ONE-THIRD OF A NATION A RIPORT ON YOUNG MIN FOUND UNQUALIFIID FOR MILITARY SIRVICI Ca‘f My r'f é, If, 15‘ I“ ' f ‘, THIIU'PRISIDINT’S Mil/t L‘LWV TASK FORCI on MANPOWIR 5L1!) cousunvrnou I TH. PRISIDINT'S TASK FOICI OH MANPOWIR CONSERVATION W. Willard Wirtz. Secretary of Labor, Chairman Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense Anthony J. Celebrezze, Secretary of Health. Education,and Welfare Lt. General Lewis B. Hershey, Director of Selective Service System ONE-THIRD OF A NATION A Report on Young Men Found Unqualified for Military Service by THE PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE ON MANPOWER CONSERVATION January 1, 1964 Letter of Transmittal Fl .5 l . PUBUC / 7 U 7 HEALTH uswv THE PRESIDENT’S TASK FORCE ON MANPOWER CONSERVATION Washington January 1, 1964 The President The White House Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. President: I have the honor to transmit herewith the report of your Task Force on Manpower Conservation in which we propose a nationwide program for the education, training, and rehabilitation of young men found unqualified for military service. A generation ago President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke of seeing “one-third of a nation ill- housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.” Since that time the wealth of the United States has doubled, and then doubled again. Yet poverty persists. Perhaps the most striking indicator of this is the fact that one—half of the young men called for preinduction examination under Selective Service are found unqualified for military service, and that on examination it would be found that fully a third of the age group does not meet the required standards of health and education. Far too many of these young men have missed out on the American miracle. This level of failure stands as a symbol of the unfinished business of the Nation, an unavoidable fact of the present. There could be no more urgent task than to ensure that in our time it becomes a thing of the past. Respectfully yours, a). dame 41mg W. \Villard VVirtz, Chairman Secretary of Labor Robert S. McNamara Secretary of Defense Anthony J. Celebrezze Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Lt. General Lewis B. Hershey Director of Selective Service System 396 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page The Report in Brief ..................................................... 1 Findings ......................................................... [- Recommendations for a Program of Manpower Conservation ........... 2 Chapter I—Background ............................................... 5 Chapter II—The Military Service Examining System ...................... 7 Chapter III—The Examination Standards ................................. 9 Chapter IV—Results of the Military Service Examinations ................. 11 Chapter V—The Mental Rejectee. ...... . ................................. 15 Chapter VI—The Medical Rejectee ...................................... 25 Chapter VII—The Program .............................................. 29 APPEND|CES ................................................................... A-l A. Statement by President John F. Kennedy, September 30, 1963, establishing the Task Force on Manpower Conservation .................. A-l B. Appendix Tables ...................................................... A-3 C. Technical Appendix—Survey of 2,500 Rejectees ........................... A-28 D. Documents Used in Survey ............................................. A-31 THE REPORT IN BRIEF FINDINGS: ONE—THIRD OFALL YOUNG MEN IN THE NATION TURNING 18 WOULD BE FOUND UNQUALIFIED IF THEY WERE TO BE EXAMINED FOR IN- DUCTION INTO THE ARMED FORCES. OF THESE, ABOUT ONE-HALF WOULD BE REJECTED FOR MEDICAL REASONS. THE REMAINDER WOULD FAIL THROUGH INABILITY TO QUALIFY ON THE MENTAL TEST. ONE OUT OF EVERY TWO SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRANTS CALLED FOR PREINDUCTION EXAMINATION IS NOW FOUND UN- QUALIFIED. THE RATE OF FAILURE VARIES WIDELY AMONG DIFFERENT STATES AND AREAS OF THE NATION. IN THE 1962 SELECTIVE SERV- ICE EXAMINATIONS, THE STATE WITH THE HIGHEST PROPORTION OF PERSONS FAILING THE MENTAL EXAMINATION HAD A RATE 19 TIMES AS GREAT AS THE STATE WITH THE LOWEST. ALTHOUGH MANY PERSONS ARE DISQUALIFIED FOR DEFECTS THAT PROBABLY COULD NOT BE AVOIDED IN THE PRESENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE, THE MAJORITY APPEAR TO BE VICTIMS OF INADE— QUATE EDUCATION AND INSUFFICIENT HEALTH SERVICES. A NATIONWIDE SURVEY CARRIED OUT BY THE TASK FORCE, OF PERSONS WHO HAVE RECENTLY FAILED THE MENTAL TEST, CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT A MAJOR PROPORTION OF THESE YOUNG MEN ARE THE PRODUCTS OF POVERTY. THEY HAVE IN- HERITED THEIR SITUATION FROM THEIR PARENTS, AND UNLESS THE CYCLE IS BROKEN, THEY WILL ALMOST SURELY TRANSMIT IT TO THEIR CHILDREN. [FORTY PERCENT OF THE PERSONS IN THE SURVEY OF MENTAL RE- V JECTEES NEVER WENT BEYOND GRAMMAR SCHOOL. FOUR OUT OF FIVE DID NOT FINISH HIGH SCHOOL. THIRTY-ONE PERCENT OF THE MENTAL REJECTEES SURVEYED DID «NOT HAVE JOBS. THEIR RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT WAS FOUR TIMES THAT OF YOUNG MEN OF COMPARABLE AGE. THE MAJORITY OF THOSE WORKING HAD JOBS REQUIRING THE LEAST SKILL, PRO- VIDING THE LOWEST EARNINGS AND INVOLVING THE GREATEST VULNERABILITY TO UNEMPLOYMENT. THESE YOUNG MEN FACE A LIFETIME OF RECURRENT UNEMPLOY- MENT UNLESS THEIR SKILLS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY UPGRADED. IN THE OPINION OF PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEWERS, 80 PERCENT OF THE GROUP NEEDED JOB COUNSELING, LITERACY TRAINING, OR JOB TRAINING. A GREAT MAJORITY OF THE MEN IN- DICATED THEY WERE WILLING TO UNDERTAKE SUCH TRAINING. THESE FINDINGS UNDERSCORED EMPHATICALLY THE NEED FOR PASSAGE OF THE YOUTH EMPLOYMENT ACT AND THE NATIONAL SERVICE CORPS. A CLEAR MAJORITY OF PERSONS FAILING THE MEDICAL EXAMINA- TION NEED MEDICAL ATTENTION. MANY DO NOT KNOW THIS, NOR ARE THEY PRESENTLY TOLD SO AFTER FAILING THE EXAMI— NATION. VERY FEIV ARE NOW RECEIVING MEDICAL TREATMENT. IF ALL OF THE 1,400,000 YOUNG MEN TURNING 18 IN 1964 WERE TO BE EXAMINED, ABOUT HALF A MILLION, OR ONE-THIRD, WOULD BE FOUND DISQUALIFIED. THE TOTAL OF POTENTIAL REJECTIONS WOULD RISE TO MORE THAN 600,000 A YEAR FOR THE REST OF THE DECADE. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE SOME 1,750,000 IN THE AGE GROUP 18 TO 26 WHO WOULD BE FOUND DISQUALIFIED, IF EXAMINED. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A PROGRAM OF MANPOWER CONSERVATION: THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ANNOUNCE A NATIONWIDE MANPOWER CONSERVATION PROGRAM TO PROVIDE PERSONS WHO FAIL TO MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR MILITARY SERVICE WITH THE NEEDED EDUCATION, TRAINING, HEALTH REHABILITATION AND RELATED SERVICES THAT \VILL ENABLE rI‘HEM TO BECOME EFFEC— TIVE AND SELF-SUPPORTING CITIZENS. JTHE MANPOWER CONSERVATION PROGRAM SHOULD BE BASED ON: 0 UNDERSTANDING BY REJECTEES OF REASONS WHY THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE. h) o VOLUNTARY ACTION BY THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED. o ACTIVE PARTICIPATION BY STATE AND COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCIES. o EXPANDED PROGRAMS OF TRAINING AND RETRAINING. THE MANPOWER CONSERVATION PROGRAM SHOULD INCLUDE: 1. EXAMINATION OF SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRANTS AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE FOLLOWING THEIR REGISTRA- TION AT AGE 18, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4(a) OF THE UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING AND SERV- ICE ACT, THAT “. . . EACH REGISTRANT SHALL BE IMME- DIATELY LIABLE FOR CLASSIFICATION AND EXAMINA- TION, AND SHALL, AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE FOLLOWING HIS REGISTRATION, BE SO CLASSIFIED AND EXAMINED, BOTH PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY, IN ORDER TO DETER- MINE HIS AVAILABILITY FOR INDUCTION FOR TRAINING AND SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES . . .” THE SELEC- TIVE SERVICE SYSTEM IN MAKING THESE CLASSIFICA— TIONS WILL AVAIL ITSELF OF THE FACILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OF OTHER FEDERAL AGEN- CIES, OF THE STATES AND OF THE COMMUNITIES. THIS WILL ENABLE YOUNG MEN WHO ARE FOUND QUALIFIED FOR MILITARY SERVICE TO MAKE THEIR PLANS ACCORD- INGLY. IT WILL ENABLE THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED TO LEARN WHICH YOUNG MEN ARE NOT QUALIFIED AND \VILL PERMIT EARLY RE- FERRAL BY THE SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM TO THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES FOR REMEDIAL ACTION. Examination and classification of 18-year-olds will have no effect on the time when young men will actually be called for induction. The present order of induction, under which older registrants (under age 26) are called first, would not be changed. 2. THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND \VELFARE SHOULD DEVELOP A PROGRAM SO THAT MEDICAL REJECTEES MAY BE RE- FERRED ON A VOLUNTARY CONFIDENTIAL BASIS TO LOCAL PUBLIC OR PRIVATE COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH SERVICES. 3. A SYSTEM OF REFERRING ALL MENTAL AND ADMINIS— TRATIVE REJECTEES TO MANPOWER CONSERVATION 719-418 0 - 64 > 2 UNITS OF THE MANPOWER ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ESTABLISHED IN LOCAL OFFICES OF THE UNITED STATES EMPLOY— MENT SERVICE. THE MANPOWER CONSERVATION UNITS SHOULD DRAW ON THE FULL SPECTRUM OF AVAILABLE SERVICES, IN PARTICULAR MAJOR FEDERAL-STATE PRO- GRAMS SUCH AS MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAIN- ING, VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, AND VOCATIONAL REHA- BILITATION. . THE EXPANSION OF LOCAL MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING ADVISORY COMMITTEES TO INCLUDE REP- RESENTATIVES OF SELECTIVE SERVICE BOARDS AND EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS SO THAT THEY CAN ASSUME LEADERSHIP IN ORGANIZING COM- MUNITY ACTION TO WORK IVITH YOUNG MEN REJECTED FOR MILITARY SERVICE. . A SYSTEMATIC PROGRAM OF EXPERIMENTAL AND DEM- ONSTRATION PROJECTS CONDUCTED BY THE DEPART- MENTS OF LABOR AND HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WEL- FARE TO DEVELOP NEW TECHNIQUES FOR DIAGNOSTIC TESTING, BASIC EDUCATION, VOCATIONAL AND PSY- CHOLOGICAL COUNSELING AND METHODS FOR. MOTIVAT- ING REJECTEES. SUCH A PROGRAM SHOULD INCLUDE: EXPERIMENTS WITH SEVERAL TYPES OF COORDINATED COUNSELING AND REFERRAL SERVICES (IN ADDITION TO THOSE RECOMMENDED ABOVE) IN ORDER TO DETER- MINE WHICH MAY BE THE MOST ECONOMICAL IN THE LONG RUN: AND, DEMONSTRATION OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH PREVENTIVE AND REMEDIAL SERVICES FOR SCHOOL-AGED YOUTH CAN BE USED TO REDUCE CAUSES OF REJECTION BEFORE THEY REACH THE AGE OF EX- AMINATION. . REGULAR PUBLICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE MILITARY REJECTION RATES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE STATES AND COMMUNITIES WITH AN INDEX OF PERFORMANCE IN MAN- POWER CONSERVATION. J-\ Chapter | Background The Task Force on Manpower Conservation was established on September 30, 1963 by Presi- dent John F. Kennedy, in response to two sepa- rate but related developments. The first was a report indicating that half of the draft regis- trants called by Selective Service for preinduc- tion examinations during 1962 had been found unqualified for military service. Of a total of 306,000 young men who reported for these exam- inations, 152,500 or 49.8 percent had been found disqualified. These youth were found lacking in the physical, mental or moral equipment consid- ered essential to absorb military training and to perform satisfactorily in our modern Armed Forces. It seemed evident that many of these individuals would be equally handicapped in finding acceptance in the civilian labor market of the 1960’s. The second development was the continued rise in youth unemployment (see chart A). The growing increase in the number of young persons out of school and out of work had already emerged as one of the most ominous develop- ments of the 1950’s, even before the population expansion began to take effect. It has now be- come a major social issue of the present decade. In the 1960’s it is possible to watch the postwar baby crop entering the labor force, just as it was possible to observe them moving through the school systems in the 1950’s. In June 1963, for example, the number of male teenagers unem— ployed climbed to 1,033,000 and their unemploy- ment rate to 21.0 percent, the highest in the post- World War II period. These two sets of indicators—the critical in- crease in the number of youth seeking work and unable to find work, and the evidence that a large number of these youth did not even meet the minimum standards for peacetime military serv- ice (and, presumably, were also poorly equipped for civilian employment)—were cited by the President as “an indictment and ominous warn- ing.” In his statement announcing the establish- ment of the Task Force on Manpower Conserva- tion (see Appendix A), President Kennedy stated his conviction “that a large-scale manpower con— servation operation is both feasible and urgent, and could mean large savings in lives and dollars.” Specifically the Task Force was directed to pre- pare a program for the guidance, testing, training, and rehabilitation of youths found disqualified for military service, and to submit a final report with recommendations no later than January 1, 1964. In preparation of this report, the Task Force has studied the current military service examina- tion process and the resulting statistics on rejec- tions; it has developed information on the char- acteristics of these rejectees and on their need for further assistance; and it has prepared recom— mendations for a course of action which it con— siders both urgent and feasible for dealing with this critical national problem. CH/‘xtx’l A UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FOR MALES, AGE 14 TO 19, BY RACE COMPARED WITH THE OVERALL UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Chapter II The Military Service Examining System The requirement that young men be given a military service qualifying examination stems from the military service obligation established in the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951 (as amended). This Act provides that, with some limited exceptions, each male youth in the United States register with his local Selective Service draft board upon reaching age 18 and that thereafter he will be classified in terms of his availability for military service. An essential element of this classification, in the ease of a registrant not otherwise ”exempt” or “deferred” from service under the law, is a determination of his medical, mental and moral fitness for military service. The present system for administration of the required examinations is closely geared to the flow of individuals into military service. The responsibility for determining fitness for military service is primarily that of the Armed Services. Military service qualifying examinations are mainly conducted in a network of Armed Forces Examining Stations, operated by the Department of Defense, located in 73 cities within the terri- torial United States. The following types of ex- aminations are conducted at these stations: 1. Enlistment Applicant Examinations—The Military Services provide a wide range of op- tions under which qualified young men may vol- untarily enter service, beginning with age 17, through enlistment or officer training programs. Virtually all male applicants for initial enlist- ment for active service, in any of the four Mili- tary Services, are referred for their final qualify- ing examinations to an Armed Forces Examining Station. In most cases these applicants will have undergone some form of preliminary screening at a recruiting station prior to referral. In calen- dar yJar 1962, a total of 600,000 such enlistment examinations were given; of these, 44,000 exam- inees were disqualified on mental, physical, or moral grounds. 2. Selective Service Registrant Examinations —Registrants with obvious disqualifying medical defects, or who are otherwise manifestly unfit for service due to moral or mental deficiency, are initially screened out by their local draft boards with the advice of local physicians as needed. In 1962, 74,000 registrants were so disqualified. All other registrants, who have not voluntarily entered service and who are classified in “Class I-A, Available for Service,” are normally referred by local draft boards for preinduction examina- tions if they are in the prime induction priority group (currently consisting of unmarried men). These referrals are made within a year or less of the time of the registrant’s expected induction. Since the average age of inductees has been ap- proximately 23 years in recent years, most regis— trants have not, as a matter of administrative practice, been referred for examination until 22 years of age. This is an average figure; some registrants volunteer for induction and are exam- ined at a younger age. Others, such as college students completing their education, may not be examined until a later age. In 1962, a total of 306,000 registrants were given these preinduction examinations, of whom 152,500 were rejected (see chart B). A registrant found acceptable for service at preinduction examination must still undergo a medical check—up, or “physical inspection,” at the time of his subsequent delivery for induction. If more than six months have elapsed, a full med- ical examination is required. An additional 7,000 registrants who had passed the preinduction ex- amination were disqualified for service in 1962, as a result of these later examinations. Although the above examination procedures account for a large proportion of all initial quali- fying examinations for military service—and for virtually all the recorded disqualifications of draft registrants—there are still other methods by which entrants into military service may be examined. Those registrants fulfilling their serv- ice obligations by enlisting into National Guard ' or Reserve units are normally examined locally in their own communities. Applicants for admis- sion to ROTC programs, Service academies, or other officer programs are also often examined in other ways. The latter groups, however, ac- count for a small percentage of the registrant population. 