Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

for a $400,000 project that the city of Minneapolis has to go through with a population of half a million with staffed engineers, planning commissions, and so forth.

For instance, they have to have a survey by some specialist to show there was no other housing for the elderly available within a 50-mile radius; so they go out in their cars and count the number of motels that are around there. I have gone through the records and it's pathetic.

The same procedures as the city of Minneapolis goes through, they all go through-even if it is for an $8,000 project.

It would be like asking the average wage earner who gets $8,000 a year to fill out a long income tax form, as do the corporations or for someone with a much higher income.

I think your proposition could be the step of a very important clarification which I think would greatly reduce the waste, inefficiency, duplication, and time-consuming processes of this multiplicity of bureaucratic operations.

Every one of these programs such as we have mentioned does have someone in charge, somebody fighting paper, somebody asking for more paperwork. It's incredible the papers that need to be filled out. I have been in counties in the small municipalities, say, of 2,000 people, where the sole person under the county clerk would be one little stenographer who was expected to fill out long, complicated forms with which they had had no previous experience. They had no money to hire consultants and this other needless stuff. So I had to physically go to Chicago and meet with them and chase some of their people out into the field. There might have been 10 or 15 applications from relatively near areas in northern Wisconsin, northern Minnesota, or northern Michigan. I had them send one or two of their top people who know about these forms into the field to do more work rather than have letters bouncing back and forth-and it takes 18 months to complete a simple application.

I am sorry I took so much of your time but this problem you pointed out is much more onerous, burdensome and frustrative than one would think.

Once you find the agency then their greatest troubles have just begun.

Mr. ROTH. There is no question but that is the situation. What you said reflects exactly the experiences I have had in the smaller counties of my State. And, of course, what we are proposing here is only a first or preliminary step to help correct this situation.

I have likewise found that one of the problems of our smaller counties is that they do not have the personnel with the time or background to understand the many complicated requirements of Federal programs. Many times, therefore, they have to go out and hire expensive consultants or planners in order to prepare applications. Too often there are different requirements under related programs which only complicate the problem from the point of view of the small county.

One of the great tragedies is that the delay caused by these requirements has a threefold effect. First of all, it increases costs for the county or local unit. Second, it is a great drag on what personnel the county has available. Finally, the time spent processing the grant could be much better spent in solving the problem.

But it seems to me that the first step and a step that would help simplify the Federal aid delivery system from the point of view of

these small counties is to provide one source they could turn to for a description of all Federal programs.

That is all this catalog really is about; it puts potential recipients on notice where aid may be available and it gives them meaningful information for each of the programs to enable them to determine whether or not a program offers the kind of help they need.

Mr. BLATNIK. By the way, would you mind if we included in that idea parenthetically, that the instructions coming along as to where the program is and where to go, that the bureaucrats write it in plain English?

Mr. ROTH. The point you raise, Mr. Chairman, is a very important

one.

Mr. BLATNIK. I have had letters that I read and reread-and I must say I am far from the best in English but I can read a newspaper-and I didn't know what it said.

Mr. ROTH. One of the problems that was identified in the study by the Midwest Research Institute for HUD and something that we found out in our own case has been that there are too many pamphlets and catalogs which use different language for the same things. They are not standardized as to terminology, so you not only have a problem of not having one source but you have a problem of such an abundance of pamphlets and catalogs that none of them answer the basic need of one simple catalog in simple English that will be understandable by the people actually applying for the program itself.

As a matter of fact, in section 7(c) of our proposed legislation we have covered this point that you hit upon by saying that "*** The catalog shall be in all respects concise, clear, understandable, and such that it can be easily understood by the potential beneficiary."

Mr. BLATNIK. Good.

Mr. ROTH. And I think the fact that we provided in this legislation for one catalog will help to standardize and simplify the language problem. From that standpoint, the recent OEO effort leaves much to be desired.

Mr. Chairman, I do think good progress has been made in this area. OEO originally was given responsibility for developing an overview of Federal programs; our eight-month study-and I don't want to go into detail-shows their original efforts were not adequate.

