career at different levels of government a challenging prospect to bright, publicspirited college graduates?

Frankly, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am deeply concerned about the implications of the Gallup Poll of a year ago which showed that young people in the age range 21-29 were much more inclined to think of big government as a threat to the future of the country than were people over thirty. In a highly complex technological society and a highly interdependent world, big government is inescapable. We cannot turn the clock back or indulge in wishful thinking about the advantages of a simpler life. We have big business, big labor and big government. Nothing is going to make them smaller. It is our business, however, to make them work better. It is our business to help make many talented young people see how important to the future of their communities, their states, their nation, and their world good governmental leadership is, and to be willing to plunge in and enjoy an exciting career in the governmental organizations which seem most challenging to them. The quality of the people who staff the Federal Government can not be influenced on a short-range basis. We have badly neglected our manpower planning for years and governmental administrators are now acutely realizing the sad results of that neglect. We have not been attracting and training a crop of government managers with adequate backgrounds to fill the gaps caused by the current wave of retirements. We are not now attracting many first-rate people at the middle grades and our intake of young college graduates leaves a great deal to be desired. We are in urgent need of better prescriptions as to how to counteract this downhill slide.

It would be my recommendation that a Commission on the Reorganization and Management of the Executive Branch should create a Special Panel on Government Personnel which would examine the kinds of questions mentioned above and many others. It is entirely possible that the panel might discover that the problems which they explore are so manifold and so large that they could not hope to provide adequate answers to them within the time and resources available to them. In that case, they could perform a useful service by covering what they could and recommending ways of dealing more thoroughly with matters which they found beyond their resources.

It may seem to the sponsors of reorganization legislation who are primarily concerned with the elimination of duplication, eliminating nonessential services, developing more efficient procedures, and other means of achieving tangible short-term economies that my testimony is seriously deficient in not giving attention to these matters. This is for a very definite reason, Mr. Chairman. I believe that Congress, with the help of the President, has done a better job than it is willing to take credit for in eliminating nonessential services, eliminating duplication and otherwise putting pressure on the departments and agencies to introduce advanced management techniques. After the agencies get through the budget years 1968 and 1969, with the kinds of budgetary pressure there is on them, they will have exercised a great deal of ingenuity in stretching their administrative dollars as far as they can.

Quite candidly, I think that if a Commission were to concentrate its efforts and attention upon this area, its results would be disappointing to itself, to the Congress, to the President, and to the American public. But even more important, I think that if the attention of the Commission were to be concentrated on quickpayoff economies to the neglect of the larger and longer term problems which I have described, it would forego the one great advantage it has over other mechanisms of review. The one great advantage it has is to be able to look at long-range problems which are being neglected by others because of constant pressure to deal with short-range problems. Such a commission can consciously choose not to let urgent matters of small or medium consequence drive out longerrange matters of very high importance. The country will be in their debt for making that choice. I would hope, for the future of the Nation, that the Congress, assuming it creates such a commission, will do so in a way which gives maximum encouragement to the Commission to devote the majority of its attention to the truly important needs which the Federal Government, in conjunction with he States and local governments, will face in the next decade or two.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I support S. 2116 with an expression of hope that its purpose clause may convey the kind of intent about which I have spoken, If any adjustments are needed to elicit the full support of the President, I hope these can be made.

DATA COULD FURNISH INDICATION OF PENDING SOCIAL PROBLEMS

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much. Mr. Miles, in your writ'ten statement you imply that an Office of Special Studies could have provided the President 3 years ago with an in-depth analysis of the crime problem, and he would not have had to wait for the Special Crime Commission report. Do you see any problems now on the horizon that should receive the attention of such a special study group, before they explode into a basic problem?

Mr. MILES. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the problems which Mr. Hollomon referred to in terms of the continued migration, which is admittedly slowing up some, is still a severe problem. The continued migration from rural areas to the cities, and the problem of what should be done in terms of national policy, what the alternatives are in terms of national policy, it seems to me, is a very crucial problem. I would say that the great majority of the effort of this Office of Special Studies ought to be in the domestic field.

I think that one of its major roles should be the assurance that there is a set of what I would call social indicators. This is a set of data which gives us information from various segments of our society about where problems are developing. I think that this should be one of its first orders of business, to assure an information system in respect to social and economic problems which will give the President and the Congress and the Nation some advance warning, more advance warning than we now have, and a much more sophisticated collection of data than we are now getting from the sort of uncoordinated sources of data in the social field.

I do not happen to agree with Mr. Hollomon's feeling, in connection with the establishment of a Department of Science, that we should put into such a department the Census Bureau and presumably other related statistical-gathering sources having to do with our total society and the economy. It seems to me that this is something which would not belong in a Department of Science.

SEPARATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RECOMMENDED

Senator RIBICOFF. From your experience, and in view of the amount of money we are spending in education and the diversity of the programs scattered through every department of Government, what is your feeling about the establishment of a Department of Education and Employment. For some time I have advocated a Department of Education. Mrs. Edith Green in her House committee just had a 777-page report on what is happening with education and she personally has recommended the Department of Education and Manpower Training. Because of its importance, because of its size, because of its problems, will you comment from your experience concerning the need for a Department of Education or employment opportunities or manpower training?

Mr. MILES. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to.

I believe that the subject of education and the relationship of education to employment is so important that it needs a separate department. I ask to have included in the record an article on this subject which I wrote for the Public Administration Review. If I may, Mr. Chairman? I very carefully discussed the reasons why I believe a separate Department of Education is called for.

NATIONAL ATTENTION WOULD FOCUS ON EDUCATION PROBLEMS

It seems to me that the increase in unemployment among the least skilled and the problems which exist in our cities in terms of alienation of those who have no jobs, who are high school dropouts, and other kinds of problems which are involved here are so terribly important that the spotlight of national attention, needs to be turned on these problems to a degree we have never turned on them before. I was in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare at the time when it was created, and I observed the very rapid change in public attitude which came about from the elevation of the status of the then Federal Security Agency to a departmental status. The amount of increased attention that was given to the total organization and its problems was very marked. I think that the same thing would occur in terms of national attention if you created a separate Department of Education.

This is not my sole or main reason. But it is a very important reason why there should be a separate Department of Education. I think that the stature of the organization within our society and within our Government structure is a terribly important aspect of how well an organization is able to do its job. I think that the stature of education and the interrelationship of education to manpower development and training is so urgent that it is time to create a Federal Department of Education.

Senator RIBICOFF. Without objection, your article in Public Administration Review of March 1967, will be placed in the record at this point.

(The article referred to follows:)

[Reprinted from Public Administration Review, Vol. XXVII, No. 1, March 1967 quarterly journal of the American Society for Public Administration]

EXHIBIT 14

THE CASE FOR A FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

(By Rufus E. Miles, Jr., Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, Princeton University)

The author here makes the case for a separate Department of
Education, rather than the creation of a super Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, containing the three subcabinet
departments of Health, Education, and Welfare. The analogy with
the Defense Department is not appropriate.

Last fall, at a Presidential news conference in Fredericksburg, Texas Secretary Gardner outlined a plan for reorganizing the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, looking to the creation of three sub-Cabinet departments within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Each would be headed by a Secretary, an Under Secretary, and several Assistant Secretaries, all appointed by the President. All existing agencies of "HEW" would be grouped under a Department of Health, a Department of Education, or a Department of Individual and Family Services. Secretary Gardner expressed the view that this would improve the nation's ability to deal with the complex problems of poverty and other problems of the cities.

Strategically, the plan was at least partially designed to head off a steadily rising demand for a separate Department of Education. On the theory that the Note. This article has been selected winner of the second annual Pi Sigma Alpha award, presented by the political science honor society for the outstanding paper delivered at ASPA's 1966 National Conference on Public Administration in Washington, D.C. As it appears here, the article has been revised from the original.

best defense is a good offense, Secretary Gardner developed a formula which he hoped would mollify, perhaps even satisfy, the advocates of a Department of Education, while holding health, education, and welfare functions together. Both the proposal for a Cabinet-level Department of Education and that for a new super Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with three subCabinet departments are policy alternatives of some significance. Although they are not the only options available for improving the organization and management of health, education, and welfare functions, for the present they greatly outdistance their nearest competition. Consideration of these two alternatives ought no longer to be deferred.

The two members of Congress with the greatest knowledge of HEW-Senator Abraham Ribicoff, former Secretary, and the late John Fogarty, long-time chairman of the Labor-HEW subcommittee of the House appropriations committee-both concluded several years ago, quite independently, that there should be a separate Department of Education. Each authored one or more bills to achieve this purpose. The enactment of an enormous package of education legislation by the 89th Congress has highlighted interest in this question as nothing else could.

THE PRESIDENT'S CABINET

In theory, the composition of the Cabinet should change as the role of the Federal government changes in national and international affairs. Yet in a halfcentury of seismic social and political change, only four belated adjustments have been made in the make-up of the President's Cabinet. A unified Department of Defense was created in 1947; a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was created in 1953; a Department of Housing and Urban Development was authorized in 1965; and a Department of Transportation was authorized in 1966. The national interest would have been much better served if each had come into being earlier.

Delay in creating a new Department of Housing and Urban Development was particularly unfortunate. Two decades of urban decay, culminating in a series of social explosions, preceded recognition that the cities' problems deserved the kind of national attention and spotlight which accompanies Cabinet status. It will be remarkable and fortunate if, in the decade ahead, HUD is able to develop rapidly and imaginatively enough to overcome much of the damage done by this organizational lag.

