Prime sponsors and their agents in order to assure fair and equitable participation of middle-aged and older men and women of all racial and ethnic backgrounds in CETA programs must include within any state plan an analysis of the universe of need of individuals they intend to serve by age and sex categories. The following groupings are suggested: Under 22; 22-39; 40-54; 55-64 ; 65+.

An appropriate reporting system should be standardized whereby Prime Sponsors and any Subcontractor can report comparative services to age groups on a quarterly basis.

Prime Sponsors should see to it that middle-aged and older individuals, familiar with the manpower and employment needs of workers over 40, are included in fair proportions of all state and local manpower planning committees.

Any Prime Sponsor with responsibilities for implementing a Ttitle II Public Employment Program must develop an Affirmative Action Plan to accommodate individuals within the protected group of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. All state and local government and/or public employers are now covered and bound by federal age discrimination in employment legislation.

Middle-age and older workers, by reason of their long neglect on the part of the Department of Labor, should be regarded as a new minority. Each Prime Sponsor, therefore, should be bound to submit within his state plan special training and technical assistance provisions to agents, or subcontractors on how to: Assess the needs of middle-aged and older workers within a community. Develop outreach capabilities to bring these older workers into CETA training and employment programs.

Develop special training methodologies and skill conversion techniques for middle-aged and older men and women.

Develop job placement strategies, in cooperation with other employment related agencies (e.g., the State Empolyment Security Agency) for those older individuals.

Appropriate Prime Sponsors should be informed and directed by the Manpower Administration that it is their responsibility to support all Senior Aide programs currently being funded by the Department of Labor through national contractors. These are programs of demonstrated effectiveness.

A separate title should be established under CETA that will address the manpower needs of the middle-aged and older worker, just as the Job Corps has been established for youth. It is important to note that although older workers were specifically mentioned along with Indians and youth in Title III, no money has ever been appropriated for this group.

Age discrimination in employment (ADEA)

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) has recently fostered significant legislative, administrative and judicial activity. The law's major objective is to eliminate discrimination against individuals between 40 and 65 years of age in matters of hiring, job retention, compensation or other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. ADEA promotes a policy of employment according to ability rather than age. Despite recent legislative improvement in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, systematic implementation and enforcement is needed. In addition, because any worker, regardless of age, should be evaluated according to functional ability, NCOA recommends that the present upper age limitation for application of ADEA be removed.

To ensure uniform national standards protecting all citizens against discrimination in employment, MCOA further recommends the establishment of one national regulatory body with the authority and resources to enforce effectively one federal statute which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age and handicapped status.1 Mandatory retirement

A recent survey conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for NCOA found that a large majority of Americans feel that "nobody should be forced to retire because of age," and a smaller majority agree that "most older people can continue to perform as well on the job as they did when they were younger." Yet in mid-1974 there were over four million unemployed or retired persons age 65 and over who wanted to work but were not employed, compared to some 2.5 million who were working full- or part-time. MCOA & NCOA strongly urge that

1 Basic recommendation from the Federal Civil Rights Enforcement Effort 1974, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, July 1975.

flexible rather than fixed retirement ages be adopted by employers and unions, allowing those who wish to retire early or at the "normal" retirement age of 65 to do so and allowing others to work as long as they are able, perhaps as determined by a physical examination or an objective scale such as that employed in the Industrial Health Counseling Service for the last four years in Portland, Maine. The fact that not all employers require mandatory retirement is evidence that flexible retirement is administratively feasible.

United States Employment Service

To increase services to middle-aged and older workers, NCOA recommends that the Manpower Administration mandate that the Older Worker Specialist be a full-time position at the state and local office level and institute a system for financial incentives to local offices that do an outstanding job of placing older workers. In addition, we recommend that the Manpower Administration set up on a pilot basis an employment service based on the 40-plus methodology to test techniques and procedures for adequate service to middle-aged and older workers. Senior Community Service Project (SCSP)

The Senior Community Service Project has clearly demonstrated that older workers can adequately carry out diverse work assignments, involve people in meaningful relationships, motivate them to initiate action on their own behalf, mobilize community resources and generally serve as a bridge between the consumer of services and the agency providing the services. It has also demonstrated that the program participants measure up in all ways to standards for younger workers and often exceeded these standards. SCSP is a manpower model for the older disadvantaged worker. It has successfully carried out its primary mission of providing meaningful public service employment for older workers.

MCOA & NCOA believe that the funds available for this program and similar ones are totally inadequate and that steps should be taken by the national Manpower Administration, local prime sponsors and national contractors to establish these projects at the local level on a permanent basis.

Functional Capacity

MCOA & NCOA believe that middle-aged and older persons should be assured of opportunities for continuing employment. The extension of employment opportunities for this group and the removal of barriers to thier employment remain primary goals. There is a need for the expanded use of techniques which have been developed for relating the functional abilities of workers to the functional requirements of jobs. In general, functional capacity and not chronological age must become the primary employment standard.

Pre-retirement Planning

Planning ahead for retirement can significantly reduce the mistakes and frustrations that accompany a trial-and-error approach after retirement. Problems may still arise, but the individual will be better prepared to cope with them. The three critical elements are opportunity and incentive to plan, and concrete, relevant data on which to base the planning.

