ustxtxb_obs_1966_04_01_50_00005-00000_000.pdf

Page 8

by

here who knew a boy who went in, and a month later he was shot killed. We’re just hoping we don’t go. “And yet, I want to go into the service and get my three years over with. I want to go back home and work with my Dad, make a career of auto mechanics. “Twenty years from now, I would want a good house, maybe my own farm, a family I’d like that and I don’t want my children to quit high school. I want them to go through high school and get a college education. “I never figured I’d get through college. I never figured I’d get through high school. There’s nobody in my family who’s really had a high school education, except my sister. She’s in twelfth grade now. She’s getting ready to get married. “People who criticize the Job Corps, I don’t think they rightly know how it is. People who criticize the Job Corps are the people who take it in a different light. They look at the boys who got hurt in San Antonio, the boys who got hurt in Austin, and then one got killed, a Job Corps boy. I think the people who criticize are taking it out on all of us for what just a few boys have done. “I don’t think I’m a juvenile delinquent, and I know a lot of other boys who don’t think they are. We’re here because we did not learn nothing in school. We dropped out of school, got kicked out. In the Job Corps, you don’t get kicked out. “I’m here to learn something that I did not learn at home. We get $50 a month, and I send part of that home. I’ve asked my parents to hold the money for me until I get back. My father works hard and gets his work done. He hasn’t taken anything off of welfare. He says what he can’t make, he’s not going to ask for. He says we’ll go hungry before he would. “That’s what he told me before I came in the Job Corps, and he told me, ‘How are you going to earn anything without working for it?’ ” L.L. Austin Policy Makers `Under the Umbrella,’ 75.73% Austin The war on poverty is shadowed, for one political reason or another, by accounts of progress and failure which are so highly selective that it is hard to tell what is happening or what has happened, once one has read the handsome press books and has scanned what statistics are available. It was a statistician’s affair from the beginning, when an annual family income of $3,000 was marked down as the dividing line between poverty and a reasonable chunk of the American plenitude. Using that plimsoll line, Texas, with about one-twentieth of the nation’s people, has about onetenth of the nation’s poor. The number of Texas poor usually is estimated at four million; the Office of Economic Opportunity, which counts by families, estimates that 687,058 families in the state are offically poor. This is 29% of the state’s population. The OEO now says that 75.73% of those families are “under the umbrella” of its Community Action Programs, but the statistics on those programs’ reach and effect are a matter for the future. As for now, it is hard to tell, for the poor are so silent. So how does the program fare in Texas? On March 4, the computer at the OEO in Washington disgorged a chart showing Texas as recipient of $49,930,214 since the Economic Opportunity Act was written. The largest single subtotal was $21,454,776, which was for CAP. Last fiscal year, Texas spent about $70,000 more than it was allocated for CAP. Thas was about $9 million. This year, the state was allocated $23 million, of which $14.8 million remained unspent in January. The $14.8 million surplus was the largest one in the country, slightly larger than New York’s unspent funds and by percentage absolutely the largest in the nation. In way of comparison, Illinois was allocated $18.8 million for fiscal 1966 and, by the midpoint of the fiscal year, had spent $6.3 million more than it was allocated. Although the administrators, state and federal, of this largest of welfare and remedial education programs are understandably close-mouthed about the state’s low utili zation of available money, it appeared that, this week, some $13 million remained unspent and that this money would be available, as of the end of -this month, for redistribution to states like Illinois, which have found things to do with it. No one is apologizing for the Texas underspending, least of all the two men with most to say about administration of the poverty program in Texas. William Crook, the former president of San Marcos Academy, is director of a five-state OEO region which includes Texas and its four neighbors. His Austin office is a spacious room with a view of the hills and with a large map studded with pins which show Community Action Programs, approved or pending. Those pins are thickest in central and south Texas and along the coastline. There is a vacant spot in the Big Thicket region of East Texas, another bald crescent north of there, and a definite thinning out in West Texas, where the great distances and sparse population have slowed CAP’s outreach. In other cases in West Texas, such as Midland-Odessa and Amarillo, public apathy or hostility have prevented community action from getting started. “I believe in the program and, despite bad starts and start-overs, it is on schedule,” Crook told reporters in Austin last month. In an interview, he told the Observer that the organization of the community action programs is too difficult and too important to be done hastily. “We could have spent a lot more money through direct financing,” he said. “We think the pain of a county or city coming to grips with itself is worth it.” He added, “We’re doing the gritty problems first. There has been some hesitation and skepticism, and part of this is OED’s fault, because we’re not projecting here in the Southwest.” Walter Richter, head of the Texas Office of Economy Opportunity, shares, with his staff, the top floor of a small office building four blocks from the capitol in Austin. The Texas OEO is a branch of the governor’s office, just as the national OEO is a special part of the President’s staff. In the case of Richter, who was a state senator known for his fairness and his talents as a conciliator, the executive is nov. John Connally, whose public reaction to the poverty programs has ranged from lukewarm to cold. For example, Connally bridled at the $1.25 minimum wage required for enrollees in the Neighborhood Youth Corps, an OEO-funded program administered by the Department of Labor, and he has chafed at the federal government’s insistence upon having the final say in administration of Job Corps camps, such as that now in operation at Camp Gary, near San Marcos. Connally’s dispute with Sargent Shriver over the Job Corps administration was well-publicized as Richter quietly took office, but Richter’s predecessor, Terrell Blodgett, retained jurisdiction over the proposed women’s Job Corps center at McKinney, and apparently will do so until Connally receives a contract he likes for that center, which does not seem to have happened yet. Thus, working for Connally, impatience could be an indulgence for Walter Richter, but in his windowless office last week, with Muzak wafting out of the ceiling, Richter told the Observer, “I certainly feel a little impatient about our progress. The crash nature , of the program has hurt us a great deal, but if we move deliberately, the dividends can offset the effects of a slow start.” “In Texas,” Richter went on, “you have more of a reluctance to relate to some of these new programs. Our attitude toward the federal aspect has unfairly been related to the Community Action Programs.” Richter says, and Crook wholeheartedly agrees, that in those areas which have begun work on CAP projects, and that means all of the state’s urban areas except for Amarillo a n d Midland-Odessa, the community awareness to the problems of the poor has been heightened so much that the federal role in administering the programs will become diminishingly important. “We’ve already created a certain momentum,” Richter said, “But at this point, April 1, 1966 5