Page images
[graphic][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]



Mr. FARNUM. Under the Office of the Administrator, "Salaries and expenses," page 19, I want to refer to something that you have here. In the second paragraph at the top of the page, you say “In addition to the development of a research startegy, the research office has established a system of utilizing research panels of outstanding experts in the manpower field to assist in the approval of research projects in order to insure the most effective utilization of research funds.

What criteria is submitted to the research panel, if any, in terms of ihe direction in which you are trying to get them to make a determination on?

Dr. ALLER. We could furnish for the record a full statement of the criteria, but the basic one is that the project is relevant to the kinds of questions we are concerned with, that we feel that the design is appropriate and that there is a very good possibility that the information that would be developed in the project would be of value to our ongoing projects. That is the key to it.

Then there are other questions. We look at stirctly the budget aspects. Is is overpriced or underpriced? Are the people that will be working in the project competent people, and here we rely pretty heavily on the knowledge of the research panel members who can independently check our own judgment as to the competence, but relevance is the central criteria.

(The following statement was submitted for the record :)


A primary consideration in the approval of any grant request is the relevance of the area of study to the objectives of title I of the Manpower Development and Training Act. Proposals which are determined to be relevant to the objectives of the Manpower Development and Training Act will be considered by a review panel, and approved or disapproved in relation to criteria such as the following: (a) Manpower significance

(1) The project is focused primarily on significant manpower problems.

(2) The anticipated results or methodology of the project have broad national interest. Projects limited to special areas provide a basis for generalized conclusions, or have application over a wide area. (0) Research design

(1) The problem with which the research proposes to deal is clearly defined.

(2) The proposal reflects an adequate knowledge of other research related to the problem.

(3) Questions to be answered or hypotheses to be tested are well formulated and clearly stated.

(4) The proposal outlines fully the procedures to be followed and wherever applicable, includes information on such matters as sampling procedures including the size of the population to be studied and the size of sample and control groups, as well as types of data to be gathered, and statistical analyses to be made. (c) Personnel and facilities

(1) The experience and training of the principal investigator appear adequate to carry out the research.

(2) The facilities available to the investigator(s) are adequate to carry out the research.

(3) The plan provides, wherever feasible, for encouraging and increasing knowledge and skills of professional personnel and of new research workers. (d) Economic efficiency

(1) The suggested approach to the problem is reasonable in terms of overall cost as compared with the cost of other possible approaches.

(2) The suggest approach to problems involving the analysis of statistical data utilizes, to the extent feasible, data already available or being collected through government and other sources.

(3) The total proposed expenditure is justifiable in terms of the probable value of the results of the proposed research,

Approval may be conditional on acceptance of changes in the project or the budget, or both, as recommended by the review panel.

Mr. FARNUM. Is there any possibility that any of the people who serve as specialists on your panel may have done research and written papers in the areas in which they will be considering whether or not a research project suggested is worthy or not worthy?

Dr. ALLER. There is strong likelihood they will be familiar with much of the literature in the field and they will themselves have done some research that is related. They simply are not unknowing of

the area.

POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN PANELS OF EXPERTS Mr. RUTTENBERG. Does your question, Congressman Farnum, go to the problem of conflict of interest?

Mr. FARNUM. That is a possibility. I am talking about research programs, generally. I will probably be asking this same question in the future because I wonder in this particular area if there is a possibility for people to serve in this capacity, where they might have written a paper of their own and then they are asked to take a look at a program designed by somebody else who would be doing research in something that they figure they have already decided in their paper is the ultimate that can be reached.

Dr. ALLER. Let me respond to the general "conflict of interest" question, which is a serious one, and I am aware of it because I have served on research panels of this kind myself.

There are certain built-in protections that are automatically applied. First of all, if the project being proposed comes from a college or university where the member of the panel also works, he would normally not serve on that panel. I would say automatically. I would use a stronger word. He would exclude himself from consideration.

Secondly, if he has been associated with the principal sponsors of the project in a previous research team, so that he has a close relationship with the people, he would also not serve.

Third, if he or others of his associates have been doing work in that area where they think they have really conclusively explored the area, that kind of information is very important to put on the table because there is no need to duplicate and do unnecessary research, work. And that, I think, is one of the great strengths of having research panels because our staff, no matter how well equipped it is in terms of personnel, will not be as familiar with all phases of research activity as selected people we can pull in from the research community,

It is that sort of knowledge and justment which is very, very important to get.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Would you add a word on who has the final authority?

Dr. ALLER. The final authority is very important. The panel simply recommends that the project be approved, or that it be rejected, or that it be resubmitted with certain modifications which are spelled out.

The final acceptance of this recommendation rests in the Manpower Administrator's hands, so that the Manpower Administrator, upon my recommendation, could choose not to accept the particular recommendation of the panel.

Mr. FARNUM. It is not a unilateral decision by the research specialist or panel?

Dr. ALLER. They simply make a recommendation. They spell out the reasons for the recommendation. If we find those persuasive, then we would accept the recommendation. On the other hand, we are perfectly free to go in another direction.

I might say 90 percent of the time we would follow their recommendations. They are soundly arrived at usually.


Mr. FARNUM. On the next page under “Technological change" you have a question which gives me cause to ask a question as it concerns internal operation of the Department. There is no question there is much research goes on as a result of technological change in terms of the effects it has on new methods, systems, procedures, controls, paperwork. I would like to have somebody tell me if all of this information that you are collecting is being used in the Department to more efficiently operate the Department in terms of methods and system and the flow of paper.

Mr. RUTTENBERG. I would like to suggest that you include in your response, Dr. Aller, what we have done in the correctional institution area, which I think is the thrust of your example.

Dr. ALLER. The thrust of your question is on technological changes as it relates to the internal operation of a Government agency.

Mr. FARNUM. An administrative agency.

Dr. ALLER. This goes to the use of computers, the whole automatic data processing

Mr. FARNUM. And systems analysis.

Dr. ALLER. Systems analysis operations, research, and so on. I think it would be fair to say on that we rely on experts in these areas who come in, or on our own staff, to find these new concepts and automatic data processing possibilities. So that we are not simply attempting, in a small research arm ocusing on technological change, to also be expert in the application of the new technology to the administrative operations of the agency, For that we rely on experts.

As regards the systems analysis aspect of it, we have been engaged in some conversations with some specialist firms in this area regarding the possibility of their taking a contract with us and attempting to look at aspects of our operation and make recommendations for improvement in our operation. In particular, we are currently exploring such proposal as it relates to the experimental demonstration project area. This is only in the early discussion stage, as far as that goes, but we are not

Mr. FARNUM. You haven't really gotten into the systems analysis then?

Mr. ALLER. No.

Mr. FARNUM. There is a difference between systems analysis and the utilization of ADP. There is much difference.

Mr. ALLER. Yes.

Mr. FARNUM. But they go together, as you well know. If you don't have a good, efficient system, you are not going to get good, efficient operation out of data processing equipment because you are going to be programing inefficiency into it, and as a net result you are not going to get what you want. You say you are only taking a look at it now. Mr. ALLER. As far as using systems analysis for one aspect of our operation. I think it would be appropriate to indicate that the Employment Service is working in this area because they have been exploring the utilization of these techniques far longer as it relates to their operation.

PAPER FLOW STUDY Mr. FARNUM. What about a simple study of the paper flow of the administrative operation? Is any of this going on at all?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. On this question; yes, sir. We have a joint committee bet ween ourselves and the Department of HEW specifically on the way paper flows in development, processing, and approval of specific MDT A projects, and we call it a subcommittee on paperwork. Te are really concerned tremendously with reducing the amount of paperwork which contractors or State agencies have to engage in preparing in order to get a project approved, and sometimes there are forms and contracts. For example, in an OJT contract, the size of the contract is quite large and it is sometimes unnecessary, and we are trying to get at the problem of how we can reduce the amount of paper which has to flow in order to get approval of the project and still be assured that we have covered ourselves in terms of the efficient use of the money.

Mr. Farnum. I am sure this would be widely acclaimed by people that you do business with. What about right in your own office? Are you doing it there, too?

Mr. ALLER. I have had a committee of staff people working since October on our contracting and approval process which relates to research contracts and experimental projects. That report has been completed. There are some 15 or 20 recommendations that have been made, all of which have been accepted by my Office, by the Solicitor's Office, and by the Financial and Management people. We are, as of yesterday, beginning the process of implementing it, and we have discovered some significant ways in which we can reduce the amount of paper, reduce the amount of timelag between various steps of the operation, and reduce the amount of clerical and related sabor that is involved in getting a contract to the funding stage.

Mr. FARNUM. That is all.
Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Shriver.


Mr. SHRIVER. In your statement on the last page, page 4, you mentioned the average expense per trainee in 1966 was $1,324 and per trainee in 1967 will be $1,388. How do those figures compare with prior years?

Mr. RUTTENBERG. This is the overall figure now, including the combination for institutional and OJT. The actual figure for fiscal year 1965 was $1,315.

Mr. Suriver. Could you put the figures in the record for the various programs?

(The information follows:)

« PreviousContinue »