0111' review of the existing arrangements for examining registrants for military service has served to clarify certain basic facts about the examining process, not generally appreciated. First, large numbers of young men are exam- ined and accepted for service through voluntary enlistment and officer programs, before being reached for referral by their draft boards for preinduction examinations. Other registrants, who are in a deferred category or Who are in a relatively low “priority group” for induction, may never be referred for examination. For these and other reasons, the statistics based upon pre- CHART 8 RESULT OF PREINDUCTION EXAMINATION OF DRAFTEES IN 1962 induction examination results alone although valuable for certain 1)III‘[)Os(‘Sfid0 not represent an accurate er0ss-scction of the male population of military service age. Second, under current procedures, the ages at which registrants are examined are related to cer- tain administrative considerations, such as the timing of their enlistment applications or to the likelihood of their being called for induction in the near future. The Director of Selective Serv— ice advises that the referral of registrants for preinduction examination at an earlier age, shortly after their registration at age 18, is in fact completely consistent with his authorities under the l'niversal Military Training and Service Act, which provides that each registrant shall be clas— sified and examined “as soon as practicable fol- lowing his registration ” at age 18. ACCEPIEII 50.2% NEIECIEI] EflR NElElIIEl] fflR MEDICAL MENTAL REASONS NEASflNS 22.7% 24.5°/a' Chapter III The Examination Standards To qualify for military service, an enlistment applicant or potential draftee must satisfy cer- tain minimum medical, mental and moral stand- ards. The medical examination is designed generally to select men who are fit for the rigors of military service—whether such service be in a ground unit or in a ship at sea. In addition, the examination is designed to identify individuals with medical conditions or defects which may endanger the health of other individuals, cause excessive loss of time from duty, excessive restrictions on loca- tion of assignment, or become aggravated through performance of military duty. The current pub- lished medical standards are roughly the same as those which were in effect at the close of World War II. As a result of tighter administration of these standards in recent years, a somewhat higher rate of medical disqualification has been experienced than during World War II or the period of Korean hostilities. The mental standard is based primarily on the scores received by registrants on a written test, called the Armed Forces Qualification Test. The objective of this test is to measure a young man’s general ability to absorb military training within a reasonable length of time. Also, it provides a uniform measure of a person’s general usefulness in the service. Included in the test are questions on word knowledge, on arithmetic, on mechanical understanding, and on ability to distinguish forms and patterns. This test is not an “intelligence test,” nor does it measure educational attainment as such, al- though both intelligence and education affect the ability to score well on the test. It is specifically designed as a test to predict success in military training and service. The test is a good predictor of such success. It has been carefully checked to see whether men who pass it perform better than those who do not. In technical terms, it has been validated. All men who score below the “10th percentile” on this test are disqualified for military service. This score is the equivalent of the score which would be exceeded by all but the lowest 10 per- cent of the population, if the entire male popula- tion took this test. Since 1958, all men who pass this test but receive low scores—between the 10th and 30th percentile—are given an additional bat- tery of aptitude tests. The men in this marginal group who attain certain minimum scores on these tests are accepted. The others are judged to be poor “training risks”——men who would be more difficult to train and who are less likely to perform satisfactorily even in a nontechnical military occupation. The latter group is classi- fied by Selective Service in Class I-Y, as “Quali- fied for military service only in time of war or national emergency.” A score lower than 10 on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, corresponds—very roughly- to a fifth grade level of educational attainment. Now that an additional screening is performed among those who score between 10 and 30, failure to qualify on the mental tests means—approxi- mately—failure to achieve an 8th grade level of educational attainment. In the terminology of the Department of De- fense these tests are called “mental tests,” pri- marily to distinguish them from medical exami- nations. The men who fail are often trainable in some skills and some routines—but it takes more time to train them, and the types of mili- tary duties they can be assigned to will be more restricted. It takes more time because many of these men have to catch up on basic education before they can absorb training. Many cannot read or write, or do simple arithmetic; many have not had the opportunity or the encourage- ment to learn. In addition, a small proportion of registrants are administratively or morally disqualified for service, either because of significant criminal rec- ords, anti-social tendencies, such as alcoholism or drug addiction, or for other traits of character which would make them unfit in a military en- vironment. a! \ I i Chapter IV Results of the Military Service Examinations In arriving at an assessment of the dimensions of the problem of military service rejections, the Task Force had available to it two sources of statistics: a special Department of Defense study of over-all disqualification rates, related to the entire United States population of military age, and more detailed statistics, by State and region, based upon the results of recent preinduction examinations only. While neither of these sets of statistics, alone, is adequate to measure the scope of military service rejections, in combination, they provide the perspective we need. The Department of Defense has estimated that, if the entire male population of draft age were examined, about one-third would be dis- qualified. This conclusion is based on a careful study of records of all of the categories of exam- inations for military service between August 1958 and June 1960, including examinations of enlist- ment applicants and draftees by Armed Forces Examining Stations, results of local board pre- liminary screening, and examinations of men who enrolled in reserve or National Guard units. The actual ”over-all” rejection rate computed in this study, of 31.7 percent, was distributed as follows: Percent Failed medical examination only ...... 14.8 Failed mental tests only ............. 11.5 Failed both medical and mental tests ...................... 1.5 Administrative reasons ............... 3.9 Total rejected ................... 31.7 In May 1963, the Department of Defense mod- ified the mental aptitude test criteria used for screening the marginal group of examinees who score between the 10th and 30th percentile on the basic Armed Forces Qualification Test. On the basis of results since then, it is now estimated that the “over-all” rejection rate has increased to about 35 percent or 36 percent. In other words, if the military service qualifying examinations were given to all of the 1,400,000 youth who will 719-418 0 » 64 — 3 ll reach age 18 in 1964, it can be anticipated that about 500,000 would be found disqualified. The total of rejections will rise to more than 600,000 a year for the rest of the decade (see chart C). As contrasted to these over-all, or population rejection rates, the Department of the Army has regularly compiled more detailed statistics on the results of preinduction examinations for draftees for each State. These rates are clearly not repre- sentative of the entire military-service age popu- lation, mainly because large numbers of young men are examined and accepted for voluntary enlistment or officer training programs at younger ages, before reaching the age of referral for draftce examinations. As a result, the residual group remaining in the draft board manpower pool tends to include a smaller proportion of men who meet military service standards, and a higher proportion of rejectees. This accounts for the difference between the over-all rejection rate of approximately one-third, and the reported draftee rejection rate of 49.8 percent, in 1962, for the 306,000 registrants referred for preinduction examinations in that year. Even recognizing this limitation, the differen- tials in draftee rejection rates among States, shown in chart D, would still be striking. The widest variation among States is found in the mental test rejection rates: in 1962, the percent- age of draftees disqualified because of failure on these tests ranged from as little as 3 percent in some States to more than 50 percent in others. The Southeastern States generally experienced the highest rates of mental test failure, while most of the States in the Mountain States, Great Plains and Far West had relatively low rates. In part, these variations appear to be correlated with such social and economic factors as per capita educational investment, per capita income and the racial and ethnic backgrounds of the popula- tions of the various States. There can be little doubt that the incidence of military—service rejection, as of other disturbing social and economic problems facing the Nation, does in fact vary widely by States, by regions and educational and cultural deprivation of disad- among various racial or ethnic groups throughout vantaged population groups are mirrored in these the Nation. The many factors contributing to differences. CHART C PEOJECTION OF 18 YEAR OLD MEN AND ESTIMATED REJECTIONS IF EXAMINATIONS WERE GIVEN AT AGE 18 ||I|III|||II|IIIIIIII||||II|II|_ |||l|||||||II|||Ill||||||||||l||||||l|l||||l|||||||_ IIIIIIIIllIllIlIIlIlIlIllIllIlIIllllIlll||l|||||_ ||l|||||||||I|||II||||||||||||l||||I||||I||||||||_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII— llIllIlIlllIIllIllIlIlllllllllllllllll||llll|||_ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_ 12 DRAFTEE DISQUALIFICATION RATES BY STATE, 1962 1mm Imimmn n mIIImnIIII mmumm III 2II 3p su so III II n TDTAL UNITED STATES FIRST ARMY AREA coIIIImIcIII IIAIIIE Iussncnnsms m HAMPSHIRE m IEIISEY m Im mu: Ismn vaIIII SECOND ARMY AREA Ilium: msmn DE CDllIIlIIA «mum MARYLAND IIIIIII PENNSYlVANIA vmsmu wm vmsmu THIRD ARMY AREA AIADAIAA ELDRIDA GEDRDIA MISSISSIPPI . NDRTII CAROLINA ° \ \- SDIITN DARDLINA e TENNESSEE ° " FDlIRTII ARMY AREA ARKANSAS lDDBIANA "---------—- SS “\I; S»S NEW nzxmn ,m.. .H ..H‘I ,, DKIAHDMA TEXAS FIFTH ARMY AREA EDLDRADD ILLINOIS INDIANA NEBRASKA NDRTH DAKOTA STILITH DAKDTA NISDDNSIN NYDIAING SIXTII ARMY AREA ARIZDNA DALIEDRNIA IDAIID NDNTANA NEVADA DREIIDN IITAII wasmnsmu DIITSIDE ZDNE DE INTERIDR IIIIIIII __ III II _ ._.____ \ PllElTII men \\\\\\\\511 mm mm m1 '- NEDICALLY DISDDALIEIED . 33$ ADMINISTRATIVE REASDNS ' Alsa includes thus: an failed mi mm! and ludinl SDIIRIIE: "Insults III III: Exanlnaflan II Tum: II: NIIIIm 8min. 1962 " REALIII IN THE ARMY. Volume 17 Number ll) WWWN -13- Chapter V The Mental Reiecfee It is precisely the natureof the Armed Forces Qualification Test which makes failure to pass it a matter of unavoidable concern to the com- munity at large. The qualities needed to be an effective soldier, sailor, or airman in today’s modern forces are similar to those needed in a wide range of civilian jobs. Most of those who fail the military service aptitude tests can be expected to lack many of the qualities needed to lead self-sufficient, productive lives in the civilian economy. In order to learn more about persons who fail to pass the Armed Forces Qualification Test, the Department of Labor, in cooperation with the Selective Service System, interviewed in Novem- ber 1963 a nationwide sample of 2,500 recent rejectees. Detailed tables and technical details of the sample study are provided in appendices to this report. What follows is a social and eco- nomic profile of the group, and an evaluation of their apparent willingness to raise themselves above their present status in life. The most important single fact that emerges from these interviews is that a large proportion of the young men who fail the Armed Forces mental test are the children of poverty‘.“ Too many of their parents are poor. Too many of them are poor. If the present course of events continues, their children will be poor. One of the fundamental facts about democracy is its recognition that mental ability is dis- tributed widely throughout any population. In every generation, talent appears at every social stratum, in every geographic area. Given equal opportunity, large numbers of the offspring of the poor will prove their worth at an early age and go on to live lives of substantial achieve- ment. However, this process can easily be thwarted, and in the long history of the world usually has been. There is little question that the process has not worked for a great many of the young men who fail to meet the mental requirements for military service in the United States today. Employment Experience Only 69 percent of the group had jobs. Their rate of unemployment was 28 percent—four times greater than for all young men in the 20-24 age group (see chart E). In addition, 5 percent were out of work and were not looking for work at the time of the survey!“ The unemployment rate for nonwhites was somewhat higher than for whites—29 percent as compared with 26 percent. About 2,200 (88 percent) had some employ- ment during 1962. But this was by no means steady employment for all of them; more than a fourth worked for half a year or less. Education Four out of five rejectees were school dropouts. About half left.school before the age of 17. About three in ten gave need to support their families as a reason for leaving school. Another one out of ten said he had to support himself. Financial hardship was greater among non- whites—one out of every two said he left school to support himself or his family. (“If the survey had included a representative proportion of the group that are screened out by local Selective Service offices and not forwarded to Armed Forces Examining Stations, even more poverty would have been discovered. While practices vary from State to State, many Selective Service offices do not forward the mentally retarded, the illiterate, or the person who has only a few years of formal education. (”Thirty-one percent of the entire group interviewed were not working. However, 5 percent, for whatever reason, were not looking for work. Inasmuch as such persons would not be classified as unemployed under regular government tabula- tion of data on the unemployed, the unemployment rate was calculated from a base of 2,371 which would technically comprise the “labor force.” Only about 75 percent of the rejectees had finished grade school, compared with almost 95 percent of all men in the 20-24 age group in the total population. Only about 20 percent had graduated from high school, compared with an estimated two-thirds of all men age 20 to 24. The median years of schooling for rejectees was about a quarter less than the years for the gen- eral population in the same age category. (See chart F.) Income Those working at the time of the survey aver- aged $56 a week in earnings. Those few (8 per— cent) working in skilled jobs averaged $78 per week in November 1963. The rejectees employed in service jobs averaged $46 per week. The young men working in farm jobs earned, on an average, $35 a week. As a group, white workers averaged $64 per week as compared with the $48 earned by nonwhite workers. On an annual basis, the young men working in November 1963 had an income of $2,059 in 1962. Those who were jobless in November 1963 averaged $980 for 1962. One-third of the entire group had incomes of less than $1,000; annual income averaged $1,850 in 1962 for the total sample. The general population in this same age group averaged $2,656 in that year (see chart G). The white rejectees averaged $2,173 in 1962 and the nonwhites averaged $1,563 (see chart H). In viewing these incomes, marital status is important. Just under 20 percent of the reject-ees were married. An income of $1,850 per year may not denote poverty for a single man still living with his family. However, a man with a family would be living in poverty on such an income. While many of the single rejectees are just above the poverty line for the present, these low in- comes portend family poverty in the future. It is already clear that more than the third working for incomes of less than $1,000 are living in poverty, and that poverty lies ahead for an even greater proportion. This is at a time when roughly similar tests of poverty place less than one-fifth of the total population in the poverty category. It would be a conservative judgment 16 that the rate of poverty among the rejectees is at least twice the national incidence. Three-fourths of the men in this survey are in the age group 22 to 24. This means that many of these men have been in the labor force for a number of years and their incomes are not the low incomes of teenagers starting on their first jobs. These men are at about the average age at which young men in this country marry. Half of those unemployed in 1963 were receiv- ing no money income at all. Only about 15 per- cent of the unemployed were receiving unemploy- ment compensation at the time of the survey. Of the remaining 35 percent, only about 2 percent were receiving public assistance; the balance depended upon their parents and other family sources for subsistence. Occupations About three-quarters of the young men who failed the test were employed in unskilled, semi- skilled and service jobs in 1962. In contrast, only about half of the male population in the 20—24 age group were working in these three cate- gories. Almost three times as many rejectees were employed in unskilled jobs as all young men in the same age group (see chart 1). Approximately the same proportion of whites (31 percent) and nonwhites (30 percent) was employed in unskilled jobs. Many of the rejectees, having been in the labor force for several years since dropping out of school, were working in jobs which offered little or no advancement opportunities and which could be filled by persons with a minimum of education and training. For example, about 350 were employed as unskilled laborers in construc- tion work or in manufacturing; some 112 held jobs as porters, 59 were janitors, 57 were dish- washers, and 55 were bus-boys. It is diflicult to envisage these jobs making it possible for them to save for contingencies, and to raise families in a manner that would permit their sons and daughters to do better. Family Background The picture of their families is similarly one of poverty and little promise. ‘Iwr: UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG THOSE WHO FAIL THE 0 MENTAL TEST IS FOUR TIMES GREATER THAN TOTAL POPULATION IN SAME AGE GROUP CHART I' THE AVERAGE REJECTEE HAS ONLY A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION WHILE THE AVERAGE YOUNG MAN HAS A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION" An estimated 20 percent of the fathers or fathers-in-law with whom the rejectees were living were not working. About a quarter of the fathers of the rejectees were employed as un- skilled workers. Approximately 20 percent were skilled and another 20 percent were semiskilled. The remainder were employed in such activities as service and agricultural work. Over half of the fathers of the rejectees had never finished the eighth grade. Only 16 percent of their fathers had finished high school. Approximately seven of every 10 rejectees came from families with four or more children. About a third of the Nation’s children are in families with four or more children. One out of every two rejectees come from families with six or more children; about 10 percent of the coun- try’s children are in families with six or more children (see chart J). Fifty percent of the families of the rejectees had total money income to support these large families of less than $4,000 in 1962. One-fifth 18 of the families had incomes of less than $2,000 in that year. The poverty line has been drawn by many experts at roughly $3,000 for families of lesser size and about one-fifth of the Nation’s families are living in poverty under such a stand- ard. While information was not available on how many of the families of rejectees had incomes of less than $3,000, the fact that one-fifth, with a higher-than-average number of children, had less than $2,000 means that the incidence of poverty among the families of rejectees is clearly higher than in the population generally. About one out of every eight rejectees comes from a family which is now receiving public assistance. Approximately one-fifth of the re- jectees’ families had received public assistance in the past five years. Apparently a much higher proportion of the rejectees grew up in families on relief than the rest of the children in our population: in June of 1963, only 4.2 percent of the children in the United States were receiving public assistance under the program of aid to families with dependent children. CHART G EMPLOYED REJECTEES EARNED ABOUT A THIRD LESS IN 1962 THAN POPULATION IN SAME AGE GROUP* CHAIM II WHITE REJECTEES EARNED ABOUT 40 PERCENT MORE IN 1962 THAN NONWHITES WHO FAILED MENTAL TEST* HART I A MUCH HIGHER PROPORTION OF THE REJECTEESC WORKED IN UNSKILLED, SEMISKILLED AND SERVICE JOBS IN 1962 THAN THE TOTAL POPULATION IN THE SAME( 20-24)AGE GROUP* 75% 0E EMPIIIYEB REIECTEES 47% IIE IIIE MALE VIIIIIIIEIIS VIIIIIIIEII III lIIISIIlllEII III THE SAME AGE IIIIIIIIP VIIIIIIIEII SEMISKIllEIl AIIII SERVICE IIIBS III IIIISIIIIIED, SEMISKILLED AIIII SERVICE IIIIIS II 719M118 O - 64 - 4 ALMOST HALF OF ALL MENTAL REJECTEES COME FROM FAMILIES WITH 6 OR MORE CHILDREN" Over 2,000 of the 2,500 rejectees were single; three-quarters of them were living with their parents. Approximately 25 percent of the 350 married men were living with parents. Almost a third of the rejectees came from families broken by divorce or separation (see chart K). More than 70 percent of the young men in the survey grew up in urban areas. Another 20 per- cent were raised on farms. Less than 10 percent of the rejectees grew up in rural nonfarm areas. Need and Desire for Education and Training The public employment service counselors and job placement specialists who interviewed the 2,500 rejectees indicated that, in their profes- sional opinion, about 80 percent of the unem- ployed young men needed counseling, literacy training or job training (see chart L). They felt that about 35 percent of the unemployed re- 20 - jectees were most in need of job training and approximately one in four needed training in basic reading, writing and arithmetic. About one in five of the unemployed rejectees could probably be handled with professional counseling alone. The Task Force survey of mental rejectees produced substantial evidence that most of the persons found disqualified for military services were motivated to do something to improve their situation. About four out of every five rejectees said they would accept an offer of basic education (see chart M). This proportion prevailed regard- less of whether the rejectee was working, looking for work, or neither working nor looking for work. A mere handful conditioned their willing- ness to participate on the availability of training allowances. Nonwhites, to a slightly greater extent than white rejectees, were willing to accept an offer WMWMM MMMW , «wwwwwn MMWM M to correct educational deficiencies. Over 90 per- cent of the nonwhites who were looking for work compared with 83 percent of the whites re- sponded “yes” to an offer of a program of basic education. Similar proportions prevailed among those who were working. Apparently, there were no significant differences among rejectees in the desire for basic education whether they were classified 4F or 1Y.“ More than four out of every five rejectees were willing to accept job training. The desire for training was expressed whether the rejectees were working (85 percent wanted training) or neither working nor looking for work (86 percent). Nonwhites expressed a greater degree of will- ingness to accept job training than whites. This is significant for, as a group, young nonwhites have among the highest unemployment rates of any group in the national labor force. The desire to enhance their employability through job train- ing was signified by 96 percent of those who were looking for work. More than four out of every five rejectees recognized a need for both basic education and job training. Experience in administering the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 has shown that many workers who wish to enroll in regular training programs under the Act cannot qualify for training because they lack the ability to read, write, or even to do simple sums. Among the rejectees, those looking for work had the highest proportion (about 91 percent) willing to accept a combination of training and education, as compared with 84 percent of those who had jobs. About nine out of ten nonwhites, as compared with eight out of ten whites, would participate in a combined program of basic education and training. Among both the whites and the non- whites, mental rejectees with some years of high school education were as likely to favor accept- ance of the combined education-training pro- gram as those with an elementary school educa- tion or less. Although younger persons are known to be more mobile than older persons, the mobility of people at every age is generally affected by personal desires to remain in familiar surround— ings, close to family and friends. In spite of the ties to home, the majority of rejectees who were willing to accept training said they would be willing to take training away from home. Almost four-fifths of those looking for work who wanted training would accept it away from home. This was also true for 70 percent of those not in the labor force. Despite the fact that they were employed, 67 percent of those working said they would accept such training. A relatively small percentage of these rejectees signified that their willingness to accept training away from home depended upon whether there would be training allowances. The vast majority of those who said they would accept training away from home also said they would be willing to train in a camp, and very few said they would do so only if training allowances were available. Rejectees with some high school education were as likely to be willing to train away from home or in camps as were those with fewer years of schooling. As a group, more nonwhites than whites expressed a willing- ness to train away from home while in a camp. * Rejectees who scored less than 10 are classified 4F. Those who scored 10-30 are given additional tests, and those not acceptable for military service, at the present time, are classified as lY (Trainability Limited). See technical appendix for full explanation of classification system. 22 CHARIL SKILLED EMPLOYMENT SERVICE INTERVIEWERS AND COUNSELORS RECOMMENDED THAT 80 PERCENT OF THE UNEMPLOYED REJECTEES NEEDED BASIC LITERACY AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING OR COUNSELING LITERACY TRAINING 25”., OEVELOI‘IAENT 8% VOCATIONAL TRAINING 35% COUNSELING 20% NO ASSISTANCE NEEOEO 10% CHART M MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE REJECTEES DESIRE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADDITIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING* Chapter VI The Medical Reliectee The most significant finding of the Task Force about the Medical Rejectee is that 75 percent of all persons rejected for failure to meet the medical and physical standards would probably benefit from treatment. The Task Force recognized that not all men failing to meet the standards would be in need of help. The medical test, as well as the mental test, is designed for the specific purpose of select- ing the men who can adapt to military service. This does not mean that all men rejected for medical reasons cannot get along well as civil- ians. For example, those who are too tall or too short are ruled out, yet such a condition is no deterrent to civilian well-being. The reasons for medical rejection and the incidence of each disease and defect are shown on chart N. Within the diagnostic categories on chart N, the main causes of disqualifications are these: character and behavior disorders among the psychiatric disorders; epilepsy among the neuro- logical diseases; late effects of acute poliomyelitis and tuberculosis among the infective and para- sitic diseases; pilonidal cyst among the neo-- plastic diseases; asthma among the allergic dis- orders; chronic rheumatic heart disease, fol- lowed closely by hypertensive disease, among the circulatory system diseases; hernia of the abdominal cavity among the digestive system diseases; overweight among failure to meet the anthropometric standards; deformities or impair- ments and amputation of extremities among the defects of bones and organs of movement. Although three out of every four medical re- jectees need medical treatment, this does not mean that all are in equal need or that all could benefit from treatment to the same extent. One out of every ten medical rejectees has a condition which can be entirely corrected by proper medical treatment. Within this group, there can be found serious infectious diseases which may, if untreated, prove fatal—for exam- ple, tuberculosis and syphilis. Other conditions 25 among this group while not a threat to life, are entirely correctable; two examples are hernia and cleft palate. Another one out of every five medical rejectees has a condition that either requires or would benefit from medical treatment. Often, such treatment must continue over a considerable period of time. This group includes such condi— tions as epilepsy, asthma and heart disease. An additional one out of every four medical rejectees need both medical and other health services. Within this group are the amputees and the partially deaf. This leaves one in four medical rejectees for whom regular medical services are not the answer. This group includes the totally blind. It includes those who are too tall or too short to meet the standards of the Armed Forces. It also includes a group for whom there can be no substantial improvement through medical treat- ment. However, there are cases even in this group Where health services will help—curvature of the spine and serious congenital malforma- tions, for example. The preceding analysis of national rejection rates rests on the validity of the diagnoses made at Armed Forces Examining Stations. One thing that has emerged from two health demonstration projects supported by the Public Health Service, with the cooperation of the Selective Service System and the Department of Defense, which have been going on for about a year in Phila- delphia and in New York City, is that inde- pendent diagnoses by local Public Health ofli- cials resulted in a diagnostic agreement of 95_ percent—confirming the high degree of quality of the medical examination given for military screening. This result confirms the assumption made by the Task Force in the beginning—that the Selective Service System is a device of enormous usefulness in identifying young men in need of help. CHAR] N REASONS FOR MEDICAL DISQUALIFICATIONSZ MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS AND FREQUENCY OF DEFECT PER 10,000 MEDICALLY DISQUALIFIED YOUTH '_/ The Public Health Service demonstration projects in New York City and Philadelphia have not yet progressed far enough for thorough statistical analysis, nevertheless, preliminary re- turns suggest that a country-wide Selective Service Rejectee Health Referral Program would be a sound investment. What these projects particularly indicate is the importance of moti- vating the rejectees to seek medical attention and of channeling them to community resources which can provide the aid they clearly need. Preliminary results of the New York City and Philadelphia projects would indicate differences in conditions which are the principal causes of 27 rejection from those found in the study of national data. For example, in New York City, 33% of those rejected during the period January-June, 1963, were disqualified for psychiatric disorders com- pared with 12% nationally. On the other hand rejection because of diseases and defects of bones and organs of movement was 14.2% in the New York City Project and 15.7% nationally. It should be expected that as studies of other similar Selective Service rejectee referral pro- grams are made there will be significant differ- ences in the ranking order of disqualifying conditions. Chapter VII The Program The profile of the medical and mental rejectee that has emerged from the studies carried out or made available to the Task Force leaves no ques- tion as to where the national interest lies in this situation. The national defense, no less than the national welfare, clearly requires that a con- servation program be undertaken by the Federal Government, with the fullest possible cooperation of State and local bodies, to provide persons who fail to meet the qualifications for military service with the needed education, training, and health services that will enable them to become effective citizens and self-supporting individuals. Although most school systems now give young- sters medical and intelligence tests and attempt to follow up on those in need of treatment and assistance, a considerable number of young per— sons, as evidenced by the rejection rates for mili— tary service, manage to reach young adulthood with uncorrected deficiencies. Strengthened and improved medical and educational programs in the schools, which will, of necessity, be a longer- term effort, should continue to be national goals toward which an increasing share of our economic and social resources must be directed. ‘ The major post-school examination in our so- ciety is that now being given for military service. This examination does not, at the present time, include a follow-up of the rejectecs who need help. The new and essential ingredient of the program suggested by this Task Force is that follow-up will take place and that responsibility for this will be assumed as a major obligation of our society. The size of the problem is, of course, consid- erable. By 1965, the annual “production” of re- jectees will pass the 600,000 mark and remain there. In the meantime, there is a backlog of 3.5 million persons who have already been rejected, and another 1,750,000 in the age group 18-26 who have not been rejected, but can be expected to be when they are examined. (See chart 0.) 