MAKING SENSE OF FEDERAL MANPOWER POLICY The federal government has become deeply committed to manpower programs to enhance the employment prospects and employability of individuals. Manpower policy is now an integral component of federal economic policy, along with fiscal and monetary policies which affect total levels of employment. Federallysupported manpower programs, mostly devoted to aid of the unemployed and the inadequately educated, now carry an annual price tag of $2.1 billion, an eightfold increase since 1961. An intricate, but far from comprehensive, federal manpower policy has been emerging from the variety of programs created piecemeal during the present decade to meet separate but related needs. The goals are noble in purpose, but the terrain is new and difficult. The range of undertaking is impressive, but the distribution of effort is not well balanced and the administrative machinery seems unduly complex. Though the progress in federal manpower policy has been notable, it is inaccurate to speak of federal manpower programs. Of the total federal manpower budget, only about one of every 10 federal dollars is spent on programs operated by agencies of the federal government. The rest is expended through grants-in-aid and contracts to encourage and assist state and local governments and private institutions to provide employment-related services: The Changing Goals of Federal Manpower The past five years have been a period of intensive social experimentation characterized by a new sensitivity to old problems of human distress. Though the underlying factors contributing to unemployment, poverty and other social ills were closely interwoven, the Administration and Congress reacted separately to each problem on a piecemeal basis. Numerous programs were inaugurated but with little consideration to their interaction. Newly emphasized needs sparked ideas which were translated into legislation 1 with rarely a pause for intermediate steps of analysis and pretesting. Program components were tried, but failed and had to be replaced by others which in turn met varying degrees of success. The pattern was typical of a period of innovation and requires no apology. If it has produced administrative confusion, duplication, gaps and overlaps, it has also demonstrated the relative effectiveness of various approaches and it has served people whose needs were, and are, current and pressing. The accomplishments of the period are noteworthy, but there is no need to continue the atmosphere of administrative confusion. Experimentation must be followed by application and consolidation. Current international commitments have halted expansion of the domestic programs. The changed composition of Congress, a result of the 1966 elections, is likely to further dampen enthusiasms for the expansion of welfare legislation. The time is propitious for a calm analysis of existing legislation and programs, strengthening the proven, rejecting programs found wanting, and a general rationalization of the nation's manpower policy. This paper traces the development of current manpower legislation, illustrates the imbalances which have produced increasing demands for either better coordination or consolidation of the various programs and offers a prescription for rationalization of manpower policy. The recommended solution is to consolidate all current manpower budgets into a single source of federal support, restructuring the programs into a coherent whole. The Emergence of New Programs Two major developments combined to generate federal support for training and rehabilitating the unemployed and disadvantaged. First was the sustained high level of unemployment experienced during the latter part of the 1950's and persisting into the mid1960's. The second development, and perhaps the more significant in the long-run, was the civil rights movement. The concern with unemployment prompted attack on two fronts: (1) stimulation of total demand for goods and services with consequent increase in employment levels, and (2) lowering of geographical, age, skill and racial barriers which prevented many individuals from competing effectively for existing jobs. The civil rights movement initially focused upon civil and political rights of Negroes, particularly school integration, voting rights and equal access to commercial services. It soon became clear, however, that Negroes and other deprived minorities could not compete on an equal footing in American life without special economic assistance. As President John F. Kennedy stated: "Employment opportunities play a major role in determining whether [civil] rights are meaningful. There is little value in a Negro's obtaining the right to be admitted to hotels and restaurants if he has no cash in his pocket and no job." With that diagnosis, the solutions appeared the same as for general unemployment, more jobs and more training, but there was an essential difference. Without the civil rights movement and the attention it focused upon poverty, reduction of unemployment could have dissolved effective support for continuing public manpower efforts. Instead, falling unemployment only brought the problem of competitive disadvantage in the job market into sharper relief. Both demand stimulating measures and manpower programs have contributed in varying degrees to declining unemployment, but with an essential difference. Once monetary and fiscal policy decisions were made, their administration involved relatively few problems. This is not true of the manpower programs, where political decision was only the first step. Success or failure depended upon innovation in the creation of a viable administrative structure. The New Dimension Although the federal government is no novice in affecting manpower utilization, the emphasis during the sixties has changed radically. The traditional concern of federal manpower policy was the supply of labor, both skilled and unskilled. Early examples are encouragement of immigration prior to 1920, the land-grant college system established during the post-Civil War period of agricultural expansion and early industrialization, and matching grants for vocational education as industrialization entered more sophisticated stages. Even the federally-financed state employment services have been primarily concerned with filling job orders. Only during the depression of the 1930's did manpower policy efforts shift to the demand side by financing public works and work-relief jobs. During World War II, the federal impact upon manpower was all pervading. Not only were millions of persons drafted into the armed forces, but vast numbers were also trained and retrained for war production. Wage policies also were utilized to channel labor into defense industries. The G. I. Bill of Rights, following World War II, had significant impact upon manpower development by providing education and training to 7.8 million veterans. During the fifties, federal manpower policies focused upon expanding the supply of highly skilled and professional labor. The establishment of the National Science Foundation and the passage of the National Defense Education Act were illustrative products of the new interests. 1 Civil Rights Message, June 19, 1963. |