A paradox exists within the
federal government with regard to population. Although many departments and
agencies administer programs which influence and are influenced by population
growth and distribution, these subjects have not, until very recently, been of
specific concern to either the executive or legislative branches. This
Commission has made a number of recommendations directed toward: (1) increasing
public knowledge of the causes and consequences of population change; (2)
facilitating and guiding the processes of population movement; (3) maximizing
information about human reproduction and its consequences for the family; and
(4) enabling individuals to avoid unwanted fertility.’
Many of these recommendations
require governmental action, and some can be carried out by existing
structures. But, in many cases, the recommendations illustrate the need for
changes in governmental structure in order to acknowledge and deal with
population issues, and to conduct research, develop policy, and administer
programs more effectively. In addition, legislative review of
population-related programs needs to be improved. We believe that both the
executive and legislative branches of the federal government must give greater
attention to population-related issues and programs.
The Commission
recommends that organizational chances be undertaken to improve the federal
government’s capacity to develop and implement population-related programs; and
to evaluate the interaction between public policies, pro grams, and population
trends.
Office of
Population Affairs, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
The Department of Health,
Education and Welfare was the first federal agency to begin giving serious
attention to population-related problems and is the major locus for both family
planning services and population research. In 1967, the Secretary appointed a
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population and Family Planning. Subsequently,
the title was changed to Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs.
P.L. 91-572, passed in 1970, requires the Deputy Assistant Secretary to
administer all family planning service and population research programs of the
Department, provide and support training of personnel, serve as a clearinghouse
for information, provide liaison with other agencies of the federal government
that have responsibilities relating to family planning services and population
research, and coordinate other Department of Health, Education and Welfare
programs that relate to these fields.
During consideration of P.L.
91-572, the Department announced that, in addition to the proposed statutory
powers, the Deputy Assistant Secretary would have line authority over the
contraceptive evaluation program of the Food and Drug Administration,
responsibility for preparation and presentation of budgets for family planning
services and population research, and adequate staff to carry out his
responsibilities. This authority would be exercised through two officials
selected by the Deputy Assistant Secretary and who would have dual appointments
within the Department. One would be named as an Assistant Director of the
National Institutes of Health for Population Research, and the other as an
Assistant Administrator of the Health Services and Mental Health Administration
for Family Planning Services. Both would also serve as special assistants to
the Deputy Assistant Secretary. Most of these arrangements have not yet been
carried out.
Recently, the Secretary of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare gave the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Population Affairs overall departmental responsibility for coordinating
population education. As yet, however, there is no staff and only a small
budget has been requested to carry out this program.
We believe that creation of the
position of Deputy Assistant Secretary and the Office of Population Affairs was
a step toward giving population-related programs in the Department the overall
direction and coordination which they need. Although there has been some
progress in this direction, it has been limited by failure to carry through on
the specified arrangements.
We recommend that the capacity of the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the population field be
substantially increased by strengthening the Office of Population Affairs and
expanding its staff in order to augment its role of leadership within the
Department.
National
Institute of Population Sciences
As we noted earlier, the
financial commitment to population research is not sufficient to deal with the
problems presented. The Commission believes that the institutional framework
for the population research program is also inadequate.
The primary focus of the
federal population research program is the Center for Population Research—an operating
unit of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The
Center supports research in the development of new contraceptives, the medical
effects of existing methods of fertility control, and the social and behavioral
aspects of population change. Although creation of the Center was a worthwhile
development in 1968 when the government was first beginning to acknowledge the
need for population research, the program has now outgrown this organizational
arrangement.
In addition to population
research, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development houses
research programs in aging and early childhood development. Both of these are
important fields, requiring significant research efforts, but population
research has been growing at a much faster rate than the other two programs.
This results in two problems. First, advocates of research in aging and early
childhood development believe that population research is being advanced at the
expense of their programs. Second, administrators of the Institute have felt it
necessary to maintain some balance among its programs. This appears to be at
least part of the reason why population research has not been funded at its
authorized levels. If all of the funds recommended by this Commission for
population research in fiscal year 1973 were approved, it would be funded at a
level greater than the other programs combined. It is apparent that the
additional large increases recommended by the Commission for ensuing years will
be difficult if not impossible to achieve under the present arrangement. All
three areas of research— aging, early childhood development, and population
research—could benefit from moving the population research program from the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
A greatly expanded and more
focused population research effort is needed. In addition to strengthening
programs in basic and applied reproductive research and evaluation of
contraceptives, the behavioral research program must be significantly enlarged.
In addition, the population research program must have the prestige to attract
the very best investigators.
Creation of a separate
institute should provide a stronger base from which this increased effort can
be directed. It would facilitate acquisition of qualified personnel, laboratory
and clinical space, and other resources necessary for a diversified research
program. It would increase the visibility of the population research program,
signal to the world that it ranks high among our research priorities, and
should help in commanding the level of funding that we believe is necessary but
which has not been forthcoming.
We therefore recommend the establishment,
within the National Institutes of Health, of a National Institute of Population
Sciences to provide an adequate institutional framework for implementing a
greatly expanded program of population research.
Department of Community Development
Programs affecting population
distribution are scattered throughout the government. For example, the problems
of growth and development of urban, suburban, and rural communities are closely
related but, depending on their size, communities that seek help for planning
and constructing public facilities must deal with one or more of three
different departments that support these activities.
We believe it is necessary to
make organizational changes to coordinate and, in some cases, consolidate
existing urban and rural development programs and provide a locus for the
studies of population growth and distribution necessary for policy development
and program implementation in the areas of housing, economic development,
transportation, and other related fields.
Congress is currently
considering legislation that would establish a new Department of Community
Development.* Under this proposed reorganization, a single federal department
would administer the major programs of assistance for the physical and
institutional development of communities—for planning and building houses, for
supporting public facilities and highways, and for strengthening state and
local governmental processes. Among the programs which the reorganization would
move to this Department would be all of the programs of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (except for the college housing program); the
highway construction and mass transit programs of the Department of
Transportation; the rural electrification, public facilities, and housing
programs of the Department of Agriculture; the programs of financial and
planning assistance for public works and development facilities (except
business development) of the Economic Development Administration of the
Department of Commerce, and that Department’s Regional Action Planning
Commissions; and the Community Action and “special impact” programs of the
Office of Economic Opportunity.
*A separate statement by Commissioner Alan
Cranston. appears on page 153.
This proposal is one of four
submitted by President Nixon for reorganization of the federal departments.
Each of them raises a great number of issues that are not our concern and on
which we are not qualified to comment. However, from the perspective of better
facilitating and guiding population distribution, coordination and
consolidation of urban and rural development programs is essential. The
proposal for the Department of Community Development does not include a
specific provision for the increased research in population growth and
distribution which we feel is necessary for adequate policy formulation and
program development within its areas of concern. This should be provided for in
the new Department.
We therefore recommend that Congress adopt
legislation to establish a Department of Community Development and that this
Department undertake a program of research on the interactions of population
growth and distribution and the programs it administers.
There are other functions
necessary to the formulation of a coherent national development policy which we
believe cannot be handled adequately at the departmental level, but require a
higher level of authority and perspective. These are discussed in the next
section.
Office of
Population Growth and Distribution
Our government has no explicit
population policy. Federal programs generally operate without regard to their
effects upon population growth and distribution or how shifts in population
patterns affect programs. The Commission believes that population-related
factors must be given much more weight in the future development and
implementation of a variety of federal policies and programs. Moreover, the
content of a population policy would not be inflexible, but would need to be
adjusted over time in the light of emerging developments, increased knowledge,
and changing attitudes of both policy makers and the general public. To
accomplish this requires much more than strengthening the Office of Population
Affairs within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare or establishing
a
Department of Community
Development. What is needed is an organizational unit with the ability to take
the broadest possible view of population issues, to transcend individual
departmental points of view, and to develop and formulate coherent population
policies. This can be done most effectively from the Executive Office of the
President which is able to coordinate the activities of all departments. This
new office should:
Establish objectives and criteria for shaping
national growth and distribution policies.
Monitor, anticipate, and appraise the effects
on population of all governmental activities— including health, education, and
welfare programs; urban and rural development programs; defense procurement
policies; and tax laws—and the effect that population growth and distribution
will have on the implementation of all governmental programs.
Provide for the review, integration, and
coordination of population programs, giving consideration to the role played by
nongovernmental resources and institutions.
Assume responsibility for preparation and
submission of the biennial Report on Urban Growth required by the
Housing Act of 1970.
Assist state and other units of government
concerned about population matters in dealing with their problems.
In order to carry out
effectively the monitoring of federal policies for their effect upon growth and
distribution, the office should have the power to require, from federal
agencies, statements indicating that an agency has given consideration to
possible population-related effects of proposed programs and how programs in
operation have affected population growth and distribution.
The Office should report to the
President and the Congress annually. There should be an Advisory Committee
composed of experts in various population related fields, representatives of
interested groups, and other citizens. It is essential that such an office be
provided with the staff and funds necessary to carry out this range of
activities. To create an office within the Executive Office of the President,
and then require it to rely upon staff work from other federal agencies would
hinder drastically the development of the broad and impartial perspective that
is needed.
We therefore recommend the creation of an
Office of Population Growth and Distribution within the Executive Office of the
President.
There are a number of advisory
bodies within the Executive Office of the President that have broad
responsibilities over other areas of concern. These agencies have not, in the
past, given sufficient consideration to the effects of demographic variables on
the nation’s economic, social, environmental, and scientific life.
We therefore recommend the immediate addition
of personnel with demographic expertise to the staffs of the Council of
Economic Advisers, the Domestic Council, the Council on Environmental Quality,
and the Office of Science and Technology.
Council of
Social Advisers
Two years of study and
deliberation have demonstrated to us that population is intimately tied to
numerous social issues. Yet, innumerable social programs are undertaken by the
government each year without having any of the overall direction that we have
imposed upon our economic and environmental activities. The Council of Economic
Advisers and the Council on Environmental Quality keep the President and the
public informed of the effects of public needs and policies with regard to the
economy and the environment and recommend programs to assist economic growth
and stability and to preserve the environment. The Commission believes that
population and related social matters require the same level of attention.
We therefore recommend that Congress approve
pending legislation establishing a Council of Social Advisers and that this
Council have as one of its main functions the monitoring of demographic
variables.
If this legislation is passed,
if the Council is adequately funded and staffed, and if it shows that it will
give proper consideration to population problems, then it could and should take
over the functions and role of the Office of Population Growth and
Distribution.
Joint
Committee on Population
Congress has been the arm of
government most interested in population problems. It was the hearings
conducted by Senator Gruening, beginning in 1965, that first focused public
attention on the need for federally subsidized family planning and population
research programs. The urban growth policy provisions of the Housing Act of
1970 were a congressional initiative, and several bills urging the
establishment of a Commission on Population were introduced in Congress as
early as 1967.
However, jurisdiction over
population-related programs is scattered among many committees of Congress. The
P.L. 91-572 family planning services and population research programs are
within the purview of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the
House of Representatives. But family planning services authorized by the Social
Security Act and the Economic Opportunity Act fall under the jurisdiction of
the Ways and Means and the Education and Labor Committees respectively. Housing
legislation is handled by the banking committees of the House and Senate, while
transportation is the concern of the commerce committees. It is impossible to
combine jurisdiction over the many issues relating to population under one
committee. However, if congressional review of population matters is to be most
effective, some focal point within Congress is necessary. One committee should
have responsibility for studying issues from the perspective of their effect
upon population growth and distribution, for spotlighting problems, and for
reviewing the implementation of federal programs in these areas.
In order to provide improved legislative
oversight of population issues, the Commission recommends that Congress assign
to a joint committee responsibility for specific review of this area.
State
Population Agencies and Commissions
Many of the recommendations of
this Commission require action by state and local governments. However, only a
few states have agencies which give serious attention to the problems of
population growth and distribution. One example of high-level attention to
state population problems is the recent report and recommendations of the
California State Assembly Science and Technology Advisory Council.
Only one state, Hawaii, has
established a population agency, and it is temporary. A poll conducted by he
State of Hawaii Commission on Population Stabilization showed that 22 states
have no specific agency concerned with these problems. In most of the remaining
states, population is the concern of planning, resource, or environmental
agencies. However, in responding to the Hawaii poll, 27 states indicated that
hey considered population growth a problem; four taxes viewed population loss
as a problem; and 12 states responded that distribution is a problem, including
six which define the problem as one of both growth and distribution. Forty-one
states reported that they would like to meet with representatives of other
states to discuss population and what might be done at federal and state levels
to influence growth. This interest and concern should be stimulated.
The Commission recommends that state
governments, either through existing planning agencies or through new agencies
devoted to this purpose, give greater attention to the problems of population
growth and distribution.
Private
Efforts and Population Policy
We have taken the position that
population growth, size, and distribution are too important to be left to
chance in the formation of public policy, and that they require a continuing
and conscious effort by government to assess the demographic impacts of
alternative policy proposals. We believe that population problems are complex,
that they are and will continue o be of critical importance to American
society, that ye are only in the beginning stages of learning how to deal with
these problems as a matter of conscious policy and programming, and that these
problems will require sustained attention over a period of years.
To maximize the government’s
ability to cope with population issues requires that the private sector use its
independence and flexibility to facilitate policy formation. This may be done
through policy-oriented research and analysis, monitoring and assessing change,
education and training, and communication of the results of these processes to
relevant publics. The private institutions which currently have some
relationship to population policy include universities, voluntary and
professional organizations, citizens groups, private corporations, and, private
foundations. The normal interests of these institutions, individually or collectively,
do not presently ensure an adequate overall private effort.
For example, the normal
interests of discipline-oriented academic institutions do not necessarily
assign priority to studies essential to policy formation. Even when academic
research produces findings directly relevant to policy formation, they are
often not made available in forms which are understandable to and usable by
policy makers. Many critical policy-related studies in the last decade did not
emerge as planned products of the academic research on which they were based,
but rather as a result of reanalysis stimulated by groups closer to the
policy-formation process.
Similarly, universities and
other institutions which have as their primary focus the population problems of
developing countries do not have the funds and personnel to be effective in
policy formation at home. Domestic population questions are complex enough to
require full-time concentration and commitment, free of pressure from other
priorities.
This concept of private support
for research and policy development has been utilized to deal with other
issues. For example, several independent organizations are devoted to research,
education, and publication in the field of economic policy. Among their
purposes are aiding the development of sound public policies and promoting
public understanding of issues of national importance. There is no reason to
specify an exact organizational model for activity required in the population
field, but we are at a stage of development in this area where major privately
funded activities in development of population policy are required.
We therefore recommend that a substantially
greater effort focusing on policy-oriented research and analysis of population
in the United States be carried forward through appropriate private resources
and agencies.