ASSA UN ROGRA MOSTAGLE LUDLOR Senator Nelson: I had hoped to have the opportunity to appear ore your committee to express in person my support S.3346, the Comprehensive Manpower and Employment of 1972, which was endorsed by the National ernors' Conference at its mid-winter meeting. ret that my schedule does not permit me to be in Ishington on March 28th when, I understand, various *vernors will be presenting their views on this gislation. I have asked Mrs. Mary B. Newman, I cretary of the Executive Office of Manpower Affairs, be present at the hearing on March 28th and to speak my behalf. I believe that the development of an effective “nd viable manpower policy for this country requires he cooperative participation of local and state overnment. This cannot be obtained by subordinating the city to the state nor the state to the city. It cannot be accomplished by the creation of two separate, autonomous systems. Each has functions to perform which must be coordinated for an effective whole. I believe the bill which the National Governors' Conference has endorsed sets up machinery which will develop this cooperative approach. I believe it merits the consideration of your committee. Senator Gaylord Nelson, Chairman and Poverty Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare Senator NELSON. Miss Newman, your statement will be printed in full in the record. You may proceed as you desire. Miss NEWMAN. This is a statement which, I think, will be briefer if I read it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Francis W. Sargent, Governor of the State of Massachusetts and a member of the National Governors' Conference. I appreciate the opportunity to express my support of S. 3346 both on behalf of the conference and as my own point of view. The endorsement of this bill by the midwinter meeting of the National Governors' Conference is evidence of an increasing awareness on the part of Governors of the vital linkage between manpower, welfare, and economic development programs and the need for each State to plan and implement an effective manpower program, working with the Federal Government. Many elements of S. 3346 are common to other legislation which is before you. The bill provides for decategorization of manpower programs, except for the Job Corps program, for a decentralization of authority in the management of these programs to State and local governments, and for the consolidation of legislative and funding authority for manpower activities. It provides, as an essential element in a manpower program, an expanded public employment component. It provides a planning mechanism closely integrated with manpower delivery systems. A unique feature of the bill is its provision of a mechanism which will develop a cooperative approach on the part of State and local government to the development of an effective manpower program. Such a cooperative approach will not result from the subordination of city governments to the State nor from a subordination of the State to the large cities. It cannot be achieved through the creation of separate autonomous manpower planning and delivery systems. There are functions peculiar to the State as there are functions peculiar to the cities. Effective manpower reform needs the combination of all these functions. The assumption that the interests of the city and State differ has become an accepted part of too much of the thinking about manpower programs. This assumption about manpower programs has brought about an unwholesome polarization, and I believe it to be false. We in Massachusetts have had, through the implementation of the public employment program, an unusual opportunity. Our 12 largest cities are independent program agents, but because of the curious structure of our county governments, Massachusetts counties have not been so designated. Twenty-seven cities and 312 towns, large and small, have worked through the State as program agent on the implementation of the public employment program. In order to provide a sound base for program and reasonable administrative effectiveness, we developed 24 consortiums. Assessment of public service needs, job development, and participant recruitment have been the responsibility of the local governments, within the program guidelines. Our office has provided technical assistance, a central accounting and monitoring system, civil service backup, both legislative and administrative, training coordination and direction, and the development of working relationships with the welfare department, veterans' groups, and the division of employment security. The public employment program has proved to be of tremendous value. We have, of course, not achieved perfection, but the kinds of meaningful and valuable public services being performed are gratifying. The impact on our State, the employment of nearly 5,000 people, including program cities, has been important. Approximately 30 percent of our State PEP participants have come from the welfare rolls and a further development of a linkage with the WIN program is actively underway. We cannot too strongly express our gratitude to the Congress for these benefits. What we had scarcely dared to expect came as a sort of fringe benefit. It is the remarkable growth of a desire and an intention on the part of local elected officials to make manpower planning a part of their municipal responsibility. This has become apparent in a number of ways and is especially obvious in the interest which local mayors and selectmen are taking in the development of responsibility through the ancillary manpower planning boards which are working with our State manpower planning council. We have 18 AMPB's, which together with the four MAPC's grouped around the four cities of Boston. Springfield, Worcester, and New Bedford, have been designed to fit into our eight sub-State planning regions. It is our hope that the planning implementation of economic development will also be based on these regions. Certainly our experience with the implementation of the Emergency Employment Act has convinced us that a public employment program must be an essential part, not only of Federal manpower reform legislation, but of our long-range thinking toward greater State responsibility for manpower policy. We are also aware as we begin to develop our training of PEP program, it cannot, and should not, exist in a vacuum. The manpower reform legislation, S. 3346, which I support, would give the broadest possible scope for effective program linkage. I consider the involvement of local and State officials to be absolutely basic to a long-range manpower effort. Each has a role. We believe that the State must take responsibility for the production of adequate and uniform data, in a form useful to local governments. This must be a responsibility of the division of employment security and the States economic development agencies. The design of more adequate vocational educational programs, the provision of tax and other incentives to industry, and the changes in personnel policies, especially in civil service, necessary to an effective manpower program-all will require support and informed action by State legislatures. In Massachusetts, for example, all cities operate under our State civil service law, and so to a greater or less extent do our towns. Hence, the minor essential changes we have so far made legislatively in order to put the PEP program into operation, have helped the operation of that program in the program agent cities as well as in the State service. The State, through the establishment of standards for evaluating the effectiveness of manpower programs, and through its monitoring, can help local governments to get the maximum benefit from manpower dollars. On the other hand, local understanding of public and community needs, local knowledge of facilities and of delivery systems, and local responsibility for detailed and day-to-day decisionmaking and operation of programs are vital. We are deeply grateful in Massachusetts for the benefits of manpower programs, and especially of the PEP program, afforded through legislation which has come from your committee. We believe the bill before you will make it possible for State and local government each to play its essential role in developing manpower programs which will truly benefit the citizens of all our communities. Thank you very much. Senator NELSON. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr. John Koval, director of the executive office of manpower planning, who is appearing for Hon. William Milliken, Governor of Michigan. STATEMENT OF JOHN KOVAL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF HON. WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN Mr. KOVAL. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Governor Milliken of Michigan, I would like to express my appreciation for the invitation to testify this morning. Being the next to the last speaker, I feel I should probably limit my remarks, and summarize them quite shortly; so I will tend to do that. On that basis of the prepared statement, Governor Milliken has a brief summary, and I would like to just address myself to that summary, with a few additional remarks. I am glad to see that two of the three Senators on the committee represent neighbors of the State of Michigan. I am sure we share many similar problems, as they relate to manpower. Governor Milliken supports the view held by the subcommittee that we need comprehensive manpower reform legislation now. A continuation of the present manpower program maze, with minor modifications and changes, is simply not acceptable. The Governor recognizes the need for an expanded, permanent public service employment program. However, it is his view that this program should not be decided in isolation but should be an integral part of the comprehensive manpower reform bill. Second, Governor Milliken feels that the role of the Nation's Governors in the delivery of manpower services must be strengthened. He believes that this can best be accomplished by designating the Governor as the State manpower agent, to receive all of the Federal manpower funds coming into the State. As the chief elected public official in the State, the Governor receives the blame when we have high periods of unemployment; a lot of underutilized workers; or any of the other problems that stem from insufficient job opportunities and insufficient training for our citizens. I might comment on the fact that in Michigan, at least-and I am sure in most States-manpower problems are statewide problems. They are not isolated problems confined to any one geographic region. of the State. In 1971, average unemployment in the State of Michigan averaged 8.1 percent. We had 83 counties in the State of Michigan. Seventyseven of those counties averaged unemployment of over 6 percent for the year 1971. These are both urban and rural counties, alike. Our manpower problems are not restricted to any particular geographic region of the State, nor to any particular type of political organization, be it major city, suburban, or rural. The Governor recognizes that the responsibility for the delivery of manpower services at the State and local level must be shared responsibly between the Governor and the locally elected public officials. However, the Governor believes that he should have the responsibility, and the authority, to determine regional manpower planning districts. We have established regional planning districts in the State of Michigan for many of the other services that are related to manpower. These districts are being used for economic development; for health planning; for criminal justice; and for many of the other activities. Fourth, Governor Milliken believes that, since manpower policy is the bridge between economic policy and social policy, manpower policy and manpower planning must be fully integrated with the policy and planning functions of manpower-related activities, such as education, welfare, economic development, health, and so forth. The only way that this can be done is to have the Governor be designated as the State manpower agent, and the integration of the State manpower plan with the plans for higher education and for welfare be mandated in the legislation, so that the Governor, therefore, will have the authority to see that all of the plans for these various social functions are compatible with each other. Finally, it is the belief of Governor Milliken that the resolution of manpower policy and manpower planning problems between Governors and local public officials must be decided through a due process system developed by the parties involved. That is, by the Governors and the local public officials. I cannot speak for the other States. I can speak for Michigan: There is a good, close working relationship between the Governor's office and the local public officials regardless of political party. As you probably know, Governor Milliken is a Republican Governor, and the mayors of most of our major cities are either nonpartisan or Democratic. Yet we have been able to work cooperatively in many other areas, including law enforcement, health planning, economic development, and there is no reason to assume that we could not maintain a similar cooperative working relationship in the area of manpower. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator NELSON. Thank you. Your statement will be printed in the record in full. (The prepared statement of Governor Milliken follows:) |