO o o o o o o CO 00 vO co -^ CO in Ph w u oo P NO ™ S . r-H «J 0-s O 00 cjs t0 P r-H -H -rH FJ £ h 1-1 CQ FJ C 0) 00 ™ • rH rH rfl a. U Ph 3 | — H H-> OJ rH C O ° 2 ■H ** H-> ^, ni g 0) to Ph — i o u Ph o •rH H-> ni Ph u o o sD 0) s 91 r-H (J) pq •n a. 0) r-H "« ni „ > o c ni oo • H rP o ni C -t-> -rH O 0) V o c o 6 i_^ 174 Concentrated Employment Program in Seven Economic Development Areas Appalachia CEP I CEP II Birmingham, Alabama Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Chattanooga, Tennessee Rural - Tennessee Hunts ville, Alabama Rural - Eastern Kentucky Coastal Plains None *Rural - North Carolina Rural - South Carolina Four Corners None Albuquerque, New Mexico *Rural - Arizona New England Boston, Massachusetts Springfield, Massachusetts Hartford, Connecticut Manchester, New Hampshire Portland, Maine Providence, Rhode Island ^Bridgeport, Connecticut *New Bedford, Massachusetts Ozarks None Rural - Arkansas Rural - Missouri Upper Great Lakes Northern Michigan Duluth, Minnesota Rural - Minnesota Rural - Wisconsin ^Funded in 1969 175 COPY OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION Washington, D.C. 20590 October 21, 1968 Dr. Douglas N. Jones Special Assistant to the Secretary U. S. Department of Commerce Washington, D.C. 20230 Dear Dr. Jones : Attached you will find three papers 'which will provide you with a rather rough estimate of Department of Transportation spending within the territory encompassed by the seven Regional Development Commissions. The principal DOT grant programs involve Federal expenditure for highways, airports, and urban mass transportation projects. These three types of expenditures are summa- rized in the attachments. In addition, it is estimated that approximately $2 million was spent in FY 1968 within the New England Region in connection with the Department's Northeast Corridor and High Speed Train Demonstration projects. Attachment A contains a list of calendar-year 1967 capital outlays for Federal aid high- ways derived from recently published statistics of the Bureau of Public Roads. The capital outlays shown for Federal-aid projects are the actual amount reported by the States, and include both the State and Federal shares. The States report the amount disbursed as a Statewide total, whereas five of the seven Regional Commissions include only portions of States. Data by county, district or other political subdivision are not immediately available at this time, so regional information had to be grossly estimated to compile this table. It is, therefore, necessary to emphasize that there may be wide disparities between these data and the actual amounts. If further detail is desired it may be possible to achieve greater accuracy, but compilation of more precise figures would be time consuming and expensive. Attachment B lists expenditures on Federal-aid airport projects which were supplemented by grants from other Federal programs. With one exception, the supplemental funds were supplied for work done -within the boundaries of the seven Regional Development Commissions. The figures presented in Attachment B are for the total airport program to date, including those projects thus far authorized for FY 1969. 176 Dr. Douglas N. Jones Attachment C lists Federal expenditures on urban mass transportation projects within the boundaries of the Regional Commissions for FY 1968. Sincerely, (signed) Richard J. Barber Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development Attachments 177 Attachment A Capital Expenditures for Highways in Regional Commissions (in thousands of dollars) New England Reg- ional Commission Total Capital Outlay for Interstate & ABC Percent Est. Amount Assigned to within Region Regional Capital Outlay Connecticut 101. 9 100 101. 9 Maine 34. 8 100 34. 8 Massachusetts 124. 7 100 124. 7 New Hampshire 28. 9 100 28.9 Rhode Island 46. 7 100 46. 7 Vermont 48. 1 100 48. 1 Total 385. 1 385. 1 Coastal Plains Georgia 138. 6 50 69. 3 North Carolina 93. 6 50 46.8 South Carolina 70. 5 50 35. 3 Total 302.7 151.4 Appalachia Alabama Georgia Kentucky Maryland Mississippi New York Ohio Pennsylvania South Carolina Tennessee Virginia West Virginia 116. 5 138.6 146 110 93 472 371 432 70 139 221 126. 7 50 25 50 5 25 10 30 40 40 50 25 100 58. 3 34. 7 73.4 5. 5 23.4 47. 3 11.4 172. 28. 69. 55. 126. Total 2,441.0 807.0 178 Capital Expenditures for Highways in Regional Commissions (in thousands of dollars) Regional Commission Ozarks Total Capital Outlay for Interstate & ABC Percent Est. ■within Region Amount Assigned to Regional Capital Outlay Arkansas Kansas Missouri Oklahoma 78. 3 71. 1 143.4 92.9 25 10 25 25 19. 6 7. 1 35. 9 23. 2 Total 385. 7 85. 8 Upper Great Lakes Michigan Minnesota Wisconsin 224. 181. 1 151.6 SO 50 50 112. 90. 6 75. 8 Total Four Corners 556. 7 278.4 Arizona Colorado New Mexico Utah 107. 1 71. 7 53.6 56.4 75 75 75 75 80. 3 53. 8 40.2 42. 3 Total Alaska 288.8 40. 1 100 216. 6 40. 1 179 Attachment B FAAP PROJECTS SUPPLEMENTED BY OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS Location - Airport Federal Funds FAAP Other Purpose California South Lake Tahoe-Lake Tahoe Florida Everglades -Everglades Georgia Blakely-Early County Carrollton-Carrollton Regional Cornelia-Habersham County Dalton-Dalton Municipal Ellijay-Gilmer County Gainesville -Municipal Waynesboro-Burke County Maryland Hag erstown -Municipal Michigan Bellaire -Antrim County Escanaba -Municipal Mississippi Columbus -Golden Triangle Regional New Hampshire Whitef ield -Whitef ield Regional $638,063 $101,925 $ 64,993 $381, 790 $129, 500 $ 61, 500 $ 79, 500 $ 67,649 $ 66, 500 $112,000 $150,000 $620,800 $313, 785 ARC $ 49, 500 NPS' $ 26,000 EDA : $229,074 ARC $ 77, 700 ARC $ 36,900 ARC $ 47, 700 ARC $ 25,957 ARC $ 13, 300 EDA 1 $110,000 $ 66,000 ARC $132,250 EDA $ 99,900 EDA $ 51,62 5 ARC Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. Construct new arpt. Construct new arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. $219,800 $ 63, 834 EDA Improve exist, arpt. Appalachian Regional Commission ^ National Park Service * Regional Commission other than Appalachian 180 Location - Airport Federal Funds FAAP Other Purpose New York Cortland-Cortland County- Dunkirk -Dunk irk Municipal Hornell-Hornell Municipal One onta- Municipal North Carolina Andrews -Andrews -Murphy Elkin -Municipal Mount Airy-Mount Airy-Surrey County Ohio Athens -Ohio University Zanesville -Municipal Oklahoma Henryetta- Municipal Pennsylvania $244,466 $ 94,000 $176,035 $126, 000 $134, 763 $ 68,200 $125,000 $486,490 $ 84,737 Connellsville-Connellsville $150, 202 DuBois -DuBois -Jefferson County $ 58,569 Latrobe-Westmoreland-Latrobe $482, 635 Monongahela- J. S. Thompson Memorial Somerset-Somerset County Wilkes -Barre-Scranton - Wilke s - Bar re -Sc ranton South Carolina Pickens -Pickens County $130,432 $ 54, 750 $103, 373 ARC $ 19, 586 ARC $ 72, 078 ARC (Pending) $ 32, 160 ARC $ 39, 351 ARC $ 41, 583 ARC (Pending) $ 54, 722 ARC $291,894 ARC $ 39, 163 ARC $ 44, 521 $ 26, 712 EDA $ 38,675 EDA $ 35, 141 ARC $289, 581 ARC $ 78,259 ARC $ 22,875 ARC $1,826,113 $838,965 ARC $132, 500 $ 53,000 ARC Construct new arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. Construct new arpt. Construct new arpt. Construct new arpt. Construct new arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Request for improve- ments pending Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. 181 Location - Airport Federal Funds FAAP Other Purpose South Dakota Miss ion -Mission -Sioux Sis seton-Municipal Tennessee C ros s ville -Municipal Greenville -Municipal Lafayette -Macon County McMinnville -Warren County Sevierville -Sevier County Texas Laredo -Municipal Virginia Wise -Lonesome Pine West Virginia Charleston-Huntington Mid-way Huntington-Tri -State Huntington -Tri -State Lewisburg-Greenbriar County Pine ville -New Point Pleasant-Mason County Sutton -Sutton Williamson-Mingo County $ 57,807 $ 42,848 $106, 000 $262,900 $170, 540 $150,000 $ 16,900 $ 20,000 $137, 500 $ 88,700 $985,800 $305,000 $131,800 $127, 500 $663,000 $ 45,069 EDA (Pending) $ 24, 156 EDA $ 63,600 ARC $ 54, 500 ARC $ 25,000 ARC $ 22, 500 ARC $ 5, 300 ARC $326,693 $153, 726 EDA $359, 716 $179, 786 ARC $ 12,000 EDA $ 74, 568 ARC $ 62,820 ARC (Pending) $385, 800 ARC $ 64, 581 ARC $ 59,845 ARC $ 76, 500 ARC $397,800 ARC Construct new arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. Construct new arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Advance Planning for new airport Improve exist, arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. Construct new arpt. Construct new arpt. Improve exist, arpt. Construct new arpt. 182 Attachment C FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED TO URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONS - FY 1968 Appalachian Regional Commission $ 1,300,000 Four Corners Regional Commission 155,000 New England Regional Commission 35, 145,000 TOTAL $36,600,000 (The total grant program for Fiscal Year 1968 amounted to $134, 000, 000. ) 183 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY OEO anti -poverty programs are designed to achieve objectives that are in consonance with the national policy specified in the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, that is: " . . . to eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty in this Nation by opening to everyone the opportunity for education and training, the opportunity to work, and the opportunity to live in decency and dignity". In keeping with this national policy and the program requirements of the Act, OEO strategies may be categorized as those that lead to employment, individual and family improvement, and community betterment. The rationale for these strategies is sum- marized below: Employment In our free enterprise economy, employment for those of the poor who are capable of gainful 'work is essential in both the short and long run to any strategy for the elimination of poverty. By means of the income derived from employment, the individual may achieve an acceptable level of economic welfare for himself and his family. Through work and the variety of social experiences associated with it, the individual may acquire and enhance his skills, extend his knowledge, and realize his potentialities. Thus, economic opportunity in the United States today is the opportunity to take a gainful and useful job. OEO employment pro- grams are aimed at poverty that is caused by lack of individual skills, and by lack of mobility. Fiscal and monetary policies that will keep the level of demand for goods and services high enough to provide as many jobs as are wanted and the implementation of anti -discrimination policies are necessary conditions for the success of these programs. Individual and Family Improvement The family, the school, and the community as well as the work situation provide the social setting 'within which the individual's potential is developed. Programs under this category are- aimed at the many faults in the poverty environment that may affect the individual's development as a family member, as a school participant, and as a citizen in his community. OEO programs in this category have short and long run implications for the poor in terms of their abilities to take advantage of opportunities for work, education, and training. 185 Community Betterment The elimination of poverty requires that all available local, state, private, and Federal resources be mobilized and coordinated. It is within the community that employment, and individual and family improvement programs are specifically brought to bear on individuals in the poverty population. OEO programs under this category provide assistance to communities for the purposes of strengthening community planning and coordinating capabilities, better organizing needed services, using new types of services and innovative approaches, and broadening the availability or program resources. OEO also supports the development and implementation of various strategies in a fourth category -- income maintenance. Income maintenance programs provide opportunities to live in decency and dignity for those of the ppor who are beyond working age, disabled, involuntarily unemployed, dependent children, and with little or no income. Further, by providing financial assistance for family support these programs make it possible for many of the poor to take advantage of the opportunities for work, education, and train- ing. Proposed programs under this category are aimed at raising incomes above the poverty level for those of the poor who do not have the ability to earn an adequate income through their own efforts. Evidence of success in the War on Poverty can be presented in many ways - the Head Start child who learns to read or the young man who goes from the Job Corps to a well- paying, socially productive job. However, perhaps even more striking than individual cases are the dramatic gains made in reducing the number of poor people in the three years since OEO and the War on Poverty began. First, during this period (1965-1967) poverty was decreased at a rate of two and one-half times as great as that of the previ- ous five years (1959-1964). Second, on an annual basis, far greater numbers of non- whites - nine times as many - left poverty in 1965-1967 as compared with the earlier five years. Yet, these gains were not made at the expense of white persons as both groups made record average increases. Further, during this later period, whites and nonwhites have been getting out of poverty at the same rate, thus balancing the gains for the two groups. Fourth, in 1967 the United States experienced its greatest decrease in the number of poor persons since detailed poverty statistics have been recorded. These four points are briefly expanded below: 1. During the five years before the start of OEO slightly over four and one-half million people left poverty. In the last three years well over seven million persons moved out of poverty. Put in terms of annual averages, 920 thousand people left poverty each year during 1959-64. In 1965-67 the average rose to 2.4 million each year -- a rate of progress two and one-half times as great as the earlier numb e r . 2. The period 1959-64 produced an average decrease in poverty among nonwhites of 80,000 persons per year. In contrast, well over 700,000 186 nonwhites left poverty each year during the years of the War on Poverty --a rate nine times greater for the later period. At the same time poor white persons were also experiencing an accelerated rate of decline --a 1.7 million decrease in poverty per year in 1965-67 as compared to a yearly drop of only 840,000 per year in the earlier period. 3. In the three years since OEO started, 20% of all poor white and poor nonwhite persons left poverty. This is in sharp contrast to the pervious five years in which nearly 16% of poor 'white persons but less than 4% of the nonwhites moved from poverty. Thus, the last three years have brought not only a rapid increase in the number of white and nonwhite persons leaving poverty but also a balancing of the rate of decline in the two groups. 4. L 9 6 7 produced the greatest decline to date in the number of poor persons -- 2.9 million individuals. This is well over three times as great a number as the 920, 000 average per year in the 1959-64 period. In fact, the one million nonwhites leaving poverty in 1967 exceeded the total number of all Americans coming out each year during the five years prior to the War on Poverty. Of course, much of this rapid improvement has been due to economic growth. But the earlier five year period also was characterized by economic expansion. Although no satisfactory technique exists for separating War on Poverty gains from those of econ- omic growth, it is clear that a substantial share of the accelerating movement out of poverty is attributable to the War on Poverty programs conceived and put into practice during the last three years. While it is possible to speak with some confidence about reductions of the numbers of persons in poverty in the aggregate as of 1967 it is quite another matter to pinpoint with precision the numbers of poor persons in each of the Economic Development Regions. Using I960 Census data, it is estimated that there were over eleven million poor per- sons in all of these regions. This represented almost 30% of the total poor persons in the United States in I960. If the same percentage is assumed for 1967 (an optimistic assumption, it may be greater) it is estimated that eight million persons remain in poverty in these regions. Well over half of this total would be classified as the rural poor. The lack of readily available regional data hampers somewhat our ability to specify what the dollar resource allocations have been to date. We have nonetheless prepared a summary for each of the regional areas containing the following information: Total Poor Persons in Region (I960) Total Federal Outlays in Region (FY 1967) OEO Direct Program Outlays in Region (FY 1967) Listing of Selected OEO Programs in Region (FY 1969) Identification of Cognizant OEO Regional Directors 187 These summaries are attached. Also included are diagrams showing the OEO organiza- tion and the boundaries of its regions, and descriptions of selected OEO anti -poverty- programs. OEO has received a modest increase in its FY 1969 budget from the Congress. While the increase over the previous year is certainly welcome, it is still small when related to the universe of need. The following table illustrates our estimates of how much we can and cannot do in meeting national needs for selected programs. ti Z D o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o o o o o in o o o o o o f- o o o o o o -* o o o o "-* o 00 LO m o o o oo N "* CM o O 00 r- oo in r- 00 1 ! o r- in I s - O o vO o 00 -t o vO en m •* MD CM m <* CO CJ i-H s£> CM ■— I -rfl fl ft o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o OO o o o o o o o o o o o -X) o r-H in m o o o in «* ^D in o ! 