Page images
PDF
EPUB

The report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders recognized the crucial implications of unemployment for public economic policy. In the words of this report: “Unemployment and underemployment are among the most persistent and serious grievances of our disadvantaged minorities. The pervasive effect of these conditions on the racial ghetto is inextricably linked to the problem of civil disorders." On the local level, we are well aware of the problems of the poor, the economically and socially disenfranchised, the unemployed, and the underemployed. They beseech us daily for services and assistance. Yet, it seems that every time the Federal government has looked into the unemployment and manpower problems facing all of us, it managed to create dozens of manpower programs with different requirements, techniques, aims and rewards-and each responsible to different federal agencies, funded from different sources, and administered by every type of public or private agency we could manufacture. It appears that every time we saw a problem, we created a new program which was supposed to handle it, without regard for existing programs or consideration for the new program's ability to fill the newly observed need.

In an attempt to deal with this excessive proliferation of categorical programs. duplicative administrative systems and an overcentralized and uncoordinated manpower programs system, the Administration has proposed a comprehensive new Manpower Training Act. As set forth in H.R. 13472, this Act would:

1. Consolidate major manpower development programs;

2. Provide flexible funding; and

3. Decentralize administration of manpower services to states and metropolitan

areas.

The National Association of Counties strongly endorses these basic principles of Manpower Reform.

Faced, the way we are, on the local level with providing services for an overexpanding community need, we too have been looking for ways of making manpower programs meet the needs of our citizens in ameliorating their personal plight, and in strengthening the basic public economy.

The National Association of Counties, meeting recently at their annual Legislative Conference in Washington, D.C., discussed policy positions relative to any national manpower programs reform. A National Task Force on Manpower presented basic principles of reform that would be necessary to make any manpower program viable. At the top of a list of ten positive principles that any manpower bill should have, was a guaranteed job after training.

Although data are sparse supporting the notion that a "training only" program is the least desirable of all manpower programs, several observations can be made:

1. Occasionally, programs are initiated for training areas where there are no severe shortages;

2. Occasionally, prospective employers do not know the existence of such training programs and do not hire the graduates; conversely, the graduates are unable to find employers with jobs;

3. Frequently, the training is not pertinent to the job requirements of prospective employers, i.e., the training is generic, rather than specific;

4. Training stipends are considerably lower than reasonable income standards. and people are unable or are loathe to remain in a training program, especially when there is no guarantee of a job at its end;

5. Training programs without specific jobs create a new kind of person: the "professional program participant," who either voluntarily or involuntarily moves from one program to another, but never to a job.

Juxtaposed against this is the program which insures having a job at its end Such a program not only provides an inherent enticement to the participant to complete the program, but it provides to the participant a direct means of coping with, and overcoming the "system." The person in a job begins to acquire that valuable commodity known as experience. He acquires both seniority and rights for vacation and other purposes. And, most important of all, he becomes essen tially self-sufficient, or is launched in that direction.

The JOBS Program and other programs are beginning to build upon what was learned from earlier manpower programs of various kinds including, for example. the New Careers Program. Although the New Careers Programs provided wages for participants (as well as training money), it did not have built into it a guarantee. Administrators were not compelled to find the ways and means of keeping new careerists. Although such guarantees are not yet attached to any

manpower program, the fact that some programs urge employers to hire first and train afterwards, is very attractive. Many unknowns are removed, and the process of recruitment for manpower programs is made a little more easy. The "job first" concept insures a somewhat greater return for the manpower dollar.

It is not suggested herein that all programs without job guarantees be terminated. The basic thrust of the argument here is that programs which provide for the immediate or early hiring of participants are very attractive. There are many communities and many situations in which other kinds of programs must be pursued.

