prime sponsor in many SMSAS and that attempts to force cooperation between strongly competitive units of government might not be successful. The following comments illustrate the range of opinion on the "prime sponsor" issue: Professor Sar Levitan of the Center for Manpower Policy Studies at George Washington University in a paper read to a conference of state and local manpower specialists April 30, 1971: At the state and local level, there has been almost no accountability because elected officials have not been drawn to participate actively in manpower programs, and they have relied upon the Federal government for the monitoring of projects. Most of the decisions left to local agencies have been highly technical and have usually been made by the employment service or the state vocational education department. These agencies are remarkably free from political control and they operate normally as self-sustaining bureaucracies. Former Secretary of Labor George Shultz in testimony before this subcommittee in November, 1969 (page 85 of hearing record): The Department of Labor is dealing with over 10,000 different sponsors in administering the various programs under its jurisdiction. In a typical State, for example, we deal with individual school districts in the Neighborhood Youth Corps in-school program; with city halls and independent community action agencies in the NYC out-ofschool programs and New Career programs; with rural county governments or agencies in the Operation Mainstream program; with State employment services and vocational education agencies in the MDTA-institutional program; with the Employment Service and welfare departments with regard to the work incentive (WIN) program, and with individual employers and unions for MDTA on-the-job training preapprenticeship and JOBS (job opportunities in the business sector) programs. Multiply this by 50 States and the dimensions and complexity of the problem become apparent. National League of Cities/U.S. Conference of Mayors, statement to committee, June 1, 1970: If we are to have legislation which will successfully meet the unemployment needs and provide the needed services to our citizens, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities urges the Senate to provide language which clearly assures the following: The mayor of the city carrying the major manpower burden will be the prime sponsor of local manpower programs or have the authority to designate such a local sponsor; The prime sponsor must be the direct recipient of Federal manpower funds and have the authority to plan and coordinate all local manpower programs. Robert Coard, Executive Director, Action for Boston Community Development, Boston, Massachusetts: I think any attempt at metropolization to deal with. manpower problems, particularly the manpower problems and employment of the poor, is a recipe for failure. It will stretch already inadequate dollars into a political back scratching, log rolling operation in the metropolitan area, according to the Administration bill (Manpower Training Act of 1969). There are about 80 mayors in the Boston area. The Boston SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area) includes 2.6 million people, a little more than half of the state. Instead of being a city agency to serve the poor, we would become a half-a-state agency in terms of population. The people who represent significant decision making parts of my board would be lost in the welter of all the other groups in the metropolitan area that would wish to be represented in a manpower agency of this nature. Philip J. Rutledge, representing the National Association for Community Development, a statement to committee November 5, 1969: The prime sponsor must have an accountability relationship to the local community and the area served rather than to the governor. Why should the mayor, with responsibility for solving the problems of the majority of the unemployed persons in the SMSA, share significant decision making power with elected officials of the suburban units of government? We believe that in many communities the Community Action Agencies would be the most appropriate and effective vehicle for this role (of prime sponsor). But we would be foolish to suggest that the CAA in every community is the best qualified instrument .. We suggest instead that the bill should provide a series of performance standards for the process by which the prime sponsor designation would be made locally. Wesley L. Hjornevik, OEO Deputy Director, statement to committee May 18, 1970: The critical point here is the necessity of allowing local officials the option to use public and private CAA's and other organizations as chief administrative agencies under the act. Without such an option, local elected officials would be denied the flexibility to make use of the best available community resources in the operation of needed manpower programs. For example, the Boston CAA, Action for Boston Community Development, has developed a comprehensive citywide manpower and skill training project. *** During the past 2 years, 22,000 poor persons have been served by its placement and training system. It is now a $75 million operation, and it includes 14 neighborhood employment centers, store front, walk-in offices in the city's target neighborhoods. 69-110 0-71———2 2. Comprehensive Legislation Discussions of the reform of manpower programs generally relate to programs operated under MDTA and OEO legislation. However, it is obvious that such programs cannot be considered in a vacuum. They must be related to many other educational and training programs operated by state and local government as well as programs operated by federal agencies. Ideally, comprehensive manpower reform would produce "one stop individualized service," under which a trainee would get all of the help he required through a single, easily accessible local agency with the capability to assist all of his needs, provide or purchase all of the special education and training he required, and then be placed in a job with a follow up to guarantee his permanent success in the labor market. However, the long standing traditions and identities of various programs in the field of education, vocational training and rehabilitation, the complexities of state, local and federal government, and jurisdictional questions in both houses of Congress make it unlikely that any legislation could be perfected which would bring every conceivable manpower training program together in this ideal manner. It appears that the legislation should strive for the greatest degree of comprehensiveness which is achievable while avoiding changes so great as to create widespread opposition to the enactment of any such legislation. (A list of manpower programs operated by various agencies of the federal government is found on page 77 of this background document, followed by a brief description of each such program.) An example of the demand for a sweepingly comprehensive manpower program is contained in remarks by Representative Edith Green of Oregon in the House floor debate on June 2, 1971. The House was debating a motion by Congressman Esch to substitute a version of the administration's manpower revenue sharing bill for the Emergency Employment Act. In the