THE TMPLEMENTATEON EXPERTENCE 0F SELECTED RURAL AREAS. WTTH THE EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT 0? 1.971,. AND THE STATE AND LOCAL HSCAL ASSTSTANCE ACT OF 1972: EMPLSCATEONS FOR SPECIAL REVENUE SHARTNG Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MTCHTGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MTCHAEL CARLETON DENNIS 1973 -74.. LIBRARY a“; Michigan State ‘ Z Umversity w'v “r... A “SJ ‘3‘ "WW“ IIIEING av ‘5“ "DAG & SUNS' 300K BINDERY INC. * LIIIRARY BINUERS s.‘ III IMFIIAD' nil-Lu: II A! ABSTRACT THE IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES OF SELECTED RURAL AREAS WITH THE EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1971, AND THE STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1972: IMPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL REVENUE SHARING BY Michael Carleton Dennis The decision-making process concerning implementation of Federal grant programs is in a period of transition. Historically, this decision-making authority has remained at the Federal level; based upon the assumption that the Federal government has had the easiest and most efficient access to required information and personnel. This concept is chang- ing. Today, it is thought that local elected officials are in the best position to determine their community needs and, therefore, to implement programs which can best satisfy those needs. This is the basis of the 'New Federalism'. Two Federal non-categorical grant programs which are current examples of the 'New Federalism' and which have been operated in rural jurisdictions are the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. These are the Federal non-categorical grant programs which have been investiaged for the purposes of this thesis. Michael C. Dennis The purpose of this thesis is to examine selected rural jurisdictions in the state of Michigan to discover the pro- blem areas rural elected officials encountered as they planned and implemented both the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. The Emergency Employment Act of 1971 is basically a counter-cyclical program which enables localities, where un- employment exceeds 4.S%, to provide public service jobs for unemployed workers. The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 is the Federal government's general revenue sharing program. General revenue sharing provides localities with a non-categorical grant to spend as community needs dictate. The research was completed in two phases. The first, conducted during February 1972, includes extensive data collection and questionnaire responses regarding the initial Emergency Employment Act of 1971 implementation experience in "Balance-of—State" Michigan. The second phase, conducted July-September 1973, includes extensive questionnaire inter- views with rural local officials regarding their planning and implementation processes for both the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. The major findings derived from the data and question- naire responses indicate: (1) non-categorical grant programs provide rural areas with the mechanism needed for greater local adaptability and flexibility: (2) local programs have Michael C. Dennis been able to operate with a minimum of Federal oversight; (3) there is no single appropriate level of government to operate a non-categorical grant program; (4) in local rural jurisdictions there is a noticeable abscence of formal 'planning' bodies; (5) the short run nature of both the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 forced officials to be 'risk averters', i.e., with Emergency Employment Act of 1971 funds officials chose to find positions which were additions to those already existing, and with State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 officials chose to spend their en- titlements predominantly for capital expenditures; (6) the goal of the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 which is of great— est concern to local officials is that of providing partici- pants with positions from which they can easily be transited to full-time employment at the conclusion of the program; (7) public input into the program decision-making processes of the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 has been negligible; (8) the lack of early formal guidelines and the extremely short lead time eliminated the opportunity for thorough plan- ning efforts; and (9) local elected officials when given the opportunity through the SLFAA to develop their own entitle- ment formulation chose not to do so. As a result of these several findings various policy recommendations are made which, if implemented, could produce Michael C. Dennis a more efficient and effective special revenue sharing pro- gram in rural areas. Among the recommendations are the necessity for a formal planning body in rural areas, a full- time professional versed in non-categorical grant program planning and implementation, formation of consortiums at the township level for more efficient program operation, greater public input through organization, less emphasis on Veterans in rural areas, an indefinite program life, esta- blishment of regular lines of communication between local units and the Federal authorities, and improvement of local officials access to data and other information pertinent to their program planning and implementation. THE IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCE OF SELECTED RURAL AREAS WITH THE EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1971, AND THE STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1972: IMPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL REVENUE SHARING BY Michael Carleton Dennis A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1973 g3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude and appre- ciation to those who helped with the completion of this research effort and the preparation of the manuscript. Special thanks are expressed by the author to his major professor, Dr. Collette H. Moser, for providing much of the incentive necessary to complete the study, and for the super— vision and interest she has given to this research. Dr. Daniel H. Kruger of the School of Labor and Industrial Relations, and Mr. James H. Booth of the Department of Agricultural Economics also were members of the thesis and Examining Committees and offered valuable suggestions. Their assistance is greatly appreciated. Financial assistance provided through the Department of Agricultural Economics by Dr. Dale E. Hathaway, former Chair- man of the Department, and Dr. Harold M. Riley, present Chairman of the Department, made it possible for the author to continue his studies. The author wishes to express a very special thanks to his parents, Dr. and Mrs. Carleton C. Dennis. Their continual support and encouragement made possible the completion of this phase of my education. ii To his wife, Sandra, and children, the author expresses his sincere gratitude for their continuing patience, confi- dence, and moral support. The writer, of course, accepts responsibility for any errors that may be present in the manuscript. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION OOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOCO0....000...... II. DECENTRALIZATION 95 THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: PAST AND PRESENT 0.0.0.0000...OOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOO HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT TOWARD THE DECENTRALIZED DECISION PROCESS ............... From A Policy of Exclusion To A Policy of InCIuSion OOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI0.0. Federal Programs of the 1960's ............. THE DECENTRALIZED DECISION PROCESS - THE MODERN FEDERAL LEGISLATION ................... A Goal of the Nixon Administration ......... The Contemporary Vehicles of Decentralization ........................... The Emergency Employment Act Relative to Federal Revenue Sharing .................... SUMMARY 0..0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOO III. REVIEW 2: THE PERFORMANCE 95 THE EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT9£1971 0.000COOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE EEA IN BALANCE-OF-STATE MICHIGAN ................. Initial Phase .00..OOCOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Second Year Hiring Freeze .................. Third Year and Phase-out ................... Administrative Organization ................ iv Page 10 ll 14 18 21 21 21 22 22 23 CHAPTER IV. V. Page SUMMATION OF DATA COLLECTED .................. 25 Methodology of Data Collection ......... .... 25 Positions Requested and Funded ............. 26 Participant Profiles ......... ..... .... ..... 27 SUMMATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES ......... 3O Methodology of Questionnaire Research ...... 30 Questionnaire Responses - Planning ......... 32 Questionnaire Responses - Implementation ... 38 Questionnaire Responses - General Impressions and Recommendations of Local EEA Personnel .............................. 41 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS REGARDING EEA PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION 00.00..........OOOCOOCOOOOO 45 REVIEW 92 THE PERFORMANCE OF THE STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL ASSISTANCE ACT QE_1972 .................. 52 ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SLFAA O..........OOOOOOOOCC......CCOOCO0...... 52 METHODOLOGY OF INFORMATION COLLECTION ........ 55 SUMMATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES ......... 56 SUMMARY ....0.........OOOIOOOO......OCOOOOOOOO 64 SUMMARY 2: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..... 67 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................... 67 Primary Findings ........................... 67 Conclusions Derived from the Findings ...... 69 GENERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 73 ISSUES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION .............. 78 FROM THE EEA AND SLFAA TO SPECIAL REVENUE SHARING ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......IOOOCOOOO 79 SUMMATION ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.000.000.00. 80 V BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX A - DATA TABLES PERTINENT TO INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1971 IN BALANCE- OF-STATE MICHIGAN ................. B - QUESTIONNAIRE EMPLOYED FOR INITIAL EEA INTERVIEW IN FEBRUARY 1972 .... C - QUESTIONNAIRES EMPLOYED FOR EEA D - QUESTIONNAIRE EMPLOYED FOR SLFAA INTERVIEWS AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1973 vi Page 84 87 132 134 142 TABLE LIST OF TABLES Population, Labor Force, Number Unemployed and Unemployment Rate by Size of Section 5 "Balance-of-State" Counties .................... Ranking of "Balance-of-State" Counties by Number of Unemployed ........................... Ranking of "Balance-of-State" Counties by Unemployment Rate .............................. Ranking of "Balance—of—State" Counties by Size of Section 5 Allocation ................... Dictionary of Occupational Titles Ranked by Number of Positions Requested Under Section 5 by "Balance-of-State" Counties ................. Distribution by "Position Description" of Positions Requested for Section 5 by "Balance- Of-State" counties O.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOI... Distribution of Positions Requested Through Section 5 in "Balance-of-State" Counties by "DOT.. category 0................OCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Frequency Distribution of Educational Levels Of BEA PartiCipants ..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOO. Frequency Distribution of Length of Unemployment Of EBA PartiCipantS O.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Alphabetical County Listing of Number of Section 5 Positions Authorized and Filled as of January 1' 1972 00.00.000.000...00.00.000.000... "Balance-of-State" Counties Qualifying for Section 6 Funding .............................. vii Page 87 9O 92 94 96 102 103 116 116 117 119 Ranking of "Ba Size of Section 6 Grant Dictionary of Number of Posi by "Balance-of lance-of-State" Counties by Occupational Titles Ranked by tions Requested Under Section 6 -State" Counties ................ Distribution by "Position Description" of Positions Requ of—State" Coun ested for Section 6 by "Balance- ties O.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Mean Unemployment Rates for May, June, July 1972 for Quali Average Annual Salaries and Number of Positions Authorized Und counties C0.0.0.000...............OOOOOOOOOOOOO fied Section 6 Counties ......... er Section 6 in "Balance-of-State" Distribution of Positions Requested Through Section 6 in " DOT Category . Distribution 0 Section 5 and of-State" Coun Questionnaire February 1972 Questionnaire Commissioners Questionnaire Administrators Questionnaire Agents O.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOO. Questionnaire Elected Offici Balance-of-State" Counties by f Positions Requested Through Section 6 Combined in "Balance- ties by "DOT" Category ......... for Initial EEA Interview in ......OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOC0.0.000... Employed to Interview County Employed to Interview EEA County Employed to Interview EEA Hiring Employed to Interview Local als in Connection with the SLFAA viii Page 121 122 124 125 126 127 131 132 134 137 140 142 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page I. Paths of Fund Distribution Under the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 ................ 15 II. Paths of Fund Distribution Under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 ............. 16 III. The Administrative Organization of EEA in "Balance-of-State" Michigan ..................... 24 IV. Administrative Arrangement for the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 ............. 53 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this thesis is to indicate the issues and problem areas which arise through the implementation and administrative processes of programs developed from non- categorical grants in rural areas.1 The programs researched are the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. The Emergency Employment Act of 19712 is basically a counter-cyclical program which enables localities, where unemployment exceeds 4.5%, to provide public service jobs for unemployed workers. The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 19723 is the Federal Government's general revenue sharing program. General revenue sharing provides localities with a non- categorical grant to spend as community needs dictate. This researcher's interest in the implementation and administration of revenue sharing type programs began in 1972 with data research on the initial experience of the Emergency Employment Act in the Balance-of-State4, Michigan. Further information regarding the Emergency Employment Act was found in the library. This information was totally relevant to cases of implementation in urban areas. None of 1 the reports, Congressional Hearings, or Congressional Committee Prints were concerned with lengthy discussions of experiences in rural areas. Because of this lack of reporting of the implementation of the EEA in rural areas it was decided that the void should be partially filled with this thesis. Because the EEA is viewed as a forerunner of revenue sharing it was also determined that research should be done concerning the initial implementation and administration of the SLFAA in rural areas. The central questions to be answered by this thesis are as follows: 1. What were the decision processes in rural areas leading to the implementation and administration of the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972? 2. What was the actual implementation and administration of the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972? 3. In view of the problems and issues arising from the implementation, administration, and decision processes of the EEA and the SLFAA what are the implications for future manpower revenue sharing programs in rural areas? To answer these questions the following methodologies were used: (1) review the literature and legislation con- cerning the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the concept of revenue sharing including the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972; (2) interviews with county and township commissioners, and other local officials who have working contact with the local programs of the EEA or the SLFAA; (3) a compilation of initial implementation data re- garding the positions and persons hired under the EEA. This thesis is divided into the following parts: Chapter I, the introduction, Chapter II, dealing with the past and present history of the concept of the decentralized decision-making process, Chapter III, which deals with the decision process, implementation, and administration of the ERA in the five rural Michigan counties of Gladwin, Oceana, Ogemaw, Osceola, and Sanilac, Chapter £1, which deals with the decision process, imple- mentation, and administration of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 in selected Townships and Cities of the rural Michigan counties of Gladwin, Oceana, and Sanilac, Chapter X, which briefly summarizes this thesis, draws some conclusions and recommendations, and suggests areas for further research. FOOTNOTES - I 1'Rural area' for the purpose of this thesis refers to a county in which there is no urban concentration greater than 2,500; or any portion of such a county. 2Since its inception in July 1971, the Emergency Employment Act has also been referred to as the Public Employment Program. Throughout this thesis the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 will be referred to as either the EEA or PEP. 3Throughout this thesis the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 will be referred to as the SLFAA. 4Balance-of-State refers to the portion of the state for which the State acts as the principle and responsible Agent. All counties, as of the 1970 Census count, with populations below 75,000 fall into the Balance—of-State cate- gory. Throughout this thesis the term 'Balance-of-State' will be referred to as BOS. CHAPTER II DECENTRALIZATION 2: THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS: PAST AND PRESENT The decision-making process concerning implementation of Federal social service programs is in a period of transition. Historically, this decision-making authority has remained at the Federal level; based upon the assumption that the Federal government has had the easiest and most efficient access to required information and personnel. This concept is changing. Today, it is thought that local elected officials are in the best position to determine their community needs and, therefore, to implement programs which can best satisfy those needs. The Nixon Administration describes this as the 'New Federalism'. HISTORY OF THE MOVEMENT TOWARD THE DECENTRALIZED DECISION PROCESS Though recently supported by the Nixon Administration, the concept of placing greater responsibility in the hands of local elected officials is not a new concept; it dates from the presidential years of Thomas Jefferson. "In his second innaugural address, in 1805, President Jefferson urged that Federal revenue be utilized for ‘a just repartition... among the states...applied...to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufacturers, education, and other great objects within each state."1 Since 1805 interest in sharing federal revenues with local units to decentralize the planning and implementation decision process has risen and fallen, but, until recently, with no spe- cific proposal on a large scale basis with which to realize the decentralization goal. Only once between 1805 and the 1950's has the Federal government enacted legislation which specifically called for shared revenues--the Distribution Act of 1836, which provided for apportionment among the states of the surplus revenue in the Treasury.2 Since this venture in Federal-State cooperation there has been lengthy debate among historians concerning whether the paths of the Federal and State governments have crossed again. Daniel Elazar3 has described this debate as between those who advocate the era 1790-1913 as that of dual federalism, i.e., Federal and State governments following separate paths: and those who view this era as one of governmental cooperation. The stronger argument is made for the advocacy of govern- mental c00peration. This argument is based upon the federal land distribution programs: (1) grants to aid states in development of education, internal improvement and welfare pro- grams (for public use and for private company use), and (2) land disposal programs which did not include states, e.g., homestead, mineral and tree culture acts. This disposition of the public domain can be viewed as the means through which the federal government promoted not only early and continued national growth but also the means by which states could take an active and influential part in this growth. The great amount of cooperation between States and the Federal government is evidenced in the following statement: "The central fact that emerges from an analysis of the development of sharing in a single State over several decades is the sheer weight of political time devoted to inter-governmental cooperation. Not only were the administrators heavily involved in cooperative activities, but the programs that were most highly developed as shared programs also pre-empted the bulk of the policymaker's time. ...Governors and legislatures together were pre- occupied with the cooperative programs....(Many of the programs would indicate this was the case) since no aspect of internal improvements, educa- tion, or general disposition of the public domain in the state escaped involvement in the sharing process....a survey of...books, and the attorney generals' opinions reveals the extent of this con- cern with programs that were cooperative in character, a concern not over the general theory of collaboration but over the procedural aspects of the various programs. Federal-State coopera- tion was a fact of life, hence the policymakers rarely referred to it directly in their delibera- tions. The system of sharing is all the more impressive because of its implicit acceptance as part of the process of government."5 Since the turn of the century, or more specifically since the advent of World War I, the use of Federal cash grants has become more evident and widespread; to the point of being the predominate form of inter-governmental cooperation. This rise to predominance began during the years of Woodrow Wilson's 'New Freedom', and greatly expanded during the years of Franklin Roosevelt's 'New Deal'. As the use of cash grants became commonplace the inter-governmental cooperation evidenced in the 19th Century evolved into what has been called the era of cooperative federalism.6 From A Policy 32 Exclusion £2 A Policy g£_1nclusion In the post World War II years until the early 1970's Federal control of grant programs has increased to unparalled dimensions. Due to an increasing public awareness that those of the population who are not able to help themselves have the right to public assistance, for example for health care of employment training, the Federal government has seen fit to enter the business of providing such socially desirable services. This movement toward increased utilization of social service programs may be characterized as a movement from a 7 This means policy of exclusion to a policy of inclusion. that no longer is anyone to be prohibited the opportunity of moving into the 'mainstream' of American life. Federal Programs 2: the 1960's Emphasis is placed on programs relating to manpower. This emphasis results from the stated purpose for doing this research. Though a statement of the objectives of a national man— power policy was developed in 1946, it was not until 1961 with the passage of the Area Redevelopment Act that a piece of legitimate 'manpower' legislation was instituted. The following year (1962) realized a broadening of the scope of the Area Redevelopment Act with the passage of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. The next significant federal legislation came in 1964. In this year the Civil Rights Act, and the Employment Opportunities Act were passed. Since 1964 the Manpower Development and Training Act and the Employment Opportunities Act have been the principle programs from which manpower programs have developed. Some of the programs authorized by the Manpower Development and Training Act are: Institutional Training, On-the-Job Training, the Job Bank, Comprehensive Area Manpower Planning System, and the National Alliance of Businessmen. Some of the programs authorized by the Employment Opportunities Act are: Mainstream, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Public Service Careers, Job Corps, and the Community Action Agency. THE DECENTRALIZED DECISION PROCESS - THE MODERN FEDERAL LEGISLATION Though interest in revenue sharing programs is at a high level today, efforts to develop revenue sharing legis- lation are not a recent phenomenon. During the decades of the 1950's and the 1960's there were attempts to transform the idea of revenue sharing into reality. Though interest during the 1950's was primarily within academic circles, Congress was introduced to revenue sharing in 1957. In 1957 Congressman Frank Bow introduced a revenue sharing bill through which federal revenues were to be shared with states for education purposes. The following year Congressman Melvin Laird introduced a general revenue sharing bill.8 Nothing materialized from these efforts. The early 1960's produced further academic endeavor to devise a workable and worthwhile program to share federal revenues with the States. Still there was no Congressional 10 activity. But interest for such a program was evident as both the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates for the 1964 national elections included a revenue sharing plank in their platforms.9 One year after President Johnson was re-elected he appointed a Commission, led by Dr. Joseph Pechman, to study the revenue sharing concept. Working extensively with Professor Walter Heller, the Commission developed a revenue sharing plan (the Heller-Pechman P1an)10, the text of which has never been released for public consumption. The plan was never taken up by the Johnson Administration. Yet interest in the concept did not die. Extensive Congress- ional hearings were held in 1967, and in the 1968 Presidential elections both parties again had revenue sharing planks. A Goal g£ the Nixon Administration As a Presidential candidate for the 1968 election Richard Nixon advocated the decentralization of inter-governmental fiscal policies and the giving of greater decision-making authority to the elected officials at the State and local levels. The Nixonian vehicle for this effort appeared in April of 1969, in his first legislative program. The President called for "...a start on sharing the revenues of the Federal government, so that other levels of government...will not be caught in a constant fiscal crisis."11 This was the beginning of the Presidents continuing effort to eliminate, or at least to re- duce, the myriad categorical grants which developed during the 11 decade of the 1960's, and to replace them with non-categorical grants. The Nixonian concept of revenue sharing views such a program as necessary domestic national policy. This is for two reasons: (1) as a fiscal tool in order to eliminate the state and local fiscal mismatch which develops, and (2) as the instrument with which to decentralize the inter—governmental fiscal policies of the federal government, returning the de- cision-making authority to local governmental units.12 The Contemporary Vehicles pf Decentralization This thesis reviews two pieces of legislation. The first, and the one which bears the most extensive research, is the Emergency Employment Act of 1971. The second is the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, i.e., the general revenue sharing program. The Emergency Employment Act of 1971 After considerable effort in the House of Representatives and the 0.5. Senate to develop a manpower bill would be accept- able to all concerned, the Emergency Employment Act became law on July 12, 1971, to be operational until June 30, 1973. It is the result of a compromise between the Republican fac- tion of the Congress which advocated manpower program decentralization and decategorization, and the Democratic counterpart which supported a permanent public employment program.13 12 Enacted during a period of high and relatively persistent national unemployment this legislation has for its expressed purpose: (1) to authorize direct public service employment possibilities for certain governmental units, and (2) to be used as a counter-cyclical tool with which to combat high rates of unemployment. The result is a public employment program which stresses that employment is to be 'transitional'. Transitional in that the job will lead to full-time, non- subsidized employment. A few of the more important aspects of the EEA legisla— tion deserve mention. The program is to be administered by the 0.8. Secretary of Labor in periods of high (4.5% or greater) national unemployment. The Secretary is authorized to appro- priate funds to State Governments, City and County governments with populations greater than 75,000, and to Balance-of-State jurisdictions for the purpose of providing unemployed workers with transitional public service jobs, and communities with increased public services. The manner in which the funds are to become available is controlled by a 'trigger' mechanism. If the national unemploy- ment rate is greater than 4.5% for three consecutive months the funds are released. Additional funds are made available for areas which exhibit an unemployment rate greater than 6.0% for three consecutive months. Each eligible agent's level of funding is determined according to its relative level of unemployment depending on whether it is a state or a lower level of government. 13 The significance of the EEA lies in its method of implementation; for the EEA is regarded as an experiment in revenue sharing. It is regarded as such because it provides for disbursement of federal funds to states and local units in the form of a non-categorical grant. Local units are then able to hire unemployed workers for public service employment in positions which the local officials see as fulfilling local need. The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 The SLFAA is the result of several years of effort by the Congress and more recently the Nixon Administration to provide fiscal assistance to state and local governmental units with- out using large scale categorical grants. This is the President's first movement to phase-down and de-emphasize the categorical grant programs. The SLFAA was developed in two parts. The first deals with the method of Federal fiscal assistance to state and local governments, and is of the greatest concern in the re- search. The second deals with the possibility of allowing the Federal government to collect state individual income taxes. There are several aspects of the first part which should be mentioned. The Act specifies that funds are to be spent in priority areas such as public safety, health and environmen- tal protection. Just as the Act specifies areas in which the 14 funds can be spent it also specifies where the money cannot be spent. For example, monies under the SLFAA cannot be used as matching funds for other federal programs. Furthermore, the life of the Act is specified (five years) as are the amounts of funds which are appropriated to be dis- bursed. Disbursement of these funds can be done in accordance to standard three- or five-part formulas, or via a locally developed formula, whichever develops the largest local allotment. Elements common to each formula are area popula- tion and the local tax effort. Finally, in an effort to increase local population participation in the program decision- making process the act requires that governmental units must inform the public of actual and planned expenditures, through the local news media. The EEA Relative £3 Federal Revenue Sharing The Emergency Employment Act of 1971 is considered to be a forerunner of Federal revenue sharing. Therefore, a compari- son of the EEA and the SLFAA, to support this consideration, is necessary. The areas in which comparisons are to be made are those of the structure (the manner or organization); the technique (the working methods or manner of performance); the goals; and the administration (management) of the programs. The structure of the two types of programs is basically similar; both make the attempt to return as much authority and responsibility for the decision-making process to the local elected officials. Figure I indicates the basic structure 15 evidenced by the EEA for the distribution of grant monies. This scheme clearly shows the possible routes EEA monies may travel as they move from the Federal government to the em— ployees hired under the EEA program. Figure I Paths of Fund Distribution Under the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 ocal Governments State Government with populations reater than 75,000 State Government 'Balance—of-State' I I I Employees (Sub-Agents) (Sub-Agents) (Hiring Agents) (Counties) I I Employees Hiring Agents Employees The structure of the SLFAA retains the concept of placing the responsibility at the local level, and is far less complicated than the EEA. Figure II presents a simple schematic of the structure of the Federal general revenue sharing program. From Figure I and Figure II it is evident that both programs are concerned with having a structure which emphasizes the position of responsibility for the local unit of government. 16 Figure I; Paths of Fund Distribution Under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 ‘/’//’,’ Federal Government \\\\\\\‘ State Government Local Governmental Units: County City Township Consortium V l Expenditures as Expenditures as desired desired within within certain certain limitations. limitations. The techniques involved in the two programs are aimed at achieving an implied common goa1--decentralization of the decision-making process. Under the EEA this is effected in 808 counties differently than in non-BOS jurisdictions. Non-BOS jurisdictions such as state governments, metropolitan areas, and counties with pop- ulations over 75,000 are able to deal directly with represent- atives of the Federal government, and receive EEA monies in a likewise direct manner. But for 305 counties such direct communication is not possible. In the case of these counties, communications are made to the state 808 headquarters office. Furthermore, the B08 counties receive their monies from the 308 state headquarters, i.e., the 'pass through' method is l7 utilized for the disbursement of the funds. Therefore, the programs in BOS counties are basically under the control of state level government rather than federal level government. The technique advocated for the revenue sharing program is the general form evidenced in the EEA non-BOS partici- pating jurisdictions. In other words, the dispersion of monies to all forms and sizes of local governmental units is very direct; there is no restriction for direct receipt based upon population size, and therefore no need for the state pass- through seen in the BOS counties of the EEA. The ultimate goals of both the EEA and the SLFAA are identical--both are intended to achieve the goal of decen- tralization of the decision-making process for Federal grant programs. Both allow local elected officials to establish their spending patterns and priorities in concert with the perceived needs of their communities. The EEA is restricted to a singular program, while the SLFAA concerns implementa- tion of a non-categorical grant which is not restricted to a single use. The administration of either program comes to the central issue of concern. Though EEA administrative responsibilities are possessed at various levels of government the emphasis here is on the organization exhibited in BOS counties, particularly those meeting the rural criteria. The arrangement in BOS counties is as follows: primary responsibility is at the State BOS headquarters office which is in turn subordinate to 18 the 0.5. Department of Labor; the next lower level in the hierarchy rests at the County Board of Commissioners; sub- ordinate to the Commissioners, in general, is the EEA administrator; at the lowest level is the hiring agent who is responsible to the county EEA administrator. With the SLFAA there is virtually no State administra- tion for subordinate governmental jurisdictions. The State revenue sharing office has two primary functions: the first is to administer the State revenue sharing program; the second is to act as a storage depot for copies of records of the revenue sharing experiences of the local governmental jurisdictions, i.e., an auditing function. Local units of government using SLFAA funds have direct administrative control of their programs. In the rural areas this control is the responsibility of the chief elected official of the jurisdiction, who in turn may delegate the routine administrative efforts to a subordinate. Therefore, it can be said that in general the EEA and the SLFAA at the rural county level and below are administratively similar. Above the county level the EEA becomes more complex. SUMMARY This chapter presented a brief historical accounting of efforts to implement programs to share Federal revenues, from the beginnings of this democracy through the present. Re- ference was also made to the keystone social legislation of the 1960's. 19 The Emergency Employment Act of 1971 and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, were described as the present-day versions of the attempt to decentralize the decision-making process. They are the cornerstones of the 'New Federalism' which seeks to replace the categorical grants of the 1960's with the non-categorical grants of the 1970's. In an attempt to substantiate the opinion that the EEA is the forerunner of revenue sharing the final portion of this chapter dealt with a comparison of the EEA and the SLFAA with respect to their structure, techniques, goals, and administration. 20 FOOTNOTES - I I 1"The History of Revenue Sharing". The Domestic Council, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971, p. 1. 2"Revenue Sharing and Its Alternatives: What Future for Fiscal Federalism?" Volumes I, II, III. Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy of the Joint Economic Committee, 90th Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967, p. 11. 3Ibid., p. 37. 41bid., p. 51. 5Ibid., p. 55. 6Ibid., p. 55. 7Kruger, Daniel. "Manpower Programs and Institutions", a graduate level class in the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University, 1972. 8"The History of Revenue Sharing". The Domestic Council, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971, p. 2. 91bid., p. 2. 101bid., p. 3. llIbido' P. So 121bid., p. 5. 13"Emergency Employment Act: An Interim Assessment. Part I". Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 92nd Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972, p. 9. CHAPTER III REVIEW 9: THE PERFORMANCE 95 THE EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT 95 1971 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE EEA IN BOS-MICHIGAN Initial Phase The first months of program implementation were hectic and confusing. County Commissioners were informed in August 1971 that if they wanted their share of EEA funds an EEA program had to be implemented in their county immediately. Within the matter of a few days to a week the following scenario was repeated in every county of the BOS jurisdiction. Through the local newspaper County Commissioners announced that funds were available with which additional public service personnel could be hired. The Board of Commissioners set a date on which they would meet with all interested parties. At the meeting the prospective hiring agents presented them- selves; though the public was welcome to voice their Opinions few were present and vocal. After the hiring agents made their requests, the Commissioners decided which positions were worthy of funding. The Commissioners then reported their decision to the Task Force Headquarters which rejected or accepted the county recommendations. Notification of the 21 22 allowable positions would then be given the county, whereupon the hiring agents were responsible for selecting the participants. Second Year Hiring Freeze A total hiring freeze in BOS-Michigan was instituted July 28, 1972. The freeze was complete--no new positions could be opened nor could replacements be hired for partici- pants who leave the program. The explanation1 for the institution of this freeze was that, in the aggregate, BOS counties were spending their money too quickly. The Task Force Headquarters did not concur with this analysis. In October 1972 Task Force Headquarters pro- duced documented proof that BOS counties were not overspending. However, the freeze was continued. The hiring freeze was effective. From July 28, 1972 until July 1, 1973 when the freeze was lifted, the number of participants fell from 1822 to 1299. This is a reduction of 523 jobs (29%) in less than one full year. Two effects became obvious during this operation of the program on a month-to-month basis. First, there were con- siderably fewer people employed, and no new participants. Secondly, the possibility of any realistic local program plan- ning was effectively discouraged and virtually non-existent. Third Year and Phase-out The EEA was legislated to expire on June 30, 1973 but due to the imposition of the hiring freeze it has been extended2 for one fiscal year, i.e., until June 30, 1974. 23 During the freeze not all of the originally allotted money was disbursed to BOS-Michigan. The unexpended money is now being used to finance the program until June 30, 1974. For BOS-Michigan this third year represents a major effort to phase-out the EEA program. To begin the third fis- cal year, individual BOS counties will be operating their programs at approximately 56% of the level of the initial funding period in 1971. As the fiscal year continues the program will continue to diminish to even lower percentages. The phase-out proceeds on a gradual basis to allow two things to happen. The first is to allow the smaller level of funds to be spread over the entire fiscal year. The second, and the more important, is that because the acknowledged goal of the BOS Task Force is to transit all EEA participants to permanent employment either in the public or private sector doing so gradually makes the task easier. Administrative Organization The administrative organizational lines within BOS-Michigan are diagramed in Figure III. Overall coordinating and administrative responsibility belongs to the BOS Administrator in Lansing. The BOS Adminis- trator maintains oversight and operational control of the program in the 65 BOS counties. The Administrator has a supporting staff of Manpower Specialists. The staff personnel are the Administrator's field representatives and are in direct daily contact with the EEA programs in the various counties. 24 Figure III The Administrative Organization of EEA in BOS-Michigan EEA Task Force [ Headquarters ------ _1 (808 Administratos) l Manpower I Specialist : County EEA ACounty Board Administrator ———— of a. Full—Time Commissioners b. Part-Time elected offical c. Community Action Agency Hiring Agents, a. Health Dept. b. County Road Comm. c. School Districts. d. City Government. e. Police Dept. f. Fire Dept. At the county level, the final responsibility belongs to the County Board of Commissioners. The Board's function is two-fold: (l) initially to request the hiring agents to re- commend positions they need, and decide which jobs should be funded; and (2) to assure compliance with program guidelines. As part of their function of deciding which positions should be funded the Commissioner's generally appointed a County EEA Administrator. Selection of this administrator was accomplished in one of three ways. One was to hire a full-time administrator, paying his salary from EEA funds; a second, and most predominate selection method, was to give this responsibility to the County Clerk or some other local 25 elected official; the third was to allow the local area Community Action Program to provide the administrative manpower. Though Commissioners have the final responsibility for the operation of the program in the county, the day-to-day responsibility belongs to the EEA administrator. It is the EEA administrator who has direct communicative access to Task Force Headquarters. The foremost responsibilities of the county administrator are to ensure that the general program guidelines are followed, and to ensure that the conduct of the hiring agents as they hire, promote or release their EEA participants is also in accordance with the guidelines. SUMMATION OF DATA COLLECTED Methodology pf Data Collection The methodology employed involves research in the month of February 1972. The purpose of the research in this time period was to gather data concerning the types of positions funded and the participants employed in the initial imple- mentation phase of the EEA. These data were obtained from the files of the BOS-Michigan Task Force Headquarters in Lansing. Appendix A contains various tables which have been compiled as a result of this phase of the research. The information collected relative to the positions funded was a complete listing of the positions requested by the BOS counties for the initial grant of Section 5.3 Each position was coded with a six-digit Dictionary of Occupational Titles (D.C.T.) code. The population of this listing was 1358. 