PUBLIC SERVICE CAREERS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, Honorable DOMINICK V. DANIELS, Rayburn House Office Building, DEAR MR. DANIELS: As you are well aware the federal government has sponsored a multitude of experimental manpower programs in an effort to assure maximum levels of employment through public policy. Among this myriad of efforts, the Department of Housing and Urban Development Public Service Careers Plan "B" Program has emerged and become a most successful venture. We believe that the experiences and successes acquired from this endeavor must be kept intact and that they should become the foundation of a public employment manpower policy. Enclosed is our position on the issue, it briefly describes and suggests that the concepts embraced by the Public Service Careers Program should be vital components of any proposed or anticipated comprehensive manpower policy. Sincerely, HENRY C. CASANAVE, Jr., National Director, Public Service Careers/Community Development. POSITION PAPER ON THE HUD-CD/PLAN "B" PUBLIC SERVICE CAREERS PROGRAM The federal government made a commitment twenty-seven years ago in the Employment Act of 1946, to assure maximum levels of employment through public policy. We believe that the federal government, because of cyclical fluctuations, economic and otherwise, and because of program designs, has found it virtually impossible to fulfill this commitment. During the "New Frontier" and "Great Society" eras, several efforts were made to fulfill this commitment. Among these efforts were New Careers, Neighborhood Youth Corps, and the Concentrated Employment Program. These programs did not guarantee employment for enrollees once training was completed, thus training was frequently conducted in a vacuum. In other manpower program efforts such as Operation Mainstream and the Public Employment Program, even though jobs were guaranteed, training funds were not generally of sufficient amounts to affect the intended fate of the programs. Thus, to date, our manpower policy has yielded fragmented and ineffective employment programs. We believe that through public policy, units of governments (federal, state and local) could and should be the employer of first resort. Moreover, as employers of first resort, units of local governments should provide gainful employment and meaningful career opportunities for the disadvantaged and/or those persons who have been short-changed through no fault of their own. It has been estimated that during a period from 1962 through 1972, public employment (state and local) grew by an approximate rate of 67% or from 6.5 million to over 10.9 million employees. Today, governments at all levels employ more than 17% of the work force and have a payroll of approximately $100 billion. According to the Department of Labor (DOL) figures, this growth is still on an upward swing and by 1975, 4 million new public service jobs are expected to be developed. Couple this projected growth pattern with the turnover and job vacancy rates of state and local governments one could only surmise that well over 6 million public service jobs will be available at the state and local level by 1975. (A conservative estimate). It has been our fortune over the past three years to have administered the operations of 34 Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development, Plan B Public Service Careers Programs (HUD-CD/PSC). The Department of Housing and Urban Development, Community Development Plan B program is basically a "hire now train later" attempt to help secure, within merit principles, permanent employment for disadvantaged persons in government agencies at all levels, and to stimulate career opportunities or the upgrading of incumbent employees thereby meeting the public sector's manpower needs. These thirty-four projects were contracted to hire, train and retain 2,130 enrollees. To date, we have enrolled more than 2,250 enrollees, 821 have completed training, 873 are still in training, 555 terminated the program prior to completion, thus giving the program a retention rate of approximately 75% which is somewhat above the average manpower program retention rate. The succeeding are program components which enabled us to achieve a high level of success. They are designed to ease those artificial institutional, educational and environmental barriers that prohibited disadvantaged persons from securing gainful employment in the public sector. 1. Human Resource Management (HRM)1 Human resource management is a conscious effort by HUD/PSC projects to eliminate those artificial employment barriers within the governmental structure that seek to screen out rather than screen in disadvantaged persons. The following are examples of HRM activities which are utilized by various HUD/PSC projects to eliminate employment barriers: D. Organizational development and other related activities. II. Education and Training 2 The development of education and training programs that equipped prospective and/or incumbent employees with the knowledge, skills, abilities and/or credentials which are necessary for the individual to realize his/her employment goals is one of the most outstanding features of the program. In many jurisdictions this function is being institutionalized in the existing governmental structure. III. Supportive Services 3 It is realized that there are varying degrees of deprivation and other environmental factors that prohibit disadvantaged persons from securing and in some instances from even seeking employment in the public sector. For those reasons, projects tailored a supportive service component relevant to the needs of prospective employees in their jurisdiction. Thus, paving an in-road for these deprived persons to the world of work and increased their employability. The three components mentioned above are viewed as building blocks which are arranged in a combination of ways to achieve the sponsor's objectives. This flexibility, even though it has been hampered and limited by certain time and cost constraints, has enabled the sponsor jurisdiction to design their HUD/PSC project to meet individual needs while fulfilling the overall HUD/PSC goals. Our experience and recent statistics have convinced us that there is a dire need for not only a comprehensive and coordinated manpower policy but also one with a public employment component. A policy with a component that speaks directly to the specific concepts and goals embraced by the Public Service Careers Program. A policy component where the chief local elected official is granted the resources to hire first and train later and where incentives are of sufficient scope as to prohibit the local jurisdictions from straying from the intended faith of the policy. In conclusion, let it be made clear, that we are suggesting that a comprehensive and coordinated approach to public employment should be addressed at the federal level and that its major focal point should be those concepts embraced by the Public Service Careers Program. Hon. DOMINICK DANIELS, Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C.: PHOENIX, ARIZ., October 26, 1973. The following is 'anguage submitted to the Select Labor Subcommittee which we propose be reviewed and considered by the subcommittee as they finalize H.R. 11011 in markup. 