Education:

ESTIMATED FEDERAL FUNDS FOR PROGRAMS ASSISTING THE POOR, FISCAL YEARS 1960-70

1 Includes HEW: Title I of ESE Act, educational opportunity grants; Interior: Indian education, and other. 2 Includes Labor: MDTA, employment service; HEW: Work incentive activities, vocational rehabilitation; and other. Includes HEW: Indian health, medical assistance and maternal and child health grants, health insurance for the aged; VA: Hospital and outpatient care; and other.

Includes HEW: OASDI, public assistance; Labor: Unemployment insurance, enforcement of wage and labor standards; and other.

Includes HUD: Public housing and rent supplements, model cities; Agriculture: Rural housing, food programs; Commerce: EDA; Interior: Indian services; and other.

Source: A 1965 study, under contract with OEO, by Griffenhagen-Kroeger, Inc.: "Non-Federal Anti-poverty Programs in the United States."

These figures show that, in 1968 for example, OEO provided less than 10 percent of the total Federal assistance in cash and in services to the poor. The greatest Federal outlays for combating poverty are expended in a category "Financial assistance and income maintenance." In this field, OEO has no operating program.

The dimensions of OEO's role appear proportionately smaller when State, local, and private assistance to the poor is considered in combination with the Federal assistance. Only the most approximate estimates of non-Federal expenditures for the poor are available. The study by Griffenhagen-Kroeger, Inc. (of the Diebold group), using mostly 1964 data, indicates that assistance to the poor by State and local governments totaled about $14.9 billion, and by private voluntary agencies about $2.4 billion. These data were termed by Griffenhagen-Kroeger "a reasonable first approximation," and they served to estimate the relative magnitude of Federal and non-Federal assistance. Thus, in 1964, non-Federal assistance to the poor significantly exceeded the Federal assistance. We are unaware of any subsequent survey of non-Federal assistance of a scope similar to the GriffenhagenKroeger survey. However, Mr. Michael March of the Bureau of the Budget, projecting these same data, estimated that aid to the poor in 1968 from Federal, State, local, and private sources exceeded $40 billion.1 Of this total, OEO's part in 1968 was not more than 5 percent.

THE ROLE OF OEO

Despite the fact that OEO has played a minor role in the total antipoverty effort, OEO is the only Federal agency exclusively dedicated to combating poverty, and the Economic Opportunity Act has assigned OEO significant responsibilities in this effort. These responsibilities include both coordination and evaluation of the antipoverty effort as well as innovation of approaches to the reduction of poverty and the operation of a variety of programs.

A dominant role in coordinating the antipoverty effort is assigned by the Economic Opportunity Act to an Economic Opportunity Council, which the act created in section 631. The essentiality of effective interrelation of the several coordination efforts is discussed in chap

ter 9.

Coordination is defined in title VI (sec. 638) to include

Actions to improve the common effectiveness of programs reaching and serving the poor;

Actions to promote better use of Federal assistance at the State or local level;

Actions to promote simplification and efficiencies through joint or combined use of Federal resources; and

Actions to improve communication and general cooperation. In this context OEO is directed to undertake special studies of specific coordination problems at the request of the President or the Council or on its own initiative (sec. 632). It is also directed to consult with interested agencies to identify problems warranting consideration by the President or the Council and, to the extent feasible or appropriate, initiate action for overcoming those problems. Other agencies administering "Federal or federally assisted programs which*** are complementary to the purposes of this act" are directed to cooperate with OEO and assist in carrying out the provisions of the act, specifically to include providing OEO with statistical data and program reports (sec. 633).

1 Paper prepared for a conference of the National Tax Association and printed by the Joint Economic Comittee of the Congress, 1968.

The provision of statistical and program data to OEO is, of course, central to the agency's evaluation role. This role is discussed in chapter 11, and discussion here therefore is limited to mention of the fact that OEO's responsibility for evaluation of the performance of antipoverty programs is established in numerous sections throughout the Economic Opportunity Act. This responsibility includes, but is not confined to, the programs under OEO's direct administration as well as those established under the act and delegated to other agencies.

OEO's innovational role was stated in a number of provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act (e.g., secs. 113 and 201). The Congress made clear its intent that in striving to carry out the purposes of the act, OEO would be expected to experiment and to seek new ways of combating poverty.