26 The information regarding the participants was developed from a random sampling of approximately 5% of the persons hired for the Section 5 positions. The absolute number in the sample is 72. In addition to collecting the data, interviews were held with county officials regarding their program implementation processes. Interviewees were selected randomly from among the B08 counties. The interviews were conducted via the tele— phone, with two exceptions when the interview was conducted in person. A sample of the questionaire can be found in Appendix B. Positions Requested and Funded The information on positions requested and funded was obtained at the BOS Task Force Headquarters in Lansing during February 1972. Of the 1358 positions under Section 5 there were 171 different Dictionary of Occupational Title codes. The occupations listed most often were Janitors (143), and Policemen (114). Combined, these occupations represented 19% of all the positions requested. There were 72 occupations for which one request each was received. These 72 represent about 5% of the total requests. The category with the largest number (in absolute and percentage terms) of occupations requested was the Service category. In this category there were 468 positions requested; mostly for Janitors, Maintenance Men, and Policemen. The 27 Professional, Technical and Managerial category was next with 301 (22%) positions requested. Most of these requests were for Teachers, Teacher Aides, and Secretaries. The Clerical and Sales category accounted for 190 re- quests (14%) and the Structural category accounted for 186 requests (13.7%). The remaining four categories (Farming and Related Processing; Machine Trades; Bench Work; and Miscel- laneous) accounted for the remaining 15.7% of the positions requested. The importance of this description of the distribution of occupations initially requested and funded (see Appendix A for greater detail) is in the predominance of what may be characterized as "low risk"4 or safe occupations. By select- ing janitors, policemen, teacher's aides, and secretaries, occupations were funded which were relatively easy to fill, were relatively easy to phase-out at program's end, and were easily visible to the general public. The decision makers were concious of public opinion as well as the short term nature of the Act. Participant Profile Of the sample of 72, 57 (79%) were male and 15 (21%) were female. The male-female distribution of EEA participants is somewhat below the normal labor force distributions. The labor force participation rate of women is below that of men in rural areas, and women in non-rural areas, but not of a 4 to 1 ratio. 28 Racially, 69 (96%) were White and 3 were non-White (two American Indians, one Black). The exaggerated predominance of Whites is consistent with the White--non-White ratio for the entire rural population of Michigan. Michigan does not have a large non-White population outside of the urban centers. The mean age of the sample was 35 and the median age was 33. The mean and median ages indicate heavy selection of participants from the prime labor force, and to an extent indicates the severity of economic depression and unemployment in rural areas. Further indicating the severity of economic depression in rural areas is the educational attainment, and the lengths of unemployment exhibited by the EEA participants. Seventy- four percent of the sample had a 12th grade or better educa- tion; the mean and median years of education was 12. The range of years of education was from 6 to 17. The range of length of unemployment was 0 to 52 weeks in the year previous to EEA employment. There were nine persons (12.5% of the sample) who were unemployed 52 weeks; five were male, four were female. The degree of education indicates a "well qualified" unemployed work force. When considering the education and the lengths of unemployment of the sample it is obvious that rural areas were in poor economic positions; poor enough that major outside assistance such as that provided through the EEA was called for. 29 Sixty-one percent of the participants were Veterans. This far exceeds the thirty-three percent which was the target level according to the Act. Of these Veterans, 43 were male and l was female. Furthermore, 75% of the male pOpulation of the sample were Veterans. The emphasis on hiring the Veteran made more difficult the hiring of women, teenagers and other minority segments of the labor force. An important prerequisite to becoming an EEA partici- pant was that one be unemployed or underemployed. In the sample 64 (88%) were unemployed, and 8 (12%) were underemployed. To be unemployed one must have been without work for one week and looking for a job during the previous four weeks. To be underemployed one must be a part-time employee or have a family income of members age 16 or older, below specified poverty levels. Some emphasis was also upon hiring disadvantaged persons; but this was not a primary target group. Of the sample, 25 (35%) were classified as disadvantaged. Of the 25, 22 were male. Knowing that hiring disadvantaged persons was not a primary goal of the program this 35% figure is viewed as also indicating the inferior economic situation of a large portion of the rural populace. Another target group to be given assistance through the EEA was the handicapped. In the sample only 3 (4%) were handicapped. Another factor reported on the participant information forms held in the BOS Task Force Headquarters was the part- icipant's income for the previous 12 month period. The range 30 of income for the sample was $0 to $11,000. The mean was $2860; the median was $2674--salaries which indicate the parti- cipants were generally in economic poverty. The income of males was considerably more than for females. For males, the mean was $3220; median was $2708. For females, the mean was $1730; median was $1700. The Black in the sample had an income of $1600. The incomes of the American Indians was $4000 for one, and $726 for the other. Because the EEA was to provide new jobs, the hiring agents were not to release employees then rehire them with EEA money. However, the sampling produced 8 males (11%) who had been previously employed by the hiring agents. SUMMATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES Methodology 2; Questionnaire Research Whereas the research for the initial implementation was for the entire BOS-Michigan jurisdiction the research conducted in the second time period (July-September 1973) had to be reduced to a manageable sample size. It was necessary to reduce the sample size because the research was to be con- ducted exclusively through the interview mode. There are twenty counties in the State of Michigan which are considered rural according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census.5 From these twenty a sample of five (20%) was chosen. The counties in which the research was conducted were selected in the following manner. To narrow the sample to five counties nine factors common to all counties were 31 considered. These factors are: (1) initial funding levels for Sections 5 and 6; (2) the types of jobs funded under Sections 5 and 6; (3) the number of EEA employees initially hired; (4) the average projected yearly salary of EEA employees in the county; (5) the county total population; (6) the county labor force size; (7) the ratio of labor force size to the number of EEA jobs funded; (8) the ratio of total county population to the number of EEA jobs funded; and (9) the county per capita income. Equally weighting these factors and then ranking the counties according to them the counties of Gladwin, Oceana, Ogemaw, Osceola, and Sanilac were selected for inclusion in the sample. The interviews in the July-September 1973 time period were held with County Commissioners, EEA Administrators, and hiring agents of the five counties mentioned above. Inter- views with the County Commissioners and the EEA Administrators were conducted in person. The interviews with the hiring agents were accomplished via telephone conversations. The total sample of interviews was near twenty. Separate and different questionnaires were developed for use when interviewing either the Commissioner, the Administra- tor, or the hiring agent. Each of the questionnaires dealt with the areas of planning for the EEA, implementation of the EEA, and general impressions or thoughts about the EEA. The questions employed are "open ended". This type of questioning was employed in an attempt to receive the most 32 honest and forthright opinions of the respondents. With the "open ended" format respondents were less inhibited to provide their own explanations or answers. Consequently, respondents provided responses which could not be statistically analyzed. But the responses could be grouped in a manner which facili- tated the observation of a common theme or thrust for each of the questions. Therefore, the responses reported in the text are the result of this attempt to generalize responses for each question. This is a second best approach but it effectively demonstrates the problem areas of implementation of a non-categorical grant program in rural areas. The results of the interviews are presented according to the following divisions: Questionnaire Responses - Planning; Questionnaire Responses - Implementation; Question- naire Responses - General Impressions and Recommendations of Local Personnel. Questionnaire Responses - Planning The portion of the questionnaires dealing with local planning activity is an attempt to ascertain the degree of planning capacity of rural county governments. Questions were employed which would reveal: (1) how county officials conceptualized the goals of the EEA; (2) whether there was an official planning body which could assess community needs and establish local priorities in selection of positions to be funded; (3) the degree of public input into the program decision-making process; (4) the degree of local autonomy 33 through the life of the EEA, i.e., how great has been the need for outside assistance; (5) did the decision makers have any knowledge of the characteristics of the unemployed labor force in their deliberations for selecting positions and what was the effect of this knowledge or lack of knowledge; and (6) how have county officials determined the positions and per- sonnel to be transited to non-subsidized employment, i.e., what is their phase-out plan: Samples of the exact questions em- ployed to determine the planning capacity, as related to the above issues, can be found in Appendix C. Responses to the questionnaires reveal a general concensus of opinion among local EEA personnel regarding the several items involved in the planning function. Goals In order to plan for an effective program officials should consider what the expected goals of the program in- clude. In responses to this line of questionning it was found that the greatest concern of local officials was attaining the goal of providing transitional employment for their EEA employees. The short life of the EEA forced this overriding concern. Emphasis on providing jobs which are transitional in nature precluded many attempts to plan for funding positions which may be referred to as 'new' or innovative'. Beyond attainment of the primary goal, minimal considera- tion has been given to the secondary goals of coordination ‘with manpower programs, civil service reform, and job re- structuring. There is no civil service structure in rural 34 counties therefore there has been no civil service reform. Coordination with other manpower programs cannot easily be accomplished because rural areas generally do not have ready access to such programs. Lastly, rural areas are not equipped to undertake job restructuring even where it may be possible. Planning Apparatus The attention paid to the transitional goal but not to the secondary goals, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, can be explained by the lack of a formal county planning body which can make a definitive planning effort. In response to a question such as, "Does there exist an agency or personnel in your area which formally undertakes planning the methods for meeting program goals and priorities?", the respondents gave the following answer. Active participa- tion in the decision process was principally by the county commissioners. What has been the effect on assessing community needs of the abscence of a formal planning body? Local 'need' assess- ment has been on an informal, individual basis. It reportedly has been based on how the commissioners "had a feel" for the needs of the hiring agencies. As a result, the commissioners tried to "share the wealth", i.e., to allocate the money to as many agencies as possible. Respondents also suggested that if there was not enough money for all agencies to have funds a "priority list" was 35 developed. As a result, commissioners disbursed money to the agency or agencies which they thought needed the money the most. Furthermore, County Boards of Commissioners have tended not to hire full-time administrators. The local rationali- zation for this action has two bases: (a) the programs in rural counties employ on the average only 12-18 persons, and (b) with a program that size commissioners wanted to fund another type of position which would have a greater return relative to satisfying community needs. Selection of Participants Knowing beforehand what types of occupations were selected for funding and also knowing of the participant profiles the questionning turned to determining local officials' knowledge of the make-up of the available unemployed labor force. Re- spondents made it apparent that county commissioners and hiring agents had not considered the 'quality' of the unem- ployed labor force when deciding which positions to select for funding. Local officials indicated they do not have information available concerning the aggregate unemployed labor force in their county. Furthermore, there was no indication that such consideration would be made if the positions selected were to be reconsidered. In addition, some hiring agents were unaware of, or 'were confused as to the requirements regarding the personnel 36 to be hired. This resulted in some personnel having to be released and replaced. This confusion can be attributed to the short lead time for implementation and the non-existence of early guidelines promulgated by the Federal government. If formal guidelines had been developed and disseminated prior to implementation this problem would not have arisen. Public Input One facet of the decentralization goal for federal programs which clearly was not evident in the EEA concerns local popu- lation input into the decision-making process. Public input was reported as being negligible. Questionnaire respondents unanimously reported that input into this process was via the county commissioners, the hiring agents, and the county EEA administrator. Local Control Another strong point of non-categorical decentralized programs is the increased amount of control the local officials have over program operation. Responses to questionning re- lative to non-local program oversignt overwhelmingly indicated the county EEA programs were operated independently of out- side sources. But when assistance was called for the primary source of aid was the BOS Task Force Headquarters in Lansing. Assistance was generally requested to explain some portion of the guidelines, or how to fill out the required reporting forms. 37 Phase—out Planning A discussion of the planning for the EEA can not be complete without mentioning the planning which has taken place at the Task Force Headquarters level. For the third fiscal year, i.e., the phase-out, princi- ple responsibility for "planning" rests with the Task Force Headquarters. The Task Force office has established a goal of 100% transition for participants into full-time, non- subsidized employment into either the public or private sectors. To accomplish this goal a plan has been developed de- tailing the procedures hiring agents and county administrators must follow to phase-out the local county program by June 30, 1974. The plan calls upon county administrators to detail the means of transition for participants to permanent posi- tions. Information must also be provided detailing the action which will be undertaken in the event any participant cannot be successfully transited to permanent employment by the end of the fiscal year. County officials responded unanimously that their plan- ning efforts now center on complying with the phase-out plan promulgated by the Task Force Headquarters. Emphasis at the county level is on ensuring that most, if not all, partici- pants have full-time, non-subsidized employment when the EEA expires in 1974. To accomplish the goal nearly all hiring agents who were questioned responded that they are moving or will move parti- cipants to non-subsidized positions similar to their EEA 38 positions. Exceptions to this action occur when a partici— pant is due for a promotion; but generally the promotion retains the participant within the same promotional line, i.e., he is not moved into a new occupational field. Questionnaire Responses - Implementation The portion of the questionnaires concerning implementa- tion of the EEA is intended to investigate the results rural counties experienced with this program. Questions were em- ployed which would reveal: (1) what were the criteria employed by local officials as they selected personnel to be hired; (2) was there any difficulty in finding personnel to fill the funded positions; (3) was there any evidence that the posi- tions dictated the type of personnel who were hired; (4) what did the local officials regard as the benefits or outstanding effects their county received from the EEA; (5) what has been the success of meeting the transitional goal, and where have participants been transited; and (6) do local officials re- gard the criteria of the rate and severity of unemployment as being to their advantage of disadvantage, or what other criteria would they like included. Samples of the exact questions employed to determine the implementation experiences, as related to the above issues, can be found in Appendix C. Responses to the questions reveal a general concensus among local EEA personnel regarding several items involved in implementing the EEA. 39 Participant Selection Implementation of the EEA revolved around efforts to select qualified participants. Therefore, the questioning about local implementation of the EEA was predominately con- cerned with the participant selection process and further activity which concerned the participants. Officials generally employed one or more of the following criteria, in addition to those in the guidelines, in their selection of EEA participants: (a) receipt of a high school education; (b) good health; (c) personal and job related re- ferences; (d) younger than middle age; and (e) work experience. Interviewees reported there was little difficulty find- ing personnel as all of the funded positions were filled. With the predominance of low-skilled, non-professional posi- tions there was little problem filling a vacant position. Responses indicated some positions took longer to fill than others, depending on the type of job; e.g., Registered Nurse and Police Narcotics Investigator took longer. For the major- ity of positions though, the supply of eligible personnel exceeded the demand. Can any position dictate that certain types of indivi— duals be chosen for that position? Some officials suggested that this was the case. On the otherhand, others responded that this was not the case. A yes response was based on the premise that the low-skilled, non-professional type of position limits the hiring agent's field of choice for poten- tial participants. A no response was based on the Veterans 40 emphasis and the hiring agent's desire to comply with this emphasis. Therefore Veterans were hired with less regard to their qualifications than would have been the case without the Federal emphasis for hiring the Veteran. In response to questioning as to how personnel were recruited it was generally reported the institution through which participants were found was the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC). Some hiring agents indicated they have had to find participants on their own as the MESC could not provide what was needed. Program Benefits Though these local areas had exhibited a minimal planning capacity the officials interviewed were asked, "What is your opinion of the benefits or special effects coming from the EEA?" Of those officials who could give a quick response many indicated that the greatest benefit derived from the program was in moving people off the welfare rolls into full- time employment. Comments by program agents concerning community needs which have been met through the EEA took the form of reciting the various newly funded positions. The rationale was that whatever the hiring agency, if it had an EEA employee a need had been addressed and at least partially fulfilled. Transition of Participants Transition of participants to non—subsidized positions was the primary goal of local officials. Therefore, questioning 41 was directed toward establishing the success local programs had in attaining the goal. Local officials indicated that during the life of the program transition to permanent, non- subsidized employment of EEA participants had been very satis- factory. Most of the movement has been into the private sector. This movement is horizontal for the majority, but for a few there is some vertical movement. The upward movement is to a job paying, on the average, only slightly higher than the EEA position. County administrators who were especially willing to discuss their program flatly stated that in their county the public sector hiring agents have been unable to pay the salaries of the participants as non-subsidized employees. Finally, local officials are nearly unanimous in their opinion that the criteria which are employed to determine a county's allotment is equitable and generally satisfactory. Acceptance of the use of a county's volume and severity of un— employment relative to the aggregate BOS figures as the funding criteria is widespread. Questionnaire Responses — General Impressions and Recommendations 3E Local EEA Personnel The portion of the questionnaires dealing with general impressions and recommendations is intended to obtain the views of local personnel, who had to work with the EEA, about the operation of a non-categorical grant program in rural areas. Questions were employed which would reveal: (1) what was the extent of program oversight from the Federal and State 0" (U '1 in '1‘? A: Vs Co,- 42 program offices; (2) what level of government do county level officials feel is the appropriate level of government to administer a non-categorical grant program; (3) what, if any, kinds of extra rewards or incentives could be given to local officials to urge them to meet program goals; (4) can a non—categorical grant program similar to the EEA provide rural officials with a flexible program to meet their chang- ing needs; (5) what suggestions can local officials offer as ways to improve implementation; and (6) related to (5) local officials were asked, if they had received assurances that the EEA would continue indefinitely how could this have affect- ed their decision processes for program planning and implementation. Samples of the exact questions employed in this phase can be found in Appendix C. Responses to the questions reveal a general concensus of opinion among local EEA personnel regarding their impressions and recommendations for improving the program. Program Oversight A revenue sharing program has as a basic concept the idea of decentralization of the decision process with a minimum of control or overseeing by the Federal government. The EEA as a forerunner of revenue sharing has exhibited a minimum of federal oversight. The program oversight which is exhibited takes the form of open lines of communication and coordination between the Task Force Headquarters and the individual county programs. 