As it was, we planned our program on the basis of a firm figure received from section 5, and a guesstimate of what we would get from section 6. My third point, and I can't stress this too much, is that something must be done about the statistical reporting mechanisms upon which the Department of Labor and the present Emergency Employment Act rely. Last month our State department of employment security reported that our unemployment rate was down to 5.8 percent. Yet our independent studies tell us that our area-wide unemployment still approaches 7 percent with pockets of unemployment exceeding 10 percent, particularly in our Mexican American minority area. We attribute the difference in these figures to the fact that the State department of employment security frequently misses the unemployed person who is not receiving unemployment insurance compensation, and who has given up trying to find a job through the State's job placement service. While it may politically look good to say that the unemployment rate has dropped, it is potentially disastrous to base a manpower program's response on such statistics if they are not correct. A simple alternative method would be to allow the local prime sponsor to challenge the State's statistics and to use the prime sponsor's statistics if they have been drawn in a scientifically proper manner. I will be most interested in looking over the provisions to deal with this problem contained in S. 3311, because this is a very serious problem and must be dealt with. My fourth and final point and I must emphasize that all these points are of equal importance and not in any particular order, is that we in San Jose favor the consolidation of all manpower programs under a single prime sponsor. I am the chairman of the San Jose Metropolitan Area Planning Council. From this position I am able to witness the proliferation of manpower programs and the number of sponsors. Frankly, I feel we do a good job of pulling our programs together as much as we do under the auspices of the manpower area planning council. However, a far better job of program planning and maximization of the use of these funds could be accomplished if there was a single prime sponsor. That of course should be the city. I am appending for the record certain materials on our programs in San Jose for your review. Thank you very much. (The information referred to follows:) SAN JOSE METROPOLITAN AREA (7/71 -12/71 AND PROJECTIONS) 1. New Labor Market Developments during July-December, 1971 that have significantly affected Implementation of Manpower Plans. Santa Clara County continues to be classed as an area of substantial unemployment, a Group D area regarding the adequacy of labor supply. The 1970 census figures show the population of the County as 1,066,421. Predictions based on this census are that by 1980, the population will have increased to 1,383,800. The last six months have shown some improvement from the first six months regarding the unemployment picture in the San Jose SMSA. The unemployment rate averaged between 5.5 and 6.6 percent from July to October, falling slightly to 5.7 percent in November and down to 5.5 percent in December. The total civilian employment increased steadily from 422,200 in June to 435,600 in September, primarily due to seasonal operations in the agriculture and food processing industries. The reductions in these seasonal operations caused total employment to drop from 435,600 in September to 423,400 in October and 422,600 in November. Civilian employment in December was 421,900. Trade, services, and government have been the source of most of the recently created jobs. The Public Employment Program (PEP) accounted for employment for 527 individuals in the San Jose Metropolitan SMSA. The greatest number of City of San Jose PEP hirees came from the East side of the City where the unemployment rate and poverty levels are the highest. Job vacancies in the program were held open for 48 hours to permit referral of Vietnam or Korea veterans. Approximately 50 percent of the hirees were veterans. |