(b) Adult basic education, to remedy the lack of obsolescence of earlier schooling and prevocational orientation to expose those with limited experience to alternative occupational choices;

(c) Training for entry level skills, for those unprepared to profit from the normally more advanced training which assumes mastery of rudimentary education;

(d) Training allowances, to provide support and an incentive for those undergoing training and residential facilities for youth whose home environment precludes successful rehabilitation;

(e) Work experience, for those accustomed to the discipline of the work place;

(f) Job development, efforts to solicit job opportunities suited to the abilities of the disadvantaged job seeker;

(g) Relocation and transportation assistance to bring the workers to where the jobs are;

(h) Subsidization of private employment of the disadvantaged;

(i) Job coaching to work out supervisor-worker adjustments after a job is found;

(j) Creation of public service jobs tailored to the needs of job seekers not absorbed in the competitive market.

5. Essential as these services are, they are available through no one program, agency or labor market institution. The various programs are limited in the services they can offer. The budgetary committments for the various services are not rationally related to need. For instance, there are currently more slots for work relief than for training when training should probably stand above work relief in the hierarchy of remedial services.

6. The administrative capability to deliver these services has yet to be developed. At the local level, there is no single agency or combination of easily accessible institutions where those seeking help can find it. Neither has any community the resources to provide some type of service to all who need it. A multiplicity of federal funding sources encourages interagency competition at the federal level and a proliferation at the local level placing a premium on "grantsmanship." Coordination has been tried with little success and consolidation of programs has been limited. Existing agencies have changed their orientation and biases but slowly and only under considerable outside pressure. New agencies have yet to learn effective practices. Surprisingly little has been done, considering the number of programs and the level of expenditures, to develop or train capable staffs at any level of government.

The currently approved model for delivering comprehensive manpower services is the Concentrated Employment Program (CEP). It attempts to concentrate and integrate the efforts of existing programs on behalf of target populations. It appears to have two premises: (1) the complex of programs and agencies can be integrated and focused through a single local institution; (2) while sufficient resources can not be marshalled for a measurable national impact, concentration of both financial resources and administrative capability on narrowly defined targets may make an appreciable difference in a limited number of big city slums and rural depressed areas. The brief CEP experience argues for both technical assistance for planning and management capability and augmented resources to avoid becoming one more link in a chain of unfulfilled promises.

7. Administration officials and Members of Congress have been too impatient to await the results of new and existing programs and to allow for restructuring, removal of negative elements, and finally their expansion into effective programs. As a result, there has been an excessive resort to gimmicks and to attempts to devise "instant policies for instant success." The procedure has become a familiar one. New approaches are designed intuitively rather than empirically. They are launched with public relations fanfare, complete with numerical goals and early target dates. Manipulation of numbers to "prove" success then becomes a major staff function until a quiet burial of the goals and targets can be devised. The favored gimmicks of the moment are the CEP approach and private enterprise involvement. Both have promise as part of the manpower policy arsenal of weapons but the experiences of neither to date has earned the warmth with which they are being embraced.

8. For no program are there adequate valid data for evaluation of strengths and weaknesses and no program currently has a reporting system capable of producing such data. Data on the characteristics of enrollees are adequate in some but not all programs. Data on services provided are weak and follow-up

data on program results are grossly inadequate and undependable. Ad hoc internal evaluations have been made of several programs, either in-house or by contract, but for the most part, their coverage is limited, their data weak and their investigations not probing.

9. Nevertheless, one concludes from observation, available data and piecing together other fragmentary evidence that some programs are at least moderately successful and merit expansion. None is a clearly proven failure, though in several cases the funds could have been better spent elsewhere. Through this necessary experimental process many lessons have been learned, needs probed and useful services identified. Congress has demonstrated a willingness to change and adapt programs in light of administrative experience. Expansion of programs has been slower than anticipated but less because of Congressional reluctance than absence of aggressive Administration requests.

1. MDTA

C. PROGRAM EVALUATION

MDTA's original objective was to retrain experienced adult family heads displaced by economic and technological change. As labor markets have tightened, its emphasis has shifted to the disadvantaged. MDTA consists of two distinct components-institutional and on-the-job training (OJT)—which are best evaluated separately.

a. The institutional training program has built-in "creaming" tendencies since its enrollees are primarily those who have sought help from an Employment Service office. Nevertheless, MDTA institutional training is increasing its proportionate enrollment of the non-white, the young, the public assistance recipient, the handicapped and those with 9 to 11 years of education. It has yet to make significant progress in serving those with 8 years of schooling or less and persons over 44 years of age. Over half the institutional enrollees are apparently drawn from families with annual incomes of less than $3000 per year. The institutional training program probably “creams” within each disadvantaged category. However, the 70 to 80 MDTA skill centers clearly reach a more disadvantaged clientele than other MDTA projects and are probably reaching as deeply as any program except perhaps the Job Corps.

b. The OJT program has never served appreciable numbers of disadvantaged and its record has been worsening in all categories. This may in part be due to recent pressures to expand it to one-half of the total MDTA enrollment, primarily to get more enrollees within the same fixed budget. Enrollment means employment and employers are quality conscious. The federal administrators of the program in the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training are experienced at promoting apprenticeship but accustomed to leaving recruitment and selection to employers and unions. To augment the limited BAT staff, OJT slots have been contracted to trade associations who subcontract the training to their members or to community action agencies, unions and civil rights organizations who subcontract, usually with smaller employers. The trade associations have a quality bias and the community contractors, while they have the right prejudices, lack experience and competence.

c. Overall, the MDT program has a favorable cost-benefit experience. The completers have more stable employment and higher earnings after training when compared with their own pre-training experience and with control groups. Disadvantaged institutional completers still have a more difficult time finding jobs than other completers but have better experience than in the absence of training. The disadvantaged have a difficult time getting into OJT but once in have retention rates not significantly different from those of the non-disadvantaged.

In addition to its contributions to its enrollees, MDTA has had a positive influence on the Employment Service on Vocational Education and, to a small degree, on apprenticeship. There are continuing issues of priority between serv

For detailed evaluation of the Manpower Development and Training program see Garth L. Mangum, Contributions and Costs of Manpower Development and Training, Policy Papers in Human Resources and Industrial Relations, No. 5, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, The University of Michigan. Wayne State University, 1967. The MDTA reporting system is set up to produce adequate data on trainee characteristics, training occupations, completions and employment experiences of the first post-training year. However, serious under-reporting makes the latter of doubtful validity and makes state-by-state analyses shaky. The OJT reporting is particularly bad. The reporting system is especially poor on costs and the nature of the training given. A mass of data is poured into the computers but there have not been the staff resources and top level interest to see that it was retrieved and analyzed for managerial and evaluative purposes. Nevertheless, more information is available than for other programs.

ing the disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged, the relative effectiveness of institutional and on-the-job training and the appropriate federal, state and local administrative roles. None of these threaten the overall value of the program, however.

Enrichment of the program's services has been authorized from time to time but without commensurate increases in budget. Thus the choice has been between richer offerings for fewer and a leaner program for more. The program could be doubled in size within the limits of current administrative and training capabilites. Skill Centers are currently operating at less than half capacity. Doubling the MDTA budget with emphasis on expanding the skill center concept and directing OJT more clearly toward the disadvantaged should be a legislative priority in 1968.

2. Vocational education3

The Vocational Education Act of 1963 was the first major reorientation of federally supported vocational education since its beginning in 1917. Most importantly, it directed a shift in objectives from training for occupational categories to serving the training needs of people. It stressed serving those with academic and socio-economic handicaps who could not profit from the regular programs. Federal funds, which are matched equally by the state, were expanded from approximately $50 million to $280 million per year over a threeyear period (and Congress actually appropriated the funds). Construction of "area" vocational schools (those serving a broader area than a single high school), more teacher education and better vocational guidance were encouraged. Closer alliance with the Employment Service was directed in order to relate training more directly to the labor market. Money was also authorized for research and innovative programs.

Some progress has been made, but largely, it would seem, for lack of federal leadership, a promising Act has not had a substantial impact upon the status and content of vocational education. The relative emphasis on agriculture and home economies has declined (though their absolute enrollment has increased), new schools have been built, significant research has been undertaken for the first time, and relationships with the Employment Service in determining job market needs have been improved. About one of each four high school students now enrolls in a federally-supported vocational program but 3 of 5 are still in home economics and agriculture. Another 1 in 6 are in office occupations which were added to the list of federally-supported courses by the 1963 Act. Four-fifths of the reported increase in enrollments since 1964 is accounted for by the addition of office occupations and may not reflect an actual increase in enrollments. Post-secondary and adult courses reach 4 percent of the labor force.

Nothing more than pious hope was provided to encourage the desired shift from an occupational grouping to a people-serving orientation. There has been little meaningful innovation under the Act and a great reluctance to adopt proven experiments demonstrated on projects financed by foundations, OEO and MDTA funds. Training occupations still reflect more the 1917 categories than current labor market needs. Offerings for those with special needs account for less than 1 percent of total expenditures. Programs in rural schools and urban slums are limited and poor-just where they are needed most. This generally dismal picture is belied by some real bright spots but in general change has been slow and minor.

3. Vocational rehabilitation*

The Vocational Rehabilitation program each year results in the placement in competitive employment of more disadvantaged persons than MDTA or any

3 See Volume I, Education for Employment, of forthcoming report of the Vocational Education Advisory Council. The Vocational Education reporting system is abysmal. Its only real concern has been to see that the states match every federal dollar and that the dollars are spent within the occupational categories prescribed by the Smith-Hughes and George Barden Acts. There is practically no information on student characteristics, training contents and results. The Advisory Council on Vocational Education has been hard put to find any data base for its current evaluation of the results of the 1963 Act.

See Garth L. Mangum and Lowell M. Glenn, Vocational Rehabilitation and Federal Manpower Policy, Policy Papers in Human Resources and Industrial Relations, No. 4, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, the University of Michigan, Wayne State University. 1967. The Vocational Rehabilitation reporting system is reasonably adequate for managing a rehabilitation program but there is no follow-up information to allow realistic assessment of program results beyond immediate employment. Data are currently inadequate to assess the demographic, economic, and cultural characteristics of the clients but the federal agency is now collecting data on an individual client basis and will soon have data processing capability which should improve the situation.

of the EOA programs and at lower average costs. However, its clientele have physical and mental handicaps rather than economic or cultural ones and surprisingly little training occurs. The federal agency claims a 35 to 1 ratio of benefits to costs which can be deflated, using their data, to 12 to 1. However, the program is of undoubted worth. Its particular value is an individualized comprehensive services approach involving a close counselor-client relationship. A rehabilitation plan is mutually developed for each individual and the counselor, in effect, has a blank checkbook to purchase whatever services are needed. There is some debate among vocational rehabilitation personnel between those who favor physical restoration to eliminate handicaps and those who emphasize training and other services to make employment possible despite existing handicaps. In addition to the basic services, there is an extensive research program, encouragement for innovation and a program of grants to universities and individuals for pre-service and in-service training of rehabilitation personnel. The program has favorable congressional support and expands about as rapidly as the states are willing to meet their 25 percent matching requirement. 4. The United States employment service 3

The manpower legislation of the past five years has had a substantial impact upon the Employment Service, so much so that the agency is quite different from the Employment Service of 1962. No longer is it restricted to referring qualified workers in response to employer job orders. Through referral to MDTA, Job Corps and Neighborhood Youth Corps, involvement with vocational educators and community action agencies, and its own Youth Opportunity Centers and Human Resources Development Program, the Employment Service can search out those in need of its services, enhance their employability and even provide public employment.

The Employment Service is very much in transition. By and large, its involvement with the disadvantaged has been under pressure from the national office and in response to competition from community action agencies. Its role and objectives are in a state of confusion. The Department of Labor has become a more aggressive partner in the federal-state system. It has continually added new programs and responsibilities to the Employment Service without commensurate increase in staff and budgets. It has then failed to set priorities among the assignments, all of which cannot be fulfilled adequately and equally with available resources. There is also evidence of failure to seek and achieve concensus before major policy changes. As a result, state and local officials do not share the degree of committment to many responsibilities exhibited by those in Washington.

Four policy objectives appear to coexist, each reflecting stages in the agency's development. Many state Employment Security directors and businessmen still see the agency's primary function to be providing a work test for the payment of unemployment compensation. Most local Employment Service managers probably see their agency as an employer-serving labor exchange. The more progressive aspire to the position of Community Manpower Center, serving all occupational groups and community institutions. Current federal emphasis is on serving the disadvantaged. Mutually exclusive elements in these objectives are apparent. "Image" with employers probably suffers in direct relation to antipoverty involvement.

Problems of salaries and training remain significant barriers to attracting and retaining competent professional personnel. As long as ES and UI are together in the federal and state bureaus, the Employment Service will remain at the fourth tier in the pecking order of authority and prestige in the Labor Department and in a similar position in state governments.

The time is imminent when the USES budget will have exhausted the revenue potential of its Social Security Act Title III basic funding source. At that time, the issues involved in the ES-UI attachment will have to be faced and the decision will have to be made to switch partially or completely to general Treasury funding.

The Employment Service with its ubiquitous local offices is inevitably the "front line" arm of most manpower programs. It has been pressured by events into broadening its activities in behalf of many it previously could not or did

The Employment Service has detailed data on how many transactions occur but none on who is served, how well and what the results are. A forthcoming report by Garth L. Mangum and Arnold L. Nemore, Reorientation in the Federal-State Employment Service, will provide some data and more extensive analysis.

not serve. It has cherished ambition to reach upward to others who have not previously sought its services. Without clear objectives it has no measure to evaluate or be evaluated by its own performance.

1. Accomplishments

D. SUMMARY

Needed services have been provided, needy persons have been served and useful lessons have been learned.

The base has been established for a coherent program of remedial services to the competitively disadvantaged.

2. Limitations

The administrative capability has yet to be developed for efficient delivery of services.

The resources committed are grossly inadequate relative to need.

Solution to the first limitation would greatly increase the chances of solving the second.

Senator CLARK. We are delighted to have with us today Governor Kerner, of Illinois, who has recently completed what I suspect is one of the most arduous assignments given any man in public office, the chairmanship of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders.

Governor, I want to compliment you, a coordinator of high talent, because the reports that emanated from closed sessions of the committee, indicated to me that you were a master diplomat in bringing into coordination the conflicting views of some rather strong-minded members of your Commission. I think the end-result is not only splendid, but you didn't have to weaken the report to any significant extent in order to get a document which has caught the attention of the Nation. You are certainly to be commended.

Following Governor Kerner, we will hear Mayor John Lindsay, of New York City, Vice Chairman of the Commission; and following Mayor Lindsay, Senator Fred Harris, of Oklahoma, a member of the Commission.

We hope at a later date to hear Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, who is also a member of the Commission. I take it, Governor Kerner, you got a good deal of help from those two members of our body.

I don't think it would serve a useful purpose for me to characterize or comment on the Riot Commission's report. I will say I have read the summary in detail and will study it.

Our witnesses will speak for themselves and for their Commission. But I do want to congratulate them for producing a report which, I believe, may well go down in history as the single most important and, I hope, influential document in recent times.

Before we call on you, Governor, I would like to give my colleagues an opportunity to make any comments they desire to.

Senator Prouty?

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Chairman, I have no comments to make at this time. I am happy to have the distinguished Chairman of the Commission present.

Senator CLARK. Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to Governor Kerner that I think the report of this Commission was monumental and I believe it will have the effect of requiring and bringing about a change in the priorities of the United States to give the top priority