43 The one negative aspect of non-local activity concerns the increasing amount of paperwork and reporting required by the Task Force Headquarters. Proper Implementation Level In concert with the above impression, local officials strongly indicated that the county is the proper governmen- tal level to administer a non-categorical grant program. There were several reasons given: (a) a county administrator has the best access to the local populace, hiring agents, etc.; (b) it is easiest for a local administrator to establish a close working relationship with the hiring agents; (c) close contact and availability; and (d) minimization of higher level politiking. Exceptions to advocating the county as the proper level arose for those counties with very small programs. A few officials suggested that it might prove administratively efficient to form a consortium of small-program counties. Extra Rewards or Incentives Officials connected with the EEA indicated there was no need for extra rewards or incentives to counties to transit participants to permanent, non-subsidized employment, or to meet any of the other program goals. Respondents stated that incentives are built into the program through the receipt of the grant, and the personal satisfaction of giving someone a full-time job. 44 Though program agents generally indicated satisfaction with the funding and the criteria employed, many suggested additional criteria which should be considered when county funding levels are established. These criteria include: (a) consideration of the economic make-up of the county popu- lation in counties where there is no unemployment office; (b) the development of a method to measure the types of jobs which are needed to attract industry; and (c) the county's general economic condition. Provision of Flexible Program All officials interviewed were of the opinion that the EEA does provide the mechanism by which localities can adapt to changing circumstances, i.e., the local decision ability provides needed program flexibility. Though this is the case some officials felt that the EEA generally was not being used to it's best advantage, i.e., the commissioners are not exercising the flexibility this type of program enjoys. Suggestions for Program Improvement Suggestions which are offered by local officials to im- prove an EEA type of program in it's implementation and/or planning phases in a rural area include: (a) less federal control; (b) the necessity of formal guidelines promulgated prior to the actual disbursement of funds and implementation of the program; (c) the legislation of stricter guidelines; (d) improvement of the ability of local officials to give more serious consideration to job needs and community needs; 45 (e) larger amounts of funds to use in the hiring of more participants; and (f) develop a better method of gathering accurate unemployment data which will clearly represent the local situation. Effect of Longer Program Life Finally, all local officials, when asked, "If assurances of an indefinite life for the EEA had been given would you have changed your expenditure pattern?", responded there would have been no change in their pattern of planning, implementa- tion and expenditures. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS REGARDING EEA PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION The summary presents the planning and implementation activities which have acted to undermine the EEA's demon- stration of the operation of a non-categorical grant in rural areas. The rapid implementation of the program was the first action which acted to negate the effectiveness of the EEA. It resulted in an absolute minimum of planning. The non- existence of a formal planning body at the local county level made rapid implementation of the program even more difficult. Planning as such was "off the cuff" via the county commis- sioners as a body; regarding what they individually thought or felt to be the needs of their community. Implementation without published guidelines proved to be of poor judgement and led to a real 'credibility gap'6 between 46 the hiring agents, the county administrators, the State BOS office, and the Federal bureaucrats. Compounding the problem, local knowledge of the opera- tion of a non-categorical grant program at the county level is minimal. With no provision for a local professional program administrator the local administration lagged, and thereby suffered. Provision of such a specialist could have resulted in more effective and accurate assessment of local community needs and priorities. Another problem revolves around collecting accurate data concerning unemployment rates and volume of unemployment. Gathering accurate data is very important in the determina- tion of the allocation a specific county receives. This is especially true in a rural county. Collecting these data in rural areas has proven to be difficult. It is more difficult because, for example, the labor force participation rate in rural areas is relatively low, and many who are employed are actually underemployed and would shift to other jobs quite readily. A problem which can be attributed to the very rapid implementation of the program concerns promulgation of program guidelines. Not only were guidelines distributed considerably later than the initial fund disbursements were but those guide- lines which were finally promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor tended to undermine innovative action and local efforts to experiment with different approaches. For example, the obsession with hiring Veterans, especially Viet Nam era Veterans, overshadowed all other priorities. 47 Nearly as important to the success of the program as the need for good planning, is the size of the county grant. With the EEA the level of local funds appropriated was too small. This general lack of sufficient funding made meeting the pro- gram goals and priorities as established in the guidelines more difficult. One of the requirements which must be met by each county in order to receive federal funds is the provision of match- ing funds, either in cash or in kind. In the EEA the match was to be 10% of the total. In rural counties the opportun- ity cost of providing match could have been substantial, i.e., there may have been alternative ways to spend the match- ing funds which would have had a greater return and/or a return over a longer time period. How can rural areas really assess community needs? Rural areas generally do not have the technical knowledge to systema- tically assess such needs. Furthermore, the rapid imple- mentation and the subsequent hiring freeze eliminated thoughts of undertaking serious long tern assessment. In rural areas the secondary goals of civil service reform, linkages with manpower programs, and job restructur- ing cannot easily be accomplished. Rural areas seldom have a civil service system to reform, and seldom have access to manpower programs. Furthermore, there are several reasons why attaining the goal of job restructuring is difficult in rural areas. Reasons for the difficulty may include: (a) local hiring of the same 'type' of person, for (b) the same 48 type of job as is already existing; (c) the participant pro- file indicates a generally well qualified unemployed labor force; (d) the preference for Veterans diminishes the possi- bility of hiring a disadvantaged person or a welfare client for whom job restructuring may prove beneficial; and (e) un- employed minority individuals in rural Michigan counties are non-existent in large numbers. For rural counties these particular goals cannot readily apply. Goals more appropriate for rural areas should be given consideration when designing a non-categorical grant program for implementation in a rural area. As the program was implemented hiring agents realized an opportunity to obtain funds for more jobs. They needed only to make their requests known, but known on very short notice. The result was that the positions requested to be funded were additions to positions which already existed. Selecting to add to existing low scale jobs may be the result of: (a) hiring agent ignorance of his grant share which resulted in positions for which a given dollar amount could be used to hire the most people; (b) the feeling that such positions fulfilled an agency need; (c) the rapid rate of program implementation; (d) uncertainty as to the length of employment of EEA participants thereby making selection of low risk positions mandatory; and (e) it is less costly to transit a low salary employee to a permanent position. Transition to permanent public employment in rural areas could prove more difficult in the future. Such capabilities 49 are minimal when the annual agency budget does not vary a great deal from year to year. One suggested solution to this dilemma is the use of revenue sharing funds to pay the salaries of former PEP employees retained in public service. Public input into the decision—making process was in- tended to be increased but was never really forthcoming. Explanations for lack of public interest and input could in- clude: (a) population ignorance of the intent of the Act; (b) no existing organization through which public opinion could be voiced; (c) the rapid pace of program implementa- tion; and (d) public disinterest. Input into the decision-making process was from the county commissioners, the hiring agents, and the program administrators. The most active were the county commissioners. But the commissioners generally do not possess nor have access to the expertise desired to make efficient and effective implementation of their plans possible. Over the life of the EEA there has developed a great deal of paperwork. Red tape exists in a program which is not supposed to exhibit more than the minimal amount necessary to administer a non-categorical grant program. The continued uncertainty of the life of the EEA has virtually done away with the incentive to 'plan ahead' or in other ways to be forward looking. This uncertainty has managed to defeat a purpose of the program, i.e., to meet community public service needs which could not be met previously. 50 Rural areas have faced many problems in their planning and implementation of the EEA. Some were brought on by the program itself, others were already present. The program brought the problems of rapid implementation (short lead time), lack of formal guidelines, the nearly impossible to achieve secondary goals, an uncertain life expentancy, and the re- sponsibility of local control. The problems already present in rural areas were the lack of a long run planning capacity, limited access to "professional" personnel or agencies which possess the know- ledge and tools to accurately and objectively asses community needs, and no local "expertise" in the area of non-categorical grant implementation, i.e., local officials had a lack of awareness of alternative methods of fund expenditure, and a lack of understanding of how to utilize the available man- power most effectively to meet area needs. 51 FOOTNOTES - III 1This explanation was received in an interview with personnel at BOS-Michigan Task Force Headquarters in Lansing. The freeze was instituted with no written explanation from the Region Five office of the U.S. Department of Labor, located in Chicago. 2The EEA was not extended only in the State of Michigan. All Public Employment Programs were extended for the fiscal year. All programs in the several states are operating at levels far below their initial levels in 1971-72. 3Funds were granted under Section 5 and Section 6 of the EEA legislation. Section 5 served as the primary funding mechanism. Section 5 funds were disbursed when the national un- employment rate exceeded 4.5% for three consecutive months. Funds were released under Section 6 to areas which experienced unemployment in excess of 6.0% for three consecutive months, i.e., to be released to areas with severe levels of sustained unemployment. 4Use of the term "risk averter" (to include risk aver- sion) is attributed to Dr. Collette H. Moser, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. The term appeared in "Experience of the Emergency Employment Act in Balance-of-State Michigan: Some Implications for Revenue Sharing in Rural Areas", a paper presented in the Contributed Papers Session: Rural and Community Development at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Associa- tion, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, August 1973. 5According to the Bureau of the Census definition a rural county does not have within its boundaries a town, city, village, etc., with an urban population exceeding 2,500. 6The term "credibility gap" was used in the context of EEA discussion in Briggs, Vernon M. "The Emergency Employment Act of 1971: The Texas Experience". The Emergengy Employment Ag£.g£ 1971: AB Interim Assessment. Subcommittee on Employ- ment, Manpower and Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, May 1972, p. 159. CHAPTER IV REVIEW 93.: THE PERFORMANCE 93 THE STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL ASSISTANCE ACT 95 1972 The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (SLFAA) is the contemporary Federal general revenue sharing legisla- tion. It is the first part of the revenue sharing package advocated by the Nixon Administrationl, i.e., it is the ini- tial vehicle for the 'New Federalism'. The SLFAA, as legislated, is intended to "provide fiscal assistance to State and local governments...."2 It is the result of an increased Federal concern with local government 'fiscal mismatch'3. Fiscal mismatch occurs when the needs of local communities grow faster than does local ability to collect the revenues for programs to meet those needs. At the Federal level, revenues grow much more rapidly. Federal revenue collection responds relatively easily and quickly to the national economic situation as it improves or deteriorates. Therefore sharing federal revenues can help to reduce and eliminate the fiscal mismatch experienced by local units of government. ADMINISTRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SLFAA As Figure IV Clearly exhibits, the lines of administra- tive communication are less complicated for the SLFAA than 52 53 they are for the EEA. Through the SLFAA the local govern- mental units have direct contact with the Office of Revenue Sharing (ORS) in the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The ORS is the federal agency with final administrative control of the SLFAA. Figure 1! Administrative Arrangement for the SLFAA a Office of Revenue Sharing //////////’(U.S. Dept. of the Treasury) \\\\\\\\\ Other units States County City Township of local governments Within each governmental unit the administrative organi- zation for SLFAA implementation is to be arranged to be compatible with the existing structure. The chief local elected official has final responsibility for the local program operation and entitlement expenditures. These officials also have responsibility for certifying and reporting to the ORS that their programs are operating within the legislative guidelines. Day-to~day responsibility for the administration of the entitlement funds rests, generally, with the local unit's elected Treasurer. The auditing function, to ensure compliance with the legislative intent of the program, is undertaken either by the State revenue sharing office, a local auditor, or a certified accountant. 54 The local implementation of the SLFAA is constrained by various requirements of the program. For example, funds can only be expended in the priority areas of public safety, environmental protection, public transportation, health, re- creation, libraries, social services for the poor and aged, financial administration, and ordinary and necessary capital expenditures.5 Other constraints include: (a) the money cannot be used as matching funds for other federal government grant programs; (b) reports of planned and actual expenditures must be made public information; and (c) the three- and four-part formulas developed in the legislation. As with the Emergency Employment Act, rural units were not prepared to implement rapidly the SLFAA program. There- fore, there was some confusion about the requirements for expenditure of the entitlement. The general mode for the decision-making process was the regularly scheduled Board of Commissioners, Township Super- visor, etc., meeting. At these meetings those present usually included only the elected officials; with little representa- tion from the local populace. Since the initial consideration of the SLFAA program these units have had to publish, in the local newspaper, information about their planned and actual expenditures. This is mandated by the legislation in an attempt to increase local population input into the program decision- making process. 55 METHODOLOGY OF INFORMATION COLLECTION Research of the SLFAA was concerned with the implementation experiences of rural governmental jurisdictions. The method— ology employed in researching the implementation involves using the interview technique. Interviews were held with selected local elected officials. Jurisdictions were selected which were located in the rural counties of Gladwin, Oceana, and Sanilac. After Select- ing these counties the County Treasurer of each county was contacted. From this official was obtained a county directory of the elected officials of the county's townships and cities. With the directory, the local officials to be interviewed were chosen. Within each county six to seven elected officials were interviewed. The interviews were conducted via telephone conversations. This method of contact proved to be the most satisfactory in terms of gaining access to the officials. The total sample taken from the three counties was near twenty. The questionnaire was developed to view the process uti- lized in the planning and implementation of the SLFAA. The same questionnaire was used regardless of the level of unit the official represented, i.e., the same questionnaire was used for all county, township, and city officials interviewed. A sample of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix D. The questions employed are "open ended". This type of questioning was employed in an attempt to receive the most 56 honest and forthright opinions of the respondents. With the "open ended" format respondents were less inhibited to provide their own explanations or answers. Consequently, respondents provided responses which could not be statistically analyzed. But the responses could be grouped in a manner which facili— tated the observation of a common theme or thrust for each of the questions. Therefore, the responses reported in the text are the result of this attempt to generalize responses for each question. This is a second best approach but it effectively demonstrates the problem areas of implementation of a non-categorical grant program in rural areas. SUMMATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES The questionnaire attempts to ascertain local jurisdic- tion experience with the SLFAA with questioning in five areas. Questions were employed which would indicate: (1) the plan— ning effort local officials undertook; (2) the patterns of entitlement expenditure; (3) the level of public input into the decision-making process; (4) the amount of local control or autonomy local officials have experienced; and (5) some recommendations and suggestions which local officials think could improve a revenue sharing program to better meet the needs of rural areas. A sample of the exact questions employed to investigate these areas can be found in Appendix D. Responses to the questionnaire reveal a general concensus of opinion among local elected officials concerning these various aspects of SLFAA implementation. 57 Planning Experience What was the planning experience of rural jurisdictions as they decided how to spend their entitlements? At the first meeting to consider how the money should be spent each member of the Board, Council, etc. presented his or her opinions which were based upon past experience and knowledge. Coupling this experience with a desire to remain within the guidelines the board or council members established their "priority list" for expenditures. These local officials of rural areas also exhibited a minimum of professionalism in their methods of assessing com- munity needs and priorities. The financial situations of most rural localities forced them to rely on their own "expertise", with no formal planning undertaken internally or externally. For the SLFAA, as with the EEA, community needs were determined "off the cuff" at the regular Board or Council meetings. The local elected officials in rural areas can be char- "6. Because of this characteristic acterized as "risk averters these officials are reluctant to develop new programs, e.g., to develop new social service programs. Expenditure Pattern One of the first questions asked was of the order, ”When you learned you were to receive funds for 'unrestricted' use what were your thoughts of how to spend the money?" Officials generally responded that they became very aware of the short 58 life of the Act. Many indicated their concern that if re- venue sharing is not continued beyond the five year legislated life of the SLFAA, they will be left holding the 'financial bag'; without the means to finance the completion of some programs they had begun. Therefore, these officials are spending their entitlement money on projects which can be completed within the lifetime of the Act. Local officials indicated they are anxious to spend their money on projects which are within the guidelines. By using the money for capital expenditures the officials are safely within those guidelines. In the initial entitlement periods the funds have almost exclusively been spent for capital improvements. Therefore, officials were asked, "What have been your expenditures on capital projects?" Responses varied but most of these capi- tal expenditures have been, for example, for road repair, maintenance-upkeep, and bridge construction. Not so fre- quently the money has been spent to construct a new master water system, to expand city library space, and to construct a new town hall. Local officials were then queried about their opinion of the criteria employed to determine their entitlement level-- "Do you feel the funding criteria was to your advantage or disadvantage, and what criteria could you suggest for use?" Local officials voiced the opinion that they were very glad to receive the money but many were convinced the size of 59 the entitlement was too small. Complaints about the size of the entitlement payments generally concerned the method of the census count for the 1970 Census, and the definition of "tax effort". In many cases officials indicated dissatisfaction with the methods employed in the 1970 census count, which they argued underestimated their pOpulation. The emphasis placed upon population in the three- and four-part formulas used to derive entitlement sizes therefore led to grants which may have been less than the unit was entitled to receive. The complaint regarding the notion of "tax effort" re- volved around which taxes are to be included in the formulation. Some officials felt that exclusion of local millage efforts and special assessment district taxes also acted to reduce their entitlements. Many of the officials complained of receiving less than they anticipated. But not one respondent suggested he might derive his own formulation in order to increase his entitlement. Public Input Because this is a revenue sharing program with the goal of decentralization of the decision-making process local popu- lation input into the program is important to its success. Therefore local officials were asked, "What has been the extent of local population input, and what form(s) has it taken?" All officials responding stated that as of the moment local population input into the decision—making process has 60 not been fully realized. This is especially true during the earliest months of the program. Two possible explanations were offered by respondents. The first was that the lead time from passage to implementation was not sufficiently long to allow for adequate communication concerning the program, to the local populace. The second was that a special meeting to discuss the revenue sharing disbursements with the local population was not required in the legislation. But local population input has not been nil. Some officials reported that in conversations with friends, business acquain- tances, etc., they have received support for their spending decisions, and have received some suggestions for future ex- penditures. There was also some reported dissatisfaction, but it was minimal. Even though public input was minimal most officials were of the opinion that the goal of attaining greater local popu- lation input into the decision—making process is worthwhile. Most officials feel this would increase the effectiveness of their programs and thereby benefit their communities to a greater extent. There was, however, one dissenting opinion relating to the publishing requirement. This opinion held that such a requirement is better suited for large cities, and that it is "silly" to publish the required expenditure information in a small city or rural township. 61 Local Control With a revenue sharing program local jurisdictions are given a good deal more autonomy in the operation of programs funded with federal money. To determine the degree of autonomy the officials realized questions such as, "Has there been adequate communication and coordination between your office and the federal offices?" and "Would you prefer greater assistance/control from federal authorities?", were asked. All respondents indicated coordination and communication with the federal Office of Revenue Sharing was satisfactory. The ability for all units of government to have direct access to the ORS was the primary reason for the local official satisfaction. The exception to this expression of satisfaction concerns a problem peculiar to the mailing of the initial entitlement checks. The problem was that some checks were mailed to officials who were no longer holding elected office. When brought to the attention of the ORS this problem was quickly eliminated. Because of this breakdown some officials indicated the ORS needs to develop better channels of information relative to changes in the local political make—up. By improving this information gathering it was thought that rural areas could receive their entitlement checks promptly. Aside from this relatively minor distraction most now view this facet of implementation as being satisfactory. 62 Local Official's Recommendations and Suggestions A revenue sharing program is to provide an area with greater flexibility in response to changing circumstances in that jurisdiction. Therefore local officials were asked, "Does revenue sharing provide the mechanism by which you can increase the ability of your local programs to adapt to chang- ing circumstances?" Local officials were unanimous in their appraisal of the SLFAA as a mechanism by which local govern- ments can institute flexible and relevant programs. Responses generally turned on the availability of the funds and the flexibility of the program money for use on projects which could not otherwise be undertaken. But the expenditure patterns generally do not indicate that local officials have exercised the flexibility and adaptability this program offers to undertake new and/or different activities. In response to the question, "What do you think is the proper level of government to administer a revenue sharing program in rural areas?", all respondents were firm in their opinion that there is no single appropriate level of govern- ment which is most effective in administering a program such as the SLFAA. Every level of local government is appropriate, and should have complete control of its program. The direct and relatively easy access to the ORS has made it possible for each local unit to operate it's singular program effectively. This idea of no single appropriate level was made even clearer with questioning about the desirability, or possible 63 scale economies derived from association with other local units, e.g., to form consortiums of townships, or counties, or cities. Each response to this inquiry was strongly nega- tive. Expressed reasons for this opposition include: (a) it would be harder to coordinate local programs and efforts; (b) rural localities have little in common, so each unit can receive the greatest benefit by having it's own program; (c) more peeple concerned with the decision process means more local dissatisfaction with program results; and (d) the political considerations and dealings required would work contrary to the purpose of a revenue sharing program. Knowing of the rapid pace of implementation for the SLFAA and the expenditure pattern of local jurisdictions a question was asked of local officials that if they had received assur- ances this program would continue indefinitely how could this knowledge affect their planning and expenditure pattern? Responses were to the effect that even if they had received assurances the SLFAA would continue indefinitely there would have been little change in their methods of planning, imple- mentation, and expenditures. These same officials indicated they would continue to spend the funds for capital improvements, but that the project or projects undertaken might be different. Some of these projects might include construction of township parks, a sewer plant, a new fire department, a new police department, or a new system of surface drains. The difference lies in the 64 continuing expense, long run nature of these projects as opposed to the relatively short run nature of the projects which have been exhibited with the early implementation. Finally, interviewees were asked if they had any opinions or suggestions to offer which they thought would improve this revenue sharing program to better meet rural area needs. Several respondents offered their opinions of ways to improve the local implementation of the SLFAA. The recommendations/ suggestions offered by local officials include: (a) compi- lation of more accurate census count data; (b) more frequent and regular communication initiated by the Federal govern— ment; and (c) increase the scope of the tax effort criteria, to include special assessment district taxes. SUMMARY The SLFAA has introduced the country to the basic princi- ples of revenue sharing. Having provided this foundation special revenue sharing for broad areas can be implemented. From the implementation experiences of the SLFAA several factors have surfaced which must be dealt with in any special revenue sharing program. These factors include initially, the local officials desire to spend their entitlement funds on "low risk", highly visible projects. Such projects gen- erally have taken the form of capital expenditures for new city halls, sewers, etc. Secondly, the local decision makers have shown a reluc- tance to request planning aid from outside sources. This is fl! IIulI III. 65 generally accompanied with the abscence of a local specialist or expert in the methods of effectively and efficiently im- plementing a revenue sharing program. The fact which most dramatically points up the response that even program would continue changed their planning the need for such a specialist is if they (the officials) had known the indefinitely they would not have and expenditure patterns. Third, in a program which is designed to increase public input into the decision-making process there was a minimum of public input. Though this was the case many respondents felt that this was still a 'good' goal to aim for. But, there was little effort from the local elected officials to increase the level of public input. Fourth, the SLFAA provides local units with a flexible program but local officials have not exercised this flexi- bility. This may be due to the two reasons of insufficient funding and the relatively short run life of the Act. Finally, local officials are unanimous that there is no single appropriate governmental unit to implement a revenue sharing program. Local jurisdictions desire to remain as au- tonomous as possible and this type of program provides them with a greater degree of autonomy. 66 FOOTNOTES - IV 1The other 'half' of the package consists of special revenue sharing programs in the areas of Manpower, Law Enforce- ment, Rural Community Development, Urban Community DevelOpment, Transportation, and Education. 2"State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972." Public Law 92-512, 92nd Congress, H.R. 14370, October 20, 1972, p. l. 3"The History of Revenue Sharing". U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of the Special Assistant for Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971, p. 16. 4"State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972". Public Law 92-512, 92nd Congress, H.R. 14370, October 20, 1972, p. 9. 51bid., p. 1. 6Moser, Collette H. "Experience of the Emergency Employ- ment Act in Balance-of-State Michigan: Some implications for Revenue Sharing in Rural Areas". Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, August 1973, p. 11. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The use of Federal grant programs which are non- categorical in nature is a relatively recent phenomenon. Furthermore, use of Federal grant programs on a large scale in rural areas likewise has not been developed. This thesis therefore investigated two recent non-categorical grant pro- grams as they were implemented in rural areas. The research was conducted in order to discover the problem areas rural elected officials encountered as they planned and implemented first the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and secondly, the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. Primary_Findings From the research of the planning and implementation experiences of local officials with the Emergency Employment Act, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act, there are several findings which deserve greater emphasis and repetition. 1. Local officials are in agreement that non—categorical grant programs such as the EEA and the SLFAA provide them with a mechanism for greater adaptability and flexibility than they have previously experienced. 67 68 2. With both the EEA and the SLFAA there has been a minimal amount of program oversight from Federal authorities. Furthermore, there have developed open lines of communica- tion between local offices and the Office of Revenue Sharing for the SLFAA, and the BOS-Michigan Task Force Headquarters for the EEA. Generally, local elected officials are very appreciative of the increased autonomy these two programs have offered for program implementation. 3. Local elected officials are unanimous in their Opin— ion that there is no single appropriate level of local govern- ment to plan for and/or implement a non-categorical grant program. Indeed, each jurisdiction, it was advocated, should retain as much autonomy as possible. 4. The lack of formal guidelines available to local officials and the extremely short lead time for both the EEA and the SLFAA eliminated the Opportunity for thorough plan- ning efforts. 5. Local governments have a noticeable abscence of formal 'planning' bodies. Furthermore, there is a complete abscence in rural areas of local 'specialists' familiar with non-categorical program planning and implementation. 6. Public input into the program decision-making process has been negligible. Without formal guidelines and with local officials reluctant to actively solicit public input the only activists in the decision-making process have been the county commissioners, and other officials connected with the program. 69 7. In implementing the EEA county commissioners chose positions for funding which were, generally, additions to already existing jobs. In implementing the SLFAA officials chose to spend their entitlements predominately for capital '1 items. expenditures and other 'non-recurring 8. The EEA goal which was of greatest concern to local elected officials was that of providing program participants with positions from which they can easily be transited to full-time employment at the conclusion of the program. 9. Especially with the SLFAA, and also to a great ex- tent with the EEA, local officials were very aware of the short run nature of the program. Because of this awareness they did not want to undertake projects which could not be completed within the lifetime of the Act, i.e., they did not want to be left holding the 'financial bag'. But even if the program had been extended indefinitely local officials would not have changed their expenditure patterns. 10. Local elected officials when given the opportunity through the SLFAA to develop their own entitlement formula- tions, which would replace the formulas provided in the legislation, chose not to develop their own formulas. Conclusions Derived from the Findings From the several findings listed above various conclu« sions can now be drawn. These conclusions are presented below. 7O 1. Though the non-categorical grant program provides local officials with a very flexible program the local offi- cials have not realized nor exercised this increased flexibility. 2. The Open lines of communication and cooperation exhibited by both the EEA and the SLFAA must be continued and expanded. Channels of communication should be open and consistent, i.e., there should be regular contact between the local program and the Federal authority. 3. Every effort should be made to allow each unit of local government, however small, to operate its own non- categorical grant programs. Furthermore, consortiums should be allowed to develop if that is the institution local juris- dictions view as the most appr0priate through which to provide program services. 4. Due to the extremely short lead time and the lack of early promulgation of guidelines there was no chance for thorough planning efforts. The result was: (a) expenditures to continue or add to existing projects: (b) difficulty in meeting program goals; and (c) an increase, with the EEA, of local hiring agent confusion and lack of awareness of the hiring requirements to be met. 5. Without a formal planning body or local 'specialist' familiar with the methods of non-categorical grant implemen- tation there was minimal consideration given to secondary goals, and 'need' assessment was on an informal, individual basis. 71 Furthermore, it is evident local officials need to obtain 'professional' consultation which would enable them to con- sider all alternatives for program implementation. Local areas need this expert knowledge, as well as accurate and current data, to undertake serious long run planning and 'need' assessment. A professional planning function would also enable local officials to utilize the available human and non-human resources most effectively to meet area priori— ties and needs. 6. There is a continuing financial problem in rural areas which has hampered attempts in the past to obtain the required expert assistance. Now, with revenue sharing local areas can obtain this aid without seriously imperiling their fiscal stability. 7. There are three possible explanations why public input into the decision-making processes of the EEA, and the SLFAA was negligible. The first is the lack of forceful guidelines indicating that increased public participation was a goal of the non-categorical grant planning and implementa- tion process. The second reason is the lack of active solicitation by local officials for public input. The third is the lack of organization of the public voice in rural areas. 8. Recognizing that local EEA officials saw as their greatest concern the provision of positions from which EBA participants could easily transit to non-subsidized jobs one could argue this concern explains the predominance of the low-skilled jobs which were made available. The transition 72 which has been occuring has transited participants primarily into the private sector. To increase the transition to the public sector revenue sharing money could be used to sub- sidize the salaries of former EEA participants. Attainment of secondary goals was impossible in rural areas where a civil service system and manpower programs do not exist. Furthermore, if transition of employees is viewed as the primary EEA goal it may be that rural officials see the secondary goals of the EEA as unattainable. But the EEA did realize its primary goal of providing jobs to unemployed people. In this respect the EEA was a success. 9. Local officials exhibited a lack of innovativeness and a desire not to venture where they had not been before. This was evidenced in the EEA with the funding of positions which were generally additions to those already existing. In the SLFAA research the lack of innovativeness was evidenced by the predominance of capital expenditures. Indeed, local officials can be characterized as 'risk averters'. The inclination towards 'risk aversion' in local expen- diture patterns may have resulted from: (a) the short lead time and the short lifetime legislated into the acts; (b) the lack of local expertise in the area of non-categorical grant implementation; and (c) the promulgation of formal program guidelines considerably after the programs were initially implemented. 73 10. Local officials have been very aware of the short run nature of the existing non-categorical grant program. Furthermore, they are consistent in their complaints that program funding levels are insufficient to allow them to meet all of the legislated program goals. Lack of sufficient funding could help to explain why local officials undertook no long run expenditures with their SLFAA entitlements, i.e., they did not want to be left holding the 'financial bag'. Another comment concerning funding is related to the provision of local 'matching' funds, as required through the EEA. The requirement of 'matching' funds under the EEA was short sighted; there could have been considerable oppor- tunity cost associated with providing local funds for 'match'. 11. Local reluctance to develop their own entitlement formula gives evidence that: (a) rural areas do not have access to the data required to undertake such an exercise; (b) rural areas do not have the informational capacity neces- sary to investigate the advantages of their own formula to enlarge the entitlement; and (c) rural local officials con- tinue to require guidance, or oversight, from Federal authorities until such time as they develOp their own plan- ning and research capacities. GENERAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS To enhance the movement toward effective non-categorical grant programs at the rural local level several suggestions and recommendations, which follow from the finding and con- clusions previously enumerated, are listed below. 74 l. A most important aspect for a successful revenue sharing program is that there be a formal planning body, commission, etc. Such a body should be in addition to the normal township board, city council or county commissioner board and should have an on-going responsibility for plan— ning for all federal grants programs in their respective jurisdictions. A planning commission should enable local officials to make decisions based on a knowledge of all the alternatives to allocate their resources in the most effi- cient and effective manner possible. The need for such a planning organization is evidenced by three points: (a) the opening of positions under the EEA which were extensions of existing types of jobs; (b) the expenditure of SLFAA money for capital extensive projects, i.e., for 'safe' projects which were short-term in nature; and (c) responses by personnel connected with either the EEA of the SLFAA that even if the life of the programs had been indefinite their jurisdictions probably would have expended the funds in basically the same way. 2. The need for a full-time professional is also evi- denced by the three reasons given in 1 above. Whereas the local elected officials in rural areas are part-time poli— ticians and administrators this professional would be a permanent, full-time employee of the unit charged with the responsibility of controlling the program operation, and co- ordinating the local planning efforts to ensure optimal allocation of the resources available to the local unit. 75 This need was also indicated in a paper presented at a Seminar at Cornel University in March 1972 by Malcolm R. Lovell, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Manpower, U.S. Department of Labor. He stated that "each head of government--...