1 oo OO . — 1 o 00 1 — 1 X! >- 1— f 0) to 0) 13 « Q z o •rH 1 — 1 (I) r-H 0) CO ft CJ u +■> co CO CU > •rH a d d £> D o o o o o o o o O O O o O o o o o o o o in o o O O o o o o o o o o o <-J| o o o o o o o o o o o o CO vO o o o o r\j o in o o o o o l> CO o m o o o o •* t— o I s - o o m CM vD -* vO <# CM r~ (M n A « m ■ i — i ' — ' — ' cm TJ > 00 •no u o H u ft ID JO 2 a Sh y -t-> Z cfl u Ml O !h a, O O O CM LO • 3 to •H "^ CCi H 2 o2 °3 d o o o o CM CM O o o o m o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o vD vo in O --H CJ ■rH > en 1— I nJ tuO 3) oo vD rH W a) ^ O 00 vD O O 00 o o 00 00 o o o OO •4< CNJ <* ■JH OJO 3 cci HI bo . — i o o CO U CD +-> CD CD rH 1h CD H 'ojD d o ^H MH O 4h' •rH CO •H B 3 o2 o u •rH CO +-> •lH Sh d >H o C cd 4-> • rH nj O H-> H cq r^H r-H ■3 CJ rH U Q X d CD Sh • rH o r-H i-H T3 rH 1* Sh >> 1 — 1 •rH a < ft < CD U -t-> d bfi a Cti u ojd d a >H CD CO CO O Oh o rd n) •H • rH CD Uh r^ u h u (Jh >! ^> (Jh rH H vD CO O 189 New England Regional Commission Total Poor Persons in Region (I960) Total Urban Poor Persons Total Rural Poor Persons Federal Program Outlays in Region (FY 1967) OEO Outlays in Region (FY 1967 less OEO Delegated Programs) 1. 4 million (1.0 million) (0.4 million) $10395 million $ 54 million Selected OEO Programs in Region (FY 1969): Number Community Action Agencies 74 Job Corps Centers 3 Job Opportunities in the Business Sector Projects 1 Concentrated Employment Program Projects 8 Work Experience Projects 36 Comprehensive Health Service Projects 2 VISTA Volunteers 2 37 Cognizant OEO Regional Director: Miss Josephine Nieves Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Northeast Region 72 West 45th Street New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 573-6411 Appalachian Regional Commission Total Poor Persons in Region (I960) Total Urban Poor Persons Total Rural Poor Persons Federal Program Outlays in Region (FY 1967) OEO Outlays in Region (FY 1967 less OEO Delegated Programs) 5. 5 million (1.9 million) (3. 6 million) $10659 million $ 103 million 190 Selected OEO Programs in Region (FY 1969): Numb e r Community Action Agencies Job Corps Centers Job Opportunities in the Business Sector Projects Concentrated Employment Program Projects Special Impact Projects Comprehensive Health Service Projects VISTA Volunteers 153 6 1 7 1 6 400 (Est.) Cognizant OEO Regional Directors: New York Miss Josephine Nieves Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Northeast Region 72 West 45th Street New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 573-6411 Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina Mr. W. Astor Kirk Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Mid-Atlantic Region Marsh Building 1832 "M" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 Telephone: (202) 382-1284 Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia Alabama, Mississippi Ohio Mr. William W. Suttle Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Southeast Region 730 Peachtree Street, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone: (404) 526-3172 Mr. Alan Beals Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Great Lakes Region 62 3 South Wabash Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60605 Telephone: (312) 353-5562 Coastal Plains Regional Commission Total Poor Persons in Region (I960) Total Urban Poor Persons Total Rural Poor Persons 2 . 3 million (0. 7 million) (1.6 million) 191 Federal Program. Outlays in Region (FY 1967) OEO Outlays in Region (FY 1967 less OEO Delegated Programs) $4147 million $ 27 million Selected OEO Programs in Region (FY 1969): Number Community Action Agencies 51 Job Corps Centers Job Opportunities in the Business Sector Projects Concentrated Employment Program Projects 2 Special Impact Projects 1 Comprehensive Health Service Projects 1 VISTA Volunteers 236 (Est. ) Cognizant OEO Regional Directors: Georgia and South Carolina Mr. William W. Suttle Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Southeast Region 730 Peachtree Street, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30308 Telephone: (404) 526-3172 North Carolina Mr. W. Astor Kirk Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Mid-Atlantic Region Marsh Building 1832 "M" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 Telephone: (202) 382-1284 Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission Total Poor Persons in Region (I960) Total Urban Poor Persons Total Rural Poor Persons Federal Program Outlays in Region (FY 1967) OEO Outlays in Region (FY 1967 less OEO Delegated Programs) 0. 7 million (0.2 million) (0.5 million) $1564 million $ 2 5 million 192 Selected OEO Programs in Region (FY 1969): Community Action Agencies Job Corps Centers Job Opportunities in the Business Sector Projects Concentrated Employment Program Projects Comprehensive Health Service Projects VISTA Volunteers Number 38 6 4 2 188 (Est. ) Cognizant OEO Regional Director: Mr. Alan Beals Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Great Lakes Region 62 3 South Wabash Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60605 Telephone: (312) 353-5562 Ozarks Regional Commission Total Poor Persons in Region (I960) Total Urban Poor Persons Total Rural Poor Persons Federal Program Outlays in Region (FY 1967) OEO Outlays in Region (FY 1967 less OEO Delegated Programs) Selected OEO Programs in Region (FY 1969): Community Action Agencies Job Corps Centers Job Opportunities in the Business Sector Projects Concentrated Employment Program Projects Comprehensive Health Service Projects VISTA Volunteers 1. million (0.3 million) (0. 7 million) $2033 million $ 22 million Number 56 4 Z 137 (Est.) 193 Cognizant OEO Regional Directors: Arkansas and Oklahoma Mr. Walter H. Richter Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Southwest Region Lowich Building 314 West Eleventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 475-5705 Missouri and Kansas Mr. Don Thomason Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity North Central Region 911 Walnut Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Telephone: (816) 374-3761 Four Corners Regional Commission Total Poor Persons in Region (I960) Total Urban Poor Persons Total Rural Poor Persons Federal Program Outlays in Region (FY 1967) OEO Outlays in Region (FY 1967 less OEO Delegated Programs) Selected OEO Programs in Region (FY 1969): Community Action Agencies Job Corps Centers Job Opportunities in the Business Sector Projects Concentrated Employment Program Projects Comprehensive Health Service Projects VISTA Volunteers Cognizant OEO Regional Directors: New Mexico Mr. Walter H. Richter Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Southwest Region Lowich Building 314 West Eleventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 475-5705 Arizona 0. 5 million (0.2 million) (0.3 million) $2040 million $ 38 million Number 33 11 3 1 298 (Est.) Mr. Laurence P. Horan Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Western Region 100 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Telephone: (415) 556-5400 194 Colorado and Utah Mr. Don Thomason Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity North Central Region 911 Walnut Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106 Telephone: (816) 374-3761 Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska Total Poor Persons in Region (I960) Total Urban Poor Persons Total Rural Poor Persons Federal Program Outlays (FY 1967) OEO Outlays in Region (FY 1967 less OEO Delegated Programs) Selected OEO Programs in Region (FY 1969): Community Action Agencies Job Corps Centers Job Opportunities in the Business Sector Projects Concentrated Employment Program Projects Comprehensive Health Service Projects VISTA Volunteers Cognizant OEO Regional Director: Mr. Laurence P. Horan Regional Director Office of Economic Opportunity Western Region 100 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 . 04 million (.01 million) (.0 3 million) $672 million $ 3 million Number 3 103 Telephone: (415) 556-5400 195 >- I— I— > 3 eg s Q- iz a. s. o ^ 9 o LU o C o o U_ — I QL O O CL O X U "* o -J H c3 £ OS do V u_ O uj •$ O o tr • £ -z. 3 u_ O uj O O cc CT O 1— z o cr a: UJ on «I »— CO a z « ►— o CO z u- cc ac — co 1— CO CO Z3 o •I > ac o h- a a: o ac o o z < CO CO CO ** £ o (_) 196 >- z o u o z o u. o UJ Z o Q i= Z ^ < O 12 i O o < z o o UJ < z o flO < u O 5J2 § 1 1 1 o 197 DESCRIPTIONS OF SELECTED OEO ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAMS Work and Training Programs Introduction: The work and training activities of the Office of Economic Opportunity consist of the Job Corps, School and Summer, Comprehensive Employment, Special Impact and Work Experience and Training programs authorized under Title I and Title V of the Economic Opportunity Act, as amended. These programs are designed to pro- vide a broad and comprehensive array of personal and educational services, work train- ing and experience to severely disadvantaged low-income individuals who are currently unemployed or underemployed. These programs in combination with those authorized under Title II of the Manpower Development and Training Act, the Vocational Rehabili- tation Act, and Title IV of the Social Security Act (the Work Incentive Program), form the nucleus of Federal activities directed at the employment needs of the poor. Purpose and Scope: There are an estimated 5, 500,000 disadvantaged persons who need and can accept work and training assistance, either to become employable or to upgrade their present job skills. Approximately two million of these needy persons are youths and adults who need to develop their basic education and job-holding abilities. Many of these individuals have personal problems which they are not able to overcome alone and which interfere in their remaining gainfully employed, including lack of day care ser- vices and adequate transportation services. The Neighborhood Youth Corps In -School and Summer programs deal with the problems of high school students from low-income families, who have a high probability of dropping out of school before graduation. These programs help students overcome in- come problems by providing part-time work during the school year and full-time work during the summer months. The Job Corps and O.ut-of -School programs induce youths and young adults who have dropped out of school to improve their employability either through a regimen of work- training and remedial education, or by completing their high school education. The Job Corps is a residential program for those youths who desperately need the intensive assistance and environmental change that only this program can provide. The Out-of- School Program is for those youth and young adults whose problems can be met through activities based in their home communities. In the adult program area six major programs have been established. The Operation Mainstream, New Careers, Job Opportunities in the Business Sector (JOBS), Concen- trated Employment, Special Impact and Work-Experience and Training programs. Operation Mainstream is a predominately rural program aimed primarily at the hard- core unemployed whose employment prospects are limited, due not only to lack of marketable skills, but also by age and its resulting limitations. The New Careers Program emphasizes the development of new jobs, or the restructur- ing of existing jobs, in the public sector, in order to provide employment opportunities 198 for the poor in the rapidly expanding areas of community and human services. The Job Opportunities in the Business Sector (JOBS) Program initiated in fiscal year 1968 is designed to create a partnership between government and industry to train and hire the hard-core unemployed, in order to reduce the incidence of joblessness among the disadvantaged in our largest cities. The Concentrated Employment Program (CEP) is an integrated manpower delivery system which marshalls a variety of manpower programs and supportive services into a single, comprehensive effort in geographically small, but demographically concen- trated urban communities, and in economically depressed rural communities. The Special Impact Program is directed at solutions of especially critical urban and rural problems, through project activities designed to make a substantial impact on the economic, business, environmental and training needs in the target neighborhoods and c ommuniti e s . The Work Experience and Training Program helps unemployed parents of dependent children and other needy persons to improve their employability through work and training activities. Fiscal Year 1969 is the final year of this program. Community Action Program Introduction: Community Action is the heart of the anti-poverty effort because it is built upon the American tradition of local initiative. The Federal role is to help stim- ulate and assist in local efforts. This community focus of the program has caught and directed the nation's attention to its poor. The objective of the Community Action Program (CAP) is to stimulate a better focusing of all available resources on the goal of enabling low-income families, and low-income individuals of all ages, in rural and urban areas, to attain the skills, knowledge, and motivations and secure the opportunities needed for them to become fully self-sufficient. CAP provides financial support, technical assistance, and guidance to communities in order to achieve this objective. Community Action and its principal programs and instruments (including local Community Action Agencies) are still evolving, developing and increasing in effective- ness with time and experience. Program designs, operating procedures, and relation- ships with other institutions at Federal, state and local levels are in a steady process of progressive change --innovation is a key principle underlying this program. Even the most articulate critics of CAP now recognize the need for the merit of the program, and arguments have shifted to those of strategy and tactics. The following table highlights the primary program categories of the CAP. It is follow- ed by a statement of purpose and scope, a summary of program and performance by fiscal year, and a highlight justification of the estimate for fiscal year 1969. Detail by 199 component program then follows. Purpose and Scope: In order to achieve a better focusing of resources on the goal of individual and family self-sufficiency, specific purposes of CAP are to promote: Significant and meaningful involvement of the poor in developing and carrying out anti -poverty programs. Mobilization of public and private resources in support of anti- poverty programs. Coordination of efforts throughout the community so as to avoid duplication, improve delivery of services, and relate programs to one another. Planning and evaluation of both long and short-range strategies for overcoming poverty in the community. Service as spokesman for the poor on matters of public policy and programs which affect their status. Administrative reform and protection to individuals or groups against arbitrary action. The above purposes are accomplished through the provision of financial support for a broad spectrum of programs, technical assistance, guidance and evaluation, and research and pilot projects. Such assistance is extended through approximately 1,000 Community Action Agencies (CAA's) established by local communities, CAA delegate agencies, special-purpose agencies, 49 State Assistance Agencies, and contacts with numerous private organizations. Community Action Agencies are the primary local vehicle for translating community action into a unified program. CAA's directly, or on a delegate basis, administer numerous educational, health, housing, manpower, legal, training, summer, and other service and self-help programs for the poor. Particular effort is made to involve the poor in program development and execution, and provide services at the neighborhood level by decentralization through the use of neighborhood service systems, boards and advisory councils. CAP programs not operated by or through CAA's are closely coor- dinated with the local CAA. They generally follow the same principles for community involvement, and similar patterns of organization and structure at the local level, i.e. , decentralization to the neighborhoods, and the use of community boards and advisory councils which include the poor as well as other segments of the community. At the end of 1967, 1,050 Community Action Agencies were in operation. 420 of these CAA's were in cities, 2 52 of them in cities with populations of less than 150,000. The remaining 630 CAA's were established in three-fifths of the 2,464 rural counties. On December 31, 1967, the number of rural CAA's had decreased to 591, serving 1,505 200 rural counties; the decrease coming about from mergers and consolidations of small rural CAA's into larger organizations. In addition, the Community Action Program is serving over 80% of those Americans living on Indian Reservations. There are CAP projects established in all five of the territories. By the end of 1968, it is estimated that 1,020 Community Action Agencies will be in operation; as seen above, many have merged or will merge, and some new agencies may be established as a result of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1967. By the end of 1969, the Community Action Program will be serving approximately 980 local Community Action Agencies. Neighborhood Service Systems Program Description : To acquire the greatest benefit from the array of anti-poverty programs and services offered by the Community Action Program and other Federal, state and local agencies, the number of poor people who participate must be as large as possible. Neighborhood Centers help to maximize participation by the poor in a number of ways. First, Neighborhood Centers make programs and services more accessible. Second, by being in the poor neighborhoods, the services and activities available through neighborhood centers are more likely to be known than those located in another part of the community. Third, centers in poor neighborhoods are less likely to have an institutional atmos- phere and method of operation that is so unattractive to poor people. Fourth, because a number of services are ordinarily offered through the same neighbor- hood center, one visit by the poor person exposes him to a number of programs. Fifth, by involving the poor themselves in neighborhood centered programs, a start is made toward overcoming psychological barriers that prevent many anti-poverty pro- grams from realizing real effectiveness: lack of self-confidence, fatalism, helpless- ness and indifference. Neighborhood centers are found in the largest metropolitan areas, medium-size cities and small towns. The target populations range from a few thousand to several hundred thousand. A neighborhood center might operate out of a mobile unit, storefront, or much larger facilities. The kinds and methods of operation of neighborhood centers can be as disparate as the communities they serve - from Centers in metropolitan areas which are open daily, in evenings and on weekends, to rural centers open several days a week on a scheduled basis. Neighborhood centers offer a wide variety of services. A survey revealed that 48% of the neighborhood centers in operation offered social welfare services such as emergency shelter or public assistance information. Forty-three percent of the centers offered manpower services. Health programs were offered in 35% of the centers, school age 201 education programs in 28%, consumer education and action in 28%, legal services in 21%, and cooperative enterprises such as credit unions and consumer cooperatives were located in 9% of the neighborhood centers. Many Community Action Agencies establish satellite centers which act as referral sta- tions for more comprehensive centers or offer limited services. Many other Community Action Agencies open up, in response to community interest, facilities which offer very few services, but instead serve as "community organization centers." These centers are often the locus of self-help and community betterment enterprises operated by the poor community. In these self-help activities many poor people for the first time en- gage in self-expression and in actively trying to better themselves and their environment. In emplementing local anti -poverty programs, the Community Action Program has turn- ed to the resources of the poor themselves. The poor are employed in non-professional jobs such as "outreach" workers -- working among the poor to determine what their needs are and publicize the activities of the neighborhood center. Non-professionals also serve in tandem with professionals as aides in program areas such as health educa- tion, job development, social work and consumer action. Adult Education Program Description: Adult education projects provide instruction in basic literacy and computational skills to the poor as a fundamental step in their eventual escape from poverty. Programs usually offer training of three general types: 8th grade equivalency, 12th grade equivalency, and English as a second language. Although these skills are frequently taught in connection with functional subject matter, curricula and methods are diverse. Instruction may be given in brief, "immersion" courses immediately prior to vocational training, or in long-term classes which persons attend over time, taking work geared to their individual needs. The primary OEO mission in adult education is to develop innovative methods of teach- ing basic skills for large-scale adoption by school systems and other community insti- tutions providing compensatory education. Numbers served will, therefore, continue to be small compared -with the estimated population who need such assistance (4, 300, 000). Upward Bound Program Description: Upward Bound is a pre-college program for impoverished high school students who are capable of attending college, but cannot hope to do so because of the psychological, social, and environmental conditions of poverty. Operated largely by colleges and universities, Upward Bound projects offer a summer residential pro- gram on a college campus and follow-up activities during the ensuing school year to keep the youngsters college -bound. These potentially talented young people are given new motivation and help in improving academic skills, thus greatly increasing their promise for acceptance and success in college. It is estimated that there are 600,000 impover- 2 02 ished youth who have the intellectual capacity to do college work but who, because of inadequate educational background, require intensive pre -college training. Although programs vary between universities, the State University of Iowa provides an illustrative example. About 100 students entering the 10th, 11th or 12th grade, from varied racial and educational backgrounds, are enrolled. Included are delinquents, deserted youngsters, the physically handicapped, and dropouts. The basic summer pro- gram is built around a core of language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics. Supplementary instruction is offered in music, art, dramatics, photography, debating, and elementary tutoring. Enrollees select and plan their own extracurricular activities. As a follow-up, the staff meets with enrollees twice a month during the next year for tutoring and counseling sessions, in addition to information meetings held in the enrollees 1 home communities. The youngsters return to the campus twice during the academic year. School Age Education Program Description : Through various supporting activities, school age projects test new ■ways of supplementing the formal education or poor youths. The primary CAP objective is to develop and demonstrate improved models of compensatory education, rather than to conduct programs for major portions of the estimated population who could benefit from these services (5, 100, 000 youths). Numbers of persons served will, therefore, continue to be relatively small. One type of program typically found in this category is the tutorial, in which private citizens frequently volunteer their talents as tutors, thus making it possible to serve many more students than could otherwise be reached. Head Start Program Description: Head Start is a Community Action program which provides year- round and summer preschool programs for economically disadvantaged preschool children. Head Start programs are carried out in Child Development Centers which offer a com- prehensive range of service crucial to the child's development. These services include medical and dental care, psychological counseling, nutritional support, social services, and a program of daily activities designed to provide the child with a variety of fruitful and constructive experiences. Parent involvement is an integral part of every Head Start program, for it is only by a thorough understanding of the goals and techniques of Head Start that these benefits can be continued and reinforced in the home. Parents participate in the planning and operation of programs and hold staff positions in centers. There are approximately 1,800,000 poor children of preschool age in the United States who will not be reached by other programs who could benefit from the Head Start exper- ience. 203 Summer programs are for four or five-year old children who will enter kindergarten or first grade in the fall. Full-year programs are operated on either a part or full-day basis. Full-day programs offer an extended day of Head Start activities, averaging eleven hours, for the children of parents who are working or who for some reason cannot take care of the children after a part-day program would be over. These programs operate twelve months a year as compared to part-day programs, which operate on the average of four hours per day for nine months. Approximately 54, 000 children where in full-day programs in fixal year 1967. With the recent emphasis on manpower programs, the demand has increased for full-day programs and the number of children in them is expected to increase. These programs are subject to the joint day care standards being development mutually by OEO and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Head Start has devoted a great deal of effort to improving the quality of programs. One of the earliest policy decisions was that all communities with a sincere interest in the program would be welcome to participate. This meant accepting communities with very limited resources in terms of knowledgeable staff and available services. Having made that decision, OEO has made a substantial investment in training and technical assist- ance. Taking into account the amounts of in-service training funds included in operating grants, in addition to the headquarters training and technical assistance allocation, it is estimated that nearly ten percent of all Head Start funds are being invested in these activities. Technical assistance services are provided on a part-time basis of five hundred experts in early childhood development and education, psychology, social work, parent partici- pation, nutrition, and administration. During fiscal year 1968 the American Academy of Pediatrics has begun providing technical assistance and evaluation in the health area. Training activities are designed for both professional and nonprofessional employees. An important objective of the Head Start program is the creation of career ladders that will permit significant numbers of poor persons to assume increasingly responsible posi- tions. Of the 31,000 nonprofessional employees currently in full-year Head Start pro- grams, more than one-half should, with good supervision and continuous training, be able to assume portions of--or in some cases--full professional responsibilities. Training needs are not, however, limited to nonprofessionals. Relatively few persons have been trained at the professional level to work with disadvantaged children. Special- ized training opportunities are, therefore, provided for Head Start staff to increase their competence in this area. From the beginning, it was realized that a comprehensive and thorough research and evaluation effort would be necessary if maximum benefits from ongoing programs were to be widely realized, and if new and better techniques of child development were to be found. Research, demonstration, and evaluation of new methods have been conducted in universities, colleges, and other educational institutions and are continuing to be con- ducted in an effort to open up new program vistas. Head Start exemplifies community action by encouraging the poor to assist in the solution 2 04 of their problems and by mobilizing a broad attack on all the needs of the disadvantaged child, with total community efforts supported by Federal and local resources. Head Start in turn relies heavily on the services which other Community Action components provide, such as health, employment and educational programs. This support is necessary to ensure that success in the classroom will not be negated by an unsatis- factory atmosphere at home. The mutual reinforcement effect of Community Action programs is also important after the child leaves Head Start, for it is only through a comprehensive attack on poverty directed at all ages that continuing opportunities to help themselves can be afforded to Head Start children and their parents. Head Start Follow Through Program Description : The primary objective of the Follow Through program is to con- tinue into the early school years the same kinds of specialized and individualized atten- tion and support for the disadvanted child and his family which are possible in Head Start. The program was developed because of evidance that children who progressed -well in Head Start do not perform equally well after they have been in kindergarten or first grade classes for some time. By providing additional funds to local communities to complement local, state and Title I (Elementary and Secondary Act) funds, a full program can be developed. Funds will be granted to communities which have a sub- stantial percentage of Head Start or other quality preschool graduates. Heavy emphasis is being placed in the initial stages on programs that will permit detailed examination of the effectiveness of alternative approaches in working with disadvantaged children. School districts will be asked to take part in a cooperative effort in which a number of program characteristics will be varied--from district to district — so that a careful assessment of results will yield conclusions as to which approaches are most successful. Each district will be asked to choose one area within a program of comprehensive services for children as a focus of special effort. The choice can be made among several major fields, including instruction, program organization, staff development, ancillary services, organizational auspices, and family involvement. Districts will be selected that are judged to have high potential for developing and ad- ministering effective programs and are willing to participate in one of the programs of "planned variation" outlined above. Each district will be invited to choose and explicitly define a general approach of "program model", and accept the help of experts in explor- ing the implications of the chosen approach and in developing a detailed project proposal to support an application for project funds. The district will also commit itself to cooperate with other local Follow Through communities and educational contractors in developing and carrying out an intensive assessment or program effectiveness. Since the great majority of the projects will be granted to local education agencies in the hope of changing their approaches to teaching educationally disadvantaged young children, the Follow Through program has been delegated by OEO to the Department of Health, 205 Education and Welfare and is administered by the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, Division of Compensatory Education, Office of Education. Comprehensive Health Services Program Description : Existing methods of providing health care to the poor are generally inadequate with respect to accessibility, scope, and continuity of care. Numerous barriers make it difficult for poor families to receive appropriate services promptly and in the early stages of illness, with desirable follow-up by a personal physician. Organization of services, administrative regulations, transportation problems, and other factors often contribute to these barriers. As a result, poor people suffer more illness than other Americans. Costs are often greater to treat a particular malady among the poor since they usually do not get care until the symptoms are advanced. Health problems make it difficult - and often impossible - to take advantage of education- al and employment opportunities, in addition to the toll in human suffering. In 1965 OEO undertook a new program to devise and demonstrate new ways to provide comprehensive care to low-income persons through Neighborhood Health Centers. Medical care experts and community groups throughout the country participated in devel- oping this new concept in delivering care. These local programs were aimed both at overcoming existing barriers and at involving residents of poor communities in planning and operations. Through membership in neighborhood health councils and employment in new types of health positions, neighborhood residents take an active role in raising their health status and standards. Eight demonstration projects were funded in fiscal year 1965 and 1966. These projects have demonstrated methods of providing comprehensive services including prevention, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, drugs, appliances, mental health, and family planning. Services are organized so as to consider the needs of all family members and to provide or arrange for all necessary care. Training programs for local residents prepare them for new jobs as family health workers, medical assistants, laboratory aides, or other positions. About one-half the jobs at these Centers are filled by target area residents. Community Haalth Services Program Description : Community action agencies have developed a variety of health projects in response to local needs and priorities. Many of these have supplemented other anti-poverty efforts, such as neighborhood service systems and manpower training programs. Most have enlisted the cooperation of local agencies concerned with the health of the poor, such as medical societies and health departments. 206 Family Planning Program Descript i on : Family planning services include contact and education, and medical examination, including Pap smears and supply of contraceptive materials for women utilizing a medical method of family planning. A family planning center can serve as the major delivery vehicle. Centers not part of broader health programs may operate with a client-consultant model rather than a patient-doctor relationship. Family planning activities are also conducted in hospitals and neighborhood health centers as part of broader health programs operated by local communities. All family planning activities are undertaken on the basis of local initiative, and decisions are entirely voluntary. Studies prove that poor families desire few children than they are having. Family planning offers alternatives which permit poor persons to achieve mastery over an important area of their lives. Family planning programs involve among the lowest costs per person in relation to potential effectiveness in reducing poverty. The universe of need for family planning is an estimated 4. 