Neighborhood Youth Corps. Our heavy truck driving course alone has 500 people on the waiting list. The Presidential Commission recommended a massive, unified manpower program to pull together the fragmented efforts now underway to concentrate on the programs with a demonstrated capac ity to create meaningful employment opportunities; and to add new programs where they show real promise of success. PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS In its provisions for the creation of new jobs, the bill before this committee in many respects takes the direction called for by the Commission, which urged the creation of 1 million new jobs in the public sector in the next 3 years. Because of the great service needs, particularly in the urban and rural poverty areas of the country, there is a great backlog of projects for government to undertake. The opportunities for improvements are manifest in the cities-in vest-pocket parks, in improved health and sanitation services, in neighborhood fix-up and improvement programs, in police-community relations services. The Emergency Employment Act would give the creative city the tools to develop such projects. In the field of public safety, the Commission recommended a major new effort to bridge the gap between the police and the community. The Commission called for Federal support for the establishment of community service officers in cities over 50,000. This legislation specifically mentions public safety as an area for public service employment and it would, therefore, permit the funding of such a program. The Commission felt strongly that such community service officers could be one of the most important measures that all large cities could take to ease police-community tensions. I hope that the legislative history will strongly support this program. Jobs should be designed to provide training in particular skills. They should not be make-work projects. Our experience in New York has persuaded us of the futility of providing jobs that have neither future nor meaning to the employee. The Commission stressed that the termination of a project and Federal funding must not be allowed to mean the end of employment. We suggest, instead, that Federal assistance be scaled in such a way that there is a phasing out period rather than a sudden cutoff of Federal financing. In this way local governments, State and city, may be able to absorb part or all of the programs. I urge you to provide such a mechanism in this legislation. LOCAL COORDINATION Regardless of how manpower programs are organized at the Federal or State levels, most of them must be brought together in the cities. Effective manpower programing requires a unison of services, including recruitment, counseling, placement, work experience education, supportive training, follow-through and upgrading. Without a comprehensive system, the progress of an individual from unemployment to employment and on to better employment can never be assured. This point is clearly recognized in title I of the Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1967, which calls for Federal funding agencies to recognize in each community a prime sponsor with the capability for planning, administering, coordinating and evaluating a comprehensive work and training program. The Emergency Employment Act wisely recognizes the value of this concept by directing the Secretary of Labor to provide the funds from this bill through the prime sponsors recognized under the provisions of title I of the Economic Opportunity Act. This is a rare example of the kind of coordination between different pieces of legislation and different Federal agencies which will enable cities to unify their programs. In New York City we have worked hard to develop a single agency responsible for manpower development and this provision is extremely helpful to us in bringing about coordination. PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS The legislation before us quite rightly recognizes the need to create jobs in the private sector as well as in the public sector. The recommendation that approximately 1 million jobs be created in the private sector is consistent with the findings of the commission, and with the program the urban coalition adopted in its August convocation. Two thousand private employers already are involved in the Manpower Development and Training Act, and 20 corporations are managing urban training centers for the Job Corps. These projects deserve solid support. Much remains to be done. As the Advisory Panel on Private Enterprise pointed out in its report to the President's Commission, existing programs fail to attract the greatest possible industry involvment for several reasons, among them the following: Inadequate promotional effort to make industry aware of the programs. The high overhead entailed in such negotiations and in running such programs. The fear that such contracting with Government will impinge upon management's freedom to run its own operations. REIMBURSEMENT Even if all these objections were met, the level of Government reimbursement at present is too low to permit the hiring and training by the private sector of the hard-core unemployed. The present rate of Federal reimbursement is approximately $1,000 per trainee in the on-the-job training program. This is not enough. The advisory panel on private enterprise told the commission that only if appropriate monetary incentives are provided by the Federal Government to defray the unusual cost of participation will a truly massive number of companies be induced to participate. The commission recommended that this reimbursement should average at least the $3,500 called for by the President in his manpower message. The commitment of this legislation to assume these unusual overhead costs must be supported. Unlike some of the people who come to industry lacking only in the knowledge of a specific training or trade, often the hard-core unemployed have severe health problems, cannot afford the transportation costs from home to job, have no experience in the management of their money, and have dependents or children who need constant supervision. The average applicant has only a fifth grade literacy level. Even more discouraging to potential employers, especially, is the fact almost half of the men reporting have criminal records. These factors, alone or in combination, effectively bar many of the needy from employment. This legislation provides for the full reimbursement of the full range of such supporting services and explicitly recognizes that these services are to be treated as an integral part of the process of providing employment opportunities. Perhaps most significant about the Commission's recommendations is its endorsement of a tax credit system as an additional and potentially lower-cost method of stimulating broad-scale business interest in OJT and new job creation. The Commission believed this alternative, which was pioneered in several Congresses by Senators Prouty and Javits on this subcommittee, holds promise, provided that guide lines are adopted to ensure adequate training and job retention. The existing 7-percent incentive credit for investment in new equipment and machinery has demonstrated extraordinary effectiveness as a technique for reaching a large number of individual enterprises to effectuate a national policy. Greater detail about the tax credit approach to employment is provided in the report of our Private Enterprise Panel, chaired by Commission Member Charles B. Thornton of Litton Industries. The panel concluded that the single, most powerful inducement for broad involvment of private enterprise in job training and job development