« PreviousContinue »
The same situation would apply to many other large metropolitan areas. Because of the same reasoning, Wayne County would receive only $1.3 million while the City of Detroit would receive $28.9 million. Minneapolis would receive $5.1 million while Hennepin County, Minnesota would receive only $324,000. Milwaukee would receive $6.8 million while Milwaukee County, Wisconsin would receive only $534,000.
We support a "hold-harmless" provision in allocating funds to the
Obviously, there would be utter chaos if funds for existing programs were cut off to suit any type of formula. But, we sharply disagree that cities should automatically be credited with all of the funds expended within their city boundaries.
This leads to our next concern about the proposed approach to determining prime sponsors. The Administration bill provides that cities over 100,000 population and counties having at least 100,000 population outside of an eligible city can be prime sponsors. In a large number of areas the county could be the only government to qualify as a prime sponsor under the population criteria. However, it also means that in a large number of cases, there would be two or more prime sponsors within one county. We disagree because we think that there should not be more than one prime sponsor in any one county if manpower programs and job opportunities are to be fully coordinated.
We would instead propose that municipal and county officials be encouraged to develop a consortium or a working agreement or a contractual arrangement to plan and coordinate a joint program. If after a reasonable time (six months or so) and the elected municipal and county officials could not agree, the
Secretary would have to change the designation of the prime sponsor.
However, we reiterate our basic support for the manpower special revenue sharing proposal. Our recommendations are largely ones of clarification and expansion and do not affect the concept embodied in the proposal. We are encouraged by the Message On Manpower sent to the Congress last month by President Nixon and we are hopeful that agreement can be reached on a bill
during this Congress.
PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT
We are gratified to see a high degree of local discretion in the Manpower Special Revenue Sharing bill. At the same time, however, we feel that there is a continuing need for a stronger commitment to public service employment. Potentially, the proposal would provide a valuable link between the Emergency Employment Act provisions and the public sector. However, the bill does not give sufficient emphasis to the potential for broad programs of public service employment training. It is our feeling that such emphasis is very important. Rather than being the employer of last resort, the public sector is the employer of need. Training and expansion of public service employment provides job opportunities to those persons who traditionally had the greatest difficulties finding and holding a job. At the same time, vital public services are provided. At a time when the demand for and cost of public services is rising at an unprecedented rate, the need for emphasis on public service employment is great.
We would urge in a
din scalator approved this year by
Congress that furting for polis service eployment be at least double the ancunt provided in the nervency Inclyent kot. Even thout reployment continues to hover around 6 percent, we have serious reservations about a program funded at the Son level as proposed in S. 330.
NACC has supported a permanent public service employment proman for several years. This is still aur position but we are very sensitive to the political overtones involved in the words "permanent" and "transitional." We are more concerned about getting increased funds for public service jobs now than fighting over the establishment of a permanent proman. It may be more prudent to decide this issue in later lexislation.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee. With your permission, I would like to ask my associates from Suffolk County, New York and Wayne County, Michigan to briefly comment on the
manpower programs in their counties. We will be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Senator NELSON. Our next witness is Mr. Kenneth J. Herbert, director, Akron Manpower Development and Training Center.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH J. HERBERT, DIRECTOR, AKRON MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING CENTER
Mr. HERBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Kenneth J. Herbert, director of the Akron Manpower Development and Training Center and president of the Ohio Association of Manpower Center Administrators. Dale C. Laux, program manager, Cleveland Manpower Training Center; and Eugene Shuttlesworth, assistant principal, Stowe Adult Skill Center of Cincinnati.
Senator NELSON. Do you have prepared statements?
Mr. HERBERT. We have given the secretary a prepared statement entitled "Institutional Manpower Training in Ohio." We would appreciate it if this would be entered into the record.
Senator NELSON. It will be printed in the record.
Mr. HERBERT. As a second item, there is a two-page letter to Mr. Dale Laux from the Consortium Venture Corp., concerning cooperation between the manpower center and the consortium.
We would appreciate it if that were also entered in the record.
Mr. HERBERT. A third item is a talk delivered March 16, 1972, by Dr. Garth Mangum, at the opening session of the 10th celebration of the Manpower Development Training Act. We would appreciate it being entered in the record because we agree with the philosophy expressed in his talk.
Senator NELSON. That will be in the record at the end of your testimony.
Mr. HERBERT. Thank you very much.
Time has slipped away. Our information to be presented is contained in the written testimony. So let us just, if we may, take a minute, and go over this very, very briefly with you. This will give you some idea of our concept of manpower.
Each one of us is on the firing line working each day with the disadvantaged and returning veterans attempting to help them do two things:
First, acquire a salable vocational skill.
Second, even more important than acquiring the skill is the acquiring of new confidence in themselves, so they will work, and make an effort to earn a living.
We are dealing in many cases with third- and fourth-generation welfare recipients, and are attempting to help them become concerned about earning a living. We also must make them realize that they can and will earn a living. I constantly say that although the skill training is important in getting them into the center their change of attitude is as important as the job training.
We add to this various other items that they need in order to earn a living: academic skills, improved attitudes, work experience; in other words, the matter of attending classes regularly and getting the work experience that they need.
Now, it is true that jobs are hard to come by at this time. Nevertheless, with open-ended training that we now have at the centers
only a few graduate at a time. With the help of the employment service and our staff, these graduates are getting jobs.
In the last Federal review in Akron, there were more than 85 percent completions and there were over 70 percent of the graduates getting employment.
This will go as high as 91 percent in certain occupations. It depends on the occupation, of course. Our suggestions in our written testimony point out ways of making institutional manpower even better. We are concerned with the idea of revenue sharing, because we know the problems that the mayors and urban centers face. If I were a mayor, and I had a choice, I suppose I would hire a few more policemen, or pay the policemen I now have working for me more, rather than using the funds for training of the disadvantaged. Therefore, we believe that categorical aid must be continued. If it is not and they have to make a choice, they will place the training of the disadvantaged low on their priorities.
Let's put it this way: Saving these disadvantaged individuals is just as important-I believe maybe more so because they are not going to save their cities if they don't.
I feel that this committee can read what we have requested, and we would be very glad to answer questions.
If Mr. Laux and Mr. Shuttlesworth would like to make any comments, we would like to give them a moment, and then we will answer your questions.
Senator NELSON. We have, over the years, taken lots of testimony on the various problems of manpower training, and training of the disadvantaged.
What we are particularly interested in is the draft of a manpower bill; so what we are particularly interested in is: What should be the design, the mechanical design, of that bill?
Any comments that you may make
Mr. HERBERT. In our statement, we do list the bills that have some of the characteristics that we would like to see incorporated. The one Senate bill that was discussed by Senator Ted Stevens earlier here today-Senate bill 2346-is one we approve. This would be a very favorable piece of legislation, with some recommended changes from our testimony. From our point of view, we feel we could accomplish more if these changes are made.
We listed some of the bills that have been submitted in the House, that could be compromised in order to get the result that we would like to see obtained.
Mr. LAUX. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to indicate that, if the amendments of the Manpower Act that were passed in 1968 had ever been enforced, we would have had a much more viable program operating now.
I would indicate-and we have submitted testimony to this factthat in skill centers, as they have been designated by the Federal Government, we have the provisions to incorporate all of these other agencies on a buy-in basis. We have enjoyed in Cleveland, the city I represent, that opportunity. We have at least seven separate funding sources that are buying into the manpower training skill center, and using it, and doing it under the guidelines as laid out by the Federal Government.