5 million women between 16-40 years of age. Emergency Food and Medical Services Program Description : The Emergency Food and Medical Services program has three major components. The first component attempts to find and encourage hungry or mal- nourished persons to participate in existing food programs such as Food Stamp, Commodity Distribution, or School Lunch. Where these programs are not in existence or where persons identified as being in need are not eligible under local guidelines, special arrangements can be made to furnish food. Outreach under this activity is con- ducted through existing CAA's, or where CAA's do not exist through local welfare and health agencies and private organizations. Medical assistance for families thought to be suffering from malnutrition-related health problems is also provided. The objective of the second program component is to expand existing food programs by extending coverage to persons and into areas not now covered by Food Stamp, Commodity Distribution or School Lunch programs. Funds are transferred to the Department of Agriculture for implementation and operation of this component. The third component consists primarily of demonstration projects. These include the utilization of diet supplements and training of outreach and community workers to provide information to families needing food assistance, to aid persons in establishing their eligibility for participation in food pro- grams, and to provide guidance in selecting and preparing food. Some demonstrations will involve the development of food production and processing cooperatives. All pro- gram components are operated in cooperation with HEW and the Department of Agricul- ture. 207 Housing Development Corporations Program Description: Inadequate housing is one of the most serious maladies of poverty. In 1964 over four million poor households lived in housing that was dilapidated, lacked plumbing facilities and was overcrowded. The poor also have another type of housing problem: the proportion of their income which they spend on inferior housing is much too high. There are, at present, a number of Federal mortgage insurance programs which can be utilized to provide decent housing that poor people can afford. These programs, ad- ministered through the Federal Housing Administration require a sponsor that is either a non-profit or limited dividend corporation or a cooperative organization. The corpor- ation or cooperative organizes the project and applies to FHA for financing. In the past, however, these non-profit organizations often had difficulty in securing financing be- cause of lack of professional and administrative expertise. In 1966 and 1967 OEO began experimenting with Housing Development Corporations act- ing as sponsors for FHA and conventionally financed low-income housing. These corporations being together the lawyers, architects, real estate and construction spe- cialists needed for the development of low-income housing. The corporations take a number of different approaches. They can build new structures, rehabilitate old ones, lease existing buildings, and, in turn, either lease or sell to poor people. Their prin- cipal purpose is to develop administrative and technical capability to take better advant- age, for poor people, of existing housing programs. The Community Action Program funds provide working capital and meet managerial and professional costs of the corpor- ation, costs which must be met before construction financing can be made available. The Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation is an excellent example of the way in which Community Action "seed money" has been used to secure financing for low- income homes and to foster local government and business partnership with Community Action. The Housing Development Corporation (HDC) is a delegate agency of the Philadelphia Community Action Agency. The Community Action Program provides operating funds for staff and equipment. The City of Philadelphia has provided a $2, 000, 000 revolving fund for capital expenditures. Mortgages for individual buildings have been insured under FHA programs and financing for some of the buildings have been provided by a $20, 000, 000 fund provided by the city's private financial community. And finally, a number of local neighborhood community organizations are involved as sponsors for specific rehabilitation and new construction projects. The Philadelphia HDC currently plans over 600 housing units at a total value of $8, 000, 000. Housing Services Program Description : Housing service programs are operated by Community Action Agencies to meet specific housing needs of poor people that cannot be provided by pro- grams of other agencies. They consist of a range of activities, depending upon local needs, including emergency programs such as legal assistance with eviction problems, 208 and landlord negotiations, assistance with emergency repairs, and relocation assistance. They also include longer -range programs such as providing poor people with a better understanding of the housing market and preparing them for more effective participation in housing-related public hearings and administrative processes. An example of a housing service program is Project RESCUE, a delegate agency of the New York City anti-poverty program. Project RESCUE has focused on the need for improved city-wide code enforcement procedures and immediate housing repair needs in the Bronx. Residents from the area are trained in construction, with an emphasis on on-the-job training conducted by small contractors. These contractors work out of ten community center partially staffed by neighborhood workers who receive complaints on emergency housing problems, contact repair personnel and follow through to insure that the repair is made. Legal Services Program Description : The Legal Services Program provides legal representation to the poor in the best tradition of and consistent with the high standards of the legal profession. This includes: 1. legal advice, legal representation and counseling; 2. advocacy of changes in laws which unfairly and adversely affect the poor; 3. preventive legal education to inform the poor of their legal rights and responsibilities; 4. mobilization of law schools, law associations and private attorneys in a concentrated attack on the legal problems of the poor. Legal Services projects operate in conjunction with local community action agencies as a part of the community -wide anti-poverty program. Sixteen hundred full-time attorneys are working in rural and urban areas in 48 states to provide legal representation to the poor. These lawyers operate from a variety of bases including local store-front offices, CAP neighborhood centers, and mobile vans. Some "circuit-ride" in sparsely settled areas. Preventive legal education takes the form of lectures, panel discussions, the distribution of pamphlets, and in cities such as Cincinnati, the use of dramatic skits on radio and TV. The legal educational system has already begun to adjust to the new in- terest in the legal problems of the poor --at least 50 of the 134 accredited law schools in the United States have initiated courses in "Law and Poverty" as part of their curric- ulum during the past three years. The Legal Services Program has from its inception worked closely with the American Bar Association to ensure that the program is carried out in a way that assures maintenance of a lawyer- client relationship consistent with the best standards of the legal profession. 209 The local programs' Boards of Directors determine minimum standards of indigency below which potential clients' incomes must fall before receiving legal services. Clients who fail to meet the indigency requirements or who have fee -generating cases are referred to private attorneys. In 1967 over 31, 000 cases were referred to private attorneys, while private attorneys in turn referred over 62, 000 clients to Legal Services projects. Opportunities Industrialization Centers Program Description : Opportunities Industrialization Centers (OICs) are manpower training programs that provide a complete range of activities for underemployed and un- employed men and women. The programs, which are open to all regardless of education or skill level, provide recruitment, intake, pre -vocational "feeder" training, skill training, job placement and job development. The program provides complete pre- vocational and vocational training courses and also prepares people for the more ad- vance job-training programs such as MDTA and OJT. The skill training section of OIC trains people in occupations such as clerical workers, cooks, keypunch operators, sales- persons, electronics assemblers and menders. Opportunities Industrialization Centers began in Philadelphia in 1964, when after a campaign to reduce discrimination in hiring practices, it was discovered that a great number of the unemployed did not possess the necessary attitudes and skills to fill job openings. The Opportunities Industrialization Center was started to train and motivate the poor for available jobs in the Philadelphia area. Operating on the basis that proper motivation was as necessary for job success as was quality training, the OIC stressed the concept of "self-help": OIC trainees do not receive stipends. The Philadelphia OIC also recognized that their effort would not be successful without the cooperation of private industry. Employers in the Philadelphia area have provided more than a quarter million dollars worth of training equipment. The Philadelphia prototype OIC has proven the viability of the "self-help" concept and has also shown that private industry will cooperate in training the disadvantaged, even on a voluntary basis. The OIC program has been expanded to about 60 communities. Eighteen of these are funded by the Community Action Program and by other Federal agencies. The remain- ing OICs do not receive any Federal money but are financed by their communities. CAP Manpower Programs Program Description : One of the major unsolved problems of the Federal anti-poverty effort is the difficulty of coordinating the variety of manpower programs which serve the poor, including those funded by the Community Action Program, those funded under other titles of the Economic Opportunity Act and delegated to other Federal agencies, and those funded by the Department of Labor. Community Action Agencies have in- creasingly become a major vehicle for delivering manpower programs; because they operate at the local level; because they can tailor programs to the real needs of the poor; 210 because they are in position to interweave the functions of outreach, intake, testing, training, counseling, job development, placement and follow up; and because they can provide other necessary supportive services such as day care, health services, legal services, etc. Community Action manpower funds provide for Community Action Agency staff personnel necessary to coordinate manpower programs. CAP manpower funds provide necessary "gap filling" programs not existing from other resources. And CAP manpower funds provide for locally initiated programs, not funded by other agencies, designed to reach the hard-core disadvantaged. As additional specialized manpower training resources, such as the Concentrated Em- ployment Program, the JOBS (Job Opportunities in the Business Sector) program and the Special Impact program become available in the larger cities, Community Action manpower funds will be used in smaller cities, and increasingly, in rural areas. CAP funds will be used in these areas in much the same way they were used in the larger cities; providing Community Action Agency staff manpower personnel, providing "gap- filling" services and funding manpower programs for the poor that do not meet other program criteria. The most significant problem faced by Community Action Agencies in their manpower coordinating efforts is a deficiency of qualified personnel. There are simply not enough good manpower coordinators available for all the CAA's operating manpower programs. There will be an intensive effort undertaken if fiscal year 1968, and continu- ing in fiscal year 1969, to improve the capability of CAA manpower staffs. These efforts will involve the establishment of intern training programs, the development of effective training courses and the utilization of technical assistance. Manpower staffs in the OEO regional offices and the state technical assistance offices will also receive training. Comprehensive Consumer Action Program Description : The low-income consumer problem is basically one of captivity. The economic and geographic isolation characteristic of urban and rural poverty areas has traditionally tied the low-income consumer to a system which provides low quality at high prices and which denies reasonable economic choice with regard to goods, services, and particularly credit. Comprehensive Consumer Action Programs are designed to mobilize members of a community around a credit union or other source of low-cost credit for the purpose of attacking common economic problems. The basic elements of such a program include: (1) consumer education through action, (2) an operating credit union or other source of low-cost credit, (3) debt consolidation and debt reduction services (4) family financial counseling, (5) buying clubs, and, (6) where possible, a legal component served by a Legal Services program or some other outside source. 211 Consumer action programs are important because they provide low-income groups the means to create their own economic choices, improve their quality of living, and event- ually, with their acquired financial and organizational skills, develop the competence to create and run their own local enterprises. Home and Family Services Program Description : Home and family services are designed by local communities to meet additional needs of poor families which reflect a diversity of local poverty circum- stances and the special requirements of certain age groups. In essence programs in this category round out a comprehensive approach to poverty problems by addressing needs which may be of a major significance in a particular poverty community though not of primary import on a nation-wide basis. In addition to providing needed services these programs add an individually-tailored focus to individual community action pro- grams which reinforces their identification as locally-initiated anti-poverty activities. Emergency assistance programs help low-income people surmount obstacles, usually temporary in nature, which might otherwise be catastrophic. Financial assistance may take the form of small loans to families in crisis situations, and loans to persons in certified community disaster areas. Other forms of emergency assistance include homemaker services provided by trained, low-income subprofessional aides to needy families handicapped by sudden death, illness or absence of a family member. Food and related programs range from distribution of raw and prepared food to distribu- tion of seeds and other materials to increase the yield of gardens for home consumption and occasionally marketing purposes. Some very needy areas require assistances- for basic administrative services in order to participate in existing government food pro- grams. In conjunction with other CAP programs, food may be distributed to the poor and hot lunches provided for young children or the aged. How management and homemaking programs vary widely in scope but are basically designed to improve the home situation of low-income families and individuals. Instruc- tion is provided in such areas as budgeting, nutrition, effective use of government food programs, health care, accident prevention, home maintenance and minor repairs. Year round recreation programs operating in low-income areas offer deprived youngsters an opportunity to form constructive group relationships and to broaden their interests by exposure to sports, games, crafts and trips. Apart from their direct value, they also serve as a deterrent to juvenile delinquency. These programs are funded in poverty areas with high youth concentration which otherwise would lack adequate recreation facilities. Cooperatives Program Description : Cooperatives are people working together to help themselves get what they need, what they want, and what they couldn't get by themselves, but they are 212 also business enterprises that must eventually have an impact on the economic standards of the community in which they are located. CAP Cooperative Programs, therefore, provide a method by which people of low-income groups can band together to provide a variety of commonly needed services. Besides credit cooperatives which are ordinarily funded as part of Comprehensive Consumer Action Programs, these may include production, marketing, housing, health, or trans- portation services. The typical CAP cooperative is rural and may be a feeder pig opera- tion or a handicrafts co-op on an Indian reservation. CAP Cooperative Programs also supply management training and technical assistance that enable participating low-income groups to develop the expertise to create and ex- pand their own local enterprises, to thereby increase their incomes, and to improve the general standards of living of their communities. Summer Youth Program Program Description : CAP Summer Youth Programs are designed to help already hard-pressed urban areas deal more effectively with the increased problems of youth during the critical summer months. Specifically they are aimed toward providing recreational, work and training, educational, and cultural opportunities to the several million American youth in low-income neighborhoods, who freed from classrooms and other activities, lack a purposeful outlet for their energies. The range of Summer Youth Programs directly serves an age group of approximately three to thirty years and includes recreation, camping, community services, community relations, education, and cultural enrichment. Such programs provide a variety of activities and experiences: Athletic contests, supervised playground activities, physical fitness and sports instruction, camping experiences, guidance and counseling, tutorial and remedial programs, arts and crafts instruction, street fairs, trips to local histori- cal sites, and employment opportunities related to the above activities. The ultimate aim of the Summer Youth Programs is to give the young people in low- income neighborhoods a chance to acquire new, demonstrable skills, to increase their community awareness and to develop a sense of self-respect and self -awareness . To this end CAP national guidelines stress not only the involvement of young people in planning and operating the programs, but also the importance of follow-through and the linkage of summer projects to ongoing or related year-- round programs. CAP Indian Programs Introduction : In assessing the problems to be attacked in fighting poverty on Indian reser- vations, it is repeatedly brought to mind that besides the basically shocking statistics on health, life expectancy, education, unemployment, housing, transportation, and com- 213 munications, there is a long record of expenditures on behalf of the American Indian living on Federal Indian Reservations. Prior to the efforts of the war on poverty this situation was frequently referred to as the "Indian problem. " The CAP Indian Program is approaching its task from the point of view that anti-poverty efforts on Indian reservations with severe economic problems must be focused from several directions. Conditions relating to long-term economically depressed areas include: the psychological condition of dependency, the social dilemma of mass undereducation, and the very important set of conditions surrounding situations of culture and language differences. The basic philosophy of CAP is that things will not be done for the Indian people on the reservation, but rather, that they will have to do things for themselves. The tribes have direct contact with a special office in Washington, staffed by people who have experience on Federal Indian Reservations, many of them Indians, too. The general approach of the Indian program is to afford significant opportunities for tribal leadership