3. By establishing a Program Advisory Committee (PAC) for the purpose of advising the Director, DSA on matters involving programming, planning, budgeting, and other topics of resources management which are determined by the PAC to warrant Director action or decision.

The Defense Supply Agency has a "closed-loop" operating resources control system which incorporates all facets of P.P.B.S. It consists of 6 interrelated sub-systems, which are briefly described below:

a. The DSA Integrated Program/Budget System is the means by which workload forecasts and resource programs are established for each DSA functional program area. The workloads developed through this system, when equated in terms of personnel and nonpersonnel resources required for accomplishment, are the basis for the Annual Financial Plans and Staffing Programs established for each primary level field activity. Our performance appraisal utilizes the plans and objectives established through this system as the basis against which actual program performance and resources consumption are evaluated.

b. The DSA Cost Accounting System is related to the Program/Budget System through a common functional classification structure. It provides the basis for the collection of manpower and cost/expense data reflecting the manner in which available personnel and dollar resources are applied and consumed.

c. The DSA Management Information System is the prime progress reporting medium. Through recurring management reports, it provides basic data reflecting operating program results. This System accumulates manpower, cost and performance data which are deposited in a mechanized Headquarters data bank. This central data bank is the source of most of the data used in our monthly performance evaluation briefings for top management, as well as in monthly summary management data feedback reports.

d. The Performance Evaluation Reporting System is a computer-based reporting procedure which utilizes information in the central data bank to evaluate resources utilization in relation to program operating results. This system serves as an indicator of changed conditions which may require the reallocation of available manpower and funds between functional program areas or between commands. It provides a uniform method for appraising on a continuous basis, both at Agency Headquarters and fields activity levels, relative efficiency and economy in the utilization of available manpower and funds in the performance of assigned missions. Like the Management Information System, the Performance Evaluation Reporting System is a key element of the Director's briefings and our feedback to the field activities. e. The Performance Standards Program is DSA's implementation of the DoD-wide Defense Integrated Management Engineering System (DIMES). This program is the means by which the agency develops engineered-based standards for evaluating personnel productivity. It embodies in a single sub-system, the essential elements of a total management engineering configuration: methods improvements, standards development and standards application. It provides the basis for manpower and

work planning control at the local activity level, and provides yardsticks for use at agency headquarters in the recurring management reviews referred to above.

f. The Resources Control "loop" is closed by the Management Review System, which provides for recurring performance appraisal briefings to top management on a regularly scheduled basis. This provides a forum for the collective consideration by the DSA top management team of actual or potential problems related to the effective and efficient utilization of available resources. It includes monthly management reviews for the Director and his headquarters staff, as well as presentations at quarterly conferences of the agency's field commanders.

The DSA performs cost/benefit or cost/effectiveness studies on proposals involving new data or materials handling systems; real property investments, major equipment (over $1000 unit price) investments, significant special-purpose programs or projects, assignment or realignments of mission responsibilities for cost reduction purposes, and "new starts" involving Government versus private commercial sources for a product or service.

E. The agency staff has adequate impact on decision-making processes, consistent with the mission of the agency as summarized in the letter forwarding these specific responses. omg

It appears the question "Is agency staff adequately responsive to the needs to individual agency members?" was designed to refer to Commission type agencies in which the members of the Commission have dual responsibility for decision-making and for administering the agency. DSA's straight line type of organization assures the responsiveness of every level of organization to the level above. Our organizational structure also provides for adequate delegation of authority and for responsibility to be clearly fixed.

DSA does not have personal staffs in support of individual agency members except as this might apply to administrative type personnel who support the operating staff elements. This staffing is adequate for the effective performance of the Agency mission. However, the Director and subordinate field commanders are provided with special or personal staffs, as appropriate, such as an Inspector General, Public Affairs Officer and Counsel, which offices are adequately staffed.

The nature of DSA's responsibilities are such that employees can adequately perform the duties without the necessity for experience in another Government agency. Our close relationships with other agencies, primarily with Army, Navy and Air Force, are such that experience in one of these is highly desirable. In fact, because DSA's functions were transferred primarily from the Services, most of the upper level employees in the Agency have had experience in one or more of the miltairy services. DSA does have a rotational program to encourage middle and upper level employees to gain related experience in DSA field activities other than their own or in other related agencies. For example, employees engaged in civilian personnel management work in both the Headquarters and field have, over a period of years, participated in exchanges with the central office and regional offices of the Civil Service Commission.

DSA staff is not engaged in rule making or complex and sophisticated issues presented to the Agency. The staff, instead. are carrying out recurring functions under well-defined Agency or Departmental

guidelines. Experience has shown that persons who meet the Civil Service Commission qualifications standards for the particular positions to which they are appointed are adequate in quality to carry out the work. In addition, DSA has a substantial training program to insure that the necessary particular skills are offered to employees and that they have the opportunity to gain knowledge needed for advancement and to maintain their abilities in rapidly changing technical fields.

DSA does not have figures which show the previous employer of new hires. It is recognized that a substantial number of new employees have worked for the type of industry which may bid on Department of Defense contracts. In almost all cases, however, these employees are hired at the journeyman or other working levels, and not at policy making or upper decision making levels. Most of these upper level positions are filled by active duty military officers, by promotion of civilians from within or by transfer from other Department of Defense or Government agencies. The hiring of working level employees who have formerly been employed in industry is not considered undesirable in that there may be no other way in which substantial numbers of persons with the needed skills can be found, and because the Department of Defense contracting base does extend into so many industries.

