Mr. BROWN. RSVP is a program where essentially the waiting list would be endless if we simply went out in the community and said, "Here is a chance"-we believe literally hundreds of thousands of people. RESOURCES GENERATED BY VISTA VOLUNTEERS Mr. OBEY. OK. Let me ask you this one question on VISTA, following up Mr. Natcher's question. In terms of evaluation, have you done any evaluation at all or has anybody else done any evaluation to indicate what kind of resources are in fact generated by each individual VISTA volunteer? Mr. BROWN. Yes, we have done some evaluations. Mr. BROWN. We have done some evaluation and VISTA itself has done some. As I recall the numbers, they are approximately $68,000 per project and approximately $40,000 per volunteer of generated- Mr. OBEY. In plain English that means what? Mr. BROWN. Those are resources where VISTA went into the community, went out to the United Way or to the local corporations or to somebody and said, "Look, here is a little group that needs an office, a typewriter, telephone line; will you pick up the cost of the telephone line? We need $10,000 to print leaflets and provide an additional half-time secretary in this office." They have basically gone out and hustled in the community to develop additional resources. So for every approximately $6,000 spent on a VISTA volunteer, we end up generating approximately $40,000 of additional resources locally that go into low-income communities. It is a spectacularly effective program from the standpoint of the multiplier of the Federal dollar. POTENTIAL FOR THE OLDER AMERICAN PROGRAMS Mr. OBEY. Right now you have how many RSVP programs, about 680? Mr. BROWN. That is correct. Mr. OBEY. How many do you think you could effectively fund? Mr. BROWN. The program which we had outlined to the Office of Management and Budget would have added approximately 400 additional programs. It is a very easy program to administer because it is a grant program, and the administration of it is very direct, straightforward, and quite simple to do. Mr. OBEY. If you were to receive additional money for programs like Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions, do you think the top priority ought to be to increase the stipend or increase the number of people who will be able to serve in the program? Mr. BROWN. That is a difficult question to answer because the stipend is inordinately low at $1.60 an hour now. We would like to do both. Given that unpleasant choice, however, we would increase the number of volunteers rather than the stipend. Mr. OBEY. I was going to say, given what you just cited on Foster Grandparents with the splitting of stipends, would that not seem to indicate that increasing the number of volunteers is the biggest demand? Mr. BROWN. Yes. The foster grandparents themselves favor splitting the stipend. They obviously would like to have more money, but when questioned "Would you rather have your friend be able to serve in this?" They think the program is so good they would rather have more people than more money. Mr. OBEY. Do you believe the Older American volunteer program is reaching out into the comunity to serve older people who otherwise would not be served? Mr. BROWN. In the case of Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions, there is no question it reaches people who we would be otherwise unable to serve, because of other circumstances. In the case of RSVP, to the best of our knowledge, most of those people have come in as a result of the program. I mentioned earlier we do not have good evaluative data, but we know in a number of communities where the infrastructure is in place, RSVP can help build on that. Mr. OBEY. OK. In discussing RSVP with Mr. Conte, you used the words "prudently and thoughtfully." How much money do you think you could prudently and thoughtfully and efficiently expend on the other two, on Foster Grandparents and Senior Companions? Mr. BROWN. If I can simply enter into the record the numbers that went to OMB because we regarded those as ones we can do, that may be the best way of doing that. On Foster Grandparents there were two other levels of request, $52.1 million and $57.4. The $57.4 would have provided a small stipend increase as well. In Senior Companions we suggested levels of $11.2 and $12.2 million, in those areas we felt could easily be done. In additionMr. OBEY. Will you make sure that when you submit that for the record, also submit the numbers of additional volunteers? Mr. BROWN. Yes. Mr. OBEY. And the numbers of additional projects. Mr. BROWN. Yes, we will be happy to do that. [The information follows:] In the foster grandparent program, our request of $57.4 million would have provide 8,700 additional volunteers. Our request of $12.2 million in the senior companion program would have provided 2,100 additional volunteers. At this level the foster grandparent program would have had 145 more projects and the senior companion program 35 additional projects. Mr. OBEY. OK, two more questions. OLDER AMERICANS IN OTHER ACTION PROGRAMS Are you serving older Americans in any of your programs other than Foster Grandparents, Senior Companions, or RSVP? Mr. BROWN. Yes. In the case of both VISTA and Peace Corps, we have been working to involve additional older people. Currently 15 percent of the VIŠTA volunteers are older Americans; 21 percent of the VISTA projects are directed specifically at and work with older Americans. In the case of Peace Corps, we have been increasing that percentage, although it has been difficult, frankly. That is not an easy thing to do. I think it is now almost still about 5 or 6 percent over the age of 60, and I can provide that statistic. The other one is the mini-grant program where we have been able to provide a large number of self-governed older American groups with small amounts of money-$2,000, $3,000-to build their own programs. NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE Mr. OBEY. What about the National Youth Service program you are talking about? How does it differ from traditional youth employment programs? Mr. BROWN. Congressman Obey, I have been long concerned that a great many of our employment programs, at times, seem to be jobs of last resort for people. I am simultaneously concerned that in many ways there is a generation of young people for whom an opportunity has not been provided to enter into this society in any complete way. They need to learn the kind of discipline, and responsibility, the kind of expectations and standards to which they must respond, that come from work and from service basically. I am also concerned that there is a moral or spiritual cost, if you just let those people drift. The society over a period of years will come loose from its moorings and be adrift. National Youth Service is not a way of saying "Here is a job, if you can't find a job any place, the government will provide a job of last resort," but instead saying, "Here is a service opportunity, here is a chance for you to do something in your community for someone else." That, it seems to me, is an important thing for us to say. We have provided in wartime an opportunity for young people to say, "I want to serve my country." We have not provided in peacetime a chance for both young men and young women in this society to say "I want to serve my country in a peaceful pursuit, building the community and building myself, simultaneously." For what comes out of that, is a person who does not take a job of last resort, but does it in a way that enhances themselves and their own self-image. They come out of it saying, "I can do something for someone else," and, in the process, they grow themselves. It seems to me that is an important thing to do. That is the difference between a youth service project and a youth employment project. Mr. OBEY. Let me ask two other questions then. How are the service opportunities to be identified in that program? Who will supervise the enrollees? Mr. BROWN. For the Youth Community Service Demonstration Program we have been working with the local community on the identification of those service opportunities. Most of them will be placed in preexisting, private, voluntary service agencies in the community, and will be supervised by these agencies. That way you do not need a whole new Federal superstructure to supervise these youthful volunteers. They can be plugged directly into what is already existing in the community. Mr. OBEY. What kind of cost per enrollee are you talking about? Mr. BROWN. I think it is approximately $4,800. Mr. OBEY. Less than half the cost of a CETA job? Mr. BROWN. That is correct. EVALUATION OF NATIONAL YOUTH SERVICE Mr. OBEY. Let me just make a comment. The Democratic Steering Committee met with the Business Roundtable yesterday and we talked about some of the job problems this country faces. Some of the top business executives in the nation were at the meeting. They expressed some of the same thoughts that you did. While they are willing to support, for instance, the new CETA program, the $400 million increment for jobs, they also expressed the feeling that there is a subtle but important difference between employment opportunity and work experience opportunity. When I asked them whether or not they would support additional funding for programs which would provide that kind of experience, there was not a single one who answered in the negative. I think that is important. My question to you is, how would you evaluate that program and how, after it is evaluated, do you intend to move to make it something other than a good idea that always gets passed over because there is not an active constituency for it? Mr. BROWN. First on the evaluation question iself, although we do not view it as a traditional employment project, we would welcome evaluation standards used which are normally applied to employment projects. Mr. OBEY. Is that