to experience successes in attacking the problem areas of housing, health, education, etc. , thus providing opportunities for tribal leadership to experience successes in dealing with these problems at the grass roots level. The results appear to be fulfilling the goal of essentially strengthening the existing tribal councils in terms of their abilities to plan for long-range economic development and secure and use re- sources heretofore not available or used. A major point of the CAP philosophy is that each individual Indian tribe will operate at its own level of program sophistication and that program development itself will be an educational process. It is also believed that broad-based, meaningful work experience programs in these hard core areas can be effective means of upgrading attitudes toward work, developing managerial and administrative capabilities, and motivating family members to upgrade their education, work habits and skills. At the same time these programs are effecting visible improvements on the reservations in sanitation, home repair and cleaner and safer places to live and work. By developing a policy of utilizing a portion of the funds available to CAP as incentive grants (with general endorsement of the tribes participation in OEO programs) there is greater acceptance and use of the concept of competition. Through multi-agency funding and program cooperation with tribal leadership, the problem of economic depression is being met cooperatively with common goals and approaches. Agencies other than OEO which have cooperated in joint -fundings include: Housing Assistance Administration, Economic Development Administration, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Public Health Service, Division of Indian Health, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Labor. Purpose and Scope: American Indians are eligible to participate in the full -range of programs made available by the Economic Opportunity Act. 214 American Indians have a legal-historical relationship with the United States Government which is unlike that of any other citizens in the nation. In colonial times, those who resided in the territory of the thirteen colonies reached treaty agreements with the colonial governments. Today these agreements are reflected in either the existence of state Indian reservations or no reservations at all. Indians now residing in the original thirteen states traditionally have looked to state and local governments for needed services, just as their non-Indian neighbors do. Following the formation of the United States, the Indians with whom treaties subsequently were made lived outside the original colonies. Thus, treaties were made, not -with individual states, but between the Federal Government and the Indian nations. Many of these agreements included establishment of Federal Indian reservations and the pro- vision of certain services in exchange for large areas of land. The Indians on most of these reservations have traditionally looked to the Federal Government for the majority of services which are provided by state and local governments elsewhere. Most Indians on Federal reservations have tribal governments chartered by the Federal Government. These tribal governments and their constituents, like municipal and county governments, are eligible to apply for the full-range of OEO programs. Thus, OEO considers Federal Indian reservations to be another kind of community, recogniz- ing a special case in which the Federal Government has traditionally provided a variety of services and in which there is an extraordinary depth of need. Accordingly, Indians are served by CAA's as members of communities in -which they live -- some as residents of Federal reservations and others (not living on reservations) as residents of cities, counties, and states. The response by reservation groups to the provisions of Title II of the Act, Community Action Programs, has been vigorous. Because of the unique legal -historical relation- ship of the reservation residents to the Government, the extreme depth of poverty on reservations, and broad cultural differences, special arrangements have been made to enable the mounting of effective CAA's on Federal Indian reservations. The Indian Division, Office of Special Field Programs of the Community Action Program has direct operating responsibility for meeting this response by Federal Indian reserva- tions. This arrangement allows the Indian tribes direct access to the OEO Washington Office. The range of CAP activities is wide; however, there is a clear pattern of emphasis on programs aimed at improving the future of small children, strengthening of home and family life, and upgrading the education and health levels of the communities. Because of the nature of the various CAA's there are great variations in the number of residents on any reservation receiving direct benefits. In each instance the identification of needs and the establishment of priorities are responsibilities of the applicant reserva- tion community action agency. 215 All resident poor, within a designated service area, are eligible to participate in the development of programs, opportunities for employment, and receipt of services on a non -discriminatory basis, so that CAP activities may eventually reach the 390, 000 Americans living within areas now being served. Presently, 312, 000 (over 80%) are being reached by Community Action Programs. Indian Economic Development Indian reservation problems are highlighted by isolation, as well as massive needs in overall development. Through coordination with other Federal agencies, such as EDA, assistance is being provided to the reservations in planning the total development of their areas. There are two types of unemployment prevalent on Federal Indian reservations. The most difficult type to overcome is long-term unemployment where individuals who may have had certain work skills are suffering from economic regression. The longer they are unemployed, the more difficult it is to find permanent employment. They lose their skills and fall prey to the lag caused by the increasing demand for upgraded skills when employment finally does become available. The other type of unemployment is the seasonal gap caused in a worker's job caused by seasonal agricultural production and seasonal Federal construction activity. Consequently, it is not unusual to find 40 to 50% of the available work force on an Indian reservations unemployed. There are occasional cases of 90% unemployment on the more isolated reservations. Indian Community Organization On an Indian reservation, community organization should really be called "community reorganization. " The impetus has been provided by the OEO philosophy that (1) things would not be done for the Indian people on the reservation, but rather that they would have to do things for themselves and, (2) each individual program will operate at its own level of sophistication and that program development itself will be an educational process. Indian Educational Development The educational development programs planned by the tribal councils are as varied as the tribes themselves. The reason is that these programs are geared especially to the needs of the tribal members and are designed to prepare large numbers of reservation residents to live in a more complex society and to prepare them for the industrial development -which is beginning on most reservations. 216 Indian Home Improvement Only 25% of the houses on Indian reservations are adequate by normal standards. Twenty-one percent of the houses are repairable but 54% of the houses are so sub- standard they need to be replaced. Housing programs on the- reservations concentrate on construction skill training with housing construction or repair as secondary benefits. HIP (Home Improvement Program) matches on a one-to-one basis the OEO funds for the trainees. The housing materials are provided by the individual tribes, the families or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The results are upgraded adult basic education, skill training and improved or new housing for the participants. Approximately 75, 000 family members have benefited directly or indirectly through the Home Builders Training Programs on the reservation. Twenty-five hundred of these have received training in building skills which will enable them to obtain permanent employment. The others have either had homes constructed by the trainees or repaired to the point that they are no longer sub-standard. Indian Health Health services are available to most Indians on reservations through U.S. Public Health Services, Division of Indian Health, or local contract services. However, there is a great need for health education for the reservation residents, particularly in teach- ing the values of good health and sanitation practices, since only 40% of the reservation homes have sanitation facilities. Special Indian Programs Programs in this area reflect the diversity of the Indian cultures and needs as well as the OEO policy of funding activities based on the degree of program sophistication of a reservation. Special programs include forming credit union, which in addition to establishing saving and loan facilities, also provide basic consumer skill training in saving, borrowing and interest rates to the participants. Special youth programs operate both year round and in the summer for youngsters not covered by the Department of Labor's Neighborhood Youth Corps. These youth receive supervision and direction in recreation, sports, remedial tutoring and other community services . 217 Other programs include those designed to provide assistance to senior citizens in home repair, basic physical assistance, instruction in safety practices and recreation. Under this category are the Incentive Grants which, with tribal endorsement, are pro- moting a greater acceptance and use of the concept of competition. They are an impor- tant factor in accelerating leadership development and in meeting some of the crucial needs of the tribes. Most incentive grants are made to tribes who will match funds for high visibility, short-term projects benefiting the entire community. Indian Head Start Programs Program Description : Preschool education for Indian children has been a long recog- nized need pointed out by Indian and other educational specialists in the field of Indian education. Prior to the passage of the Economic Opportunity Act, it was not possible for the Indian preschooler to obtain preschool training since the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools serve only children past the age of six. The Head Start component has become an integral part of every one of the Indian CAA programs and is operating as the sole component in six other reservations prior to regulate CAA program development. The Indian Head Start program has a built-in flexibility that stimulates innovative approaches geared specifically to the participants in the program. Indian children benefit from national Head Start requirements in health, nutrition, and parent education. Indian Legal Services Program Program Description : Programs range in size from eight Northern Pueblos with six staff attorneys and five area offices to the Lower Barle and Crow Creek program with a director and one staff attorney. In many instances the population can't speak English and Indian interpreters are used. There are no private attorneys on the reservation, or in most areas, within 100 miles of the reservation. Legal service attorneys practice in tribal courts as well as in state and Federal courts. Activities include preventive legal education and information, legal research and lav/ reform and evaluation of area legal services. Staff attorneys, in addition to general legal assistance, seek to dis- cover areas in which the Federal, state or tribal law works to the detriment of low- income persons, either substantively or procedurally. The staff attorney works to bring the foregoing to the attention of legislators, courts, bar association, and others who may correct such laws. Research and Pilot Programs Introduction: Research and pilot programs supply a basis for new approaches in the fight against poverty. Study results have provided valuable information and data to support planning of current and future programs. Results to date have produced an in- creased understanding of the causes of poverty, a variety of successfully tested service programs, more accurate data concerning attitudinal problems of the poor, and improved staff expertise in community action agencies. Prototypes for effective national programs such as Legal Services, New Careers, Upward Bound, Foster Grandparents, Rodent Control, and Medicare Alert were developed by research and pilot programs. The Health Center Pilot program led to the development of the new Comprehensive Health 218 Centers program. A study which provided data, analyses and recommendations for Neighborhood Service Centers was particularly valuable and has become the basis for a new concept of neighborhood service systems now being discussed throughout the Federal Government, particularly with the Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development, Health, Education and Welfare, and the Department of Labor. Purpose and Scope: The persistency of poverty in this country despite a burgeoning national economy and a growing system of social welfare programs underlines the need for developing new tools which can be used to help the poor become self- sufficient. The Community Action Program, as one of the more innovative concepts of the War on Poverty, maintains a continuing thrust of research and pilot programs designed to develop and test new anti-poverty weapons. Efforts are carried on in three main areas: 1. Broad research to develop knowledge which will contribute to the development of new programs or the improvement of existing programs. 2. Pilot programs to test new program methods, structure, and techniques. 3. Evaluation of on-going Community Action Programs to provide information which can be used to strengthen services being provided for the poor. 219 Migrant and Seasonal Farm Worker Program Introduction: A special program under Title III-B addresses the unique poverty- problems of a group that has traditionally been one of little national concern, although its contribution to the economy is a vital one. This group consists of the 2. 8 million migrant and seasonal farm worker force and members of their families. The average annual earnings of a farm worker range from $1, 000 to $1, 500. Except for the Amer- ican Indian, migrants and seasonal farm workers are the poorest group of American citizens. Traditionally they have been exempted from most social legislation. Only recently were they included under the minimum wage law, and then at a lower rate than that for industry. Unlike the urban poor, farm worker families have few public welfare and rehabilitation programs available to them. Socially, the migrant fares no better. The children suffer, too --in education and in health --as they travel along with their families. Because of economic necessity, many children must work alongside their parents; the rest are necessarily left unattended and often meet with cruel injury or even death. Those who survive have little recourse but to follow their parents into the fields. Their education is too deficient, their training too limited, to permit them to do otherwise. These circumstances alone warrant a massive effort on the part of the American public. However, their problems are compounded now that something new has been added to the American farm -- the machine. Technological unemployment has become a major factor touching the lives of every farmworker. What has happened in tomato harveting in the last couple of years is indicative of the trend. In 1964, 4 percent of the tomatoes in California were harvested by machine. Today, almost 94 percent are. A National Advisory Commission on Food and Fiber report forecasts a 40 percent decrease in farm labor requirements by 1980. The farm worker facing displacement is prepared neither for non-farm jobs nor for skilled farm work. Purpose and Scope: The unusual nature of migrant problems has presented OEO with a unique challenge. Flexibility is imperative in agency orientation and program design. Traditional approaches are inadequate to deal with the poverty, isolation, constant mobility, the language barrier (many are Spanish-speaking) and the interrupted and limited education that restricts the average farm worker and his family. For the past three years, a coalition of church groups, universities, private nonprofit corporations and state agencies has joined forces with OEO to upgrade and rehabilitate farm workers. The major thrust of programs now operating in 37 states through 127 public and private agencies is education and rehabilitation. Its objectives is to enable thousands of underemployed, undereducated and unskilled farm workers to enhance their role as contributing, useful members of their communities. 220 Title III-B program approaches are as varied as the people they serve in the migrant and seasonal farm worker force. They range from large single-purpose programs in home-base areas such as the Adult Migrant Education Program conducted in 26 Texas school districts which serves more migrant workers (4, 200) than any other single program funded by OEO, to a small but multi-service program operating in Mason City, Iowa for both the seasonal migrating work force and a group of resettling migrants. In the summer, there are adult education classes at night combined with supportive services such as health, and day care. In the winter, the adult rehabilitation program consists of full-time basic education along with the supportive services, and locating permanent housing for the families resettling in the area as a result of jobs obtained through the program. Other programs cooperate with private industry in training farm workers for entry into the skilled job market. In Wisconsin, through the OEO program and the Madison Vo- cational Institute, such companies as Ray-O-Vac, Kipp Company (manufacturers of electric motors), and LeMay Violin Company have trained and then employed the grad- uates of the UMOS rehabilitation courses. Training programs are now being formulated which will add to advancement within these specific companies. The cost of the program will be repaid in taxes by the ex-farm workers in less than three years. In Coahoma, Mississippi, the program approach and training are geared to obtaining jobs for seasonal farm workers previously on welfare, and GED (High School Equiva- lency Exam) preparatory courses from which graduates are being plucked by private industry, as fast as they graduate, for jobs at good salaries ($2. 