Page images
PDF
EPUB

the interpretation used by the Department of Labor provides no training or supportive services for the program, under section 6. Funds for this program were allocated for high unemployment pockets. Hiring in section 6 has lagged, and the Department has now announced that it is allocating section 6 funds to summer employment programs for youth.

We believe that youth should have funds for summer programs and indeed for year-round activity. But the intent of the legislation was that these funds were to prepare participants under the EEA for permanent jobs.

The legislation also called for equitable allocation of funds among and within the States on the basis of a ratio of the people unemployed in the State to the number unemployed nationally.

The Labor Department came up with a new allocation formula, providing equal weight to the number of employed and the severity of unemployment. This formula has caused considerable inequities for both cities and States. For an example, Syracuse and Wichita have the same number of unemployed persons. Wichita, however, receives six times as much money as Syracuse.

Los Angeles gets

Senator NELSON. How did that formula happen?

Mr. HOLMAN. The formula was so set that if you, for an example, had given equal weight to the number of unemployed and to the severity of unemployment-you might take areas like Wichita where they have unemployment caused by what happened to the aviation industry. You are able, by such a formula-California, through that formula, was able to get a good deal more than other States

This formula is not, of course, provided by the legislation, which said that allocation should be based on the ratio of the number of people unemployed in the State to the national average of people unemployed.

Los Angeles City and Los Angeles County together had about 1. percent more unemployed than New York City and they received $20 million more than did New York City.

We strongly support the establishment of a well-funded public service employment program, along the lines proposed by Senator Cranston. We believe that we must begin responding as, of course, EEA does not-to the real need of our ghettos and barrios, and that need is not for 150,000 jobs, but for hundreds and thousands of jobs in the public sector.

We hope that any program that your legislation establishes will overcome the deficiencies that we already see in the EEA program. Another word of caution seems in order to us; just as public service employment programs cannot substitute for a rational economic policy, job creation alone is not a substitute for a comprehensive manpower program. All of the 5.2 million people who are unemployed need jobs. Some could be absorbed into public kinds of jobs, but about one-third of these people need manpower services, and legislation should provide for that kind of support. In 1971, all manpower programs taken together served only about 13 percent of the poor adults in these categories.

Any manpower program we adopt should contain, it seems to us, at least the following elements:

It should provide for coordination of all local manpower programs through elected officials, and through manpower councils representative of the community. So far, there has been too little involvement of the people in the target communities. We don't think they have adequately tried, and the record of the U.S. Employment Service in trying to work with those target populations shows that you very badly need to involve some of the people from the ghettos and barrios if you are going to work out a program which is really relevant to their needs. This kind of community involvement would also give you the feedback information, and the community support, which would be needed both by the Federal Government and by elected officials. Many of these programs cannot be devised nationally in such a way as to deal with the special problems of the localities and we, therefore, think that the local community involvement would give you an opportunity to gear programs to the characteristics of the local population, the labor market and the capacity of its local manpower and manpower related institutions.

Now, we don't believe that the public sector alone should be involved in the work of job creation. Private sectors certainly should be more heavily involved in providing jobs and job training.

Every major government contract or subcontract should require the contractor to take affirmative action to train and upgrade some of the people who will work under the contract, and the cost of such training should be an allowable expense to be included in the contract. We might consider adopting the system used in Sweden whereby the employer must accept one trainee referred by the government for every 35 employees in his work force.

And, finally, we should

Senator NELSON. Let me ask a question about that.

Mr. HOLMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator NELSON. Is that a government contract in Sweden?

Mr. HOLMAN. We are talking here of government contracts. Senator NELSON. You made the reference to the Swedish program

in which they require one government-supplied trainee for Mr. HOLMAN. That is not limited, as I understand.

Senator NELSON. If you look at it from one point of view, are they further ahead at social planning?

Mr. HOLMAN. I think, incidentally, very few employers are not in some way benefiting even when they don't have contracts-from various kinds of Federal transfer subsidiaries and so forth.

We should use the unemployment compensation system to provide training to the insured unemployed, those in jobs that require retraining, or certain entrants and reentrants to the labor market.

Manpower legislation should also insure the opportunity for every community to benefit from successful experiences undertaken by other communities.

One area in which, specifically, it seems to us further experimentation is needed is the determination of the comparative advantages of job bank technology versus job match systems technology.

We, I suppose, are biased in the direction of thinking that these computerized programs with bank jobs are too passive in dealing with the problems we really have. We would rather see a more affirmative program of attempting, really, to match the jobs to the needs. You try affirmatively to get the people who need the jobs to the jobs themselves.

Congress, it seems to us, should refrain from requiring expansion and reliance on so passive a system until they have checked it over against a less passive system for actually giving you the kind of efficiency you might get from a very carefully matched job need program. It should be a built-in system to gather information on the characteristics of the unemployed and the labor market by area and classification by industry, to facilitate planning manpower programs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics should have the responsibility for gathering such statements and have adequate funds to do that job with.

Such a program should discard the existing categorical programs and substitute provisions aimed at certain target groups.

For an example, youth employment is three times higher than the national rate. The minority youth employment rate is six times higher. One of the target groups should certainly be youth.

An ongoing evaluation must be built into the manpower system, and this evaluation should be shared by the Labor Department, the city, the county, or State which has jurisdiction, and the population it is intended to serve.

The legislation should make available funds for considerable technical assistance efforts to mayors and Governors for planning and implementing their programs. So far, only a couple of cities are moving very far in that direction.

The program should not dictate what agencies should be used in the provision of manpower services. Instead, utility should be the test. In other words, the effective agencies should be used for a program and those agencies which prove not to be effective might find themselves stimulated to better activity and more effective activity if they were not used until they could prove such utility.

The Federal Government should continue to oversee the manpower programs to see that Federal guidelines and legislative intent are being observed.

Decentralization, it seems to us, does not negate the primary role that the Federal Government has in seeing that programs it devises actually do operate in ways it has said they should.

We did, with the Lawyers Committee in 1971, an evaluation of the U.S. Employment Service, which, by law, is supposed to serve as the national labor exchange and as the primary manpower agency for the disadvantaged. We are submitting a copy of that report, if we may, as a part of our testimony.

Senator NELSON. What is that?

Mr. HOLMAN. This is a report called "Falling Down on the Job." I think we have already submitted it to the committee, but we will see to it that you have copies.

Senator NELSON. We have copies here.

Mr. HOLMAN. OK.

(The following was subsequently supplied for the record:)

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

FALLING DOWN ON THE JOB:

THE UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

AND THE DISADVANTAGED

This report is an analysis of the 100% federally funded United States Employment Service system with special focus on its treatment of the poor and minorities. The study is based on interviews and document reviews conducted at both the federal and state levels, over a six-month period, ending March 30, 1971. The states reviewed were: California, Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Virginia.

June, 1971

Prepared by: The Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, Sarah Carey,

Assistant Director, and The
National Urban Coalition

« PreviousContinue »