course of her remarks Mrs. Green stated: (The Esch substitute) does not even cover all of the programs over which our committee on Education and Labor has jurisdiction. It does not go to manpower training under vocational rehabilitation; it does not go to vocational education; it does not go to the Job Corps, all under the jurisdiction of the Education and Labor Committee. It does not include WIN (Work Incentive Program for welfare recipients). It does not go to the manpower training programs under the Department of Agriculture. It does not go to the manpower training programs under the Department of the Interior and especially with reference to Indians. It does not go to the manpower training programs under the Department of Defense involving the program "100,000" and the "transitional" training program. It does not go to the manpower training programs of the Veterans Administration or those which are operated under HUD or Public Health. Last year the federal government was spending $2,502 million on manpower training programs. The Department of Labor had under its jurisdiction $1,592 million and OEO $80 million. So we have in effect $1,622 million of the total of $2.5 billion which would be affected by the Esch bill. It is wrong to give the impression that it is going to provide comprehensive 3. Public Service Employment Manpower training programs have been criticized because of their sheer inadequacy as well as for their general ineffectiveness. Part of the problem is simply that they do not serve enough persons in proportion to the need for such services. For example in February 1969, there were 409,940 persons enrolled in Labor Department manpower programs when unemployment totaled 2,644,000. In December 1970 there were 462,000 enrolled in manpower programs when unemployment totaled 5,146,000. Manpower training programs generally have maintained an enrollment ranging from slightly under 400,000 to slightly above 500,000 for the past three years (except for brief increases during summer months) during a period when nationwide unemployment has doubled. The demand for comprehensive manpower reform and a more effective manpower system arose at a time of record low unemployment. All of the shortcomings of manpower training programs which were documented in 1968, 1969 and 1970 have been severely aggravated by the incease in unemployment since that time. But in addition to their sheer inadequacy, manpower training programs have been criticized primarily because, despite substantial amounts of money invested in them, a disappointing number of trainees ended up being placed in jobs. This has led to suggestions that training opportunities be supplemented with real job opportunities in any newly developed comprehensive manpower system. The Employment and Manpower Act of 1970 which was vetoed reserved approximately one-third of the total funds authorized in the bill for public service employment. It was anticipated that prime sponsors operating manpower training programs would also operate public service employment programs, and that the two programs would be effectively linked together to provide some definite job opportunities for graduates of training programs as well as for others who happen to be unemployed or underemployed. Public service employment has been a controversial issue in the manpower policy considerations of the past two years. The Administration initially proposed no special funds for this purpose in its manpower training act of 1969. However, it noted that state and local prime sponsors could use federal funds for such purposes if they chose to do so. Advocates of public service employment insisted that funds be earmarked for this specific purpose. In vetoing the Employment and Manpower Act of 1970 the President said: The conference bill provides that as much as 44% of the total funding in the bill go for dead-end jobs in the public sector... WPA-type jobs are not the answer for the men and women who have them, for government which is less efficient as a result, or for the taxpayers who must foot the bill. Such a program represents a reversion to the remedies that were tried 35 years ago. Surely it is an inappropriate and ineffective response to the problems of the 70's. The Administration purposes to create 200,000 public service jobs as a part of its Family Assistance Plan (H.R. 1). Assuming that public service employment is to be a part of a comprehensive manpower system, further questions remain as to whether public service employment programs would be in operation at all times or just during times of unusually high unemployment. Further, there is the question as to eligibility for public service jobs. Present high rates of unemployment have created a situation under which it appears few disadvantaged persons are being hired under the Emergency Employment Act simply because so many experienced, educated and skilled persons are available, some of them recently laid off by the employing authority. Comprehensive manpower reform legislation might have to include quotas to guarantee that some portion of those hired represent truly disadvantaged persons. There is a further question as to whether public service employees should be viewed as "transitional" employees, being prepared for placement in some "regular" job in public or private employment within some set period of time. 4. The Federal Role The Administration's Manpower Revenue Sharing bill establishes a formula under which manpower funds would be distributed to cities, counties, and states for use as elected officials see fit within the broad definition of manpower training programs. These units of government would be required to publish their program plans, but they would not be required to submit them to the Secretary of Labor for approval, and they would not be required to undergo the annual refunding process. The Administration bill would authorize the federal government to initiate civil suits to recover funds which were improperly spent. The removal of federal control or supervision over manpower training programs is opposed by many spokesmen for civil rights and poverty organizations. Concern is expressed that persons intended to be served by federal manpower programs are almost always a small minority within a city, county, or state. The fear is expressed that, if manpower program funds are transferred to local units of government literally with "no strings attached," the political pressures at the state and local level will cause at least some of the funds to be diverted away from serving the needs of the disadvantaged. Also, it is argued that there are inherent contradictions between the goals of revenue sharing on the one hand and manpower reform on the other hand. As Professor Sar Levitan stated in his paper, "Revenue Sharing, Public Employment and the Reform of Manpower Programs,' April 30, 1971: Manpower revenue sharing promises administrative improvement over present efforts, but this is only one of its purposes. Likewise the revenue sharing approach is only one of the many possible paths to reform. Proponents argue that state and local governments can administer manpower programs more effectively than the Federal government because of their closer proximity to clients' needs and local conditions. |