MCOA & NCOA recommend that the Federal government recognize the need for planning and assume a partnership with educational institutions and private industry by funding research and training programs, sponsoring demonstration projects and providing incentives for employers to pay the tuition for appropriate courses as well as setting an example as a model employer. Second Careers

A change in mid-life from one job pursuit to a different field is no longer considered unusual in our rapidly changing society. For some workers, because of technological displacement or involuntary early retirement, the need for a second career is a necessity. To fill the need, career oriented educational and training programs should be developed which are aimed not at the beginning worker but at those who must transfer from one career track to another. Women and Minorities

Unuemployment and poverty among middle-aged and older single women and members of minority groups are particularly severe problems. That special attention be paid to the employment problems of these groups in Employment Service job development and in training programs.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AL SPREHE, ST. LOUIS CLERGY AND LAITY CONCERNED Congressman Hawkins and Congressman Clay: I want to thank both of you for making available this opportunity to give testimony on the important subject of unemployment. I am Al Sprehe, a staff person for the local St. Louis Chapter of Clergy & Laity Concerned, an ecumenically religious group of persons who are attempting to promote peace through a just re-ordering of personal, national and international priorities. My presence before you is due in large part to Clergy & Laity Concerned's present involvement in the "Stop the B-1 Bomber/ National Peace Conversion Campaign." It is within the context of attempting to stop the B-1 Bomber from going into production and pressing for peace conversion that I present my testimony. The focus of my testimony centers on the detrimental effects of the current high level of miliary spending on the employment picture. Military spending actually creates unemployment. I intend to support this contention with four observations: first, a study done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; second, a study done by the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan; third, the effects of a large military force around the world; and fourth, the people involved in research and development for military spending.

First a look at the study done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As Congressman Les Aspin of Wisconsin so clearly pointed out in an article entitled "The B-1 Bomber As Flying Pork Barrel" that he wrote for the Washington Post, dated Sunday, December 22, 1974, a major argument used in getting Congress and the public to support military spending is that such military spending creates jobs. As it stands, this is true. Military spending does create some jobs. What it does not say is also true. Military spending creates unemployment. A recent study published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics reveals that military spending creates fewer jobs per billion dollars spent than any other government spending except the space program. The job-creating differential between spending one billion dollars on the Pentagon and one billion dollars on public service employment, for example, is about 57,000 jobs. Nationwide, high military budgets have a deleterious effect upon the economy and upon unemployment. The Bureau of Labor Statistic's analysis, using conservative assumptions, reveals where and how the jobs are lost. A major reallocation of jobs comes from the decision at the federal level to spend money upon the military. The following table indicates how many jobs are created by different ways of spending one billion dollars.

Specifically speaking, if we build a fleet of 244 B-1 Bombers which would produce 192,000 jobs, instead of terribly needed public housing, which for the same amount of money would produce 222,000 jobs, we would lose 30,000 potential jobs. 30,000 jobs is a lot of jobs, yet the B-1 Bomber weapons system is only one such needless expense among others.

The second study I referred to earlier is even more recent and shows the deeper implications of military spending to unemployment. That study is titled "The Empty Pork Barrel-Unemployment and the Pentagon Budget." It is published by PIRGIM, Public Interest Research Group in Michigan. This is the study that Senator Kennedy read into the Congressional Record for June 4, 1975. This report presents a much less obvious, but much deeper insight into how military spending creates unemployment. The report begins "Contrary to popular and long-held beliefs, a high level of military spending creates unemployment. An analysis of the years 1968 through 1972 indicates that the net annual job loss nationwide, when the military budget averaged about $80 billion dollars, was about 840,000 jobs. This result comes from a statistical analysis of the negative impact of military spending upon major sectors of the U.S. economy: durable goods, non-durable goods, residential and non-residential

construction, state and local government expenditures, services, export's, imports, federal civil purchases and producers durable equipment." In addition, then, to producing less jobs per one billion dollars spent, military spending also has a serious negative reallocative impact upon major sectors of the U.S. economy. Military spending just doesn't produce the kinds of goods and services that in turn produce other goods and services and jobs that keep our economy healthy. The third observation on the relationship of military spending to unemployment is perhaps less well documented than the preceding two studies, but is important in the over all picture of unemployment. This observation is that U.S. based trans-national corporations have shown tendencies to close plants in this country and open plants in countries with a cheaper labor market. General Electric pays its overseas workers less than one tenth the hourly rate it has to pay American workers. As a result, the company laid off workers in Allentown, Pa.; Ashland, Mass; and Fort Wayne, Indiana; in order to expand its operations in Asia. Would corporations be so secure in setting up operations in foreign countries if we did not have so great of a military posture around the world? To continue a high level of military spending insures their safety abroad and continues the trend of leaving this country in search of cheap labor. To do this is to create more unemployment.

A fourth observation is made by economists such as Seymour Melman who maintains that because so much of our human and technical resources are tied up with doing research and development in the military sector of our economy, the U.S. is losing jobs that would have been created by a similar share of human and technical resources being devoted to research and development in the civilian sector of our economy.

