UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN ENGINEERING NOTICE: Return or renew all Library each Lost Book is $50.00. iais! The Minimum Fee for yJMatfiiials! The Minimum M27 1988 The person charging this materia! is responsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilaVbn, ^nd urulerlining of booted are r^sons for discipli- nary actSn Mi^.ntay t^suit in dismissal fi'om'ttie University. To rene>4aaj| «l«pl^s Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN L16I— O-1096 u ^:^ TV OF ... UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN URBANA, ILLINOIS 61801 ..i CAC Document No. 33 Economic Research Group Working Paper #7 Progress Report on the Impact of the Emergency Employment Act in Illinois By Roger H. Bezdek Center for Advanced Computation University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Urbana, Illinois 61801 March 1, 1972 cNGINEERmG UBRARY ABSTRACT This is the first in a series of reports on the implementation and administration of the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 in the State of Illinois outside of Cook County. This study is being sponsored by the National Manpower Policy Task Force and special attention is given here to the situation within the high impact areas of Champaign-Urban a, Decatur, and Springfield. Specific problems arising in each of these local areas as well as at the state level during the early phases of the emergency employment program are reviewed and analyzed. Attention is also given to court liti- gation initiated by the Illinois State Employees' Union which prevented any expenditure of state emergency employment funds for several months . The findings reported here indicate that many labor unions view the EEA program with mistrust, that the guidelines governing the distribution of EEA posi- tions between state and local units of government are ambiguous , and that in many parts of Illinois the emergency emplojonent program failed to accom- plish its major goal of rapidly putting a substantial number of persons to work in meaningful public service jobs. 11 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign http://archive.org/details/progressreporton33bezd ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is grateful to the following individuals for their co- operation and assistance in the course of this study: Thomas Jarvis of the Governor's Manpower Office of the State of Illinois, John Fonte of the Department of Personnel, State of Illinois, James Ransom, Affirmative Action Officer of the University of Illinois, Lawrence Reinold and Elizabeth McPike of the Illinois State Employees' Union, Connie Duffy, Janet McReynolds, and David Johnston of the Regional Manpower Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, Sar Levitan and Robert Taggart of the National Manpower Policy Task Force, Robert Pinkerton, Executive Director of the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission, Glenn Spackman, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager of Decatur, and Charles Kirchner, City Coordinator of Spring- field. Special thanks is due Mrs. Ava Butler, whose efforts as research assistant contributed enormously to this study. The opinions expressed here as well as any errors remain the sole responsibility of the author. This work was supported in part by a grant from the Ford Foundation to the National Manpower Policy Task Force and in part by the Center for Advanced Computation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE I . Overview 1 A . Summary 1 B. Implications of Findings 2 II. The Emergency Employment Act of 1971 5 A . Background 5 B. Summary of the EEA Legislation T Objectives of the Act 7 Summary of Provisions 8 III. State of Illinois Background Information 10 A. Demographic and Political Characteristics 10 B . Economic Characteristics 11 C . Poverty and Manpower Programs 12 D. Recent Trends in Unemployment 13 IV. High Impact Areas : Background Characteristics and Unmet Public Service Needs 15 A . Champaign County 15 Background Data 15 Recent Trends in Unemployment 15 Characteristics of the Unemployed l6 Public Service Needs 17 B • Decatur 17 Background Data 17 Recent Trends in Unemployment l8 Characteristics of the Unemployed 19 Public Service Needs 20 C . Springfield 21 Background Data 21 Recent Trends in Unemployment 21 Characteristics of the Unemployed 21 Public Service Needs 22 IV TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) SECTION PAGE V. State and High Impact Area EEA Allocations 2k A. Distribution of Section V, Section VI, and High Impact Funds 2k B. Some Questions Concerning the Allocation of EEA Funds 26 VI . State EEA Hiring 30 A . Intr oducti on 30 B . Fund Allocation and Personnel Recruitment 30 C Training Services and Career Development 31 D. State EEA Plans 35 VII. Court Injunction Delays EEA Hiring 38 A . Labor Unions and the EEA 38 B. Municipal Unions' Objections to EEA Provisions 38 C Legal Controversies ^1 D. The Court's Ruling and the Reasons for it k2 E. Assessment ^5 VIII. Emergency Employment in Champaign County ^7 A . Intr oduct ion ^T B. Expenditure of Section V EEA Funds ^T C. Problems With the High Impact Grant 51 D. Champaign' s High Impact Application ^ 5^ E. Unnecessary Delay in Local EEA Hiring 55 F. Potential Problems With the Black Community 57 G. More Problems : Local;, State, and University Jobs 58 State Jobs vs. Local Jobs Again 58 Struggle over the University of Illinois EEA Jobs 59 Union Opposes EEA Hiring 62 The University of Illinois Wins ^4 66 IX. Emergency Employment in Decatur and Springfield 66 66 61 69 A. Decatur Initial Decatur EEA Hires The Decatur High Impact Program: Union Objections Innovational Aspects of Decatur's High Impact Program High Impact Hiring '1 B . Springfield ' ^ Initial Springfield EEA Hires ' ^ The Springfield High Impact Program ' ^ TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE PAGE 1 . Existing Federal Manpower Programs 6 2. State of Illinois Priorities for EEA Hiring 32 3. Characteristics of Illinois State EEA Hires 36 k. Characteristics of Champaign' s Section V EEA Hires 50 5- Original State EEA Job Allocation in Champaign County 6I 6. Champaign' s Proposed High Impact Hiring 65 7 . Decatur ' s Proposed High Impact Hiring TO 8. Characteristics of Decatur's High Impact Hires 73 9. Springfield' s Proposed High Impact Hiring 77 APPENDIX Appendix A-1 . Employment Data for Illinois SMSA ' s 80 A-2. Illinois Pockets of High Unemployment Outside of Chicago •• • 8I A-3- Recent Unemployment Trends for Champaign 82 A-^. High Impact Area Pockets of Unemployment 83 A-5' Occupational Breakdown of Unemployment in Champaign 8U A-6. Characteristics of Champaign's Disadvantaged 85 A-7. Springfield' s Unmet Public Service Needs 86 A-8. Apportionment of Section V EEA Program Funds in Illinois • • 87 A-9- Apportionment of Section VI EEA Program Funds in Illinois • • 88 A-10. Illinois EEA Demonstration Grants 89 A-11. Initial Estimate of Champaign's Public Service Employment Needs 90 A-12. State EEA Job Allocation in Decatur 91 A-13' Method Used to Apportion High Impact Demonstration Funds in Springfield 92 A-1^. State EEA Job Allocation in Springfield 9^ Figure 1: Comparison of Illinois and U.S. Unemployment Rates T9 VI I . OVERVIEW Siiimnary The initial phases of the emergency employment program in Illinois have been characterized by bickering and infighting between officials at the federal, state, and local levels, hostility and mistrust on the part of many labor organizations, general lack of consideration of the broader aspects of the program, and, most seriously, repeated and lengthy delays in getting people employed with Emergency Employment Act funds. More than six full months after this landmark manpower legislation had been enacted relatively few people in Illinois were working in EEA funded jobs, and in some regions of the state the progreim seemed to be creating more confusion than public service jobs. This was true in spite of the heavy emphasis upon speed which should have character- ized the EEA program and in spite of the fact that Illinois had received a disproportionately large share of the demonstration grant funds awarded. In the attempt to both decipher the federal EEA guidelines and get people to work as quickly as possible, both efforts of which were less than successful, the broader aims of the program such as civil service reform were seldom more than superficially considered. Partly out of general mistrust of and lack of communications with the state administration in power, partly out of reactions which resulted from specific provocations, and partly out of fears both real and imagined of the potential effects of the EEA on their members, labor unions showed little enthusiasm for the program. Finally, disputes over the creation of jobs at the local level frequently resulted in strained relationships be- tween the state, local, and federal officials involved. In general, this researcher has been favorably impressed with the caliber of the personnel involved in the implementation of the EEA at all levels. Rather_, the problem seems to be with the legislation itself: a pro- gram such as the EEA which presented such a radical departure in manpower pol- icy, which attempted to accomplish so many fundamental and comprehensive changes in the structure of public service employment and which, at the same time, tried to employ several hundred thousand people in meaningful positions within a few months was bound to run into serious difficulties . Preliminary information concerning other regions of the country indicates that the situa- tion in Illinois is not unique. Implications of Findings Because this is only a preliminary report, any policy recommendations or suggestions for legislative reform developed here must be stated and inter- preted with caution. With this in mind, consider the following implications of the Illinois EEA experience: 1. The Emergency Employment Act was "too much too quickly" and in the hurried rush to fulfill all of its goals simultaneously many of the aims of the Act were often frustrated. This is not to say that the eventual effects of the EEA will not be substantial. The point is that a more reasoned and less hurried implementation of the Act might have resulted in an earlier realization of its goals. 2. Labor organizations are, in general, rather uneasy over the prospects that the EEA may generate changes in the civil service system unfavorable to their members, that it may be used to circumvent traditional methods of hiring, personnel selection, and promotion, that it may be used by some officials to under- mine a union's power, and that EEA trainees may be eventually used to replace unemployed or laid-off union members. In some cases these fears appear to be justified, in others they do not. In any case, a much better "public relations" effort would seem to be required to sell the EEA to organized labor. 3. The formula for distribution of EEA funds between state and local governments is ambiguous. Local officials want as much money as possible for positions within city and county agencies, while state officials prefer to retain maximum funds for employ- ment within state agencies at the local area. In general, local officials often seem able to both better assess the unmet public service needs of the particular area and also to be able to get people employed more rapidly than can personnel from the state government. ^4-. The exact procedures to be followed in applying for EEA funds need to be more clearly specified to state and local units of governments. For example, the uncertainty as to which labor organizations were to be notified in advance of a grant's submis- sion led to several months' delay in EEA hiring in Illinois for both Section V and VI state funds and for high impact local funds. 5. Finally, the Federal Administration's discretionary use of large amounts of PEP funds raises serious questions abou the use of available EEA funds. Specifically, the allocation of a high portion of the demonstra- tion grant funds to Illinois, a state which was not experiencing especially severe unemployment problems prior to the enactment of the EM, may indicate that these funds were not distributed as optimally as they might have been. II. THE EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1971 A . Background The government's responsibility for directly assuring employment opportunities for its citizens is not a nev phenomena hutj in the United States at least, it is of relatively recent origin. It vas not until the depression of the 1930 's that the government vas forced to alleviate unemployment through public sector employment. Operating under a New Deal philosophy, the federal government expanded its relief and assistance activities for various segments of the population and also instituted a series of public works programs to hire the unemployed directly. In the 1960's, in the midst of unprecedented affluence and economic prosperity, more sophisticated manpower policies were proposed as an answer to unemployment. During this decade, a wide range of manpower programs was enacted to deal with narrowly focused problems of job retraining, educational upgrading, assistance to select categories of disad- vantaged persons, and so forth. By 1970 an impressive array of diverse federal manpower programs had been passed; the major existing federal manpower programs are summarized in Table 1. Nevertheless, by the late 1960's, the effectiveness of the manpower policies of the federal government began to be questioned. Many of these manpower programs were criticized for their emphasis on training, their relatively low rate of job placement, and their limited number of enrollees. The few programs which offered actual employment opportunities as opposed to mere training slots, such as Operation Mainstream, were often overburdened with applications and faced long waiting lists of prospective participants. Table 1. Existing Federal Manpower Programs 1. Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) --helps the unemployed gain new skills through training. 2. Neighborhood Youth Corps--helps youngsters stay in school or receive work experience. 3* Operation Mainstream-~hires the chronically unemployed to work in public improvement projects, largely in small towns and rural areas. k. Public Service Careers (PSC) --trains people for public service jobs leading to career opportunities. 5. Concentrated Employment Program ( CEP )- -provides one-stop service for all manpower and related program services. 6. Job Corps --residential program combining skill training with broad remedial services. 7* JOBS (Job Opportunities in the Business Sector) --Labor Department contracts directly with private business firms to hire the dis- advantaged . 8. Work Incentive Program (WIN) --trains welfare recipients and seeks to place them in jobs. Source: Manpower Information Service, U. S. Department of Labor, It was against this ■background that a major public service employ- ment program designed to combine both public service and manpower objectives was proposed under the Economic Opportunity Act. However, this bill was defeated in Congress in 196? • In 1970, in the face of rising rates of unem- ployment affecting not only unskilled workers but professional and skilled workers as well, an Emergency Employment Act was passed by the Congress. This bill, however, was vetoed by President Nixon on the grounds that it would create "dead-end jobs in the public sector." In 1971 j a revised version of the Emergency Employment Act (EEA) was developed by members of the Employment, Manpower, and Poverty Subcommittee which provided for the provision of transi- tionial Jobs for a limited period of time under specific conditions. This revised EEA was approved by Congress in July of 1971 and was signed into law by President Nixon on Aguust 9, 1971. B. Summary of the EEIA Legislation Objectives of the Act The overall objectives of the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 are: 1. To give financial assistance to public employers to be used in providing unemployed and underemployed persons with transitional Jobs providing needed public services in times of high unemploy- ment. 2. Where appropriate, to provide Job-related training and manpower services which will enable such persons to move into employment or training not supported under the Act. Emphasis is placed, then, on finding transitional Jobs for public em- ployees and on providing assistance for moving these people to employment not subsidized by the Federal government. To this end, the Act provides for appropriate training, development of career opportunities, and placement efforts 7 Siimmary of Provisions Financial assistance is authorized to eligible program agents who agree to provide employment opportiinities for iinemployed or underemployed -workers in needed public services. Units of Federal_, state and local govern- ment, their subdivisions or institutions, and Indian tribes on Federal or state reservations may be eligible as well as combinations or consortia of governmental units and combinations of Indian tribes. There are two basic funding provisions specified in the Act. Under Section V^ funds are made available for public service employment when- ever the Secretary of Labor determines that the national unemployment rate equals or exceeds k.3 percent for three consecutive months. As of August 1971 this criterion had been met, permitting obligation of the $750,000,000 appro- priated for Section V programs during Fiscal Year 1972. No additional fuads will be obligated if the rate falls below k.'^ percent for three consecutive months . Section VI of the Act provides a program of special financial assis- tance for areas with particularly severe unemployment problems. For such areas where the Secretary of Labor finds that unemployment has reached six percent or more for three consecutive months. Congress has appropriated $250,000,000 for Fiscal Year 1972. The Federal Government may not pay more than ninety percent of the cost of administering an approved program; the remaining ten percent must be contributed by the participating unit of government. At least eighty percent of the funds authorized for the Section V program must be apportioned on a state and area basis according to the number of unemployed workers and the severity of unemployment in each state and area. 8 At least ninety percent of the total funds apportioned must "be used for paying wages and employment benefits to persons employed in public service jobs. Major emphasis is placed on the provision of employment; only a fraction of available funds is reserved for training and other supportive services. Employment preference under the EEA is to be given to -unemployed and underemployed persons who fall into one or more of the following categories: (i) special veterans, (ii) young persons eighteen years or older entering the labor force, (iii) persons forty- five years of age or older, (iv) migrant farm-workers, (v) persons of limited English-speaking ability, (vi) poor per- sons and welfare recipients, (vii) persons who have become unemployed because of federal expenditure shifts, and (viii) other persons from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. 9 III. STATE OF ILLINOIS BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. Demographic and Political Characteristics Illinois is one of the largest Midwestern states. According to the 1970 decennial census, its population was slightly less than eleven million. Comparing thi s with the state ' s I96O population of ten million reveals a growth in the 1960's of ten percent, despite a net outmigration of 106,000 persons. But the state's population is very unevenly distributed. Almost seven of the eleven million residents live in the Chicago metropolitan area; the rest are scattered throughout the State. The past decade's increase in population is also distributed unevenly. While Cook County and other metropolitan areas registered substantial population gains, the population of rural counties in the central and southern portion of the state remained constant or, in many cases, decreased. Just as Illinois is divided demographically, so also is it divided politically. Cook County, especially the Chicago metropolitan area, maintains a strong, urban-oriented Democratic political base while the rest of the state, "downstate, " is characterized by more conservative Republican domination. (Be- cause the National Manpower Policy Task Force has commissioned a separate study of the Emergency Employment Act in Cook County, the present report will not deal with EEA-related issues in the Chicago metropolitan area.) This division is illustrated by the state's political representation at both the state and Federal levels. Illinois representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is divided between twelve Republican and twelve Democratic Congressmen; in the U.S. Senate it is divided between one Republican and one Democrat. The state legislature is almost perfectly divided between Democrats and Republicans and. 10 for the first time in a century, Illinois has a Republican governor and a Demo- cratic lieutenant governor. B. Economic Characteristics Economically, Illinois is diversified; however, this diversification is concentrated in a few geographic areas. Substantial industrial and commer- cial diversification is found in the northern part of the state including the Chicago Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), Rockford, Rock Island- Moline, and DeKalh. Only Peoria, and perhaps Alton, in downstate Illinois can he considered to possess a wide range of heavy and light industry coupled with commerce. Such areas as Decatur, Danville, and Granite City in the cen- tral part of the state exhibit characteristics of an emerging economic diver- sification, dependent on a few major industries. Remaining metropolitan areas such as Springfield, Champaign-Urbana, and Bloomington-Normal remain primarily service-oriented centers. Statewide unemployment rates (see Appendix Table l) appear to corre- late with the degree of economic diversification: industries in the northern part of the state experience structural labor shortages, the situation varies in the central region of the state, and in the southern portion of the state there are labor surpluses and high rates of unemployment. Ten of the thirteen areas with unemployment rates of six percent or more are located in southern Illinois. With the decline of the region's coal industry, southern Illinois lost its economic base, and subsequent attempts to attract new industy to the area have been unsuccessful. With no industrial base and with an agricultural economy operating only at a subsistence level, southern Illinois is an impover- ished area. Only Jackson Coimty, home of Southern Illinois University, has an unemployment rate below five percent. 11 C. Povei-by and Manpower Problems Despite economic diversification and favorable employment situations in the northern metropolitan areas, pockets of unemployment exist within prin- cipal cities resulting partly from discriminatory practices of employers and unions toward minority, inner-city residents and partly from unrealistic job qualifications. Unions have contributed unrealistic job specifications and, in some cases, have raised unnecessary barriers preventing entry into parti- cular occupations. Employment of the inner-city resident is further hampered by his inferior education and health care. In order for disadvantaged and poor families to survive and upgrade themselves in times of rising inflation and economic recession the wife and mother must often work to supplement the husband's salary or, frequently, to provide her family with its sole support. Accordingly, the mother must find some facility to care for her children properly during working hours. A lack of sufficient child-care centers forces many poor workers to relinquish the opportunity to increase family incomes. Eight Illinois counties lack day-care center facilities of any kind and forty-seven counties have no full time day care centers. Alexander County has facilities available for only seventy children, Clay for eighteen, Edgar for eighteen, Lawrence for ten, Piatt for fifteen, and Randolph for ten. It should be noted that in each case total county population exceeds 15,000. The unemployment/poverty situation in Illinois can be viewed somewhat differently using the U.S. Department of Labor's "universe of need" concept which was designed to consider both the total number of persons requiring em- ployment assistance and the levels of unemployment and underemployment. The 12 concept considers those persons whose incomes fall "beneath the poverty level and who do not have suitable employment. Each disadvantaged indiArLdual must be included in one of the following categories; (i) a school dropout, (ii) a member of a minority group, (iii) less than twenty- two years of age, (iv) forty-five years of age or older, or, (v) handicapped. The universe of need in Illinois in 1970 includes approximately 758,000 persons. By including the poor, the underemployed, the disadvantaged, and those who have been discouraged from seeking employment, the universe of need becomes more than six times the number of unemployed. Thus, the concept is a more adequate tool for measuring the need for manpower programs and enhanced employment opportunities. While the demonstrated need is great, existing manpower programs in Illinois were grossly inadequate prior to the enactment of the EEA. For exam- ple, while the 1970 CAMPS plan asserted that a potential population of 15,000 persons in Illinois might have benefitted from the MDTA, slots were open that year to only one-third of the target population. Similarly, while 50,000 low income, disadvantaged, and minority youths qualified for the in-school Neighbor- hood Youth Corps program, only 5»200 such opportunities were available in 1970. Operation Mainstream, conducted in central and southern Illinois, provides only U80 employment opportunities for a potential clientel of over 3^000. And WIN, which trains welfare recipients in Cook, Madison, St. Clair and Peoria Counties, was funded for only 5^000 positions in 1970 although its target population was 70,000. D. Recent Trends in Unemployment In the past two decades unemployment in Illinois has varied cyclically, corresponding to the recessionary periods of 195^^ 1958, I96I, and 1970/71' 13 Over this period.^ fluctuations in state unemployment rates closely paralleled those in the nation as a whole, although generally at a lower level (see Appendix Figure l) . While the intervals between the economic downswings and recoveries were relatively short in the recessions of 195^+, 1958, and I96I, business activity and industrial output expanded continuously throughout the 1960's. During most of this decade employment grew at a faster rate than did the civilian labor force, and the unemployment rate decreased continuously reaching a seventeen-year low of 2.6 percent in February 1967* With the be- ginning of the present economic slump in I969 the jobless rate began to edge upward again, reaching five percent by the fall of 1971 • As has been indicated, unemployment is distributed very unevenly throughout the state, with the highest concentrations of joblessness in the rural areas of central and southern Illinois. But severe pockets of unemploy- ment are found even within the relatively prosperous northern part of the state, This is illustrated in Appendix Table 2 which lists the pockets of unemployment within selected counties and cities in Illinois. 1J+ IV. HIGH IMPACT AREAS: BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS MB UNMET PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS A. Champaign County Background Data Champaign County^ approximately I30 miles south of Chicago in the east central portion of Illinois^ comprises the Champaign SMSA. With an area of 1000 square miles its 1970 population was 162,000 as compared to its I96O population of 132,000. This increase was due primarily to net immigration. The county's two urbanized areas^, Champaign-Urhana and Rantoul, had 1970 popu- lations of 56,000-33,000 and 25,000. In the Champaign-Urbana area there are seventeen manufacturing firms employing 7,600 workers. The principal products manufactured are electronic components and systems, road and building construction machinery, academic ap- parel, air conditioning equipment, sporting goods, food products, and alloy castings. But the area is primarily service-oriented. The major employer in the county, the University of Illinois, employs 11,500 academic and non-academic personnel. Recent Trends in Unemployment The unemployment rate in Champaign County has in recent years been quite low; however, from a low in I969 of 2.5 percent it had increased by the fall of 1971 to four percent. Aside from the overall effects of the present economic recession, several recent events have tended to aggregate unemployment problems in the county. First of all, one of the county's largest private em- ployers, the Magnovox Corporation which employed approximately 2,200 workers in 15 1967^ ceased operations in its Urbana plant in December 1971. Secondly^ faced ■with substantial reductions in its operating budget the University of Illinois was forced to make employment reductions, and by the fall of 1971 employed 350 fewer persons than it had a year previously. Finally, the number of civilian employees at Chanute Air Force Base in Rantoul has been reduced, adding to the area's unemployment problems. Recent employment /unemployment trends for Champaign County are summarized in Appendix Table 3. Champaign County has one major pocket of unemployment: the "north end" subsection of Champaign-Urbana. This area is almost entirely Black, con- tains approximately 11,U00 persons, and in 1971 had an unemployment rate rang- ing between seven and ten percent (see Appendix Table k) . Characteristics of the Unemployed Results of a survey conducted by the Illinois State Employment Ser- vice to determine the number of unemployed persons in Champaign County at the time the EEA was enacted are available. Sixty percent of the unemployed were men and forty percent were women. Thirty-five percent were under twenty- two years of age, fifty-three percent were between twenty-two and forty-four, and eleven percent were forty-five or older. This represents a relatively large rate of unemployment for the younger age groups. Sixteen percent of the unemployed were classified as Negro and less than one percent were listed as Spanish American. This is a relatively small percent of minorities. Whether or not this indicates that unemployment among minority groups in Champaign County is significantly smaller than the national average or that minority jobless are simply unaware of the services provided by the Illinois State Employment Service (ISES) is not clear. Two surprising unemployment characteristics were the number of 16 veterans listed as jobless and the high educational level of the unemployed. Slightly more than twenty-two percent of the unemployed were veterans , while ninety-eight percent had completed at least eight years of formal education and seventy-seven percent had finished at least twelve. The occupational breakdown of the unemployed is given in Appendix Table 5« The high percentage of veterans among the unemployed and the rela- tively high educational level of the jobless are probably due to the presence of the University of Illinois. In addition^ it is also likely that the more highly educated are more aware of the services provided by the ISES. An esti- mate of the number and characteristics of individuals meeting the criteria of disadvantaged for high impact demonstration program funds is presented in Ap- pendix Table 6. Public Service Needs Several areas of public service lack the personnel necessary for an effective program. Professional mental health workers are bogged down with clerical duties because they lack the necessary support staff. This problem is shared by the professional staffs responsible for implementing conservation and ecological programs. Social service agencies must burden their profession- al case workers because they have too few paraprofessional aides and too few clerical personnel. Finally^ the county's attempt to develop the hiiman re- source potential of the area is thwarted by the personnel shortage. (An initial estimate of public service personnel required by each agency is pre- sented in Appendix Table 11.) B. Decatur Background Data Macon County_, I70 miles southwest of Chicago with a population of 17 125,000, constitutes the Decatur SMSA. Decatur itself, an industrial-retail community, is the county's largest municipality with a population of 90,397 and. an area of thirty- six square miles. The largest industry in Decatur is Caterpillar Tractor Company which employs 5,000 workers. Other major firms in the area manufacture corn, meal, and soybean products, air conditioning equipment, automohile and truck tires, phonograph equipment, and iron castings. The city's work force is composed of residents from both within and outside the city limits. Approximately eight percent of the population of Macon County is non-white and ninety-nine percent of these non-whites live within the city of Decatur. Recent Trends in Unemployment Unemployment in the Decatur area has grown considerably in the past several years and now shows signs of becoming severe. From the summer of 1970 to the summer of 1971 the available civilian work force increased by 525 while employment decreased by about the same number, adding more than 1,000 persons to the county's unemployment rolls. The unemployment rate in Macon County was 3.3 percent in I969, U.5 percent in 1970, 5*3 percent in the summer of 1971, and by the fall of 1971 was estimated to have climbed to nearly 5.8 percent. This rise was due primarily to decreases in factory employment which have been only partially offset by increases in nonmanufacturing employment. The major pocket of unemployment in Macon County, the inner city area of Decatur (comprised of census tracts 1-9), in 1970 contained 32,000 persons-- thirty-five percent of the total city population. Twenty-eight percent of the inner city residents are non-white, ninety- three percent of the city's non-white population live within the inner city area, and eighty percent of Decatur's jobless reside here. Comparison of the I96O and 1970 census figures indicates 18 that whites are leaving the inner city area and are "being replaced by non- whites while^, at the same time, an increasing portion of the city's minority residents are "becoming concentrated within the inner city. In the summer of 1971 unemployment within the inner city fluctuated between six and nine per- cent. An even better indication of the concentration of unemployment and poverty in Decatur is gained by examining the "central core" of the inner city itself — census tracts 1, T> and 9. This area, consisting primarily of non- whites, contains about one-frouth the inner city population and in the summer of 19T1 was estimated to be suffering from an unemployment rate of nearly twelve percent (see Appendix Table k) . Characteristics of the Unemployed The unemployed in Decatur are primarily under twenty- five or over forty- five years old. About 250 of the jobless are Vietnain veterans and it is estimated that more than 1000 will require manpower services during fiscal 1972. While most of the unemployed persons are unskilled or semiskilled, several with Ph.D.'s were listed in 1971. Further, an estimated 500 school dropouts in the county were added during the 1970-71 school year. These new entrants to the labor force comprise nearly forty percent of the jobless. Of the 1800 job cuts in manufacturing last year_, significant reduc- tions were made in both primary and fabricated metals, in electrical machinery, in food products, in apparel, and in the non-manufacturing sector of the con- struction industry which decreased by 300. At the time of the EEA's enactment there were more applicants than openings for nurses aides, cooks and general kitchen help, service station attendants, office clerks and bookkeepers, and semiskilled metalworking occupations. The only shortages in the labor market were for practical nurses, medical practitioners, and surgeons. 19 The number of families living below the poveirty level is estimated at 6,500. Of the Tj225 county welfare recipients only U50 are considered employable . The following breakdown was estimated in the fall of 1971 for the segments of Decatur's population warranting special attention under the EEA: special veterans — ^00, former manpower trainees--130_, workers above forty-five years of age--not available,, young persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one --1,300^ disadvantaged persons--6;,000. In the Decatur area there were no unemployed Indians^ migrant farm workers^ or persons displaced due to Federal expenditure shifts. Public Service Needs The environmental protection and ecological needs of the Decatur area are not being met^, and additional personnel are required in the areas of water pollution abatement and solid waste control. The educational system requires additional classroom personnel to provide more individualized instruction, while more police manpower is needed to provide a more effective level of crime con- trol and public safety. Additional attention is also required for housing and neighborhood development, and for most public facilities: transportation, drainage and sewer systems, public parks, and other public properties. The area has a shortage of both professional and para-professional personnel in the field of mental health, and additional support personnel are needed to effi- ciently execute mental health programs. Finally, a number of social service agencies in the area lack the para-professional staff needed to effectively fulfill the responsibilities of their respective departments. The problem is especially acute in the fields of public aid and human resource development where larger nonprofessional staffs are needed. 20 C. Springfield Background Data Sangamon County^ approximately 200 miles southwest of Chicago, com- prises the Springfield SMSA. The county's population increased nine percent from i960 to 1970 and in the latter year totaled l60,000. The major metropoli- tan area within the county is the capital city of Springfield, which had a 1970 population of 92,000. The Springfield area is oriented to a very high degree to services and retail trade. Manufacturing employment accounts for only thirteen percent of the total civilian work force of 82,000. The state government is the largest single employer in the area; public employment accounts for one- fourth of total employment. Recent Trends in Unemployment Unemployment in Sangamon County in the past several years has been extremely low "by almost any standard: since I968 the rate of unemployment has remained at three percent. However, as with the other impact demonstration areas of Champaign and Decatur, there is a major pocket of unemployment — Spring- field's "east side" which has a population of 30:>500 and contains a high portion of minority residents, families living below the poverty level, and welfare recipients. In addition, the unemployment rate in this area in 1971 "was esti- mated to be three times that of the Springfield area as a whole--nine percent, (see Appendix Table k) . Characteri stic s of the Unemployed Very little comprehensive information is available concerning the characteristics of the unemployed in the Springfield area. But from discussions 21 with agency officials responsible for dealing with the unemployed in the area, it appears that the personal characteristics of the johless run the entire spectrum in terms of age, skill levels, and sex. A high percentage of college graduates are found among the jobless. For example, in September 1971 Springfield advertised for two relocation aides, a position requiring two years of college. Seventy- two applications were re- ceived for the two positions, most from persons who were presently unemployed. Thirty-five of the applicants possessed Bachelor's degrees and five held Mas- ter's degrees. Recent graduates in areas such as psychology, sociology, edu- cation, and government are having an especially difficult time finding employ- ment in the Springfield area. In the summer of 1971 about five percent of the Springfield SMSA population was receiving some form of public aid. This represented a .6 per- cent increase from the summer of 1970. The largest group requiring special attention in the area are the disadvantaged residents living in the city's east side. Unemplojrment among other groups in the area warranting special atten- tion, such as Vietnam veterans, was not known at the time of the EEA's enact- ment. Public Service Needs Springfield's unmet public service needs are similar to those of most other cities. Although city officials felt that every area identified has cer- tain unmet needs, the most serious areas are environmental services, education, human resource development, and overall developmental management. Problems in education are especially severe. The city's schools are in generally poor physical shape and are deteriorating at an increasing rate. Even though hundreds of Springfield citizens have been involved in educational 22 planning and programming in the past several years, the educational problems have continued to worsen. Most recommendations made by citizen groups cannot be carried out due to lack of funds. A school bond issue which would have pro- vided some relief was cancelled in the fall of 1971 fo^ fear of its being de- feated. Some schools are on split shifts and innovative programs have run into difficulties because of a lack of staff resources to make them work properly. Another area with special problems is complex program and project management. The city is faced with an increasing array of complicated state and federally aided programs and projects which must be implemented, but the city has had difficulty hiring and retaining capable personnel. A listing and ranking of Springfield's unmet public service needs is contained in Appendix Table 7* 23 V. STATE MD HIGH IMPACT AREA EEA ALLOCATIONS A. Distribution of Section V, Section VI, and High Impact Funds The Emergency Employment Act authorized $2.25 billion over the next two years to provide transitional Jobs within the public sector. Once passed by Congress and enacted, the main consideration was implementing the program as quickly as possible to find employment for the maximum number of people in the shortest possible time. Under pressure from Congress and the President, the federal bureaucracy moved with uncharacteristic speed in formulating guidelines, distributing funds, and reviewing state and local employment plans. On August 9, one billion dollars in appropriations were approved by the President for a Public Employment Program (PEP) designed to provide jobs over fiscal year 1972 for between 130,000 and 150,000 persons. On August 12, Secretary of Labor Hodgson announced that $600 million in PEP funds for the Title V portion of the EEA had been apportioned to state and local governments with populations of more than 75^000. $120 million was made available immedi- ately as "start up" funds. On August 25, the Department of Labor issued guide- lines interpreting the legislation and detailing federal requirements. By Labor Day more than a thousand workers had been hired with EEA funds and an additional 26,000 jobs had been approved. On September 21, $200 million was allocated under Title VI of the program to areas with severe unemployment prob- lems. Finally, an additional $115 million was allocated on October 8 to a small number of cities and states to determine the impact of concentrated pub- lic employment efforts. Of the initial $600 million allocated imder Section V of the program Illinois received a total of $17-91 million dollars, slightly less than half of 2k which was to be spent outside of Cook County. Of the total funds awarded, $13.65 million was allocated directly to local program agents for local jobs while the remainder was allocated to the state for specified local areas. The distribution of these Section V funds is given in Appendix Table 8. Under Section V of the EEA, Champaign County received $125,000, $35^000 of which was awarded directly to the county, $90,000 of which was to be spent by the state in the county. Decatur received $113,000, all of which was to be spent by the city, while Springfield was allocated $113,000, $^0,000 directly, and the balance to be spent by the state in the area. Under Section VI of the EEA, the State of Illinois received $7.5 mil- lion of the $200 million allocated, $U million of which was allocated to areas of the state ouside of Cook County. Section VI funds, earmarked for areas and subareas experiencing especially severe unemployment problems, were received by both Springfield and Decatur. The inner city area of Decatur (see Section rv of this report) received $32,000 in PEP funds and the east side area of . Springfield (see Section IV of this report) was allocated $^4^,000. The detailed breakdown of Section VI fund distribution in Illinois is given in Appendix Table 9- Under both Sections V and VI of the EEA, then, the State of Illinois and cities, counties, and subareas within the state received a total of $25*^ million. However, the real bonanza for Illinois came early in October when distribution of the $115 million in high impact demonstration grant funds was announced. As indicated, these were special funds allocated to a small number of states and localities. Two distinct programs were involved. Of the $115 million, $50 million was designated for employment of welfare recipients to work for state and local governments; the remaining $65 million was earmarked 25 for "high impact" programs to demonstrate what effect federal spending for local public services woiild have on unemployment. Illinois "hit the jackpot" in regard to both programs. The state received a total of $22 million for both programs: $12 million to employ welfare recipients in the public sector and $10 million in high impact demonstration funds. Of the $12 million allo- cated for the hiring of welfare recipients, $7 million is to be spent within Cook County, $1 million in the city of Rock Island, and $^ million in the East St. Louis area. The detailed distribution of these funds is given in Appendix Table 10. The $10 million in high impact funds were awarded to the three areas of Champaign, Decatur, and Springfield. Champaign received $1.7 million, the Decatur area $2.9 million, and Springfield $5'^ million. These funds in- clude both monies awarded directly to local program agents and monies to be spent by the state in designated local areas. The detailed breakdown of these funds by program agent and agency is given in the section of this report dealing specifically with the high impact areas. Finally, the program under which Champaign received high impact funds is unique in that federal guidelines re- quire that at least seventy-five percent of the persons hired must be disadvan- taged--these special guidelines do not apply to the grants awarded to Decatur and Springfield. B. Some Questions Concerning the Allocation of EEA Funds In the distribution of the special funds under th EEA, Illinois re- ceived a highly disproportionate share of the total. The state, or local pro- gram agents within it, received nearly twenty percent of the total funds dis- bursed under this program, and of the twenty- five areas receiving money under this program, six were located in Illinois. Three of the thirteen areas re- ceiving funds to employ welfare recipients are in Illinois as are three of the 26 twelve high impact areas. The question which arises here is how awarding such a high portion of these funds directly and indirectly to the State of Illinois is justified. The unemployment situation in Illinois, while it has worsened in re- cent yearS;, is not as bad as that in many other states. Illinois is one of the largest and wealthiest states in the nation and it possessed a hroad economic base which has been only marginally affected by recent shifts in the distribu- tion of federal expenditures. At the time of the EEA's enactment the state government and many localities within the state were suffering from financial problems; however, these problems were no more severe than those affecting most other state and local governments, and in many cases they were consider- ably less critical. Since this report is primarily concerned with the Economic Impact Project areas of Champaign, Decatur, and Springfield, questions must be raised concerning the rationale for the allocation of special funds to these areas. With the possible exception of Decatur, the unemployment situation within these three areas by the fall of 1971 was not critical. In fact, the Springfield area, which received the largest amount of funds under the high impact program, had an employment rate of ninety-seven percent, which most economists tend to regard as "full employment." The question "Why us?" was raised by government officials in all three special impact areas. They had not applied for the funds, they were not expecting them, and they were only generally aware of the existence of the high impact program. The answer provided by Congressman William Springer (R-Ill.) was simply that the Department of Labor had sought areas where available funds could have substantial impact and where results could be accurately measured. 27 Although the three Illinois high impact areas do fit these specifications, two points may be noted. First, there are literally hundreds of areas in the nation which would qualify as well. Second, the Department of Labor guidelines for the Special Impact Projects specify that the projects have been designed to il- luminate policy issues related to public employment while also serving the general purposes of the Emergency Employment Act . The question is, while each of the three high impact areas selected can be used as a case study of public service employment programs, does the allocation of funds to these specific areas also serve the general purposes of the Emergency Employment Act? The answer to this question is not clear. In general, the State of Illinois was not experiencing especially severe unemployment problems at the time of enact- ment of the EEA and, more specifically, the situation in each of the three high impact areas was far from critical. In addition, as pointed out in Section III, there are areas in the southern portion of the state with far higher rates of poverty and unemployment than those of the impact areas selected. Another ques- tion, then, is whether the analytical purposes of the Economic Impact Project might have been served just as well by allocating these funds to areas where the unemployment situation was critical. Might this have not been a more optimal use of limited EEA program funds? Personnel from the Governor's office were somewhat less candid in explaining how and why the state received such a large portion of the impact funds: "Now why don't you speculate on what President Nixon and Governor Ogil- vie talked about when the President went to the Illinois State Fair?" they replied to newsmen. Further, they went to considerable effort to point out that the Governor's aides had been lobbying in Washington prior to the alloca- tion of the impact funds. While it is only natural that the Governor's office 28 would try to take maximum credit for the funding, this nevertheless raises another disturbing question. In electoral politics, Illinois is a critical state for any potential presidential candidate to carry, and in recent presi- dential elections the margin of decision in the state has been extremely close. While the total EEA funds themselves may do little to reduce the overall unemployment rate in the state, the publicity surrounding their allo- cation cannot but help the administration in power: a Republican president and a Republican governor, both up for reelection. The questions being raised here have a significance which transcends the politics of 1972 or of Illinois and relates to the wtiole issue of discre- tionary public employment programs . If the allocation of emergency public ser- vice employment funds is determined as much on the basis of the political needs of the administration in power, as on the basis of public service requirements and employment situations throughout the nation--as several members of Congress apparently feared would be the case- -then many of the original goals of the EEA will not be fulfilled. 29 VI. STATE EEA HIRING A. Introduction This section of the report is devoted to a "brief description of the procedures used by the State of Illinois in hiring persons under all aspects (Section V^ Section VI, and demonstration grants) of the EEA and to a descrip- tion of the characteristics of the persons hired in the months of September and October 1971' As will be discussed in depth in the following section, court litigation prevented the state from hiring anyone with EEA funds after November 5^ and the state did not resume until after this report had been written. The state's specific plans for hiring within the three high impact areas are discussed in the sections of this report dealing with the individual impact areas. B. Fund Allocation and Personnel Recruitment The State of Illinois intends to allocate more than fifty percent of its Section V funds to the twelve southernmost counties in the state which have relatively high unemployment rates , large number of welfare recipients , and many families with incomes below the poverty level (see Section III). These counties are heavily dependent upon general assistance revenue (totally state funded), which is given to persons not eligible for grants such as ADC, Blind, or old age assistance. The high cost of public assistance in Illinois has forced the state to make substantial reductions in this area, reductions pres- ently being tested in court. However, state officials feel that the state must meet its responsibilities to its citizens and replace the existing void with employment opportunities, and the EEA funds are one vehicle by which it will do 30 this. Thus available EEA funds will be used partially by the State of Illi- nois, especially in the depressed southern areas of the state, to "fill the gap" left by lack of state funds and by recent program cutbacks. Of course, alleviating unemployment in depressed areas by hiring persons in the public sector with EEA monies is very much in line with the aims of the Public Employ- ment Prograjn. The recruitment and selection process for state EEA hiring depends primarily on use of State Department of Personnel facilities. The Department, which is familiar with the needs of local areas and the characteristics of the jobless, has in the past two years undertaken recruitment, testing, screening, and selection of a target population as a regular function in its commitment to its Model Employer, Public Service Careers, and On-The-Job training programs. The Department also works cooperatively with the Illinois State Employment Ser- vice as a referral source. In areas where state personnel facilities are not located, the Department is using its mobile intake centers which were designed for this purpose. Priorities followed in state EEA hiring are given in Table 2. Current state civil service eligibility lists are being reviewed and veterans on these lists are being notified of job openings. Through community action programs local populations are being notified of openings and recruitment locations. Similarly, WIN offices have been sent job listings and are refer- ring candidates from their programs. With particular emphasis upon unemployed veterans, local employment services are acting as referral agents and, wherever possible, job information is being disseminated throughout the state in co- operation with local community employment and neighborhood groups. C. Training Services and Career Development Not everyone who will be entering into state employment under the EEA 31 Table 2. State of Illinois Priorities for EEA Hiring 1. WIN veterans 2. Veterans on welfare 3' Unemployed veterans k. Welfare recipients 5. Former manpower trainees a. Persons of limited English-speaking ability b. Disadvantaged persons c. Youth d. Indians 6. Older workers 7. Migrants and other persons displaced from work Source: State of Illinois, Office of the Governor 32 requires extensive preparation and training. Initial assessments of training needs will "be made at the point of entry, and participants moved into normal agency orientations and training programs whenever practical. In accordance with initial and subsequent evaluations, participants will be given remedial education, when required, through existing programs such as the Public Ser- vice Careers Program or through new programs designed for EEA participants. Necessary counseling and supportive services are to be provided by hiring social service workers in the Department of Personnel. Responsibility for statewide day care facilities has been placed with the Department of Child- ren and Family Services which is to administer a state grant-in-aid program. Because transportation to some state facilities must be provided, the state is negotiating contracts with local transportation authorities and with private organizations. A contract between the state and the J and J Transpor- tation Company,, a private organization, provides transportation to a work site in South Cook County. The PSC Program has paid the initial cost; on-going costs will become the responsibility of employees as they are shifted from training prograims into the work force. Job analysis and skill development tasks rest primarily with state agencies. While many of the positions being created are merely transitional employment for workers oriented towards careers outside of the public sector, agencies are being actively encouraged to orient suitable participants toward public service careers. The Department of Mental Health and the Department of Conservation are providing extensive programs of career development, programs which have been structured to expand opportunities for the disadvantaged and 33 underemployed. Other state agencies which vill be employing EEA hirees depend heavily upon various "merit system" processes including seniority pay increases, "superior performance" pay increases, and promotional examinations. Normal institutional training assistance on a college or graduate level is also being made available through the individual agencies, usually through tuition- reimbursement (partial or complete) and excused absence to at- tend classes. Agency supervisors will encourage participants to improve career opportunities through this educational program, and special emphasis is to be placed upon preparing educationally disadvantaged personnel for examina- tions, not only through formal training and educational programs, but also through on-the-job technical assistance and expansion. In addition, the Department of Personnel's Model Employer Program is studying and evaluating the "merit system" process of employment and advance- ment. Working with the experimental programs of PSC and OJT, it is seeking con- crete modifications to existing criteria for hiring and promotion. Alternative methods of skill development, on-the-job training, and counseling, together with educational upgrading systems aimed at specific job titles, in most cases by- passing the standard examination systems, are now being evaluated and should provide the Department of Personnel with important data for implementing change. These programs are aimed at developing career ladder systems throughout state agencies, thus balancing the employment problems of disadvantaged population segments with state tasks and priorities. The OJT program is implementing an upgrade system designed for disadvantaged persons working in clerical positions. The program provides the additional orientation and skill training needed to assume the position of employment interviewer. Completion of training replaces the current examination requirements. All participants begin at least at the 3h entry level pay grade established for their positions, and are eligible for all benefits and overtime pay. Thus, the Illinois state EEA program is aimed at moving significant numbers of "transitional" participants into permanent state positions as well trained, career-oriented employees. These goals correspond very closely to those of the EEA itself. D. State EEA Plans Since the state was prevented from hiring persons with EEA funds from early November until the time at which this report was being compiled, a com- plete analysis of the state program is not possible here. However, some limited information can be presented. Prior to the court injunction, 15^ (including state EEA hires within Cook County) persons were hired by the State of Illinois with EEA funds. A breakdown of the characteristics of these persons is pre- sented in Table 3» Preliminary occupational summaries prepared by state personnel showed that the vast majority of personnel to be hired were deputy sheriffs, highway maintenance workers, and clerk-typists. In fact, in many counties few of the positions appeared to be at all related to health, education, or public welfare. It was also noted that for some of the positions to be filled in state govern- ment there were no existing classifications or pay scales in the Alphabetical Index of Position Titles and Pay Plan of the State Department of Personnel. Other questions were also raised concerning the state's initial EEA plans. In Illinois there is an especially critical need in the Department of Children and Family Services for additional case workers and persons trained in special education for the deaf, blind, and pre- school children. There is also 35 TABLE 3 Characteristics of Illinois State EEA Hires Total Hires l60 Sex Male li+Y Female I3 Group White 67 Negro 92 American Indian Oriental 1 Spanish American Other Veterans 121 Special Veteran 29 Vietnam Era Veteran 28 Other Veteran Sh Disadvantaged 112 Public Assistance Recipients 80 Public Service Area Law Enforcement 23 Education Public Works and Transportation Health and Hospitals k'J Environmental Quality Fire Protection Parks and Recreation 8I Social Services 9 Other Source: U.S. Department of Labor 36 a pressing need for additional personnel in the Department of Public Health, particularly at the Mt. Vernon and Chicago T.B. Sanitariums. In view of this, the state's proposal to earmark substantial EEA funds in many counties for deputy sheriffs, tollway guards and radio dispatchers must be questioned. Complaints were also made that the Governor wished to add twenty-one employees who would have no public contact to his personal staff and intended to hire fifty persons to perform administrative functions in the Department of Personnel. More questions could be raised about the state's methods of recruit- ment, its basis for selecting applicants, its interpretation of existing civil service codes, and so forth. But because some of the state EEA applications are still being revised and because state hiring with EEA funds has not yet resumed, consideration of these and related issues has been deferred to sub- sequent reports. 37 VII. COURT INJUNCTION DELAYS EEA HIRING A. Labor Unions and the EEA From the time that the Emergency Employment Act was first proposed in Congress the reaction of municipal unions to EEA legislation was of spe- cial interest. Union representatives influenced the direction of the legis- lation both directly through their testimony at various committee hearings and indirectly through their influence on various members of Congress. When the EEA was passed in the summer of 1971 it contained provisions for comments on grant applications by local labor organizations. In Illinois the rela- tionship between the state employees ' union and the agencies administering EEA funds is of significance for several reasons. To begin with, the prob- lems between local unions and the units of government handling EEA funds in the case study areas are critical to the monitoring project. Secondly, ob- jections raised by the Illinois State Employees' Union to the manner in which EEA funds were being administered in the state are important within a nation- al context. Finally, the court decision in this case, and the reasoning behind it , may have set a precedent for other EEA related court cases in the near future. B. Municipal Unions' Objections to EEA Provisions The union which filed the suit preventing the State of Illinois from hiring personnel with EEA funds from early November through the middle of January 1972 was the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 3^ (Illinois State Employees Union). Examining the reasons for the union's dissatisfaction with the EEA quickly reveals 38 that the union had general ohjections at the national level and specific objections in Illinois. In general, the national union had several ohjections to the manner in which the EEA was being implemented and felt that in many areas Congres- sional intent was being distorted by the U.S. Department of Labor. The union questioned the policies regarding the rehiring of laid-off public employees and argued that unfair distinctions were being made concerning eligibility for hiring under the EEA. That is, laid-off public employees are required to have been unemployed for a minimi:mi of thirty days before becoming eligible, while, on the other hand, other workers were considered eligible after only one week's unemployment. While this requirement may be understandable in the government's desire to avoid "paper layoffs" — saving local tax money by laying off employees in anticipation of federal funds — the union's basic point seems valid. Secondly, the union expressed concern about problems being caused current public employees by employment practices under the EEA. Although the law passed by Congress included assurances that jobs and rights of current state and local government employees would be respected and protected, the union insisted that the Department of Labor, from the beginning, had virtually ignored these assurances in its administration of the program. Special concern was expressed in relation to: (i) regular state and local employees being laid off and replaced by EEA hirees, (ii) vacancies in regular jobs remaining unfilled in anticipation of available EEA monies, (iii) use of PEP funds to fill positions similar to regular vacancies not being filled through normal hiring or promotion procedures because of an executive or legislative job freeze, and (iv) starting EEA hirees at levels other than the entry level, thus "leap-frogging" EEA hirees over regular employees. Finally, the union was concerned with problems caused by state and 39 local failure to consult with union representatives on expenditure of EEA funds, requirements clearly written into the Act. They felt that Department of Labor guidelines for administration of the program did not contain suffi- cient assurances on this matter. The Illinois State Employees' Union (ISEU) objections to state hand- ling of EEA funds arose against a background of generally poor relations be- tween organized labor in Illinois and the present Republican state administra- tion. This distrust, and the general lack of communications between these two groups, especially concerning the EEA, tended to aggravate an already sensitive situation and eventually led to a court injunction preventing state EEA hiring for several months. ISEU's main complaint was the Governor's office's refusal to provide information about state handling of EEA funds. The state director of the union, Lawrence Reinold, first received information concerning the allocation and dis- tribution of state EEA monies indirectly, and only through press releases is- sued by the Governor's office early in October 1971 discovered that the State of Illinois was to receive over four million dollar in PEP funds. Representing more than li+,000 members employed in the civil service system of the State of Illinois, the ISEU was extremely concerned that EEA funds were being received and expended by the state while the union was given no opportunity to review the application. On October U, Mr. Reinold sent letters to the Governor's office and to the U.S. Department of Labor requesting information on the EEA. No replies to any of this correspondence were ever received. Late in October the union became aware of rumors (which turned out to be essentially correct) that some EEA funds had already been spent by the state and that other sub- stantial amounts had been committed. On November 2, the union's legal counsel ko initiated legal action to prevent expenditure of state EEA monies, and a preliminary court injunction was obtained on November 5 which prevented the state from hiring additional personnel under the program. After court action had been initiated and additional state EEA hiring prevented, the ISEU was finally provided with a portion of the informa- tion it had requested more than a month earlier. After reviewing the informa- tion provided, the union raised a number of questions concerning the hiring practices to be followed by the state (see Section VI). Many of the union's initial objections were worked out with the state during the months the suit was pending. C. Legal Controversies The essence of the ISEU's complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, was that: Defendants James D. Hodgson, as Secretary of Labor and Richard B. Ogilvie, As Governor of the State of Illinois, unlawfully entered into an agreement for the transfer and receipt of funds to the State of Illinois from ap- propriations made by the Congress of the United States, pursuant to Section 5 of the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, in that: a) Defendant Richard B. Ogilvie, as Governor of the State of Illinois, failed to provide notice to Plaintiff labor organization that he or his designated representa- tives was developing and then submitting an application for funds from appropriations authorized for implementing the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 for the training and hiring of personnel by the State of Illinois in work simi- lar to and in the same areas a.s employees represented by Plaintiff labor organization are engaged, as set forth in paragraph 3 above and as required by Section 12(c) of the Emergency Employment Act of 1971. b) Defendants Jam.es D. Hodgson, as Secretary of Labor and Richard