Also high on the list of our basic manpower development principles, and a way of solving needs of the first principle, is the need for specific emphasis on public service employment. State and local governments engage in a vast and growing number of activities, ranging from education to air and water pollution control. In 1965, State and local governments spent $87 billion and employed nearly 7.7 million workers. Over the ten-year period from 1955 to 1965, expenditures rose by $30 billion, and employment grew by 3 million. In the coming years, state and local governments will be called on to supply even more services. Population growth and rising personal incomes will be partially responsible, along with demands for more urban redevelopment, better fire and police protection, less crowded schools, and improved medical care and facilities. County government is becoming increasingly important in the furnishing of these services to the people. There seems to be an increased confidence of the people in the ability of counties to perform functions efficiently, as a result of reorganization and modernization of county structures in many areas. But probably most important is the realization that counties are logical areas for the performance of area-wide functions, resulting in a quite noticeable trend toward transferring functions from smaller units of government. In an attempt to provide an expanding variety of services to the community, county government has felt the strong pressures for manpower development. In the five-year period from 1962 to 1967 alone, the total employees of all the counties in the United States increased 24% as compared to an increase of 15.5% for all the municipalities. If county services are to expand to meet the growing needs, then financial and program support will be essential. Public service employment must be developed in order to allow for job development and improved governmental services at the local level.

Identifiable potential jobs could be created in almost every department of county government to provide and expand the services that counties do not provide now, but are being asked to respond to every day. Los Angeles County's various human services departments could immediately absorb 2,220 New Careerists to be utilized in our service delivery systems. Half of the identified potential jobs would provide services that the County does not provide now. The remainder would be expanding the outreach of services traditionally available from the agencies, but limited because of manpower shortages. These service jobs are not "make work" jobs-rather, they are a response to the crying needs of the community, and I dare say that each of our 3,049 counties could cite similar examples. Gentleman, the need is there. We would definitely support a major program to create hundreds of thousands of public service employment jobs.

The National Association of Counties has always operated under a basic principle that elected officials with their responsibility to the electors, must control programs within their jurisdiction. Operating from that basic premise, we believe that the determination of an area prime sponsor (as defined in this bill) should be determined by the area's elected officials so that the program can focus on total metropolitan area wide needs. And, in the same light, we believe that stateadministered manpower programs should be controlled by the Governor.

As elected officials, you are well aware of the need for programs that are responsive to the needs of the citizens. Responsibility can best be guaranteed through the auspices of elected officials at each level of our federal system. As We explained earlier, county government is increasingly responding to the areawide needs of our citizens. With the continuing out-migration of people and industry to the suburban areas of the nation, it seems logical to conclude that Counties will continue to have a large role in the developing and providing of job opportunities for the unemployed city dweller. Statistically, almost half (113) of the 233 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) are single county jurisdictions. An additional 40 SMSA's are composed of two counties. And, if we are to avoid continued proliferation of programs, then we should turn to

the county as a responsive level of government to coordinate area wide manpower program contracts at the local level. If it is a major objective of this bill to decentralize and coordinate manpower programs at the state and local levels, then it is of prime importance to place control in the hands of elected officials. And, specifically, the determination of an area prime sponsor should be made by the area's elected officials so that the program can focus on the total areawide needs, and be responsive to the community. We also recommend automatic pass-through of funds to metropolitan areas.

Of major concern to all levels of government is realistic planning and evalu ation. In order to develop viable programs, we at the local level need built-in advanced planning conditions. Too often we have found ourselves actively engaged in a manpower training program that is meeting the needs of the community, only to have federal funds to that project discontinued and the programs closed short of their promised goals. This type of situation could be averted by providing for multiple year funding so that planning and some continuity can be built into each project. The National Association of Counties recommends that all Manpower Training programs have one-year advance appropriations and four-year authorizations, with specific figures written into the legislation at the very least for two-year authorization. Gentlemen, we don't feel that this is an inordinate request. Congress had for years endorsed advanced planning concepts in various building programs; it is time that we systematically plan programs for people with at least the same type of advance guarantee.

The concept of automatic increases of funds when unemployment reaches a certain level would strengthen the ability of all manpower programs to meet the continually changing needs of the community.

It is also important that we avoid developing National programs that all local communities must fit their needs to. This could be avoided by the elimination of categorical programs and assigned slots. Every community's needs are different. Let us not simply mandate a national program, but allow for the exploration of innovative concepts beyond strict categorical projects.

And finally, our Association recommends that a simplified payment plan be established for enrollees in any program. This would relieve added administrative problems and make manpower programs more responsive to needs of the enrollees. This would also cut down on the present tendency for enrollees to shop around from one program to another, in order to receive better benefits, rather than the appropriate training.

