OFFENDER PROGRAMS

This special obligation has been met in New Jersey with outstanding effort and success. MDTA Programs have been established and have proven highly successful at Yardville, Clinton, Annandale and more recently, at Leesburg, Trenton and Rahway. A state-wide corrections school district-only the second in the - Nation-is making its impact felt. An innovative project calling for the establishment of a manpower corrections model is ongoing under a U.S. Department of Labor grant made to the Office of the Governor. This project, one of very few in the Nation, and perhaps the most successful, provides for, among other services innovative job development efforts, special relationships with the business and labor communities, fostering of efforts to bring about the lowering of barriers to employment of ex-offenders and the provision of post-release supporEtive services. (A summary from the State Division of Vocational Education is appended and illustrates what can be achieved at a cooperative level among other agencies when resources are present).

Most inmates of the State's correction facilities will return to the urban centers with high unemployment rates and an already heavy burden of unskilled, underemployed persons. Local areas ought not be burdened by a system that returns these persons, already handicapped with a criminal record, with the additional problem of being unskilled and presumably forced to return to the same life style that contributed to the incarceration in the first place. Legislation should require a percentage set aside for the State to continue its responsibility so that appropriate manpower training and related services can be a part of the total rehabilitation of the ex-offender.

PUBLIC SERVICE CAREERS

A second area of statewide endeavor is the role of State government in acquiring and upgrading disadvantaged persons within its own payroll. A statewide Public Service Careers Program has proven an effective vehicle for achieving this. If an affirmative action program is to be successful, the State can well utilize a mechanism such as this. FY 1974 planning guidelines did not adequately provide for the support of such a program, and, unless new legislation has a percentage set aside, the State will fall short of meeting its obligation in this

area.

The New Jersey Vocational Education system has long been in the forefront in the manpower field. Its leadership in the development of a statewide network of MDTA Skill Centers, its direct operation of the largest such center in the State at Newark, and its outstanding accomplishments upon assuming control over the Residential Manpower Center at Edison, the former Jobs Corps Center, and its partnership in establishing innovative programs in the State's correctional facilities are all examples of the capabilities of the State Division of Vocational Education. The proposed legislation should insure that the vocational education system is not bypassed by local level planners, a 5% set aside in HR 11010, Section 110, appears to be a satisfactory approach, however, more to the point, would be a requirement that all institutional vocational training proposals by local prime sponsors have review and approval by the State agreement agency.

INNOVATION

The State's role in innovative programs ought to be strengthened in the light of increased local level delivery. Because local prime sponsors will be under pressure to concentrate on immediate operational success, their capacity to embark on risky ventures on experimental efforts with uncertain results will be limited. Furthermore, local price sponsors cannot be expected to undertake innovative programming in matters of area-wide concern such as in the needs of migrant workers. And so, the ability of the State to mount this type of effort should be recognized through a set aside of special funds to the Governor.

· DECISION MAKING

Finally, there is the decision-making process in the matter of area-wide manpower delivery, i.e., multi-jurisdictional arrangements. As stated, New Jersey may have over 20 eligible local prime sponsors and each of these will be potentially

eligible for incentive funds to encourage their forming into combinations with other units of government. This is a highly complex matter involving as it does such factors as the labor market situation, growth patterns, transportation projections, educational and other training resources and perhaps other matter as well. Clearly the State has an overview of these factors and, therefore, should be given a voice in the decisions which are made in the selection of multi-jurisdic tional alignments.

SUMMARY

In summary, therefore, the State is and ought to be recognized as a significant partner in the entire manpower spectrum and needs to have a continuing role in: State and Sub-state planning; Coordination, communication, cooperation; de livery of selected statewide programs; Technical assistance to local prime sponsors; Program evaluation and project monitoring; Decision-making in the selection of multi-jurisdictional areas; Prime sponsor in balance-of-state area. Failure of the legislation to recognize these specific state responsibilities will not only mean a loss of some very valuable assets, but in New Jersey will invite chaos. The balance-of-state delivery area will approximate 4.9% of the State's population. The rest will be subdivided into a bewildering pattern of city-wide and county-wide independent, uncoordinated, uncertain, perhaps floundering, group of local sponsors who will get little, and probably inadequate, attention from the federal establishment.

Recommended, obviously therefore, are revisions to the proposed legislation that will enable the State to fulfill its historic obligation to local areas and to maintain an appropriate balance in federal-state-local relations to a point where each is permitted to do what it can best do to meet its obligations to the people.

NOTES ON H.R. 11010

With very specific regard to HR 11010, the following notations are offered: Section 102.-Designation of local prime sponsors, particularly when it involves decisions over combinations of units of local government, should be made only with the concurrence of the Governor.

Section 103.-A system of Sub-state Planning Districts should be established with each local price sponsor as a participant and with each area plan presented being responsive to the needs and priorities of the total area. The position of the National Governors' Conference on this subject is supported.

Section 104.-Suggest revising role of the State Manpower Services Council to show a relationship to Sub-state District Planning Boards and to show its role in setting priorities, providing leadership, technical assistance and program evaluation services to local prime sponsors.

Section 105.-Composition of the Manpower Services Council should be reexamined. In New Jersey, the size of the Council, under the recommended proportional representation arrangement, would be over 60 members.

