Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

OEO STATEMENT SIGNERS continued

National Council on Aging

National Council of Catholic Women

National Council of Churches

National Council of Negro Women

National Council of OEO Locals

National Dental Association

National Farmer's Union

National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers

National Jewish Welfare Board

National Legal Aid and Defender Association

National Medical Association

National Medical Association Women's Auxiliary

National Rural Housing Coalition

Rational Urban Coalition

National Urban League

National Sharecroppers Fund

National Student Association

National Tenants Organization

National Vista Alliance

National Welfare Rights Organization

OEO Local 2677 American Federation of Government Employees
Pioneer Women - The Women's Labor Zionist Organization of America
Planned Parenthood World Population

Washington Office

Southwest Council of La Raza
Synagogue Council of America
Union of American Hebrew Congregations
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Auto Workers - Womens Department
United Methodist Church, Womens Division
Daited Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A.

U.S. Catholic Conference, SW Regional Office, Division for the Spanish
David Dorn, U.S. Youth Council

[blocks in formation]

Vernon Jordon, Exec. Director, United Negro College Fund, Inc.
Washington Office of the National Board of YMCA's
Washington Research Project Action Council

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Workers Defense League

National Board of the YWCA of the U.S.A.

Zero Population Growth, Inc.

SIA DEMENT IN FROKEE OF CEC

The cffice of Economic Deparmanday is the only federal agen:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

list of glancy

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

supplement and coordinat

titate the paradox of concuted, strengthened existe efforts como as a symbol of the fed government & lasting docent to the war on poverty and as federal rallying pole around was poor and disadvantaged p

can command atte

At the local level.

[ocr errors]

CEC has helped poor peop. processes of the

boaris of neighborhood com agencles, therecy con

only action and other relat share in the planning and deci They, as well as others, se mity action agencies a ag one of the largest vol action efforts in the country. Their pas on has helpe social services and agencies, both grolle and private, moze to the needs of poor people, and therefore more efficient and In helping to determine the use and allocation of significan money, they and their community action agencies are exercise impressive degree of sound judgment and responsibility. and successful effort ation is the heart o CEC anti-poverty program.

[ocr errors]

This

Through its research and dencast ation activities, CEC has in and supported innovative projects that are gradually becoming accepted part of public and private social and economic polic Through VISTA it has afforded young Americans the opportunity help bring about necessary changes within the system. It has formed and still performs functions as an advocate of the poor institutional gadfly that other agencies, public or private, implement or duplicate. No other organi ation has done more champion the importance of the non-professional in our societ has generated leadership opportunities for minority representa and poor people unmatched by any other agency or institution. We believe that the office of Economic Opportunity must be per to build on this impressive record. It must continue to focus national attention on the needs of the poor. The lessons of t past should be used to give CEC a new vitality.

Will CEC be able to carry out its mission under the structural fiscal changes that are currently being proposed?

Administration Plans

The Administration plans to relegate OEO to a poverty research and evaluation organization by spinning off all operational programs to other federal agencies. These include community action agencies, Indian and migrant programs, comprehensive medical centers, special mpact economic development projects, and VISTA programs. The Emergency Food and Medical program will be terminated after FY 1972. The management of community action agencies will be transferred to the croposed Department of Community Development. By January 1973 Community action agencies will become entirely dependent for their existence on local political jurisdictions through revenue sharing. They will have to compete with other programs in the local market place. Federal guidelines and monitoring would be eliminated.

The FY 1972 budget reflects a diminished concern for current antipoverty needs and the demand for community action at the local level. The request for FY 1972 is $116 million less than this year's appropriation. Community action agencies will receive approximately $22 million less than last year, though inflation and traditional salary and other increases have considerably raised the cost of CAP operations. The special impact program for economic development corporations has been reduced about $10 million. Research, demonstration and evaluation activities will get only $70-80 million, some $40 million less than that appropriated last year. This latter allocation is not consistent with the President's call two years ago for a major poverty innovation program.

Implications of the Administration's Plans

The above proposals and the limited budget strike at the core of CEO's mission. They question and threaten four of the Agency's major functions.

CEO as an Advocate Agency for the Poor

OEO is currently the only identifiable federal vehicle through which the poor can express their concerns and needs. To deprive them now of this focus and rallying point would be both irresponsible and a retrogressive step in the war on poverty.

The

The conversion of the agency into a poverty research and evaluation organization means abandoning the concept of an active advocacy structure for the poor within the federal government. strength of OEO lies in its broad strategic approach, combining national with local initiative programs, research and demonstration with operational projects, public with private sector efforts and professional with non-professional personnel. A research, demonstration and evaluation unit, without operational programs and without a local outreach and constituency, cannot be a strong advocate. Its mission would, to a great extent, preclude advocacy. Nor can effective advocacy come from a community action bureau buried within a huge new department or a traditional agency for whom poverty problems could not be the major concern.

2.

National Responsibility for Community Action at the Loca

a

The Office of Economic Opportunity and its anti-poverty were created precisely because local political jurisdict not sensitive or responsive to the needs of their poor populations. Local sensitivity has not improved signifi enough to warrant shifting total responsibility back to jurisdictions.

than

We contend that community action agencies in a large ma
areas will not be able to compete in the local market pi
funds and still retain those elements of citizen partic:
independence and advocacy that have made then more
social agency or local government arm. The dominant pub
factional pressures generally argue for programs and pro
unrelated to anti-poverty projects and poor people.

We believe that a national anti-poverty effort should not
to special revenue sharing proposals. As long as there
critical. national poverty problem there will be a
need for federal funding, federal guidelines and federal
No less an assurance to our poor and minority popula
made.

000 as an Instrument

tion and

We believe that the transter of CE oper
Agencies will adversely affect citizen pa
than host community dotion prostans. Citizen participat
Indian and metat protrans the economic development com
and certain health proyects will also suffer. Their oper
less sensitive turkcracies and procacie ditunate depend
local anisdictions place their future in serious doubt.
trative fragmentation of these programs and the weakening
as a rational aces mean that less pressure will be exer
other federal agencies to presemme and enlarge thel
ticipation and innovative arti- Kinties.

Community II Kencies serie is ericles for other fede
and antiate gropians to aid and relve the poor a beal
economic de relocat dry care TOCCO
XT VERIing of the

[ocr errors]

STAT

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

4. The Provision of Adequate Funds for the War on Poverty

We view the budget as totally inadequate to meet the Agency's mission and the national commitment to eradicate poverty. One of the reasons community action programs have had serious difficulties is that they have been financially starved. More, not less, money for community action and other programs is urgently needed.

Recommendations

For

1. It is in the national interest that OEO, community action and related anti-poverty programs be strengthened and expanded. this reason we recommend the extension of the EOA Act for at least two years with whatever amendments may be needed to fortify the agency's original mission and current requirements.

2. In view of the need for a strong, diversified central agency that can effectively serve as an advocate for the poor and the need for strengthened local initiative programs, we advocate that no OEO program component, especially community action programs, should be either terminated or transferred to another agency without prior Congressional approval.

1. CEC's budget should reflect a much higher level of funding, particularly for community action, special impact and innovation programs that have been severely cut in the Administration's FY 1972 budget.

4. The legal services program should be strengthened and expanded within the EOA Act. Its integrity and non-political character must be preserved through the joint efforts and administration of the legal profession and community people who are its beneficiaries. Legal services programs should be inexorably tied to community action at the local level.

5. The VISTA program should be preserved and maintained as an integral part of the Office of Economic Opportunity.

5. The local share for community action and other OEO programs should not be raised to 25%. Such action can only endanger the development of local initiative programs.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »