Page images
[ocr errors]




Senator Nelson. Because of the time sot. I WIS art questions as I had intended to. I may, jater. STI KINH 7: It isa ernors Conference. As I understand what you are saying it is: (1) You would decategorize all of the programs.

(2) The manpower authorty would be vested in the least, fundamentally.

Is that correct?

Mr. HEMSTAD. I think the nerver authorty is divided a mir tion between the Governor au tlf Oca spon188. It is a to sion of responsibility, sir.

Senator Nelson. I understand. but the Governor will create a re gional manpower planning area!

Mr. HEMSTAD. Yes, sir.

Senator Nelson. They may be standard Tritan statistical areas. However, the local prime sponsor p

designated br the Governor? Mr. Heystad. No. They will be operatione

songs, al leads of government within the local areas, ie

1 aome to an agreement through an election prva Senator VELSON. That is determine

boutons, nalt sen statistical area or whatever area or

*tru in nonmetropolitan areas.

Is that right?

Mr. HEMSTAD. Again, the SMSA maruI suspect in many States they would prezi they don't particularly fit.

Senator NELSOX. As I understand it. in me the Governor decides who the prime spouso

Mr. Heystid. No. Again, in each are in State, the local heads of government wo trould be the local sponsor.

Senator NELSON. But, if there is a standar area, they will presumably agree that that i! that correct?

attro [e Mr. HEMSTAD. Not necessarily.

Miss NEWMAX. Mr. Chairman, for exampji. there 76 communities are scattered far alia different standard planning regions of the rema

Pato firs ment, this has been worked out witi mechanism. I would assume that, if a San ently do, regions developed for the plantley that such a region might well come to two and the local officials—the heads of goose salveg regions-would agree on the naming of

Senator Nelsox. But the Governor. 1 illisthe planning area. Right?

Miss NEWMAX. That is correct.
Senator Nelson. Then they have a 7x19cway,
Miss NEWMAX. Yes.

Senator NELSON. Is there anything in the
membership of the manpower councils for THE 50



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

Miss NEWMAN. There are guidelines in the legislation to provide for client representation-elected officials, agency heads, and the like-and this is specified in the bill.

Senator Nelson. Then the prime sponsor, who designates the manpower council, designs a manpower program?

Miss NEWMAN. Right.
Senator NELSON. And submits it to the Governor?

Miss NEWMAN. Submits it to the State manpower planning council, and they, then, submit it to the Governor.

Senator Nelson. And the State manpower council may approve or disapprove the plan.

Miss NEWMAN. Correct. And there is an appeal mechanism provided.

Senator Nelson. They can appeal to the Governor. If they don't like the Governor's decision, they can appeal to the regional manpower council; if they don't like what the regional manpower council proposes, they can appeal to the national manpower council.

Is that correct?
Miss NEWMAN. Yes.

Senator NELSON. And all of the money would be decategorized, excepting that it must be stamped for the purposes designated in the bill in the planning and manpower area.

Is that right?
Miss NEWMAN. With the exception of the Job Corps. Yes.
Senator Nelson. With the exception of what?
Miss NEWMAN. The Job Corps.
Senator Nelson. Really, the Job Corps is a national-emphasis pro-

[ocr errors]



Miss NEWMAX. Yes.

Senator NELSON. I think that is all. I understand, basically, what you are proposing.

Senator Taft?
Senator Tart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To what extent do you feel that the States would use, under this plan, their established educational or vocational education system, in administering the plan?

Mr. Koval. Speaking for the State of Michigan, sir; I think it is becoming increasingly important that we recognize that education and manpower are intimately related, and that the State plan for higher education, or the State plan for vocational education, must be coordinated and become a part of the manpower plan.

The idea is that we are, in Michigan, in the process of—well, we have set up a number of vocational schools; we have set up community colleges to cover the entire State. Obviously, a good portion of the manpower training that would be provided would be provided by these educational institutions.

Senator Tart. Do you think there would be an increased emphasis on that-particularly, I refer to Governor Milliken's statement, where there is a very interesting table attached to the back, of manpower program funding patterns, which indicates that of the present programsthe funding patterns there are only six from HEW; there are 14 from Labor; one from HUD; one from Justice; and one from Agriculture; there is some channeling from OEO.

This would seem to indicate that the primary emphasis today is still through the Labor Department, rather than through HEW, and in the labor area, rather than the educational area.

Mr. Koval. I think there is starting to be a much closer working relationship between the Department of Labor and HEW, in terms of manpower programs and manpower training.

I think this has become quite evident—at least in our region, including the six States in the north-central region.

Senator Taft. With whom does the Governor suggest that they would prefer to deal, in this regard ?

In what direction do they think we ought to be going in providing for the administration of the program from the Federal level ?

Mr. KOVAL. I would believe that Governor Milliken would believe that the Department of Labor, primarily, through the Manpower Administration, should still remain the primary deliverer. However, just to emphasize the tie that we see in Michigan between manpower and education, the superintendent of public instruction is on our State manpower planning council. He has indicated that it is his opinionas a matter of fact, he is on 21 various State committees, councils, commissions, and what-not-he considers the State manpower planning council the second most important body with which he is associated second only to the State board of education.

Manpower, in his point of view, is the major supporting coordinating link with education in his job as superintendent of public instruction.

Senator Taft. Let me go to one other area.
I wonder if you could

comment on the nature of their thought, as to the nature of public service employment. That is, whether it should be transitional as of the individual, although, perhaps, current as a program?

What would they do to compensate for other regular opportunities in the private sector, or prompt them in the public sector?

What are they doing under the Emergency Employment Act today, in that regard ?

Mr. NELSON. To try to answer that first part of your question, on the transitional nature, I think sometimes that word really has two meanings.

One is the program itself: Should it be transitional, in that it is temporary, or would trigger off, versus permanent ?

The other meaning of the word is transitional as to the individual employee on the program. I think everybody, of course, would agree that it should be transitional as to the individual employee, that he be moved from the subsidized PEP job, into a regular private or public nonsubsidized job.

On the first meaning of that, as to whether it is temporary or permanent-speaking for California-it is our view that it be temporary although, if it is integrated into the overall manpower plan, wherein a sponsor will have a full option as to whether to use it or not, and to what extent, there is no problem that it be permanent in that context. So that would be our response to that.

As to the other part of your question, Senator, on the experience under the EEA, I can only indicate that in California we have filled all of the slots.

[ocr errors]

It is too early to tell what is going to happen—whether they will be merely filling jobs that might have been filled otherwise, or whether they will lead to innovative jobs. That is why we do urge some caution and, particularly, the other part of your question—as to moving them out into the private sector—that is why we believe that the aspect of the Governors' Conference-supported bill, S. 3346, allowing the private sector to be used, is a very key thing. We think that can, in effect, achieve the transition for employees.

Senator Tart. If we do not specifically indicate the percentage that can be used for public employment, won't there be a tendency on the part of the hard-pressed governmental units to overemphasize publie employment more than they would otherwise do, and are the Governors going to be up to standing up against this!

Mr. NELSON. That is a danger, Senator. Others may want to comment on that. I think if we adopt the philosophy that there should be State and local discretion, we have to rely on their good judgment.

It could be an easy panacea to put all of the money into public service employment.

We would again hope they would use all of the tools available to them, as we have pointed out in our testimony. Obviously, the cost per job slot, in effect is much greater than on-the-job training, or other kinds of training, because you are paying a full salary.

It would not make much sense, in an area that is expanding quite well, and where there are job opportunities, to put too much into that, very likely; but, again, we would have to believe that the State and local governments better than Federal decisionmaking-can make more sense here.

Senator TAFT. The Governors' Conference might answer this.

Has the Governors' Conference considered programs for prisoners in correctional institutions, in connection with manpower planning programs?

Mr. Nelson. That is an optional program that can be used, yes. It is one of the so-called laundry list of items that can be picked up: Prisoners, and other people in institutional care hospitals, and other forms of correctional institutions.

Miss NEWMAN. I might just say a word about the permanent public employment program,

Based on our very brief experience with EEA, there is some experimentation going on, with the possibility of developing and redesigning jobs within the State civil service, itself, in the hope that we can build in something like a public employment program for entry-level jobs, with trainees, so it can be sort of a pre-civil service thing.

I feel very strongly, myself, that the States need to develop supplementing, ancillary programs, to go along with Federal programs and, eventually, to merge with them, or, perhaps, the Federal Government gets involved with some other problem too heavily to take over these programs.

I feel that the provision of a broad manpower reform act, with public service employment, would help us very much in our effort to develop something which can be, perhaps, peculiarly a State function.


Senator Taft. Going back to the prison question again, what degree of priority are you thinking of, in terms of some programs of this kind!

Miss NEWMAN. Our laundry list, Senator, was not based exactly on priorities. It was designed to give an opportunity to use the manpower money for whatever happened to be a particular need, and the employment of prisoners happens to be a particular concern of mine. I was once a member of the parole board. We have tried to use this EEA money, to some extent, to further the employment of prisoners.

It is not altogether easy to gear it in, in the Labor Department schedule, for using the money with the parole dates of people from correctional institutions.

We have had some success in that area.

Mr. HEMSTAD. I would like to comment on the public employment question, also.

The State of Washington, I think, again illustrates the urgent need here. We have a State unemployment rate in the entire State which is something like 10 percent. In the Greater Seattle area, it is 12–13 percent.

In the present circumstance, the State government, itself, is putting money into publicly funded programs. We have a highly trained, highly skilled work force. We don't need training in those jobs.

In the present context, if we had the possibility, we would be putting greater amounts of money into public employment programs at least, in the training.

Other States, of course, are the opposite.

Senator Tart. Is it your view that priority ought to be given to the poor, the disadvantaged, the minority groups in these programs?

Mr. HEMSTAD. I don't think there is any question that there has to be a substantial priority in that area. There are approximately 8,000 people employed in publicly funded programs now in the State of Washington. We have substantially exceeded the guideline objectives of the Department of Labor in that regard.

Mr. HAMMOND. I was going to comment on your earlier question relating to whether or not you should specify a percentage of the employment, say, in either the private or the public sector.

We, in North Carolina, I think, would plead for the flexibility there, that others are talking about.

You further raised the question of whether or not the Governors are prepared to stand up to the pressures of local government officials. We might also say the pressure of private people seeking the funds.

It has been our experience that where a program evolved through some planning mechanisni_such as the manpower council at the State level-that the Governors have, indeed, stood up to the priorities there, and resisted pressures to have funds rearranged. I can cite a couple of instances.

In our State, for instance, we belong to both the Coastal Planning Regional Commission and the Appalachian Regional Commission. In each of these programs, we have developed a public investment plan, so to speak, for the use of those funds. The Governor approves this

76-736 0 - 72 - pl. 3 - 9

« PreviousContinue »