STATEMENT OF ROBERT NEAL SMITH ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

Mr. SMITH. My name is Robert Neal Smith. I am acting director of the Wisconsin Office of Economic Opportunity which is a part of the Governor's executive office. I am here today to register Gov. Warren P. Knowles' recommendations toward improving the antipoverty program.

First of all, let me point out, according to the most recent summary, that over $11 million this year in Federal funds have been committed under the Economic Opportunity Act toward the elimination of poverty in Wisconsin.

This figure does not include those investments by the Federal Government in the three Job Corps centers in Wisconsin.

Over 65,000 Wisconsin citizens have received services since the program started.

The summary of this information as provided by the Federal information system of the Washington Office of Economic Opportunity is attached for the convenience of the committee.

Wisconsin presently has 16 "standard" single or multicounty community action agencies (CAA's) which have been funded for program development and other title II projects. We have two "special" CAA's relating to (a) Wisconsin's 10 Indian reservations, and (b) 17 Southeastern-central Wisconsin counties that are in the migrant stream. (See attached map.)

Yet, Wisconsin has only 44 counties that are in funded and officially recognized CAA's out of the total 72 counties in the State. Wisconsin's efforts toward the effective organization of the State have been severely hampered by legislative and administrative restrictions placed upon the community action program.

Legislatively because there were relatively speaking, few unearmarked general versatile funds available for OEO operations in Wisconsin during fiscal year 1967.

There has been an administrative limit placed on the number of "new" CAA's that can be officially recognized in any given fiscal year. You will note if you glance at the map that there are nine groupings of counties designated which have formed Wisconsin nonprofit corporations, and fulfilled all other standard OEO criteria.

Yet, and I quote from the Rural Opportunities issue of May 1967, "To provide support to rural community agencies, we are projecting the following plans for CAP in the coming fiscal year: Organization of 350 rural counties into 50 new CAA's. A massive buildup of national and technical competence in rural CAA's through technical assistance, training, and cooperation by the rural areas and nearby urban centers."

I submit that the limited number of 50 new CAA's will not permit a so-called massive buildup in Wisconsin or elsewhere in the unorganized portion of the United States. To eliminate this problem we recommend a substantial increase in the allotment of over 50 new CAA's.

Second, Mr. Theodore Berry, director of the national community action program, recently said, "throughout the United States 150

CAA's are limping along under program development grants only out of a total of 1,050 CAA's." By and large most of our Wisconsin standard CAA's have barely gotten through their program development grants and are being funded for so-called conduct and administration-outreach grants. The shortage of unearmarked funds for title II severely limits operational programs for Wisconsin's poor.

Congress, through the Office of Economic Opportunity, has restricted most of our Wisconsin agencies to the funding of small professional staffs. With a few exceptions, Wisconsin successes have been in the area of national emphasis projects such as Headstart, NYC, and community betterment projects.

Whether it be national emphasis or general title II programs, the agencies that have been most successful in preparing applications have been so funded on a first-come first-serve basis by the Chicago and Washington OEO's. Agencies applying for funds in the latter part of the fiscal year many times cannot get approvals. Also, there has been some duplication on the part of local agencies proposing the approval of identical programs to help the same people in certain areas. We are diligently working toward the possibility of achieving a better pattern of distribution of Federal aids in these kinds of training and manpower related projects.

Turning to general versatile activities outside of Milwaukee County, our largest metropolitan area, and Menominee County, Wisconsin's poorest county, the war on poverty to date has consisted largely of the funding of program development grants. Recent conduct and administration grant approvals have consisted of a refunding of the program development staff plus a very few outreach workers. This is the pointlocal initiative activities requested by local community action agencies have not and cannot be funded without the availability of more versatile title II Federal funds. The need now is not for an outreach referral service to other existing Federal programs (which in many cases do not work to the benefit of the impoverished). Rather, we need a more direct financial impact through projects training, encouraging and hiring workers rather than referring them to other agencies. For example, in fiscal year 1967 Wisconsin CAA's requested $14.5 million in title I and II projects, but only received $8.2 million (in Federal and local contributions). Therefore, we recommend general versatile funds be increased considerably within to at least $2.08 billion and preferably $2.4 billion total appropriation.

Third, because of the controversial nature of the amendments each year Congress has delayed the administration of these amendments. Each year it seems the authorizations are approved about the end of August and the appropriations come through in late October or November. OEO then must devise revised guidelines.

The practical effect is that the local CAA all too often has about the latter half of each fiscal year to attempt to get a coordinated program going. It is amazing to us that with this kind of setup the ОEO has been able to accomplish as much as it has. Therefore, I urge that Congress act more expeditiously or seriously consider a 2-year budget to be established for the EOA programs.

Fourth, although the language of the new amendments purports to strengthen the technical assistance agencies in the various States,

we find the proposed administration's legislation to be vague and inconclusive. At the present time, it is virtually impossible for Wisconsin to receive a clear statement in any given year on statewide per title dollar allocations.

Similarly, the regional OEO office has often directed the operations of the antipoverty program in Wisconsin at variance from State advice. The regional OEO sitting in judgment upon CAP activities and developments in Wisconsin has not expressed the practical judgments needed to carry out a higher level of performance in our State.

At this point, all too often, the only information the Governor has on a project at the time he is asked to waive his 30-day review period, is a telephone call. We believe in the OEO and its general administration of Economic Opportunity Act. Therefore it is our advice that the funding of projects through the regional office pay greater emphasis to prior recommendations by the State technical assistance agencies. The State TA is rarely asked to assist in planning new fiscal year approaches to the campaign against poverty. Priorities are similarly neglected. Also, State TA's should be funded on a formula basis.

I further believe the States and the Federal Government should require either through statute, executive order or Federal regulation, that multipurpose physical, economic, and human resources planning and development agencies be established in nonmetropolitan areas. I believe the Federal Government should provide grants and conditions so each State can divide its counties into logical single or multicounty areas. Some counties in Wisconsin have already organized physical planning commissions with from five to seven counties within their geographical boundaries. How much better it would be if the entire State were organized with governing bodies, technical staff, and facilities to provide a comprehensive set of services for physical and social economic planning and development. Wisconsin intends to do much more along these lines.

As a preliminary step in this direction the Governor, on June 5, 1967, urged Wisconsin' delegation to support section 208 of H.R. 8068 which would amend section 701 of the Housing Act of 1964.

At this point, Mr. Resnick, I would like to depart from the written testimony to skip over a couple of pages of testimony. I would merely point out that we feel very strongly about developing the legislation as proposed by the Governor, and we would hope that this committee would follow the recommendations as stated on pages 7, 8, and through the top of page 9 of the printed testimony. In our opinion, we believe the multipurpose planning commission could provide a capability for following through on the general recommendations made by previous persons testifying before this committee. I think this would be a great device for locking in the CAMPS program, the manpower on local and State levels, the physical planning, the economic planning, and the human developmental planning, and implementation as well. Not that we would destroy or subvert the intent of the Community Action Agency, but the Community Action Agency could be a building block of multicounty nature.

In Wisconsin, we have seven planning districts presently. We have demographic information, we have industrial and economic development studies and recommendations which cut right across the board

in rural sections of this state as well as urban, and we feel that by pulling the antipoverty programs into a multipurpose, larger planning district, human development recommendations and considerations could be meshed together and implemented.

Turning from planning districts to national administration, I urge that the ŎEO be retained as a separate Federal department on the national level. I further support the administration's Bill H.R. 8311 inasmuch as this bill substantially verifies the present antipovery administration.

Mr. RESNICK. I want to ask you a question at that point. I presume you are here speaking for the Governor of the State of Wisconsin. Mr. SMITH. That is correct.

Mr. RESNICK. And that in essence, you are opposed to the Republican version of the war on poverty, the so-called opportunity crusade. Mr. SMITH. I would continue my testimony by stating that I do not advise any transfer of rural poverty functions from the OEO to the USDA with the present emphasis of the Department of Agriculture on products rather than people. I fail to see how the proposed transfer under the opportunity crusade of 1967 (H.R. 10682) of the Office of Economic Opportunity to HEW could improve the potential for eliminating poverty.

I am not completely satisfied with the present OEO procedures. But I believe the administrative structure as it presently exists has better possibilities for effectively coordinating the poverty program. The OEO definitely does need strengthening.

Briefly recapitulating, I have already mentioned my recommendation for the increase in over and above the 50 alloted new rural community action agencies. Also, I must insist that more general versatile title II CAP moneys be made available.