--will doubtless find it necessary to have a central subordinate who has the authority and responsibility to exercise effec- "2 He continues with, "such an administrator tive direction. would probably have to be backed up by a planning capability which can provide the bases for balanced judgements on vary— ing needs and how to meet them."3 3. In conjunction with 2 above, it is recommended that at the township level, which is the smallest political juris- diction, consortiums be formed for the purpose of administering, planning and implementing special revenue sharing programs. Forming consortiums would serve three purposes: (a) to- gether the townships could more easily afford the cost of a permanent, full—time manpower professional to coordinate the manpower efforts in the townships; (b) there may be further economics of scale such as reduction of duplication of effort, provision of a central manpower office, and access to an internal means of manpower expertise; and (c) planning could be undertaken on projects which need not be solely capital intensive or extensive, i.e., social service programs could be more easily introduced. It should be further emphasized that such a consortium be restricted to three or four townships, or townships and cities. It is not recommended that counties gather to form 76 consortiums for at that level the similarity of interest and needs are far from being as close as at the lower level of township government. 4. General local population input into the decision- making process for both the EEA and the SLFAA was negligible. Therefore, to increase local populace input it should prove beneficial to organize the rural population in such a manner as to enable them as a group to have a larger and greater voice in the political process. By organizing public input can have an impact on the manner in which special revenue sharing programs are implemented. Rural areas evidence no framework within which such an organization exists, it is necessary therefore that an effort be made to organize the public so that the local population need not depend solely upon the leadership of their elected officials. Professor James T. Bonnen of Michigan State University seems to agree that such an organizational move- ment be undertaken when he states that rural communities have generally "been run by economic royalists who use the public decision process to further their own interests. As a con- sequence, rural political power has been used in ways that have prevented most rural people from sharing in the social and economic gains of the society."4 5. In recent years the Federal government has empha- sized that Veterans be given foremost consideration when local governmental units recruit employees who are to be paid with Federal grant money. For SRS in rural jurisdictions 77 this emphasis should be curtailed. The veteran population in rural areas is not the size, in absolute or relative terms, as it is in urban areas. Also, the emphasis on veterans makes employment of females, teen-agers, and disadvantaged, for example, the more difficult to accomplish, i.e., certain important sectors of the labor force are being bypassed to give aid to a sector which is being reduced in absolute and relative size. 6. The SRS legislation should provide for an inde- finite life expectancy. If this were the case the rural leadership would be less reluctant to venture into areas be- fore untrodden. Though responses for the questionnaire indicated this would make little difference in the patterns of expenditure such knowledge could perhaps entice the rural leadership to conduct formal inquiries as to local community need, and to hire the needed "specialist". 7. Coordination and communication among the existing agencies at the local level must be strengthened. This is intended to affect primarily the county and state govern- ments. Organized coordination could make implementation of Special Revenue Sharing and accomplishment of respective goals easier. 8. Establishment of regular lines of communication from local units to the Federal government must be established. This would help to facilitate understanding of all alterna- tive uses for Special Revenue Sharing money. Such understanding and knowledge would permit allocation of local resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible. 78 9. Improvement of local unit access to employment data, evaluation of their program performance, current research efforts identifying local problem areas, and alternative solu- tions. Basically the local unit officials need easier and greater access to local data compilation. With easier and greater access to these data they can make sounder judgements of the alternatives for program operation. In summary, the most important ingredients which can be provided through the local unit are the formal planning body and a permanent, full-time program specialist. Aside from the provision of larger amounts of money, Special Revenue Sharing can best aid local units to plan properly, and differently, by it's being legislated for an indefinite period of time, or for some longer time period such as ten or fif- teen years. ISSUES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION This thesis represents only a beginning in the investi- gation of Federal non-categorical grant program planning and implementation in rural areas. As an initial effort in this investigation of rural experiences with revenue sharing it is encumbant upon the researcher to make known other issues which need to be looked into. Therefore, the following list represents issues which need to be researched if one is to gain a better understanding of operational inadequacies experienced by rural governments. 1. Development of a methodology with which one can measure rural social service needs and priority areas. 79 2. How can the rural populace be organized to present a united front, and an influential input into the govern— mental processes which affect their present and future lives? 3. Is there an irreconcilable conflict between obtain- ing national objectives and goals, and the 'New Federalism' which advocates local choice of priorities and expenditures? What are they and how can they be overcome? 4. What is the real impact of revenue sharing, i.e., is 'innovative bookkeeping'5 masking the real effect of the additional funds? In connection with this, can there be an effective method to check local compliance with the stated goals and regulations of a revenue sharing program such as the SLFAA, i.e., is local self-certification satisfactory? 5. Is 'local government fundamentalism' a legitimate value to be pressed upon the country? What are its ramifications? 6. How can the state land grant university provide assistance which would help to enhance the rural unit's pro- vision of services through implementation of a non-categorical Federal grant? 7. What is the most efficient and economical method through which local units can obtain knowledge of the alter- natives which they may confront if they do not have ready access to a program planning specialist? FROM THE EEA AND SLFAA TO SPECIAL REVENUE SHARING Though Special Revenue Sharing (SRS) is somewhat differ- ent than both the ERA and the SLFAA it is at the same time 80 similar to both. Similarities to the EEA of SRS are that both programs are geared to the 'New Federalism' concept, i.e., the decentralization of the decision-making process for implementation and planning; and both are within the broad scope of the non-categorical grant, i.e., the money can be spent locally as desired. Similarities to the SLFAA of SRS are that both are re- venue sharing programs, i.e., both are non-categorical grants which can be spent to meet local needs and priorities; and both are important to the success of the 'New Federalism'. Though both the SLFAA and SRS are revenue sharing pro- grams they do differ in their thrust. The SLFAA is general revenue sharing, i.e., money from this program can be expended for projects in the broad categories of public safety, en- vironmental protection, public transportation, health, re- creation, libraries, social services for the poor or aged, financial administration, and ordinary and necessary authorized capital expenditures.6 SRS as is advocated by the current Administration would be limited in sc0pe to the operation of local programs dealing with the delivery of specialized services. SUMMAT I ON The purpose of this thesis has been to examine selected rural jurisdictions in an attempt to discover the problem areas rural elected officials encountered as they planned and implemented each of two non-categorical grant programs. The two programs researched are the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. 81 The research was completed in two phases. The first phase, conducted during February 1972, includes extensive data collection and questionnaire responses regarding the initial Emergency Employment Act of 1971 implementation experience in "Balance-of-State" Michigan. The second phase, conducted July-September 1973, includes extensive question- naire interviews with rural local officials regarding their planning and implementation process for both the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. A review of the findings indicates the planning for the implementation of both the EEA and the SLFAA has been non- existent. The actual implementation of both programs has not been a great deal better. In both programs the local officials have opted, out of ignorance of alternatives perhaps, to invest their resources in low-risk, high visibility posi- tions under the EEA, and low-risk, highly visible capital' expenditures with SLFAA money. Both of these actions point dramatically to the lack of a formal planning body, or mechanism, and the attendant lack of professional expertise in the area of non-categorical grant program operation. The information gathered through this research does not bode well for special revenue sharing unless changes are forth- coming in the legislation, and in the rural jurisdictions' outlook toward the need for their successful implementation of revenue sharing programs. 82 Therefore, from the findings several recommendations were offered which if implemented could produce a more effi— cient and effective special revenue sharing program in rural areas. Among these recommendations were the necessity for a formal planning body, a full-time professional versed in non- categorical grant program planning and implementation, formation of consortiums at the township level for more efficient program operation, greater public input through organization, less emphasis on Veterans in rural areas, an indefinite pro- gram lifetime, establishment of regular lines of communication between local units and the Federal authorities, and improve- ment of local official's access to data and other information pertinent to their program planning and implementation. To briefly recapitulate, we have now experienced two programs which can easily be considered forerunners of Special Revenue Sharing--the Emergency Employment Act of 1971, and the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. From the experience gained through the implementation of these two Acts, (the EEA over a two year period of uneven Federal con- trol, and the SLFAA with less than one years implementation) certain findings and conclusions became evident from which policy recommendations were proferred to produce a more effi- cient and effective special revenue sharing program in rural jurisdictions. 83 FOOTNOTES - V 1"Preliminary Survey of General Revenue Sharing Recipient Governments", Office of Revenue Sharing, Department of the Treasury, June 19, 1973, p. 1.2. 2Lovell, Malcolm R., Jr., Assistant Secretary for Man- power, U.S. Department of Labor, "Politics of Manpower Planning". March 30, 1972, p. 9. 3Ibid., p. 9. 4Bonnen, James T. "Rural Labor Markets and Poverty" in Michigan Farm Economics, No. 353., Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, June 1972, p. l. 5In the SLFAA legislation there were areas specified in which entitlement money could be spent. But if a jurisdiction wanted to spend the money in other areas they could employ 'innovative bookkeeping' to mask the expenditure. By example, if a jurisdiction wanted to spend the money for education purposes (which is not allowed in the Act) it would indicate in the 'books' that the money was spent for a legitimate SLFAA expense while transferring the local money into educa- tion. The result is to spend SLFAA money for education by making it appear in the bookkeeping as if locally collected money was spent for education. 6"State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972". Public Law 92-512, 92nd Congress, H.R. 14370, October 20, 1972, p. l. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bonnen, James T. "Rural Labor Markets and Poverty" in Michigan Farm Economics, No. 353, COOperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, June 1972. Briggs, Vernon M. "The Emergency Employment Act of 1971: The Texas Experience". The Emergency Employment Act of 1971: An Interim Assessment. Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, May 1972, 153-186. "County Manpower Report". National Association of Counties Re- search Foundation, Vol. 2, No. 2, Washington, D.C., April 1973. "Emergency Employment Act: An Interim Assessment, Part I". Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty of the Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 92nd Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. "The History of Revenue Sharing". The Domestic Council, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. Kruger, Daniel. "Manpower Programs and Institutions", a class in the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Michigan State University, 1972. Lovell, Malcolm R., Jr., Assistant Secretary for Manpower, U.S. Department of Labor, "Politics of Manpower Planning". March 30, 1972. Martin, R. Thomas. "Federal Revenue Sharing Priorities in Michigan". East Lansing, Michigan: Center for Rural Man- power and Public Affairs, 1973. Moser, Collette H. "Experience of the Emergency Employment Act in Balance-of-State Michigan: Some Implications for Revenue Sharing in Rural Areas". Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, August 1973. "Preliminary Survey of General Revenue Sharing Receipient Governments". Office of Revenue Sharing, Department of the Treasury, June 19, 1973. "Proposed Manpower Revenue Sharing Act of 1971". U.S. Secretary of Labor, Washington, D.C., March 11, 1971. 84 85 "Revenue Sharing and It's Alternatives: What future for Fiscal Federalism?" Volumes I, II, III., Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy of the Joint Economic Committee, 90th Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. "State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972". Public Law 92-512, 92nd Confress, H.R. 14370, October 20, 1972. Stevens, David W. "Labor Market Segmentation Theory and Non- Metropolitan Employment: The Missouri-Balance of State Experience with the Emergency Employment Act of 1971". University of Missouri-Columbia, 1973. General References Cleary, James F. "Instructions and Guidelines Pertaining to the Completion of the Public Employment Program During Program Year 1974". Lansing, Michigan, April 1973. "Emergency Employment Act of 1971". Hearings before the Sub- committee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 92nd Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. "Emergency Employment Act of 1971". Public Law 92-54, 92nd Congress, July 12, 1971. "Emergency Employment Act of 1971". Report No. 92-176, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, Washington, D.C., May 1971. "Emergency Employment Act: Background Information". Sub- committee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, 90th Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967. "Emergency Employment Act: Program Guidelines". U.S. Depart- ment of Labor, Manpower Administration, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 27, 1971. Enright, Vicki, an interview with. Public Employment Program, Balance-of-State, Task Force Headquarters, Lansing, Michigan, July 1973. "General Revenue Sharing, Parts 1-8". Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 92nd Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. 86 "General Revenue Sharing". U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of the Special Assistant for Public Affairs, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971. "Manpower Revenue Sharing Act, Urging Passage of". The President of the United States, Washington, D.C., February 1972. "Public Employment Program Handbook". U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1972. "Revenue Sharing and It's Alternatives: What Future for Fiscal Federalism?" Hearings before the Subcommittee on Fiscal Policy of the Joint Economic Committee, Congress of the United States, 90th Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, July-August 1967. "Revenue Sharing for Manpower". Message from the President of the United States. Washington, D.C., March 1971. APPENDICES APPENDIX A IlATA TABLES PERTINENT TO INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EMERGENCY EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1971 IN BALANCE-OF-STATE MICHIGAN 87 «.6 men mmm.m mom.q~ oumoH m.m ome moo.m ~mm.>~ mumoomz o.HH mmm com.» ~mm.nm oosu3oz o.~H oom.H mmm.oa mo>.om mamma< s.~a om~.H mam.m mae.~m mzmmmfiso ~.HH oom.H mam.mH mmo.vm cousm H.h cos mmm.m mmo.vm counasom o.MH oom.H mom.mH www.cm unawcmm 6.0H oov.H mo~.mH www.mm «pawn H.m mmo.H Hem.m HpH.>m mamnmaflam v.» 0mm wmm.~H oom.nm socmum 0.6 000 ooo.mH mma.mm muumm m.oH ooh.a Hq>.ma mha.mm mmum>mue ocouo «.ma 0mm.a mow.mH www.mm uoauuuo v.aa mnm.a oam.ma ome.mm samoucoz «.ma mnm.a Hm~.oa mam.mv ammo >.m men mam.ma vmm.ve uaHmnmmH N.HH mnm.fl mmm.vH mqm.me macoH e.m omH.H msa.o~ ~mm.>e smomon .um H.v oom Hmm.H~ mmv.mv couchflo 6.HH mne.a mHh.~H moo.mv «Houmse o.m oon www.ma sam.~m summon m.HH meo.m emv.na mea.mm cmuam cm> m.m mNH.H www.ma www.mm coummca>flq 6.6H ooa.m mmm.am mno.mo wmmmmzuflnm o.p oom.a v~>.m~ mon.mo ecmaoaz m.m mew.a oan.ma mmm.qm muumsvumz «.ma mNH.~ www.mH mem.mm cmmmafla o.m oom ooo.om www.mo coumm mumm cwmonEoco wouom uonmq mcflxcmm Nucnou ucmfiaonEmcD .oz cowumHsmom mowucsou :muwumIMOImocmHmm= m cowuomm mo onam xm mumm ucmE>onEocD can coonmecD honesz .oouom uonmq .cofluuasmom .Hum manna 88 m.ma m.HH $.0H o.HH m.b m.NH h.mH 0.0N om H ...q menu-100mm HN N Fiaoq (DOOI‘OIDV‘OOLDI‘ mumm ucws>onEmcD mmm CON 0mm th oom mmm 00m who mbH oov mhm oom mud ooo.H mhv CON Omv who OmH mm» mmoaa 00H.H 0mm mum Ommea mmm 00h 0mm mmh oow cmkonEwcs .oz SIN $6; mmm.~ oom.~ «34. «SJ 2:; AZ; 03$ 03; comim m3; «:5. v2.8 «mo; mmNJ $08 0min go; «moi H36 30.... mg; 03.5 momJ. mmmi. 03.... 26.» $05 mmm.m wouom Monmq mmb.w MHH.b oma.h mmh.h wmm.m mom.m mmm.m 000.0 Nmm.m NNv.OH mvm.oa th.oa mvH.HH mom.HH NH$.NH 0mm.NH Hbv.MH mam.ma mmm.va va.wH mnm.mH www.ma vmm.ha Hmm.wH hHh.mH vmo.om who.om NH@.NN mmh.mm 5mm.¢m mcfixcmm downwasmom moan mcooam moxsmmmfiz mmmumm ammuoaoonom nomad mflncmm omcwxomz coesoomom ommmuo commcouco smcmammq oncoum 3m5wmo Edmund mamH msqmoum cH3©mH0 couH maooomo xflo>oaumco cmmwononu mumao mammoo umEEm oHOMxoz mmumwcmz oanwou comm: c0mcfixowo mocweocmz NUCQOU .cwscquOU|l.H14 manna 89 m.bm v.vH o.NH m.VH H.0H m.m mumm ucmE>onEoca th.bm 0mm mun 0mm com com com UmNonEwCD .oz nm.aa I ovum ucmEMOHmEmcD wucsoo cmwz omh I mucnou mom UmmonEocD mo Honesz cmwcmz vo.oa I Aamuoav ovum ucos>onEmcD =mumumImoImocmHmm: v.HH I ovum pcmEMOHmEocD cmacmz nmm.om I coflumasoom cmmz Inflammouc mkm.om I coaumasmom cmacmz omv.abm HHo.Hm5.H omm vmm.m 3mcmm3wx mmo.o wm>.¢ mcoowo mmo.m nvm.m socmuospcoz mmo.m mn~.m mxmmxamx 0mm.H Hmo.m oxmq hvm.m mwv.m ©u0m3muu mouom Honmq mcwxcmm Nucsou GOMDMHsmom .vmscwucooII.HI¢ manme 90 Table A-2. Ranking of "Balance-of-State" Counties by Number of Unemployed May Rank County Unemployment l Shiawassee 3,100 2 Allegan 2,125 3 Van Buren 2,075 4 Gratiot 1,850 5 Midland 1,800 6 Grand Traverse 1,700 7 Ionia 1,675 8 Sanilac 1,600 9 Montcalm 1,575 10 Wexford 1,550 11 Huron 1,500 12 Tuscola 1,475 12 Marquette 1,475 14 Delta 1,400 15 Cass 1,375 16 Alpena 1,300 17 Chippewa 1,250 18 St. Joseph 1,150 19 Livingston 1,125 20 Clare 1,100 21 Cheboygan 1,025 21 Hillsdale 1,025 23 Ogemaw 1,000 24 Branch 950 25 Manistee 925 26 Barry 900 26 Clinton 900 26 Eaton 900 29 Emmet 875 30 Newaygo 825 31 Isabella 775 31 Osceola 775 33 Mecosta 750 33 Oceana 750 35 Charlevoix 725 91 Table A-2.—-Continued. Rank 35 37 37 37 4O 4O 42 42 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 51 53 54 54 56 56 58 58 58 58 58 63 63 65 County Dickinson Gogebic Houghton Lapeer Iron Mackinac Menominee Leelanau Mason Benzie Antrim Gladwin Otsego Iosco Keweenaw Luce Alger Kalkaska Baraga Ontonagon Montmorency Missaukee Crawford Alcona Lake Presque Isle Schoolcraft Arenac Roscommon Oscoda Mean = May Unemployment 725 700 700 700 675 675 600 600 550 500 475 450 400 375 350 325 325 300 275 275 250 250 200 200 200 200 200 175 175 150 57,275 Table A-3. Rank UTIbLAJNH OkDCDxlO') 12 13 14 15 15 15 18 18 2O 21 22 23 24 24 26 26 26 29 30 30 32 32 34 34 Ranking of Unemployment Rate Kewe Ogem Clar Mack Wexf Iron Ocea Benz Cheb Glad Shia Osce Kalk Luce Alle Cass Grat Sani Leel Osco Chip Alge Emme Alpe Montmorency Char Alco Van Mani Antr Tusc Goge Mont Huro Ioni 92 "Balance-of-State" County enaw aw e inac ord na ie oygan win wassee ola aska gan iot lac anau da pewa r t na levoix na Buren stee im ola bic calm n a Counties by May Rate 37.8 26.5 21.9 20.6 19.7 18.0 16.9 15.7 15.6 14.6 14.6 14.4 14.3 13.5 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.0 13.0 12.8 12.7 12.3 12.2 12.0 12.0 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.8 11.6 11.6 11.4 11.4 11.2 11.2 93 Table A-3.--Continued. Rank 36 36 38 39 39 41 42 43 44 45 45 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 55 57 58 58 58 61 62 63 64 65 County Baraga Newaygo Grand Traverse Delta Missaukee Otsego Lake Hillsdale Crawford Livingston Mecosta Dickinson Schoolcraft Branch Menominee Houghton Midland Mason Marquette Arenac Iosco Barry Isabella Roscommon St. Joseph Ontonagon Presque Isle Clinton Lapeer Eaton May Rate 11.0 11.0 10.8 10.6 quqcnm CDCDKOOO meow OJkDi-‘HUW O‘C‘O‘flfl hkaOI-i mmmmm \IQQOIB (Ahab-DU"! OOHNO 94 v.mm m.om m.©~ h.mN m.mm m.mm m.mm 0.06 H.o¢ v.bv h.hw m.om N.®m m.Hm m.Ho b.N® m.mo b.wm m.mo m.on m.Hh H.mb m.om m.mm m.om v.Hm N.mm m.HoH N.@OH o.nCH cw mcoaumooHad coaumuoHHa m mumHHoo m0 mccmmsoce cofluomm ummuoaoocom mxmq Unemsmuu acooad xocmHOEucoz omxSMmmwz momoH ammumm mxmmxamx nomam Hommmg mosq ommmuo coumm coucflau 3mcwm3oM comm: cfl3omaw wocfisocoz Efluuc¢ mHHonmmH mflucom coucwsom wuumm comcfixowo :mcmHmmq mumoomz canwmoo xflo>waumnu summon .um {I >ucsou mo oNfim >3 mmflucsou m.mOH v.NHH ¢.NHH v.®HH h.mHH N.ONH m.mNH H.mMH m.mma m.NvH o.HoH H.m®H w.NbH H.mma m.mmH m.NmH o.©ma ©.vom 0.0HN m.mam v.mHN m.mmm H.0vm H.va m.avm m.®m~ m.omN m.mom m.vmm m.mmv =mumumILoImucmHmm= mumHHoo mo mocmmsone cw mcowumooHa< couH omcflxomz nocmum omwmzwz maomumo mammoo umEEm omumflcmz wamcmaafim coummcfi>flq cmmxonmnu wuuwswumz 3mEmmo meHO 63mmmwnu mammad muamo ccmavflz mwmo waoomse cousm Eamoucoz choH mmuw>mu9 ccmuw omHflcmm unemxm3 uofiumuu cwusm cm> commaam wmmmm3MHnm Nucsou mo mcflxcmm .VIa manna 95 m.mnow H.vH h.mH mumHHoo mo mccmmsose ca mcoaumooHam vb.HNH m.HOH H.VH 0» m.mmv Hmuoe oamH msvmoum coesoomom Nucsou cmoz cmammz omcmm b.mH omcmud m.Hm commcouco n.~m mcoomo mumHHoa mo mccmmsone Nucoou ca mcowumooHad .UmDGHHGOUII.vI¢ manna 96 .z.z .uwneaam Hmm.mmw va mm vowfiamfioommImxuoau mmm.mo~ 6H mm nouonuq www.mom ma em ucmpmflmmm cowumuflcom .umuonca pmm.mmm 6H mm .ummc coflumufiamsvm .uommomm¢ unnumflmmd .uommmmmc mma.mma 0H mm uoHomcsoo moa.mmo 5H Hm wmaumnm unamoa www.55m ma ma mwocwoue .ucmumwmmm .cHEpd mma.moa ma ma cmeflouumm .uoummapmm>aH mouuouuuz .uwaumnm spsama mom.msm om AH 2mg .amGCOmuom coflumwuomm .ucmncmuu< sunflaomm coaummuomm oom.avm on ma oowbuwm umsmw .uoumuomo unmam Humommwo www.mmm vm ma umuopgq vmm.vom em ma mxnwao mmm.mom mm vH nomw>uwmsm Eoounocsq .mvwd nocomwe .opflc ocauwsuomm mmmaaoo mom.mmo hm ma ucmocwuua Hmuwmmom .aauoouo .ooflm mmmusz www.mmm on ma umfimaa .uonmwumocouw .umflmweIxuoHo mmm.m0N an dd .2.2 .oacwnomz .Hm>fiuo mam www.mmm hm 0H oped genomes .muwsomoa www.mmo mm m .z.z.3.m .uwxmumumu .cmz mocmcmucfinz Hmm.mmm av w sumumuomm mom.Ho~ me A .Hm .um ..mmo oawcm>sh .ucmwa capo» .uoxuoz HMfloom moa.mma me o Houonmg mxuoz owansm www.mmm mv m Hmmmmx mocsouo vmm.hov am v umuonma www.0mm mm m .Hm .uo .ummooue .cmEHouumm .mmaumnm musmma www.mbm vHH N .Hm .um .cmwcoumsu ..z.z .uouwcmn www.mmm mvH H newumwuommo moduwmom .oz .9.O.Q mcofiuwmom NflMMflMM mo .02 mmwucsou :wumumIMOImocmHmm= an m cofiuomm Hopes omummsqwm mcoflufimom mo umbssz an cmxcmm mmaufle Hmcoflummsooo mo mumcofluoflo .mI< wanna 97 wofl>umm umumz .uflmmmm Omom um>fluo mocmHsn84 >ocwouoEm uo>wuo xoaua uo>wua gonna cofivoumsu zuwcsssoo mocmcmu:«mz Huuocmu umxuo3 wocmcoucwmz umxuoz HmcoHummuowm .uomoox mccsouu uouoommcH newumuflcmm .uouommmcH .mcam uwsaflua owns HOmmommm ucmumflmma .uoumuuchHEvm mcwcou owed .mumnomma uwxuoz commuuso .xaumouo .mmusz mvflm cocouflx umwcowummoom ..ocoumImumumuomm .umnmmuwocmum umuflcmouo uuflcsseou .uouoouwo .omm .mcwm coaufiuusz mmusz mowcmnowz .uo>«ua mam cmfiumuan cmEmummuo mmcflmua ummcfimcm .cmwumuficmm nouwcmn ..z.z mmusz woumumflmmm museum muaumnm nouonmq .ummmoM monsouo .cmscumw xumau >umunflq .cmwumunfiq ucmumflmmd mxumau .umcoummmflo mxumau .uwmmoxxoom umsomma cofiumwuomma coflufimom OOO.mmm mmm.mam mmm.mom mmm.mom www.mmm www.mmo www.mmm 5mm.hov th.mOH vmm.vov moa.moa www.mmm who.mmm 5mm.mam mmm.mom moa.mmH mhm.mho HON.ONO OOH.OOH Hmm.moo amo.moo www.mmm mNH.th mma.mhm 5mm.vOm mmm.mvm mmm.mHN mmm.OHN mNN.HmO Ioz .B.O.Q hv 5v 5v he hv hv hv bc hv mv mv mm mm mm mm mm «m mm mm mm mm OH mm OH mm OH mm NH mm NH mm ma hm ma hm ma hm mcflxcmm mmmhhhhhhommmmmmmmmm (I) mcowuflmom mo .02 .nmscaucooII.mI< manna 98 >umuwuoom cufiowcnoos owmmmua umucmEonEHIuoccuHm .umccmam menus as: wocmcoucwmz wumuouoom um30w>uoucH nomouuso umflHmwommm Hmsmfl> Gaunt zmq .ucoumwmmd Haucma ucmumwmmm m.xoou Houonmq .mwmuuwcmn ucmccmuum nouoz .umoflmmo mom cuss cwEmofi>umm nouns .umomom nova: Homwnummc unnumwmmc oped umeEoEom swammuom unnumwmmd wuoumuonmq ucmumfimmm Emumoum .Houmuumwcflsvd .oom >uau mcfim mcfiuoocflqcm .cmsmuumua ucmumflmma memonEm cmnouflx Houcomumo Houmnmmo unmemwsvm uwnoummmwo oflomm mpwm Honomoa womooxmmsom Hmuflmmom .ummooxmmsom umnoummmfio amaafl>wu .xuwau Houomuwo Emumoum noumcflpuoou Emumoum mum .uommcmz anau ucmumwmmm ucmmc cowmcouxm .umxmsoeom cowoflcnowe Guano: cowumwuomoo cowuwmom mom.HON www.mmH mma.mmd moa.hma www.m0H OON.OOH moa.mmo Ohm.mho 5mm.mmm 5mm.Hmm www.mhm www.mmm th.hmH wNN.OOH Hmo.ovo Hmm.mmo mwa.ONo Hmm.hHO mmm.mmm hmm.owm mmm.vmv mOm.mbm non.Hmm OMH.HNM mma.bmm maa.hma OOH.OOH mma.omo mma.mmm IDVVQ'V'VVVVVMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNN .B.O.Q mc0wufimom MO .oz 55 hp hm hm Nb #5 bk 55 mm mm mm mm 00 mm mm mm mm mm mm hm hm hm hm hm hm hm hm hm hv mcfixcmm .UOSCHUCOUII.mI¢ mange 99 nonomme mcHuHmH> MOHomcsou ucmfi>onEm ucmmd mcHumumHCHfivm Emumoum Mucsou ucmucsooom Honomwe >umucmEmHm uwucoEmHmEH coHumoaum HmcoHumoo> wOHm m.uo£ouw9 ucmpmHmmc umHEocoom 080m mIv uchmemm Hmucoo noochcm mumpwcmm umflmoaoflm uoumchuoou cmHmma mmmchuo mOHd m.uo>o>usm MOmH>Homsm mocmcmuchz cmHOoumsO .uo>Huo mam unaccouum wocmcouchz uumuHcmm HHHmucmq mumuHcmm umuonmq Hmuocow unaccouua HHHmocma mumuflcmw mocmcouchz umcoumu moo cwEHouumm canuHm umxuoz muccsmq cmEuHmmom noucmmumu ucmumHmm4 .umoo :uHmmm mcH« nomemEom couumz >mo .uomeoEom xumHo mchmommc .xumHU mchom coHumHuomwO coHuHmom mom.mmo mOO.wOH mHH.NOH OOH.OOH mmo.mvH www.mmo th.NmO mmm.mho mom.mho Hmo.mmo HmO.H¢O hmH.mHO 5mm.mHo Hm0.0HO mow.MHm www.mmm mwm.omm www.mom HmH.bov Hmm.mmm www.mhm mom.Ohm vmm.mnm bmm.HOm Hmw.omm mnm.vmm www.mmm www.mom mmm.mHN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHHHHHH .B.O.Q mcoHuHmom mo .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH ms hr hm hm hm hh hr 55 NB bk hm Nb #5 hp hh mcchmm UmscHDCOUII.mI¢ mHnme 100 .mOHm HmcoHumwuoom MOmH>ummsm cmHUoumDO an: oocmcouchz Homchcm ammuHcmw cm: oocucouchz uuomuHm Mommas: uuomuHc umcqu 3muu wocmcouchz can mucus mcHOHHsm mcH¢ genomes HoOHHsm omsom comm: ocoum can onum noucmmumu cmEmuom uonma .uwucmmuwu oocmcouchz HmcoHuosuumcH uoumuomo ucoEmHsvm .3.m comm: ucosou HomHmm m.cMHoHuuomHm uoumuwmo ucoEmHsvm cwEuHmmmm ucoEmHsUm HoucHom cmEuHmmmm wcHnouz monmo cmflooumso unmflz uoumuomo mesa HHHm xumuHcmm quEHuB owns an: monocouchz MOmH>uwmsm mUGMCOUCHmz xumm nouonmg xumm wucsou unopcouCHummsm mocmcmuchz copumz woo xuoHO moHHom :oHumHuommO coHuHmom 5mm.mmm vmm.mmm www.0mm wmm.NHm hmH.mmm MMH.mmm vwm.mmm www.mmm Hmm.mom Hmm.Hom Hmm.oom hMH.Oom mNH.Oom mmw.mmm vmm.vvm www.mmm Hmm.mmm www.mom www.0vb HmN.mm® OO0.0H® www.mmv www.mov mom.hov OMH.hov www.00v mmH.Nwm www.mhm OMH.mbm HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHPit-4H .B.O.Q mcoHuHmom MO .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH mcchmm .omsqfiucoo--.m-< magma 101 uonumo mcoHuoouuoo noonwo choHuomuoou unapcwuud omoHum man mmpouom HMHoom mOHd nuHmmm omusz x000 can sound: mmmonEm MHumuommO HMHcmmu cmHooumso mOH4 noxuoz >m>usm HMOHuoHO xuoHO muommmHme noumchuooo mHMHumumz xumHu wuHO wusmoo umuuomom sumo umfidaaIxumHo umflmseuxumHo umnmmumocoum HoummHumm>cH pusou Honomoe nouomuHo mxuoz OHHnsm nouoouHo COHumouomm HOmH>uwmsm uuomqu ucmumHmm< MOmH>mesm coHuoauumcou mpHm suHmom HmucoEHuomxm ucmumHmmd umonmo nusow uouomuHo moH>umm mocmHsnsm uoHomcsou COHumoo> moHucmummmIcmz muoamo xmou coHumHuomoo coHuHmom www.mhm www.mnm mmh.Hbm www.mwm hmo.mmm Hmm.mHm mum.HHm www.mmm www.mmm www.mvm Nmm.©mm OOH.HNN mmv.mHN www.mom mmm.mON mmm.mom mmm.mom mON.mmH www.mmH mHH.mmH mmH.hmH mHH.va OOH.NmH mnm.mmH mom.mOH mHH.OOH mmo.omH me.mhm HHHHHHHHHI—lHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH .B.O.Q mcoHuHmom mo .02 OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH OOH mcchmm .UmscHucouII.mI¢ oHnme 102 Table A-6. Distribution by "Position Description" of Positions Requested for Section 5 by "Balance- of-State" Counties Number of Percentage of all Positions Positions Requested All Occupations 1358 100.0% Janitor and Related* 529 38.6% Office Worker** 184 13.5% Law Enforcement 174 12.8% Teacher and Teacher Aide 95 6.9% Nurse and Nurses Aide 58 4.3% Miscellaneous 318 23.9% * To include Maintenance Man, Sanitarian, Janitor, Grounds Keeper, Custodian, and similar non-skilled positions. **To include Secretary, Clerk, and Stenographer. 103 HH OmHHHZ nuHmom oHHnsm .H mmusz .moum .omusz OououmHmmm m v mmusz venoumHmom .omusz v m mum.mho mmusz wmwum .mmusz cwuwumHmmm w v mmusz wouwumHmmm m N mmH.mbO Homchcm mumuHcmm H m Hmo.mmo uonmcsou mcuuwum> H m nuHmmm Hmucwz no .5500 I umxnoz >HMHHHxs¢ H v HOHomcsou mocnUHao .HoHomcsou .uonmcsoo nusow .Honmcaou coHuuonOm mH N mOH.va umflmoHon H m Hmo.Hvo Noumouom H w muoummuom m m Hmo.ovo unnumHmm< auoumuonuq N v ucuumHmma snououonuq H N Hmm.m~o ucmumHmmm Eoumoum H m uoumummo HHHuccmH mumuHcmm H m uoumuuchHso< coHumouoom quO H H mmH.o~o uoumcHOuoou cmHmmo mmmcHoua H m bmH.mHo mOHm m.uomm>usm H m 5mm.mHo moH¢ mcHuowchcm .cmsmummuo ucmumHmm4 m m Hmm.nHo u0mH>uomsm mocwcmuchz H m Hwo.OHo cufimummuo m m cascom can oOH< Homchcm .cmEmummuo m m Hmm.moo cmHumuHcmm m m ucmumHmmc coHumuHCMm .wmchua umoCHmcm m e Hmo.moo HOm I Hmuoa II mcoHummdooo HmHuommcmz can .Hmochowe .Hmconmwmoum II m.H I O moHuHB coHuHmom OoUmmsmom «Monesz .oz .B.O.o .oz Hmuoa mpoumm oHHnsm suomwumo =soa= sn mmfiucsoo :mumuwImoImocmHmm: cH m coHuumm nmsoune Omummsvmm mcoHuHmom mo coHusQHuumHD .bId mHnme 104 Ho30H>uoucH commuuso oOH¢ umxmsweom uoumcHOuooo Emumoum mum .uoumcmz muHO uouomuHo moH>umm oucmHsnsc HOHomcaoO GOHumoo> uonmcsoo ucosmonEm unomd mcHuouchHSO< Emuwoum aucsou ucmucaooom Honomoa huwucoEon cuHumunHH CMHumunHH .umm¢ .cuHuuunHH mumucoEmHm me< m.umnomoa .HOmH>uomsm Eoounocsq .mOHd mcHuHsuowm mmmHHou HoucmEonEH .om HmcoHumoo> nonomoa mcHuHmH> umHHMHommm HwSmH>oHps¢ unnumHmm4 usemfi concouxm ucmustcoo nomeoeom .umxmaosox 5.8mHmV wcH¢ m.uo£owoa nosomwe .Om HwHoomm .ucoumHmm< Emumoum .umcomoa onsz >umucoEon .mvH¢ nonomma .mon>uom ucmpsum uoumchuoou .umzomme wumucmEmHm ucmqumcoo mcHOmwm .mOHm umcomma .AanHmcm .muua ngmmuov nonomoa ucmumHmmm umHEocoom wsom mIv mmusz zmH .ucmumHmmd Hmucoo cmHHmuHcmm uchmHmam Hmucmo mmHUHB coHuHmom mMHHHHv-IHHMMN N HMHNHHI‘ r-Ir-INr-lm Omumoswmm .oz Hmuoe NO‘NO‘O‘QCDVFO‘I‘DCO NQO‘NNNN N VVQ‘QN «nonasz on>uom UHanm OON.OOH mmm.me OOH.OOH mHH.OOH mm0.00H mO0.00H mHH.NOH mmH.OOH ON0.0VH OOH.OOH wwm.mmo www.mmo mON.mmO OOH.mmO mNH.OmO www.mmo mNN.NmO mNN.Hmo mmm.mho mum.mho mHH.mho mom.mho .02 .9.0 .UoscHucouII.nIm oHnme 105 umxno3 HMHoom .uoonmo mHch>sb .uonmmo coHumnoum .umoHumo coHumnoum oHHco>sh wonomoe umemumdecmEUHon .uommwmma .HOmmwmm¢ xma .HOmmommd Husmoo ..uwmd coHumeHusvm .cuEUHOHh .HOmmommd .ummm Hemmwmmm unnumHmm< uouomuHo mxuoz UHHnsm uouomuHo coHummuoom cm: mocmcwuchz HouoouHo Emumoum uuomuHm mo HOmH>uomsw unnumem< HomH>uomsm GOHuoauumcoo wumumuoom Hmccomuom whomH>uomsm .umm4 .cHEcd .GMEOHon COHumNHHmswm mochuB onmmo Mme unnumHmmd o>HumuuchHEc¢ ucuumHmm< m.uomhoum wcH< cuHmom HmucoEHuomxm ucmumHmmd HooHumo zusow accumHmm< mchON nouoommcH coHumuHcmw nouowmmcH cOHumuHcmm .ocHd :oHumuHcmm uouoommcH mchHHsm “Ommmmm< ucmpmHmmc uouommmcH .mOHm .uoumuuchHanc mchom mOHuHB coHuHmom HO) H NHHVNHHr-iln ...; NVHNHHHHNHI—‘IHM Omumommom .oz Hmuoe H mOH.mmH mNN.NmH N mmH.mmH mHH.mmH mmH.hmH OOH.hmH wHH.hmH mHH.va OOH.NmH www.m0H mmmmhhmmm OOH.OOH mnm.mmH mom.mOH www.mmH MOMIDQ‘O‘NIDNMVQDO‘ mOH.m®H «Honssz .oz .B.o.o moH>uom UHHnsm .omsCHucooII.nI< manna 106 .oow .umm4 ..omm .Ooz ..oom Hmvmq ..oom Numuouoow uoxuoz nusow .Numumuoom Numumuomm mumuouoom xuwHO monuo .uwmwoxxoom ..oom oonmo Hmuwcoo .Numuwuoow .owm HmsmcHHHm Numumuoom M‘Q'lnCDO) N mOm.HON N mom.HON H omH u Hmuoe II coHochoma UHMMMHB mucsou new NDHO now noucmEonEH I noccmHm HoccmHm anau: nomHmummm accumHmmm noummHumm>cH unsou uwchmmuO NuHcsEEou cumucH ooH>uwm NuHcsEEoo ..ummm m.xoou .uouoonHo :oHuwwuomm .mOHm cOHuHuusz ucmma Emuvoum mIv HomH>O¢ nuzow ..ummm unsoo oHHco>SO .uoxuo3 HMHoom nomH>uomsm nuaow .umxuoz HmHoom .umHHMHommm ucmfihonEm .uoxuoz case» HOmH>Homsm nuso» onHm mchsom NHHEmm ..uwmsm nusow .ucmmm cusow .mOH< umcomme .uoumcHOHoou nusow mmHuHe coHuHmom mcoHummdooo mmHmm can HMUHuoHO II m.N I O.N HHMHHN \O mH woumwnwmm .oz Hmuoe mmN.mmH OOH.mmH th.hmH mON.mmH O‘HO‘LOO‘M OOH.mmH INN N A.ucoov OOH.mmH «uwnEsz .oz .B.0.0 oUH>umm UHHnsm .UoscHucoulI.nI¢ mHnme 107 uwuuomom mumo umflmsaIxuoHo umflaseIxumHo xuoHU umHmhs .umHmaeIxumHO umHmaeIxumHO .umHmuaIxuoHu onmuo Monummoue umHmwaIxuoHo .wOHd mcHUHHsm Hoonom xumHu oHHm .umHQNBIwaHO .umHmmeIxuoHu ooHHom xuwHO mUHumo Hmumcmu .uouwuuchHscm OGHGON .ummd .xumHO xumHU xuoHO oHHm .xanO oonmo xumHU mvuoomm .xuoHu umHmme unsou .HHoomv umHmae .xumHO unsou .umHmaeIxuoHO umflmsa umwmae xuoHOImumumuoom .umHmmaIxumHO umcmmumocoum umHmmaIxuoHO .umHQNB .Numuouoom umflmse .umfidseIxumHu umHmseIxumHo nozomumocmum H.uaoo nuHmomv HonmmuaocmumeumHu umcmmumocoum .umnmmumocouthumumuomm uchoHummommImumuouoom nonmmumocoum COLON“) NNNVVHH H H NHNHHHHNQHMHv-im mmHuHe coHuHmom Omumwswom .02 Hence m mmOIOON m www.mON m m m N H mmm.mON a v m N mmm.OON m m b v m N H mmm.m0N N mmm.m0N v mmm.mON m v m N H OOMINON «Honesz .Oz .B.O.Q oUH>uom OHHnsm .emscflucooII.kIa mHnme 108 .chx mmsonuusoo can xumm .uoxuoz mxuoz oHHnsm NH 5 Houonmq v m umuonmq m N vmm.vom mmv u Hmuoe II mcoHHMMdooo m0H>Hom II m.m I O.m uoHcmmu H N www.mmN cmHooumsu mpHd H N vmm.NmN HumHo sumunHH H m och NumunHH .xuoHO NHMHAHH .CMHHMHQHH .uwm¢ HH N mom.m¢N umxnoz >m>usm HmoHumHu H m mON.mvN cmEmoH>umm nouns .umcmom umuoz m m www.mMN xnoHO N m xuoHO H v umsoumamHa cmHHH>Ho H H moH.bmm xuoHO muommoHoB H H Nmm.OmN cmHochooe CMHOoz m N mmH.mmN moaonEm conouHM m N mmm.MNN uoumcHouoou mHmHumumz H m mOH.HNN xuoHo suHo sundae H m www.mHN xuoHO N m xHoHO H m xuoHU .cHEcm N 6 waHo Nuoucm>cH nHmHm N m mumumuommeumHU .xanU oonmo EsHsoHuuHO .xnoHO monmo Hmumcoo m N HonoummmHO .xuoHO moHHom H H wmm.mHN xumHO mchmwmm< .xumHO mchom N m mmm.mHN uoumuuchHEc¢ cmm .xuoHu ucsooom .xumHO uHos¢ O m ummwmxxoomIaumumuomm .xuwHU w m Homooxxoom H m Hommoxxoom N N mmm.oHN moHuHB coHuHmom Omummzdmm «Honesz .oz .B.O.o .oz Hmuoe on>uom UHHQsm .OwscHucouII.>I4 mHnma 109 cmcumz moo umooumu moo uooouoomHo 0Homm couum3 moo MMHumgm musomo .HmHmsO uuHumnm Nusomo :MEHouuoo ummooua ooHHoo cmEHouumo oocHauB cmBHonumo musooo .ucmEoouomcm 3mg :mEooHHoo .Hwoooue .Hoonmo oHHoso .uoooumomHo .cwEHouunm .muHumnm musomo :mEHonuuo _uoonmo coHuooHuoo umonuo Nuowom oHHoso .cnsHouuuo .oHouuncoo .MMHuoom auoowo .uouanumm>cH moHuooumz Nuamoo m.MMHuonm xuoHU oOHHoo cMHvoumsu :meuHo umonmo HchHuoouuou unaccouuo umumz nooHumo mom cuss ucaocmuua mmcHum mcHd mooH>umm HmHoom umxuoz Nuvcsmo cmsuHmomm uwucmoumu mch nooomoa m©H4 nonomme moHuHB COHuHmoo HHWNQHQ‘HH H \OHNNHHNHv-Ir-lr-l noummvmom .oz Hmuoe mmmmHmHHm r-lI-{r-Il NO‘NVCDMHMHKOO‘HHH «Hooasz ooH>umm UHHnoo www.mmm mmm.mhm mmm.mbm www.mbm www.mhm mom.mhm www.mmm mON.mbm OOH.mmm mMH.mmm www.mmm www.mmm mom.Nmm mmh.Hhm hmm.mwm 5mm.HOm HON.OOm www.mmm .02 .B.0 .OODGHDCOUII.NI¢ mHoma 110 unaccouuc oUGMHooE¢ .um>Huo wocmHsos< nanom HmucozImcH¢ mchHnuB .ucmccouum kuHomom .NHHOOHO .oOH4 anoHumHo .wcHd mmmusz ooH< nomusz ooHd nuHmmm omusz uoxuo3 sooouuso NHumouo .umxuoz nooouuso .omusz Hoonom a wmhfiz unnumHmma .uomo nuHuom unaccouu¢ NDHHHowm COHumouomm oomoHoEm mocmcouchz .Hmco0mumo .omm .ucmocmuu¢ muHHHomm .umm unaccmuufl moomcouonz moHa coHumuHHHomnmm nuHoom Huuamz .mmuaz zaH unaccouum NuHHHomm .uom Hmcc0mumo .omm .ucmwcouud NuHHHomm .oom mem monomme oUH< umxmfiwsom nomwmxmmsom HmuHomom .Hwommxomsom mch cooouHM umoHom cm£UUHx #000 com couumz moNonEm mHumummmO couumz moo umxmsmeom umuoomo .uommmx Hov cmfinum» mccsouu NuHHHuo umuoomo cuspumw mmHuHB COHuHmoo V N NNKDHHVN ...; MHVNNHHHHOHVNVNHNHN Ooummsmom .oz Hmuoe ON qu'oovmv' NMLOI‘O‘QDONNHNONVQNNMVLOI‘ www.mmm hmo.mmm who.mmm ONOIvmm mom.HvM mom.Hmm hmm.MNm OMH.HNm hmm.mHm me.mHm Ohm.HHm www.00m 5mm.w0m noneaz ooH>uom UHHnso ooz .pmscHucouII.hI4 mHome .B.O.D 111 uwoomx mocaouu .z.z .mcHHoaoom can mamas OHHOm .umooox mpcsouo noomomocuo .uoomox mccsouo .mocmcmchmz mocsouo on: oocuooucHdz ucmpcmuud HHHmvcuq NumuHcmm uomH>umosm oococmucHuz xuuo nouoocq xunm Nucsou Honouo woke .uoBEHue owua HN \DHHNHONV v m N vmm.hoq h mom.hov m HmH.mov m QMH.bov b www.00v m vmm.vov Nb u HmuOBII mCOHunmdooO noumHom com Huummuom mocmcmuchz cMHUoumsO uanz nouHccb an: mocmcwuchz cm: mocmcouchz Numuouoom HODHomn .cmeoumsu .ouz oocucouchz cm: mocmcouchz coHooumsu .uouHcmh HmuHHHomm oumu .cozv mococouchz .uouHcmn nouHcmn .cuHcoumsu ..z.z mchHHsm cmHooumsqum>Huo mom .cmHooumsu .cmHUoumsu NumuoHH ..z.z .uouHcmnIancuow .uouHcmn nouHcoh ucmvcmucHumosm oocmcmuchz umuoomo mmououHcmn mmHuHa coHuHmoa CDMQ‘MKDHHMLDN V \D H o-‘lNr-ifl‘ln coummmmmm .oz Hmuoe .Nuoanm .mCHsummII m.v I O.v m Hmm.mmm m m m H www.mmm m h m Q m N H flmm.Nmm m OMH.Nmm m N bwm.Hmm «HOQEDZ .Oz .B.O.o ooH>umm UHHoso .omacHucouII.hI¢ oHome 112 oucmcouch: Hnuocow N m wocucmuaHuz Huuocwo m m www.mmm cmsuHuoom ocHoomz ooHuuo H N HON.mmm oHcmnomz mom .oHcmnooz .uo>Huo mom v N 0Homnoo: xoaua .OHcmnooz ousm v m HmN.ONm coHooumsO uomHz H N ooo.OHo umuoomo Hmuocou N m www.mom NH u Huuoa II mGOHummsooo mucus ocHnomz II m.m I 0.0 .ummm wocmcouchz .oocmcouchz omsoooum3 .uoxuoz mocmcmucan .oocucwucHuz omcuuw m N www.mmm xoou oocsq pom .xoou .unmm N N ucmumHmum m.xooo H H nmm.m~m m I Huuoa II mcoHummoooo mchmooouo II m.m I o.m uoumuooo ofiao HHHm munuchm H m mmm.mmv uoumuooo pooEoHsmm v m mmm.va HmEEHHB owns H m mmv.moq uoxuoz HacoHumouoom .umxmumumo ccsoumNMHo xumo .uoucnsu coHuomHHou v n Hoomwx mccsouw H N 5mm.hov cmz mocucouchz v m nmowox mncsouo O h “momma mvcsouw v m H.ucoov www.50v mmHuHB coHuHmoo woumwsmmm «noosoz .oz .B.o.o .oz Hmuoa moH>uom UHHoso .coscHuCOUII.NI¢ mHnme 113 oOH¢ Monomme pcmocmuuc mocucwuchz NuouHcmm .z.z .umuusu omsum .Hmuoooq noncomo uoUHHso omsox cm: oocncmuchz .z.z mxuoz UHHoso .cmz voodoouowuz HooEnHo acmmz wcoum com onum “wucmouuu Houcooumo cmsouom uoomo .uoucomumu wocmcmDCHmz HmucoeouumcH uoumnmmo uooEQHamm mxuoz OHHnso HHHmpcuH NuuuHomm umuoomo nononmo Odom .Hmuoouo umuoouo sown: ucmaou nooHom cmHoHuuoon uoumuwoo ucoEoHsmm coEuHmoom ucmEmHsmm mNN.Nmm www.mow I-l www.mom me.mmm H Hmm.Nom Hmm.Hom bwm.oom HON.omm FMH.Omm mNH.Omm mwm.mmm mmm.omm V bmm.omm vmm.vvm hmm.mNm Hmm.mNm hww.mom HHHHHI‘Q‘NHHHHVHHNHHNMNH O‘MMMHMOIMMNNO‘MNNMIDNMO‘MN OOH u Hmuoe mGOHummoooo xuo3 Hausuoouum II m.m I o.m Hmuchm H N 5mm.ovm H n Hopes II mcoHummdooO xuoz nocmm II m.h I O.h moHuHe coHuHmoo Owumosmmm «nooeoz .oz .B.o.o .oz Hmuoa moH>uwm UHHnso .UmSCHuGOOII.NI¢ oHoms 114 ooH>uom uwum3 .uouHmomm Odom m m ooo.mmm Howchcm NumuHcmw H m Nmn.omm .ummm cOHumuHcmm H v Houmumoo oeso .uouoomo vH m uwuoomq H m www.mNm uo>Huo ooansnsd Nocomnwsm m v mmm.MHm cchoumsquo>Huo mam .uo>Huo mam N N mo¢.MHm an: wocmcmucHuz uncouH¢ H m vmm.NHm uo>Huo xuaua H v xuoHO .Hw>Huo oHHooaxoom .um>Huo xosua m m mmm.oom Houmumoo xosus .H0>Huo Hosua m m mmm.mom mHH u Hmuoa II mcoHummoooo msooGMHHmomH: II m.m I o.m mcHoHHsm Nucooo H m cmHvoumsu NuHcsEEoo v m www.mmm an: oocmoouchz H m umuoomo .ooHo uuoomcmue >m3omHm .umuoowo mxuoz oHHoso mo .ummo .ocHd mmzanm .Hm>HHo xosue .oHomoooz vn m uo>Huo mom N N www.mmm on: mocmcmuchz m m umxmumuuo m n moomcouchz HmuHmmom H v on: mocmcmuCHmz mxuoz oHHoso ..umm4 moHcmoomz ucoEmHsmm ..z.z mH m mccsouo can mocmcouchz .oocmcmuchz 6cm mcoHumumoo .cchoumsqumuaHmm ..z.z mH N Hmm.mmm ummmcmz uncoqu H m mmH.mmm Hoodoo ammo H m mMH.mmm oocmcouchz 6cm momma mcHOHHsm H N vmm.wmm mmeHB coHuHmoo Omummnmum «Monsaz .oz .B.o.o .oz Hmuoe moH>umm oHHoso .OODCHucouII.NI¢ oHoma 115 Hmnuo Hmv moUH>umm HuHoom HOV coHuoouoom can mxunm any coHuomuoum ouHm Amy auHHnso HmuooEcouH>cm Amy mHmuHomo: 6cm nuHmom Hwy coHumuuoomccua new mxuoz UHHoso Amy coHumoaom “NV unmaoouomcm 3mH HHV "maoHHom no one ooHumosooo on» no coHumooH huumscoH on» so woman can ooch muooaoz 60H>uom UHHnsoc moHucouood cm: unofinu Nooo .mon HmcoHummuoom HomH>uoosm cmHOoumaO cmHuwuHcom .ummd no>Huo xosua mxuoz OHHosm ..z.z .cmEmuunuo uo>m>uom .3.o.o .ucmvcouua u:MHm ommsom .uouoomq .owchuB mxuoz oHHoso .uocmoHO uoouum ucmpcouum ucmHo omusom uoumumoo ucwHo ommzmm .ummd .Houmumoo ucmHo 0mm3om .ucmocouud ucmHo young mamas .ucmocouud ucmHo ommsom uoumnmoo quHo omwsom umuoomo .3.o.o .ucmncmuud ucmHo ucoEummue .ucmHo coHumuuHHm uoumuooo .ummo .uouauooo ucmHo HmmoomHo .ooH>uwm uwzmm cm: mocmcouchz meuHe coHuHmoo H mH H Omummamwm .oz Hmuoe P-H f") In m N Hmm.mhm hmMImom 5mm.mmm mmm.mmm www.mmm «uonsz ooH>uom UHHoso .OZ .B.O.D .ooscHuaooII.kI< oHnma 116 Table A-8. Frequency Distribution of Educational Levels Education Level Frequency % of Total Race 0-6 1 1.4% Am. Indian - male 7-11 18 25.0% White - 15 males; 3 females 12 43 59.6% White - 32 males; 9 females Black - 1 male Am. Indian - 1 male 13 3 4.2% White - 2 males; 1 female 14 2 2.8% White - 1 male; 1 female 15 l 1.4% White - 1 male 16 3 4.2% White - 2 males; 1 female 17 1 1.4% White - 1 male Table A-9. Frequency Distribution of Length of Unemployment Length in Weeks Frequency (# of Participants) % of Sample Population 0-4 21 29.2% 5-9 15 20.8 \I \D \J 10-14 15—19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50 or greater \OOI-‘l-‘U'IU'IbIb 117 Table A-10. Alphabetical County Listing of Numbers of Section 5 Positions Authorized and Filled as of January 1, 1972 No. of Positions No. of Positions County Authorized Filled as of 1/7/72 Alcona 6 6 Alger 11 ll Allegan 54 51 Alpena 27 25 Antrim 16 16 Arenac 3 3 Baraga 9 9 Barry 18 18 Benzie 15 15 Branch 18 18 Cass 41 32 Charlevoix 20 19 Cheboygan 33 28 Chippewa 23 23 Clare 41 41 Clinton 8 8 Crawford 5 5 Delta 33 33 Dickinson 15 15 Eaton 8 8 Emmet 25 21 Gladwin 13 ll Gogebic 17 17 Grand Traverse 36 36 Gratiot 74 74 Hillsdale 18 18 Houghton 18 18 Huron 42 42 Ionia 44 39 Iosco 6 4 Iron 22 20 Isabella 9 9 Kalkaska 10 10 Kewanaw 14 14 Lake 6 6 Lapeer 10 9 Leelanau 18 18 Livingston 21 21 Luce 8 8 Mackinac 16 14 Manistee 27 25 Marquette 30 30 Mason 8 8 Mecosta 14 13 Table A-10.—-Continued. County Menominee Midland Missaukee Montcalm Montmorency Newaygo Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon Osceola Oscoda Otsego Presque Isle Roscommon St. Joseph Sanilac Schoolcraft Shiawassee Tuscola Van Buren Wexford N0. 118 of Positions Authorized 11 34 7 44 7 22 23 35 4 21 4 9 3 3 22 48 7 61 28 48 37 No. of Positions Filled as of 1/7/72 11 34 7 41 7 20 23 34 4 19 3 9 3 3 22 47 7 52 23 12 35 119 OONHHv Hum NHO m.m mNb mNn omb Nmm.NN mumoomz OOm.mN m.O n h m.O mNm mNO omm NHO.NN comm: OOm.OO H HH N.MH O.HH 0mm mnOH mNm vmo.ON owuchmz mvm.mv v.NH O.mH 0.0N oom 0mm mbO OOO.m omconm: vHv.Hm N.HH n.0H m.m OOOH oomH mNHH NOm.Om coummcH>HH va.mm Hum H.HH o.MH mHv 0mm OOO Nh0.0H smcmHmoo bov.mN m.mN m.mm m.hm NON men omm «ON.N 36cmozmmx NNm.Nv N.OH N.mH 0.0H oov mum th mHO.MH couH mmv.mMH m mH m.NH N.HH mOHN HOOH mbOH www.mv MHcoH mvb.VHH N.MH N.HH m.OH man oomH vaH mmo.em cousm VHm.om «HNH v.OH H.m oomH thH mNOH HhH.hm oHmpmHHHm ONm.OMH H.MH m.MH v.MH mNOH ommH omOH OqN.mm uoHumuO mmn.mw O.h N.m 0.0H NNHH vomH OONH th.mm omum>mua Ocmuu vN0.0v o.OH v.HH v.HH mNO mNh oon ON0.0N UHommow mvN.ON m.oH OHNH m.OH omm va 0mm Hhv.mH cH3OMHo HON.N¢ o.w n m N.NH OOO mNh mum Hmm.mH uoEEm NmH.Nm o O m.b o.m omm mNh mNn mmn.MN comconHo mOm.OO bum O.m 0.0H ommH oomH oovH VNm.mm muHmo mm¢.mn N.OH v.OH m.HN com com OOHH mm0.0H oumHo kme.sk o.oH o.HH s.~H oooH OOHH ommH ~H¢.~m msmmmHso mom.