Page images

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 education:

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

* 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, Insti. tute of Labor and Industrial Relations, the l'niversity of Michigan, Wayne State ['niversity. 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 agenes 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

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 to gether 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 USFS 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-CI attachment will have to be faced and the derision 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

[ocr errors]

The Employment Service has detailed data on how many transactions occur but none en 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.

D. SUMMARY 1. Accomplishments

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

to the crisis in the cities. Among our greatest difficulties is the difficulty of what should be the priority of national attention and national expenditure, and I believe that the crisis in the cities deserves an equal priority with the fighting war, to wit, Vietnam.

This is not reflected in our budget, it is not reflected in the focus of national attention. I believe the Senate in passing the Civil Rights Act indicated clearly that it considers this priority very high, perhaps not as high as I do, but certainly very high, and I deeply believe that you have rendered, as Senator Clark says, an historic service and I am so proud that our mayor and my personal friend, Mayor Lindsay, was associated with this effort, as was Senator Harris, Senator Brooke, and other distinguished Americans, and I think you will have the great gratification of having really marked a milestone in American history in the recognition that we are now an urban culture and that this tremendous crisis, so dangerous to domestic order, tranquillity, and prosperity which rates much higher priority than it has gotten and I will give your report the greatest credit for being, I think, the decisive factor in bringing it about.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, Senator. Will you proceed, Governor. Do you want to read your statement ?



Governor KERNER. If I may, I first add things off the cuff.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am delighted to be here, of course, before the distinguished members of this committee.

I come here not only as Chairman of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, but as Governor of a State that shares many of the problems the proposed act seeks to solve or ameliorate.

In response to a statement made by Senator Javits, you will notice that our report indicates that unanimously the members of the committee stated that we thought this problem, this great social problem that faces all of us here in the United States, has no higher priority. We, of course, did not feel that we as the Commission should really delve into the area of the executive and Congress in making a final determination of priority, but we did recognize the responsibility and the great need to move ahead.

May I say also, and this is not contained in my statement, that unanimously all the members of the Commission, I think, agreed that the highest priority so far as the needs of jobs and housing and education, jobs took the first priority without any doubt in anyone's mind on the Commission.

This is why I am really very pleased to be here today to testify as to what we, as a Commission found and what I as Governor have found in my State.

But in commenting on the Emergency Employment and Training Acts of 1968, I cannot help but relate its provisions to the findings of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. You will recall that the Commission, of which I was chairman, made recommendations embracing three basic principles :

in 1 year.

To mount programs on a scale equal to the dimensions of the problems;

To aim these programs for high impact in the immediate future (in order to close the gap between promise and performance);

To undertake new initiatives and experiments that can change the system of failure and frustration that now dominates the ghetto and weakens our society.

In relating the act to the first principle mentioned, that of mounting programs on a scale equal to the dimensions of the problem, it appears to me that your committee recommendations have taken into consideration this principle. I believe it is good, too, that this act recognizes that there must be orderly development of programs and that there are gains to be made from experience and experimentation.

I judge this from the manner in which the proposed act shows participation increasing over a period of years. There is, I observe, provision for the employment and training of 450,000 hard-core unemployed the first year, 900,000 the second year, 1.8 million the third year and in fiscal year 1972, hopefully, there will be 2.4 million participants.

Senator CLARK. Governor, do you mind if we interrupt from time to time?

Governor KERNER. Not at all.
Senator CLARK. Do you think those are feasible goals!

Governor KERNER. Yes, I do. Certainly in the private sector already, knowing there had been certain contracts signed with Government of fices to train in the private sector, in just one company in Illinois, 200 a month in one plant of this one company. That is 2,400 in one plant

Senator CLARK. I guess you are familiar with the work done by the Scott-Pirie Co. out in Chicago.

Governor KERNER. I think so.

Senator CLARK. That has been sort of a landmark of what can be done in quite a short period of time.

Governor KERNER. Yes, Mr. Virgil Martin started that in 1961 or 1963. I must say the selections they took at that time were not really hard-core as we understand them. They were bright young people of high school age or about that age who had shown great promise, but for one reason or another could not continue with their education.

Senator CLARK. Most of them were dropouts?

Governor KERNER. Yes, but I think it was for economic reasons rather than for scholastic reasons. May I say that in a study done by Frank Kessel, a 40-man commission established in Illinois in 1941, studied 450,000 dropouts in Illinois. They came to the conclusion in studying their scholastic background if they had been able to complete their education, 25 percent were potential Phi Beta Kappa if they had been able to go on. So I think we are losing a great deal of talent because of that.

It is my belief that by providing financial assistance to employers so that their investments in labor and equipment are safeguarded, you will secure that “inmediate high impact," which is the second principle that we found and established in our report, that the report cited as a basic principle.

You have also provided, in the beginning of the program, for double the number of training slots and jobs to come from the public sector as are to be provided by private industry. By 1972, you show equal

« PreviousContinue »