industries are placing job orders that exclude persons over 30 years of age. The ceiling, of course, varies with the company. There is no question that this condition obtains and we feel there is need for restrictive legislation-that volunteer action is not enough to eliminate discriminatory advertising such as, "Young man wanted only," or "Young woman only." It is only because there has been an enforcible measure on the books that our advertising in Pennsylvania has been cleaned up and you will not find so much of it. Nevertheless, there continues a definite and rank disregard of the value of the older worker.

Senator CLARK. To summarize your thinking on this subject, Mr. Shirk, would you say that the statute under which you operate needs amendment and the appropriations under which you operate need to be increased?

Mr. SHIRK. Correct; because in too many instances the older person coming to us has been 39 and under or 63 or over and the definition of an older worker by law is 40 to 62. Therefore, our ability to help has been cut down greatly. There needs to be a redefinition of the older worker, so we are not confined in our assistance as we are now. Senator CLARK. How high would you go in an age group?

Mr. SHIRK. I would be disposed, as it is true of some other States, not to indicate any arbitrary age at all but to determine it entirely on merit and ability of the individual.

Senator CLARK. Do you think it would be desirable to have what are called "more teeth in the law"?

Mr. SHIRK. Well, sir, we are proud that in Pennsylvania teeth are not stubbed; they are rather sharp; and if we had the money and the staff to proceed, we do not lack for authority.

Senator CLARK. This shows my own ignorance. Are the enforcement provisions as vigorous in terms of discrimination by reason of age as they are by reason of race?

Mr. SHIRK. Exactly the same. It is a token penalty if the matter reaches court. A prison term of 30 days if the individual is found guilty, or up to $500 fine.

Senator CLARK. Well, you do not want it too tough.

Mr. SHIRK. We have never gotten to that point.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Shirk.

At this point, your formal statement will be made a part of the record.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Shirk follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELLIOTT M. SHIRK

Mr. Chairman, I wish to express the appreciation of the Pennsylvania Fair Employment Practice Commission for this opportunity to describe the experience of our commission in dealing with the problems of employment and the older worker. The Honorable William L. Batt, secretary of the department of labor and industry, has described the program being carried on by units in that department to promote the employment of older persons. As Secretary Batt, indicated, the fair employment practice commission has responsibility for administering State legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment on account of age. The Fair Employment Practice Act adopted by the Pennsylvania Legislature in 1955 specifically prohibits certain discriminatory practices by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and others; provides for investigative procedures and enforcement powers; and specifies particular educational responsibilities for the elimination of prejudice and discrimination. The act declares that an individual's opportunity to obtain employment according to his qualifications

without discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, or age is a civil right. In the matter of age, the act specifies that persons between the ages 40 to 62, inclusive, may seek the services of the commission in instances of alleged employment discrimination. Where bona fide pension and retirement plans are in effect; however, their provisions are not superseded by the terms of the PFEPC law.

To extend fair employment practices, the commission has received, initiated, investigated, and adjusted complaints of unlawful employment practices. Verified complaints have been adjusted by conference, conciliation, and persuasion. To date, there has been no recourse to public hearing or court procedure. In its educational program, the commission has prepared various information mate rials, has promoted the use of films in cooperation with the State department of public instruction, and has maintained an effective working relationship with the State advisory board on older workers. In some communities, members of the commission staff are working with community leaders who represent the commission on local advisory councils in the development of a concentrated program for the promotion of fair employment practices. The advisory council brings together the employer, those responsible for employment training, and those who make up the present and future work force so that available and potential manpower skills may be properly trained and utilized. Conference and consultative services of the commission have been made available also to business firms and to groups in other communities on a limited basis.

Since the primary interest of the subcommittee is in the problems of the aged and aging, may I review and interpret for you, briefly, the experience of our commission in investigating the employment problems of older workers.