29 Identifying Those Who Need Help While the need for action is clear enough, the Task Force was nonetheless faced with the ques- tion as to whether the Military Service Examin- ing System represented the most efficient means for identifying those persons in need of such a program. This resolved itself into two questions: Are the persons found disqualified for military service the ones who are most in need and would most benefit from a program of training and re- habilitation? If so, ought not such programs be- gin at an earlier age than would be possible if the Selective Service System is used to identify them? On both questions the Task Force came to a firm, if pragmatic, conclusion. Whatever might be the ideal arrangement for a program of this kind, the military screening tests represent the best available arrangement. The Nation is faced with an immediate problem. It has available a mature, nationwide system for loeating and test- ing young men which can provide the basis for a training and rehabilitation program without re— quiring any major new legislation, any new gov- crnmcnt agencies, or any significant delay. The Task Force received from the Director of the Office of Manpower, Automation and Train— ing of the Department of Labor a strong assur- ance that in the professional opinion of his agency the profile of mental rejectees produced by the Task Force survey made it positively clear that the Armed Forces Qualification Test “. . is an excellent device for identifying per- sons with special educational and training prob- lems at an early period in their working careers.” It does not follow from this that only those who fail the test are in need of such a program, but the enormous number of rejectees, who can be presumed to be most in need, makes it entirely reasonable to make a special effort with this group. The Task Force received similar confirmation from the Special Assistant to the President for Mental Retardation as to the great value of the CH/Xliil O ESTIMATED NUMBER OF REJECTEES 1 IF EXAMINING AGE WERE LOWERED TO 18I Armed Forces Qualification Test as a means of identifying mentally retarded persons in need of special training and rehabilitation. Of the one- third of the age group that will be found unquali- fied for military service, something more than one in ten (i.e., 3 percent of the age group) will suffer some form of mental retardation. The great majority of the retarded (75 to 85 percent) are mildly retarded with no demonstrable brain damage. Experts in mental health believe that with proper education and training, mental re— tardees can usually achieve social and vocational skills adequate to support themselves. A central fact about the mildly retarded is that a great many are not clearly identifiable as such until they reach their late teens. This is the time when they are urgently in need of vocational guidance of the kind that can be provided persons found disqualified for military service. It is neither necessary nor desirable to label such persons as retarded. Much is to be gained from a general 50 program which will include them along with many others in training activities from which all will benefit. Examination at Age 18 The Task Force recognizes that from the view- point of public policy, persons with medical, psy- chological, educational, and training problems should be identified at the earliest possible age. However, a very practical problem faces this Nation in the next few years. During the 1964- 70 period the number of 18-year-old men will average 1.7 million, or about 36 percent more than we had in our population in the preceding 7 years. Many of these young men will be enter— ing the world of work ill-equipped to fill jobs re- quiring even higher levels of education and train- ing than were needed by their predecessors. This concentration of young men at this age group will therefore permit a manpower conservation program to reach an important segment of young adults at a crucial period in their lives. It is fundamental to a manpower conservation program for military rejectees that the Armed Forces Qualification Test and the preinduction physical examination be given to all Selective Service registrants at the earliest possible time. The importance of this matter was recognized by the President’s Committee on Youth Employ- ment, which recommended to the President in April 1963 that: “Young men should be given the preinduc- tion examination at the time of registration for Selective Service, or as soon as possible after they are 18, to permit the early identi- fication of physical or education defects and the introduction of remedial programs.” The logic of this View is direct and obvious. At age 18, the overwhelming number of military re- jectees have either dropped out of or finished school. If they are in need of literacy training or job training at all, they are certainly in need of it then. Nothing' is gained by five years of drift and discouragement, which is the experience of many. Similarly, many of the physical disabili- ties which are revealed by examination at age 221/2 can be presumed to be present at age 18. The sooner they are cared for the better. It is the judgment of the Department of De- fense that 18-year-old examinations of Selective Service registrants could bring about some off- setting savings in the cost of recruitment of vol- unteers. Thus, the true added cost of 18-year-old examination could prove to be relatively modest. In any event, it is an expenditure that offers the prospect of yielding major returns, far exceeding the initial investment. Reasons for Rejections Should Be Explained The essential first step in a program of man- power conservation is that every person found unqualified for military service should have the reasons for rejection explained to him in detailed and understandable terms. Army regulations cur- rently provide that registrants who are found to be in need of medical attention shall be so 31 advised. However, the great majority of rejectees are simply informed that they have been rejected for medical, physical, or administrative grounds, and that is an end to it. Clearly, from the point of View either of the interests of the Nation or of the individual, failure to meet any of these standards ought to be the beginning of an inquiry as to whether anything needs to be or can be done to improve matters. Medical Reiecfees The fact that this can and should be done for persons failing the physical examinations has been amply proven at the Public Health Service Project at the Armed Forces Examining Station in New York City. This project, one of two simi— lar projects (New York City and Philadelphia), has already demonstrated that the military medi- cal examination—though special purpose in na- ture—is quite useful in identifying conditions which should be remedied even though those who fail are returning to civilian life. Moreover, the project has shown that public health nurses can be highly effective in counseling most rejectees to seek medical treatment for conditions which they did not realize were important, or of which they had been ignorant. The New York City and Philadelphia projects are testing the value of counseling and referral to bring about the most effective use of available private, voluntary and public community re- sources. Preliminary findings of these projects suggest that such programs should be developed in other parts of the Nation. The Public Health Service could establish similar programs in each of the 73 Armed Forces Examining Stations in the Nation. Such a pro- gram expansion would be pursuant to current substantive legislation but would require raising of ceilings in authorizations and additional ap— propriations. The sums involved are modest in terms of the great potential savings that might result from this program. It would seem desirable also to establish co- operative demonstration programs in some com- munities to provide medical services to rejectees where such services might not otherwise be avail- able. An analysis of such experience might well help to develop new or improved methods of pro- viding health services to youth and might also throw light on what further action might be re- quired in the future to assure the medical re- habilitation of our youth. Congress has recently enacted the Mental Re- tardation Facilities and Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963, an historic measure which will transform the means available for the treatment of such disorders. Thus, while in gen- eral the resources for the treatment of mental illness, of the dimensions indicated by the mili- tary service rejectee experience in New York City, do not now exist, there is every ground for believing that most American communities will progressively develop such care for those who most need it. Mental and Administrative Reiectees The procedures for handling mental rejectees and administrative rejectees” can be essentially similar to those which have been demonstrated to work with persons failing the physical exami- nation. Rejectees should be given the opportu- nity of being counselled at a Manpower Conser- vation Unit in a local facility of the Manpower Administration of the U. S. Department of Labor —w}iieh most logically would be located in the offices (1,900) of the U. S. Employment Service, situated throughout the Nation. The staffs of these Manpower Conservation Units will interview, test, if necessary, and offer professional advice to the rejectee about his edu- cational and vocational needs. The rejectee can also, if necessary, be referred to professional per- sonnel in the vocational rehabilitation and social service fields. In many instances, littleor no serv- ice may be required. For many other persons, the regular job finding services of the U. S. Em- ployment Service will be all that is needed. How- ever, it is expected that the largest number of rejectees will probably need counseling in depth and some additional education or training. A manpower conservation program of this kind will require the active participation of a number of departments and bureaus and agencies of the Federal Government. Although responsibility for initiating the process should be located in the Manpower Administration of the U. S. Depart— ment of Labor, the ultimate success of such a program depends largely on action at the State and local levels. The vocational guidance and counseling activ- ities of the Employment Service will have to be expanded and strengthened if it is to carry out the new and different assignments arising out of the proposed manpower conservation program. Higher salaries as well as more stringent profes- sional standards for guidance and counseling personnel should also enable the Employment Service to attract a more qualified staff and im- prove the quality of its services to rejectees as well as to its regular clients. The Utiliution of On-Going and/or Pending Programs Congress has long recognized that many per— sons in our society need special assistance. The Manpower Development and Training program, the Vocational Education program, and prospec- tive measures such as the Youth Conservation Corps and the National Service Corps are all de— signed to aid adults and youngsters by providing them with training and educational opportunities. The Task Force believes that no major legis- lation beyond that recently passed or now before Congress is required to launch a nationwide pro- gram which would enable military service re- jectees to reach their fullest potential as workers and citizens. When, in future years, the program is in full operation, the additional investment in *A considerable number of persons are rejected for military service on “administrative” grounds. In the main, this ground for rejection relates to failure to meet the moral standards of the Armed Forces as evidenced by significant criminal records, anti—social tendencies, drug addiction, and the like. It can be assumed that many of these persons would have low mental test scores. and that their employment problems could be greater than those of the general run of rejectees. In the period FY 1965 to FY 1968 it is estimated that from 300,000 to 400,000 or more persons will be rejected on mental or administrative grounds each year if examinations are given to two groups: those turning 18 and those reaching 221/2. human resources will be repaid many times in higher tax revenues flowing from rejectees who will be working at higher wage levels, and in lower welfare and social costs to the Nation re- sulting from their rehabilitation. Existing or prospective programs must be carried out with vigor and inventiveness to meet new challenges. ThevMilitary Service Examining System provides an indispensable means for identifying those young men who most need the program. The task of administration is to bring the two together in the most economical and effective manner. The recent amendments to the Manpower De- velopment and Training Act are at the center of a manpower conservation effort. These amend- ments broaden authority to create’ special youth programs of occupational training and further schooling, and permit the payment of training allowances to youth in the 16-to-21 age group. The great majority of all rejectees under the program recommended by the Task Force will be 18 years of age and thus within the reach of the Manpower Development and Training Act pro- gram to help youth. Resources under the amended Manpower De- velopment and Training Act provide not only the training and training allowances, but also pro- vide for testing and counseling rejectees and selecting and referring them to appropriate train- ing programs. The 1963 amendments to the Vocational Edu- cation Acts and to the National Defense Educa- tion Act provide another set of options for train— ing and educating rejectees carried out under the auspices of the Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare. These amendments provide for the support of work-study arrangements for youth. Increased resources are made available for Vocational Education programs to benefit persons who completed or left high school and need full—time study in order to get jobs. The amendments authorize the construction of resi- dential schools for school dropouts and unem— ployed youth in need of full-time study—in-rcsi- dcncc. Special vocational training programs are authorized for persons who have academic, socio- economic or other handicaps. Finally, authority 55 to create special projects, as are needed, is given to the Commissioner of Education. Passage of the Youth Employment Act will provide another set of opportunities for referring rejectees to new environments best suited for preparing them for the future. The Youth Con- servation Corps would provide great benefits to a large number of these rejectees. The auto— matic referral of all rejected 18-year-olds to a central point in the community will enable the Youth Conservation Corps to reach the young men who could benefit most from a camp envi- ronment and offer them the opportunity of par- ticipating in such a program. The Home Town Youth Corps, proposed in the Youth Employment Act, is a flexible instrument for mixing work, school, and pay in the propor— tions necessary to gain entry to stable jobs. The National Service Corps, still pending in Congress, will be a vital link in the «chain of programs available to transform rejectees into accepted, productive citizens. Volunteers in this Corps could provide the contact on a person-to- person basis that would make mass programs succeed. They could mobilize other volunteers to fill in where specialized personnel cannot be found, and perform jobs that will stretch our short supply of teachers, counselors, social work- ers, and nurses. In addition to these new programs, there are programs in existence which contain the flexi- bility in resources and in mission that could pro— vide help to rejectees. The Vocational Rehabili- tation program is a mature and proven institu— tion that can help rejectees with the more severe problems. These will be the mentally retarded and the physically handicapped, for example. The Welfare Administration of the Depart— ment of Health, Education, and Welfare can make a major contribution by working with local welfare authorities. Specific proposals have al- ready been advanced which ean be accom— modatcd within existing resources. These pro— posals are described below. The Vocational Rehabilitation Administration is prepared to institute three or four projects at Armed Forces Examining Stations to provide counseling and remedial services for men dis- qualified on medical, psychological, and related grounds. It can be assumed, on the basis of World War II and Korean experience, that a significant proportion of rejectees will be suffer- ing from a combination of handicaps. Projects would include identification and rehabilitation of mentally retarded among both volunteers and those called up under the draft. The Vocational Rehabilitation Administration and the Selective Service System have a long history of collaboration on the rehabilitation of rejectees, during World War II and the Korean conflict. They are now negotiating a nationwide agreement. Meanwhile, certain State vocational rehabilitation agencies are already cooperating with the Selective Service System. Those agencies are particularly well prepared to ad- minister demonstration projects. One of those projects could be located in a city where a Pub- lic-Health-Service-sponsored medical referral project is already located—e. g., New York City. The Vocational Rehabilitation Administration can support such projects under current author- ity and appropriations. The Welfare Administration of the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare is pre- paring to invite participation by State’ and local welfare departments in research and demonstra- tion projects which can be located in the home communities of rejectees and which can provide the mechanism for getting the disqualified inter- ested in and in contact with the services appro- priate for their needs. In addition, the projects would provide more adequate information both on the needs of the disqualified and the services required to meet these needs. These projects can be conducted under existing substantive legisla- tion and appropriations. The Oflice of Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare proposes setting up one (or possibly more) pilot training pro- grams to test the effectiveness of various methods of educating draftees, whose rejection can be traced to insufficient education. In an appro- priate educational setting, the project would in— clude: (1) diagnostic testing, (2) basic educa- tion, (3) vocational and psychological counsel— ing, carried through to the point of job place- ment and satisfactory adjustment, (4) work ex- perience, and (5) training in citizenship and work attitudes. This research and development could be supported under current authority and appropriations. Community Action The Armed Forces Qualification Test is a uni- form national test. As such, it has the potential for providing the communities of the Nation with an important comparison and indicator of social achievement which would be difficult indeed to create if it did not already exist. The draftee rejection rates that are now avail- able for the separate States do not provide an accurate index of the over-all “population” rates of rejection for military service by State. They should be adjusted to reflect the composite results of screening based on all categories of military service. examinations, so that they can serve, in the future, as an index of performance in up- grading both the physical and mental capa— bilities of our population. Provision should be made for publication of these rates on a regular basis and in a manner which will reach the com— munities of the Nation. With this information at hand, communities will soon realize that the extent of their alloca- tion of resources for education, health, recreation and welfare will be reflected in rejection rates and unemployment rates for their children. Rejectees are members of their local commu— nities. It is at the community level that the problems of youth in need of help are resolved. While some financial support is available from the Federal Government, the institutions that get the job done are part of the community and are to a considerable extent community—financed. The Task Force recommends that local Man- power Development and Training Advisory Committees be asked to assume a responsibility for advising on the administration of programs for rejectees. There are now 745 such commit- tees in 45 States, and new ones are being estab- lished at a steady rate, under authorization of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. With the addition of representatives from the Selective Service System and the social, educational, and welfare agencies of local com- munities, these committees could provide a forum for discussing the needs of rejectees, just as they do for discussing other manpower problems. As recommended by the Task Force, each Selective Service registrant should be classified and examined “as soon as practicable following his registration.” This will enable young men who are qualified for military service to make their plans accordingly. It will enable the com- munity, as well as the individuals concerned, to learn which young men are not qualified, and for what reasons, and to make appropriate plans for remedial action. Eighteen-year-old examination need by itself have no effect on the time when young men will actually be called for induction. The present practice of calling older registrants up to age 26 before younger ones, which has resulted in an 719-418 0 - 64 — 6 55 average age of induction of about 23 years, would not be changed by these recommendations. I' I- i ‘I' I it These are the directions which our program must take. About these directions, there can be little question. The pace of our efforts is a more complex matter. Preparatory steps are al- ready under way in several programs. Full-scale operation will involve many more steps, not the least of which are major actions to train the people who will do the work of counseling, re- ferral, examination and education, and who will develop the new training and teaching methods needed to set the rejectees on the way to pro- ductive lives. Different parts of the program will move at different paces. There must be a determination that each part of the process will move forward with a rapidity born of a sense of immense opportunities slipping away, and of the relentless enhancement of an already ominous problem. Appendix A September 30, 1963 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Establishing the Task Force on Manpower Conservation I am deeply concerned about the fact that half of the young men who have been reporting for pre-induction examinations under the Selective Service System are being found unqualified for military service; and that one out of every four is failing the mental tests, which means, for all practical purposes, that his mental attainments are below those which should be provided by a grade school education. Last year, 306,073 young men, whose average age was 22-23 years, reported for initial draft examinations. 151,512 of these (49.8 percent) were found unqualified for service. 75,043 (2.45 percent) failed the mental tests; it was determined that they lacked the mental equipment to be able to absorb military training within a reasonable time- The most common deficiency was apparently that they could not read or do simple arithmetic. This group fortunately is not completely representative of all our young men of military service age. Large numbers volunteer for service each year and are found acceptable before being reached by their draft boards for examination. However, even allowing for these volunteers, experience indicates that one out of three young men in this country does not meet the minimum standards for peacetime military service. This situation must not be permitted to’ continue or its implications to go unattended. These figures are an indictment and an ominous warning. Many of these recent rejectees now are looking for work and unable to find it. They make up a large proportion of the present alarm- ing total of unemployed youth. A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living. Today’s military rejects include tomorrow’s hard—core unemployed. In addition to those who fail the mental tests, an equal proportion fails the physical exam- ination. The causes of medical disqualification are many, and not all are necessarily serious from the point of view of civilian occupations. But many conditions revealed by selective service examinations do limit a young man’s ability to earn a living, are not infrequently the result of inadequate care and could often be corrected by medical rehabilitation. A-l I am convinced, on the basis of this information, that a large-scale manpower conservation operation is both feasible and urgent, and could mean large savings in lives and dollars. To ig- nore this situation, to provide no follow-up training or rehabilitation program for these rejectees, would be the worst folly and irresponsibility. The programs of the US Employment Service and of the administrators of the Manpower Development and Training Act should certainly be given special direction to deal with this special problem area. Much more can and should be done, however. The Selective Service System provides us with a unique opportunity to identify those young men in our Nation who are—for reasons of edu- cation, or health, or both—not equipped to play their part in society. So far we have been wast— ing this opportunity. The youths are examined, rejected and sent home—and no more. The time has come—in view of the ever rising educational and training standards required for employment, and the ever rising rate of youth unemployment until it is now two or three times what it was when Selective Service began—to consider what greater use might be made of the opportunity and information the Selective Service System pr0vides. I am therefore establishing a Task Force on Manpower Conservation, consisting of the Secretaries of Defense, Labor, and Health, Education and Welfare and the Director of the Selec- tive Service System, to prepare a program for the guidance, testing, counseling, training and re- habilitation of youths found disqualified for military service under the Selective Service System because of failure to meet the physical or mental standards of the Armed Forces, and to make such recommendations as their survey of this situation suggests. The Secretary of Labor will serve as chairman of the Task Force, which will submit a preliminary report to me within thirty days, and a final report no later than January 1, 1964. There are many questions which the Task Force should examine. For example: -Inasmuch as the average age at which these tests are being given is 22-23, although registration under the Selective Service Act is required at age 18, the possibility of earlier and more general testing, as recommended to me by the Committee on Youth Employment, should be examined. —-The reasons why the rejection rate on the mental tests ranges from under 5 percent in some States to over 50 percent in others require serious appraisal. -Results obtained under the current Manpower Development and Training Act should be compared with the Army’s experience, during the severe manpower shortages of World War II, in establishing special training units for illiterates. Of 303,000 received for such training, 255,000 or 85 percent were graduated and went on to serve as regular enlisted personnel. A sample re- vealed that more than two-thirds went overseas; a third saw combat, a considerable number were decorated; a quarter rose to the rank of corporal or better. I am hopeful that this Task Force will recommend whatever administrative or legislative action is required to utilize this excellent means of alleviating a disturbing situation. /5/ JOHN F. KENNEDY A—2 Table 1 . . Table 2 . Table Table Table Table Table 7... Table 8 .. Table 9.... Table 10... Table 11.. Table 12.... Table 13.... Table 14.... Table 15.... Table 16... Table 17 . . . Table 18. . .. Table 19 . .. O\\/\J>~UJ Appendix B APPENDIX TABLES . . Results of Pre-Induction Examination of Draftees in 1962 . . Results of Pre-Induction Examinations of Draftees, by Army Area, State, and Ter- ritory , 1962 ..Three Out of Ten‘ Mental Rejectees are Not Working . . . The Average Age of the Mental Rejectees is 23 .. . Nonwhite Mental Rejectees Have More Schooling Than Whites .Two Out of Five Mental Rejectees Dropped Out of School to Support Their Fam- ilies or Themselves .Only One Out of Six Mental Rejectees Had Vocational Training as Their Major Course in High School . . White Mental Rejectees Earn About One—Third More Per Week Than Nonwhite Mental Rejectees Who Scored Higher in AFQT Earned More in 1962 . Three Out of Every Four Mental Rejectees Work in Unskilled, Semiskilled or Serv- ice Jobs ..One-Third of the Mental Rejectees Worked in Unskilled Jobs in 1962 More Than Four Out of Five Mental Rejectees Want More Education Nine Out of 10 Nonwhite Mental Rejectees Want Job Training The Overwhelming Majority of Mental Rejectees Want Combined Job Training and Education Two-Thirds of the Mental Rejectees are Willing to Leave Home to Receive Train- ing .Almost All of the Mental Rejectees Willing to Leave Home Are Willing to Live in a Camp While Being Trained .Even the Mental Rejectees Who Are Working Are Willing to Return to School to Study Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic Three Out of Four Mental Rejectees Grew Up in an Urban Area . Almost Half of the Mental Rejectees Come From Families With Six or More Children A-3 Table 20 Table 21... Table 22 . . Table 23 . . . .. . .About One-Fifth of the Mental Rejectees’ Fathers are Not Working, and One-Fourth of the Employed Parents Hold Unskilled Jobs . More Than One-Half of the Fathers of the Mental Rejectees Never Completed Grade School ..About One-Fifth of the Mental Rejectees’ Families Had Received Public Assist- ance in the Past Five Years .Projected Number of 18-year-old Males and Estimated Rejections if Examination were Given at Age 18—1964 to 1970 A—4 Table 1 RESULTS OF PRE-INDUCTION EXAMINATION OF DRAFTEES IN I962 Total Examined Accepted Rejected Mental Reasons Medical Reasons Administrative Reasons Number 306,073 153,561 m 75,043 69,638 7,831 Percent 100.0 50.2 22.7 2.6 Source: ”Results of the Examination of Youths for Military Service, 1962”— Health of the Army, Volume 17, Number 10. A-5 Table 2 RESULTS OF PRE-INDUCTION EXAMINATIONS OF DRAFTEES, BY ARMY AREA, 'STATE, AND TERRITORY, 1962 Percent disqunlified, by disqunlifying cluse Percent Failed faund menul Are: and Sure lecepr- tests Medi- able Tot-II .nd cully medi- disqual- cllly ified disqu-l- only ified TOTAL UNITED STATES ......... 50.2 49.8 2.6 3.0 22.7 21 ...................... 51.3 48.7 2.7 2.6 23.5 FIRST ARMY AREA 44.2 55.8 3.3 2.6 22.8 Connecticut. 51.1 48.9 2.0 1.3 23.7 Mline ......... 48.5 51.5 3.4 4.5 33.4 Mlssachusens 47.5 52.5 5.9 2.7 32.5 New Hlmpshire 59.9 40.1 5.3 2.7 23.2 New jersey . 47.9 52.1 4.1 2.7 15.8 NEVI York . 40.5 59.5 2.8 2.6 22.5 Rhoda Isl-n 54.1 45.9 0.2 2.6 31.4 Vermont ...... 63.2 36.8 2.3 - 28-1 SECOND ARMY AREA. 56.2 43.8 3.0 2.8 23.4 Del-Vine ............. 45.5 54.5 3.6 4.5 26.0 District of Columbia. 46.4 53.6 9.1 1.8 20.1 Kentucky . 51.2 48.8 3.4 3.4 16.1 MIryIand.. 49.2 50.8 8.0 3.4 20.8 57.4 42.6 1.4 1.8 29.3 61.4 38.6 2.3 2.6 23.0 47.4 52.6 3.4 4.7 19.3 West Virgina 51.5 48.5 3.2 4.9 22.1 THIRD ARMY AREA 42.0 58.0 2.0 4.6 17.4 A1Iblml... 38.1 61.9 2.9 6.3 18.8 Florida. 433 56.7 3.4 3.2 20.4 Georgi: 42.9 57.1 3.5 3.7 18.5 Mississipp 36.6 63.4 0.3 6.6 11.9 North Cure In 46.3 53.7 1.2 3.9 18.4 South Cnrolinl 33 8 66.2 0.2 5.0 14.2 Tennessee 50.6 49.4 1.4 4.1 16.8 FOURTH ARMY AREA 52.3 47.7 1.9 2.8 20.4 Arknnsns . 52.6 47.4 — 4.0 15.7 Louisiana 43.2 56.8 2.0 2.9 11.8 New Mexico. 64.9 35.1 1.9 1.8 17.9 Oklahomt. 65.2 34.8 0.1 1.3 25.6 Tex-s... 51.8 48.2 2.5 2.8 24.9 FIFTH ARMY AREA 60.5 39.5 1.5 . 1.4 25.4 Color-do 66.9 33.1 3.9 6.2 1.1 21.9 Illinois. 56.6 43.4 0.5 21.1 1.5 20.3 Indinnn. 53.1 46.9 5.1 8.1 1.1 32.6 low-.. 67.1 32.9 1.3 3.5 1.5 26.6 KlnSIS. 69.7 30.3 0.2 4.3 0.9 24.9 MIChIgIn 57.8 42.2 0.2 12.5 1.6 27.9 Minneso 63.7 36.3 3.3 2.0 0.7 30.3 Missouri 62.3 37.7 2.1 11.4 2.0 22.2 Nebrnsk 71.9 28.1 0.2 3.9 0.5 23.5 North anot 69.4 30.6 1.5 5.1 1.3 22.7 South learl . 60.8 39.2 4.1 2.8 1.3 31.0 Wisconsin 57.9 42.1 3.4 6.6 1.5 30.6 Wyoming. 65.9 34.1 4.6 4.4 1.0 24.1 47.5 4.3 11.5 1.5 30.2 51.5 6.4 12.8 2.4 29.9 49.2 4.1 14.1 1.6 29.4 38.1 1.2 4.9 1.4 30.6 35.4 0.3 2.9 1.0 31.2 50.3 4.7 12.6 2.9 30.1 39.1 0.4 3.7 1.3 33.7 33.4 0.9 3.1 0.7 28.7 WIShIngwn. 54.5 45.5 7.9 2.6 1.0 34.0 OUTSIDE Z1.. 33.8 66.2 0.5 43.7 9.1 12.9 Alnska 74.5 25.5 1.4 3.2 3.2 17.7 Hut-i 50.8 49.2 1.3 13.8 4.7 29.4 Gu-ml. 70.7 29.; - 28.0 - 1.3 Puerto Rico 30.5 69.5 0.4 48.3 9.9 10.9 llncludee dr-Iteel cllslilied u Include: «h. mm... lslmdl. Tr-imbil iry Limited (V-O)" Include: the Pun-nu Cnnnl Zone Ind the Virgin Isl-min. Source: "Renulu a! the Enminlrion of Youth. for Miiiury Service. 