B. Ogilvie, as Governor of the State of Illinois, failed to afford Plaintiff labor organization a reasonable period of tim.e to make comjnents on the afore- mentioned application, as required by Section 12(c) of 111 the Emergency Employment Act, and Part 55.10 of Subtitle A. of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, implementing the provisions of Section 12(c) of the Emergency Employ- ment Act of 19T1. The union requested that the court: (i) issue a preliminary injunc- tion enjoining the State of Illinois from spending any additional EEA funds, except for the payment of wages of the individuals hired previously to Novem- ber 5, until the court had the opportunity to rule in the case, (ii) issue an opinion declaring the rights of the parties involved, and, most signifi- cantly, (iii) issue a permanent injunction enjoining the state from allocating any additional EEA monies without first notifying the union and providing it a reasonable opportunity to comment on the application. As indicated, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and the State of Illinois was legally prevented from hiring any additional personnel with EEA funds after November 5. D. The Court's Ruling and the Reasons for It The union's complaint and motion for a permanent injunction raised the novel and interesting question of whether notice to an interested labor union from a state applying for funds under the EEA is a necessary prerequisite for the Secretary of Labor's approval of the application. If this question were to be answered in the affirmative, the plaintiff's request for a perma- nent injunction would have to be granted; if answered in the negative, it would still have to be determined whether or not the Secretary of Labor and the State of Illinois had provided the ISEU with all the rights and informa- tion to which it is entitled under the Act. The controversy involved in the litigation centered around Section 12(c) of the EEA which states: 1|2 Where a labor organization represents employees who are engaged in similar work in the same area to that proposed to he performed under any program for which an applica- tion is being developed for submission under the Act, such organizations shall be notified and afforded a rea- sonable period of time in which to make comments to the applicant and to the Secretary. The ISEU contended that the State of Illinois and the Secretary of Labor en- tered into an agreement under the Act which is unlawful because of the state's failure to notify the union of its application. The initial questions raised were whether or not the Court had juris- diction to entertain the suit and whether or not the union had standing to raise the issue. The Court decided that it did have jurisdiction in the matter, and that since it was the intent of Congress that a labor organization repre- senting employees engaged in similar work be given the opportunity to have its comments heard by state and federal authorities, the ISEU did have standing to raise the issue. There was no dispute over the fact that the union was not initially notified and afforded an opportunity to comment pursuant to Regulation 55 and Section 12(c) of the Act. The main issue in the case was whether or not notice to labor organizations pursuant to Section 12(c) is a condition precedent to the Secretary of Labor's approval of a grant application. The Court ruled that a review of the statute indicated conclusively that Congress did not intend the notification to be a condition precedent to approval of a grant application. The Court noted that Section 12(c) states that labor organizations, such as the ISEU, "...shall be notified and afforded a reasonable period of time in which to make comments to the applicant and to the Secretary." However, in Section 8 Congress stated that an application may be approved only after the Secretary of Labor determines that an opportunity U3 for review and comment has been given to officials of the appropriate units of the state and local governments involved. Comparing the wording of Section 8 with that of Section 12(c), the Court ruled that Congress placed the notice and invitation for comment to state and local government officials upon a differ- ent footing than that sent to the appropriate labor organizations. Both are required, but the former notice is a condition which the Secretary of Labor must determine to have been met prior to his approval of an application where- as the latter is merely one that must be met within a "reasonable period of time." Given the difference in the statutory language, the Court concluded that the reasonable period of time referred to in Section 12(c) may be prior or subsequent to approval of the application. The Court felt that had Congress intended to make notice to the plaintiff and other unions a condition prece- dent to approval of grant applications it would have worded Section 12(c) in the same conditional manner as Section 8. The sole issue which remained before the Court was the specific one of whether or not the State of Illinois had complied with Section 12(c) of the Act. The union argued that, even after obtaining copies of the complete EEA application, it did not possess sufficient information to reach a conclu- sion as to its comments concerning the grant agreement. However, noting that EEA regulations required only that a summary of the application be sent to the appropriate labor organization and that the plaintiff was provided with a full copy of the entire agreement, the Court ruled that the state had thus complied with the regulations of the EEA and that the ISEU had received every- thing to which it was entitled. Thus, as of December 20, the state was no longer enjoined from hiring with EEA funds. I Hli E. Assessment Two main conclusions emerge from the suit filed by the ISEU and the events siirrounding it. First of all, the entire episode was unfortunate, un- necessary, and could have been avoided if better communication had been main- tained between the ISEU and the Governor's office. One of the major causes of the trouble was the general dislike and distrust with which organized labor in general, and the ISEU in particular, and the Republican state administration tend to view one another. The direct cause of the problem was, of course, the failure of the (aovernor's office and the Labor Department to provide the ISEU with even the most basic information concerning the State's proposed EEA ex- penditures. It was completely inexcusable that the Governor's office and the Department of Labor failed to answer the written inquiries concerning state EEA funds from the ISEU director. But this is what happened and this is what eventually led to a court injunction which delayed hiring with state funds and with some high impact funds for more than two months. The major share of the blame for this situation rests with the U.S. Department of Labor and with the Governor's office and the fact that the ISEU was required to file a suit in federal court to obtain the information to which it was entitled certainly raises doubt about the sensitivity and accessibility of federal and state officials. The most unfortunate aspect of this issue is the resulting delay in EEA hiring at the state and some local levels. It has already been indicated that from the time the EEA was enacted strong emphasis was placed on securing employment for people as quickly as possible. The federal bureaucracy moved with unusual speed in implementing the EEA provisions and so also did many government officials at the state and local level. But this rushed effort was h^ rendered superfluous when EEA hiring was subsequently delayed more than two months . Finally, the Court's decision may set a precedent. It clearly es- tablishes that, while appropriate labor organizations have certain rights of notification under the EEA, these rights are strictly limited; specifically, a union's approval is not required as part of the grant application, nor does the union even have to be notified prior to submittal of a program agent's application. If this court decision serves to clarify a labor organization's rights of information and approval under the EEA and to avoid further court action and delay, then something of value may emerge from this unfortunate affair. k6 VIII. EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT IN CHAMPAIGN COUNTY A. Introduction Champaign County received $1,825 million in EEA funds: $125,000 under Section V and $1.7 million in high impact funds. Champaign's original allocation under Section V was relatively small and had this been the only money the county received under the EEA, Champaign would have been of only mar- ginal significance in an analysis of this sort. However, the allocation of the additional money iinder the high impact program — with the stipulation that se- venty-five percent of the persons hired with these funds be classified as dis- advantaged — changed the situation entirely and Champaign County assumed a role of major importance for this monitoring and evaluation project. Unfortunately, technical reasons relating to the court injunction obtained by the ISEU de- layed hiring in Chajnpaign County with high impact EEA funds until the time this report was being prepared, and data and analyses of the persons hired with high impact project funds are not available here. These will be forthcoming in sub- sequent reports. Nevertheless, a considerable amount of useful inf02rmation has been made available concerning county hiring under the Section V aspect of the EEA, and the problems and controversies which have already arisen concerning allocation, distribution, and expenditure of the high impact funds. The first part of this section is devoted to an analysis of local EEA hires under Section V, and the latter part is devoted to examination of the high impact program in the county. B. Expenditure of Section V EEA Funds Of the $125,000 allocated to Champaign County by the State of Illinois hi under Section V of the EEA, $3^,700 was given directly to the coimty for local jobs and the remaining $90,300 was to be spent by state agencies in the coun- ty. This high proportion of state jobs relative to local jobs is a result of the formula used to allocate state and local EEA monies: funds are distributed roughly on the basis of the proportion of government employment in the area ac- counted for by local governments and by the state government. In Champaign County, due to the presence of the University of Illinois, state employment ac- counts for about seventy percent of all public employment in the county. Thus, of any EEA funds allocated to the area the state receives the major portion for state jobs in the county. As shall be discussed shortly, this is a point of serious disagreement between state and local officials. The local program agent in Champaign is the Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, Wesley Schwengel, while administration of EEA funds is handled by the Chairman of the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission, Robert Pinkerton. On August 10 the Regional Planning Commission, in an attempt to assess the detailed unmet public service needs of the county, required that the major units of local government summarize their requirements. A "question- naire of needs" was sent to the local government units, resulting in the report of approximately $i+25,000 and seventy-eight positions needed. The results of this survey categorized by government units and agencies are presented in Appendix Table 11. The agency response was thus quite substantial, with unmet employment needs amounting to over twelve times the county's Section V allocation. In order to set priorities for the distribution of the available funds, two factors were taken into consideration: l) those agencies serving the entire county rather than individual communities were favored and, 2) an estimate of urgency of need was made. Three of the respondent county agencies were selected on this basis: the Champaign Nursing Home, the Champaign County Probation Department, and the Champaign County Sheriff's Department. The distribution of funds to these agencies is given in Appendix Table 12. Letters explaining the allocation of positions were sent to local government units and to the Governor's office; no comments on the fund distri- bution were received. Since none of the employer agencies selected to receive EEA positions were unionized no comments were solicited from local labor organizations . By December, the eight positions had been filled; three participants had already resigned their positions and had been replaced. A breakdown of the characteristics of the persons hired is given in Table k. As can be seen from this table, of the eleven persons who became Section V EEA hires in Champaign, all were previously unemployed, eight were female, three were male, eight were White, and three were Negro. Six were classified as disadvantaged but only one was classified as a vereran (he was neither a special veteran nor a Viet- nam era veteran). The county's handling of Section V EEA funds appears to have been conducted quite well. A comprehensive priority ranking of the unmet public ser- vice requirements of the area was constructed and the limited funds available were allocated on a basis that sought to maximize the benefit to the entire county. The public service areas of law enforcement, health, and social service all received additional personnel, all the persons hired were previously un- employed, and most were either disadvantaged, school dropouts, or veterans. The major problem involves retaining persons in positions once they are hired; within two months, three of the eight persons hired had already resigned. Local officials believe that the wages paid are not sufficiently competitive to ^9 TABLE h Characteristics of Champaign's Section V EEA Hires Total Hires 11 Sex Male Female 3 8 Group White Negro American Indian Oriental Spanish American Other 8 3 Veterans '^ "^ r* 1 "T T -s 4- ^ -v-, ^ 1 Vietnam Era Vr:teran Other Veteran Disadvantaged Puhlic Assistance Recipients Public Service Area Law Enforcement Education Public Works and Transportation Health and Hospitals Environmental Quality Fire Protection Parks and Recreation Social Services Other 8 Source: U-3. De"oartment of Labor 50 prevent personnel from resigning to accept other work. Whether this is indeed the case and whether it will become a serious problem (especially in regard to the more than 200 persons to be hired in the area with the high impact funds) is an issue which will receive greater attention in subsequent reports. C. Problems with the High Impact Grant As has been indicated, the main interest in including Champaign County as a case study area results from this county's being awarded a high impact demonstration grant. The distribution of the $115 million in high impact funds was announced October 8 by the U.S. Department of Labor and the selection of Champaign County was announced that day by Congressman William Springer in Washington. Local officials received no advance indication that Champaign -was being considered for additional EEA funds and they were pleasantly surprised to learn of the additional $1.7 million windfall. During the second week of October confusion reigned in the offices of the County Board of Supervisors and the Regional Planning Commission as they were deluged with inquiries concerning the EEA funds from local government of- ficials, agency directors, media representatives, and prospective employees. Aside from the fact that the area had been awarded the money, little else was clear. The portion of the grant directly available to local units of govern- ment was not known, guidelines governing expenditure of funds were ambiguous, and it was unclear what effect, if any, these additional funds would have on Champaign's original Section V grant. The regional manpower office was of lit- tle help. In the next several weeks, the administrative and technical aspects of the high impact grant were gradually clarified, and if local officials were pleasantly surprised to learn of the allocation, they very shortly received a series of unpleasant surprises. 