1. The term "disadvantaged" along with the terms "unemployed" and "under 1 Tacoma, Washington; Cambridge, Massachusetts; New London, Connecticut; Honolulu, Hawaii; Richmond, Virginia; Plainfield, New Jersey; Athens, Georgia; Texarkana, Arkansas; Berkeley, California; Compton, California. 2 Trenton, New Jersey; Paterson, New Jersey; Jersey City, New Jersey; Perth Amboy, New Jersey; Reading, Pennsylvania; Richmond, Virginia; Univ. of Minnesota; Highland Park, Michigan; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Plainfield, New Jersey; East Orange, New Jersey; Asheville, North Carolina; Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Oakland, California. 3 Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Richmond, Virginia. employed" is used in seven critical sections of the bill which describe the person who qualify for services under this act. The terms "unemployed" and "underemployed" are defined in title IV, section 401, but no definition is given for "disadvantaged." We urge that, 1. The term "disadvantaged" be defined in sections 401 and 402; that the definition include, but not be limited to, "persons who suffer in the labor market because of their limited speaking, reading, and writing abilities in the English language." Title III, part A, section 301, which reads, "SEC. 301. The Secretary shall use funds available under this title to provide additional manpower services as authorized under titles I and II, to segment of the population that . . .," we urge be amended to read, "SEC. 301. The Secretary shall use funds available under this title to provide additional manpower services as authorized under titles I and II with emphasis on current program of proven effectiveness to segments of the population that...." We hope that you concur with our suggestions. JOE R. BENITES, League of United Latin American Citizens. Hon. DOMINICK DANIELS, SACRAMENTO, CALIF., October 26, 1973. Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Education and Labor Committee, Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN DANIELS: You and your subcommittee are to be commended on your diligent pursuit of the manpower reform legislation. I am well aware of the difficulties and compromises involved. I strongly support the intent of H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011 to decentralize, decategorize and place responsibility and accountability for manpower services at the State and local level. However, there are three areas of the legislation which need modification before the bill is enacted: There is no provision for funds to carry out statewide planning and coordinating responsibilities and to conduct manpower programs which are statewide in scope. We strongly urge that not less than 10 percent of the total manpower allocation to the State be set aside for the State's use. Eligibility for prime sponsorship for comprehensive manpower programs should be predicted upon populations of 100,000 for cities or of 150,000 (excluding the population of eligible cities) in the case of counties. The State manpower services council, under this legislation, would be unwieldy in size. For example, the California Manpower Services Council could have a minimum membership of 49. Such councils should not be mandated or constrained by a congressionally determined number of members. Similarly, it should be the prerogative of the Governor to select a staff director and staff. I strongly endorse the principles of local responsibility and accountability which are implicit in manpower reform. This administration is prepared to assume responsibility in comprehensive manpower planning and coordination. We stand ready to work closely with the authors to achieve a compromise bill which is equitable for State and local governments. EARL W. BRIAN, Secretary, Health and Welfare Agency. WASHINGTON, D.C., October 26, 1973. Representative DOMINICK DANIELS, Washington, D.C.: Attached is language submitted to the Select Labor Subcommittee which we propose be reviewed and considered by the subcommittee when they finalize H.R. 11011 in markup. The term "disadvantaged", along with the terms "unemployed" and "underemployed" is used in seven critical sections of the bill which describes the persons who qualify for services under this act. The terms "unemployed" and "underemployed” are defined in title IV, section 401 :1. The term “disadvantaged" be defined in section 401 and No. 2 that the definition include, but not be limited to, "persons who suffer in the labor market because of their limited speaking, reading, and writing abilities in the English language." Title 3, part A, section 301., which reads, "Section 301. The Secretary shall use funds available under this title to provide additional manpower services as authorized under title 1 and title 2 to segments of the population that . . .," we urge be amended to read, "Section 301. The Secretary shall use funds available under this title to provide additional manpower services as authorized under title 1 and title 2 with emphasis on current programs of proven effectiveness to segments of the population that . . . ." We hope that you concur with our feelings that attention should be brought upon the unique circumstances of limited English-speaking unemployed and underemployed Americans. Your assistance in this matter is invaluable. Sinceramente, ANTONIO GALLEGOS, National Chairman, the American GI Forum. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COUNCILS, Hon. DOMINICK V. DANIELS, Chairman, Select Subcommittee on Labor, House Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are submitting for inclusion in the Hearing Record on H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011, both cited as the Comprehensive Manpower Act of 1973, the views of the National Association of Regional Councils. Before making our comments on the proposed legislation, it is appropriate to say a few words about the National Association. The National Association of Regional Councils was initiated in 1967 to assist local government officials in organizing a rapidly growing number of regional councils. Simply summarized, regional councils for the most part are area wide organizations of general purpose local governments which involve more than one local government and encompass a total regional community. Regional councils exist both in densely populated metropolitan areas and in sparsely populated rural areas. Their prime purposes are to increase communication, cooperative decision making, and coordination among local governments; to review and comment on certain federal grant applications; and to develop policies and programs to meet mutual problems and guide orderly development. More than 600 such regional councils have been established to deal with areawide problems. Their governing bodies are composed primarily of local government elected officials. In the last two years, the continued growth of regional councils has been encouraged by the actions of the states. Forty-four (44) states have initiated the process of establishing substate districts. Of these, 34 have completed or will shortly complete the subdistricting process and have designated regional councils for each district. Most regional councils serve as the basic coordinative device for federal funding of local government activities. This function is based on the "review and comment" provisions of Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968, both of which are implemented through Circular A-95 of the Office of Management and Budget. Regional councils, designated as A-95 agencies, review federal aid applications of local governments prior to submission to the federal funding agencies. This review process saves taxpayers an estimated $450 million a year. The character of federal aid is especially sensitive in the promotion of intergovernmental cooperation, wise public investment, and areawide planning and coordination of local programs. It is for this reason we are particularly interested in two bills pending before the Subcommittee-H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011. Each of these bills authorize the establishment of comprehensive manpower programs oy state and certain general purpose local governments. The bills establish a program of financial assistance to state and local prime sponsors for the development of comprehensive manpower service programs within their jurisdiction. Each prime sponsor is required to submit a comprehensive plan setting forth the services to be provided. The plan must be predicated on the state or local situation and ensure that the services are rendered to those in most need. The National Association agrees with the main thrust of this legislation. It provides local governments the opportunits and necessary flexibility to develop manpower programs that meet the particular circumstances within their community. But, at the same time, it requires such sponsors to meet national priorities and objectives. We feel that the legislation will accommodate both interests and, therefore, will best serve those who most need this type of governmental assistance. We are concerned about the lack of area wide planning and coordination. As you know, in almost all cases, the labor and job markets exceed the boundaries of any one political subdivision. Because of the multijurisdictional nature of the employment market place, it is essential that there be adequate planning and coordination at the area wide level. The planning required under both of these bills before the Subcommittee only address the needs of the individual prime sponsors. Moreover, there is nothing in the legislation that requires interlocal coordination of the various manpower service programs to be undertaken by the prime sponsors. It is noted, however, that Section 104 in each bill pertaining to the special requirements for state prime sponsors required in Subsection (b) (5) that the state acting as prime sponsor must "provide for exchange of information between states and local governments on state and regional planning in areas such as economic development, human resource development, education and such other areas that may be relevant to manpower planning." Moreover, that same section requires that the state promote the coordination of all manpower plans so as to eliminate conflict, duplication and overlap between manpower services. We agree that this is an essential ingredient if there is to be rational programs throughout the state. But we do not believe that this state role can substitute for areawide planning and coordination unless the local prime sponsors sit down together and identify their mutual needs and interests. The chances of meaningful coordination will be minimal. Consequently, the National Association strongly urges the Subcommittee to require individual prime sponsors to plan for and coordinate their manpower programs through the multi-purpose regional council of general purpose local governments in their area. We also believe that the application of each prime sponsor for federal funding should be subject to the "review and comment" process under Title IV of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 as implemented by OMB Circular A-95. In closing, Mr. Chairman, we want to reiterate our support for this innovative approach to providing the necessary manpower policies and programs which are tailored to the specific needs of individual local communities. We hope, however, that consideration will be given to ensure proper coordination of these local efforts, especially in our metropolitan areas. Our staff is available to consult and assist the Subcommittee in further articulating the methods in which this planning and coordination role might be provided for in pending bills. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this very vital legislation. Sincerely, FRANCIS B. FRANCOIS, President. STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. WALSH, EXECUTIVE, EDUCATION AND MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES The Chamber of Commerce of the United States appreciates this opportunity to present its views on H.R. 11010 and H.R. 11011. We commend the subcommittee for its progress in drafting legislation supportive of the manpower revenue sharing approach. These two bills are superior to earlier proposals. They recognize a need for public service employment, but properly limit subsidized jobs to areas of greatest need. They decategorize programs and decentralize authority, but recognize the special responsibilities of the federal government in delivering manpower services to persons confronting unusual obstacles to gainful employment. Our comments center on these and related matters, including a recommendation for business representation on local and state planning bodies. |