Mr. RowEN. We are very much interested in doing just what you are suggesting. The Department of Housing and Urban Development and Economic Development Administration, just to mention two agencies, are particularly interested in exploring and doing just this, finding ways of building up and improving the quality of the work of the relevant governmental jurisdictions, which in the case of metropolitan areas will be primarily these regional ones rather than the fragmented ones. Senator NELSON. I think those are all the questions. Do you have anything you would like to say, Dr. Enthoven? Dr. ENTHOVEN. No, sir. Senator NELSON. I assume after we have looked over the testimony and the questions, some other questions are going to occur to us based upon subsequent testimony. If we submit those in writing to you, you will be willing to respond to them? Dr. ENTHOVEN. Yes. Mr. RowEN. Yes. Senator NELSON. In response to Senator Javit's question, I do think it would be very valuable if you could give us an example of how you would apply the systems analysis technique to a social problem. Mr. RowEN. We will be very happy to do so. Senator NELSON. I find what is most difficult in talking to people is that the concept is not understood at all. This is what we are attempting to do, to get the aerospace industry in simple testimony, as to the contracts they handle in California, to give us a simple explanation of how it is done and what its value is and how it can be used by decisionmakers. If you can give us an example or two, I think it would be very valuable in our testimony. Mr. ROWEN. Yes, indeed. Senator NELSON. Thank you very much. (The material referred to had not been supplied when this hearing went to press.) (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 18, 1966.) SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER UTILIZATION ACT WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1966 U.S. SENATE, SPECAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, Senate Office Building, Senator Gaylord Nelson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Nelson and Murphy, members of the full committee. Senator NELSON. This morning we will resume hearings on S. 2662, a bill to mobilize and utilize scientific manpower of the Nation and to employ systems analysis and systems engineering to help the employed manpower resources, the Scientific Manpower Utilization Act. The first witness this morning is Mr. William Gorham, Assistant Secretary for Program Coordination of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, formerly Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Department of Defense. Mr. Gorham, will you proceed? STATEMENT OF WILLIAM GORHAM, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PROGRAM COORDINATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Mr. GORHAM. Thank you. I have with me Mr. Bateman, a senior systems analyst from my office. Senator NELSON. I would suggest then, as I did a moment ago, that I did not have an opportunity because I was out of town yesterday to read your statement in advance or I would have had some questions prepared. So, if you will read it, I will attempt to ask some questions as you go along. It would help the record if you think of something to elaborate on, if you will do it and if your assistant and Mr. Ross would both interrupt you at any time with a question or with an observation so that every point of value will be in the record. Mr. GORHAM. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to describe the application of programing and systems analysis being made in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the contribution which these techniques can make to more effective management, direction, and coordination of the Department's programs. Over the last year, the administration and the Congress have compiled an impressive record of legislative achievement. But, as you know, effective government does not end with developing, recommending, and enacting good programs. We have a dual responsibility-to the taxpayer and to those who benefit from these programs to make sure we are achieving our overall objectives in the most efficient and effective manner. The introduction of a planning programing budgeting system in DHEW and throughout the executive branch of Government will go a long way in helping to achieve this goal. If I might add at this point, Senator Nelson, the focus in social programs has been so much on getting attractive new programs through, that insufficient attention has been paid in the past to the balance of programs; that is, the level at which these programs go in. Senator NELSON. Are you making the point that it is not possible under the present circumstances for either the executive branch or the legislative branch to take total look and make any evaluations as to selecting one program versus another or predicting the total cost of all programs or projecting the total cost of each program? Mr. GORHAM. Exactly. Each new baby is held up and the question is asked. Do you want this baby? The Congress says yes or the Congress says no and they never look at the whole family together. Senator NELSON. And then suddenly the baby grows up, too? Mr. GORHAM. It does indeed. Senator NELSON. Proceed. Mr. GORHAM. Background and need. The modest collection of disparate units elevated in 1953 to form a Department of Health, Education, and Welfare have grown both in size and complexity. The first budget prepared by the new Department totaled $1.6 billion. Today we have more than 90,000 personnel engaged in the administration and management of programs which account for almost $10 billion of expenditures, or 20 percent of the nondefense budget of the U.S. Payments of about $20 billion to the nearly 21 million social security beneficiaries will bring the fiscal year 1966 expenditures of the Department to more than $30 billion. Income supplements alone account for about $23 billion. This includes social security and welfare payments. Senator NELSON. Is there anything other than that? Mr. GORHAM. No, the $23 billion is for social security and welfare. Senator NELSON. Do you have a breakdown on how much is welfare and how much is social security? Mr. GORHAM. Yes. Would you like that introduced? Senator NELSON. Yes. Mr. GORHAM. Well, we will do that. (The information requested follows:) Expenditures of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for public assistance and social security1 Disability insurance trust fund expenditures (benefit payments). Federal old-age and survivors insurance trust fund expenditures (benefit payments).. Miscellaneous trust funds....... Total, social security...... Total, public assistance and social security. 