51 The first shock came on October 12 when local officials were some- what belatedly informed that one of the requirements for the high impact grant was that a minimum of seventy-five percent of the jobs created in the county had to be filled with "disadvantaged" persons. To be classified as disadvan- taged a person must be poor, unemployed or underemployed, a school dropout, a member of a minority group, forty-five years of age or older, or handicapped. Under the program guidelines seventy-five percent of the jobs, but not neces- sarily seventy-five percent of the total funds, had to go to the disadvantaged. As indicated, this is a unique type of Economic Impact Project grant; the only other one of this nature was awarded to Elvira, New York. Local officials next learned that, despite their initial hopes that the state would allocate all or most of the $1.7 million for local jobs, most of the money was allocated for state jobs within the area. Specifically, the same type of formula used by the state to distribute Section V money between state and local jobs would be applied to the high impact funds, and only $^73,000 of the grant would be available for local jobs. Shortly thereafter, for essentially administrative reasons, the Section V money was grouped togeth- er with the high impact funds and the entire $1,825 million in EEA funds was made subject to the high impact guidelines, including the requirement that seventy- five percent of the persons hired be disadvantaged. Since most of the persons hired with Section V money were not disadvantaged, more than seventy- five percent of those hired with local high impact funds would have to be di sadvantaged . The issue which caused local officials the greatest problem was the "seventy- five percent disadvantaged" stipulation of the high impact grant. On the one hand, they expressed fear that the publicity surrounding this grant 52 would induce disadvantaged persons and welfare recipients to move into the Champaign area to take advantage of forthcoming joh opportunities. They felt that the net result of this immigration would he an addition to the County's puhlic aid burden. Officials also expressed considerable doubt as to the pos- sibility of local agencies being able to absorb with local tax revenues the wages of all those hired with EEA funds in a year or two's time when the grant is expected to be ended. This difficulty might become extreme under the stipulation pertaining to disadvantaged persons since many of the cri- tically needed positions in the County were governed by a strict civil service code which required applicants to meet certain requirements and which also stipulated that employees be selected from waiting lists. Since persons on these lists are not disadvantaged, only a small portion of the high im- pact funds could be used to pay their wages, while, on the other hand, dis- advantaged persons hired could not work in these positions. What this implies is that many of the EEA hires would have to be placed in jobs which were not the most critically required by the area. The stipulation "seventy-five per- cent disadvantaged" frustrated many local officials to the extent that they almost wished the county had not received the grant in the first place. At first local officials attempted to circumvent the difficulty by requesting that the State hire about ninety percent disadvantaged with its share of the high impact funds. Since the grant guidelines specified only that seventy-five percent of the persons hired with the high impact funds be disadvantaged, if state agencies in the area were to pick up a disproportionate share of disadvantaged persons with the State's share of the impact funds, local governments in the County would be free to hire whomever they pleased with their share of the money. However, the State very quickly vetoed this 53 idea. It was willing to insure that seventy-five percent of the jobs it created in the County were filled by disadvantaged persons, but it insisted that local governments also require that seventy-five percent of their EEA employees be disadvantaged. Of the total allocation then, county and city governments could spend less than $500,000, and at least seventy-five percent of the persons employed had to be disadvantaged. With these conditions, local officials prepared their high impact grant application. D. Champaign's High Impact Application The main difficulty in preparing the high impact grant application for Champaign County was lack of time. Local officials had just a week to pre- pare and submit the request to the Department of Labor. (in retrospect, of course, this rush was unnecessary, for legal problems were to prevent any EEA hiring until January). A meeting was held October 19 at the office of Cham- paign County Board of Supervisors to develop an equitable distribution of funds among meaningful programs. Representatives of all local units of government were present, and an EEA advisory council consisting of the mayors of Champaign,] Urbana, and Rantoul, and representatives of the state government, the Univer- sity of Illinois, and the County Board of Supervisors was selected to prepare the grant application. In addition, the council was to meet periodically to review problems and issues relating to the EEA as they emerged. To this ob- server's knowledge, however, the Champaign County EEA advisory council has met only once. A questionnaire survey similar to that conducted in relation to the County's initial Section V allocation was hurriedly conducted among all units of local government eligible to receive high impact funds. The advisory coun- cil received unmet public service estimates from thirty-six of the fifty local 3h government units eligible totalling $1.5 million, far in excess of the half million dollars directly available to the County. This estimate is most inter- esting. In response to the same type of survey two months earlier, local units of government listed their comprehensive needs for additional funds as amount- ing to only $0.i+6 million (see Appendix Table ll). If the results of this first survey were correct, the $500,000 which the County received directly in high impact funds should have been enough to completely finance all of the un- met public service needs in the area. However, one of two things happened be- tween the time the two surveys were conducted: a) the actual unmet public ser- vice needs of the County more than doubled within eight weeks, or b) local agencies, aware that the County had much more money to allocate, decided to interpret their personnel requirements more liberally. If the latter is true, one is tempted to wonder whether, if the entire $1.7 million in EEA funds was allocated directly to the County, local agencies may have "discovered" an ad- ditional $600,000 (or more) in unmet public service needs. More generally, the accuracy of estimates of unmet public service needs produced by different state and local units of government might be questioned. Faced with budget requests far in excess of available funds, the EEA advisory council allocated the funds as well as they could among local agen- cies. E. Unnecessary Delay in Local EEA Hiring With a clarified outline of the high impact program, the Illinois State Employment Service was instructed to begin processing applicants and in- terviewing prospective participants. It was anticipated that large-scale hiring of employees could get underway no later than December 1. However, 55 complications arose and local officials began to feel increasingly uneasy as the month of November passed and approval of their high impact application from the Department of Labor was not forthcoming. Finally, late on November 29, Pinkerton was informed by federal officials that local unions must be given a chance to review the County's proposal before it could be considered. Since the agencies to which the EEA hires were assigned were not unionized, neither for the Section V application nor for the high impact application were any unions contacted for comments. Although the Labor Department had previously stated that prior approval of local labor organizations was not necessary, the suit in Federal court which was then pending caused federal officials to re- verse themselves. This additional requirements meant that EEA hiring by the local governments would be delayed until January. "We don't object to the union's reviewing the application, but we are disappointed because it will mean a delay in hiring people," Pinkerton commen- ted upon learning of the additional requirement. The point he makes is an im- portant one, for the injunction obtained by the ISEU prevented the State from using its EEA funds to hire additional personnel; but it did not legally pro- hibit Champaign County from using its high impact money to hire people. The delay in the local EEA hiring was the fault of the Labor Department and it ■ could have been avoided entirely had the Labor Department instructed the Coun- ty in advanced to allow labor unions to review their proposal. Even if the ■ Department had not done this, federal officials might have infonned the Coun- ty of this new requirement as soon as the injunction was granted — November 5 — and there would have been ample time to allow unions to review the proposal 1 before the County began hiring on December 1. The Labor Department's lack of foresight and its delay of nearly a month in notifying the County of this 56 i additional requirement were responsible for the overall delay in finding employment for people with EEA funds. F. Potential Problems with the Black Community On October 17, Mr. Roy Williams of the Champaign-Urbana Black Coali- tion, who had also served as an official of the local office of the Office of Economic Opportunity, visited the office of the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission to get information concerning the EEA. Mr. Williams re- quested copies of the high impact contract application, which he received, and then questioned the role of the Illinois State Employment Service (ISES) in providing program participants. It was explained that the ISES would inter- view and screen prospective employees in a manner which would afford equal opportunity to all prospective program participants. At this point, Mr. Williams stated that he was not interested in equal opportunity but was instead seeking "affirmative action opportunity." When questioned further, it became obvious that he wanted all county positions created with EEA funds filled with Black participants. This was necessary, he claimed, to compensate for what he referred to as the existing "racial imbalance" in local government employment. When it was pointed out that this would represent discrimination and would be contrary to the provisions of the EEA, Mr. Williams stated that, if necessary, he would proceed with legal action to assure that "affirmative action oppor- tunity" be provided with local EEA monies. Mr. Williams went on to explain that he did not agree with the EEA high impact guidelines , that they were con- tradictory to other federal programs, and that they were not in line with information concerning the EEA received by his office (OEO). Before leaving, Mr. Williams promised to send this other information to the Regional Planning Commission. To date, no such information from Mr. Williams has been received by 57 the Commission nor are the other guidelines and federal programs to which he referred clear. He has not yet carried through his threat of legal action. But relations hetween the Champaign-Urbana Black community and local governments are far from ideal, and as EEA hiring in the County proceeds these issues will he closely monitored. G. More Problems: Local, State, and University Jobs State Jobs vs. Local Jobs Again The main controversy concerning the administration of EEA funds in Champaign County has been over the use of the $1,317 million in EEA funds ($90 thousand in Section V funds and $1,227 million in high impact funds) which were allocated to the State to create jobs in the County. As has been discussed, when the high impact grant to the County was first announced it was not clear to County officials what portion of it they would receive directly. At first they believed, with some encouragement it appears, that all or most of the high impact funds would be given to local units of government to hire addition- al personnel, and they did all they could to keep the state's hands out of the new money. However, they were soon informed that local governments would re- ceive only a relatively small portion of the high impact funds, and that the greatest portion would be given to the State for hiring in the area. Once again, the rationale for this was that state employment composed most of the government employment in the area. While the announcement that local agencies would receive considerably less than half the funds they had expected was bound to make local officials unhappy, they were especially upset because the State had still not, by the end of October, given them any indication of what, if anything, it was going to do with the more than $90,000 of Section V funds it had already been allocated. 58 Next the State informed local officials that the County would be directly granted only $^73,000 of the high impact funds but that the State was willing to share a portion of its high impact funds. Since funds for job • requests from state agencies operating in the County totaled only $1.1 million it appeared as though the County would receive from the State an additional $100,000 in employment funds. Accordingly, personnel budgets were formulated requiring more than the $^73,000 available in local high impact money. Short- ly thereafter, though, the State changed its plans once again and informed Champaign that it did not intend to allocate any state funds directly to the County. The EEA budget requests of the local government units thus had to be reduced between ten and twenty percent. Local officials formulated an ap- plication which contained provision for sixty-two new jobs to be created with the County's share of high impact money, but how many and what types of jobs would be created in the area by the State remained unanswered questions. Struggle Over the University of Illinois' EEA Jobs By the end of November, (at which time the State was enjoined from hiring personnel with EEA funds) the State had formulated a provisional plan for the use of its funds in Champaign County, but the plan met with unfavorable reaction at the local level. The main objection was that the University of Il- linois was to receive only Uo out of a total of 152 state jobs to be created in the County. The University, employing 12,000 persons or ninety percent of the total state employment in the County, had originally requested 1^^^+ of the state job slots. By contacting various federal and state officials, James Ransom, University Affirmative Action Officer and Director of the University of Illinois' EEA program, managed to increase the number of jobs awarded to the University to sixty, but he was still dissatisfied. He argued that EEA program 59 guidelines under the high impact demonstration project specify that the state is to distribute jobs and EEA funds equitably and effectively within the area designated to receive funds, and that 60 out of more than 150 jobs created is not an equitable distribution to an institution accounting for ninety per- cent of the area's state employment. He also emphasized that the University was eraminently qualified to administer a program providing employment for the disadvantaged since it already had in operation special programs providing for entrance and upgrade training and for transition into permanent civil ser- vice positions. Further, he noted that the University had already screened and classified many disadvantaged persons from the local community who could be employed immediately. The State's original job allocation scheme, summarized in Table 5? was subject to criticism on other grounds. The most serious objection was to the State's allocation of forty- four positions to the Department of Conserva- tion which operates no facilities in Champaign County and employs no local residents. In addition, the State Conservation Department is generally recog- nized as a patronage-rich department in Illinois and questions were raised concerning the criteria which would govern hiring. The state proposal contained other discrepancies, such as the provision for positions in the Governor's Office for Human Resources in the area; unfortunately, no such agency exists in Champaign County. Ransom continued to press for an increased share of jobs for the University. By the middle of December he was no longer requesting ikk jobs, but was willing to settle for "about 100." In his battle for additional Uni- versity jobs, he contacted a wide range of officials from the state, local, and federal governments, including the Governor of Illinois, personnel from 60 TABLE 5 Original State EEA Job Allocation in Champaign County- Agency Department of Children and Family Services Governor's Office of Human Resources Department of Conservation Department of Public Aid Department of Mental Health University of Illinois Champaign Coujnmunity School District #^4 Urbana Public School District #ll6 Champaign County Soil Conservation Service Champaign City Park District City of Champaign Total Number of Jobs Professional Other Average Monthly Wage Rate 7 5 $688 5 $U6i+ ^1+ ^kko 20 $U26 11 ^kQk 2 58 $^67 Ik 2 $621 2k $i+00 2 $900 2 $628 7 7 $6o8 32 120 $610 Source: State of Illinois,, Department of Personnel 61 the regional and national Labor Department offices, Senators Charles Percy, Adlai Stevenson, and Gaylord Nelson, and several Congressmen, including the mem- bers of the Congressional Black Caucus. Local officials who were afraid that jobs which were supposed to be created in the County would be lost, supported Ransom. The Champaign City Council passed a resolution urging "a more equi- table, effective, and fair distribution of Emergency Employment Act funds to the University of Illinois," and a similar resolution was proposed in the Ur- bana City Council. The Labor Department, although it could have officially resolved the dispute, tried to avoid having anything to do with the matter. Ransom felt that federal officials were trying to avoid a dispute with the Governor in an election year. State officials defended their original allocation of jobs in the Champaign area, arguing that the University of Illinois' request for 1^+0 jobs had been granted, but that some of the jobs had been given to the Chicago branch of the University of Illinois under Chicago's EEA grant. This argument was weak. At stake was the share of jobs for the University of Illinois' Champaign- Urbana campus created by the State in the Champaign area, not the total allo- cation of EEA jobs to the entire state university system. The State also de- fended its distribution by arguing that Champaign County residents use recrea- tional facilities operated by the Department of Conservation in neighboring counties. This line of reasoning, at the very least, required a very liberal interpretation of EEA guidelines on the part of some state officials. Union Opposes University EEA Hiring At least one local union felt differently about this particular issue than did University and local officials. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 601 not only fought the University in its 62 I struggle to obtain additional EEA jobs, but also opposed the allocation of any high impact funds to the University. The union complained that while between forty and fifty percent of its members working for the University had been laid off, all of them on civil service and some with as many as twelve years senior- ity, federal funds were being used by the University to hire disadvantaged persons and train them so that they could eventually replace the laid-off workers on permanent civil service status. Claiming to speak for a large majority of the non-academic staff employed by the University of Illinois, the IBEW claimed that by using federal funds to train their replacements, the University would aggrevate the problems of many of its employees recently laid off. The union also questioned the criterion of "disadvantaged" being used. IBEW repre- sentatives pointed out that some of their members had been out of work many months, but because they were classified as skilled workers they were ineligible candidates for the University's EEA program. They claimed, however, that they supported the program in principle and would be in favor of it if all their members were working. Finally, the union accused Ransom of conflict of interest, charging that his job as Affirmative Action Officer for the Univer- sity interfered with his duties of administering the institution's EEA funds. While some of the IBEW's charges have considerable merit, several of their arguments should be clarified. Electricians were laid off at the Uni- versity of Illinois because University construction was severely curtailed and there was no need for their services. Secondly, the University had officially pledged that the EEA employment program would not prevent any laid-off em- ployee from returning to his job, and in some classifications EEA funds are to be used to rehire these personnel. Finally, the union's basic philosophy of supporting special emplojnnent programs for the disadvantaged only when all of its members are employed is somewhat selfish and shortsighted. 63 The University of Illinois Wins Just as this report was being completed it was announced that the University had succeeded in its attempt to obtain more of the State EEA jobs. The State decided to revise its application once again and to reallocate k2 additional state jobs to the University of Illinois, thus raising the Univer- sity's total high impact personnel slots to 102. The additional jobs would be transferred from those originally allocated to the Department of Conservation. James Ransom thus deserves credit for correcting an inequitable situation which State officials created and which Federal officials appeared unwilling to challenge . Since at this writing the State' s "application is in the process of revision, no further information is available. Subsequent reports will con- tain additional information on these and related issues. I 6k TABLE 6 Champaign's Proposed High Impact Hiring Sub agent Number of Jobs Average Monthly- Wage Rate Champaign County Burnham City Hospital Chajnpaign Park District Village of Rantoul City of Champaign City of Urbana Urbana Park District Champaign County Forest Preserve District Champaign County Housing Authority Champaign County Regional Planning Commission TOTAL 22 3 5 8 13 7 5 5 3 73 ^53 519 535 50^ 635 607 518 U69 656 51^ 538 Source: Champaign County Regional Planning Commission 65 I IX. EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT IN DECATUR AND SPRINGFIELD A. Decatur Initial Decatur EEA Hires ■ Decatur received $113,000 in Section V funds, and the Decatur inner city area (see Section IV) was subsequently awarded a Section VI grant totaling $32,000. To determine the allocation of the Section V money, the heads of all city departments and other potential suhagents were "briefed at separate meetings on August IT about the EEA and the funds available to Decatur. All potential subgrantees were invited to submit requests for funding. Potential subagents were interviewed to determine the relative priorities of the positions requested. Using this and additional information concerning local public service needs, a list of initial funding poisitions was established and, later, a list of full funding positions was drawn up. No special formula was used to distribute the funds and jobs among the various agencies. An important consideration in es- tablishing this list was the most beneficial mix of positions for all agencies involved. The Section V allocation created sixteen jobs in Decatur: the city hired a policeman, two clerks, an administrative aid, an environmental con- trol specialist, an engineering technician, and a maintenance man; the Decatur School District hired an attendance officer, three teacher's aides, and a clerk; the Decatur Sanitary District added two laborers; the Decatur Park Dis- trict hired a greenskeeper and horticulturist. The city's Section VI monies were used to create six jobs in the inner city: two clerk-typists, two neigh- borhood improvement aides, a teacher's aide, and a maintenance trainee. I In recruiting personnel to be hired under both grants, Decatur and 4 I its designated subagents relied mainly upon the Illinois State Employment Ser- vice for referrals, but for the Section VI program the city also used the De- catur Macon County Opportunities Corporation to recruit inner city personnel. In all cases, special efforts were exerted to recruit applicants who had par- ticipated in manpower training programs. Where necessary, EEA hires are re- ceiving on-the-job training; the neighborhood improvement and environmental specialist aides attend the University of Illinois for special courses, and the police patrolman is scheduled to attend the University of Illinois Police Training Institute. In terms of career development, the City of Decatur is reviewing its job and skill requirements for all entry levels and promotional positions and is trying to determine the validity of current civil service testing require- ments. The positions established with EEA funds appear to have been selected with consideration for potential permanent employment and eventual upward mobility. The Decatur High Impact Program; Union Objections Of the $2.9 million in high impact demonstration grant funds awarded to Decatur, the City received $1,95 million directly for EEA hiring. Local officials moved hurriedly to allocate the funds to eligible subagents and to draw up the application which was eventually hand carried to Chicago by City officials. Because many of the agencies in which participants are being placed are unionized, local unions were notified of their right to comment on the grant application. In the interest of speed, the unions waived the fifteen days' notice to which they were entitled and agreed to only eleven days' ad- vance notice, and while a number of the unions indicated that they wished to comment, only three did so within the allowed time period. The Decatur Fire 67 Fighters' Association questioned the methods used to recruit applicants and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees complained ahout several violations in the civil service system of which the city appeared to be guilty. Both of these problems were quickly solved. The most serious union objection was raised by the Decatur Education Association which claimed that the Decatur School District was discriminating against some of its members because of their beliefs and was thus violating .a EEA guidelines. In the fall of 1971 » Decatur experienced a bitter school strike during which TOO members of the Decatur Education Association withheld their ■ services. On September 13, after having refused two opportunities to go back to work with no disciplinary action taken against them, fourteen teachers were fired by the Decatur Public School District. They were first-year employees who had signed a contract with the District which included a clause stating that they would not strike against the District. The strike was eventually halted by a court injunction, and the fourteen teachers along with the Decatur Educa- tion Association are suing the School District to obtain reinstatement. Some of these fourteen teachers apparently wished to apply for jobs under the EEA and the school district indicated that it would refuse to even consider these otherwise qualified applicants for any positions. The City of Decatur held that this dispute was not relevant to Labor Department approval of the grant application and that, in any event, the teachers involved were eligible for EEA positions with other local subgrantees. The Labor Department apparently agreed, for it approved the City's application without modification. Because the City had contacted the appropriate unions in advance, the issues raised in the court injunction obtained by the Illinois State Employees' Union did not delay approval of the City's grant and release 68 of the necessary funds. Decatur was thus able to proceed on schedule and "began hiring persons with high impact EEA funds on December 1. Innovational Aspects of Decatur' s High Impact Program A total of 2U7 persons are being hired at a total program cost of approximately $2.17 million — $1.9 million in federal funds and $217,000 in local funds. This represents an average salary of approximately $8,800 per job (see Table 7 below). The most interesting aspects of the high impact dem- onstration program in Decatur are the unique uses being made of the funds and the innovative programs being established. One noteworthy example of program innovation is being developed to use thirty construction trainees to build low and moderate income housing units in the Decatur area. A non-profit corporation is being established to build thirty units of FHA 235-236 housing. The City is supplying the employees (EEA hires) and their training is being conducted both directly by the City and by local unions and building contractors. This training includes both extensive classroom work and on-the-job training. The housing sections are prefabri- cated during the winter months and erected during the construction season. When completed, the housing will be sold under Federal Housing Administration loans. This program provides immediate employment and extensive training in a useful occupation and at the same time, increases the supply of low and moder- ate housing. A number of other interesting uses of EEA high impact funds are being made in Decatur. A mobile work crew, which city officials feel will gain max- imum visibility for the EEA program, travels from village to village in Macon County perfomiing any clean-up or environmental tasks needed in the local area. Eight maintenance equipment operators are being hired to handle a materials 69 TABLE 7 Decatur's Proposed High Impact Hiring Number of Sub agent Jobs City of Decatur I56 Decatur Public School District #6l 52 Decatur Park District 26 Sanitary District of Decatur 10 Maconland Junior College District #537 3 Decatur Housing Authority k Decatur Public Library 1 Average Monthly Wage Rate $ 601 Ghl i+58 601 720 559 U60 TOTAL 252 $ 630 Source: City Manager's Office^ City of Decatur 70 recycling program throughout the City, and a neighborhood upgrading project is underway and is being coordinated by a neighborhood improvement planner. The Decatur Housing Authority is employing additional security personnel where sup- plemental protective services are required. Upon completion of the high impact program, the Housing Authority will evaluate the results of this experiment and consider the continuation of these security positions. The Decatur Public School District has for a long time desired to establish a program for the "drop out," and high impact funds have finally made this possible. Personnel work cooperatively with county and state mental health personnel to help children with various learning, social, and behavioral problems. Finally, a September referendum established Maconland Junior College, a community college for the Decatur area. . With high impact funds three research staff positions have been created to support curriculum studies and other research projects. A new dis- trict cannot usually afford this type of research until after its first year even though the research is vital to the development of its program, but EEA funds are making this possible for Maconland Junior College. High Impact Hiring Of the Zhf positions created with EEA funds in Decatur, ihQ were al- located to the City and half of those remaining were allocated to the Decatur public schools. In all, there are sixteen local program agents in the County including two nonpublic hospitals and the United Way, which is developing a city-wide volunteer bureau for charitable, health, welfare, and recreation groups in Decatur. The positions for the hospitals and United Way are being handled through a contract with the City, since nongovernmental agencies can- not directly receive EEA funds. By January, 101 persons had been hired with high impact funds. Of these, fifty-three were veterans, and twenty-eight of these were special and 71 Vietnam era veterans. A summary of the characteristics of Decatur's ' high impact hires is given in Table 8. Finally, the State's plans for local hiring with its share of EEA funds are indicated in Appendix Tahle lU. At this writing, the State's application is still in the process of being revised, and it is thus too early to comment upon the shape of the State's program in the Decatur area. B. Springfield Initial Springfield EEA Hires ; Initially, Springfield received $113,000 in Section V funds, and the City's east side area received $^8,000 in Section VI funds. This money is be- ing used to create fourteen jobs within local units of government. The six persons hired with Section V funds are working in the public service areas of employment counseling, environmental clean-up, consumer protection, and devel- opmental management, and the Section VI hires are working in similar areas; two are physical education teacher's aides. Recruiting methods used for positions financed with both grants were similar. Ads were placed in two local newspapers, public service organiza- tions were notified, and the Illinois State Employment Service was contacted for referrals. As soon as the newspapers publicized that additional jobs were being created with EEA funds, city agencies were deluged with calls from pros- pective employees, and there was little difficultly finding suitable applicants ■ for the open positions. Despite the low rate of unemployment in the Springfield area (three percent) there are still a large number of people involuntarily unemployed who are actively seeking work. In the case of Section VI funds, of I course, special efforts were made to recruit applicants from the east side area of the City. 72 TABLE 8 Characteristics of Decatur's EEA High Impact Hires Total Hires 108 Sex Male 81 Female 27 Group White 87 Negro 21 American Indian Oriental Spanish American Other Veterans ,-^ •Special Veteran q Vietnam Rra Veteran Other Veteran Source: U.S. Department of Labor 73 19 25 Disadvantaged oq Public Assistance Recipients •]_g Public Service Area Law Enforcement 8 Education 33 Public Works and Transportation " ° Health and Hospitals 3 Environmental Quality ]_]_ Fire Protection 1^ Parks and Recreation • I8 Social Services Other 23 i 1 Except for in service training, no formal training programs were established for individuals hired under either grant. In the Springfield labor market there vere a large number of skilled individuals unemployed and seeking the available positions, even though they were overqualified for them. Local officials felt that formal training would not be as useful as programs resul- ting in the creation of more positions for the area's highly trained indi- viduals. Most of the initial Section V and VI programs in the Springfield area made available with EEA funds are new ones for which there are no job descriptions; thus, there are few problems with Job requirements or with artificial barriers to employment. All of the positions established are in occupational fields which are likely to expand in the future. Created positions will become permanent and EEA participants will be given the opportunity to become permanent employees of the government agencies. A new City Department of Community Development and Programs has been established and as this depart- ment matures and expands there will be an increasing need for staff members who have had experience and on-the-job training similar to that received by participants under the EEA program. The department's growth will keep EEA participants in permanent public service employment. Since most of the posi- tions being established lack job descriptions and wage scales, rates of I compensation for each occupation are computed by comparing the occupational responsibilities with comparable occupations for which the civil service com- mission maintains criteria. Since persons employed with the initial EEA funds hold no positions governed by labor unions, labor organizations were not notified for comments on either application. Ik The Springfield High Impact Program The Springfield area received more than half of the high impact fiinds allocated to Illinois. Of the $5.