(4) Qualitative distribution: To accomplish equitable apportionment of actual available manpower among the services in accordance with the factual needs of each. (5) Manpower utilization surveys: To develop and establish techniques for service implementation of manpower utilization controls and standards, occupational analysis, and qualitative distribution. c. Actions as of 15 August. (1) Qualitative distribution of military manpower: (a) Since May 1, 1951, all military manpower accessions, whether by enlistment or induction, have been proportionally distributed qualitatively among the four services. In the absence of any better qualitative date (such as job analysis, including mental and physical requirements of specific jobs to be filled), the best available basis for the distribution was determined to be the mental group. Consequently, mental-group percentage limits were prescribed to be used in all services for enlistees and inductees. Armed Forces examining stations are being established to administer physical and mental examinations, under common standards, for enlistees and inductees. The Army has been designated as executive agent under the Armed Forces Examining Stations (AFES) Policy Board. (b) The first 2 months of operation under qualitative distribution (QD) have indicated that there is a real question as to the validity of the Armed Forces qualification test percentile conversion table. An interservice work ing group is being set up to evaluate the correctness of the conversion. (2) Voluntary enlistments and increased effectiveness of military manpower: (a) A careful analysis of the relative cost to the Government and the relative manpower effectiveness of voluntary enlistees versus inductees has been made. From both standpoints, it has been found that voluntary enlistments are much more desirable than inductees. All practicable administrative efforts are being made to obtain as many voluntary enlistments as possible. (3) Occupational analysis: (a) An inventory and reevaluation of the work done both by the services and by the Department of Defense in the field of occupational analysis is being conducted. (4) Manpower utilization surveys: (a) Manpower utilization surveys have been conducted at one installation each of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The survey teams were composed of an independent outside consultant as Chairman, an OSD representative. and service members from both Headquarters and the field. The results of the three surveys are being analyzed. As a result of the analyses: 1. Specific, immediate actions will be required of the services. 2. Fruitful areas for broadening investigations will be indicated. 3. Improved survey techniques and programs for self-audit and review by the services will be developed. (5) Assistance to the Congress: (a) Considerable work has been done with the services in connection with manpower supply or utilization problems in connection with investigations conducted by congressional committees, as well as with individual Members of Congress. Another problem of major importance which involved close collaboration with the Congress and the services was that of Reserve forces legislation. The congressional committees are: 1. Joint Committee on Reduction of Nonessential Federal Expenditures. 2. Joint Committee on the Economic Report. 3. Preparedness Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate. 4. Subcommittee on Federal Manpower Policies of the Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. 5. Committee on Appropriations of the Senate. 6. Committee on Finance of the Senate. 7. Industrial Manpower Subcommittee of the Senate Select Small Business Committee. 8. Public Accounts Subcommittee of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. 9. Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. 10. House Committee on Appropriations. 11. Armed Services Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations. 12. Kilday Subcommittee on Efficient Utilization of Military and Civilian Personnel within the Department of Defense. 13. Brooks Special Subcommittee for Civilian Components. CHAPTER III. ACTIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1952 1. GENERAL a. In the report to the President submitted on May 22, 1951, actions planned for fiscal year 1952 were outlined in general terms. Since the submission of that report, some of the actions scheduled for 1952 already have been completed, while some of the general plans for the year have crystallized into more specific projects. In the following paragraphs, some of the specific actions which are planned for accomplishment during fiscal year 1952 by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Personnel) and the services working together are outlined below. 2. ORGANIZATION a. With the completion of the organization within the Office of the Secretary of Defense for effective manpower control, sufficient guidance and supervision can be given the various services, in completing or refining their manpower control organizations. 3. MANPOWER requiremeNTS AND ALLOCATION a. The services, which have now received action documents from the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Personnel) prescribing policies and procedures for determination, submission, review, and justification of their manpower requirements and allocation, can now develop their own internal policies and procedures based thereon. The staff of the Assistant Secretary will provide guidance and assistance to the services. b. Formal reviews by the Assistant Secretary (Manpower and Personnel) of the service manpower programs, which have already commenced, will be conducted in a more comprehensive manner. c. Control mechanisms win be instituted to monitor the actual accomplishment of manpower programs by the services after approval of such programs has been made by the Assistant Secretary (Manpower and Personnel). 