Next, let me cite more specific conditions and concerns within my own county. Within the past 30 years the cost of governing Los Angeles County has soared from $94,333,218. to $1,771,142,559, larger than most States' budgets. Well over one billion dollars of that increase occurred in the last decade. Our primary source of revenue is the Real Estate Tax, now close to $10 per $100 assessed valuation.

If County services are to expand to meet the growing needs, financial support will be essential.

Although the Federal manpower commitment has grown from approximately $50 million in first year appropriations for the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 to about $2.5 billion in Federal manpower legislation only eight years later, a substantial reduction in unemployment and underemployment and concomitant poverty depends to a considerable extent upon more adequate manpower policy and programs.

During this period in which the Federal Government has increased by 50 times the financial resources devoted to manpower development, we have seen very little improvement on the local level. As a matter of fact, since we began participating in manpower training programs in 1965, the size of the programs funded locally has actually diminished.

Just a few months ago, one of our work experience programs was closed down completely. The program had some operational problems, but we worked them out. We developed a modified program design working cooperatively with our local Community Action Agency people. But the Labor Department said there were no funds and the program would have to be cut. We got local approval to resubmit it, but even though everyone locally thinks it looks good the Labor Department is crying poverty. Somebody ought to tell them how they can get hold of some of that two and one-half billion dollars. We only need one tenthousandth of it for this project.

Our experience with Federal manpower programs to date has resulted in much frustration and has pointed out major inadequacies in the administration of the Federal manpower program.

As a matter of fact, there is no Federal manpower program. There are bits and pieces of a program which are administered by several departments; OEO, Labor, HEW, HUD, Defense, and perhaps others that we don't even know of. The program is further fragmented among various bureaus within these departments.

There seems to be little coordination of Federal agencies' funding, even when funds are available from different bureaus within the same department. Duplicate projects are funded, State and local agencies are circumvented, and programs proliferate without a cohesive design. This leads to ineffective use of resources and limited capability to establish information and evaluation systems for future planning.

When Secretary of Labor George P. Shultz testified before the House Committee on Education and Labor last month, he stated that the proposed Manpower Training Act of 1969 was a proposal for comprehensive manpower legislation which would "break new ground by creating a new framework for a constructive partnership between Federal, State and local governments in the spirit of New Federalism."

Supporters of the present State vocational education system immediately expressed concern that the bill did not include sufficient assurances that vocational education would be given preferential status in providing skill training and, further, that the bill could interfere with the independent status of State vocational education systems.

It is this kind of provincialism at the Federal level which makes it impossible for us to coordinate programs at the local level. When we first read the Vocational Education Amendments of 1968, we were impressed with their far-reaching implications, and saw potential applications of these new funds which could support our Neighborhood Youth Corps Program and our New Careers Program The legislature had recognized the need for the development of close, cooperative systems between employers and training institutions, and there was a heavy emphasis on the development of New Careers models.

We attended the State hearings on implementation of the bill and saw that the plan was to keep the money with the Vocational Education people. We expressed an interest in participation but got no response. We were told we would be contacted when the guidelines were completed.

On December 23, 1969, we learned through a magazine article that the guidelines had been out for some time and that the deadline for submitting proposals for experimental programs under Part D of the VEA of 1968 was January 1, 1970. We sent a telegram to the U.S. Office of Education that day requesting a copy of the guidelines and an extension of the deadline. We received a call from Washington on December 29, 1969 informing us that the guidelines were on the way but that there could be no extension on the January 1, 1970 deadline. This may point out a related problem. Information flow between Federal, State and local agencies gets delayed, sidetracked and distorted. This is true not only where new programs are involved, but also for established programs. Local agencies feel shut out of the planning process and are resistant to information demands which they do not fully understand. Federal agencies do not get timely or accurate information on local programs and local needs.

We had a program funded under Title V of the EOA of 1964. We operated the program for about nine months before we saw the guidelines. During the second year, we had to re-vamp the program to meet the guidelines. We just about got through doing this when in the third year the program was cancelled. The program was being coordinated through the State. We sent reams of information to them without understanding their use. We never knew what the State needed, what the Federal Government needed, or whether the information was getting through. We subsequently found out that the program people in Washington did not get accurate information on what was going on.

