March 25, 1966
Page 6833
THE CHALLENGE OF CREATIVE FEDERALISM
1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS: WHAT IT IS ABOUT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, perhaps at no time in the history of our Federal system has the issue of intergovernmental relations been of more critical importance. No longer is this a subject consigned primarily to political science classrooms, constitutional lawyers and scholars of American government. No longer is it to be ignored by public administrators as an abstract concept of conflicting governmental principles and differing laws. And no longer can Congress give this issue secondary priority. Intergovernmental relations lies at the heart of our rapidly changing Federal system of government.
Intergovernmental relations involves people: their health, their homes, their jobs, their rights as citizens, and their security as free men. When our governments do not apply their laws or allocate their resources effectively -- when they do not bring the full force of their programs to bear on social and economic problems – it is the people who suffer, and it is the Nation which loses.
During the past five sessions of Congress we have developed the most impressive package of Federal legislation since the depression to attack poverty, ignorance, economic distress, urban blight, discrimination, and other human problems. But the success of this legislation is only as good as the machinery which carries it to the people -- in the fastest, most effective way possible.
During the past two Congresses we have concentrated primarily on the substance of government; now the spotlight must be turned on the procedure. Here is where the new challenge lies.
President Johnson has recognized this challenge. In his recent State of the Union message to the Congress he urged that we must "move on to develop a creative federalism to best use the wonderful diversity of our institutions and our people to solve these problems and to fulfill the dreams of the American people." In the budget message, the President described his interest in more specific terms:
Many of our critical new programs involve the Federal Government in joint ventures with State and local governments in thousands of communities throughout the Nation. The success or failure of those programs depends largely on timely and effective communications and on readiness for action on the part of both Federal agencies in the field and State and local governmental units. We must strengthen the coordination of Federal programs in the field. We must open channels of responsibility. We must give more freedom of action and judgment to the people on the firing line. We must help State and local governments to deal more effectively with Federal agencies. We must see that information gets to the field and to cooperating State and local governments, promptly and accurately.
The President's concern with the improvement of intergovernmental relationships in our federal system is indeed most welcome, and it is extremely important to the task ahead.
Creative federalism, as I see it, involves both cooperation and competition of ideas and performance between all levels of government, between Government and private organizations, and between individuals. It is a partnership in the common objective of building our country and improving the lives of our citizens; but it involves a matrix of independent powers and differing methods of achieving this objective.
Creative federalism does not make the National Government the senior partner in this partnership, as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial alleged. Its primary reliance is on joint effort, joint planning, and joint programs with State and local jurisdictions, rather than on direct Federal action. This is symbolized most vividly by the expansion of the grant-in-aid device in Great Society programs.
Creative federalism is not a political maneuver to make the States and their localities financially dependent on the National Government. On the contrary, its financial contribution is merely a response to the staggering fiscal burden under which these jurisdictions presently labor. As a percentage of State local revenue, Federal aid has increased by a mere 4 percentage points -- from 11 to 15 percent -- between 1955 and 1965. And the projected figures for fiscal 1966 and 1967 are not expected to indicate a significant rise.
Creative federalism is not an administrative device for strengthening the power position of the Federal bureaucracy. The Federal civil service numbered some 2.4 million in 1946 and during
the past 20 years the figure has risen by only 200,000 employees. This is to be contrasted with the increase for State and local personnel: 4 million employees during the same period.
Moreover, those who know anything of the administration of Federal grant programs are fully aware that Governors, county executives, mayors, local planners, and citizens groups are neither inarticulate nor unwilling to fight for their viewpoint in the face of Federal administrative decisions they dislike.
Creative federalism does not imply that the national administration "can and should run the whole show," again as the Wall Street Journal editorial contended. Such an argument misses the entire purpose of our political tradition: that long-range national goals will never be achieved unless the Federal Government, the States, and the localities join voluntarily in seeking to implement them. Creative federalism, then, is based on the traditional American habit of sharing responsibility.
Finally, creative federalism is not concerned with the dialog of States rights or local rights versus centralized Federal power. This debate belongs to the past. Rather, it accepts the expanding role of State and local governments to take on greater political and administrative responsibilities as the Nation grows. At the same time, it relies on a strengthened Federal role to provide new ideas, incentives, and resources to the States and localities to meet common goals.
Our country is involved in a very real and costly ideological struggle with competitive world powers. It has taken the lead in using its own resources and manpower to assist underdeveloped countries and to protect them from oppression. This commitment will last for some time -- if anything, it is bound to get more involved. While we strive to maintain leadership on the world scene, we cannot afford inefficiency and undue discord between administrative levels of government at home. Healthy competition for better programs, easier and less costly administration, and higher performance are necessary and must be encouraged. But waste, corruption, incompetence, and neglect must be minimized. Our strength as a viable nation, in large measure, will depend on the effective and cooperative use of all components of our federal system.
Is this hope for a harmonious federal system naive and unrealistic in a country which thrives on politics, pressure groups, power struggles, profits, and proud bureaucrats? I do not think so.
A good politician knows the political mileage which can be gained by getting the job done well.
A businessman knows that productivity increases when the environment of workers is improved.
The Government administrator knows that his effort can be enhanced by improved management and personnel practices. And most citizens do not want to see their tax money wasted on ineffective administration. Every large corporation in this country concentrates on eliminating waste and duplication, and corporate officials are constantly seeking new ways to coordinate their efforts for better performance and productivity. We can expect no less from our federal system.
This is what intergovernmental relations is all about.
II. THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM
If improved relationships between Federal, State, and local governments are basic to the success of creative federalism, what are some of the problems, and how serious are they?
First there is the question of numbers: expanding programs, proliferating jurisdictions, and soaring budgets. Here are a few statistics. At the moment there are more than 170 separate Federal aid programs being administered by some 21 Federal departments and agencies, involving an annual outlay of over $14 billion. This is in contrast to a $4 billion total Federal expenditure 10 years ago for the same purpose. These Federal programs, in turn, are administered by more than 90,000 State and local jurisdictions which are expected to generate in 1966 an additional $80 billion to meet their public needs. Since 1948, these expenditures have tripled.
State and local jurisdictions now have a combined debt of nearly $100 billion -- a 420-percent increase over the 1948 figure. They employ nearly 8 million people to administer their services -- over three times the number employed by the Federal Government -- with a monthly payroll of $3.4 billion. The total monthly payroll for both Federal and State and local civilian public employment is almost $5 billion. With increasing population and urbanization, economic expansion and greater social responsibilities, combined expenditures are expected to climb even more rapidly. Population growth, especially in metropolitan areas, will trigger the expansion of governmental agencies, making the administrative task more complex.
These figures show the overwhelming part that the States and local communities play in our Federal system. They certainly dispel the notion that a centralized federalism is replacing the rights of States and localities to govern themselves. Rather, the facts make clear to me the tremendous burden which State and local governments must continue to bear in meeting public needs, and the overwhelming responsibility which the Federal Government has to help State and local jurisdictions obtain the maximum benefits of Federal aid and technical assistance so that they can plan and provide for the future. Complicated as this task may be because of the bigness of government and the fragmentation of local jurisdictions, it is imperative that the lines of administration from Washington to the local scene be cleared and strengthened for maximum program effectiveness.
A second major intergovernmental relations problem is one of administration -- or rather, attitudes about administration. The Senate Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee, which I am privileged to chair, recently completed a 3-year survey of Federal, State, and local aid officials to determine what they thought about the Federal system, and where the weak spots were. The results of this survey are both enlightening and disturbing.
We found substantial competing and overlapping of Federal programs, sometimes as a direct result of legislation and sometimes as a result of empire building. Similar competition and duplication were found at the State and local levels. We learned that too many Federal aid officials are not interested in, and in fact are even hostile to coordinating programs within and between departments, and that they are reluctant to encourage coordination and planning at State and local levels. These conditions frequently and predictably result in confusion and conflicting requirements which discourage State and local participation, and adversely affect the administrative structure and fiscal organization in these jurisdictions.
At the same time, Federal officials complained that State and local administration was understaffed, lacking in quality and experience, unimaginative, and too subject to negative political and bureaucratic pressures. They found a variety of State requirements and limitations blocking the application of Federal programs.
The subcommittee's survey indicated that there are too many special-purpose districts and authorities conflicting with, and ofttimes duplicating, general-purpose governments, leading to the impairment of efficiency and unwise borrowing procedures. The survey underscored the critical need for channeling better program and planning information to State and local decisionmakers; for special Federal aid to encourage the training of State and local administrators; for an extension of the merit system, and of the technical assistance program administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Division of State Merit Systems.
In short, we found conflict between professional administrators at the Federal level and less professional administrators at the State and local levels, between line agency officials and elected policymakers at all levels, between administrators of one aid program and those of another, between specialized middle-management officials and generalists in the top-management category, and between stand-pat bureau heads and innovators seeking to strengthen the decisionmaking process at all levels.
The picture, then, is one of too much tension and conflict rather than coordination and cooperation all along the line of administration -- from top Federal policymakers and administrators to the State and local professional administrators and elected officials.
III. FOUR AREAS OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFLICT
1. INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFLICTS AT THE METROPOLITAN LEVEL
Intergovernmental conflict and tension hit hardest at our metropolitan areas where more than 70 percent of our total population now lives. In 30 years, at least 85 percent of an estimated 300 million people will be living in these communities. In some areas it is becoming difficult to tell where one population center begins and another leaves off.
There is urban, suburban, and exurban sprawl, and at the same time there is an intensification of demand for central city living. With the increase of our economic growth, industries are expanding plants, services and offices within and around metropolitan areas in order to be close to markets and labor supply. Finally, when existing land becomes used up, new cities will have to be formed in more remote areas to further accommodate the process of population and commercial expansion.
As the cities spread out, the demand for more and better public services accelerates, and orderly planning becomes imperative. The potential chaos of too many people crowding into too limited space in our metropolitan areas is already apparent. The responsibility of local government is no longer one of merely maintaining law and order, and providing basic services. It concerns the development of a total environment for the people -- their housing, health, education. jobs, water supply, transportation, recreation, and their equal rights and opportunities as citizens.
A serious obstacle to achieving better public administration at this level is the haphazard proliferation of local governing units which has developed. The 1962 Census of Governments reported that there were over 90,000 such units operating among our 50 States. These included general-purpose governments such as counties, cities, boroughs, towns and villages possessing general public powers; and special-purpose districts such as school, fire, water soil conservation, and urban renewal districts, with more limited functions. Most of these jurisdictions have independent powers and responsibilities and taxing authorities as well as differing boundaries.
The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, in a 1961 report, has called this "a bewildering pattern because of their extreme numbers and their frequent territorial overlapping."
For instance, a single community near Chicago was found to be directly involved with two counties, three townships, a village, four school districts, a sanitary district, a mosquito abatement district, and a tuberculosis sanitarium district. Many of these jurisdictions had differing boundaries and separate authorities not under the control of any centralized authority.
Within the standard metropolitan statistical area of Chicago there were, in 1962, 6 counties, 246 municipalities, 114 township governments, 340 school districts, and 354 special districts. This intergovernmental complex involved over 6 million people.
The New York metropolitan area is a more terrifying example of governmental fragmentation: 17 counties, 551 municipalities, and more than 1,400 local units of government covering portions of a three-State area involving 17 million people. Its problems of coordinated planning and administration are further compounded by a number of regional authorities having jurisdiction over ports, roads, bridges, transportation facilities, water supplies and other services which are not subject to the control of any local government or area wide planning group. In addition, there are hundreds of units of government situated on opposite sites of State boundaries operating under different laws and financial authorities.
Lest we be misled that New York is unique, let me say that one eminent authority predicts that by the end of the century, the United States will possess at least five super-metropolises which will have the general complexity and geographical extent of the present-day Metropolitan New York.
The largest contributor to the intergovernmental confusion is the special-purpose district. This category of government accounts for nearly 58 percent of all local jurisdictions -- over 53,000 districts. Since 1952, special governments -- not including school districts -- have had a 50-percent growth rate. As metropolitan areas expand, this rate may accelerate.
Special-purpose governments or authorities are created for a variety of reasons. Some are formed to avoid State constitutional or statutory limitations on the tax rates or debt ceilings of general purpose governments. Others find this route -- whether for political or legal reasons -- an easier substitute for the annexation of cities and towns or the transferral of functions to county-wide governments. Still others promote the special district to remove a program from political control, to cut through red tape, or to give the program a special status for enlisting community support,
Whatever the reasons for setting up these jurisdictions, many public administrators, scholars, and political leaders find the special-purpose district or authority a genuine threat to local government coordination and democracy at the lower level. They say that these special governments separate essential programs -- urban renewal, water, public housing, transportation, sanitation -- from the central source of administrative control and make joint programing very difficult, if not impossible. As Prof. Roscoe C. Martin points out in his recent book, The Cities and the Federal System, Atherton Press, 1965, "special district government means special clientele and special pleader government," because in most instances the governing boards of these organizations are made up of persons not directly responsible to the voters. Dr. Martin states:
On the one hand, the citizen who participates here has his interest and energy diverted from the affairs of the city; on the other hand, he is likely to become prisoner to a myopic commitment to what is, after all, a sideshow to the main performance. Citizens who interest themselves particularly in urban redevelopment are distinguished by higher economic status, those who participate actively in school affairs by higher education, from the politicians who run the city.
Dedication to an individual program by a vigorous, purposeful, and specialized clientele may have adverse results not alone for the city but for the program itself, as for example, when the Realtors seize control of the local public housing program. In such a case the housing authority may find itself in the hands of people who are in fact opposed to public housing. Now and again the governing board by positive action or by default delegates all substantial decision making to the professional manager. This surrender, unhappily not uncommon, installs the bureaucrats in the seats of power. It represents the ultimate triumph of aseptic professionalism over politics. It may also mark the advent of utter irresponsibility.
By no means do I feel that special districts should be completely eliminated. There are many good ones, excellently run, cooperating with local general-purpose governments. But their expansion must be curtailed, and their enormous total cut down. Only where there are no alternatives to adequate administration should they be resorted to.
2. COORDINATION OF URBAN PROGRAMS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
Two years ago, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations analyzed Federal aid programs affecting urban development. It found no evidence of any unified Federal policy or organizational machinery for coordinating such programs in this area. Nor could the Commission find any positive policy on the part of Federal agencies to promote joint-project sponsorship of comprehensive planning among local governments involving a mixture of functions. What planning requirements there were, seemed to relate to the single function involved rather than to its impact on total development.
Similar findings with respect to the Federal attitude toward program coordination were made by the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations in its recent survey, "The Federal System as Seen by Federal Aid Officers":
The great majority of these middle-management administrators are unsympathetic to efforts at the national or urban field levels which are geared to interrelating Federal urban development programs and to injecting a broad-gaged metropolitan viewpoint into the administration of such programs. And most of this distrust is rooted in fear fear of change, fear of delay, fear of a dilution of individual program goals, fear of meddling by inexpert generalists, fear of dual or triple supervisory procedures, and fear of a diminution of bureau or agency autonomy.
The recently established Department of Housing and Urban Development is designed, at least in theory, to bring together Federal policies to improve our urban areas. Its enabling legislation directs the Department to "assist the President in achieving maximum coordination of Federal urban programs," and instructs the new Secretary "to exercise leadership, at the direction of the President, in coordinating such Federal activities." Thus it would seem that the President is the chief urban coordinator, and insofar as he delegates the power, the Secretary of HUD is to be the President's man in hammering out joint action policy.
However, it must be remembered that HUD has been given direct control of a comparatively small segment of the 100-odd Federal programs affecting our cities. It houses, among other things, FHA and FNMA, urban renewal, college dormitory construction, public housing, mass transportation, basic water and sewer facilities, and metropolitan planning.
These are indeed important programs, but they are only a part of any real urban development. Primary, secondary, and higher education, health, welfare, anti-poverty, air and water pollution, manpower and employment, road building, economic development, and other Federal assistance programs have an equally critical impact.
HUD, in essence, is another department among formidable equals such as HEW, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. Its powers of coordination -- yet untested -- are only as effective as the degree to which these other Federal agencies will give up some of their autonomy and cooperate.
If the past record of voluntary cooperation among Federal agencies is any indicator, HUD will have tough going unless a strong and positive mandate of program coordination is assured for this new department, and effective machinery for carrying out that mandate is put into operation.
At this time, I am not sure whether the mandate or the machinery for effective coordination is sufficiently strong to pierce the veil of traditional Federal functionalism, and to spur interagency cooperation. As for the machinery, I have particular doubts in the light of HUD's new organizational plan.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development Act specifically provides for an Office of Urban Program Coordination to "assist the Secretary in carrying out his responsibilities to the President with respect to achieving maximum coordination." Congress created this office by special amendment to the original bill because it believed that the Secretary, to be effective, would have to have a full-time, high-level staff working directly with him to "maintain close liaison with other Federal departments and agencies," and "consult with State, local, and regional officials" -- Senate Report No. 536, 86th Congress 1st session, Committee on Government Operations.
However, under the HUD organizational scheme, the Office of Urban Program Coordination has been given a secondary position in one of the six divisions of the Department, and instead of sitting at the Secretary's right hand as Congress intended, its Director finds himself tucked away under six assistant secretaries and the Under Secretary, which leaves serious doubt in my mind whether he will ever be able to get an effective accommodation in his own department, let alone someone else's. If he does not get that cooperation, the whole cities program could well break down. It is that serious.
The proposed demonstration cities bill provides for a local Office of the Federal Coordinator headed by directors to be placed in each municipality having a demonstration program. The intent is that he must help to achieve maximum effective coordination of Federal grant-in-aid programs. This means all Federal programs. How can such a coordinator be successful in his community, in his relations with State and local officials, unless everyone knows -- Federal agencies included -- that he is backed up in Washington by a top, tough, decision making official who will go to bat for him, and by a strong executive policy of Federal coordination? Without such backing from Washington, the director would be little more than a program information service.
It may well be that the recently-proposed housing legislation -- S. 2842 , Demonstration Cities Act, and S. 2977, Urban Development Act -- will improve the situation, but there is still the basic difficulty -- perhaps more acute at the middle-management level of the Federal bureaucracy than at the top -- that Federal agencies are jealous of their functions and are, in the main, hostile to coordination.
I intend to explore this problem at greater length during the forthcoming hearings on the new housing legislation. In my opinion, the issues of program coordination and comprehensive planning go to the heart of economic and social development, whether it is in the cities, the suburbs, or our rural communities. Those responsible for these matters should be at the top of the haystack, not somewhere down in the straw.
3. FEDERAL COORDINATION AND THE ANTI POVERTY PROGRAM
We have already begun to see where the lack of coordination and cooperation between Federal departments and agencies is working a serious hardship in the war on poverty. The staff of the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations has just completed a 3-month survey of the opinions of over 40 top-ranking people working in this important endeavor. This involved officials of the Office of Economic Opportunity as well as other Federal agencies, representatives of State and local governments, welfare organizations, the poor, the Negro, labor, and business.
If there was one complaint which was heard more than all others, it was that Federal resources are not being effectively marshaled to zero in on hard-core areas of poverty, and that the OEO does not have sufficient powers to enforce adequate coordination at the Federal level, or encourage it at State and local levels. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has termed this "the most important threat" to the local poverty effort. In a recent report, the mayors said that community action agencies were "continuing to encounter difficulties in getting comprehensive programs underway because of a serious and continuing lack of coordination at the Federal level."
The mayors pointed out that Federal agencies were not implementing the preference provisions of the Economic Opportunity Act which was working to a particular hardship. Section 612 of the act requires to the extent possible that the head of each Federal agency administering a Federal program is directed to give preference to any application for assistance or benefits made by an approved community action program. It is not clear whether this section means preference in taking up and processing the application or in granting the aid, but whatever the meaning, the survey revealed that not one local government representative interviewed knew of a single instance where a local CAP application had received any special attention. The mayors' report concluded:
If coordination is to become a reality in the community, someone needs to be able to say that when interagency conflict occurs one practice or project is to prevail over another. This is not now possible, considering the multiple Federal units that are unilaterally dealing with both public and private agencies at the local level.
Virtually, all of those involved in these sessions agreed that some clarification of authority is very much needed to help determine program priorities. The clarification needs to take place both in Washington and at the community action level.
At its recent meeting in Washington, attended by over 300 CAP poverty administrators, the National Association for Community Development demanded that presently fragmented Federal programs such as Neighborhood Youth Corps, adult literacy, work experience, youth opportunity centers, be funded as an integral part of a comprehensive manpower effort, coordinated at the local level by the CAP, and at the Federal level by the OEO.
A policy statement issued by NACD on the principles of coordination and preference in community action, contained the following comment:
The community action programs are faced with a statutory responsibility to serve as the central coordinating device for the war against poverty at the local level. Attempts to carry out this responsibility have proven especially difficult in the area of manpower development and employment programs in large part because this central plan and coordinating role is not afforded priority in Federal bureaucratic practice.
There is language in the Economic Opportunity Act which recognizes the need for coordinating Federal programs affecting poverty, and there is some attempt to provide machinery for getting the job done. But the language is not sufficiently clear, nor the machinery sufficiently strong to provide the necessary powers to enforce coordination.
Section 611 (a) (1) of the act authorizes the Director of OEO to "call upon other Federal agencies to supply such statistical data, program reports, and other materials as he deems necessary to discharge his responsibilities and to assist the President in coordinating the antipoverty efforts of all Federal agencies."
Finally, section 604 of the act provides for the establishment of an Economic Opportunity Council which "shall consult with and advise the Director of OEO in carrying out his functions, including the coordination of antipoverty efforts by all segments of the Federal Government."
This Council includes the Director as Chairman; the Attorney General; the Departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare, Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business Administration, and others.
Nowhere in any of this language is there a definitive mandate to Federal departments to get together and work out coordinated poverty programs with the OEO in the various phases of poverty. Nor is OEO given any substantial powers to require such coordination of programs. Nor is anyone -- other than the President -- given any real authority to pull the Federal establishment together to focus on poverty problems and poverty areas.
The language in this act is more the expression of an intent that there ought to be coordination -- voluntarily arrived at -- rather than a positive procedure for getting the job done.
The Economic Opportunity Council could be the binding force between Federal departments and the State and local governments on poverty matters, but it is not. There have been only a few meetings during the past 16 months, and each of these was general in nature, with no substantial consideration of the problem of coordination. There is no secretariat, but certain employees of the agencies are designated to be liaison officers on poverty matters and on the drafting of the Council's agenda. None of the representatives designated to work with the Council are of sufficient policy rank to grind out a meaningful cooperation policy. Community action directors and OEO personnel are forced to resort to a series of complicated ad hoc relationships with agency personnel in order to develop joint-action programs.
4. NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Next only to the problems of obtaining interjurisdictional harmony in joint-action programs is the lack of quality and experience in governmental manpower at State and local levels. Confronted with urban congestion, slums, water pollution, juvenile delinquency, racial tension, chronic unemployment, rising tax rates, and suburban sprawl, State and local governments now function in an age of unrivaled administrative complexity. Never before has the need for professional competence and efficiency been so critical at these levels of government.
The Municipal Manpower Commission's study of this topic found that "our Government institutions are ill-prepared to make the necessary decisions, and to act on them." The Commission conducted an extensive study of State and local personnel systems and closely examined the so-called "manpower crisis." The Commission emphasized:
It is impossible to separate the performance of local governments from the abilities of their personnel. Ordinances are not selfexecuting, highways are not self -constructed, and no other service of local government has meaning except as it is planned, directed, and delivered by people. Persons with technical and managerial skills provide the special knowledge, background, continuity and imagination needed to keep private and public organizations abreast of new situations.
The primary need of State and local governments is to attract and retain quality personnel. And the national demand for skilled manpower is rising sharply. Compared with an 18-percent increase in the total number of workers of all kinds, the U.S. Department of Labor foresees a rise of 40 percent in the number needed for professional and technical jobs. Even today New York City has been losing qualified employees through resignation and retirement. Of the roughly 30,000 positions classified as professional, technical, and managerial about one-fifth are unfilled. Statistics compiled by the Manpower Commission show that more than one-third of all municipal executives are within a decade of retirement.
This problem is further complicated by the failure of educational institutions to prepare young people for Government service. The Municipal Manpower Commission warned:
The schools and colleges are failing to equip young men and women for careers in the specialized fields of local government. A few institutions strive to meet this need, but their number is small and the total supply they generate is totally inadequate for the present and future needs. The courses in urban economics, urban sociology and local government, offered in too few universities, are generally not functionally or operationally oriented.
Unfavorable working environments and inadequate personnel systems discourage both prospective employees and careerists. Too often, administrative personnel are given assignments without clear objectives, are frustrated by complicated intergovernmental structures, and find that the public holds them in low esteem. Compensation is substantially below industry standards.
Career development programs, including opportunities for job mobility, in-service training and promotions are minimal except in some of the larger jurisdictions. Lack of effective merit systems permits the loading of agencies with incompetent , uninspiring and often indifferent personnel. Responsible administrators are often frustrated by inflexible rules and regulations dictating whom they may hire; whom, when, and how they shall promote; and whether, if at all, they may discipline or fire the incompetent or insubordinate.
The Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, in its survey of Federal officials, called for a basic program of personnel improvement to broaden the basis of administrative cooperation and minimize much of the conflict that exists in Federal-State-local relations. It listed seven basic needs as follows:
Modification of the Hatch Act in order to vary the kind and degree of neutrality required with the nature of the responsibility discharged at State and local levels.
Improvement of State merit systems arrangements, giving the Governor greater discretion.
Modification of traditional methods of patronage and specialization.
Improvement of in-service training programs for personnel.
Expansion of the technical assistance for personnel administration to States and their localities now provided by the Division of State Merit Systems of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Provision for the Civil Service Commission, individual Federal agencies, and private organizations, such as the Brookings Institution, to establish a series of intergovernmental institutes and seminars which would bring together Federal, State, and local administrators of the same or even dissimilar aid programs.
IV. SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR IMMEDIATE AND LONG-RANGE ACTION
1. COORDINATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
We can hardly expect State and local jurisdictions to coordinate their programs and services if the Federal house is not in better order. Thus, one of the first items of business should be a wholly new policy of coordinating Federal aid, and working with State and local governments to help them improve their financial resources and administrative effectiveness. It is now quite apparent that the present use of interagency committees and councils is just not sufficient to meet this need. Most of these coordinating agencies are understaffed -- if staffed at all -- meet too infrequently, and concern themselves too often with vague pronouncements rather than specific ground rules for integrating programs. In addition, while many departments and agencies have designated officials to handle their own intergovernmental relations, those officials are too far down the chain of command to be effective. The two areas -- better program coordination and better interlevel cooperation -- should be the major concern today of top domestic policymakers in the executive branch.
First. Consideration should be given to designating a special assistant to the President for program coordination and intergovernmental relations who would keep abreast of interdepartmental and interlevel conflicts and assist the President in solving them. At the same time, he could establish a more direct liaison between the White House and State and local leaders to improve State and local relations.
Second. This special assistant should, in turn, be aided by a topflight Bureau of the Budget official, equipped with a sufficient staff, which would make continuing investigations of intergovernmental problems and recommend policies for improving Federal-aid administration.
Third. To help both the special assistant and the President, the Bureau should develop -- far more than it is presently planning -- a computerized information clearinghouse system which could provide immediate information to the President and others concerning: (a) social, economic, and other basic characteristics of individual States and local areas; (b) efforts on the part of these jurisdictions to meet their growth problems and projected needs; (c) Federal aid programs which now are assisting specific State and local jurisdictions; and (d) those available Federal assistance programs which have not been utilized but could improve State and local programs.
Such a clearinghouse system would be of great benefit if it were linked to regional, departmental, and Bureau of the Budget levels, with each providing pertinent information concerning its particular jurisdiction. The Civil Service Commission has recently initiated Federal Information Centers in 55 major communities throughout the country. Regional computerized clearinghouses could be located at these offices, thus providing a meaningful "one-stop shopping center" for local officials and others.
Fourth. At the department and agency level, a deputy undersecretary -- or his equivalent -- should be given a full-time responsibility for the coordinating of aid programs on a department, interdepartmental, and intergovernmental basis, and he should work directly with the special assistant to the President in formulating coordination guidelines and in identifying the more serious problem areas. To assist him in this task, a special staff should be assigned.
Placing the responsibility for coordination and Federal-State-local relations in the office of the undersecretary puts muscle into the program, and brings the machinery for coordinating the coordinators much closer to the Secretaries and to the President. One wonders how many Watts-type riots might be avoided -- or at least mitigated -- with this new approach. As a matter of fact, I had expected that HUD would put its Office of Urban Program Coordination in the immediate charge of the undersecretary, and -- as I have stated -- I think it has made a strategic mistake in not doing so.
Fifth. What about Federal coordination in the field? Here HUD is to be commended. According to its new organizational scheme, it has brought all of its functions at the regional level under a regional administrator from whom it expects "strong local-level program leadership and coordination through decentralization of operations.” Secretary's Organization Order No. 2, February 24, 1966.
But other Federal departments with key aid programs would do well to follow its example. In particular, regional offices should be set up in accordance with standard geographical boundaries.
Each should be headed by a regional director who would represent the secretary or agency chief on all matters in the area, and be responsible for coordinating all departmental activities at the regional level, and for achieving similar coordination with other agencies. The regional director should be given sufficient decision-making powers to implement this coordination, and to the largest extent possible, resolve intergovernmental conflicts. This regional director and his staff could be a very important information source to the Secretaries. Bureau of Budget, and the President with respect to interlevel problems and possible solutions.
Sixth. Ideas for developing improved intergovernmental relations at the local level are finding their way into recent administration proposals. Here again HUD has paved the way with its proposal for local program coordinators located in metropolitan areas to work with local government administrators to help them find their way through the maze of Federal programs, expedite applications for assistance, stimulate area wide planning, assist in resolving intergovernmental conflicts at the local level.
Seventh. Also to be commended is the proposal to establish one-stop shopping centers for local officials and others to get up-to-date program and planning information, government publications, statistical data, administrative counseling and data processing services.
Eighth. Consideration, however, should be given to creating Federal coordinators and services in State capitals or the benefit of State planners and the non-metropolitan communities. To some extent this has been done, but there must be more emphasis on Federal planning and technical assistance to encourage area wide and regional planning as it affects the broad scope of economic and social development.
Ninth. For long-range action, serious thought should be given to establishing permanent operating machinery in the Executive Office of the President for enforcing coordination guidelines laid down by the President, and for establishing working relationships with State and local leaders for a continuing assessment of their needs and for a speedy resolution of administrative conflicts.
One suggestion -- which I think makes a tremendous amount of sense -- would be the creation of a National Council for Intergovernmental Affairs -- NCIA -- chaired by the President and composed of those Cabinet officials and agency heads whose activities have a major impact on domestic grant-in-aid programs and intergovernmental relationships. Its membership would include the Secretaries of HUD, HEW, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, the Attorney General, the Director of OEO, the head of the Bureau of the Budget, the Chairman of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, and others.
Patterned somewhat after the National Security Council, this body would have an Executive Director, and a working secretariat composed of the deputy under secretaries representing the departments and agencies, and top-level executives independently selected and responsible to the Executive Director.
The Council would go far beyond the advisory responsibilities of the Bureau of the Budget and the Council of Economic Advisers. It would be an operating mechanism for developing the President's policies of program coordination, and overseeing their implementation. It would provide the forum for determining basic intergovernmental policies and provide the President with an immediate liaison with State and local governments.
At the same time, it could be the President's ombudsman, a watchdog for crises, a central domestic information agency and an inspector general for program effectiveness. It would be concerned with both urban and rural development as a multi departmental responsibility involving education, housing, transportation, public facilities, law enforcement, civil rights, and other issues. It would play a strategic role in long-range planning, and assist States and local governments in regional planning.
NCIA could also provide the leadership and the organization for calling conferences of Governors, mayors, and other leaders for a review of national and regional problems and for the development of new approaches to meet economic and social needs. Such conferences and special meetings with the Council's secretariat would be very helpful to the Federal Government in getting an up-to-date review of regional, State, and local problems. They would be helpful to the States and local governments because they would provide a forum for the airing of complaints and the discussion of new ideas.
Such a domestic security council could well be called on to use its experience and expertise in the domestic field to assist foreign countries in their own development programs. For instance, a national council of this nature might have been brought into immediate action by the President in his recent promotion of economic and social development assistance for certain Asian countries.
Although there may be differences between the United States and our foreign friends in terms of traditions and political and social outlooks, the technical lessons learned in building communities, cleaning up rivers, developing transportation systems, providing health facilities, and improving agriculture can be applied advantageously in most areas. Therefore, what we learn in America through basic and applied research, through industrial development and through the development of more efficient coordinated planning, we can apply to our commitments overseas to obtain maximum effectiveness.
As I see it, a National Council for Intergovernmental Affairs could be an effective substitute for various interdepartmental committees and councils that presently exist under various pieces of legislation.
I am presently preparing legislation which would embody the concepts of this suggestion of a National Intergovernmental Council, and I expect to introduce it within the next few weeks.
Tenth. Long-range action concerning federal field management should also be considered. Just as a National Council for Intergovernmental Affairs would provide the President with greater control over Federal programs at the national level, a similar overall coordinating mechanism should be created in each of the various regions of the country. Many competent observers feel that a large percentage of intergovernmental conflicts could be resolved at this level.
The suggestion is made that a Federal Regional Coordinator -- not connected with any department or agency -- be established to obtain across-the-board implementation of Federal programs in accordance with State and local comprehensive plans -- of course consistent with national objectives and standards. He would be the President's man in the field, concerned with effective interrelationships of programs, the efficiency of administration, the cooperation of Federal officials with their State and local counterparts, and the developing problem areas. He should have a competent staff to assist him, and a status which would be above all other Federal regional officials in his area.
If a National Council for Intergovernmental Affairs is established, this Regional Coordinator should be paid by it and made immediately responsible to its Executive Director. Prior to such establishment, he should be paid by the Executive Office of the President, and be directly responsible to a special assistant to the President and to the Bureau of the Budget.
The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, provides for the creation of regional planning commissions each with a Federal cochairman and governors -- or designates -- as members from the States involved. At the moment, this Federal member is responsible to the Secretary of Commerce. As these commissions develop, consideration might well be given to making these Federal cochairman Regional Coordinators. If this is feasible, they should be taken out from under the Secretary of Commerce and put in the Executive Of fice of the President.
Another long-range alternative which deserves attention is the suggestion that the Bureau of the Budget return to its system of regional field offices which was abandoned in 1953 as part of an economy move. In this situation, the Bureau of the Budget's regional director could be the President's Regional Coordinator, both with respect to Federal aid programs and planning, and to obtaining and providing essential information about regional needs, plans and trouble spots. He could also serve in the role as the President's intergovernmental liaison in the field.
Before leaving the matter of Federal field management, mention should be made of the Federal Executive Boards. Up to now, these organizations -- made up of department and agency chiefs in each region -- have been ineffective in coordinating Federal programs, except as they may apply to personnel or administrative expenditures. FEB chairmen have no meaningful powers, or separate staffing, and, except in limited situations, they have been given no real mandate to integrate substantive programs. There is much doubt as to whether the FEB's should be continued, but if they are to remain, they certainly should be strengthened, and used as active boards for coordinating Federal policy with respect to Federal aid, improvement in administrative practices, technical and planning assistance to State and local governments and problem identification. Chairmen should be assigned by the President on the basis of their ability and knowledge of Federal economic and social programs.
2. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIONS
For many years, State and local governments have been reluctant to organize their governing units and coordinate their programs for maximum efficiency. Whatever the historical and political reasons for this, most experts feel that this reluctance must be softened and a more positive approach to program coordination, regional and area-wide planning, and professional administration must be promoted. Many State and local officials agree.
First. Enactment of S. 561, the proposed Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, would be a very helpful step in encouraging these objectives. I was privileged to introduce this legislation in the Senate early last year, where it received wide bipartisan support. Its 42 sponsors include members of both parties, conservatives, moderates, and liberals, and small-State spokesmen as well as those from the larger urban States. It passed the Senate unanimously with improving amendments, and is now under consideration in the House.
Among other things, this legislation authorizes the President to establish rules and regulations for uniform application in the formulation, evaluation, and review of urban development programs and projects. It requires, as a matter of congressional policy, that Federal departments and agencies must take into account all viewpoints -- national, regional, State, and local -- in administering these programs. In particular, it requires that Federal aid for urban development, "to the maximum extent practicable," shall be consistent with and shall further the objectives of State and local plans. Consideration, says the bill, shall be given to all developmental aspects of the total urban community: housing, transportation, economic development, natural resources, community facilities, and the improvement of living environments.
The legislation makes it clear that Congress intends that Federal departments and agencies administering such programs consult and seek advice, one from another, through interagency mechanisms in order to assume fully coordinated urban programs. It stipulates that systematic planning presently required by highway, urban renewal and open-space programs, be extended to all Federal programs affecting urban development.
Mention has been made previously in this statement that local general-purpose governments must be given far greater authority to coordinate and control essential services at the local level, either individually or through joint councils, and that the existing Federal policy of favoring special-purpose districts must be discouraged. To meet these objectives S. 561 contains a requirement that Federal departments and agencies must, "in the absence of substantial reasons to the contrary" make urban development loans and grants to general-purpose units rather than special-purpose ones.
In the event a loan or grant-in-aid is to be made to a special-purpose district, the governing authority of the general-purpose district affected must be notified and shall have the opportunity to have its comments made a part of the loan or grant application, This provision does not bar the use of special districts and authorities, but it does put Congress on record as favoring local units of government that are responsible for a wide range of functions and are directly involved in the difficult political task of reconciling conflicting interests and public needs.
The bill goes further. It provides that after June 30, 1966, any application for the construction of hospitals, airports, water supply and distribution facilities, sewage facilities and waste treatment works, water development and land conservation within any metropolitan area shall be submitted to the general-purpose government in whose area the proj ect is to be located, and no Federal action shall be taken unless that government certifies that such project is consistent with its planning objectives.
Under the legislation, each application for the programs cited above or for highways, transportation facilities, urban and open-space projects must be accompanied by the comments and recommendations of an areawide agency performing metropolitan or regional planning and a statement by the applicant that it has considered such comments and recommendations prior to presenting the formal application. The Federal agency receiving the application need not be bound by any negative recommendation of the areawide agency. Such agency, it should be carefully noted, will, to the greatest practicable extent, be composed of, or responsible to, the elected officials of the area's units of general local government. This guarantees that planning will not be divorced from politics, a most important point.
S. 561 also provides other helpful procedures. It requires that State Governors be informed of facts about Federal aid programs to give them a better chance to prepare the State budget and to improve State planning. It seeks to systematize and simplify accounting procedures for the handling of Federal programs, and to provide for specialized and technical services to State and local governments on a reimbursable basis.
Second. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations has, over the past 5 years, made some excellent studies of ways in which State and local governments can improve the administration of public programs and provide for more orderly urban development. The Commission's recommendations must receive serious consideration by all levels of government.
The Advisory Commission is a bipartisan body of 26 members established by Congress to give continuing study to relationships among all levels of governmerit. Its membership includes Members of Congress, officers of the executive branch, Governors, State legislators, mayors, county officials, and representatives of the public at large.
Its major proposals are incorporated in a very important and comprehensive document entitled the 1966 State legislative program of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D.C., 1965, and are presented under three subject headings: "I. Taxation and Finance"; "II. Urban Problems"; "III. Other Intergovernmental Problems." Each proposal is accompanied by a highly professional draft of specific legislation which could be enacted into law by the States. At the end of the document, there is a table indicating which proposals have been endorsed by the Governors' conference, the National Legislative Conference, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Unfortunately, time does not permit a discussion of these proposals here. I do seriously urge that State and local legislators and officials obtain a copy of the 1966 program and read it thoroughly.
It provides a splendid format for modernizing State and local government administration.
In addition, the Commission during the past 6 years has published over 35 comprehensive study reports with respect to State and local financing, taxation, planning, legislative apportionment, implementation of Federal aid, governmental reorganization and other key issues. These provide a basic library for those interested in State and local reform.
Third. The Federal Government can make a major contribution to the overall effectiveness of joint-action development programs by encouraging State and local governments to improve the competence and efficiency of their administrative personnel. After all it is these governments that carry the bulk of the responsibility for making the Great Society work. It is Congress' responsibility to help them. Certain needed improvements are imperative.
The merit system should be extended to more grant-in-aid programs; this type of requirement now covers only health, welfare, employment, security, civil defense, and a few other programs.
A program of Federal financial and technical assistance to State and local governments for strengthening their personnel administration should be established on an across-the-board basis and should be geared to critical personnel management problems that have emerged in our metropolitan communities. In addition, Federal agencies should be allowed to permit State and local employees to participate in their training courses; those Federal agencies administering grant programs should be authorized to conduct training for such employees and to permit such grants to States and localities to be used for educational leave.
In order to encourage and strengthen the training and development of State and local career employees, particularly in the professional, administrative, and technical fields, the Federal Government should launch a grant-aided in-service training program for these civil servants. We must recognize that the success of joint Federal-State-local programs, in large measure, depends on effective action in this area.
Serious consideration should be given to the suggestion that a national public administration college comparable to the National War College be established. Its faculty could be drawn from top and middle management officials at all levels, and from qualified academicians. In addition, consideration might be given to establishing a Federal fellowship program for State and local employees in midcareer to enable them to invest a year in graduate education in order to increase their professional competence.
Shortly I shall introduce a proposed Intergovernmental Personnel Act which will include many of these recommendations.
CONCLUSION
Stimulating the States and local jurisdictions to plan for their expanding needs and to coordinate their own resources is admittedly a difficult task.. Some observers feel that the political and competitive traits of these jurisdictions make this task impossible. I disagree. Governors, county commissioners, mayors, and other public officials seriously want to do a better job of meeting the mounting needs of their constituents. They do not want -- nor can their political reputations afford -- racial tension, transportation crises, poverty and disease, air pollution, water shortages, and crime and disorder in their streets. But more than ever today, State and local leaders are earnestly seeking a means to reduce jurisdictional conflicts. Indeed they expect the Federal Government -- as one of the partners under our Federal contract -- to assume its role in helping them carry out national programs. We must not f ail them.