Moving Participants From Public Service Employment To Unsubsidized Jobs Needs More Attention

Moving Participants From Public Service Employment Programs into Unsubsidized Jobs Needs More Attention

The public service employment (PSE) programs, funded by the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) of 1973, are the largest federally financed employment and training programs. They are administered at the federal level by the Department of Labor and at the local level by state or local governments, which are the prime sponsors. Each prime sponsor is assigned a Labor staff member, called the federal representative, whose responsibilities include monitoring the sponsor's CETA programs and providing technical assistance to the sponsor. About $12 billion was spent for public service employment programs during fiscal years 1975 through 1978. A review was made of five prime sponsors' programs to move PSE participants into unsubsidized jobs. These sponsors, located in Connecticut, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington, spent about $116 million during fiscal year 1978. During fiscal year 1978, about 575,000 persons left the PSE programs. Statistics reported to Labor show that about 35 percent of them were classified as having unsubsidized jobs when they left the programs. The review showed that CETA programs have had limited success in moving participants from public service employment jobs into unsubsidized employment. Many persons stay in the programs for a long time. The 1978 amendments to the act provide a better framework for moving participants into unsubsidized jobs, but more improvements are needed. Labor needs to take a stronger and more active oversight role to ensure that state and local governments effectively carry out transition efforts.

Catalog of reports, decisions and opinions, testimonies and speeches.

Includes legal decisions and opinions of the Comptroller General.

Addressing an issue of burning interest to every taxpayer, a Heritage Foundation scholar brings objective analysis to bear as he responds to the important—and provocative—question posed by his book's title. Of course, the answer to that question will also help determine whether the American public should fear budget cuts to federal social programs. Readers, says author David B. Muhlhausen, can rest easy. As his book decisively demonstrates, scientifically rigorous national studies almost unanimously find that the federal government fails to solve social problems. To prove his point, Muhlhausen reports on large-scale evaluations of social programs for children, families, and workers, some advocated by Democrats, some by Republicans. But it isn't just the results that matter. It's the lesson to readers on how Americans can—and should—accurately assess government programs that cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year. At the book's core is an insistence that we move beyond anecdotal reasoning and often-partisan opinion to measure the effectiveness of social programs using objective analysis and scientific methods. At the very least, the results of such analysis will, like this book, provide a sound basis for much-needed public debate.