1 Source: 1967 Budget of the United States. Mr. GORHAM. The remaining $7 billion, matched in most cases with funds from State and local governments, is used to provide a wide variety of goods and services-hospitals, schools, occupational training, day care, research and development. The programs of the Department span the war on poverty; the prevention, control, and treatment of disease; the purity of our food, water, and air; the safety of drugs; and the advancement of knowledge through research and education. The importance and scope of these programs and the desire to manage them effectively provided the original impulse to establish the Department in 1953. In his message transmitting Reorganization Plan No. 1 of that year, President Eisenhower noted that its purpose was "To improve the administration of the vital health, education, and social security functions now being carried on by the Federal Security Agency by giving them departmental rank * The establishment of the new Department-will give the needed additional insurance that these matters will receive the full consideration they deserve in the whole operation of the Government." Similar recommendations had been made many times in the past. In 1923, President Harding proposed a Department of Education and Welfare, which was also to include health functions. In 1924, the Joint Committee on Reorganization recommended a new department similar to that suggested by President Harding, In 1932, one of the reorganization proposals of President Hoover called for the concentration of health, education, and recreational activities in a single executive department. President Roosevelt's Committee on Administrative Management in 1937 recommended placing the health, education, and social security functions in a Department of Social Welfare. This recommendation was partially implemented in 1939 by the creation of the Federal Security Agency. A new department could not be proposed at that time because the Reorganization Act of 1939 prohibited the creation of additional executive departments. In 1949, the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government proposed the creation of a Department for Social Security and Education. The need for organizing the health, education, and welfare functions into a single department stemmed from the growing involvement of the Federal Government in such problems as education, poverty, and unemployment. As the Nation grew, these problems and the solutions to them transcended local and State boundaries, although, generally, the Federal Government has sought to preserve the responsibilities of non-Federal units of Government in achieving the national purpose. The growth and diversification of Federal responsibilities alone would necessitate more central planning and direction of Federal programs. Equally important, the expansion of Federal programs has been accompanied by a division of responsibility among the various agencies for carrying out broad program objectives. Today, for example, the responsibilities for those programs aimed at breaking the cycle of poverty are found in the Commerce Department, Labor Department, Justice Department, the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and I am sure there are others. Within HEW we have vocational education programs, programs of aid to elementary and secondary schools for children from low-income families, higher education programs for needy college students, occupational training programs for the unskilled and unemployed, maternal and child health programs, and juvenile delinquency programs. Reflecting the fragmentation at the Cabinet level, these programs are the responsibility of many different bureaus in different constituent agencies within the Department. It is important that decisionmakers at the highest levels of Government have measures of how effective these programs are, how they compare with one another in achieving our overall objectives, which should be expanded, contracted, modified, or eliminated, and whether other alternatives are available which will do a better job. Let me say that one of the characteristics of social programs is that they are all attractive and therefore the need for evaluating the relative contribution of each is so much the greater. Social programs are very attractive for the Congress to pass. They are very attractive for the citizens who are affected. Therefore, evaluating the relative contributions of these many ways of effecting social welfare is very important. Today, the achievement of many of our major domestic economic and social objectives frequently requires the participation of more than one bureau, agency, or department. In many cases, action taken by one organization has an important impact on the program of another. The lines of demarcation among the various agencies have become blurred and we must now focus on the overall requirements to achieve our domestic policy objectives. This is true not only with regard to the allocation of resources among existing programs, but also with respect to the development of major new ones. Organizational problems: While the conferral of Cabinet rank gave more visibility to the important functions being carried out by the Federal Security Agency, the creation of the Department did not automatically insure a more |