functions could be carried on internally and through the funding of experimentation and research by public or private institutions or individuals. A single source of research funding would be in a better position to establish research priorities, eliminate gaps and overlaps, help secure better cooperation and division of labor among research insititutions, and give wider dissemination to research findings, assuming it has the active support of the agency head. In addition, data gathering and analysis by a unified federal manpower agency would generate greater awareness of the need for comprehensive and integrated operational data essential for program review and evaluation (Table 2 and Chart 2). TABLE 2 Functional Allocation of Appropriations Federally-Supported Manpower Programs1. Fiscal 1961 and 1966 (Millions of Dollars) 1 Official data by functional categories as presented in this table are not available. These estimates are intended only to indicate general magnitudes. 1961 1966 83 453 O-68-pt. 19—14 The Challenge to Congress A single source of funding at the federal level will still leave a multiplicity of manpower agencies at the local level, where the action is. Some of this duplication is inevitable, and even welcome. It includes involvement of private organizations, and provides for experimentation, and for special-purpose programs serving selected clientele. But much of the present proliferation and duplication of manpower programs and projects at the local level results from the multiplicity of federal sources. Limiting the flow of federal grants to a single spigot will in itself reduce duplication of local efforts. A unified federal management can do even better by providing special incentives to communities encouraging consolidation of manpower agencies and programs. The most effective way to achieve this end is to give states and communities a bonus when they apply for comprehensive community manpower programs instead of submitting piecemeal proposals. Guidelines could be provided to local manpower agencies for planning, preparation and implementation of unified manpower programs with an increased federal share of matching funds as an incentive to communities for following the guidelines. The fact that this paper has discussed federal manpower programs within the framework of existing appropriations is not an endorsement of present funding levels. Despite the administrative difficulties typical of such an experimental period, the manpower programs have demonstrated need and general effectiveness. Application of the lessons learned in a unified program reorganized along functional lines can provide better services to more people within existing appropriations. Need and experience, with reorganization, justify much higher levels of investment. Similarly, no attempt is made at this stage to suggest an appropriate allocation of funds to each of the functions. The needs of each function and the appropriate priorities can best be dictated by prevailing economic conditions. For example, a recession may call for greater emphasis on job creation; retraining of workers will be of lesser value when jobs are scarce. The upgrading of skills may, however, receive greater emphasis during a period of labor shortages when further economic expansion is hampered by lack of needed skilled manpower. Leaving the allocation of manpower funds to administrative discretion does not imply abdication of legislative responsibility. The annual appropriation process still leaves to Congress the responsibility for reviewing expenditures and the power to channel funds for specific purposes. The functional approach to manpower problems will also make more apparent to Congress, federal administrators and the public any inconsistencies in present eligibility rules, guidelines and regulations. This would provide adequate basis and information for a recodification of existing legislation and administrative rulings. The arguments for unified funding to implement a consolidated manpower policy are persuasive but politics is not an exercise in logic. Opposition can be foreseen both within and outside government. Federal officials responsible for administration of present programs may agree in principle to the need for consolidation, but they are unlikely to reach consensus on which, if any, existing agency should be the recipient of the funds and the administrative responsibility. But, even if internal obstacles are overcome, outside interest groups can be counted on to intervene and to resist change. The internal opposition can be expected to handcuff the Administration and leave the initiative to Congress. The vital question will be the ability of Congress to overcome the external opposition and agree upon a unified manpower program. SELECTED PUBLICATIONS of the INSTITUTE OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POVERTY AND HUMAN RESOURCES ABSTRACTS (PHRA) Established in 1966, this journal is published bimonthly. Included in each issue is an original trend article; special features on developments in human resources, poverty and manpower; a review of Washington developments; 50 full-length abstracts; and 200-plus annotations. Additional information services are available to subscribers. ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION: perfect bound edition, $40.00; loose leaf edition, $30.00. INDEX TO POVERTY AND HUMAN RESOURces infoRMATION This volume is published annually and contains 1500 separate bibliographic entries with appropriate keyword descriptors. Items may be located by author, subject matter or title. The only computer generated index of its kind in the field. $20.00. POLICY PAPERS IN HUMAN RESOURCES AND Established in 1967, the Papers are not published on a scheduled basis. Each paper is an essay by a leading expert on a current issue or topic in human resources or industrial relations. ORDERS FOR INSTITUTE PUBLICATIONS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: PUBLICATIONS OFFICE INSTITUTE OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS MUSEUMS ANNEX ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48104 |