related activities of the Commerce Department with the quite different set of functions of the Labor Department is unlikely to contribute anything to efficient public administration. A more intriguing prospect would be to combine the Manpower Administration of the Labor Department with the more closely related Office of Education from HEW into a new Department of Education and Manpower. However, this paper is limited to the more modest consolidation of manpower programs, either in a new department or an existing agency.11

If choice must be made among existing departments, three agencies might be considered-the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Departments of HEW and Labor. While most of the newer manpower programs focus upon the objectives of OEO, its total mandate is too restricted to encompass the manpower functions proposed for a single management. HEW is already a sprawling organization combining diverse functions and the manpower programs are unlikely to receive major attention in this department. The Labor Department appears, therefore, as the logical repository of the consolidated manpower programs, assuming the choice is to be an established department. The manpower programs outlined above constitute the bulk of the department's activities and budgets. Though some bureaus have shown limited interest in the development of manpower programs, the Labor Department as a whole is unquestionably the most manpower-oriented agency in the federal government. While a new department which would include the proposed programs and functions would be the rational and preferable solution, consolidation within the Labor Department may be politically the most feasible one.

Federal-State-Local Funding Criteria

The trend in manpower programs has been clearly toward greater federal involvement and guidance. The oldest explicit manpower programs-vocational education and vocational rehabilitation-have been characterized by relatively permissive guidelines and modest reporting requirements, with allocation of funds to the states on the basis of set formulas. The United States Employment Service deals directly and solely with the states but, in effect, negotiates distribution of its funds according to needs, plans, and past experience. MDTA also deals directly with the states but requires local initiative and application within detailed

11The Canadian government, confronted by a proliferation of manpower programs among departments and agencies, similar to but not as extensive as the U. S. pattern, chose in 1966 to integrate them all into a new Department of Manpower and Immigration, The success of the new department can be tested only by time but the development is suggestive of U. S. possibilities.

guidelines and federal approval of individual projects. Major portions of MDTA funds are allocated to the states by formula but, if not expended within a prescribed length of time, the funds are reallocated at federal discretion. The poverty programs have tended to bypass the states, dealing directly with the communities, project by project.

A number of dilemmas are involved in a federal agency's dealings with state and subordinate jurisdictions. Disbursement of funds through state governments reduces the number of federal contact points and the need to become involved in local problems. But many states are notable for their unresponsiveness to community problems. Formula allocation minimizes the detail of decisions made at the federal level, but it is difficult to develop formulas relating allocation to need. Funding on a project basis often excludes communities with the greatest need but the least energetic leadership. On the other hand, formula allocation may tie up limited funds in the hands of the apathetic while the more aggressive are hungry for assistance. Project funding contributes to uncertainties about continuation of ongoing projects, but it does force periodic review of the need for particular projects in light of current labor market conditions. The power to make or withhold contracts sometimes gives federal agencies life or death power over local institutions but it also provides leverage to force appropriate action.

Communities differ, and programs must be adapted to local needs, but there is no assurance that local decisions will be in accord with national goals. The new clients of the federal manpower programs tend to be socially and politically, as well as economically, handicapped. The tendency of local agencies in the absence of federal pressure has been to expend their limited resources on persons easiest to serve. However, the mere existence of federal guidelines is no guarantee that they would be followed, and experience has shown that detailed federal regulations are frequently observed only in the breach. Regardless of who signs the paychecks, local residents living in communities must run the programs, and federal legislators represent states and communities. Some compromise must be reached, combining persuasion and education with funding leverage to bring state and local agreement and cooperation.

Conceptually, the answer is federal establishment of policy guidelines, and state and local pursuit of those goals by the means most appropriate to the community environment. The concept is of little help in fixing the boundaries of the roles and powers of each. As a first step, communities can accommodate federal and local goals only if both are clearly articulated and neither have been. Unification of the federal manpower programs into a single funding source would facilitate a clear statement of goals from which guidelines could be developed. With that beginning, it would

seem advisable to distribute the bulk of federal manpower funds through the states by formulas based on need, allowing considerable discretion in the use of funds but with federal review and monitoring to see that guidelines are followed and appropriate goals pursued. Both the formulas for determining need and the extent of regulation would differ by function. At the same time, a portion of the manpower funds should be kept for distribution at federal discretion to encourage innovation and experiment and to purchase services where local prejudice discriminates against clients in need of assistance.

The grant-in-aid approach of vocational education and vocational rehabilitation has disclosed no insurmountable difficulties. The major difficiency has been the tendency toward rigidity-an ailment to which institutions are typically subject in the absence of external pressures. In light of current federal policy, the major shortcomings of vocational education and the public employment service is their failure to serve the disadvantaged fringes of the community. The majority of the population in a free society can usually be trusted to insist on adequate service within available means. The same quality of service should be available to the poor.

Incentives to encourage certain activities and discourage others can be provided to a substantial degree by varying matching requirements. The present practice includes 50-percent federal matching for most vocational education; 75-percent for vocational rehabilitation; 90-percent matching for remedial programs, MDTA and adult basic education; and 100-percent support of residential training in Job Corps. While not necessarily the ideal mix, these practices demonstrate that varying levels of support from a single federal source could encourage state and local educational planners to reach appropriate judgments about community needs within the bounds set by federal goals. Separate applications for federal approval of individual projects should be used sparingly. They are unnecessarily burdensome where the need and the functions are continuous. The approach is, however, most suitable for research and experimentation and for leverage with lagging communities.

A Functional Manpower Policy

A single federal source of funding manpower programs would not automatically improve the quality of services offered. If would reduce confusion and the incentives for proliferation at the local level and free federal officials to devote their talents to overall program evaluation and technical assistance to the states and communities. Even more significant, placing federal support of the manpower programs under a single management would force comprehensive review of the now oft-duplicated functions and aid redesign of the manpower services on a more rational basis. Thus,

more effective aid would be provided at a lower cost, and more people would be served.

One approach to a functionally-structured manpower program is spelled our here (Figure 1). It envisions inclusion of the presently available services within the limits of current budgets, but on a more balanced and rational basis. The proposed plan divides manpower activities into four categories:

(1) preparation for employment,

(2) placement and supportive services, (3) job creation, and

(4) experimentation, demonstration and research.

The newer manpower programs are largely remedial in orientation, designed either to aid those handicapped by age, inexperience, geographic location, or lack of education or skill to compete more successfully in the labor market, or to provide them with jobs sheltered from competition in the marketplace. The heavy load of remedial activity that has proven necessary might be taken as evidence that existing institutions have failed to prepare people for employment. It may be equally valid to argue that the older institutions have done so well for so many that a minority has been left far behind. Educational attainment has advanced rapidly during the present generation, leaving many who grew to adulthood before World War II at a competitive disadvantage. To be a high school dropout 25 years ago was to be part of the majority; now, when three of every four youths achieve a high school diploma, it is no longer a mark of distinction. The doubling of enrollments in various

forms of post-secondary education between 1955 and 1965 is only one of many evidences that our present labor force is the best schooled ever to enter the labor market. Undeniably, the quality of education and occupational preparation, in general, leaves much to be desired, but it is the relative standing of individuals which creates handicaps in job market competition. Projections of an additional 60 percent increase between 1965 and 1975 suggest that the burden of those who fail to share in the rising educational attainment will become more onerous.

Occupational training in high school. The workload and cost of future manpower programs for the disadvantaged are being influenced by the quality of current educational and occupational preparation. The level and quality of general education are the most important determinants of future employability. Paradoxically, often voiced criticisms that vocational education "teaches people to be unemployable" are frequently accompanied by exhortations to expand vocational training as the answer to youth unemployment. Over a working lifetime, the most valuable contribution education can make to preparation for employment is the same one it performs in preparation for other aspects of life: ability to communicate and compute, an understanding of one's environment and one's relationship to it, and ability to reach rational conclusions from available information. The process is time-consuming and often conflicts with the immediate needs of some youth—a salable skill to make them attractive to employers at whatever point they exit from the formal educational system. Employers face a corresponding conflict. In the long run, the employers' interests would also be best served by well-prepared employees with versatile backgrounds. But the individual employer has no assurance of a lasting commitment between himself and his employees and he prefers the immediate payoff of the specifically, though more. narrowly, prepared.

The dilemma is not without solution, however. The present system serves reasonably well for the college bound. An institutionalized ladder is offered which leads either to preparation for a particular occupation or, at least, to a level of educational attainment which is attractive to employers. If the majority of laborforce entrants achieve college diplomas, the quality of college education will become crucial, but at present a college diploma an adequate qualification. For the rest, the competition is tougher and quality more crucial.

The "solution" often advocated in recent years has been to equip the school leaver with a specific skill for the job market. The rationale has been twofold: (1) early school leavers are not academically inclined and are more likely to remain in school if provided specific occupational training; and (2) the school leaver must have something to sell in the job market and that requires skill training, limited as it may be. The alternative arguments