For example, their 1967 catalog only outlined something like 459 programs; our study shows there were at least 1050. Their 1969 catalog included 581; and ours included 1315.

One thing I want to make clear, I am not involved in a numbers game. There are many ways you can "slice the baloney", if you want to put it that way. The important thing is to break down the programs in an understandable manner so they are visible to the fellow back home who is to apply for the program. One of the problems with OEO's earlier efforts was that they consolidated information about several programs into one program, making it meaningless to the applicants. I am happy to say that that last effort, the 1970 catalog, made great improvement. It showed that-

Mr. BLATNIK. Which one are you referring to, the loose-leaf catalog? Mr. ROTH. Yes, the 1970 OEO looseleaf catalog, that's correct. This catalog has incorporated many of the proposals we have included in our legislation and I want to compliment the OEO and the then Bureau

48-957 0-70- -3

of the Budget for their cooperation and for the giant step forward that they have taken.

But I believe we do need legislation. First of all, I think it should be clear that there is a congressional mandate requiring meaningful disclosure of program information to the people back home. I think it's important that we set up through legislation the minimum standards or elements of information that should be made available to potential applicants.

I think, furthermore, we should make it clear that we need and desire future improvement in this information.

I have already mentioned the present lack of adequate financial information. The Midwest Research Institute study, which I previously mentioned, showed that the lack of financial information has been a most serious deficiency. One of the problems has been that by the time the small counties have prepared an application, there were no funds remaining. And while this catalog will not prevent this from happening, if it includes up-to-date financial information, potential applicants will be in a better posture to know if they have a chance of receiving aid. Thus, one of the things we set out in the legislation is future goals or courses of action, such as better funding information.

I also think it's important that we have legislation to insure full cooperation and disclosure by the 57 or more Federal departments and agencies. We have been told that one of the problems, for example, that ОEO and others have had is that they have run into an unwillingness, at least by some administrators, to supply information.

But the most important thing, I think, overall, is to provide or establish the basic principle that there shall be one catalog, which shall contain up-to-date and meaningful information that shall be readily available and understandable to the user, whether he be a mayor, a Governor or private citizen.

I should also like to point out I think this catalog could be of great assistance to those of us in the Congress. It will help us to answer questions or requests from our constituents back home. It will also help us with our legislative functions because it will help us to decide whether new programs are needed, to evaluate the efficiency and success of present programs and to decide what corrective action, if any, may be necessary.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this proposal is basically noncontroversial in nature. It has received broad bipartisan support in the Congress with 181 Members of the House and 15 Senators cosponsoring it.

It has also been endorsed by the Office of Management and Budget. We have also received-and these are incorporated in the written testimony-endorsements by the National Governors' Conference, the National Association of County Officials, and the National Legislative Conference. It has also received broad support from over 300 newspapers who wrote about it on their editorial pages or in their news columns.

With that I would be happy to try to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. BLATNIK. Thank you for making your summary. We commend you for an unusually first-rate job which you and your staff have done. I have heard many comments and I have seen written editorials and news items on the almost impossible Herculean job that one

Congressman with his own staff has done in compiling the compendium such as this.

Can you tell me, how long did it take to go through all these agencies and bring them all together? How large a staff did you have?

Mr. ROTH. We worked on the original catalog for a total of 8 months. I had one man who worked full time and everybody else in the office helped out in varying degrees. I also had two or three volunteers, who, for a period, devoted most of their time to this effort.

One of the problems we originally faced, for example, was just identifying the programs. We used many different sources, including the budget itself and its appendices. We even went to the agency telephone books and got programs by function from this source. I had my staff man, who was given overall responsibility for the project, go to the general counsels in the various agencies because I felt they had an overview of what was going on in their departments. We asked them, "if you treat it like a separate program, give us the name.' We collected approximately 1,300 different programs, named by the approach I have described.

[ocr errors]

Then later on we went back and found out many of them were no longer in existence or they were never programs but we ended up with a list of approximately 1,090. To help with this we prepared a form in which we asked for the information incorporated in our catalog. Most of the agencies cooperated, but there were some notable exceptions.

