Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

education program or interpretation program can go out into the communities and small businesses so they can understand.

The small businessman in America really does not understand or know that much about the tax credit. I think we have a vast opportunity for job creation on a significant scale that has never been used because of lack of information and communication.

Mr. HAWKINS. You indicated and gave great support to the career intern program. This is not really a concept which this committee has dealt with in any of its previous hearings. Would you amplify on the model which I understand is now operating successfully in Philadelphia, particularly with respect to how it is funded and what results have been obtained in terms of the end result of job placement?

Dr. SULLIVAN. A number of years ago when we realized the large numbers of youngsters that were dropping out of school, we felt it was important to develop a program that consisted really of a net for these young people so that instead of dropping out of school into the streets and then into prisons and drugs or whatever, they would drop out into what you would call an alternative school that would work in cooperation with the local school system and the business community itself and the community, providing that youngster, before he drops out into the street or after he dropped out, to get him back as quickly as possible, with motivation, communication, and computational skills. Also to supply him with direction and counseling toward career opportunities, vocational and educational career opportunities in the workaday world or into further education.

We believe that utilizing the OIC method of dealing with the hands, the head, and the heart as well as the spirit of the person, tied into the private sector and the job market, that we can save many of these young people and make them profitable citizens.

We were able to get an old building that was standing idle that was given us in Philadelphia to utilize this experiment. We were able to get the cooperation of the local board of education that assisted us with curriculum material and some equipment. We worked with the businesses. We formed a business advisory committee so we would be training young people who were going into vocational skills to be certain they were being trained in the skill areas for the job in the community and also providing equipment as well as volunteer services and put together an OIC concept to meet the needs of the youngster in school about to drop out.

I talked to a Dr. Marland who was then Secretary of Education about the concept. We met with the NIE. We decided we would have. an experiment to see how successful it would be with control groups, those that did not go and those that went to the career program.

After 2 years the findings were the success was three times greater of holding the youngsters, putting them into a job and a career than the youngster who stayed in the traditional school system and had no alternative system like the career intern program.

It was then the Department of Education decided they would further the experiment into four other communities: New York City, Detroit, Seattle, and Poughkeepsie. Again an analysis was made using exacting measurements. The success ratio was three times greater in the career intern program than in the traditional system.

It was on the basis of this kind of analysis from NIE that the recommendation came to the Congress and to America that this is the kind of program America ought to invest in, not only for the future of its youth but for the future of America. It is a program that has worked and has been demonstrated in a number of settings all more or less equally in terms of the success ratio.

The aim would be because community-based groups again relating with the school system itself because it is the kind of program where the first money comes from the Federal Government to initiate the program with a cooperative relationship between the local school systems, the unions, the business community, and the community. people themselves.

After the second year 75 percent is supplied by the Federal Government and 50 percent in the third year and then in time it is absolved into the State resources.

You are not carrying it interminally. It rises on the basis of its effectiveness in the community. You are keeping youngsters in school that otherwise would drop out. The cost of keeping them in school-if you keep them in school you are going to have to pay for them anyway with State funds.

We have found that the cost of the CIP is less expensive than the traditional system because we use more volunteer help and more selfhelp and because of the character of the OIC programs as being as cost effective as we possibly can.

Mr. Jolly is here and perhaps he can add a word or two to what I have said.

Mr. JOLLY. The real issue and the real challenge to us was whether or not we could embrace this alternative type program within the framework of the schools. The focus was not to destroy the image of the school but the focus was to undergirth the process and recognize the school is not the answer to all of the problems of all the children. That was our focus.

Once a resolution was passed by the Board, it means records were available to us. We had all kinds of technical challenges, for example, certification of teachers. Carnegie units that could be recognized. A youngster graduates and gets a diploma. There were many kids where we had to go out and recruit them. We had to go to their houses and they came to school with their babies and some were in deep trouble within the corrective systems of our cities.

We were able to bring those youngsters in and give them new hope. We utilized the church and the whole moral aspect of you can do better and we are interested in you and we do care. We put them in a different environment.

We were able to measure the quality of growth of these youngsters. In the control groups within the school, we found that each one of those youngsters in terms of reading, an average of three levels they grew in reading. That was a part of the research.

Every name we pulled went into the CIP and the others went into the controlled situation in the schools. It created serious problems. for us because none wanted to go back to school. They all wanted to come to the OIC. None was willing to go back to school.

We were able to let them know how important this was. We took this project on because of its importance and its potential for replica

tion. When they understood that and that they would be helping other youngsters then they agreed to go back to the schools and be a part of the controlled group.

We went to New York and we did get an agreement with Mr. Shanker. We worked it out. Our focus was on those youngsters.

It was this kind of intensive involvement that points out that the CIP is a very relevant alternative program and it can help these kids to achieve and really get into the world of work.

Dr. SULLIVAN. I might add we deal very closely with the family. It might even be a foster home. Many of these youngsters come out of divided and split homes and some have no homes at all. You find almost as a corollary between a youngster who has no real home and the dropout rate in this country. It is amazing.

We find wherever that home is and whatever it consists of, whatever that community environment is from which he comes, we bring that and make it a part of the process so that it is not just something that happens in a situation of a building but it is what happens also around that building.

We know the intern program works. We know it is cost effective and less expensive than the traditional system. We believe it can work in every community in this country as an alternative mechanism.

It will be a challenge to the public systems during a period so they will readapt their programs to fit the broader needs of the educational needs of our youngsters.

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you, Dr. Sullivan.

Perhaps at this point we might call on Mr. Jolly to introduce the other panel members. Mr. Elton Jolly is chairman of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition in New York City. I understand Mr. Manuel Bustelo is the executive director of the National Puerto Rican Forum and vice chairman of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition.

Dr. Sullivan, we would like to again acknowledge your contribution this morning. I recall when I first met you that you were operating almost as a church institution in Philadelphia. I think for a long time you did not even accept any contribution of governmental assistance of any kind.

I want to express admiration that even though you have been recognized in subsequent years by governments to do a specific job that you have never compromised your principles. You are still operating with the highly motivated type of program that I originally knew when I walked through some of the facilities with you in Philadelphia. It is a great inspiration to us.

Dr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You were an inspiration to me and to all of us.

Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Jolly, we will now have you introduce the panel.

STATEMENT OF ELTON JOLLY, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL YOUTH

ADVOCACY COALITION

Mr. JOLLY. Mr. Chairman, my name is Elton Jolly and I am the national executive director of the OIC's of America. Today I have the distinct privilege of changing hats and appearing before you as the chairman of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition, which is a volunteer association of 19 youth serving community agencies which

are the National Child Labor Committee; OIC's of America; the National Puerto Rican Forum; Camp Fire Girls; United Neighborhood Centers of America; N.Y.C. Mission Society; National Manpower Institute; National Urban League, Inc.; Jobs for Youth, Inc.; Vocational Foundation, Inc.; National Youth Work Alliance; Girls Club of America, Inc.; Rural New York Farmworkers Opportunities, Inc.; National Alliance for Business: Center for Community Change; SER Jobs for Progress, Inc.; National Council of La Raza; Citizens Policy Center; and 70001 Ltd.

This does not include some 45 or 50 participating agencies when we convene our meetings above and beyond these.

I took the time, Mr. Chairman, to read the names because most of these agencies have never worked together until the coalition was formed last spring. We are still growing.

Two agencies have joined in the past 2 weeks. We are still learning about each other.

The written statement is a broad concensus document and its words are the language of compromise. I do not want the tone of the document to obscure the most remarkable fact that these 19 diverse and sometimes competitive organizations have joined together because we share a concern for the youth of this country.

We rise in opposition to the forces which want to sacrifice kids on an altar of fiscal responsibility.

I also want to commend this committee for its efforts on behalf of the poor and unemployed.

The budget cuts for youth programs which have been reported in the papers will have terrible consequences and the National Youth Advocacy Coalition cannot support cuts in existing youth programs. The country cannot turn its back on our children in the name of a balanced budget.

We will pay many times over for income maintenance, remedial programs, and the inevitable social disruption. It is inhuman and a poor investment to reduce efforts to help unemployed youth. It is a cruel trick to offer a major new youth initiative and to propose to cut the existing programs in half.

Commonsense says we should continue the proven programs that are a part of the youth employment development programs.

Today with me I am pleased to have as a part of the coalition and who will be sharing this testimony with me, Mr. Manuel Bustelo who is the vice chairman of the National Youth Advocacy Coalition and who is the national executive director of the National Puerto Rican Forum. We also have Mr. Robert McAlpine who is the associate director for congressional relations with the National Urban League, Inc. We have Ms. Mary DeGonia who is the policy analyst with National Youthwork Alliance. We have Mr. Jose Galvan who is director of youth programs for SER-Jobs for Progress, Inc. We have Ms. Patricia Nooy, executive director of Jobs for Youth, Inc. in New York and Ms. Mildred Wurf who is the Washington representative of Girls Club of America and coordinator for the National Coalition for Youth.

We also have members of our executive committee, Mr. George Carson and Mr. Jeff Newman and others who are participating and who are here in the spirit of our testimony.

At this time I am going to ask Mr. Manuel Bustelo to give the principles upon which the coalition was founded.

STATEMENT OF MANUEL BUSTELO, VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL YOUTH ADVOCACY COALITION, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PUERTO RICAN FORUM

Mr. BUSTELO. Thank you, Mr. Jolly.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I will try to briefly enunciate 13 key points that should form the basis of any legislation which is passed.

Community-based organizations and their participation is the first point. Legislation should require prime sponsors and Federal funding agencies to have full participation of CBO's in planning, resource allocation, research, monitoring, and delivering of services to youth.

There must be continued funding and support for CBO's of demonstrated effectiveness as well as investment in new and developing CBO's which evidence youth service commitment and capability.

Existing and expanded linkages and program coordination should be mandated at the Federal and local levels in order to insure comprehensive programs to high risk youth.

New legislation offers an opportunity to encourage cooperative efforts by schools and CBO's. While schools are not adequately serving young people with special needs, community-based organizations do not intend to replace the regular school system.

We must establish cooperative relationships in which support services can be provided by CBO's within the framework of the public school. Such services will help prevent dropouts and help prepare young people for the world of work while they learn basic skills.

Realistic accountability standards should be equally and consistently enforced for all organizations providing employment and training activities including community-based organizations, educational institutions, prime sponsors, and the private sector.

Youth employment and training resources should be targeted to those youth most in need who are socially and economically disadvantaged such as offenders, drug and alcohol abusers, teen parents, youth with language barriers, and handicapped youth.

Comprehensive individualized prescriptive coordinated services should be provided to youth facing severe economic, social, or physical barriers in order to increase their overall employablity. Opportunity for youth and family involvement should be provided in all phases of comprehensive youth employment and related services.

Time and time again we find that high risk youth with special needs. do not fit a particular program and after moving through a variety of services they fall through the cracks with their needs unmet. The only way to insure that these young people are well served is coordinated service delivery and adapt programs to meet their needs.

By involving young people and families in the planning process for such services, service providers can be more confident that the programs are designed around the needs of the recipients.

Language difficulties should not be a barrier to entering into training or employment. Legislation should promote basic language train

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »