The Act lists several groups of people for special attention, in addition to veterans: "low income persons and migrants, persons of limited English-speaking ability, and others from socio-economic backgrounds generally associated with substantial unemployment and underemployment" and "effectively serving on an equitable basis the significant segments of the population. "2 A comparison of EEA registrants with enrollees of manpower programs in 1971 reflects the differences in the populations served under PEP and those served in manpower programs in 1971: *Source: Manpower Report of the President, 1972 1. Section 2(1). 2. Section 7 (c) (2). -35 Although the EEA is written as though it were a manpower measure, the bill was designed as an employment program. The "emergency" nature of the proposal was not an emergency for the target groups listed in the Act, who had been suffering from an unemployment rate in excess of 6 percent throughout the previous period of low unemployment nationally. The emphasis, even in the title of the Act, was on "emergency employment." Although Congress wrote into the proposal all the requirements of a manpower program--designation of a disadvantaged group for training, provision of training, provision of steps for upward mobility, guarantee of a permanent job on completion of involvement in the program--these were written loosely enough to give the Labor Department the opportunity to broaden the interpretation of what Congress intended, to emphasize the goal of speed and to leave broad decision-making powers in the hands of the states and local communities. The emphasis on distributing jobs equitably among unemploye segments of the population warrants a careful examination of the characteristics of those who were hired and their relationship to characteristics of the unemployed. Because only 8 percent of the EEA participants were underemployed, the characteristics of the total sample should match the characteristics of the unemployed. -37 According to AIS data, the national average of EEA participants who are disadvantaged is 35 percent. However, the study sample indicated a higher frequency of employment for disadvantaged in urban areas--39 percent. No comparable data is available for the percentage of unemployed persons who are poor. 81 percent of all persons unemployed in the United States are white, including the Spanish-speaking. The national AIS data showed 76 percent of all those hired in PEP were white and Spanish-speaking; 24 percent Negro and others. areas comprising the study sample, 40 percent were Negro and 11 percent Spanish-speaking. The cities, particularly, are In urban to be commended for their successful efforts to involve minorities in the program. No current data is available on the educational qualifications of the unemployed, but data on the poor and non-poor (a reasonable equivalent) shown in Table V can be used to extrapolate. -38 Table V clearly shows PEP with a marked under-representation of the undereducated, and an equally marked emphasis on those who are high school graduates or above. 'Many groups suffering high unemployment have been seriously neglected under the Public Employment Program (Table XV, Appendix). Virtually no 16-to-18-year-olds are included, and only 11 percent of the enrollees are found in the 19-to-21-year-old category, despite the fact that 30 percent of all unemployed persons are 21 and under. No enrollees were in the 65 and over category, and only 5 percent were 55 to 64, while 10 percent of the unemployed are over 55. 41 percent of the unemployed are women, but only 27 percent of those hired under PEP were women. An example from San Antonio is representative of many: As part of the funding process, San Antonio 9 percent with 8 years or less of education 7 percent with 9 to 11 years (3 of the 45) 31 percent with 13 to 15 years (14 of the 45) Clearly, this illustrates an educational bias |