being planned for right now? Mr. BROWN. We would like to work cooperatively to plan that joint evaluation but, to the best of my knowledge, it is not. The person who will be directing this project is Dennis Derryck, here today, a labor economist, formerly on the faculty at Brandeis. Mr. DERRYCK. We are working cooperatively with the Department of Labor. For instance, the evaluation panel looking at the evaluation plan is composed of four people appointed by the Department of Labor that will be looking at this project in terms of some of the evaluation measures utlized by the Department of Labor in its manpower programs. Mr. BROWN. But it is not at this point to be evaluated by the same mechanism? Mr. DERRYCK. Not the same mechanism. Mr. OBEY. Why not? Mr. DERRYCK. Let's put it this way: We will be measuring the number of individuals who completed the program, the number of individuals who drop out and why, and certainly the number of people who will get jobs after this particular program. In terms of other measures we are looking more at a formative evaluation side such as; how do you begin to get a community together to have a commitment to its youth, and how do you get a community to define the types of projects and work situations that youth can fit into. That aspect of the project is a very different part of the evaluation, but we are collecting data that will be useful to compare our program to more traditional manpower programs. Mr. BROWN. But the fact is, those are essentially add-on evaluations. Mr. DERRYCK. Add-on. Mr. BROWN. We would welcome evaluation in that same mechanism, we will add on the evaluation, but I should say for the record Mr. OBEY. I would not only welcome it, I suspect it would be absolutely essential. What I would like to know is what has been your experience vis-a-vis the Labor Department in obtaining agreements for that kind of evaluation. Mr. DERRYCK. We are in the process of negotiating with the Department of Labor. They have through one of their organizations, Manpower Development Research Corporation, developed a design looking at all other youth programs. It has been a very cooperative venture thus far in terms of being able to gather comparative data across programs, but we are not included as part of that evaluative program. It is an initiative over and beyond what we are doing. Mr. OBEY. It seems to me you ought to be included. I do not know what is really happening between you and Labor, but if you are not involved-as far as I am concerned, and I would think the other members of the committee would agree-you ought to be. We have to make decisions on spending for all of those programs and would want to see that evaluation. Mr. BROWN. We would welcome it. Mr. OBEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FLOOD. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'BRIEN. Mr. Brown, I have a lot of questions here. Some I have for the record that I will not bother with now. Others I would like to address to you, but you are to provide the answers for the record. JUSTIFICATION OF VISTA INCREASE You note in your budget submission that President Ford proposed the VISTĂ program be terminated. Since you have provided a substantial increase for it, obviously you differ from his conclusion, and I would like your justification for the record. [The information referred to follows:] Mr. BROWN. The VISTA program reflects a firm belief in the democratic processes upon which our system of government is based and the willingness of people to help each other and themselves. It is also based on the belief that the problems of poverty will be amerliorated only when communities become self-sufficient and need to rely less and less on government to find solutions. Many have come to look skeptically at legislative solutions to the problems of poverty as many Federal programs failed to provide the expected results. Examples of this abound: revenue sharing funds have been used to build tennis courts, housing projects have been destroyed because the poor would not live in them, and welfare programs have required armies of bureaucrats to approve the purchase of cribes for babies. The VISTA program offers an opportunity to solve the newest American dilemma-poverty in the midst of a plethora of Federal, local, and private programs designed to ameliorate the condition of poverty. VISTAS have served with groups that forced improvements in migrant housing, have focused attention on the shame of Black Lung disease, have forced County Commissioners to offer food stamps to their needy, have secured land, mineral, and fishing rights for Indians and Native Americans, have encouraged parents to fight for bi-lingual education for their children, and they have fought for rights of welfare recipients. They have helped people who are poor to organize themselves to form consumer co-ops, to build or rehabilitate housing, to prevent highways and urban 25-260 (Pt. 7) O 78 14 |