lies in the use of a tax incentive. RECRUITMENT A section of the legislation provides reimbursement for firms who send recruiters into the areas of high concentrations of unemployment. Some of the city's largest employers have sent their recruiters directly to our Neighborhood Manpower Centers, and the results have been encouraging. However, while this procedure serves the needs of the giant corporations that hire in sufficient numbers to justify the maintenance of outside recruiters, it is not practicable for many smaller firms. New York City has only 600 firms employing over 50 people. It is the 9,000 firms that must be enlisted in the employment programs, but they cannot send recruiters into the ghetto areas. For these firms, a better system would be to use municipal recruitment offices to interview and refer candidates. I propose that Federal aid be made available to localities operating recruitment agencies to supply workers to the smaller firms. One of the clearest lessons to emerge from the work of the Commission and from our own experience in New York City is the need to end the present overlap and duplication of recruitment efforts. Neither job seeker nor employer benefits from the present confusion. As the Commission found, "There is an urgent need for a comprehensive manpower recruitment and services agency at the community level." The Commission report continued: "We believe that every city should establish such a comprehensive agency with full authority to direct the coordination of all manpower agencies in the locality including those of the Employment Service, the community action agencies, and other local groups. In New York, we have worked hard to develop this network and to overcome the opposition of numerous independent groups and organizations which formerly ran such employment centers. We now are beginning to see results. New visits to the centers are running at a pace that will average about 105,000 a year across the city. Our centers, located in the communities and staffed in part from the communities, constitute a very effective recruitment system. I recommend that this legislation be amended to provide Federal funds as an incentive for localities to develop the comprehensive manpower recruitment and services agency called for by the Commission. Senator CLARK. Mr. Mayor, what's the matter with the U.S. Employment Service? That's their job. Mr. LINDSAY. As the Commission noted, the U.S. Employment Service, and many State employment services have over the years demonstrated ingrained and built-up weaknesses. Senator CLARK. I'm not quarreling with you, but your testimony is directly contrary to Governor Kerner's testimony. To give you a little background, several years ago the Senate had comprehensive hearings on revision of the Wagner-Peyser Act, which sets up the State employment services. The employment services, as you know, are paid 100 percent by the Federal Government although they are staffed 100 percent by the States. This subcommittee was very critical of the work of the State employment services and the Federal bureaucracy which was supposed to supervise them. We felt they were spending most of their time trying to get jobs for people on unemployment compensation. When the very heavy unemployment cycle changed, we felt that their bureaucratic attitude was a great deterrent to turning them into the area where they would spend a significant-in fact, most of their time. in trying to find jobs for the hard-core unemployed. That bill didn't pass the House, but it had a catalytic effect on a number of the State employment services, and, indeed, on the Federal bureaucracy which supervises them. Governor Kerner said that he believed that in Illinois, the State employment service is now doing an excellent job. I'm not surprised, but I'm interested to hear you say it is not doing that in New York. Mayor LINDSAY. Well, let me underscore the finding of the Com mission, which appears in the Bantam Book edition at page 417Senator CLARK. Let me turn to it. Mayor LINDSAY. It's very brief. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive manpower recruitment and services agency at the community level. The Federal-State employment service is not serving this function in many urban areas and cannot do so unless it is substantially restructured and revitalized. Senator CLARK. Now, let me ask you this. I agree with that, certainly in some areas, but isn't it better to try through legislation and/or administrative action to modernize and put some strength into the State-Federal joint employment service than to create a whole lot of new ones? Mr. LINDSAY. Well, what the Commission suggests—and I endorse 94-753-68- -10 it personally based on my own observations--is that there be a single, comprehensive manpower recruitment, and services agency. Senator CLARK. Does that mean federalizing-does that mean federalizing the employment service? Mr. LINDSAY. No; not necessarily. Senator CLARK. Because actually there is a single agency now. It's the 50-State State employment services operating under broad general standards laid down by the Federal Government which in turn pays 100 percent of the bill. Mr. LINDSAY. Let me put it another way. The way we're trying to do it in New York City is that we now have a network of 21 recruitment or job-training centers. Senator CLARK. It is recruitment, not training. Mr. LINDSAY. Ths is referral service. This is the mechanism by which you hook up the person who wants to be trained or to have a job, with the training program for the job. Senator CLARK. Well, I'm talking now about the recruitment. How do you handle that? Don't you work through State employment services? Mr. LINDSAY. This is what I'm getting to. We have arranged in 13 of these 21 centers, which are run by the human resources adininistration of the City for the Federal and State administrators to move in in order to achieve coordination. Senator CLARK. Good. I hope they move in on the others, too. Mr. LINDSAY. It is just being started. Now, a system of subsatellites, smaller units, is being created as a feeder system under the 21 centers. Senator CLARK. Well, I think it's extraordinarily fine that you've been able to find some dollars in your New York City budget to implement the Federal-State service. Three cheers for that. There are a lot of communities that can't do it. Mr. LINDSAY. True. And we find it very expensive. As I have said, the Commission report recommended, also, on page 417: We believe that every city should establish such a comprehensive agency, with authority to direct the coordination of all manpower programs, including those of the Employment Service, the community action agencies, and other local groups. Senator CLARK. That's all right if they can find the money. Mr. LINDSAY. Correct. As my testimony here suggests, some Federal assistance in this regard could be a great help. And, as I have said, one of the lessons the Commission learned and which I learned from my own experience in New York City is the need to end the overlap and duplication. In New York we are trying hard to establish a comprehensive agency of the kind recommended by the Commission. We're beginning to see some results, although we have a long way to go. New visits to the 21 centers which I mentioned are running at a pace that will average about 105,000 a year. Senator CLARK. What do you mean by new visits? Somebody looking for a job? Mr. LINDSAY. Yes. That average of about 105,000 a year across the City-is based on the past 3-month experience. These centers are located in the communities and are staffed, in part, from the communities. We think they constitute a very effective recruitment system. |