Our Neighbood Youth Corps Program offers another example of the need for improved communications. The Labor Department has never really understood the capability of this program. They consistently refer to NYC out-of-school as an aging vat. They have no systematic way of keeping informed on local programs. Locally we see NYC as an innovative tool for engaging youth who have dropped out of the education and employment system. But we have been fighting restrictive guidelines for the last four and one-half years.

We currently have what appears to be the beginning of an effective model for engaging drop-outs and other estranged youth. Basic and remedial education programs are tied to work experience. Youth can explore a variety of worker roles in over twenty-five occupational areas. An in-service group counseling pro

gram which is well accepted by the youth helps them to integrate the work and education experience into a cohesive self-development and career planning program.

All NYC work site supervisors participate in a special in-service training program to prepare them to work more effectively with their enrollees. Our success rate seems to be growing from 40% to almost 50%, and we are well on our way to our goal of 75% successes this year.

We learned recently, however, that the Labor Department wants to transfer many of the program functions to the State Employment Service (now a part of the new California Department of Human Resource Development). Apparently Labor knows little of our local efforts and feels it is time to try something new. Locally, the Employment Service has not even demonstrated the capability of reaching disadvantaged youth, let alone counseling them. When the Labor Department cut the age limit for out-of-school NYC youth from 22 to 18, the Employment Service could not fill our program recruitment needs. We had to develop our own recruitment program through our Welfare and Probation Departments. We have learned from our NYC enrollees that the Employment Service does not have a good image or reputation in the disadvantaged community. These youth are discouraged by redtape and bureaucratic run-around. Referrals made to use by the Employment Service frequently demonstrate a falure to meet individual applicant needs and abilities. Applicants are encouraged to accept whatever the counselor has a job order for, even if it is not at all suitable for the individual.

There is an inadequate utilization of available resources, both within the Employment Service itself and within the Community. This is apparent when we try to use the Employment Service as a resource for placement of job ready youth outside of our own employment system. Although this should logically be the role of the Employment Service, we have had to set up our own job development function in order to provide outside employment opportunities for youth in addition to County employment.

Of the various programs we are participating in, our NYC program has been in operation the longest. We are quite proud of the model which has evolved. but it has evolved under the most adverse circumstances. A quick description of these circumstances may give you an understanding of the types of problems which are common to all of our Federally funded Manpower programs.

The one year Federal funding cycle and the delay in passing the appropriations bill has resulted in erratic funding periods. During one fiscal year, the program was renewed five times. This meant the development of five budgets and the negotiation of five contract modifications. In several of these periods slot allocations were changed and new guidelines introduced. This makes it impossible to plan effectively.

As the program grew more successful, the size of the program shrank. We went from an allocation of 1200 trainee slots in 1965 to 199 slots today. The erratic funding periods and concomitant poor planning, coupled with the diminishing program size and uncertain assurance of program continuance made it difficult to maintain staff morale and keep all persons associated with the NYC program motivated toward meeting its goals.

With this climate established, it was hard to cope with conflicting guidelines and frequent changes in program requirements.

The most burdensome changes were in the area of information requirements. Federal information requirements were apparently established prior to availability of specific information or program structure, goals, etc. As Washington learned that the information they were getting did not meet their needs, new demands were made. Much time was lost in the redesign of data collection and processing subsystems. Information requirements usually exceeded the budgeted staff's capability. Important data may not have been documented in the early stages of a program. Inputs were based on rough estimates rather than documented data. During all of this, the strategists in Washington were accumulating data on local programs and concluding that NYC appeared to be nothing more than an aging vat for youth.

The conclusion amazes us, especially in light of the nature of the data collected. It seems to a great extent the Federal emphasis is on documenting how money is being spent rather than on accumulating information that would be useful in evaluating success with respect to program goals.

In September of 1967, the County of Los Angeles entered into an agreement with the local Community Action Agency to operate a New Careers project which was a part of the Concentrated Employment Program in Los Angeles.

« PreviousContinue »