^ million, $1.6T million was given directly to the City; the remainder was given to the State to create jobs in the area. This compares with high impact grants of $1.7 million to Champaign and $2.9 million to Decatur, and reflects the high portion of state employment in the area. Unfortunately, in preparing their high impact application, local offi- cials were unsure of the labor organizations which were to be contacted in advanced and, for this and other technical reasons, hiring with high impact funds in Springfield did not being until January. Comments on the area's high impact programs are thus limited here to an examination of the proposed employment program. Analysis of the hiring procedures followed and charac- teristics of persons employed will be included in future reports. In distributing their share of the high impact grant, local officials devised a rather unique and formalized distribution formula. There are ten governmental entities that serve the area covered by the program agent (the City of Springfield), and the total number of public service employees working for these units of government is approximately 3,265. Each governmental entity was allocated a percentage of the total funds available equivalent to the unit's percentage of total public service employees. This procedure is illustrated in Appendix Table 13. Following the initial allocation of funds, each unit of government was contacted by the city coordinator's staff and discussions were held concerning its needs and how the funds might be used to serve those needs. The needs of individual subagents were reviewed and a number of city officials were interviewed in depth. A distribution of funds was eventually determined which generally adhered closely to the initial percentage allocation (see 75 Appendix Table 13). While on the one hand this was an ohjective allocation for- mula, it may he questioned whether anything like a percent distribution of funds can represent an allocation in line with any area's unmet public service needs. The lack of innovative programs established, especially in relation to the ones undertaken in Decatur, may also be noted. A total of 253 local government jobs are being created with the high impact EEA funds. These are summarized in Table 9. Altogether, eight separate government units are serving as subgrantees, and the average annual salary of the jobs being created is $6,600, including fringe benefits. While the average salary of EEA jobs does not appear to be excessively high, certain budgeted positions appear to have relatively high starting salaries for the central Il- linois area. For example, police officers and fire fighters are being paid beginning salaries of more than $9,600, and some laborers are being paid a starting salary of nearly $6,700. It is believed that these and other rela- tively high starting wages are due both to the low rate of unemployment in the Springfield area and also to the fact that local units of government must compete with the state government for personnel. The largest single category of EEA jobs is in the field of education, 1^8, and the Springfield School District is the largest single subgrantee. The second largest category is in environmental clean-up and control with forty-six jobs. Local officials believe that the many new teachers, teacher's aides, and maintenance workers hired with high impact funds will provide a high degree of visibility of the program to the local community. It is estimated that welfare recipients will be able to fill a minimum of fifty percent of the jobs created. The only problems which may be experienced with civil service requirements are those relating to policemen and firemen, for due to Illinois 76 I TABLE 9 Springfield's Proposed High Impact Hiring Sub agent Number of Jobs City of Springfield 78 Sangamon County- 11 Capital Township 3 Springfield School Di. #186 strict 138 Springfield Housing Authority Springfield Mass Transit Authority Springfield Park District Springfield Airport Authority Lincoln Land Junior College TOTAL 6 h 2 9 253 Average Monthly Wage Rate $ Gok 529 325 680 392 1+75 1+00 337 $ 1+56 Source: Coordinator's Office^ City of Springfield 77 law, persons hired for these positions must be chosen from existing civil ser- vice lists, and it may be difficult to get unemployed persons hired. In any event, this should prove to be no problem in the case of firemen, for the Springfield civil service list for this position has very few names on it at the present time. As with the case of Champaign and Decatur, state plans for hiring with EEA funds in the Springfield area are still being reviewed. The State's preliminary plans for hiring in the Springfield area are summarized in Appendix Table 1^+. 78 FIGURE 1 Comparison of Illinois and United States Unemployment Rates Seasonally Adjusted January 195^ to May 1971 PERCENT 8 1954 '55 '56 '57 '58 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 '68 '69 '70 '71 NOTE: The unemployment rates in this chart are derived by relating adjustment employ- ment for each month to the seasonally adjusted work force for that month. Source: State of Illinois, Bureau of Employment Security 79 m w •H o a •H rH rH H o l+H 05 -P 03 P -P 0) o H -y o cu o c « •H H 4-> O !h s O PM-d c: d 0) cd > r-l ffi W o M ■H CO & o -p C3 • H S o o pq h- o h- a\ o ON 0\C0 H •\ •N •s 00 o CO OJ _j- CO UA LTNVD O UA UA O uaO UA cvj r- • LfA h- CM uA t-- O h- CTn^ 0O-4- OO OO ON OO UA LTN •N "V *\ »^ rv •^ •N »\ *\ 00 OJ MD -^ 0\^ _^ UA rH v£> VO VO UA LfA LfA LP\VO O O UA O OJ C\J • o o r— o o\oo on rH cvj o oo CA CO VD rH VD -^ -:t -J- o o OJ o o o o o o • o o o o o vD O -=^ f-co r~- o M »S "N •\ •n •% «\ 03 H 0\ rH J- -4- O O CO en J- OO CVJ o •H C\J H H H o\ m XJ •N 'v -v -S o en on oo c\j O O CA O O O O =H w O O • o o o o O •H O O -d- ON CA On O O •S -N •\ »s •v •S (U C CO m \s\^ en t- -p • H VO -;)- rH H -cr CO 03 rH ON OJ I^vD OJ C\J -P rH ^ «^ «S VN v\ m H -d- J- _:J ^ H LP, UA O ^ CM O L_ rH CA *\ *^ ** J- UA rH en o o O o o o (-- rH CA •n •s •\ J- O VX) CVJ rH o CM OJ o o O o o o CAO o •s •^ •> vD H H LTN (-- O CA en rH CM TZi (U >> o H iH 03 Oi w ^ a ^ t:3 :is QJ OJ El w -p CJ M 03 a H D o OJ •H 1:5 o OJ :s bO M :i •H o c: 03 H ^ ^ >i •H ? o bD o ^ !h a -P 03 Ph 03 rH -P ■H O (D M .H 03 O x: •S g a O 5h 03 CO OJ -p >> 9 U O 5h ch o Sh ^ ^ o IS ;:! t3 1^ Oi 0) CD H fH -P c^ a rH H > Si 03 1+4 rH 03 o3 H 03 o -P ^ M O ::3 S <; CO w o pi %-l o OJ -P o -P •H bD H H :s Tj a u 03 . . rH ::! (P CD bD :s <; m <; u C! !>5 O t:; oi •H 03 O f-l 0) U M •H rH (J >, O ■ • bD rH ft PU, o ^ rH OJ <: • H a rH > 0) ft •H d • • ■ O ^ < w < pq t3 rH •H •H U Pi W M en Id o o UA UA UA O O o UA O O o UA • t-- r- UA UA c^ o ch UA OJ VD rH VD H H o UA UA rM •\ r\ *\ •\ •s •s •\ •\ •N CJ ^ CO UA OO-J- OO VD ON rH O CM rH H O -:t UA « rH rH H H O UACO UA O O UA O CM • t^ O O OJ CA O OJ CO vD OO OJ CA en \0 UACO O ^- h-vO H O O H O O O O O UA • UA UA O O PO O CA I^CO CACX) r- H o\vD m j- UA UA_:t -cT r-i n^ ^ UA O OO UA J- O O ^- UA • CM OJ O O LfA O U^. LP\ _:}- H -J- h- m -^ OO CA CA LfA UA UA J- H ^ CD >> O rH & C/J a ^ cu (U EU ^ !3 O CD ts O u >5 o u ^ 03 H (D ^ H 03 a ^ 03 CO o O IS ^ ^ fH +J d <+H H oJ M O :=i ?H o (U O 4J •H bJ3 IS Td d ;^ 03 0) (U bD ;s rt >5 o ^ 03 CD O ^ CD a •H H CD >5 O • rH ft ft O S H •H a H > 0) ft ■H a • • O D <; W <: UA o Lr\ C-- o c^ o on OJ CO UA r— rH c •H M 0) ft 1 O UA LfA UA O O UA UA O UA 03 O I-- • h- O O OJ f- O OJ •H UA |>-_d- CM O UA OJ C^ UA C— !h •\ "N »S -X •\ •% •N -N •S O CAvD OJ CA h- h- O H OO (L) J- -^ OO CM -J- OO H ft H r-\ r-\ <-{ UA LfA UA f— C-- I^ O C7N00 CA OJ CM C7n H O h- O O CM O f— OO H •s •% •% ONJ- H CM H Oi U nd d bD -P 03 d •H H 0) t:3 o bD bD Hi ■H d 03 H ?H •H IS u bD in d -p 05 ;:i ?H •H d d -P 0) 0) o o s: »s g d 01 -p t>i 2 iH o ?H M ^ ^ 05 OJ H d H H > xi 05 oJ H 05 o -p :=! S <; CO bD o -p H H • • H 1:3 < m < oJ o •H CO •H O d •H H H H iH O ■P 03 -P >5 -P •H ^ ;:! CJ (D CO -P d O H & O CD CJ iM o CO pq 80 TABLE A-2 Illinois Pockets of High Unemployment Outside of Chicago (Population 7^500 or more) Area Unemployment Rate (Summer I971) "Market Street!' Area of Waukegan G.k Maywood 7*2 Chicago Heights 7-2 Harvey 7*2 Robbins 7-2 Markham 7 • 2 Rock Island Model Cities Target Area 20.0 Kankakee: Pembroke Township 11.6 Kankakee: "Northside" 12.0 Rockford SMSA 7-5 Joliet 6.2 Danville 8.5 Illinois Section of St. Louis 11.0 LaSalle -Ottawa 6.2 Source: Governor's Manpower Office^ State of Illinois 81 TABLE A -3 Recent Unemployment Trends for Champaign July 1971 June 1971 May 1971 April 1971 March I97I Feb. 1971 Jan. 1971 Dec. 1970 Nov. 1970 Oct. 1970 Sept. 1970 Total Civilian Work Force 66825 72000 70750 70200 70050 Unemployment fo Unemployed Employment 2525 3.8 6^300 3025 k.2 68975 2100 3-0 68100 2100 3.0 2^00 3.^ 3.6 3.^ 2.8 3.1 2.1+ 2.8 68650 Source: Champaign County Regional Planning Commission 82 TABLE A-i+ High Impact Area Pockets of Unemployment Champaign Area: "North End" Subsection of Champaign-Urbana Geographic Description: East: South West: North Population (1970) Unemployment Data Lincoln Avenue University Avenue Illinois Central Tracks Interstate 7^ 11,402 Labor Force Number Unemployed Unemployment Rates May 5,U50 385 7-1 1971 June 5,550 535 9-7 July 5,150 4l5 8.0 Decatur Area: Decatur "inner City" Geographic Description: Census Tracts, 1, J, 9 Population (1970) : 8,382 Unemployment Data: Labor Force Number Unemployed Unemployment Rates Springfield Areai "East Side" Area of Springfield Geographic Description: East: Nineteenth Street South: Cornell Street West: Ninth Street North: John Hay Homes Population (1970) : 30,500 Unemployment Data: Labor Force Number Unemployed Unemployment Rates May 8,i+50 660 7.8 1971 May June July 2,185 2,185 2,185 255 255 255 11.7 11.7 11.7 1971 June 8,450 660 7.8 July 8,U50 660 7.8 Source: Governor's Manpower Office, State Of Illinois 83 TABLE A- 5 Occupational Breakdown of Unemployment in Champaign Occupation Professional^ Management Clerical,, Sales Services Processing Farming Machine Trades Benchwork Construction Miscellaneous and Unskilled Percent of Total 13 17 20 3 2 6 10 9 20 Source: Champaign County Regional Planning Commission Qk TABLE A-^ Characteristics of Champaign's Disadvantaged Age 16 - 21 Age 22 - kh Age 45 + Male Female Male Female Male Female 4hite m White m White m White m White m White m 150 57 76 ^5 219 92 100 73 80 16 63 22 WW = Non-White Source: Champaign County Regional Planning Commission 85 TABLE A -7 Springfield's Unmet Public Service Needs PRIORITY ORDER OF UNMET PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS SUGGESTED PUBLIC SERVICE POSITIONS 1. Understaffed and underfunded educational programs^ including educational support functions Shortage of manpower in public safety programs in the community Lack of needed programs to curtail visual environmental pollution and manage public properties Shortage of personnel to manage public programs and development activities. Lack of adequate programs in hyman resource areas dealing with: youth^ preventive health- health care^ equal employment and employment counseling Teachers_, teacher's aides, teachers' helpers, instructional material center aide, high school counseling aides, library assistant, attendance officers, hall supervisors, lunch room supervisors, data processing machine operator, micro-film trainee, peer advisors, etc. Policemen, firemen, security guards, .(Such positions would also help resolve the unemployment needs of certain veterans) Laborers for: County Highway Dept., County Public Health and Garbage Dept., City Forestry Dept., City Street and Sewer Depts.; Maintenance men (Park District), Grounds Keepers (Lincoln Land Comm. College) Asst. to County Zoning Supervisor, Planning Aide, draftsman, assistant traffic engineer, housing insepctors, building inspectors, engineering aides clerk typists, telephone operators, librarian, lihrary assistant, office clerks, public transit salesmen, junior accountant, coding clerks Youth Recreation Programs Director; Youth Specialist, recreation aide, public health nurses, health inspectors, affirmative action specialist, community worker (employme counseling) I Source: Coordinators Office, City of Springfield 86 Table A- 8 Apportionment of Section V EEA Program Funds In Illinois Apportionment (in thousands) Decatur City Chicago Evanston Joliet Peoria Springfield Rockford Champaign County Cook County Du Page County Kane County Kankakee County Lake County LaSalle County McHenry County Mc Lean County Madison County Rock Island County St. Clair County Taze-well County Vermillion County Will County Winnebago County Total To Program To State Agents for Government Local Jobs 113.1 113.1 0.0 7527.0 680i|.l 722.9 53.6 53.6 0.0 207.1 207.1 0.0 296.1 261.5 3^.6 113-1 39.9 73.2 709.2 67^.5 3^.8 125.0 3^.7 90.3 1637.6 lif70.8 166.8 208.^ 208. U 0.0 609.1 562.3 1+6.9 128.9 128.9 0.0 285.8 257.2 28.6 216.2 216.2 0.0 125.0 125.0 0.0 101.2 i+1.2 60.0 i+96.5 396.9 99.6 ^31.5 397.8 33.7 936.0 7^8.2 187.8 95.3 95.3 0.0 386.3 386.3 0.0 398.3 ■ 359.3 39.0 71.5 71.5 0.0 SUB TOTAL BALANCE OF ILLINOIS 15272.0 2638.0 13653.8 1618.2 2638.0 TOTAL $ 17910.0 $ 13653.8 $ 1+256.2 Source: Governor's Manpower Office, State of Illinois 87 TABLE A -9 Apportionment of Section VI EEA Program Funds in Illinois Allocation (in thousands) Chicago Balance of Cook County Decatur _, Inner City Joliet Peoria (Part) Rockford Springfield (Part) Decatur (Part) Kane County LaSalle County Madison County Rock Island County St. Clair County Vermilion County Alexander County Bond County Boone County Clinton County Franklin County Jackons County Jefferson County Jersey County Marion County Massac County Mercer County Perry County Richland County Union County White County Williamson County To Local Program To State Agent iS Government 3,^92.5 161.7 32.1 2^0.2 130.9 ^57.1 i+8.0 32.1 303.^ • 175.5 185.1 235.0 629.2 288.2 77.6 38.0 87.1 30.^ 56.1 91.8 52.3 55.^ 168.1 108.3 1+7.6 37.8 33.8 U5.8 31.9 108.5 Illinois Total: $7,^U9.U Source: U. S. Department of Lahor 88 -p o •H -P 05 U 4J w o a (U p •H o •H H o o o o o o -69- o O o O o O *s •^ o O o LTN o OJ »> •> rH LTN ^ -p -p bD ^ O 05 (U -P Ti O CO d W O (U o o bD <+H •H o m <^^ • 0) o ^ to 1 -P O ^ H O •H ,o o t-D H xi O ;:5 o 05 t:! O ^ 1 c: CO M U ^ >.o 05 •H 05 -P 05 -p O -P ■H CVJ O d O •H X pq C H •H O pq O o H 1 ^ O o >. ^ Ch CO -p O ,Q o bD O bD -p O ^ q-l pi 05 05 o p< g (U o CO O O r-\ o c\j 0) M 1 •H •H 05 o ^ -P < >. ^ ^ ^ S bD 03 -p ^ O O X O -^J rQ •H CO v_^ ■> ^ o ^ CO CO O o o o o o o o o -69- o o o m O o5 0) ^ 'd s:d d H CO H M CO o •H o O m C 1 •H 1 iH -p H P! H 0) ^ O B Q) 05 -P 5h 05 bD -P O CO ^ Oh o o o o' 00 00 -69- -p o o5 ^ -p Ti C! S O 05 o H 1 CO ^ H P5 CO ^ O r-i o I K -P <+H d O 0) ^ -P 1 •H ^ O ;:i CO o o o o o o -69- -P CO -p CO o5 I I -P bD O O 0) P o5 -P CO p o 05 P* CJ o o CO I p bD < I CO o o o o o o -69- o O Q o O o o O o •s •n «• o o o ^ ■^9- vo ^- CO -69- •H ^ — V pi !d ^ CO o •H •H P -p 05 • O 05 H -P 05 O O CO ^ ^ P TJ • P C w -P CO O CO 03 o Ch 1-q W O Ch < ,^ o EH 5 -p EH >. ^ O d -P P! pq ;3 •H CO V ^ o O o CO •H O sd •H H iH M Ch O (1) -P CO (U o •H o 0) -P S O 0) • (U ^ o & Oj O w O) (U o rH & <+H o o o pq H CVJ VD -^ V() o\ vo o\ r^ f- •\ »\ ^ h- -j- OJ -^ ir- CM LPv 00 00 CO CVJ oo en oo o VD CVJ O O cn •\ •N *\ •\ •\ H CJN o en VD H CO -6/3- o O m H _=!- CVJ H o LTN -^ J- CVJ CVJ VO H H vO rH OO CVJ VD CO O O CO H O O O VD CVJ VD -ee- VD cn ^5, VD cr\ o o 00 o cn cn J- .H o rH H Lf\ o o CVJ VD CVJ OO (U >s iao -p (U •H H f-l r^ -p O o o ^ o •H -P ^ ;^ >i -p -p < -p w VD o •H ^ •H oo •H bD C r-\ O H ^ d g 0) ^ -p >1 -P •H •H ^ o -p W m g ft Ch >5 ?M -P •H •H •H ^ O •H bD -P «3 o ^ ^ P O o XJ d C! pLn •H -P o W w CO •H ^ ^ w X3 -P Tj ^ ^-q fn o Tj -P •H -p •H TJ c; ? ^ ft o iH W Q :i M >H 05 O EH CO CD •H <; ^ (U i-q EH O a ■H O >. cd •H EH (H o ^ fn -p ?H "H iH H O ^ M H cd ^ EH M H 03 3 si; O -P o C O •P >. M •H O •H ft w •H o •H -P ii; f-t ^ iz: ^ w ?H j::; ft •H 03 ft O OJ •H 05 ft •H 05 U CO CO CO CO < S CO i-q O 92 i EH § cn H I <; pq * 0) O -P cd (U W -p 4J 0) o Id rH (u a oJ a> B JH W O o •H -P CtJ H Hi ft O Ph •ri -p S 0) •H > -p w H W rH rH -:t CVJ vo CVJ oo ON Lr\ CO LTN VD 00 j- o j- C\J CU .H -::t cn 00 o OJ UA On VD •\ •N »\ •\ •\ ^ ^ •\ •\ CO r-i cn a\ On vo h- OJ \£> oo t— OJ OJ rH m H O LTA ON -69- VD o O o O o o o VD ON CO VD •S •\ •\ OO ON cu ON rH VD OJ CVJ »\ rH -69- o on o cn o o cn cn cn cn cn cn LfN LTN LTN LTN 1^- I^- t- h- •\ •N •n •\ H rH rH H CTn ON ON ON o o OJ CO CVJ o O o CVJ CVJ o CTN -::t UA ^ •\ ^ UA VD OJ H cn H O ^5. O O OO cn cn cn ON o cn cn cn cn LTN ir\ if\ t-- tr~ ^- •\ •N •\ H H H CSN ON CTN 00 o VD vD ^- o cn cn LTN ON Q 0) • M xi +J (U • 4J •H rH +:> • 1=5 c/a H 02 -p <: C! O •H Ul 03 CJ> Q ^ •H -p ^ bD H « ^ EH C • H (U o •H g O •H ^ ft Ul CO § ft O l+H >i ^ ^ Ul ;^ O •H Xi bO -P ctf •H 05 O o ^ o C f:; FM < S w Ul CO •H ;:! Ti d U O TJ TIJ nd XJ ^ :5 -r^ ft O H .H r^ rH >5 03 O H CO (U cu (U -P (U -P i-q EH (U iH •H •H •H O •H •H •H Ch O «H f+H Ch •H Ch ^ s^ rH Ch O s bD t>D bO ?H W O rH 03 bD CO ^ £13 f^ -p ^ x: O -p s:! VD >5 M •H •H •H Ul •H ■p o • H •H CO -P d ?H ?H ^ •H ?H ^ d ft ^ H •H ctf ft ft ftp ft OJ 02 -P I H i- 0) 'Ti 5=1 03 bO C! •H d •H 03 -P fH O =H 02 T3 02 CD :=! H o * t3 H (U •H i -P •iH (U o ■H (H o o -p 03 •H O o o cu O o CO 93 TABLE A-1^ State EEA Job Allocation in Springfield Agency Number of Jobs Professional Other Average Monthly Wage Rate Department of Mental Health Department of Children and Family Services Governor's Office of Human Resources Department of Conservation Department of Public Aid Department of Corrections Department of Public Health Illinois Institute for Social Policy Department of Personnel Department of Revenue Insurance Public Works and Buildings Registration and Education TOTAL 175 5 5 k k $ ^36 468 1 19 3 539 133 483 57 kke 5 411 38 608 5 576 2U 553 5 363 7 382 1+0 475 5 491 516 $ 470 Source: State of Illinois, Department of Personnel 9k