Mr. BLATNIK. Was there any central agency, such as the then Bureau of the Budget, that was able to give you a good share of the information, or serve as a repository for this type of information?

Mr. ROTH. The best source at that time was OEO which was publishing its catalog, which claimed in the foreword to encompass or contain all programs. But, in fact, it did not. I think they were a little bit in the same posture we were. They could only get what was given to them by the different agencies.

Mr. BLATNIK. I thought of that when you mentioned your problem was to identify the programs.

Before you identify anything you have to find it. Like an archeological expedition, you find a small piece and you try to identify what year or what category it belongs in.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, would you yield just for an observation? I think you used a good phrase, archeological expedition, because I imagine some of these are old enough to be described by that

term.

Mr. ROTH. I think that identifying programs is a most serious problem. If we have this problem in the Congress, imagine the problems that the mayor, the Governor and the local governments must have. They are just completely lost.

But we finally put the initial catalog in the Congressional Record after an 8-month study.

The second time we collected the information, it was much simpler. We got wholehearted support and cooperation from all agencies. However, we do find that some programs are still cropping up that had not been uncovered before. And I think this will continue to be the case-that is, new programs will be discovered.

I might also mention that the basic number of programs is not the important factor. It's how the information is presented so that the person back home can understand what is being offered.

Mr. BLATNIK. Congressman Roth, just two or three more questions for the record, which will be made available to those interested in reading it.

First of all, the General Accounting Office has suggested that perhaps legislation is not needed, because, as the Assistant Comptroller General indicated in his report on H.R. 17112, the Bureau of the Budget Circular A-89 prescribes a comprehensive catalog of this sort to be published by the OEO. In view of the fact that they are sending out this catalog in looseleaf form, which makes it very easy to keep up-to-date without the expense otherwise involved; and in view of their position, would you care to respond to that, particularly why you believe that your legislation is needed?

Mr. ROTH. Yes, sir; first of all I think it can be said in all fairness that this progress would not have been made without congressional prodding. And, frankly, what the Bureau has done can be undone, if there is no legislation. But more important, I, for one, think that the information need is so great that we should not leave this to decisions to be made by the executive branch in the future. As I mentioned, I am pleased with the progress that was made in the last catalog and with the fact that the last circular establishing what should be included in the catalog incorporated much of our legislation.

This does not, however, guarantee that this will continue to be the case in the future. I think it's important that there be a congressional mandate that a catalog will be continued, because irrespective of what we in Congress do in the way of change or restructuring Federal programs, one of the great needs is going to continue to be meaningful disclosure.

I also feel that it is important that Congress establish the minimum standards for what should be incorporated in the catalog, rather than permitting this to be decided by somebody in the executive branch. One of the problems in the past has been, as I mentioned earlier, that some of the agencies were not willing to disclose fully what they were doing. As a matter of fact, in my own office I had one assistant secretary say that a detailed listing should not be created-that it would tie their hands-and yet I don't know how the person back home we are trying to aid can be helped if he does not know what programs are in existence.

Finally, I think that we will get better cooperation and fuller disclosure from the various agencies if we have a congressional mandate rather than rely upon Executive order.

Mr. BLATNIK. In short, you would have a clear-cut legislative and authoritative source for directing that this-which is also to be a single authoritative catalog-be created?

Mr. ROTH. That is correct.

Mr. BLATNIK. It gives greater authority behind it; is that right? It gives it an official standing?

Mr. ROTH. We should establish the basic principle that there be a single source of all programs rather than a proliferation of catalogs and pamphlets which we could easily go back to again.

Mr. BLATNIK. Do you have any idea of what it costs to put out a catalog like this? Do you have cost estimates?

Mr. ROTH. I do have a copy, sir, of the letter you received from the then Bureau of the Budget concerning this. They estimated, as I recall, that it would cost something between $500,000 and $650,000; that they could recover somewhere between $50,000 and $150,000.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »