85 STAT. 156 Pub. Law 92-54 -10 July 12, 1971 (2) where the applicant is a public agency or institution which is a subdivision of an eligible unit of government, that geographical area over which such unit of government exercises general political jurisdiction. EFFECTIVE DATE SEC. 15. This Act shall be effective upon enactment and the determinations to be made under sections 5(b) and 6(c)(1) shall take into account the rate of unemployment for a period of three consecutive months even though all or part of such period may have occurred prior to the enactment of this Act. Approved July 12, 1971. LEG IS LAT IVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 91-176 accompanying H. R. 3613 (Comm. on SENATE REPORT No. 92-48 (Comm. on Labor and Public Welfare). Apr. 1, considered and passed Senate. May 18, June 1, 2, considered and passed House, amended, June 29, Senate agreed to conference report. July 1, House agreed to conference report. WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 7, No. 29: July 12, Presidential statement. O Report MEL-71-05 Contract #43-8-008-47 G. THE TOTAL IMPACT OF MANPOWER PROGRAMS: A FOUR-CITY CASE STUDY Precis of Final Report Olympus Research Corporation 818 18th Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20006 August 1, 1971 Prepared for OFFICE OF POLICY, EVALUATION AND RESEARCH Manpower Administration U.S. Department of Labor Washington, D. C. This study was conducted and this report was prepared under under a contract with the Office of Policy, Evaluation and Research of the Manpower Administration of the U. S. Department of Labor under the authority of the Economic Opportunity Act. Organizations undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to state their findings and express their judgments freely. Therefore, points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Labor. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The message of this study of the total impact of all manpower programs on the enrollees, economies, the labor markets, and the institutions of three major metropolitan areas are sharp and clear on some points, dependent upon informed judgments in others and subject primarily to conjecture on a few. 1. Across all cities and programs and despite unfavorable economic conditions, the average enrollee in a training program was substantially and sometimes spectacularly better off in terms of employment stability and earnings because of his program participation. The lower the pretraining wage rate, the greater the wage and income gain was likely to be. Relatively few female WIN enrollees chose to enter the labor market after training, but those who did profited about as much as enrollees in any other program. Skill training, on the average, paid off better than nonskill training such as basic education and language training. Yet nonskill training alone also had significantly positive employment and earnings impacts and some of the language training brought spectacular results as it freed technically skilled immigrants from their communication handicaps. 2. Placement services alone, unaccompanied by any service designed to improve employability, had a generally positive impact on the earnings of those with low preplacement wages but was generally neutral in impact for others. 3. The impact of work experience and job training programs is less certain. Neighborhood Youth Corps, in general, has supplied income maintenance and menial activities; but the quality of the work stations appears to be improving. Operation Mainstream has been useful as a source of income, a "drying-out" place for alcoholics and a "parking lot" while awaiting slots in other programs. New Careers has been a disappointment because of high expectations but has been a positive force in getting the better prepared among the disadvantaged into entrylevel white-collar jobs. Data are most lacking on NAB-JOBS, but they do represent real jobs; and the net contribution cannot have been less than positive. 4. The programs and their budgets have added significantly to the jobs and payrolls of the community. Staff jobs have been important ladders of upward mobility within the minority community. 5. Measuring the impact of manpower programs on the labor market is exceedingly difficult. Enrollments are so small in contrast to the size of the labor force that any impact is unlikely to be measurable. Comparing training occupations to demand occupations, it is obvious that the tendency has been to train for those jobs characterized by high turnover rather than those in expanding demand. 6. Existing community institutions have been reoriented in their attitudes toward the disadvantaged and their capability of providing service in direct ratio to the degree of their involvement. Thus, the schools have been changed little; the Employment Service, greatly; the private employers, moderately; the public employers, less; and the unions, hardly at all, with only limited political impact. 7. The skills centers have been useful new institutions; the CEP's, less so; and CAMPS has been a useful communications, but not a planning, device. Manpower funds have sparked the emergence of a variety of community-based, minorityoriented organizations, more important as incipient power bases than as deliverers of service. 8. Of the available manpower services, outreach has been mythical; job development, rare; orientation and counseling, useful; and supportive services, necessary. In general, the most vital and most productive have been basic education and language training for those who needed it and skill training for most of those who have received it. If it were necessary to cut off all manpower services but three; as a generality, these would be the three to keep. 9. The four-city study supplies important insights on current manpower policy issues. Decentralization must move cautiously, accompanied by large doses of technical assistance and staff training. Public service employment is needed but will be the most difficult of all programs to administer. Prospects for moving welfare recipients off the welfare roles and on to payrolls are severely limited. |