Military spending creates much more unemployment than employment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistic's Report, we lose jobs because military spending does not create as many jobs as does spending in the civilian sector of our economy. According to the PIRGIM Report, we lose jobs because the products of military spending do not generate the kinds of goods and services and other jobs that are created by spending in the civilian sector of our economy. We will lose more jobs to U.S. based multi-national corporations in search of cheap labor unless we cut back on our policing of the world and so withdraw some of the security in which they now operate. Lastly, we will lose jobs unless we begin to put more of our human and technical resources in research and development in civilian industries and less in defense industries. In conclusion I ask that we begin to create jobs by the following steps: 1) Cutting the military budget of such unnecessary programs like the B-1 Bomber Program and using those monies for jobs for more people. 2) Calling a Congressional investigation into the nationwide unemployment effects of high military spending. Particular attention should be given to the states which would be positively affected by major cuts. 3) The passage of legislation for the conversion of military industry to civilian industry with concomitant provisions to lessen the problems of retraining and relocation of workers.

In conclusion, I must say again. Military spending creates unemployment. To continue to vote a high level of military spending is to decide for a high level of unemployment. The money is in the budget for full employment. We as a people need only to make the decision. Thank you.

ANALYSIS OF ADC PROGRAM, SUBMITTED BY BILLIE RENSBERGER

I. Introduction

"Public Assistance" is the term used to describe governmental programs set-up to provide assistance to needy individuals. There are currently five such programs in the State of Missouri. They are federally-state matched in funds. These are, Old-Age Assistance, Aid to the Permanently And Totally Disabled, Aid to the Blind, Medical Assistance, General Relief (which is totally state-financed), and, finally, Aid to Dependent Children.

Of these categories, the most monies are paid to Aid to Dependent Children, which is the largest assistance category and serves the most people on public assistance in the state. This is the program I wish to describe to you.

However, it does not exist as a single unit and it operates alongside and in coordination and conflict with other programs. In line with this, the operation

of the Aid to Dependent Children program, (ADC), functions as a system within and among other systems. The ADC program is carried out like a layer of systems on top of another layer. The interviews in Appendix A in the paper illustrate the inputs from the different systems.

In July of this year, the adult categories except for General Relief and ADC separated from state control. They are now under the jurisdiction of the Social Security Administration. Prior to that time, they were administered in the welfare offices by state workers who occupied the same offices as the ADC workers. The state now provides only supplemental payments to these programs and provides family service functions to them. And, where there are overlapping cases and clients in common, state and federal workers share information and, hopefully, coordinate their efforts. The state does have for its use, a microfiche which has lists of clients receiving any type of social security benefits, etc.

The approach I am using is the open-systems approach and the bureaucratic model. There is no denying the bureaucratic nature of the welfare organization. But, to deal with it in only that manner would imply it is a closed system when, in reality, it constantly interacts with outside forces and is particularly sensitive to public and political changes.

Like the Weberian bureaucracy the carrying-out of the ADC program involves rational decision-making based on records (files, paperwork, computers). And, each individual develops an element of secrecy and through repeated use of procedures and jargon not familiar to outsiders, insulates itself from outside understanding of its goings-on.

However, many of the departments work in close coordination with outside agencies. This is somewhat described within the body of this paper. The employees utilize the same technology, hold common values, operate out of a framework of common experiences, structure, and beliefs reflected by the organization. All of the organization is affected by the environment and demonstrates this in changes in its formal and operational goals. The most common example of this is concerning legal changes in the rights of clients.

This paper seeks to picture the people, structures, and processes involved with all aspects of the program, of ADC within the city of St. Louis. It describes in common, the operations of the ADC program.

This paper is largely experimental in nature. I worked for the State of Missouri from July, 1971 to September, 1973. I worked as an ADC worker (new term for this, income maintenance worker) for one year.

This involved work at Branch 5 for six months in that capacity. The map on the next page shows the geographical locations and the areas served by the six branches of welfare offices in the city of St. Louis. I was then promoted to caseworker and changed jobs to that of intake worker. This involved receiving applications on all categories of welfare.

I was an intake worker for a year at Branch 6 for nine months, and Branch 2 for three months. All of the transfers were upon my request. They were an effort on my part to "stay with" a hard job, become familiar with many areas of St. Louis, and to avoid becoming insensitive to my clients' needs.

The last consideration was brought about as each branch, I think, has a stereotypical-type client. And, all the branches operate with an enormous amount of paperwork for the worker.

Below is a listing of the most frequently encountered "types" found at each branch. The characteristics listed are not in any sense exhaustive, nor are they necessarily correct. They are from my own subjective experience and knowledge, limited in time and perspective. They are meant only to give some indication of the situations of clients in the city receiving ADC.

Please refer to the map.

Downtown Area

Branch 1.-Black, unmarried woman. Age-teens to early twenties. Extremely poor, living in poorest sub-standard housing and highest crime area of the city. May be immigrant from southern state. Usually not working.

Near South-Side

Branch 2.-White, married woman, recently deserted by husband, possibly immigrant from the southern states, any age, poor, living in sub-standard rented apartment. May or may not be working.