The subject of departmental structure is usually viewed as a managerial problem. The basic question asked is whether the creation of a new department will facilitate or impede the effective and economical management of the United States Government. This question should be asked second, not first. The first question should be whether the creation of the new department would be advantageous to our society as a whole. In this broader perspective, significant additional considerations come into play. The most important of these is the interaction between the organizational structure of the Federal government and the value system of our national society.

Whether the Federal government intends it or not, the status of an organization within its hierarchy communicates clearly and strongly to the public the degree of importance which the government accords the functions of that organization. And that status profoundly influences the attitudes and social values of the American public.

The effect of organizational status upon social attitudes was clearly illustrated in April 1953, when the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was "created" by changing the name and status of the former Federal Security Agency. Nothing was added to the functions of the Federal Security Agency and no added powers of consequence were given the new Secretary. Only title and status were new; yet the action was hailed throughout the nation as a great step forward. All communications media stepped up their coverage immediately. The writers of high-school and college textbooks suddenly gave great attention to the "newly created" department. Federal, State and local governments, and private citizens showed a surprisingly rapid increase in their interest in health, education, and welfare programs.

Withal, education is still not accorded adequate prestige by the American people in terms that really count. Elementary and secondary school teaching is not well-enough remunerated to attract many competent persons who are heads of families. Until it is, the most difficult of our educational problems will get worse instead of better. Even with its new Federal aid program for elementary and

secondary education, the United States Government has not given education the first class status essential to making education a central focus of American concern. Consciously and unconsciously, students making occupational choices incorporate into their own values the second-echelon status which the United States Government has accorded education. Creation of a new Cabinet-level Department of Education would not suddenly overcome these and other educational deficiencies, but it would help more than is generally realized.

A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION?

The psychological advantages of a separate Department of Education in the achievement of our international objectives are also clear and substantial. No other country in the world combines health, education, and welfare activities in a single department of government, thus relegating each to a second-echelon status. In much of the world, the Communist propaganda line that the United States has the capitalistic value system portrayed by Karl Marx, which accords a low valuation to education and welfare programs, is extraordinarily pervasive. This propaganda line is given discomforting credibility when the United States Commissioner of Education is hierarchically outranked at UNESCO meetings by the educational representative of every other nation. No Secretary of HEW has ever felt that he could afford the time to chair the United States delegation to a UNESCO meeting. Until we have a Department of Education, well staffed, and with national and international respect, the underdeveloped nations to which we recommend heavy national concentration on education will not believe that we practice what we preach. The International Education Act of 1966 gives added emphasis to the need for a Cabinet-level Department of Education.

To some thoughtful persons, the most important reason for creating a Department of Education is that it would place in the highest councils of government a full-time spokesman for the educational needs of the American people, thereby assuring that in the never-ending competition for limited resources the comparative claims of education would be stated by a top-ranking official whose concern and efforts were undiluted by other competing concerns. It would increase the likelihood that the top spokesman for education would be sufficiently wellinformed (both because of the presumed selection of a man with recognized knowledge of the field and his subsequent full-time concentration on educational matters) to be able to present the claims of education persuasively.

President Johnson has made clear on a number of occasions that he regards education as the most basic single prerequisite to progress in a democratic society, a view shared by a substantial number of distinguished and thoughtful Americans. In the long run we are faced with two primary strategic alternatives: the strategy of education in breadth, in depth, and in length as a way of life, or the strategy of massive containment of social ills accentuated by educational deprivation. Conscious choice by intelligent citizens must opt for a strategy in which the dominant emphasis is on education. Refusal to face the alternatives and the sluggish action which result from such refusal, are a vote for massive containment and all the dangers of social explosion inherent in this repressive approach. Long delay in the elevation of education within our governmental hierarchy can only contribute to the inadequate pace of educational progress.

If education is to become the central focus and concern of the American people, as President Johnson has indicated is his desire, then the President should reflect his values and his convictions in the organizational status he accords them.

Viewed in this broad societal perspective, the case seems strong for such elevation unless there are compelling negative arguments from a managerial or other standpoint. Five sub-questions will help to illuminate the main question: 1. Would the creation of a new Department of Education aid or hinder the President in improving the management of the federal government?

2. How difficult to manage is the Department of HEW?

3. What would the effect be of a super Department of HEW, with three sub-Cabinet Departments?

4. Is a new Department of Education the most logical split-off, if one should occur?

5. If a Department of Education is concluded to be desirable, what should be the scope of its functions?

Each of these sub-questions deserves careful analysis. Selected highlights of such an analysis are summarized below.