Similarly, we do not have records to show how many employees who resign subsequently go to work for industries which are affected by the Department of Defense. Many of these employees are at the working level. We feel that the present conflict of interest restrictions adequately protect the Government's interest in cases such as this.

III. THE QUESTIONNAIRE

No effort was made to keep a detailed record of the manhours expended to complete Sections I and II. It was necessary to obtain responses from several different staff elements.

Development by the staff elements of responses to questions summarized in Sections I and II took conservatively an estimated 2 mandays (16 working hours). In addition, a considerable amount of time was expended in dissemination of the requirement and coordination. of the consolidated response throughout the DSA headquarters organization. For reasons stated in the letter forwarding these responses, the questions posed appear only indirectly related to DSA. Accordingly, no comment is submitted relative to some of the questions in Section III.

Responses of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

A. Office of Education

DEPARTMENT, OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., April 2, 1969. DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1969, and for your questionnaire on citizen involvement and decision making. I am sending you the completed questionnaire.

As I believe my replies to your questions indicate, the responsiveness of this agency to the needs and interest of the public is given considerable importance. Should you need additional information, please let me know.

Sincerely yours,

PETER P. MUIRHEAD,
Acting Commissioner.

RESPONSE BY THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

I. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

A. Citizens organizations relay their interests and concerns to the Office of Education either through their elected representatives or directly through meetings and correspondence. In these ways their special interests and attitudes are reflected as well as their choices of priorities and emphases. To improve this process, the Office of Education has established the Office of Coordinator for Citizen Participation. Through this office, continuous contact is maintained with such groups as the National School Volunteer Program. The Office has held, with the Institute for Educational Development and AT&T, an Industry Education Conference. Various ad hoc citizens committees for public schools are regularly provided information or technical assistance.

The Office of Education has nine regional offices located across the country which maintain a close contact with the citizens of their regions. Their proximity to the people results in both increasing the input from them, as well as disclosing interests, attitudes, and issues that are unique to their geographical locale.

B. The Office of Education has, at present, twenty-five public advisory committees composed of private citizens. The total number of such committees varies from time to time, but tends to stay around that number.

These advisory committees are involved in the decision-making and policy-making process to varying extents. In most cases, committees are consulted about such questions as guidelines, specific impetus of programs, future direction, and evaluation. By definition, their role may not be to make the final decisions, but rather is to give advice and make recommendations which are not binding on the Commissioner.

In some instances, some of the committees solicit the views of groups who might not otherwise be consulted by inviting them to testify at committee meetings or submit position papers.

In addition to advisory committees, many programs use Field Readers to review and evaluate proposals and projects. For example, the Bureau of Research has a catalog of more than 800 Field Readers. C. Last summer (1968) the top leadership of the Office met with representatives of the Poor People's Campaign and committed itself to a future meeting. A two-day meeting was subsequently held in October with sixteen representatives of the poor. Two of those people

have since been invited to serve on advisory committees, and a number are serving on panels of consultants.

To involve the poor at the local level, the Office of Education called, through guidelines, for the establishment of citizens advisory committees for a number of OE programs. In addition, the Office is seeking legislation requiring State and local authorities to involve parents and community representatives in the development, operation, and evaluation of programs conducted with Federal funds.

The Office of Programs for the Disadvantaged has sponsored a series of "grass roots" regional conferences designed to inform the poor of legislation in education from which that population may benefit. In addition, these conferences serve to evoke suggestions and recommendations from this population for improvement of educational services. Legislative proposals or modifications have also emerged from recommendations received.

D. In response to the Poor People's Campaign, a formal complaints office was established in the Office of Programs for the Disadvantaged. This office receives most of the complaints from the field and would channel them to the programs involved in the manner described below. There can be variations in the way that complaints are handled, however, most would follow the procedures of the Office of Programs for the Disadvantaged.

The Office of Programs for the Disadvantaged receives and processes complaints and recommendations concerning Office of Education programs which effect minority groups and the poor. When the Office of Programs for the Disadvantaged receives a complaint dealing with an Office of Education program, its first step is to contact the complaining party, by telephone if possible, for additional information and to ensure that the exact nature of the problem is understood. Where a more detailed written complaint is needed before action may be taken, this office advises the complainant as to what must be done. Next, this office takes the complaint to the division or persons responsible for the program in question; learns what action is intended in the matter; and relays this information to the complainant. The Office of Programs for the Disadvantaged then remains in touch both with those charged with resolving the problem and with the complainant to ensure effective communications between these parties until the matter is resolved. The complainant is encouraged to inquire of this Office at any time about the status of his complaint and to submit to the Office any additional developments which might relate to the case. Such additional information is relayed to all officials involved with the problem.

Occasionally, the complaint may relate to a number of programs outside the Office of Education, but within other units of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. In such an instance, the Office not only advises each of the concerned units on the nature of the complaint and of significant developments relating to it, but may also assist them in coordinating their efforts on behalf of the complainant.

There are, in addition to the types already stated, complaints on the raising of an issue which is of such a nature that it requires the soliciting of information, opinions, ideas, and facts from all of the various bureaus and offices. This is done, whenever appropriate.