40 an hour - RCA). Increased communication between Title III-B programs, through conferences and regular newsletters, is providing a coordination of services as the still needed migrant force moves through the states. Migrant Education and Rehabilitation Program Description : OEO's goal in its Title III-B Adult Education and Rehabilitation programs is to make them self-paying propositions by enabling migrant and seasonal farm workers to enter job training programs, obtain higher-paying jobs and become more useful members of a community. In many cases, it is a new community in which they must become participating members. Permanent Housing Program Description : The major emphasis in OEO's Title III-B housing is in self- help housing programs that enable farm worker families to build their own homes. The self-help housing programs are a joint effort in which OEO provides technical assistance and training, the farm workers themselves provide the land and labor, and the Farmers Home Administration provides long-term, low interest loans for the building materials for the resulting well-constructed permanent homes. 221 The cost per unit varies from area to area, depending on the variables, including local costs of living and salaries. The average OEO cost per house is about $2, 500. In addition to technical assistance given to families in obtaining housing loans, and training and supervision in construction skills, education in home management and money management (loan repayment, family budgeting, etc. ) are an integral part of the program. The OEO cost is a one --time investment. Once the housing is construc- ted, the owners absorb all maintenance and operation costs. For a relatively low financial investment, OEO transforms rural ghetto dwellers into settled, taxpaying property owners. For example, an analysis of the self-help housing program in Florida shows that the OEO investment there results in a home worth approximately $11, 000. In other areas of housing, 7Z0 families have improved existing housing, and 798 have found adequate housing, mainly in resettlement areas, through OEO programs. Other Migrant Services A variety of other services are provided as integral parts of ongoing programs, i. e. , housing, rest stops, sanitation, camp visits, etc. , coordination with other state, local and Federal agencies. An estimated 90, 000 farm worker family members receive these services annually. Day Care and Related Family Services Program Description : In order for the farm worker family to subsist it is usually necessary for the migrant mother to work along with her husband and older children. As a general rule, community-provided child care services do not benefit the farm worker. The cost for the services is too high and the hours of child care too short to meet his needs. In the absence of any alternative, parents have been forced to leave their children unattended, often in locked cars by the roadside. Title III-B day care and related family services programs are designed to meet a variety of inter-related needs. The services provided the Gonzalez family by the Arizona Council of Churches' day care program is typical: Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez entered their three children, ages 26 months, 16 months and 5 months, in the day care program in Maricopa County. The children were brought to the center in diapers made from old curtains. They had no shoes and but a few well-worn hand-me-down clothes. Before enrolling the children in the center, Mr. and Mrs. Gonzalez had been forced to leave their children in their automobile while they worked in the fields. Upon entry into the program, the children were given medical examinations and sub- sequently taken to the Maricopa County clinic for treatment. Unlike most children 222 their age, neither the 26 -month-old nor the 16-month-old could utter a word. All three children were unaerfea ana unclear. The Council of Churches program staff has worked with the Gonzalez family, training the mother in child care and providing guidance for the children. The mother now takes considerable pride not only in the appearance of the children, but in her own appear- ance. The 26-month-old can now speak. The father is an enthusiastic participant in the Title III-B sponsored adult literacy and pre -vocational courses where he is obtain- ing skills potentially leading to a better job. This is but one family salvaged by this program. Similar stories could be told about the other 1, 500 children being served by the OEO-sponsored Arizona day care centers. Rural Loan Program Introduction: The Rural Loan Program combines supervised credit and family educa- tion to increase the ability of poor rural families to earn higher incomes through their own efforts and join -with others in cooperatives that increase incomes and reduce costs. Loans assist poor farm families headed by persons handicapped by age, lack of educa- tion, or a physical disability to improve their capacity to earn more, develop their limited farm resources, and live better as a family. These loans also promote "mobil- ity in place" for small farmers and other poor breadwinners living in rural areas who have the skills and other requirements but lack the capital to successfully operate a small nonfarm business, service or trade. The cooperative loan program enables poor rural families to organize and operate small cooperative organizations that add to earnings, conserve income, and teach mutual self-help. The Rural Loan Program is administered by the Farmers Home Administration (FHA) of the Department of Agri- culture under delegation from the OEO. Purpose and Scope: Individual loans may be used to finance operating costs, capital items, and real estate purchases and improvements connected with the borrower's farm or other enterprise that will lead to an improvement in his income -earning potential. Refinancing of real estate and chattel debts also is an eligible purpose if it contributes to the basic objective of the loan. However, loans to finance farming enterprises are made only to established farmers. To obtain a loan, an applicant must have experience in the enterprise he wants to finance or opportunity to receive training in the skills required to operate the enterprise. Cooperative loans maybe used for basic capital items; land, buildings, and other real estate purposes; to provide operating capital, pay costs of organizing the cooperative, and refinance certain debts. To qualify for a loan, an applicant must have an income that is insufficient to provide his family with basic needs for a minimum level of living in their community, pay necessary operating expenses of their farm or other enterprises and meet required payments on income -producing property, if any. FHA also must determine that other credit is not available to the applicant, and in the case of nonfarm loans, that the 223 service or product involved is not being adequately supplied by others in the area. In- dividual loans may be made up to an aggregate principal indebtedness of $3, 500. Loans generally are secured by a promissory note and a loan agreement. The maximum term is fifteen years with an interest rate of four and one-eighth percent on the unpaid prin- cipal. Cooperatives financed by a rural loan may be either incorporated or unincorporated associations providing a needed marketing, purchasing or processing service or facil- ity predominantly to low -income families and individuals. Before a loan may be made, FHA must determine whether the service or facility involved is not already being supplied by others in the area. Loans to cooperatives have a maximum term of thirty years; the interest rate is the same as for individual loans. Administration of this program at the local level through the 1, 700 FHA county offices is basically a three-stage process: Taking and processing applications, making loans, and supervising borrowers after the loan has been made. Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA) Introduction: VISTA' s mission is two -fold: 1. To help people and communities out of poverty; and 2. To strive for significant social change which will remedy the conditions which cause poverty. VISTA Volunteers strive for the deepest possible involvement with the people they serve and in the community to which they are assigned. Through this involvement they seek significant social change among the people with whom they are working and within the community at large: change that will ultimately make the presence of the Volunteer unnecessary. CAP brings to bear on the problems of poverty, among other things, the power of the dollar and the impact of a creative Federal /state /local relationship. VISTA brings to bear on the problem of being poor the same creative relationship plus the equally powerful impact of the skill, energy and imagination of thousands of private citizens who are concerned enough about the irony of poverty in an affluent society to live and work in the nation's grimest urban slums and most isolated and deprived centers of rural decay. This is a viable and productive relationship. For, just as there is more to poverty than being poor, so there is more to being poor than being without funds. VISTA, CAP and other anti -poverty programs are making a coordinated assault on the conditions which cause poverty and on the conditions which poverty causes. Neither effort can succeed alone. 224 There are three types of Volunteers --the full-time Volunteers who serves for a year or longer, the Associate Volunteer who serves for a period of ten to twelve weeks, and the Citizens Corps Volunteer who donates free time to the program. At the end of fiscal year 1969, it is estimated that the full-time corps strength will stand at 4,800, and will be complemented by 1, 500 Associate Volunteers and 100, 000 Citizens Corps participants. Demonstration programs will involve approximately seven hundred Volunteers. Purpose and Scope: Today more than eighty-five percent of all VISTA Volunteers work with local Community Action Agencies or with CAP -funded programs. The re- mainder work with the mentally ill or retarded in Job Corps camps, with other OEO programs or in local grass-roots organizations in CAP -target areas. The VISTA vol- unteer is the "cement" for the Economic Opportunity Program, working in support of and as a community -wide extension of CAA's, Head Start, Job Corps, Legal Services, Neighborhood Health Centers, Upward Bound, and other Economic Opportunity Pro- grams. In other areas, the VISTA Volunteers serve as the advance guard for the Economic Opportunity Program, moving into isolated and structureless areas where CAP and other OEO programs have yet to penetrate. The Volunteers range in age from eighteen to eighty-three and represent every state in the nation and every facet of the economic spectrum. More than ten percent have been recruited directed from the ranks of the poor. VISTA Summer Associates program was designed to bring to bear on carefully selected problem areas large numbers of concerned Americans concentrating their energies to achieve maximum impact over a relatively short period of time. It is also a program designed to bring to the Economic Opportunity Program the particular skills of law students, medical students, nursing trainees, and others who may not be available on a year-round basis. The program also utilizes not only the energies, but the particu- lar knowledge of poverty possessed by those who know its problems first hand by involv- ing in the summer program large numbers from the ranks of the poor. The VISTA Citizen Corpsman works side-by-side, on a part-time basis, with VISTA Volunteers and Associates assigned to his community. He serves as a tutor, works in recreational programs, gives personal attention and assistance to individuals and families in poverty and participates in community-wide projects aimed at specific problems of poverty in his community. The VISTA Research and Demonstration Program will through operational research seek to discover new and improved ways to structure VISTA projects, to recruit and select better Volunteers, to train them to be more effective, and to evaluate their out- put so that VISTA Management can determine a means of resource allocation which will optimize output in terms of concrete assistance to people and communities in poverty. Through demonstration programs we will seek to find creative new ways to utilize Volunteers in the service of their present target populations and new ways to reach poverty populations not yet within reach. 225 OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY The Information Center The Information Center of the Office of Economic Opportunity is divided into four major divisions -- Director and Staff (which includes a Deputy Director, an Executive Office, an Automatic Data Processing Policy and Management Office, ADP, and the Federal Information Exchange System Office, FIXS), the Information Services Division, Tele- communications Division, and the Data Processing Division. The Director and his immediate staff provide overall direction of all functions assigned to the Center. This includes formulation and implementation of administrative systems to insure economy of operation, efficient utilization of existing resources, and coordina- tion of all management functions. The ADP staff develops and controls plans for the design, improvement and standardization of ADP operations, and provides policy guid- ance for ADP operations. The Information Services Division responds to requests for information concerning OEO programs and socio-economic programs of other agencies. It provides information support to OEO staff, other agencies, Members of Congress, and the general public. It maintains a library branch, and does special studies of American life as it related to poverty. The Telecommunications Division develops and maintains a communications network between Headquarters, Regional Offices, Job Corps Centers, and -with other government agencies. The Data Processing Division maintains a complete data processing program to service the management and informational needs of OEO and related agencies. The Federal Information Exchange System The Information Center of the Office of Economic Opportunity has recently developed the Federal Information Exchange System (FIXS). The FIXS collects data from Federal, state and local governments and some private sources to support its several components. The four components or subsystems of FIXS are the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, the report of Federal Outlays , the Community Profile and the Federal -State Information Exchange. 1, The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance identifies and describes Federal assistance programs which are available to individuals and communities. Copies of the Catalog are distributed to all Federal, state and local officials and on request to the public at large. 226 2. The report of Federal Outlays provides data on all domestic Federal dollar outlays. At the state and national levels these dollar outlays are summarized by agency, program and budget functions. At the county level they are detailed by program, activity, and appropriation. In other words, the report of Federal Outlays shows where and for -what purpose the Federal dollar is being spent. 3. The Community Profile embodies a statistical data-bank assimilated from many sources. This component of the FIXS produces a set of Profile reports which portray population, geographic, social and economic characteristics in text, tables and graphs for each county and independent city in the country. By describing the conditions in the community the Profile may indicate where additional dollar outlays are needed. 4. The Federal-State Information Exchange is a cooperative effort between participating States and the Federal Government. Its purpose is to aid States in collecting information about State funds being spent to match Federal grants and for operation of independent State programs. Each State participating in the FIXS -will report State outlays on a quarterly basis to the Federal system where this information will be combined 'with Federal data and made available to Federal and State officials. Copies of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance may be obtained from the OEO Information Center, Room 221, 1200 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506. Each report of Federal Outlays and each Community Profile may be purchased from the Clearinghouse of Federal Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Discount rates maybe obtained for the Profiles when purchasing copies for all counties in a State. For more detailed information on these documents, contact the OEO Information Center. 227 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Report of Loans Made in Regional Economic Development Regions Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1968 During the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1968, Small Business Administration made (or participated in) 7, 443 loans with a total value of $260, 305, 929 in the seven regional commission areas. SBA's share of these loans (either the direct disburse- ments or its guaranteed share of a participation loan) amounted to $224, 391, 188. Distribution among the various regional commissions by type of loan and dollar value is reflected in Table 1. Since, in most instances, the regional commission boundaries are not coincidental with SBA's regional boundaries, it is not possible at this time to forecast our activities within the regional commission boundaries during the coming year. Other tables, attached, show the distribution of loan activity by states in the various regional commissions. County detail, showing not only the data reflected in the state, but also those counties in which no loans were made last year, is available for Appalachia, Coastal Plains, Four Corners, Ozarks, and Upper Great Lakes Commis- sions, but has not been included in this report. Programs of the Small Business Administration The Bureau of the Budget has recently approved a program category structure for the Small Business Administration which sets forth in broad terms the major areas of Agency program emphasis. The structure is comprised of the following program categories: To stimulate small business in deprived areas: This program category draws out for special emphasis all forms of assistance to small business in rural and urban areas which have been desginated by responsible Federal agencies (principally EDA and OEO) as economic problem areas. While both urban and rural areas are covered, the principal thrust of this program, as such, is expected to be in assistance to economic development efforts in rural areas. To promote equal entrepreneurial opportunity for minority persons: This program category encompasses all SBA assistance to new or established small business concerns owned by Negroes or other minority persons. Ad- ministrator Samuels has launched a major expansion of this program (Project 228 OWN), in cooperation with banks, industry and community leaders. While the program is not confined to specific geographic locations, it is expected that principal initial progress will be realized in the central cities of major metropolitan areas. To stimulate small business contribution to economic growth and competitive environment : Since all SBA assistance to any small firm in deprived areas or to any minority-owned firm is included in the other two program categories, this basic program encompasses assistance to small firms owned by whites and located in areas of relatively rapid economic growth. For the most part, this program will encompass business and geographic areas outside the boundaries of the regional commissions. We are currently in the process of developing historical information showing the distribution of SBA assistance among three basic program categories and preparing forecasts over the coming five years. This information should be available within one month. A tabulation of loans made over the past year within the areas covered by each regional commission is attached. 229 < u
  • o u CO cd J ■iH in oo oo oo oo m cd X CO < CM CM 0O 00 CM LD o m in CM oo o oo r- CM oo o o o CM CM r- oo (M CM vD i— I r- oo OO 00 o oo 00 o in o o 0O oo o m oo CM 00 o OO in o 00 i— < ^h O CM o in oo o 00 r- o o oo CM O f- o oo o (M O o 00 o o sO o CM 00 in oo cm" o o NO <# ■* o in r- 1— 1 m t- O CM o in CO i—( i— 1 o CM «* o OO p- oo CM ■tf <* o o in CM o CM O in oo o CM O in o OO in o CM in oo oo CM CM •H u T3 +J cr) •i-t A o ft u ft i-H cd CD ,_, o oo C W w U CD X CD u x CI) CO u u a, CCJ 2 !# cd ft o o V N ft < u h Z o ID CM o^ in o oo o CM ■fee- CM o o m ■fee- o oo oo CM 00 CM in ■fee- in o o o o o O in CM o o o o o O CM OO -* o o o m ■* in CO CM o CM CM i-H -* i— i r~- in in OO -tf c- oo i-H oo i-H —1 i-H CM in i-H sD in oo" i-H o i-H OO < H O 230 1 - ro 00 < IT) oo cq Id oo CO ,4 W "* <* in i— i id 00 H to ■W3- +-> n a ■^ ti in sO (\ Ri G in o Dh id o — I U o CD > J i— i 3 ■be- o J o o O w i— i ■be- m (M h o 0) „ 4-> en CO rO id ^0 to •H Q m m <\] J ro PQ oo* Q oo •fee- to 00 CO ro CD i-H Pi „ •iH o co o 3 r- PQ •fee- i— i CO oo id d 00 o cd in H A oO td X to ^ < o in a i—i •rH id > id +» o c o TS X cd 1) SI 42 O U o Z31 < u to rfl J 00 fl S >> " g fl m > O M i-H in IT) ID CO o o in in co o o co 1— 1 oo o CO o CO o 00 ■60- CO ro CO i-H 4 o oo o o CO in 1— 1 (V] o o o a- o o o r- co co CO CO 00 in CO o CO o CO CO -to- o o ^ o o oo co o co oo CO o in ^ r- O- oo o o^ r- o CO vO o oo -^ o ^f in CO o co o **" o o oo in co <* CO O O o o co o in i-H o o co co oo r— 1 CO r- co r^ 00 -tf o ^ o ^ CO o o o o o r— 1 o co o o o ^ o ■69- O o m co co ■feO- o o m co co r- ^" co oo o o o o O m o o o o f— i o o o m ■— i CO m ~ - „ ■, „ ■* I CO 1 co v£ r- r- , oo 1 -O r- o r— 1 v£> CO CO co o o CO o o in o o o o o o o CO oo CO CO o o o o r- o m CO o o o o o o o o o o CO o m in f— 1 CO i-H 00 co i-H f-H CO co ■be- u o o in en co o co cci O o 00 n o i-H v£> oo o o o o CO o •fee- o o o o~ co o o o r-" oo o in co co co o o o o^ o o in o o CO CO r- o o o o" o o o oo" i-H o o o o o 00 o o o o i-H in ct) C r° ° o o o o o oo o m o o o in r- co o o CO o o o o o o o in o o o o o o o m o in m i-H m vD O oo o m in in i-H in CO m CO i-H oo CO in CO oo i-H m CO oo oo •—> CO CO co CO CO oo i-H •* .— i t^ o in •fee- ■te- ' i-H < H CD •rH u o U •H rfl fl cu 6 CO CU u H % s o Ph H > &s CO i-H CO -* r- o i-H in r~- CO CO CO CO CO CO "* •* •* 232 < s pq «j in A o "r 1 2 SI §3 Q - 1 2 •4-) Co £3 m CO o o 1— < o o o o in o r- ro ro ro ro O ID 00 in vO in o o o o o o o rO fSJ o o 00 o ro o o 00 CO P- o o O in 00 ro o s0 o CO in o o o r- r- <* ro ro m s0 m- rO O ro r~ ro 0> ro 00 O m o ro o> ro O r- o o o o m ■ee- ro ro r~ C\J ro -«*" 00 O t— ! . — 1 CO in ti a! •i-t r-l •A J rti O o J ^ 2 * 5 4-> ro o O o o 00 O O ro ■fee- CD o Lfl -fee- o o 1 — t o o oo rO re- el o N •H < CO o LTl r- m ro in en IT) ro t- oo* oo oo o o o o o oo r- m ^" o o o o in o SO oo IT) o -d O i — i o U in o o o o CO CO «5- O O r- o ro o o ro o^ 1— 1 r~ 1— 1 ro o o o ro a) ro m i— i ■W5- Tfl r- in ^ ^ ro oo < — i ro t>- ro *tf m O ro ■w- oo cr- ro ■feQ- o o o o o o m o o in ro ro CO o oo v£> r-H CO t^ oo -* sD m o t~- -H m ro 1 — 1 ^o o I — I o o vO o ro ■te- o o o ro ro i—H •te- m . — i •ee- < Eh O 234 o I— I CO CO n s o u I o I— I o w pcj P o W 2 o o m o m O o i-H m "tf 1— ( r- O 00 Tt 1 t- ■ — i CO 00 C^- t- J I 1 pq |S co -5 CO O cn o o vD o o 1—1 t> o o O -* ^ in ro o \D — 1 ro o ^ _ m o ro ro r- 00 ro m ■to- te- o m M0 r~- m O ro i — i o vO 00 cr> 00 o t- id o o O vO r- ro f- +j o o (Nl CM •* O O c- H ro 00 m m 00 . — i r- m r^ 00 ^ O 00 ro in vO CO (NJ o oo 00 CO 1 r~ OJ o in -tf CO •iH Q 1 00 ro 00 i— i m ■— < ro ■* o 00 ^ o o o m ^ o r— 1 ro 00 m oo Q co v£> r^ 00 OO oo "tf 00 i—( i — i ro 00 i— i oo in i—i ■fee- ■w- CO o o O r^ o o o- CO o in M0 mo o o t*- 0) oo m m ro 00 oo 00 G •H MO <* o o> o o> r-T co ro ON o> t- 4-> T3 3 CU CO d, nJ A u ■ rH o 0) CU 3 u a r— 1 co i— I CU +-> o a < O a c CO T) H a •r-l 2 CO 2 £ O u o CU A vO 00 o oo co o CU rCj CO •H a U o u Ph CU -4-> oj -m co u o co W H O 235 < n 2 >* 2 5 a, co O & ri £ > ° Q cd C 53 1— 1 o 1—4 - « n „ ^ ^ CM CM ■fefl- ■fee- o o o o 00 in o vO ■69- o o IN] CO o o o o m ■69- O 00 *9- vO o ^o o CM r- o co o i— I o ro ^O CO 00 v£> r- 00 (M ** MD r- O r— 1— 1 vO CM -* oO co ^ ** in CO 1— 1 ■&e- ■69- o o co o in co o o o o co CO IT) i-H o o sO co co O o o 0> ■fee o o oo CM O O O^ vD ■69- o o IT) cm CM ■69- o o vD 00 CO o o CO cm i-H vO 00 o r>- !-H CM ■— t CO i— i t- CO' o .—I -st< —I 00 ^H in r- 05 cd ■H cd a o cd i— i en 09 3 H cd AS rcJ gg o CO CO O h rd •H AS — < CM CO 236 o 1—1 CO to O u i o i— i o w CO W 5 H ^ Oh I— 1 0) > ID o (J o -1 Q 3 CQ r— 1 tn «J a +-> rrt H a o in o o CO cr- LTl OO ■to- o o o **" LT) o o 00 o o sO ro «■ o o t> >* — I O * * CT- ^ o> f-H LTl t> CO ro i— i ■fcfl- o o o^ LTl o o o o o o LTl oo - a, m i-H rh "tf (VJ -tfi- o o m o O o O o <* (M TH i—4 oo r— I in ««■ o o o r~ oo v£3 o O o O 0> in 00 (M o oo o (M ro i-H i-H ■efi- i-H O •H CO < cc C H •H a.) o H ,£! e u u C 05 •H • i-( •H s i ^ 1— 1 oo CO m ro xt< 237 SEC TION VII CLOSING REMARKS BY UNDER SECRETARY JOSEPH W. BARTLETT CLOSING REMARKS BY HONORABLE JOSEPH W. BARTLETT UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE I think this meeting has been very productive. Time is growing short, of course, in which to get this Federal Advisory Council really established as a going organization. It is clear that the President's intent was to link up certain aspects of the Regional Commission programs and the agencies' programs under the heading of coordination. That is what we want to have done, and that is what we are going to try very hard to go about doing in this Council. Some things as we go around this room are already being done, and I am impressed with the ad hoc link-ups between agencies and the Regional Commissions. It seems to me, quite clear, however, that we are doing something less than a full job of coordinating agency programs and regional programs in each region. It seems to me the trick is to establish a formal coordinating procedure, formal link-ups, yet not overly formal where it becomes just another way people spend their day at a series of meetings. This is what I think is the job for the designated representatives of the Federal Advisory Council. I ask that you meet with Doug Jones as the Executive Secretary of the Council, to get something together which on a continuing basis will institutionalize the ad hoc arrange- ments which we have going at the present time. The actual devising of the link-ups is not an appropriate subject for this opening meeting. Now seems to me this is going to require some additional hard work if we are to fit the pieces of the jig-saw together. I would like to get a consensus that the "second-level committee" of representatives will be charged with holding a meeting at an early date to come up with the necessary link-ups. I don't mean to touch this with a light brush. I think if the President's objectives are going to be met, we have to get down to business, and that is the business Doug Jones and the Federal Advisory Council are working with. As far as other items are concerned, this is in the form of announcements. You may recall that in addition to treating the budgetary plans and programmatic matters of the Regional Commissions as prescribed in the Executive Order there is also the legislative aspect. I call to the attention of the Federal agencies that the Department of Commerce, the Federal Cochairmen and the head of the Field Committee are presently formulating legislation for the follow-on to the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (under which the Commissions are titled) and that programs specific to each region are being prepared by the individual commissions. Lastly, Bill McCandless in the Ozarks Commission has requested that we extend the boundary of that region to a state-wide basis for three of the four states. This is a policy matter for Commerce, is far from being a matter without controversy; and has, of course, substantial Congressional interest. We have asked Ross Davis and Doug Jones to provide us with a good analysis of the implications. They are going to have the results of the analysis before too long, but I don't know just when that is goingto be. It is a matter that affects the Ozarks and some of the other Commissions, and pre- sumably will be of general interest to the Council. 240 MR. CHANDLER: I am curious about the level of individuals you actually expect to meet with you, Doug. Some of us are almost certain not to be here after the first of the year. As we go down the staff level, their are pretty senior types who would almost certainly be here. I would suggest that you get continuity at this time by dealing with career Civil Service employees. MR. BARTLETT: If I could answer for Doug, it seems to me that is true. However, within the period that remains between now and the 20th of January there is still a lot that can be done. We want to involve fully the senior administrators of agencies con- cerned here. In order to get decisions made, it seems to me we are going to need involvement of the Presidential appointees, which is what the Executive Order specified. The Council is charged with the duty of making some decisions and actually putting these in effect in response to the Executive Order during this present administration. If I didn't think that, I would look toward a very different timetable. The Council's efforts must be on-going. DR. JONES: For the record, I would underscore the point that the Executive Order it- self makes clear that the Council is to not slip below the Assistant Secretary "or equivalent level official", as it says. Not only do I understand that to be what the Order means, I also think that that is the right way to do it. MR. BARTLETT: I understand the point that could be made about continuity. I think there should be continuity, that the people who are going to be doing the back-up work continue to be involved. But also we have to have the people who have the authority to commit their agencies and people who can raise their hands and vote yea and nay on some of the proposals that will be put forward, and that is ordinarily a difficult position in which to put somebody below the Presidential appointee level. MR. BEHRMAN: I don't think you are going to have to. Assistant Secretary Sylvester has got me doing the work on which he is making the decisions, and he is on board in everything that goes on. MR. BARTLETT: I think that is the point. All right, gentlemen, having no further business, the meeting is adjourned until further call. (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 1:00 o'clock p.m. ) 241 APPENDIC ES APPENDIX A EXECUTIVE ORDER 11386 PRESCRIBING ARRANGEMENTS FOR COORDINATION OF THE ACTIVITIES OF REGIONAL COMMISSIONS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RELAT- ING TO REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND ESTABLISHING THE FEDERAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS the proper discharge of Federal responsibilities under the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 5, 40 U.S.C. App. ) and the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 552, 42 U.S.C. 3121 et seg. ), as amended by Public Law 90-103, 81 Stat. 257, requires that the participation of the Federal Government in regional development activities be effectively coordinated; WHEREAS the President is required by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to provide effective and continuing liaison between the Federal Government and the Appalachian Regional Commission; WHEREAS the Secretary of Commerce has responsibility under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 for Federal economic development activities designed to alleviate conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and underemployment in economically distressed areas and regions of the Nation; WHEREAS the Secretary of Commerce is directed by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to coordinate the Federal Cochairmen appointed to regional commissions established before or after the date of that Act; WHEREAS the Secretary of Commerce is required by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to provide effective and continuing liaison between the Federal Government and each regional commission established under Title V of that Act; and WHEREAS the Secretary of Commerce has been Chairman of the President's Review Committee for Development Planning in Alaska, established to provide general direction and guidance to the Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska, established by Executive Order No. 11182, dated October 2, 1964: NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and as President of the United States, it is ordered as follows: Section 1. Functions of the Secretary of Commerce. The Secretary of Commerce shall - - (a) Provide the effective and continuing liaison required by section 104 of the Appala- chain Regional Development Act of 1965 and by section 503(c) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 between the Federal Government and each regional 244 commission established under those Acts, and between the Federal Government and the Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska (hereinafter referred to as "the Field Committee"). (b) Obtain a coordinated review within the Federal Government of plans and recom- mendations submitted by the commissions and the Field Committee. (c) Provide guidance and policy direction to the Federal Cochairmen and the Chairman of the Field Committee with respect to their Federal functions. (d) Promote the effective coordination of the activities of the Federal Government re- lating to regional economic development. (e) In carrying out the functions set forth in section 1(a), (b), (c), and (d) the Secretary of Commerce shall -- (1) Review the regional economic development plans and programs submitted to him by the Federal Cochairmen, budgetary recommendations, the standards for development underlying those plans, programs and budgetary recommendations, and legislative recommendations; and advise the Federal Cochairmen of the Federal policy with respect to those matters, and where appropriate, submit recommendations to the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. (Z) Review and advise the Chairman of the Field Committee with respect to the tenta- tive plans and recommendations of the Field Committee, and receive and consider the final plans and recommendations of the Field Committee and transmit them to the heads of interested Federal departments and agencies and to the President. (3) Resolve any questions of policy which may arise between a Federal Cochairman and a Federal department or agency in the implementation of regional development programs. (4) Appoint a Special Assistant and other staff as required to assist him in carrying out these functions. Sec. 2. Establishment of the Council, (a) There is hereby established the Federal Advisory Council on Regional Economic Development, hereinafter referred to as "the Council. " (b) The Council shall be composed of the following members: The Secretary of Commerce, who shall be the Chairman of the Council (hereinafter referred to as "the Chairman"), the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Transportation, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Federal Cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission, such Federal Cochairman as are appointed by the President under authority of Title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and the Chairman of the Field Committee. 