4. MANPOWER UTILIZATION a. As the qualitative distribution, Armed Forces examining stations machinery becomes more firmly setablished, it will be the medium for a thoroughly effective qualitative distribution of military manpower. This will be attained as better standards and criteria are developed and validated. Such criteria will include: (1) The true minimum physical and mental requirements of each specific job type. (2) The true measure, through improved examining techniques, of the physical and mental capabilities of the enlistee and inductee. (3) The establishment of comparability of job types among the services. b. More extensive use will be made of manpower utilization surveys. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Personnel) will actively partici pate in surveys conducted by the services. A checklist of manpower-utilization questions to be used by all survey teams will be developed. A Manpower Utilization Council composed of service and OSD representatives will be established This council will provide a medium for the discussion of priority of actions. feasibility of program items, and development of the most practicable approach to their resolution. CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY 1. To summarize the progress in the field of control of manpower requirements, allocation, distribution, and utilization since the President's statement on April 27, 1951: a. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Personnel) has a staff organized to supervise, guide, and assist the manpower-control agencies in each service. b. The Assistant Secretary has provided the services with standardized procedures for submitting and justifying manpower requirements and for monitoring the utilization of manpower. These procedures insure that manpower require ments are closely geared to the availability of facilities and equipment and the lead-time for training. c. The services have each created a focus of manpower control and are making real progress in completing their internal organization and procedures to this end. d. Through the efforts of the Assistant Secretary's office, and in coordination with the services, significant manpower economies already have been effected. e. In short, considerable progress has been made in all services and more effective controls will be instituted as rapidly as possible. 2. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Personnel) will continue to supervise and guide the services in their efforts to achieve better manpower controls which will result in more economical use of manpower, both military and civilian. The services will be requested to report their progress in this work quarterly, commencing on October 1, 1951. (See table A for copy of directive to services.) Copies of these reports will be furnished your office. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, Memorandum for the Secretary of the Army. the Secretary of the Navy. the Secretary of the Air Force. Subject: Quarterly progress report on manpower and personnel controls in the services. References: (a) President's directive, April 27, 1951. (b) AsstSec Def (M&P) memo, May 8, 1951. (c) Asst Sec Def (M&P) memo, May 28, 1951. Enclosures: (1) Copy of report to Director, Bureau of the Budget, August 20, 1951. (2) Format for quarterly report. 1. Reference (a) directed that the Department of Defense create a system to control the requirements for and to check on the utilization of civilian and military personnel. Reference (b) requested the secretaries to submit a report concerning the status of manpower control in their departments. References (c) and (d) requested the departmental secretaries to submit reports of progress in the institution of manpower controls. Attached as enclosure (1) is a report to the Director, Bureau of the Budget based on the activities of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Personnel) and the reports from the departments submitted in compliance with reference (d). 2. In view of the complexities of the problem of establishing more effective and workable system of manpower control in the services, it is considered that the progress is generally satisfactory. It is essential that each of the services continue to make improvements as rapidly as possible. The staff of my office is available at all times to provide guidance and assistance. In order that I may keep the Secretary of Defense and the Director, Bureau of the Budget, informed regularly of this most important work, it is requested that commencing on October 1, you submit to me a quarterly report of your activities in the institution, implementation, and improvement of manpower controls. It is emphasized that the report should not duplicate material in previous reports except for reporting progress in programs or projects instituted in a previous quarter. Enclosure (2) is a format for use as a guide in preparing the report. ANNA M. ROSENBERG. FORMAT FOR QUARTERLY REPORT ON MANPOWER CONTROLS 1. Organization. a. Organization for manpower control including functions and staffing. 