Section 106.-A revision should show the relationship of Sub-state Planning Districts to the process by which the comprehensive plans are approved.

Section 110.-Provision of a 5% set aside for vocational education is an appropriate recognition of the capabilities of that State activity. However, it should be further stipulated that institutional vocational training proposals by prime sponsors be cleared through the State agreement agency.

Section 203.-A 6% unemployment rate for program eligibility is favored. Lack of an adequate opportunity for jobs at the State level has been overlooked and should be corrected.

Section 301.-The relationship of the State to these so-called special target groups has been overlooked. A part of a percentage set-aside would enable states to deal with the matter of manpower services for persons in State correctional institutions as well as other special needs groups. Placing funds for these services in the hands of the Secretary of Labor, with near total discretion in their use, threatens not only the State's position, but the local prime sponsors' as well.

Section 305.-The danger of a parallel system is nowhere more likely than in the youth programs cited in this section. The American Vocational Association has suggested that these services can best be provided through Part H of the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968 (PL 90–576).

Section 309.-A revision should show that the responsibility for evaluation of programs pursuant to the act shall be shared with the State.

Section 311.—A revision should show a 10% set aside for states. This would be in addition to the 5% vocational education set aside and any other funds the State becomes eligible for as a prime sponsor for balance-of-state areas. The 10% set aside would provide for staff support to State planning and Sub-state planning, coordination of program efforts, evaluation, delivery of special innovative programming. This is essentially the position taken by the National Governors' Conference.

The NGC position with regard to inclusion of the degree of poverty as a means of calculating the allocation formula is also supported.

Section 602.-The position of the American Vocational Association that the term "education" be modified to read "vocational education" is also supported.

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

A SURVEY OF ESTIMATED DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RESOURCES EARMARKED FOR CORRECTIONS DURING FISCAL YEAR 1974

(Prepared by the Bureau of Grants Management, November 1973)

A survey of Department activities in the field of correctional education has been conducted by the Bureau of Grants Management. A summary of the findings as shown on the attached sheet indicates:

Estimated Federal funds__

Estimated State funds (high school equivalency-adult literacy fund)–

Total estimated fiscal year 1974 department resources allo-
cated to correctional education____

$2,635, 658

146, 163

2, 781, 821

A copy of program reports listed on the summary sheet are on file at the Bureau of Grants Management and can be obtained upon request.

NOTES

STATE OF UTAH,

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
Salt Lake City, October 2, 1973.

Hon. CARL PERKINS,
Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN PERKINS: I would like to take this opportunity to express my concerns on the manpower legislation coming before the House Committee on Education and Labor.

I am convinced that a strong state role will ultimately allow greater selfdetermination by local government than will expansion of direct federal-local relationships. By-pass of states, in my opinion, not only replace categorical fragmentation with political fragmentation, but will, in the long run, increase the federal role not diminish it.

It is simply not true that a state designated "prime sponsor" by the Secretary of Labor, is thereby released from concern for local needs or that a city, receiving similar designation, is suddenly removed from its on-going relationship to the state.

Since July of this year, Utah has been operating as a Statewide Comprehensive Manpower Program (CMP). The State of Utah was designated prime sponsor for the grant of Manpower Training Services (MTS) funds. Money was reserved to provide for a state manpower planning staff and three priority statewide projects. This state set-aside money equals approximately 8.5%. It should be noted that this figure does not include monies for vocational education or vocational rehabilitation. The Utah State Constitution specifies that the State Board of Education will administer such funds. The one exception is MDTA. The institutional resources and the Supervision and Direction Budget pass through the State of Utah to the State Board of Education.

The State of Utah is prime sponsor for the JOBS and WIN programs. If these programs were calculated in the state set-aside money, the percentages would equal 23 percent and 54 percent respectively. The state is also prime sponsor for the PEP program which would raise the percentage well over 70 percent.

After the state set-aside money was substracted from the MTS money, the remainder was distributed to the Associations of Government (AOG) in each multicounty planning district on the same formula basis as the Department of Labor used to distribute MTS money between the states; eg, work force, unemployment, poverty. The AOG's then prepared their own plans which were sent to the Governor for approval and inclusion within a single state plan. The Governor could not alter district plans without consulting local officials and would not request such changes unless the plan appeared internally inconsistent or at variance with federal, state or local statutes, guidelines or procedures or where cost effectiveness was open to question as in the case where other funds or programs outside CMP would be equally well utilized to provide a given service or program. We feel that the Utah experience is a valid indication of a Governor's promise to support local planning and administration while still maintaining coordination for a statewide plan.

Utah has experienced good cooperation between City, county and state government in the planning approach described above. The multi-county planning districts were workable areas for planning because their AOG's were already designated the areawide clearinghouses under the A-95 federal review process. These districts were established in order to provide a common geographical base according to which data could be collected, planning organized, and programs administered by state and federal agencies. The districts were also defined according to political boundaries to provide a basis for cooperative intergovernmental decision making.

It is because of our success with the presently defined multi-county planning districts that we would oppose provision in the bill that would allow the Secretary of Labor to designate manpower planning areas. This would seem totally inappropriate for a federal agency that has no firsthand knowledge of our state to arbitrarily designate such areas.

I strongly urge you to look to Utah for a successful model of meshing statewide coordination with local planning and administration of manpower programs. Sincerely,

CALVIN L. RAMPTON,

Governor.