Hopefully, Congress will act more expeditiously in authorizing and appropriating resources for the OEO or approve a 2-year budget. Finally, increased Federal fiscal aid for state technical assistance and multipurpose planning districts and retention of the OEO would enhance future Economic Opportunity Act programs in fiscal year

1968.

(The unread portion of Mr. Smith's statement follows):

As a preliminary step in this direction the Governor, on June 5, 1967, urged Wisconsin's delegation to support Section 208 of HR-8068 which would amend Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1964. He said then and I quote:

"Section 209 of Senate Bill 1445 and Title I of Senate Bill 1589 (these provisions are the same) and its House Companion Section 208 of HR-8068 would amend Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1964. The major change made by the proposal would be to provide 701 planning grants for multi-county rural planning agencies. These grants are already available to similar urban planning agencies. This proposal, especially if it is financed by a supplemental appropriation to the planning assistance program could serve to broaden greatly Wisconsin's planning assistance to rural areas. It could strengthen significantly the comprehensive planning function at the state and local level while enhancing the prospects for implementation of sound plans.

"I believe there are two amendments which should be made in this proposal to enhance its value for implementation at the state and local level:

1. The urban regional and rural district planning agencies should be public agencies which are politically responsible. An amendment to this bill should assure that such agencies are composed of elected officials or persons responsible to the elected officials of the unit of government within which the planning agency is operating.

Provisions should be made for a reasonable administrative tie between these area-wide or local agencies and the state planning agency in order to achieve local planning which is fully coordinated and reasonably consistent with the state-wide program. It is well recognized that a state's comprehensive planning program should not consist of a complex of independently prepared, ill coordinated regional and district plans.

2. Supplemental grants should be provided to rural planning districts that organize to implement mutually agreed upon area-wide plans. This type of incentive program already exists for urban and metropolitan planning programs under Section 205 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966.

OTHER RURAL PLANNING LEGISLATION

"I have recently learned that Senate Bill 645 which also provides for rural planning grants has passed the Senate. I am not in favor of passage of this bill. "The procedure for establishing and working with community development districts is not defined as the specific responsibility of the state in cooperation with local governmental units (local units of government petition the Secretary Agriculture for approval of their areas as a Community Development district). "Rural planning grants would not be administered by the state as is presently the case in the 701 program. They would go directly to the community development district. This would greatly reduce the effectiveness of the state's planning and development programs and would make it difficult to achieve a coordinated development pattern for the complex of numerous rural and urban planning districts in the state.

"The bill fails to call for a supplemental appropriation for what is now an underbudgeted 701 program. The proposed cost sharing ratio would be threefourths Federal to one-fourth local money for the rural planning districts. This would be disruptive to the total 701 program since the two-thirds to one-third ratio for urban areas would not be changed."

Turning from planning districts to national administration, I urge that the OEO be retained as a separate federal department on the national level. I further support the administration's Bill Hr-8311 inasmuch as this bill substantially verifies the present anti-poverty administration.

I do not advise any transfer of rural poverty functions from the OEO to the USDA with the present emphasis of the Department of Agriculture on products rather than people. I fail to see how the proposed transfer under the Opportunity Crusade of 1967 (HR-10682) of the Office of Economic Opportunity to HEW could improve the potential for eliminating poverty.

I am not completely satisfied with the present OEO procedures. But I believe the administrative structure as it presently exists has better possibilities for effectively coordinating the poverty program. The OEO definitely does need strengthening.

Mr. RESNICK. I would like to thank you for a very fine statement which you have presented here from the State's point of view. It certainly touches on the weaknesses of the war on poverty. I think your recommendations are very sound. I think there is no question but that the coordination of all these various planning districts into unified planning districts certainly would be a big step in the right direction and eliminate a lot of overlapping and so on.

I, personally am glad to know that the feeling in the State of Wisconsin is that the Office of Economic Opportunity should be retained basically as it is. The problems that you outline in your presentation in getting funds now-it seems to me that if broken up, would make your job that much more difficult. If it were split up into six or seven different places, whatever money was available would be that much more difficult to obtain.

Mr. SMITH. I think that would be the case. As I mentioned before, we have fine community action agencies if money and authorizations were made that we could get in operation very quickly. With a national allocation of only 50, it seems logical to me to doubt whether we are