2. Determination of manpower requirements and allocation. a. Guidance and assistance. (1) Include copies of guidance documents promulgated to headquarters and field agencies. (2) Report training or indoctrination courses conducted for headquarters and field personnel who are involved in determination, preparation, and submission of manpower requirements and allocation. b. Methods for determination of manpower requirements and allocation. c. Significant achievements resulting from institution of centralized con- (1) Include a report or description of significant achievements such as personnel economies effected. 3. Manpower utilization. a. Guidance and assistance. (1) Include copies of guidance documents promulgated to headquarters and field agencies. (2) Report training or indoctrination courses conducted for head- b. Methods for increasing effectiveness of manpower utilization. (2) Describe control mechanisms such as self audits, inspections, c. Significant achievements in the field of manpower utilization. 4. Plans for next quarter. a. Outline the plans for the next quarter in the following areas: (2) Manpower requirements and allocation. (3) Manpower utilization. MILITARY PERSONNEL WORKING AT CIVILIAN DUTIES Senator O'MAHONEY. Perhaps we should have a copy for each member of the committee. Mrs. ROSENBERG. We will supply a copy for every member, Mr. Chairman. Senator THYE. Mr. Chairman, while you Chairman, while you are studying those figures, I should like to ask Madam Secretary this question: What and how does the civilian-employee percentage compare with that of World War II? Mrs. ROSENBERG. I will give you the exact percentages, Senator. Senator THYE. The reason I ask that question is, have we released all of the soldiers for actual combat or military duty possible, or are we employing as many civilian employees as would be advisable, thereby relieving the soldier of routine desk service rather than actual military service? Mrs. ROSENBERG. We have this problem on that, Senator: There are some men who are doing jobs right here in the continental United States servicemen-that could be performed by civilians, but we have to train them, because those same services are performed outside of the continental United States by men in uniform. So a certain amount of them are needed for training. We have one other type of military personnel that is performing jobs that could be performed by civilians, and that is those who are waiting for assignments or those who have to be kept in the continental United States for an emergency. It is also better for the morale of those men if they are continually occupied, so that at all times we will have some men who are performing jobs in uniform that could be performed by civilians. Any time an emergency comes, those men can immediately perform ombat jobs, because they will have combat training. However, we are replacing, or trying to replace, every man we can ho could be put into combat, by civilians, and I think that our etting three additional divisions is a very constructive step. Senator THYE. But your percent in relation to what the percentage as-I did not permit you to carry through and find those figures. Mrs. ROSENBERG. In July 1951, it is 2.6 military men per civilian mployee; and in 1945, June, it was 4.6 military per civilian. In June f 1941, it was 5.1 military per civilian. In June of 1946, it was 2.1 military per civilian; and in June of 1947, t was 1.8; and in June of 1948, it was 1.7; and in 1949, it was 1.8; nd in 1950, 1.9; and in June and July it is the same ratio-2.6 civilians o every military employee. Mr. GARLOCK. I would like to say the comparison between now and World War II may be a little bit misleading, because while we are ushing a procurement program, we are not building the military personnel as rapidly, so that you could switch this percentage simply y bringing another million men on board in the military. That would not be in accordance with our present plan. So that the production and procurement is going at different rates. Senator THYE. That is what led me to ask the question. I realize n 1945, just prior to the ending of the war, that would be at a time when you would be almost in a stationary situation, because you then ad full mobilization, and you had war activities that would compel ou to have every man on active duty that could be relieved by a ivilian employee. At that time you had 4 percent. Mrs. ROSENBERG. To 12 million men. Senator THYE. Four percent civilian employees, and you had 2 million military; am I right on that? Mrs. ROSENBERG. It is not 4 percent; it is 4.6 military people to very civilian. Senator THYE. It is 4.6 military to every civilian employee; and it the present time you have 2.6 of military to every civilian employee hat is engaged in the military activity? Mrs. ROSENBERG. In production or related activities. You see, in 1945 our defense effort was going full blast and we had fuller use of our civilians. I think a better comparison would be in 1939 when we first started before World War II. Senator THYE. It would show a better percentage, but in 1939 it was 1.7 military to every civilian, and that is when we got started, just as we are now. The year 1945 is not really a good comparison. Senator MCCLELLAN. Suppose some development should occur that would compel us to go into all-out mobilization immediately. How much would you have to increase the one million and a half in ivilian employees that you have now? Could you give us any rough estimate of that? Mrs. ROSENBERG. I could not, Senator. It would depend upon the speed with which we could deploy the men who are here now into the places they are needed. But the ratio of overhead does not increase in the same amount. A lot of these men are now doing jobs that will be completed. Senator MCCLELLAN. That is procurement and so on? 84975-51-109 |