1962" Henlth of rhe Amy, Volume 17. Number 10. A-6 Table 3 THREE OUT OF TEN MENTAL REJECTEES ARE NOT WORKING Mental Rejectees by Work Status and Color Work Status M kite Nonwhite Total mental rejectees m w fl Working 1,722 826 896 Looking for work 649 283 366 Not working nor looking 129 55 74 Total - percent distribution 100% 100% 100% Working 69 71 67 Looking for work 26 24 27 Not working nor looking 5 5 6 Unemployment rate1 28% 26% 29% 1The unemployment rate is derived by adding the working group and the looking-for-work group, and dividing the looking-for-work group by the total. Source: U. S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-7 Table 4 THE AVERAGE AGE OF THE MENTAL REJECTEES IS 23 Percent Distribution of Mental Rejectees by Age Total - percent distribution M Less than 20 12 20 to 21 10 22 to 24 75 25 and over 3 Median Age 23.1 Source: US. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 or 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-8 Table 5 NONWHITE MENTAL REJECTEES HAVE MORE SCHOOLING THAN WHITES Educational Distribution of Mental Rejectees by Color Years of school completed Total White Nonwhite Total - percent distribution M M _1_00i Less than 8 yrs. of school completed 24 31 17 8 yrs. of school completed 18 22 15 1 to 3 yrs. of high school 38 31 45 4 yrs. of high school or more 20 16 23 Median years of school completed 9.5 8.9 10.0 Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Table 6‘ TWO OUT OF FIVE MENTAL REJECTEES DROPPED OUT OF SCHOOL TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES OR THEMSELVES Reasons For Dropping Out of School by Color Reasons Total White Nonwhite Total school dropouts - percent distribution % M w Illness 2 2 2 Had to support self 10 5 15 Had to support family 29 23 35 Preferred work to school 19 21 16 Because of low marks in school 17 24 10 Had to work on family farm or in family business 6 5 6 Other 18 21 16 Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-lO Table 7 ONLY ONE OUT OF SIX MENTAL REJECTEES HAD VOCATIONAL TRAINING AS THEIR MAJOR COURSE IN HIGH SCHOOL Type of Course Pursued by Mental Rejectees Who Attended High School Courses Total - percent distribution 100% General or academic 78 Business or commercial 4 Vocational or technical 17, Other 1 Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A—ll Table 8 WHITE MENTAL REJECTEES EARN ABOUT ONE-THIRD MORE PER WEEK THAN NONWHITE Weekly Earnings by Occupation and Color for Mental Rejectees Who Are Currently Working Average Weekly Earnings — Dollars Occupation Group Total White Nonwhite Total - mental rejectees $56 64 48 Professional, managers, clerks, sales 62 66 55 Service 46 54 43 Agricultural 35 38 32 Skilled 78 83 66 Semiskilled 61 67 ' 52 Unskilled 57 63 52 Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who'failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-12 Table 9 MENTAL REJECTEES WHO SCORED HIGHER IN AFQT EARNED MORE IN 1962 Average Annual Income in 1962 by AFQT Score and Color for Mental Rejectees Average Annual Income - Dollars AFQT Score Total White Nonwhite Total — mental rejectees $1,850 $2,173 $1,563 0 - 9 score (N F) 1,729 2,054 1,484 10 to 30 score (IY) 2,018 2,328 1,692 Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-13 Table 10 THREE OUT OF EVERY FOUR MENTAL REJECTEES WORK IN UNSKILLED, SEMISKILLED OR SERVICE JOBS Occupations of Mental Rejectees Now Working Occupation group Total Total - percent distribution M Professional-technical*, managers, clerks, sales 7 Service 21 Agricultural 10 Skilled 8 Semiskilled 23 Unskilled 31 *The Professional-technical occupation group includes such occupations as musicians, therapists, etc. Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Table 11 ONE-THIRD OF THE MENTAL REJECTEES WORKED IN UNSKILLED JOBS Occupation of Longest Job Held in 1962 Occupation Group Total - percent distribution Professional-technical, managers, clerks, sales Service Agricultural Skilled Semiskilled Unskilled Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young m": who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. IN 1962 Total 100% 20 12 \1 22 32 Table 12 MORE TH AN FOUR OUT OF FIVE MENTAL REJECTEES WANT MORE EDUCATION Desire For Additional Basic Education by Present Work Status and Color Percent Who Wanted Basic Education Work Status To_tal m Nonwhite Working 85 79 90 Looking for work 88 83 91 Not working nor looking - 82 76 87 Source: U. S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-16 Table 13 NINE OUT OF IO NONWHITE MENTAL REJECTEES WANT JOB TRAINING Desire For Job Training by Present Work Status and Color Percent Who Wanted Job Training Present Work Status L)t_al_ m No—nm Working 85 76 92 Looking for work 91 86 96 Not working nor looking 86 80 91 Source: U. S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A—17 Table 14 THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF MENTAL REJECTEES WANT COMBINED JOB TRAINING AND EDUCATION Desire For Job Training Combined With Basic Education by Present Work Status and Color Percent Wanting a Combination of Job Training and Education Work Status Total m Nonwhite Working 84 76 92 Looking for work 91 86 95 Not working not looking 86 80 91 Source: U. S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Table 15 TWO-THIRDS OF THE MENTAL REJECTEES ARE WILLING TO LEAVE HOME TO RECEIVE TRAINING Acceptance of Training For Job Combined With Basic Education Away From Home by Present Work Status and Color Percent Willing to Leave Home Work Status Total White Nonwhite Working 67 56 78 Looking for work 80 74 85 Not working nor looking 70 59 79 Source: U. S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification test. A—19 Table 16 ALMOST ALL OF THE MENTAL REJECTEES WILLING TO LEAVE HOME ARE WILLING TO LIVE IN A CAMP WHILE BEING TRAINED Willing to Live In a Camp Away from Home While Receiving Training For a Job and Basic Education by Present Work Status—Percent of Those Who Said Yes to Training Offer and Also Said Yes to Living In Camp Wo_rk Status Total (Percent) Working 95 Looking for work 98 Not working nor looking 97 Source: U.S.‘Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A—20 Table 17 EVEN THE MENTAL REJECTEES WHO ARE WORKING ARE WILLING TO RETURN TO SCHOOL TO STUDY READING, WRITING, AND ARITHMETIC Willingness to Go Back to School to Learn the Fundamentals by Work Status and Color Percent Who Said Yes Work Status M White Nonwhite Working 81 76 87 Looking for work 83 82 88 Not working nor looking 77 78 76 Source: U. S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-21 Table 18 THREE OUT OF FOUR MENTAL REJECTEES GREW UP IN AN URBAN AREA Mental Rejectees by Place of Residence When He was Growing Up Residence M Total - percent distribution LO_O_ Urban 73 Rural - on a farm 19 Rural - not on a farm 8 Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Table 19 ALMOST HALF OF THE MENTAL REJECTEES COME FROM FAMILIES WITH SIX OR MORE CHILDREN Number of Brothers and Sisters of Mental Rejectees Number of brothers Percent and sisters distribution Total 592 None 6 One 11 Two 12 Three 12 Four 12 Five or more 47 Source: US. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-23 Table 20 ABOUT ONE-FIFTH OF THE MENTAL REJECTEES’ FATHERS ARE NOT WORKING, AND ONE-FOURTH OF THE EMPLOYED PARENTS HOLD UNSKILLED JOBS Work Status of Fathers and Their Occupations For Single Mental Rejectees Living Arrangement and Percent Occupational Group Distribution Total single 1_00 Not living with parents 24 Living with parents 76 Male parent not present 23 Male parent present 53 - fl) Not working 20 Working 80 m Skilled 21 Semi—skilled 19 Unskilled 26 Other 34 Source: U. S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A—24 Table 21 MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF THE FATHERS OF THE MENTAL REJECTEES NEVER COMPLETED GRADE SCHOOL Years of School Completed by Fathers of Mental Rejectees Years of school Percent completed distribution Total fl None 7 Less than 8 years 45 8 years 18 1 to 3 years of high school 14 4 years of high school or more 16 Source: U.S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-25 Table 22 ABOUT ONE-FIFTH OF THE MENTAL REJECTEES' FAMILIES HAD RECEIVED PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS Income and Public Assistance Status of Families by Color Family Income in 1962 Total White Nonwhite Total - percent distribution M M 1% Under $2,000 21 12 28 $2,000 to $3,999 34 31 37 34,000 and over 45 57 35 Family Now on Public Assistance Total - percent distribution 100% 100% 100% - Yes 14 7 19 No 86 93 81 Family on Public Assistance Any- time During Past Five Years Total - percent distribution 100% 100% 100% Yes 21 14 27 No 79 86 73 Source: U. S. Department of Labor and Selective Service System survey in November 1963 of 2,500 young men who failed the Armed Forces Qualification Test. A-26 Table 23 PROJECTED NUMBER OF l8—YEAR-OLD MALES AND ESTIMATED REJECTIONS IF EXAMINATION WERE GIVEN AT AGE 18— 1964 TO 1970 (In thousands) 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 Number of l8-Year- Old Males 1,400 1,900 1,780 1,790 1,770 1,820 1,860 Estimated Rejectees fl @ Q @ 6a 64_0 @ Fail Mental Test 220 310 290 290 290 290 300 Fail Medical Test and all Others 270 360 340 340 340 340 350 Note: Number will not always add due to rounding Source: U. S. Department of Labor U. S. Department of Defense A-27 Appendix C Technical Appendix 1. Scope of Survey - Completed questionnaires were received from 2,500 interviews con- ducted during the last three weeks ofNovember1963in 37 States and the Districtof Colum- bia. The interviews of the rejectees were conducted at the local draft boards by Em- ployment Service counselors, placement interviewers of the Employment Service and other professional staff of the Employment Service. The young men interviewed were selected by local Selective Service System boards from the most recent rejectees who were either disqualified for military service because they did not score above 30 in the pre-induction Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) or who were disqualified by the local draft board because of very low education or inability to read or write the English language. Table A indicates when the rejectees took the AFQT. Table A Total who took the AFQT 1% (Percent) 1963 Total $2 October or November 31 September 15 August 10 July 8 April-June 16 Jam-March 5 1962 Total ll July—December Jam-June 11 2. Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) - The basic test used for evaluating a per- son’s mental qualification for military service is the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), effective since July 1950. It was designed, through the joint efforts of all military services, to fulfill a dual function: (1) to measure a person’s ability to ab— sorb military training within a reasonable length of time, so as to eliminate those who do not possess such ability, and (2) to provide a uniform measure of the person’s gen- eral usefulness in the service, if qualified on the test. A—28 This test contains 100 questions equally distributed among the following con- tent areas: vocabulary—ability to handle words and understand verbal concepts; arith- metic—ability to reason with numbers and solve simple mathematical problems; spatial relations—ability to distinguish forms and patterns; and mechanical ability—ability to interrelate tools and equipment. The test is arranged in cycles of increasing difficulty and each cycle contains an equal number of questions of comparable levels ofdifficulty in each ofthe above-mentioned content areas. It is a self-administered, spiral omnibus- type test. On the basis of their scores on the AFQT, the examinees are divided into the following five groups, representing a regressive range in general mental ability—from very rapid learners (mental group I) to very slow learners (mental group V): Required Corresponding Mental group correct answers percentile score I ....................... 89 - 100 93 — 100 II ...................... 74 - 88 65 — 92 III ..................... 53 - 73 31 — 64 IV ..................... 25 - 52 10 -‘ 30 V ...................... 24 or less 9 or below 4F and [Y Groups - Young men who receiveda test score between 0 and 9 are classified in group 4F and are not considered qualified for military service. Since August 1958, those receiving a score of 10 to 30 are classified in group 1Y and are given additional mental tests (Army Classification Battery - ACB; later replaced by Army Qualification Battery — AQB) to determine their potential usefulness for carrying out work in 8 major occupational catagories. Examinees who failed to attain the required minimum score in these tests were classified as Trainability Limited. Such persons, currently not acceptable, would qualify under mobilization or emergency conditions. Sample Selection The survey was scheduled to interview three thousand individuals at approx- imately two hundred local Selective Service offices located in one hundred and eighty- six cities. The selection of the cities included in this survey was accomplished in two stages. First, the fifty States and the District of Columbia were divided into the following three groups: States with low mental rejection rates; States with medium re- jection rates; and States with high rejection rates. Because of low rates and small numbers of rejectees, States excluded from the survey were: Delaware Nebraska Oregon Wyoming Idaho Nevada South Dakota Maine New Hampshire Utah Montana North Dakota Vermont A— 29 Then the two hundred local offices were allocated to these groups based on the pro— portion of the total rejectees included within each group. The total number of offices assigned to each of these groups was further allocated among the States in similar manner. The local offices were selected so that all parts of the States were repre- sented. For this survey, the local Selective Service offices selected individuals re- cently rejected by the military because they were not mentally qualified for the Armed Services. Selection of rejectees started with those most recently rejected and the Boards worked backward until the number needed was reached. Letters were sent to these individuals notifying them of their selection to participate in the survey. The local Selective Service offices contacted these individuals by mail or telephone to arrange the time for the interview at the local Selective Service office. The local office made as many contacts as necessary to arrange fifteen interviews. Large cities were to be represented in the survey as follows: Los Angeles, California - 60 interviews Chicago, Illinois - 75 interviews New York, New York - 150 interviews Philadelphia, Pennsylvania — 60 interviews Atlanta, Georgia - 30 interviews Baltimore, Maryland - 30 interviews Detroit, Michigan — 30 interviews District of Columbia — 30 interviews Newark, New Jersey - 30 interviews New Orleans, Louisiana - 30 interviews Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania - 30 interviews The interviews were conducted by employees of the local State employment offices. The Employment Service also attempted to obtain additional information from these individuals regarding any previous contacts with the local office in order to furnish information regarding any testing given these individuals by the Employment Service. Occupation Groups - The following occupation groups were used in the tabulation of the data and are identified by the'following three-digit Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) codes: Occupational Group DOT Codes Professional-technical, managerial, clerical and sales 000-199 Service - ' 201-295 Agricultural 301-397 Skilled 400-599 Semiskilled 600-799 ~ Unskilled 800-989 Data Limitations Small differences in percentages are not necessarily significant in appraising the survey results for a variety of technical reasons, such as the lack of time for fol- lowing up non-respondents. A-30 Appendix D Documents Used in Survey 1. Questionnaire - Form TFMC-l 2. Instructions to Interviewer - Form TFMC-le 3. Employment Service Supplement - Form TFMC-la 4. Program Letter No. 1530 - US. Employment Service letter to all State Employment Security Agencies ' 5. ‘Letter to Rejectee From Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirte 6. Letters to State Directors of Selective Service System From General Lewis B. Hershey 7. Waiver Form by which rejectee authorized Selective Service System to release the confidential data to the Task Force 8. Letter to Rejectee From Local Selective Service Board A-31 Budget Bureau No. 44—6355; Approval expires December 31, I963 TFMC—l CONFIDENTIAL—This is an official document of the United States Government. The inlormation reported on this form is confidential and may not he used for purposes of taxation, investigation, or regulation. PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE ON MANPOWER CONSERVATION Waxhington, l).( . QUESTIONNAIRE for persons disqualified for military service I. IDENTIFICATION (To be filled by local board) I. Name I Zn. Address 3 (Na. d; Street, or RFD No.) 2b. Apt. N0. 5a. (Lity or 'l'own 3b. State )it‘. (,urrt-nt address 3A (I! tlillvrent) 4. Seleniu- Sivrvicc Number 4 5. Date of birth 5 19 (Month) (m. A.l".Q.T. Score 20A 6b. AQB Score 205 (GT Aptitude area a! this test) /. Sel. Scrv. (ilnss lY D I 4F [:2 8. Court Record 21 Yes [:1 No D0 9. Examination Date 22 19 10. Telephone Number (i! any) (Month) a. If he was not examined, what was reason for not sending him to Induction Station? (Ian't read or write ............. [3X Othcr (Specify) ............... E] V II. TRAINING AND EDUCATION I. What is the highest grade (or year) of regular school you have ever attended? (Please check only in one section: a, b, c, or d) 0 8. Never attended school . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . [:3 c1. Were your classes mainly: General or Academic . . . t ct oz 03 04 05 05 07 03 Business or Commercial. 2 b. Elementary (grade). . . . |:) {:3 [:3 E] [j E] [j [3 Vocational or Technical: Agriculture ........ [j 3 I 2 3 4 Trade ........... ‘ 4 c. High school (year). . . . E3 C] E] C] Other Voc. ........ 5 (Specily) (I! one of these boxes is checked, ask cl.) Other high school . . . . . 6 t 2 3 4 5 OR MORE . d. College (y...) 5 ...... [j [3 E3 [3 [] (SPEC'M 2. Did you finish this grade (or year)? ......... Yes D I 3. Are you still attending a regular school? ..... Yes E]! N0 l:l° N0 [—10 Note: For those who have not com leted the 4th (senior) year of high school and are not now attending a regular school, please t at o ow. For others, skip to question 7. ask questions 4, 5, and 4. What was the most important reason for your leaving school? (Check only one) Illness ‘ Had to support self ................... 2 Ilad to support family .................. 3 Preferred work to school 4 Because of low marks in school ............ Had to work on family farm or in family business. Other ............................. (Specify) E? 5. How old were you when you left school? years 6. How many different schools did you go to from the time you started to the time you left? Noneto4......................... Sto9................ B; 10(014........................... ISormore.......................... Bi 7. In addition to re ular school attendance (as checked in I), did you ever take any special training such as apprenticeship, a as iness school course? NODO trade school, or Yes [1‘ (I! Yes, ask a and b) a. What kind of training was this? b. In what years did you take it? FOR OFFICE USE ONLY A B C D A-32 III. WORK EXPERIENCE The following are questions about your most recent iob. l. Did you work at any time last week? ................ Yes [:1 No [i] (If Yes, ask 2) a. (II No) Were you looking for work?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yes E] No [:]4 (I! Yes, ask b, and continue) (I! No, ask 4) b. (I! Yes) How many weeks were you looking for work?. . . . Less than 5 weeks. . Us 15 to 26rweeks. . , . {:17 5 [014 weeks ----- D6 27 weeks or more .. Us 2. What kind of work were you doing last week? If you did not work last week, describe your last iob. Job Title DOT Code [: (To be entered alter Check here if he had never worked before and ask 4 [:lv the interview) 3. What are (were) your usual weekly earnings on your current (last) iob, before deductions, not including occasional overtime? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 4. If y0u are not working, do you currently receive (Please check those that apply) Welfare or other public assistance . . . . . . . . .2 No money income . . . . . . . . ...... . . . ..[i16 Allowance or money as needed from parents . . [:J4 Unemployment compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . .l Other (Specify) ..... Clfi Some questions on your work experience during l962. 5. Did you do any work at all in l962? ......... Yes C] No [jv (I! Yes, ask a. and continue) (I! No, skip to 6-8) a. What kind of work did you do on the iob you worked at the longest during 1962? Job Title Check here if it is the same job as in 2 . . . . . Civ DOT Code C: (To be entered alter the interview) b. How many weeks did you work in 1962? None . . . . . . . . . . . D0 14 to 20 weeks . . . . . . 2 Less than 14 weeks. . C]! 27 or more weeks. . . .- . ES 6. Money income in the year 1962 a. What was your total income from all sources including iobs, unemployment insurance, welfare, etc.l during l962? . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . 3 .00 or None D0000 b. How much of this income was from unemployment benefits? . . . ....... 3 .00 or None [:]X c. How much of this income was from other public assistance or welfare? . . . 3 .00 or None E] x 7. When looking for a iob, have you ever been told by the emplo er that he pre- Yes: Once . . . ferred someone who was not eligible for the draft (Selective gervice)? . . . . . Twice . . . . . . . . Three or more times. No................ "I ... 2 a ..C]o 8. Did you resign or quit your iob when you expected to be drafted? . . ...... Yes [:3 No D0 (Go to Didn't have a job [T]! IV) a.(l!Yes)Didyougobacktoyouroldiob?......................Yes[:]2 No r]3 (I! No‘, ask 3.1) a.l Why didn't you go back to your old iob? IV. A.F.Q.T. (Skip this section if the respondent was never sent to the Armed Forces Examining Station) (Read the lollowing to the respondent) 1. We would like to ask you some questions about the written tests (AFQT) which you took recently at the Armed Forces Exam- ining Station. We are interested in your impressions and opinions about this test. Did you take this test? Yesml No: Can’treadorwrite..........U2 (Skip to V) Other [:l3 2. How well do you think you did on the test? (Check only the one that applies) Very well, excellent, very good, etc. :11 Fair,notverywell......................[:lz Verybad.............................[33 Musthavefailed........................ D4 Don'tknow...........................D5 Page TWO A-33 (Seclion IV continued) 3. Did you have any difficulty with the instructions? Yes C] No Do a. (I! Yes) What was the greatest difficulty? Not enough time to read them .......... 1 Other ......... . ....... . . ...... . CIA Didn’t understand them .............. 2 Had difficult time reading them ........ . 3 (Speclly) 4. Do you think that some of the questions were easy? Yes E] No Do a. (I! Yes), Which ones were the easiest? Reading .................... ....[:11 Other............ ....... .......C]3 Arithmetic ............... . ...... D2 (Specilyl 5. Do you think that some of the questions were hard? Yes C] No [:]0 a. (I! Yes) Which ones were the hardest? Reading ............. . .......... C]! Other ..... ....... ...... ........l:]4 Arithmetic . . .................... [:12 S H AllParts........ ............... C13 ”M" V. FUTURE TRAINING NOTE: For those now working (quesrion l. Secrion III), explain to the respondent that the training you are talking about would not interfere with his present job and would be ona part-time basis. For those not working, it would be on a full-time basis. 1. Do you feel that you have enough basic education and training to earn a good living? Yes E}! No C] 0 It depends [:4 (Speclly) 2. If you were offered basic education in reading, writing, and arithmetic, would you accept it? Yes C] I No C] o It depends C14 (Specily) 3. If you were offered the opportunity of training for a iob, would you accept it? Yes El No C] 0 It depends D4 (Specify) 4. If you were offered a combination of instruction in reading, writing, arithmetic, with iob training, would you accept it? Yes C]! No l:] 0 It depends E] 4 (Speclly) 5. Would you accept this training away from your home town or locality? Yes Ell (51:13:: No C] 0 It depends D4 (Specify) 3. Would you be willing to live with other trainees in a camp? Yes [:l‘ No [3 0 It depends D4 (Speclly) 6. Note: If the respondent answered I‘No" to any of these questions (2 to 5 , ask: ”If ou were given money while taking any of the training, would you say ”Yes" instead of "No"? Enter the answers elow only g)! those questions that apply. 4. Now yes [:lz Still No [:3 2. Now yes 82 Still No [:3 5. Now yes E2 Still No [:]3 3- Now yes 2 Still No [:3 5a. Now yes D2 Still No [:13 7. Would you like to go to a school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic? Yes 1:] I No |:] 0 It depends D3 (Spaclly) a. Check here if enrolled in school now. [:2 VI. BACKGROUND INFORMATION We would like to know some more information about your background and your family. I. Where did you live most of the time before age 18? In a large city (100,000 population or more) ....................... . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [:]t In a suburb near a large city ............. . .............................. . . . . ...... . . . . . [:12 In a small or middle-sized city or town (under 100,000 population) but not in a suburb of a large city . . . . ._ ..... . . D3. Open country (not on a farm) ...... . ................... . ........................ . . . ..... [:4 On a farm . . . .................................................................... E] 5 2. How many brothers and sisters did you have when you were growing up? None .......... ... ....... [:0 Three.... ........ .. ...... D3 One .......... . .......... DI Four ..................... D4 Two . . . . . ................ E]: Five or more ........ . ...... D5 Page Three A-34 (Section VI continued) 3. What is your present marital status? Single(nevermarried).............Dl Married.......................[:]2 Divorcedor separated .............D3 Widowed......................I:]4 (71 Y . 4. (I! married) Are ou Iivin with your parents (either yours or your wife's)? Yes . . . . I ask :5 No . . . . 0 Y 9 ) a. Is your father (or father-in-law) with whom you are living working now? Yes . . . . [:11 No . . . . [:]0 No father or father-in-law present in household .. D2 (I! Yes, ask 5.1) 21.1 What kind of work does your father do? Jobdde DOTCODE [::::::::](TobeeMewdnHu the interview) 5. (It not married) Are you living with both of your parents? Yes....Dl No: Motheronly....D2 Father only . . . . C13 . Other . . . . . . . . D4 (Specily) a. If you are living with your father (or both parents), is he working? Yes....[:]I (IIYes, askb) No....[:]o b. What kind of worlr does your father do? Job title DOT CODE l — ' . (To be entered alter the interview) 6. Have your parents ever been divorced or separated? Yes....Dl No....C|O 7. What was the highest grade (or year) of regular school your father ever completed? (Please check only in one section: a, b, c or d) o 3. Never attended school . . . E] d. College (year) 5 — . . . . 01 oz 03 04 05 06 07 05 b. Elementary (grade) ...... [j C] [:l D [:1 I: C] [j e. Don't know . . . . . . . . I 2 3 4 c. High school (year). . . . . . C] C] C] E] 8. Was the total income of your family from all sources during I962 Under 32,000 E]! 82,000 to 84,000 [:]2 Over 34,000 D3? DXD- or None D0000 Don't know . . . . . . Bx 9. Is your family now receiving any public assistance or welfare payments? Yes........CjI No........[:]0 I0. During the past five years has your family (or your parents) received any public assistance or welfare payments? Yes,.......E]l No........[jo ll. Do you know your Social Security Number? Yes........|:E: No........DV Don'thaveany......DX 12. Have you ever applied for work or for unemployment insurance benefits at the State Employment Service Office? Yes........[ji No........[:]0 Don'rremember........|:]x (I! Yes, llll out ES supplement lorm) VII. TO BE FILLED BY INTERVIEWER 1. Date interview completed (Mo.) (Day) 2. Race: White [:]1 Negro 1:]2 Other C] 3 3. Interview was conducted by: Counselor C} I Placement Interviewer [j 2 Other [:1 3 (Specily ) 4. Which one of the following services does the respondent most need even if now working: (Check only one) Jobdevelopment........................... ....... [:1 Counseling ....... .............C]Z Referralto: Literacytraining...................... ........ [33 Vocationaltraining............... ........ ...... .......'.......[:]4 Community agency other thanatraininginstirution...... ..... ..... ...............[:]5 Insufficient information to make determination. Further interviewing necessary. ...... ............ .Eb Respondent does not need assistance... ........... .......... . ..... . ..... ........ 7 PageFour A-35 TFMC-le PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE ON MANPOWER CONSERVATION Survey of Persons not Qualified for Military Service Instructions to Interviewer The following are instructions to be followed in using the Questionnaire (TFMC-l) in this survey: General You will be interviewing approximately fifteen men at the local Selective Service board located in your city. These individuals will all be young men who did not qualify for the military service either as a result of the board's action or due to their inability to pass the written tests at the armed forces examining station. The contacting of these individuals, the notification of the fact that they were selected for the survey, and the arrangements for the interview are the responsibility of the local draft board. It will be your responsibility to contact the local board and arrange to appear at their office to conduct the interviews at the time they have scheduled. It will be your responsibility during the interview to complete Sections II-VI of the Questionnaire (TFMC-l) and question 1 in the ES Supplement (TFMC-la). Section VII of the Questionnaire (TFMC—l) and questions 2—7 in the ES Supplement (TFMC-la) will be completed immediately following the interview. The remainder of TFMC-la will be completed upon returning to your office. The TFMC-l questionnaires are to be mailed — Air Mail-Special Delivery - upon the conclusion of the last interview, with a trans- mittal (TFMC—ld). The completed ES Supplements (TFMC-la), also with a transmittal (TFMC-ld), are to be mailed as soon as they are completed. Section 1 of the questionnaire should have been completed by the local board before the interviewing takes place. However, if the board did not com— plete section 1, ask only items 1-5 and obtain the information for items 6—9 from the local board office after the interview has been completed. Pen and ink should be used to write in the answers and check the appropri— ate boxes. In Sections II through VI, bold face type has been used to indicate the words to be read to the respondent for each question. To establish a cooperative and effective relationship with the respondex= each interview should be opened with statements designed to orient him to the purpose of the survey and the context in which the questions are framed. Refer— ence should be made to the need for more facts about educational and work exper— ience, family background, and the opinions of these young men. These facts will provide knowledge to the Nation in order that recommendations can be made for increasing job and other economic opportunities. A-36 TFMC-le Specific The following are more specific instructions for the questions to be asked: Section II A. Question 1. The highest grade of regular school attained by the respondent is needed. Either a, b, c, or d should be answered, not all of them. Regular school refers to education obtained in public and private graded schools and colleges (day or night; full or part time), which advanced a person toward an elementary school certificate, high school diploma or college degree. Ques- tion c.l is to be asked of everyone who has ever attended high school, or its junior high school equivalent, but did not attend college. B. Ask questions 4—6 of only school dropouts, i.eu those who never finish- ed high school. C. Question 7 is to be asked of everyone. Section III A. Question 1 will be answered by a "yes" even if only one hour ofumrk was performed during the previous week. B. Question 2 will be asked of all individuals answering ”yes” to ques- tion 1 or question l—a. Interviewer must enter DOT code after interview is completed. C. Question 3 will be asked of all individuals answering question 2. If the respondent only knows an hourly rate, multiply this by the number of hours he usually works in a week and enter this estimate. D. Question A is to be asked of those answering "no” to question 1. E. Question 5-a. The job title to be entered here is for single job held longest in 1962. However, for many persons, particularly farm laborers, construction laborers, and odd job workers, who will work for many employers on many jobs, we want the type of work done for the longest total time in 1962. For example, a young man may have worked for dozens of employers on dozens of jobs as a construction laborer during 40 weeks of good weather and then for 12 weeks of bad weather he may have held a single inside job such as warehouse laborer; in that case, you would enter "construction laborer" for the job title. F. Question 6. Estimates are acceptable here. If the individual gives a weekly amount, tie in with the number of weeks worked in 1962 to arrive at an annual estimate. A-37 TFMC-le Section IV There will be individuals in the survey who were classified h-F because it was obvious to the local board that they were either illiterate or had such little formal education that they could not possibly qualify for military service. These people did ngt take the Armed Forces Qualifications' Test (AFQT) and should not be asked this Section. You should always check back to item 9 in Section I before proceedingwith this Section. Section V In any of the questions 2 to S—a, if the respondent cannot give a direct ”yes” or "no” answer try to ascertain what is the main reservation to this offer of training and enter it in the space provided. If this reservation is connected with need for money, it will not be necessary to ask question 6 for that part. If the reservation is not connected with the need for money, enter it in the space provided and ask question 6 for that part after you have finished question 5-a. You are not to mention the possibility of money until you read question 6. Question 6. If the respondent asks about the amount of money to be paid, he should only be told the amount he can be paid in his State under present MDTA regulations as they pertain to his qualifications. Section VI Question 1. It is not necessary to exactly distinguish the size of a city or town. If in doubt, check "In a large city." ' Question 3. "Married" would include common-law marriages. "Separated" would include both legal separations and a long period without court action. Question h is to be asked only of those who are now married. Question 5 is to be asked of those who are now either ”Single," ”Divorced or separated,” or ”Widowed". Question 6. This question does not apply to any previous marriages of the respondent's parents. ”Yes" will be checked if one or both of the respondent‘s parents have died withOut being divorced or separated. Question 7. If the respondent is not sure, obtain his best estimate such as "8th grade” or‘Tinished high school". Question 8. If the respondent is living with his parents, we want an estimate of the combined incomes of all related persons living together as a family. If he is married and not living with parents enter the income for his own family, i.e., his and his wife's total income. Conclude by thankingithe respondent for providing the information and for cooperating in this survey. A-38 TFMC-le Section VII This section is to be filled out after the respondent has left the desk or counter where the interview is being held and before the next interview starts. DO NOT ASK ITEM 2: "RACE". If you have any doubts about the person's race, check the box for ”Other”. A-39 TFMC l-a Budget Bureau No. hh-6335 l. 8. 