The programs under OEO's direct administration have been the Community Action Program (CAP), the Job Corps, and Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA).

CAP is the largest and has been considered by OEO to have two aspects. One is that of stimulating changes in community organizations and institutions to make them more responsive to the poor and strengthening organizations of the poor themselves. The other is the provision of specific services to the poor. This has been accomplished through a variety of CAP component programs, such as:

Headstart, a program of health, nutritional, educational, social, and other services for preschool children. This program has accounted for about 40 percent of CAP expenditures.

Upward Bound, a program to remedy poor academic preparation and motivation in secondary school and to increase the potential of young people from low income backgrounds for acceptance and success in college. This program has accounted for about 3 percent of CAP expenditures.

Comprehensive health services, a program of prevention, diagnostic, and rehabilitation services as well as health education, outreach, training, and other related services. This program has accounted for about 3 percent of CAP expenditures.

Legal services, a program providing legal advice and representation for the poor, including advocacy of the positions of individuals and groups and education concerning legal rights and responsibilities. This program has accounted for about 3 percent of CAP expenditures.

These and other "national emphasis" programs of lesser cost represent, in total, about half of CAP expenditures. The remaining CAP

funds have been accounted for by a variety of local initiative programs in areas of health, education, manpower training, housing, and other social services and by the cost of program administration, research, and miscellaneous activities.

The Job Corps has provided residential training centers for disadvantaged youths, both male and female, in a program aimed at basic education, skill training, and constructive work experience. In recent years, Job Corps has accounted for between 13 and 16 percent of OEO's appropriation.

VISTA has been termed "the domestic Peace Corps." It has provided opportunities for volunteers, 18 years or older, to work in CAP's in slum areas, on Indian reservations, and in hospitals and schools, serving various disadvantaged groups. VISTA has accounted for less than 2 percent of OEO's appropriation in recent years.

In addition to the above examples of programs under OEO's direct administration, other programs authorized under the Economic Opportunity Act have been delegated by OEO to other Federal agencies for administration. Examples are:

The Neighborhood Youth Corps, delegated to the Department of Labor for administration, has provided counseling, remedial education, and full- or part-time work experience for disadvantaged youths to permit them to remain in or return to school and to increase their employability. The program has represented between 13 and 14 percent of OEO's appropriation in recent years.

The Work Experience Program, administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with certain assistance from the Department of Labor, has provided funds for projects to assist present and potential public assistance recipients to gain work experience and job training and has sought primarily to help unemployed or underemployed parents of dependent children. It has accounted for 3 percent or less of OEO's appropriation in recent years.

The Rural Loan Program, delegated to the Department of Agriculture, combines supervised credit and family education to increase the ability of poor rural families to earn higher incomes and join with others in cooperatives that increase incomes and reduce costs. It has accounted in recent years for 1 percent or less of the OEO appropriation.

Additional information about the economic opportunity programs is contained in appendix I.

The table on the next page shows Federal Government support, both for the programs under OEO's direct administration and for delegated and transferred programs, over the period 1965 through 1968.

ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS OF FUNDS FOR PROGRAMS AUTHORIZED BY THE ECONOMIC Opportunity ACT, 1965-68 [In millions of dollars]

1 Included in CAP support as a research and pilot program.

2 Included in local initiative programs.

3 This program has been delegated to HEW but is a national emphasis program and therefore is shown under the direc programs of OEO.

Agency cannot list deobligations by program without a detailed analysis of the accounts.

5 In addition to OEO funds, DOL has obligated MDTA funds of about $47,600,000 and $18,600,000 in fiscal years 1967 and 1968, respectively, for the CEP program, and about $44,600,000 in fiscal year 1968 for the JOBS program.

6 Administration of these programs was delegated to the Secretary of HEW in October 1964. The adult literacy program was repealed by the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966 (80 Stat. 1222) and a generally similar program was authorized by the same amendments to be administered by the Commissioner of Education, HEW. The work study program was transferred to the Commissioner of Education by the Higher Education Act of 1965 (79 Stat. 1249). Although this program was authorized under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and was delegated to the Adminis trator, SBA, in October 1964, no OEO funds were transferred for the operation of the program. In November 1966 the entire responsibility for the EOL program was transferred to SBA. SBA obligations for fiscal years 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968 were about $1,800,000, $17,600,000, $31,900,000, and $31,200,000, respectively.

Source: Office of Economic Opportunity.