To date the commission has received 237 cases involving alleged violations of the age provisions of the act, which it should be pointed out is the smaller fraction of the total cases filed. Discrimination because of race generally is the charge.

Among the age cases 98 were reported violations in employment advertising by newspapers or advertisers. In these employment advertising cases, 87 violations have been found and adjusted, 3 cases are under investigation, and the other 8 were dismissed by the commission.

The balance of age cases (139) were filed against employers for the following reasons: to hire (41), failure to promote (3), dismissal (18), unlawful recruitment (43); against employment agencies for refusal to refer (31) and for accepting unlawful job orders (2); and against a labor union for denying referral to employment (1).

In disposing of 53 of these cases the commission established 1 case of discrimination by an employer, and 2 cases of violation by employment agencies. The balance of cases were dismissed when the charge was not established (29), for lack of jurisdiction (12), and when the complainant withdrew or failed to proceed (9).

Among the 86 active cases, still in process, commission staff have verified charges that employment agencies have refused or failed to refer older persons in 29 cases. In 42 cases it has been determined that employers have placed unlawful job orders with employment agencies. Many of these cases are in adjustment and will be reviewed by the commission in the next 2 months.

Certainly this is a limited case experience which will not permit any conclusive interpretation pinpointing all the factors involved in the problems of employment and the older worker. The experience is sufficient, however, to help throw some light on the two major questions which have followed the administration of a fair employment practice law wtih enforcible provisions covering both race and age.

The first of these questions is this: "Are the employment problems of older workers resolved as effectively in combination with a program enforcing prohibitions against discrimination resulting from differences in race, religion, and national origin, as they would be by means of a separate or independent effort against age discrimination?"

The second major issue or question is: "Are the employment rights of older workers best secured or served by formal legal restrictions or enforcible legislation as contrasted to an educational effort without compulsory features?" These two questions are nearly always put to us by States contemplating legislation in behalf of older workers.

On the matter of combining programs against discrimination because of age together with an operation to prohibit discrimination because of race and religion; the experience of Pennsylvania is this.

The proponents of standard FEPC legislation in Pennsylvania had no idea of advocating the inclusion of the age provision, in fact, they recommended against this inclusion when the subject was proposed by others. The chief supporters of this civil rights program, including the labor organizations, took this position. The State council for FEPC which was largely responsible for the passage of the legislation held out strongly for two independent operations, one for the benefit of those experiencing discrimination because of their race, nationality or religious beliefs, and the other for the benefit of older workers. At that point the proponents of straight FEPC in its traditional sense were convinced that the inclusion of the word "age" was just another parliamentary and political maneuver to hand supporters of the FEPC one more setback in the campaign that had gone on session after session at Harrisburg over a period of 12 years. It appeared to them to be an effort to make the administration of the FEPC program so complicated as to discredit the entire crusade against discrimination. The actual experience of the FEPC in 321⁄2 years of operation has demonstrated that the inclusion of the age feature in the FEPC bill was not an injurious addition. Whatever the degree of help to workers 40 to 60 years old may have been, it must be admitted that the inclusion of the age provision has not been harmful to the overall administration of the antidiscrimination program. Furthermore, it can be said honestly, insofar as Pennsylvania is concerned, that the more spontaneous popularity of the older worker situation produced votes for the combined legislation that would have been lost to straight FEPC legislation. In fact, the enactment of Pennsylvania FEPC law at the time it was passed is closely associated with the support given the program for the older worker.

In summary of this point, there is nothing necessarily contradictory in administering a project for older workers and for minority workers in combination. However, the successful administration of both together is not possible without considerably greater financial support than would be necessary if one type of program were conducted alone.

As to whether legislation creating legal prohibitions against age discrimination is advantageous or otherwise, as contrasted to a straight educational effort, the experience of the FEPC points to the following:

Because of the provision covering age, there has been almost a complete elimination of newspaper advertising limiting applications to the younger categories of workers. Application forms for employment which excluded older workers from 40 to 62 years of age have been corrected to a significant extent so that many qualified workers within these older brackets may now apply where they could not before. There is no doubt in my mind that requiring nondiscriminatory employment forms in newspaper help wanted advertising has improved the climate for older workers and helped eliminate some of the mechanical barriers which hinders their employment privileges. Some of the objectionable terminology which has been eliminated is illustrated by the following: "Young Man Wanted," "Young Secretary Wanted," "Only Those Between 18 and 30 May Apply." This change is one produced basically by compulsory law rather than by voluntary action.

Although the commission has received good cooperation from many individual employers and large employers in the adjustment of recruitment violations and has obtained ready agreement to comply with the spirit and purpose of the act, new complaints now under investigation reveal that rank disregard continues with respect to the value of the older worker. We have in hand now nearly 70 cases under investigation which show that private employment agencies are accepting discriminatory job orders in terms of age and that an unnumbered group of industries and business houses are placing job orders which exclude the older worker. Undoubtedly, the force of law is needed to bring such practices to an end. In other words, the assumption reached at the beginning of the FEPC operation to the effect that the few complaints filed because of age meant that the major effect of this type of law would be as an impetus to educational programs rather than the application of enforcible measures, is not necessarily valid. The fact that few complaints were filed gave the misleading impression that a need for enforcible action did not exist. Actually, the moment that the FEP commission could assign staff to give fuller attention to employment practices in the area of older workers, the presence of violations became pronounced. In other words, the accountability to law remains an important factor toward breaking patterns of discrimination which influence the rights of the older worker adversely.

The above is not intended to indicate that restrictive legislation is the primary solution to the problem. Whether we are dealing with employment discrimination because of race, creed, origin, or age, our experience, and that of other State FEP commissions as well as the President's Committee on Government Contracts, make it clear that the case or compliance approach does the job of eliminating employment discrimination piecemeal and falls far short of the total program required. Community cooperation and educational procedures are essential.

Here, too, education and information without proper focus are not too effective in bringing about the rapid changes in policy and practice which are needed. Since the outset of the commission's program, films and information materials on the FEP act on how to establish and carry out a policy of fair employment, on how to file a complaint, etc., have been sent by the thousands to those affected by this legislation. Although some employers, unions, employment agencies, community organizations and individuals have used this information constructively, our case experience would indicate that many who are seeking workers, as well as persons seeking employment, do not understand or properly use the services and benefits of the FEP program.

The enactment of the fair employment practice law in Pennsylvania set another milestone in our State's attempts to insure equal opportunity for all its citizens. This legislation has established a public standard for the treatment of individuals as we develop our manpower resources. In order to gain wider understanding and acceptance of this standard, we know that our program must involve more and more citizens at the local community level. We have already seen significant changes in attitude and in employment patterns where even a single staff person is made available to assist community advisory councils. Because of our limited budget and staff, our active community programs are not adequately serviced nor have we been able to assist some 20 other communities in which organizations have requested this program. The basic responsibility for eliminating the artificial and discriminatory barriers that result in waste of manpower reside in the local community but the persons who suffer under these discriminatory patterns look to the State and Federal Government for their redress of grievances.

We believe, therefore, that government should serve as the catalytic agent to bring together the forces of the community to focus attention and action on the discriminatory employment patterns which exist.

Senator CLARK. I wonder if you gentlemen would be interested in addressing questions to each other or comments to the Chair as a result of the testimony of your colleagues on the panel? Mr. Block.

Mr. BLOCK. It is rather difficult in private industry unless they gothrough an employment agency to prove age discrimination in the employment of any individual. Applications are taken from all but they are not necessarily processed for employment in the fashion or manner received.

Senator CLARK. How do you think that could be handled as a practical matter? It is largely educational, is it not?

Mr. BLOCK. It is educational.

Senator CLARK. How could you crack down on an employer under the circumstances you have just outlined?