9. 10. Approval expires December 31, 1963 State Employment Service Supplement to Questionnaire for Persons Disqualified for Military Service ASK RESPONDENT ITEM NO. 1 When was your last visit to the State employment service office? / Mo. Year a. Where is the office located? b. Do you have an employment service identification card? No (X) Yes DOT Code COPY INFORMATION FOR ITEMS 2-7 FROM MAIN QUESTIONNAIRE Name: Address: Social Security No.: / / 7* 7 Selective Service No.: / /’ f f 77 Title of current or most recent job (from Question No. 2, Part III): DOT Code: Title of longest job held in 1962 (from Question No. 5 a, Part III): DOT Code: COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING FROM LOCAL OFFICE RECORDS (Local office where records are located ) Did the respondent register for work since Jan. 1962? Yes (1) No (0) If yes, answer the following. Application active? Yes (1) No (0) Has respondent been tested? a. SATB Yes (1) No (0) b. GATE Yes (1) No (0) c. Other Yes (1) No (0) (specify) -_- A—4O 11. GATB Scores /G/V/N/S/P/Q/K/F/M / / / / / / / 12. Number of OAP's passed: 13. Number of times counseled since January 1962: ____ 0 ____ 3 _ 1 _ 1+ or more times ____2 Date of last counseling interview / Mo. Year 1n. Was respondent referred to training? 15. If yes, did respondent complete training? 16. Number of job referrals since January 1962: ___ 0 ___ u ___ l ___ 5 ___ 2 ___ 6 3 7 or more 17. Number of times placed since January 1962: ____ 0 ____ H ____ 1 ___ 5 ___ 2 ___ 6 3 7 or more A-41 / / / / Yes__( 1) No_( 0) Yes __(1) No (0) In reply refer to EMO U. S. DEPAR'JMEM OF LABOR Bureau of Employment Security washington 25, D. C. Uhited States Employment Service Program Letter No. 1530 November A, 1963 TO: ALL STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES SUBJECT: Survey During Week of November 11, 1963, of Youths not Qualified for Military Service ‘ REFERENCE: None PURPOSE: To describe the role of selected State employment security agencies in the survey. On September 30, 1963, the President created a Task Force on manpower Conservation. Members of the Task Force are the Secretary of Labor, who is chairman; the Director of the Selective Service System; the Secretary of Defense; and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Task Force will be concerned with exploring the reasons why such a large number of young men are found to be not qualified for military service. Also, the President has requested the Task Force to recommend a program for the guidance, testing, counseling, training, and rehabilitation of youths found not qualified for military service because of failure to meet the physical or mental standards of.the Anmed Forces. The Task Force has been instruc- ted to submit its report to the President by January 1, 1961+. In order to find out more about the needs and attitudes of young men rejected for military service because of failure to meet the mental qualifications of the Armed Forces, the Task Force is planning to survey during the week of November 11, 1963, a sample of persons rejected for this reason. The survey is to cover about 3,000 individuals called in by 200 local Selective Service boards. In most localities, a maximum of 15 indi- viduals will be interviewed. A detailed description of the survey which explains the role of the participating State employment security agencies is enclosed. S fficient copies of this material are provided for distri— bution to the State agencies involved. The State agencies which are being asked to participate were notified by telegram on October 30. These States are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Lflchigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. A-42 USESPL No. 1530 V The work of these State agencies is very much appreciated not only by this Bureau but also by the Secretary of Labor and other membersof the Task Force. MANUALIZATION REQUIRED: None RESCISSIONS: None Sincerely yours, gram Robert C. Goodwin Administrator Enclosures: Survey materials (State agencies will receive one copy with each USESPL. Two copies to each regional office.) 1. Enclosure: USESPL No. 1530 The Role of State Employment Security Agencies Participating in the Survey of Youths Not Qualified for Military Service The local offices of participating State employment security agencies are to make available experienced employment service in‘erviewers to interview, at the local Selective Service boards, individuerselected and scheduled for interview by the board. Because of the nature of the information to be secured, a counselor should be assigned to conduct the interviews, if feasible. Each board will select 15 individuals, and an employment security interviewer is to be provided to work with each board. A questionnaire (see enclosure TFMC-l) is to be completed during the interview. The local Selective Service board will supply th' Iues- tionnaires and mail the completed questionnaires (using air mail, special delivery service) to the Department of Labor in Washington for process— ing. Note that the Dictionary of Occupational Titles code is to be enter— ed on the questionnaire; therefore, each interviewer will need to have a copy of the DOT available. Interviews will be scheduledand conducted from November 11 through lb, 1963. By close of business on November 1h, all Questionnaires (TFMC-l) should be completed and mailed to washington. The local Selective Service boards, which will select individuals to be interviewed in this survey are identified by city and street address on the enclosed list (TFMC-lcj. Note that more than one board is listed for some of the larger cities. Local employment security offices, which are to participate in the survey, are identified on the enclosed list (TFMC—lb). This list has been fur- nished to the local Selective Service boards, which will contact the managers of the local offices. Where there is more than one local office, or, in a few instances, where there are no local offices in the city of the Selective Service board, the State employment security agency is to notify the State Director of the Selective Service System as to where the contact is to be made. To make sure that this survey is conducted on time and the information returned promptly, the local employment security offices and local Selective Service boards are jointly responsible for (1) making the initial contact, and (2) preparing the Transmittal Control Form (TFMC-ld) and mailing it with the batch of questionnaires (mm—1) at the end of each day to: U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, TFMC, Washington 25, D. 0., using air mail, special delivery service (except for Maryland and Washington Metropolitan area). A sufficient supply of gummed labels which should be used for mailing is being provided to each State agency. The last batch should be mailed November 1h. To assure avail- ability of copies of the Questionnaire (TFMC-l), a. bulk supply is being mailed to each State employment security office for distribution to the local offices involved, in addition to the supply being sent to the local Selective Service boards. A-44 Enclosure: USESPL No. 1530 60 T. It may be necessary to schedule evening interviews to accomodate respond- ents who are not available during the day. In such instances, the local employment security offices should arrange to provide an interviewer. Where the individual interviewed indicates that he has applied at a local employment security office for work or unemployment insurance benefits Epart VI, item 12 of Questionnaire), an ES Supplement'to the Questionnaire TFMC-la, copy enclosed) is to be completed. The supply of this form to be used in the survey is being sent to State employment security agencies. Item la of the Supplement will identify the local office where the re— spondent filed. Information for items 8-17 is to be entered from local office records on the day following the interview. The local office is to mail these forms with Transmittal Control Form (TFMC—ld) at the close of business each day to the following address, using air mail, special delivery service, (except for Maryland and Washington Metropolitan area): U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, TEMC, washington 25, D. C. A sufficient supply of gummed labels which should be used for mail— ing is being provided to each State agency. The last batch should be mailed November 15. Where the respondent says he filed an application at a local office other than the one involved in the survey, the information should be secured by phone, if feasible. Even if no information is avail- able, the forms should be transmitted. As we hope to receive compensation for this project, time spent by the local offices may be charged to code 98ha, MDTA, and reported on form E8160 for the October-December quarter. Enclosures: 1. TFMC-l, Questionnaire for Persons Disqualified for Military Service. 2. TFMC-la, ES Supplement to Questionnaire. 3. TFMC—lb, List of Local Employment Security Offices, for Survey purposes. h. TFMC—lc, List of Local Selective Service Boards, for Survey purposes. 5. TFMC—ld, Transmittal Control Form. 6. Gummed, addressed labels, for return mailings to Washington, D. C. A—45 U. 5. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE or THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON Dear Sir: The President of the United States has created a Task Force on Manpower Conservation to make recommendations to him for reducing unemployment and increasing opportuni- ties for the young men of the Nation. This Task Force is composed of the Secretary of Labor (Chairman), the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Director of the Selective Service System. In order to get information that will help this group make its recom- mendations, a number of young men will be interviewed. You have been selected to participate in this survey and we would like to interview you at the Selective Service office nearest your home. Any information that you may give at this time will be held in confidence by the Govern— ment. Your Selective Service office will be in touch with you shortly to arrange a convenient time for you to be interviewed. Your cooperation in this survey will be greatly appreciated, and it is expected that information obtained will be used in the report to the President of the United States. Yours sincerely, w. aim.“ dug Secretary of Labor A-46 NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM at "DIANA AVINUI: NORTHWII'I' In mum mm: anclormmm WASHINGTON 25. D. C. mmmqmm annnroua November h, 1963 Reference is made to my letter of October 31, 1963, in which I noted the survey to be made for the President's Task Force on Manpower Conservation. Under separate cover the Department of labor, on behalf of the Task Force, is forwarding questionnaires to be used in this survey. These have been packaged and identified according to the local boards noted in the list accompanying my letter of October 31st. It is requested that the local board clerks arrange for interviews for those registrants indicating an interest in the survey. It is suggested that at least an hour and a half be allowed for each interview. Local board clerks are asked to complete questions 1 through 9 on the first page of the questionnaire for each registrant coming to the local board office for interview, but only if the registrant in writing gives his permission for such information to be taken from his file. The registrant is to understand that his answer to any question during the interview is entirely voluntary on his part. A suggested form to be used for this purpose is attached. A member of the local Sta”' Employment Service will be avail- able to interview registrants at the local board office. The Department of Labor is asking the Director of the State Employment agency to get in touch with the State Director of Selective Service to discuss details of the survey. Inasmuch as the Task Force has been asked by the President to make its report by January l, 196%, it is requested that the survey be made as expeditiously as possible. Sincerely yours, ‘fizlris 6W\ DIRECTOR Enclosure A-47 I hereby consent that information from my Selec— tive Service file be used in completing items 1 through 9 of Section I, Identification, on the first page of the questionnaire being used by the President‘s Task Force on Manpower Conservation. I understand that any answers to the questionnaire are entirely voluntary on my part. Signed Date A-48 NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM 451 INDIANA AVENUE NW. ADDRESS REPLY TO WASHINGTON 25, 0.0. THE DIRECTOR OF SELECTIVE SERVICE October 31, 1963 The President of the United States has designated me as a member of his Task Force on Manpower Conservation to "prepare a program for the guidance, testing, counseling, training and rehabili- tation of youths found disqualified for military service under the Selective Service System because of failure to meet the physical or mental standards of the Armed Forces." 'Other members of the Task Force are the Secretaries of Labor, Defense, and Health, Education, and Welfare. The Secretary of Labor is Chairman. In connection with its work the Task Force is making a limited survey of registrants mentally disqualified for military serv- ice. Your State has been selected as one in which the survey will be made. Attached is a list of local boards within which it is desired to secure information. It is requested that the clerks at the designated local boards review their files and identify those registrants rejected for mental reasons during the past calendar year. The clerk should mail a letter to 30 of these registrants inviting them to participate in this survey. Selection of registrants to whom this letter is to be sent should be made by beginning with the most recently rejected registrant and then working backward until 30 registrants have been identified. All local boards located at the same address may be treated as a single local board. It is requested that the local boards on the attached list, located in the following cities, mail out 60 letters each: A-49 Atlanta, Georgia Newark, New Jersey Baltimore, Maryland New Orleans, Iouisiana Detroit, Michigan Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania District of Columbia Copies of letters to be sent to the registrants are being forwarded under separate cover, together with franked envelopes. A questionnaire is being prepared to be used in interview- ing registrants. Copies of this questionnaire, together with instruc- tions for its use, will be forwarded later. Sincerely yours, 72:91,; 6: \ DIRECTOR Enclosure A-SO SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA (Local Board Stamp and Date) Re: ) Selective rvice No.: DOB: Dear Sir: The Selective Service System is cooperating with the U.S. Depart- ment of Labor by assisting in a survey of the President's Task Force on Manpower Conservation. The President of the United States has asked that certain agencies of the Government cooperate in conducting this survey. We are enclosing a letter from the Secretary of Labor, which is self-explanatory. We request that you report to (Local Board and Address) at: on . (Time) (Date) This interview will take approximately one hour, and we believe it will be beneficial to you as well as a great assistance to the govern- mental agencies that are conducting this Task Force on Manpower Conservation to better help the young male citizens of this nation. Very truly yours, By direction of the Local Board: Clerk ‘ ‘5 uUthNMEt’A'! I‘RIN'IINC OF}"1CE:1964 0 - 7197418 HJ-ra__ .I—I—I'l_a_ U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES CDEHLLEEL‘!