245 (c) Whenever matters within the purview of the Council may be of interest to heads of Federal departments of agencies not represented on the Council under section 2(b) of this order, the Chairman may consult with the heads of such departments and agencies and may invite them to participate in meetings and deliberations of the Council. (d) The Council shall meet at the call of the Chairman. Sec. 3. Functions of the Council. The Council shall assist the Secretary of Commerce in carrying out the functions set forth in section 1 of this order, and shall, as requested by the Secretary of Commerce -- (a) Review proposed long-range economic development plans prepared by the regional commissions and the Field Committee. (b) Recommend desirable development objectives and programs for such regions and Alaska. (c) Review proposed designations of additional economic development regions under Title V of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. (d) Review Federal programs relating to regional economic development, develop basic policies and priorities with respect to such programs, and recommend administrative or legislative action needed to stimulate and further regional economic development. (e) Review proposed department or agency regional economic development plans. (f) Recommend surveys and studies needed to assist the Secretary of Commerce and the Council in carrying out their functions. Sec. 4. Responsibilities of Participating Federal Agencies, (a) Each Federal depart- ment and agency the head of which is referred to in section 2(b) of this order shall, as may be necessary, furnish assistance to the Council in accordance with the provisions of section 214 of the Act of May 3, 1945 (59 Stat. 134, 31 U.S. C. 691). (b) The head of each such Federal department or agency shall designate an Assistant Secretary or equivalent level official who shall have primary and continuing responsi- bility for the participation and cooperation of that department or agency in regional economic development as required by this order. (c) The head of each such Federal department or agency shall keep the Secretary of Commerce and the Council informed of all proposed regional economic development plans of his department or agency. (d) The head of each such Federal department of agency shall, consonant with law and within the limits of available funds, cooperate with the Council and with the Secretary of Commerce in carrying out their functions under this order. Such cooperation shall include, as may be appropriate, (1) furnishing relevant available information, (2) 246 making studies and preparing reports, (3) in connection with the development of programs, priorities, and operations of the department or agency, giving full consider- ation to any plans and recommendations for the economic development of the various regions, including recommendations made by the Council, and (4) advising on the work of the Council as the Chairman may from time to time request. Sec. 5. Responsibilities of the Federal Cochairmen and the Chairman of the Field Committee. The Federal Cochairmen, and the Chairman of the Field Committee as appropriate, shall -- (a) Maintain continuing liaison with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to the activities of the regional commissions and the Field Committee. (b) Adhere to general Federal policies affecting regional economic development that are established by the Secretary of Commerce. (c) Inform the appropriate Federal departments and agencies of programs and projects to be considered by the commissions, and attempt to obtain a consensus within the Federal Government through consultation with appropriate Federal agency representa- tives before casting a vote on any such matter. (d) Represent the participating Federal departments and agencies in connection with the activities of the regional commissions. (e) Submit to the Secretary of Commerce regional economic development plans and programs of the regional commissions, budgetary recommendations, legislative recommendations, and progress reports, as requested by the Secretary of Commerce, on the activities of the regional commissions. (f) Submit reports required by section 304 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 and by section 510 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 to the Secretary of Commerce for review prior to transmittal to the President or the Congress. Sec. 6. Appalachian Program, (a) Funds appropriated pursuant to sections 201 and 401 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 shall be available to the Federal Cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission for the purposes of ■ carrying out that Act. (b) The Federal Cochairman of the Appalachian Regional Commission is delegated the functions conferred upon the President by sections 214(a), 302(a), and 302(c) of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, which shall be exercised by him in accordance with the provisions of this order. Sec. 7. Construction. Nothing in this order shall be construed as subjecting any function vested by law in, or assigned pursuant to law to, any Federal department or agency, to the authority of the Council or the Secretary of Commerce, or as abrogating or restricting any such function in any manner. 247 Sec. 8. Definition. Except as the context may otherwise require, any reference herein to any Act, or to any provision of any Act, shall be deemed to be a reference thereto as amended from time to time. Sec. 9. Prior Executive Orders, (a) Executive Order No. 11182, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows: (1) By changing the heading of the order so as to read as follows: "ESTABLISHING THE FEDERAL FIELD COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN ALASKA". (2) By striking the words "the Housing and Home Finance Administrator" from section 1(b) and by inserting in lieu thereof the words "the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity". (3) By substituting the following for subsection (a) of section 2: "(a) Subject to the general direction and guidance of the Secretary of Commerce, the Field Committee shall serve as the principal instrumentality for developing coordinated plans for Federal programs which contribute to economic and resources development in Alaska and for recommending appropriate action by the Federal Government to carry out such plans. " (4) By striking from sections 3(e) and 3(f) the words "Review Committee" and by inserting in lieu thereof the words "Secretary of Commerce". (5) By revoking Part II. The President's Review Committee for Development Plan- ning in Alaska, established by that Part, shall be deemed to be hereby abolished. (6) By redesignating Part III and section 31 there of as Part II and section 21, respectively. (7) By redesignating Part IV and section 41, 42, and 43 as Part III and sections 31, 32, and 33, respectively, and by striking from the redesignated section 33 the words "and the Review Committee". (b) The Federal Development Committee for Appalachia, established by Executive Order No. 11209 of March 25, 1965, is hereby abolished and that order is hereby revoked. The White House December 28, 1967. (F.R. Doc. 68-111; Filed, Jan. 2, 1968; 10 :37 a. m. ) 248 APPENDIX B KEY DATES IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska Presidential Executive Order No. 11182 October 2, 1964 establishing Federal Field Committee Appointment of Joseph H. FitzGerald as March 10, 1965 Federal Field Committee Chairman Appalachian Regional Commission Approval date of the Appalachian Regional March 9, 1965 Development Act of 1965 establishing the Appalachian Regional Commission Appointment of John L. Sweeney as Federal April 1, 1965 Cochairman Resignation of John L. Sweeney as Federal March 1967 Cochairman Appointment of Joe W. Fleming as Federal March 26, 1967 Cochairman 249 TITLE V COMMISSIONS Approval date of the Public Works and August 26, 1965 Economic Development Act of 1965 Ozarks Regional Commission Designation of Region by the Secretary March 1, 1966 Appointment of William M. McCandless June 17, 1966 as Federal Cochairman Organizational Meeting September 7, 1966 New England Regional Commission Designation of Region by the Secretary March 2, 1966 Appointment of John J. Linnehan January 2 5, 1967 as Federal Cochairman Organizational Meeting March 20, 1967 Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission Designation of Region by the Secretary March 3, 1966 Appointment of Thomas S. Francis September 21, 1966 as Federal Cochairman Resignation of Thomas S. Francis October 18, 1968 as Federal Cochairman Appointment of Harold C. Jordahl August 27, 1967 as Alternate Federal Cochairman Organizational Meeting April 11, 1967 Four Corners Regional Commission Designation of Region by the Secretary December 19, 1966 2 50 Appointment of Orren Beaty, Jr. August 10, 1967 as Federal Cochairman Organizational Meeting September 19, 1967 Coastal Plains Regional Commission Designation of Region by the Secretary December 21, 1966 Appointment of J. Russell Tuten July 30, 1967 as Federal Cochairman (Deceased: August 16, 1968) Appointment of J. McDonald Wray December 6, 1968 as Alternate Federal Cochairman Organizational Meeting July 29, 1967 December 6, 1968 251 APPENDIX C KEY OFFICIALS AND ADDRESSES OF REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS FEDERAL FIELD COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IN ALASKA Chairman Address Telephone Joseph H. FitzGerald 632 Sixth Avenue Suite 400 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (907) 277-8611 APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION Federal Cochairman State Cochairman States' Regional Representative Executive Director Washington Address Washington Telephone Joe W. Fleming Mills E. Godwin, Jr. Governor of Virginia John D. Whisman Ralph R. Widner 1666 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D. C. 20235 (202) 967-5728 2 52 COASTAL PLAINS REGIONAL COMMISSION Federal Cochairman Alternate Federal Cochairman State Co-chairman Executive Director Washington Address Washington Telephone Field Offices Vacant J. McDonald Wray Robert E. McNair Governor of South Carolina Charles W. Coss (Washington) 2000 "L" Street, N.W. Suite 414 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 967-3753 E. Walton Jones Post Office Box 1351 Administrative Building, Rm. B-41 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Telephone: (919) 829-7376 Dr. Abraham C. Flora Barringer Building, Rm. 611 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Telephone: (803) 765-3182 Dr. Gene Bramlett 11 Pryor Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 FOUR CORNERS REGIONAL COMMISSION Federal Cochairman State Cochairman Executive Director Orren Beaty, Jr. John A. Love Governor of Colorado Alan Howe (Farmington) 253 Washington Address Washington Telephone Field Office 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20235 (202) 343-8729 The Shell Building Farmington, New Mexico 87401 Telephone: (505) 327-9626 NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL COMMISSION Federal Cochairman State Cochairman Executive Director Washington Address Washington Telephone Field Office John J. Linnehan John W. King Governor of New Hampshire Richard Wright (Boston) 1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 967-4343 Post Office and Courthouse Building, Room 1802 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Telephone: (617) 223-6380 OZARKS REGIONAL COMMISSION Federal Cochairman State Cochairman Executive Director William M. McCandless Winthrop Rockefeller Governor of Arkansas John Opitz (Acting) (Little Rock) 2 54 Washington Address Washington Telephone Field Office 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 343-9234 12 5 Mart Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Telephone: (501) 664-5610 UPPER GREAT LAKES REGIONAL COMMISSION Federal Cochairman Alternate Federal Cochairman State Cochairman Executive Director Washington Address Washington Telephone Field Office Vacant Harold Jordahl Warren P. Knowles Governor of Wisconsin None 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 343-9153 303 Price Place, Suite 208 Madison, Wisconsin 53705 December 6, 1968 255 APPENDIX D STATISTICAL FACT SHEET ON REGIONAL PROGRAMS Total Regions: Alaska Entire state Appalachia 13 states Coastal Plains 3 states Four Corners 4 states New England 6 states Ozarks 4 states Upper Great Lakes 3 states 34 states Population: Alaska 226,167 (I960 Census) Appalachia 17, 726, 567 Coastal Plains 4,987,115 Four Corners 1,759,888 New England 10,509, 367 Ozarks 2,495, 341 Upper Great Lakes 2,693,627 40, 398,072 Counties : Appalachia — ' Alabama 35 Georgia 35 Kentucky- 49 Maryland 3 Mississippi 20 New York 14 North Carolina 29 Ohio 28 Pe nn s yl vani a 52 South Carolina 6 Tennessee 50 Virginia 21 West Virginia 55 397 Coastal Plains North Carolina 45 South Carolina 28 Georgia 86 159 1_/ In addition, includes five independent cities, 2 56 Total Counties : Four Corners Arizona 9 Colorado 40 New Mexico Id 22 Utah 21 New England Connecticut zl 8 Massachusetts 14 New Hampshire 10 Rhode Island 5 Vermont 14 Maine 16 Ozarks Mis souri 44 Arkansas 44 Kansas 9 Oklahoma 37 92 67 134 Upper Great Lakes Michigan 45 Minnesota 38 Wisconsin 36 119 Alaska is not divided into counties but instead has 19 election districts. 2/ Only a portion of Otero county is included in New Mexico. However, it is counted as one whole county in this fact sheet. 3/ Counties have been officially abolished in Connecticut. December 6, 1968 257 in Tf CO vD (M nD in CO vO ■<* o ^ i— i co O 00 en -t CO oo ro r~ Oj r- 1 o r~ 00 in vo O o ro O CO r- 00 CO f- ro m (M m in m O f—4 ro r— 1 \0 r~ 00 m •* ^ 0"» ro 00 r- 00 co •^ in rO i — i cr- o H N vO CO. Q 55 ft o l-H co co CO M o Q ft X i— i Q 55 w a, ft U < < 55 o l-H a w > W H o r- w k ft£ a -< § h Q 55 < l-H H < a i— i « o in vO ro '•CO r- m oo m rO CM co ,_, o O ro oo h H fl ^ i— i N r- oo %o 00 in o o in s —' m o oo co r^ ro o r^ ro ro r^ i-t OJ r~ t"- o sO o vD o r- 1 — 1 CnI ^h ro OO O O ^F ■ej< in rH O in o oo in m r*- i-H ro 00 I s - xo r- r» o r~- ro r- in ■— I -^ 0^ sjf O O v£> Tt r-J ro h m ^ ro oo r- m ro rH ^ r~ ro ,_! in ■^ m m 00 r- in CT« o r— 1 't vD o ■5f in 00 r- ^D r~ ro vO vD . — i •* r- m X o < • H cj CO < o 01 x i U 1 o c t5 9 H CO a; O " S ^"' 4-1 ft CJ d a rd 4H >H rd U O O i — i fin CO ft X (0 B 1 DO CD 3 W w cd w CO to *j rd CU Jh 0h 0- E3 c CO < T3 o tfl < o w X 1 O CJ CD C TD 9 H en CU o "*^* -i-> 1— 1 Pn U d 4-> «*H m ctf rH o O o i — i ft o H 0) CO ex 60 ex X X CU 3 W w crj CO CJ CO co o 0) T3 C rd rH oil C W 55 S en O < T3 o ^ ft U ' ft H cx a oo S x x 00 ct^ in -sfi o N vO vD CO r-l ^f< m CT CO Q _ Z CO h s rtj § g CO ^ co H o I — I H < i — i CQ O s CO O U u nj . — i . — \ £ Q o 1 — 1 r~- % J o CJ 2 W rH CO X < > >* x> J H h Q [X J i W Oh 1—1 H CU H O i — i < U Q >H < £ IX| < PQ r- P >£> 2 z >* o < fc CO LO ^ (M I s - ^ sO <* vjO co co 00 LTl o «tf o r- rO cr in i — i co X> r- co sO o- . — i cr , | UO 1 — 1 U0 00 00 00 1 — 1 CO -::- r» i i i i , rO rO i i CO o in in in o C^ cr- 00 vO 00 cr +-> 4J i-H ' co CO n H co s co co cr 00 H c co CI C co H < X -C o ■rH < XJ tU 1 CU > o CJ o O to co s o 0) H < 1 1 CO o 0) CO cu CO 1— 1 nj y X CO co 1 a A u H < i c 1 co o Cu CU 3 (U ^"* -i-> 1 — 1 ffi CO 4-> 0) o "~~~-~ +-< CO 55 < Q W co M fl o U m U c i — i Oh nj H-J H >— 1 ctJ c o < H O o 4-> Xi CO Eh u c oj i — i ft C cd a nj u ao (0 a, X to X 0) PL. Oh '5c 0) H >> u o co cu X CO cu X ojd d a p CO o Dh 0) u p w H ^ CO < 0) W w ti < u Q "fd Q p o CO h H U W 259 Z o r-t H < Z O 6H CO < z o M o w « >H CD CQ CD CO T-l P h H M !h Q O Z W CO ft CD X CD H H O fa Z 5 o < Q to H CD H H W >" J fa w _ CO OS o fa fa O h a a a c a a B d o3 rH •H •rl ■H ■H •H •H •H •H H n rH rH rH rH rH rH r-< rH CO rH i-l rH rH rH r-( r-< rH 73 >> ■H •H •H ■H •H •H •H •H 03 rH rH 03 P s s a s 6 e s E CN CD t> o m CO s o rl 3 t~ CD *< q« CD CO rH OJ co CD rH o CO o m m 73 i» OJ O ■tf CN o CN rH rH fa rH rH £ CD o m CD O CN CD 00 00 ^ t^ m CO rH 00 rH co m o H CD ^ < CN rH CD ^r CO CN O m CD m rH rH m H rH co oo 5? CN m w (fr o CN CO CN CN o H p- in CN CD T~{ CN CN t> CD CN CD •# in CD T"3 CD oo CN CO tT- H m rl co 00 rH O co m ■* XI <& r> CN H m rH rH oj ►J ■H CD < co < CO < < CO fa O CQ CO < co < CO < H co fa w cj w CO O § co o 1 co o 1 CO O | 3 fa « fa co 2 fa CO BS CO fa fa w fa CO fa CO -P rH t- o o o o O O O o o o o o o o o O O O 3 3 m o 00 o o o o D o o o CO o o in o o O O 3 CJ r- oo t> o o CD O o O o o CD o 3 00 o 3 CO o 3 •H rl t- CN C- CN o CO CD O CD 00 "^ m co CO rH 00 3 tj< m 3 bfl <» CO CN CN o CD CD rH CD ■* -f rH 00 CO CN 00 CD < H CN CD CN co CO H CD <* u z w a> O [> o m o CN O W m in < == CD O ■* in CD g i in o m CD ■* ^ CD >> E CO o o CN m H r- m O o 00 ■* o rH CN < CN o CN* ^ rH i >> k 3 £3 3 £3 £2 o rt X x 5 fa X fa X 5 x 5 fa X fa X fa a o CO -H o r- o CN rH H c- m m m o CO ■* 00 CN a p •* o o O in co rH m 00 •* N 00 in !> rH C- CN CN p - H a w ; p CO ■H 0) CI X 3 CO a 03 rH ■H CO 03 0J rl ■d P c rt r-t 0) a a •H Dh a OJ OJ ■H X! u rH h bfl o ^i bo O V d oi o! u ct CO OS CO rH 03 ■P CO rl w X OJ at a 0) 3 s d a rH a OJ N a < < o fa S5 c 3 rt +» • o3 « rt xi H c b0 rl •P 3 CO OJ CQ 1 rl r. oj rt OJ (« •o •H X3 >> rl rH p OJ OJ i-{ CJ A •a -h ho O H-> rt E 3 rt •rl O P >> co o OJ rH P c- OJ hO O Cr> s G OJ •H •i-j •« ■ CN ■a CQ o CN u rl OJ w a -h o rl V p CU a X3 -rH » ■n rt •«r!. 3 at p rH U -P CN p 03 cct ft r^ rt S-. rH P 73 P 0) ^-v -H 3 a > X! S O >> OJ OJ OJ X! rt E CQ 73 -^ rt cn at rH ■P ft rl 3 l> CQ fl rH OJ c p > 3 oj 73 u rH at a ^ ■P 3 01 rl a 3 rH rt OJ o p XI O rt 73 •rl ^ rt CU E p ■H 73 rH ■H O rt OJ OJ CD M CO A •p •H CD p h +> rl H OJ td 3 E rH rH X! >h r-l 03 3 03 Sh rt > !h rt ■rl O - ip rH at 73 OJ 00 OJ cj CO OJ CQ . . p CJ 3 OS OJ •H E CO ■p 73 rt > 73 03 CD c o rH 3 U CD a rl p bo CD a r-l > CO rH rH 73 •H a rl OJ H CJ •H c a >< a P at r* fa at p 3 ca •H rl H U O OJ P rl ■H p u CO 03 n OJ 73 d N o3 ■p > a r-l >> o •H E •H • •rl a u U CQ P ca p s • P ■H 03 E 01 a CQ r^. J3 3 rH rt G 0) •rl w CO P XI OJ 3 ti at > >> 3 H £ bo rt 73 CD 03 03 « 3 3 O r-l rl < s i-{ cu co bfl o rl OJ P rl -P ■P a

    rH CO 3 • ft CO ip 73 OS O e o3 rt to bfl h rt rt >> XI at at c OJ OJ ■H r-l rl r^ •rl •H rl OJ 73 03 bfl rt •-( ■d at c rt A OJ ■o P 03 • CJ +» •p A •p fa c •rl tl rt rl a) a rt 01 OJ a a bo o CU rH 73 rl rl OJ 03 C -H P rt P < OJ X! ■a o . CO •H bfl CU a OJ CO X! P OJ ^-s p 73 OJ CQ a 73 CO p p >> +> rl 3 rl < ■H C rt ■H at 03 -H O r-l 73 > at >> rl O S co a CJ CQ 5 rl H •H A rt rl rt -h at cu M G CQ T3 bo 03 ■H •H J3 • CO rl O U G •H r( d P tH 00 1 OJ OJ •H £1 p E CU CD +> s rH .n o 03 rt p CD ca oo ^3 s CQ CO p rl a rH OJ rl CD rt OJ oj o3 co hi) 3 r. cu CD p E P 03 •o P 1 r* O s rH >> 03 E •rl U 3 rt fa fa 01 OJ u T3 at ft a >h •p XI m rt X ■H at CO rt fa A p > r- o3 rH CO 03 rH ■p CD ■p CD XI Rt rl OJ rH at CD u >> a oj CD Sh h OJ rl ■H 73 rH S XI p > rH 3 a> OJ XI E c »

    •P r4 P 03 •a o3 >> 03 OJ W OJ «5- rt > a •H OJ 03 -a •a > rH 1 73 ■H p E >» rl •H ■H X! • * 1 (0 P X! >> CD 03 00 ■P 03 H t» ■p X CJ ■p 3 H r-i CO 73 CD c] H 03 CD CO CD at CQ d OJ CD C CD ^ CQ 3 S CD ■H CD at o U rH OJ rH 3 °< - OJ rH ia rH a 03 ca •H rH £ rl a a rt rt ^1 P ■p P >H 03 >h 9 o g OJ X >h & fa fa O fa U o 5c rl fa O fa -1 z 1 Q 1 XI O XJ CD