Mr. BLOCK. I do not know how you could get a disclosure unless you could get a listing of applications by number showing the time that they were filed.

Mr. SHIRK. Senator, that is the way we proceed. We obtain the records of the company and review the applicants who were successful and those who were not. We look to see if there is a pattern indicated and how consistently an older person is eliminated from consideration.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, gentlemen. At this point we are including in full the statement of Dr. Regis Downey, superintendent of Mayview State Hospital.

The subcommittee will be in recess until 1:30.

(Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 1:30 p.m. the same day.)

(The prepared statement of Dr. Downey follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. REGIS F. DOWNEY, MAYVIEW STATE HOSPITAL, MAYVIEW, PA.

As the chief administrator of a State mental hospital with 3,060 patients, serving the city of Pittsburgh proper, I do not feel qualified to give categorical replies to the questions posed in your letter. From our vantage point it would appear that three of the major problems in this area are: (1) Dearth of potential placements for those aged individuals without interested relatives and friends who are in need of supervision because of their inability to recognize their social and physical needs; (2) absence of institutions such as nursing homes and county homes to care for those individuals who require more or less constant supervision, but whose disability is not of such severity as to require hospitalization in the State hospitals, the general hospitals, and the county hospitals; and (3) inadequate facilities for the detection of, and treatment of, ordinary physical ailments.

It is trusted that the following observation and the recommendation made will be helpful to the committee and the community. The role of the public psychiatric hospital in the solution of the general problem of the aging citizens is nebulous. This is the result of a failure to define responsibility and in this area, a dreadful inadequacy of provisions to care for the senile population. Thus, the public hospital in this Commonwealth, instituted to care for and treat the insane, is burdened with all types of geriatric problem cases. The Mayview State Hospital with a rated capacity of 2,450, and a patient population of 3,000 plus have allocated 1,082 beds for care of the senile patients. In spite of this, there are currently 100 patients over the age of 65 years on the waiting list, some of which applications were made more than 6 months ago. In the 2-year period (1957 and 1958) 504 patients over the age of 65 were admitted. Diagnostically, they ran the gamut from the old person without a home to the mildly confused individuals without interested friends and relatives, and those persons whose major problem was serious physical illness, to the frank psychotic. Of this total number admitted there was a relatively small percentage who could be declared insane, if the term "insanity" was applied in its strict sense. Of the total number it was possible to return less than 10 percent to the community. A clinical estimate indicates that 40 to 60 percent did not require hospitalization in a public psychiatric hospital 3 weeks after their admission.

Our experience indicates that many would not have required admission had there been instituted measures to correct physical ailments such as malnutrition, diabetes, hypertension, and cardiac decompensation; or had there been a hospital to care for chronic invalids and an institution for those mildly confused whose chief difficulty was social and interpersonal problems in their home.

It is our belief that in attempting a solution of the problem of the aged and aging, we should be aware that:

(1) Institutional care per se is not bad, and if properly administered can provide an environment in which many senile persons can fine contentment. (2) Such institution, even where 24-hour supervision is required, may well be the most economic method of care.

(3) Any aged individual in a home where there are two or even three younger generations, it is highly likely that there will be interpersonal dislocations which largely defy adjustment.

(4) More extensive and earlier medical care is mandatory.

(5) Foster home placement for the senile is limited because of problems cited in subparagraph 3 above.

(6) The State hospital is far from the ideal institution for the large majority of the population they are currently forced to admit. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has in the past 3 years assumed responsibility for the senior citizens with psychiatric problems in the Philadelphia area. There is currently before the legislature now in session a request to purchase the Tuberculosis League Hospital in Pittsburgh, Pa. There is an additional allocation for renovation and operation of this hospital as a geriatric screening center. Plans call for 120 in-patients with facilities for complete medical study, expanded social services, and psychiatric help. Included in the plans is a daycare center for 80 aged individuals whose supervision during the ordinary working