~m m.m sum O.mH mum omO mmoH mum.OH cmmsonmno 0mm.ov b O O OH m.HH mNm ONO mNh va.OH xHo>mHumoO hvm.OHH v.vH O.mH v.MH OOVH omOH man NHm.mv mmmu MNm.OO Hum O.m v.5 OONH thH omm Oom.bm nocmuo NON.mm n.mH v.mH >.mH omv com com mmm.m mHucmm ONh.Nm m m b.HH o.NH OOOH thH oomH mon.om mcooHd oom OVH v.HH o.NH O.HH ommH omNN mNmH mum.OO cmmmHHm ucmuu mHsn moon mm: stn mosh has ooHumHsmoo Nucsou mumm ucwENOHoEmco nmmonEoco nonssz OhmH moHoczm O coHuomm MOM mchmHHmsO mmHuGDOU :UUMUWINOIQUCMHMQ: .HHIm mHnme 120 COHOOZ cMHOmz CMHOOZ Oov.mON.m 0.0H O.NH O.HH mNva OOva oOva NOv.OOH.H OHOBOB NOm.NOH H.mH m.OH N.mH MOO vONH OOOH NHN.mH Ouomxw3 NOm.mOH m.OH O.NH O.HH OOON OOON ONON ONH.OO cmuom cm> ONO.MHH O.HH O.NH O.HH OOOH OONH ONvH OO0.0¢ MHoomsB vOm.ONm 0.0N O.NH O.¢H Ova OONm OOHm ONO.mO wommm3MHom NNO.NOH N.oH O.NH o.mH OOOH OOOH OOOH mOO.vm omHHcmm NOm.Ov O.m O.HH v.vH NOv NmO ONN OmO.VH mHomomo OHo.Om o.NN o.NN 0.0N OOHH OOOH OOOH mom.HH swammo OON.OO O.NH o.OH m.OH ONO ONO oON VOm.NH mammoo vO0.00 0.0H O.NH O.HH ONO OOm ONO Nmm.NN ommmzoz mmm.NmH 0.6H O.NH v.HH OOON mONH ONOH OOO.mm EHmoucoz OHm.Nm 0.0 0.0 v.N OOOH OmmN oomH mON.mO OcmHOHz HOH.ON 0.0 m.N N.N ONO ONO OOO NOO.¢N owcHEocwz ucmuu NHSO moon >02 NHSO mosh >02 coHumHsmoo Nucooo oumm ucwENOHmecD OOhonEmco umoesz ONmH .OmscHucooII.HHI< «Home 121 Table A-12. Ranking of "Balance-of-State" Counties by Size of Section 6 Grant County ($1,000's) County ($1,000's) Shiawassee 376.9 Cheboygan 52.4 Van Buren 153.4 Emmet 47.2 Allegan 146.9 Gogebic 46.6 Ionia 139.5 Mackinac 45.8 Gratiot 138.9 Osceola 45.4 Montcalm 132.4 Iron 42.9 Cass 116.8 Mecosta 41.7 Huron 114.7 Charlevoix 40.8 Tuscola 113.8 Benzie 38.2 Sanilac 107.6 Leelanau 35.5 Wexford 102.9 Dickinson 32.2 Midland 97.9 Keeweenaw 29.4 Ogemaw 95.0 Menominee 28.2 Livingston 91.4 Gladwin 26.2 Grand Traverse 88.8 Mason 25.4 Delta 86.9 3'253°4 Alpena 82.7 Hillsdale 80.5 Median - 77.5 Clare 79.5 Mean - 83.4 Chippewa 77.5 Range - 25.4 to 376.9 Manistee 68.5 Branch 66.5 Newaygo 60.4 Oceana 55.8 122 cmoumz «Emu w omHm OOH.ONm 6 ON H :msocHH Hmm.mmm m NN HOUHOMO coHuw>ummcoo OOO.mNm O NN ucwma mchmnoumm mmH.~OH m «N xumHO chcomumo OOm.OON O ON uoumospm nuHmom oHHoso “H cuHuuuHcmm OHH.mNO O ON cmHuuuoHH OOH.OOH N OH OOHO uonmcsoo "uonmcsou OOH.OvO N OH unmocmuum ucmHm amazom www.mmm N OH uoumuwoo ucmHo mmm3om NON.OOm N OH oHcmnooz ousm HON.ONO N OH umuoooo NOO.mOO O vH uoEEHua owua VOO.vov O NH umHoaquanu «umHONB uoHcah “H pmHoNB OOO.mON O NH nooouumocoum OOm.NON OH HH “mowmx mwcsouOIcmEOun> HomEOumw NOO.vOm HH OH OOHO mchusz ouHmom OHHoso ONO.vOm OH O HH xuoHo «umHmsquuoHo mmm.mo~ NH O on: mocmcmuchz >m3omHm «OO.mOO OH N HouHcmn acmHOoumsO vOO.NOm OH O ucmucmuum NOHHHomm coHuamuomm mom.qu om m umHmaquuwHo “Numuwuomm mom.Ho~ Hm v HOUHOOO coHumoouo .umxuos HMHoom Humxuoz ammo HOmH>umosm ousom «.mmo coHumoouo OHHcm>5h OOH.OOH NN m uoumummo 30Ho 30cm “on2 .NS: “mocmcwuchz .3.m vOO.mmO ON N cmEmoHHoo Hummooua moHHoo OO0.0Nm OO H OHUHB OOOU .B.O.Q HOQEDZ xcmm meucsou =mumuquoIOUCMHmO: No O :oHuomw umvco Omummommm mcoHuHmoo O0 umoesz No Omxomm mmHuHB HmcoHumosooo mo NumcoHuoHo .MHld anmB 123 quEmumouo uwuoosou OOH.ONO H Om ammoncm UHmwmua OHH.mHO H Ov uoHomcooo Nocwvooowo mono OOm.OvO H mm HouowomoH HmucmacouH>cm mO0.00H H Ov uouooomcH mcHOHHam OOH.OOH H we ummchcm HH>HO HO0.000 H Ov noumcHOuooo o>HuuuuchHEO¢ nounouo OOH.NOH H Ov uoumuuchHEO< Hmccomuom OOH.OON H Ov nouammumo HmN.oOm H we on: wocucoucHuz ONH.HmO N Nm nouaHum Nmm.ovN N Nm noomou nucsouu vOO.Nov N Nm Mouoowo vO0.0ov N Nm xuoHo mchoHnm mmH.NNN N Nm xuwHo HHouNum www.mHN N Nm umNHmca uwmnsm mHH.HOH N Nm “condos Hoonom ONN.NmO N Nm nuHmomIonH< NuHcsesoo mmm.mNo N Nm umooncm Nummnm HO0.0HO N Nm cusmuumuo HON.OOO N Nm H umNHmcm Hmcc0mumo HumNanm Housemumo OO0.00H m mN wmusz nunmm UHHoso ammuoz HmoHcHHU ONm.mNO m mN umxuoz mumo moo OHHno mNm.mmm m mN mocmcwuchz mmoonuusou a xumo Nucoou VOO.¢Om m mN H uouomomcH HmoHuuoon HON.OHN m mN ummHmm cumHuum mmua www.mov m mN umuanm muHm www.mNm m mN cmaooums “umHHmn OOO.NNm m mN H waHu mcHucsoood axumHU mcHucsoood OOq.mHN v ON OOHO O>HumuuchHEO¢ HucmumHmmm O>HumuuchHEOO OOH.OOH 6 ON an: NuHHHuo Nmm.Hmm 6 ON mHuHB mcou .B.o.o uwoasz xcmm .OmscHucouII.mHI¢ «Home 124 Table A-14. Distribution by "Position Description" of Positions Requested for Section 6 by "Balance- of-State" Counties Number of Percentage of all Positions Positions Requested All Occupations 393 100.0% Janitors and Related* 125 31.8% Office Workers** 75 19.1% Law Enforcement 87 22.1% Miscellaneous 106 27.0% * To include Maintenance Man, Sanitarian, Janitor, Grounds Keeper, Custodian, and similar non-skilled positions. **To include Secretary, Clerk and Stenographer. Table A-15. Mean 1972 Per County Allegan Alpena Benzie Branch Cass Charlevoix Cheboygan Chippewa Clare Delta Dickinson Emmet Gladwin Gogebic Grand Traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Huron Ionia Iron Keweenaw Leelanau Livingston Mackinac Mean Rate 12.0 11.2 14.5 10.2 11.4 11.2 13.26 10.6 11.9 12.4 14.46 33.7 11.06 10.06 15.6 125 Unemployment Rates for May, June, for Qualified Section 6 Counties Per County Manistee Mason Mecosta Menominee Midland Montcalm Newaygo Oceana Ogemaw Sanilac Shiawassee Tuscola Van Buren Wexford July of Mean Rate 12.03 12.62 11.30 15.23 26.83 11.93 17.63 12.13 11.90 16.37 126 Table A-l6. Average Annual Salaries and Number of Positions Authorized under Section 6 in "Balance-of-State" Counties Positions Average Salary County Authorized Per Position (in $) Allegan 18 8161 Alpena 10 8272 Benzie 7 5457 Branch 10 6652 Cass 19 6150 Charlevoix 7 5835 Cheboygan 11 4760 Chippewa 11 7042 Clare 15 5300 Delta 13 6690 Dickinson 5 6438 Emmet 7 6743 Gladwin 4 6562 Gogebic 7 6661 Grand Traverse 14 6343 Gratiot 24 5788 Hillsdale 10 8051 Huron 17 6750 Ionia 24 5811 Iron 7 6132 Keweenaw 6 4901 Leelanau 6 5909 Livingston 14 6530 Mackinac 10 4584 Manistee 13 5274 Mason 4 6342 Mecosta 8 5213 Menominee 4 7038 Midland 13 7532 Montcalm 21 6305 Newaygo 11 5495 Oceana 12 4647 Ogemaw 21 4524 Osceola 8 5671 Sanilac 13 8275 Shiawassee 50 7539 Tuscola 15 7588 Van Buren 23 6667 Wexford 20 5148 Median Salary - $6,438 Mean Salary all counties combined - $6,354 Range of average salary per county - $4,524 to $8,275 127 =wumume0ImocmHmm umoHumO :OHumooum OH O cOHuomO nmsonoe Owumosmmm OGOHuHmoo mo coHusoHuumHo Nuommumu Boo No mmHucoou .NHId OHQMB Huoxuoz HMHoom «uwxuozmmmu “HomH>umosm susow ON O HOUHHHO GOHumoouo OHHco>5O N H OOH.OmH uoumcHOuoou 0>HuuuuchHEO¢ uownouo H m OOH.NOH OOHO 0>HuouuchH8O¢ N O unnumHmmd 0>HumuuchHEO¢ N O OOH.OOH uouooomcH HuucwacouH>cm H O OO0.00H uouowomcH mcHOHHsO H m OOH.OOH H umNHmom Hmcc0mumm HumaHucO Hmcoomumo m m OO0.00H ucomd mchmnouso H m ucomd mchuouuso v m OOH.NOH umaHmcd ummwsm N O OHH.HOH GMHHMHQHH N N OOH.OOH umouums Hoonom N N ONN.NmO nuHmmm I OOHO NuHcaeeou N v OOO.mNO mmuoz nanmx oHHozo «mmusz HuoHcHHO m w ONm.mNO H cmHuouHccm H O .OO zuHmwm OHHoao “H coHuuuHoum O v OHH.mNO uonmcaou mocmncmowo mono H O OOm.OvO OOHO uoHomcsou N O uoHomcsoo O N OOH.OvO umeamumouo nousoeou H O OOH.ONO umochcm onmmue H m OHH.mHO HOOCHmcm Nuowmm N m HOOIOHO cmEmumuuo N m HON.OOO uwwchcm HH>HO H m HO0.000 6N u Hmuoe II mcoHummsooo HmHummmcmz Ocm .HmoHccomB .HmconmmOouo II m.H I O Omumwmmwm «Hoofisz .oz .a.o.o meuHa :oHuHmoo .oz Hmuoe moH>uom UHHoso 128 uwxuos mumo Nmo OHHno n O ONO.mOm uuHa mchusz auHumm oHHnsm OH 4 mNm.vmm unmoomuud NUHHHUMO coHuduuoom ON N OOm.va ummmmx mOcsouUIGMEOuu» aqueous» HH N NOO.¢Om mocmcmucHuz mmsoouusou a wxuoo Nucsou m N vOO.vOm OOH u Hopes II mcoHuumdooo ooH>uom II O.N I O.m HHOHO mCHooHsm N N OOH.NNN H xumHO mCHucsoood N O xuoHo mcHucsoooa N m www.mHN meHO HHouNmo N O Ovv.OHN umHmaaIxuwHO O O HH HumHo .umHmNeIxumHo v m umHmNaImeHo m m umHmNaIxuoHo H N mmm.m0N xumHO Hmocomuoo O m OOm.OON uoumuuchHeoa Hmcoomuoo H m OOH.OON umHmNHIxumHo H m umHmNaIxuoHo N m umHONB uoHcOO N m H umHoaa v N OOO.mON uwnowumocoum N N Hmommumocmum O N OOm.NON Numuwuomm H m Numumuomm H O Numuwuuwm N O umHONeIxumHo .Numumuomm NH m OON.HON NN u Hmuoa II mcoHummsooo mmHmm new HmoHumHO II O.N I O.N Omummsmwm «umoEsz .oz .e.o.o mOHuHN coHuHmoo .oz Hmuoa moH>umm oHHnoo OwscHucouII.NHI¢ OHomB 129 umuoooo O m NOO.mOO O u Hmuoa II mcoHummdooo mchmwoouo II m.O I 0.0 uonom OOOHUHO mmua H N umonm cmmHuu< owns N m vOO.mov Mummmx mccsouo N N vOO.Nov umuoooo N N VO0.0ov HmEEHue moua H N HOEEHHB wane O m VOO.vov OH u Hmuoa II mcoHummdooo OmumHmm can huummuom .Numanm .mcHEHmm II m.v I O.v HouHcon OH N HouHGMO m e cmHOoumou O m VOO.NOm an: NuHHHuO N N on: NuHHHuO N m NOO.HOm Hooooua OUHHoo N O HOUHOOO cOHun>uwmcoo N O OOO.mNm cmcuoz 05mm a omHm m N omuumz wEmu w anm H O OOH.ONO cmEmoHHoo Hummooue OUHHoo OO H OO0.0Nm umuanm muHN N O www.mNm cmenoumz N N HoHHmn H H OOO.NNm Omummmmwm «Hmoesz .oz .N.o.o meuHe coHuHmoo .oz Hmuoa moH>umm OHHoso .nmscHucoOII.NHIa mHnuN 130 coHumuuommcmue umnuo Hmv coHuowuoum muHm HOV 6cm mxuoz OHHnsm m00H>wa HmHoow HOV NuHHmoa HmucmscouH>cm HOV coHumosOm coHummuomm w mxumo HNO mHmuHomom com nuHmm: va ucoEOUHOOGO 3mo mm mum mc0Hummsoom wow mo GOHumooH NuumaccH co Ommmo mum 50H£3 mumoesz Hmv HNO AHO "OonHom OUH>HOO UHHoso« ucmucmuu< ucmHm mmmzmm m m acmwcmuua ucmHm mon3mm v m mmm.mmm Houwuooo ucmHo wmm3mw N O NON.OOm VH u Hmuoe II mcoHummdooo moomcmHHmomHz II m.m I 0.0 Houmumoo ono 3ocO mocmcmuchz >m3cmHm.Hmocmcouchz mxuoz OHHoso ON m vOO.mmO cm: moomcouchz N m ONH.HmO cm: mocmcwuchz Nuaanm OH O VOO.mOO umucmmnmu H m HON.OOO H cmEmcHH O. m HOm.ONO HO u Hmuoa II mcoHummoooo xnoz Hmusuosuum II O.O I O.O umucho N m NO0.0vN H uouomOmcH HmoHuuomHm m m HON.OHN O u Hmuoe II mcoHummoooo xuoz Loomm II O.N I O.N oHcmnomz Quad 6 m oHomoomz ousd m H HON.ONO N u Hmuoa II mcoHummsooo OOOH? mcHnomz II 0.0 I 0.0 Omummqmmm «Hwossz .oz .9.o.o mmHuHB coHuHmoo .oz Hmuoe m0H>umO OHHoso .wmscHucooII.NHIa mHnmN 131 Table A-18. Distribution of Positions Requested Through Section 5 and Section 6 in "Balance-of-State" Counties by "DOT" Category # of Positions % of total Occupational Divisions per division positions requested 00-19 (Professional, Technical 375 21.3 and Managerial) '20-29 (Clerical and Sales) 262 14.9 30-39 (Service) 624 35.4 40-49 (Farming, Fishery, Forestry 88 5.0 and Related) 50-59 (Processing) 16 .9 60-69 (Machine Trades) 24 1.4 70-79 (Bench Work) 6 .3 80-89 (Structural Work) 237 13.4 90-99 (Miscellaneous*) 129 7.4 *This category includes occupations concerned with transporta— tion services; packaging and warehousing; utilities; amusement, recreation, and motion picture services; mining and logging; graphic arts; and various miscellaneous activities. Diction- ary Classification, Third Edition, p. 198. APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INITIAL BEA INTERVIEWS IN FEBRUARY 1972 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 132 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INITIAL EEA INTERVIEW IN FEBRUARY 1972 To what extent did you really need aid in planning and applying for funds? Is there a planning commission for the agent? Did this commission become involved in the decision-making pro- cess for allocating funds? If so, in what way? Who was the catalyst for initiating the requests-~an individual or a group? Were there any particular areas of the decision-making process or allocative process where help was needed more than in others? Were there any problems in applying for funds? How did you determine which jobs were to be made availa- ble? Did you make any surveys? Was the decision an individual decision or a group decision? Or were re- quests taken into a central agency from various others? Pt.-what procedure did you follow in order to assess your community's needs? Did you use any public employment service, your own files, rehire or use a private employment agency to find people to fill your available positions? Were there any positions you were unable to fill? If there were why were they unable to be filled? What has been the impact on the community? Have there been any special or outstanding effects as a result of the EEA? Did the positions really fill a community need? Did these jobs result in any benefit to the community? Were new areas for public service to the community opened or were these positions already in existance but unable to be financed with local funds? What is your overall impression of this program? Do you feel you have placed the right people in the right jobs? 15. 16. 17. 133 If you could do it over again would you select the same occupations to be filled or would you ask for different ones? Also, if you had had more time to choose the occupations would you have changed your choices? Do you approve or disapprove of the handling of this program? Do you think the program can be improved upon to better suit the needs of rural areas? If so, why? APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRES EMPLOYED FOR EEA INTERVIEWS JULY-AUGUST 1973 134 APPENDIX C QUESTIONNAIRES EMPLOYED FOR EEA INTERVIEWS JULY-AUGUST 1973 I. Table C—l Questionnaire Employed to Interview County Commissioner Planning 1. What is the process through which you have determined the positions and people to be shifted to permanent employment? Was a specialized program administrator hired? Why? Have you a clear conceptualization of EEA goals and priorities? How has your program been affected by the primary and secondary goals? Are they effected as you move EEA participants to permanent positions? How have you assessed the community needs as you have shifted people to permanent public or private positions? Is there, or was there, a planning body? How has this body been involved in operation of the EEA from the initial stages into the present stage of participant transition to permanent jobs? What are your priorities and criteria in the selec- tion of permanent jobs to be filled by EEA participants? When you were deciding which positions you wanted to have funds for did you consider the availability of labor which had the skills you thought were needed? If you had known their educational and skill levels would you have thought this an important consideration as you decided which positions you wanted funded? Was this of any consideration when you were shifting EEA positions and people to permanent status? For the "Balance-of-State" and the nation as a whole there was a degree of concentration of jobs in trans- portation and public works. Does this describe your program? If so, can you explain why? In this decision-making process were there any parti- cular areas where assistance was needed more than in others? If yes, what are the areas? II. III. 10. 135 Table C-1.--Continued. Has there been local population input? Though community action agencies, local development groups and other special interest groups were not expli- citly included in the legislation for consultation were they nevertheless solicited for their comments? Implementation 1. What has been the impact on the community, i.e., have there been any special or outstanding effects as a result of the EEA? Is there a community sense of accomplishment or participation as a result of the EEA? Do you feel that using the criteria of unemployment levels worked to your advantage or disadvantage? If to your disadvantage, what criteria would you prefer? If more money had been earmarked for training purposes would different positions have been selected? If yes, why, and can you provide examples? How have you accomodated the shift of EEA participants into your civil service system? General Impressions 1. Do you think there was adequate communication and coordination between your office and the state office? Would you prefer more control/assistance from the state and/or federal governments? If yes, why? Do you think such a program can be improved to better suit the needs of rural areas? If yes, how? Should more incentive have been given to move people to permanent jobs? What would you suggest? Do you think 'rewards' should have been offered for achieving all the goals of the EEA? What kindsof rewards would you suggest? Does this program provide the mechanism by which you can increase the ability of your local manpower pro- grams to adapt to changing circumstances? If no, why do you think it doesn't? 136 Table C-1.--Continued. If you had received assurances that this program would continue indefinitely how could this knowledge have affected your decision process of planning and implementation? 137 Table C-2 Questionnaire Employed to Interview EEA County Administrator I. II. Planning 1. What is the process through which you have determined the positions and people to be shifted to permanent employment? Have you a clear conceptualization of EEA goals and priorities? How has your program been affected by the primary and secondary goals? Are they effected as you move EEA participants to permanent positions? How have you assessed community needs as you have shifted peOple to permanent public or private positions? Is there, or was there, a planning body? How has this body been involved in operation of the EEA from the initial stages into the present stage of partici- pant transition to permanent jobs? How do you perceive your priorities and criteria in the selection or permanent jobs to be filled by EEA participants? For the "Balance-of-State" and the nation as a whole there was a degree of concentration of jobs in trans- portation and public works. Does this describe your program? If yes, can you explain why? To what extent have you needed aid in planning for the transition to permanent jobs of your EEA partici— pants: (a) through the first 2 program years, and (b) for this third year in which the program is being phased out? In this decision-making process were there any parti— cular areas where assistance was needed more than in others? If yes, what are the areas? Implementation 1. Have you found that the choice of jobs to some extent determined the personnel to be hired? Why? III. 138 Table C-2.--Continued. As you considered individuals for employment in spe- cific jobs what criteria was selection based upon? For example, skill level, education or comparability to present employees in similar jobs could have been used. Were there any positions you were unable to fill? If so, why? What has been the impact on the community, i.e., have 1 there been any special or outstanding effects as a 3 result of the EEA? Is there a community sense of accomplishment or participation as a result of BEA? Do you feel that using the criteria of unemployment levels worked to your advantage or disadvantage? If to your disadvantage, what criteria would you prefer? L . What has been your success regarding transition to permanent employment? Have you any follow-up con- cerning those who have moved to permanent employment, released or quit on their own? If yes, what are the results. How have you accommodated the shift of BEA partici- pants into your civil service system? General Impressions 1. Do you think the 'county' is the proper level of government to administer such a program in a rural environment? Why? Do you think there was adequate communication and co- ordination between your office and the state office? Would you prefer more control/assistance from the state and/or federal governments? If yes, why? Do you think such a program can be improved to better suit the needs of rural areas? If yes, how? Should more incentive have been given to move people to permanent jobs? What would you suggest? Do you think 'rewards' should have been offered for achieving all the goals of the BBA? What kinds of rewards would you suggest? 139 Table C-2.--Continued. Does this program provide the mechanism by which you can increase the ability of your local manpower pro- grams to adapt to changing circumstances? If no, why do you think it doesn't? II. 140 Table C-3 Questionnaire Employed to Interview EBA Hiring Agents Planning 1. What is the process through which you have determined the positions and people to be shifted to permanent employment? Have you a clear conceptualization of BEA goals and priorities? How has your program been affected by the primary and secondary goals? Are they effected as you move EBA participants to permanent positions? What are your priorities and criteria in the selec- tion of permanent jobs to be filled by BEA participants? When you were deciding which positions you wanted to have funds for did you consider the availability of labor which had the skills you thoughtwere needed? If you had known their education and skill levels would you have thought this an important consideration as you decided which positions you wanted funded? Was this of any consideration when you were shifting BEA positions and people to permanent status? To what extent have you needed aid in planning for the transition to permanent jobs of your BEA parti- cipants: (a) through the first two program years, and (b) for this third year in which the program is being phased out? In this decision—making process were there any parti- cular areas where assistance was needed more than in others? If yes, what are the areas? Implementation 1. As you considered individuals for employment in speci- fic jobs what criteria was selection based upon? For example, skill level, education, or comparability to present employees in similar jobs could have been used. Were there any positions you were unable to fill? If so, why? What has been your success regarding transition to permanent employment? Have you any follow-up con- cerning those who were moved to permanent employment, released or quit on their own? If yes, what are the results? 141 Table C-3.--Continued. III. General Impressions 1. If you had received assurances that this program would continue indefinitely how could this knowledge have affected your decision process of planning and implementation. APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE EMPLOYED FOR SLFAA INTERVIEWS AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1973 142 APPENDIX D QUESTIONNAIRE EMPLOYED FOR SLFAA INTERVIEWS AUGUST-SEPTEMBER 1973 Table D-l Questionnaire Employed to Interview Local Elected Officials in Connection with the SLFAA 1. Through what channels or by what processes do you receive and disburse revenue sharing money? ‘31.“! a“ 2. Now that you have received revenue sharing funds for the first year would you describe the criteria which you used in your local allocation of these funds? 3. The trend nationally for expenditure of revenue sharing funds has been to use or intend to use the funds more for construction of capital projects than for social service type spending. Do you think your program follows this trend? Do you anticipate continuation of this trend? F“ 4. What have been your expenditures on non-capital projects? Anything new? 5. As you were deciding where to allocate these funds have you requested any aid from an outside source in this decision process? If yes, were there or are there any particular areas where assistance was needed more than in others? 6. Who, or what body, makes the final decision concerning where the money is to be allocated? 7. Have you or do you plan to establish a planning body which will coordinate the various requests for revenue sharing money, i.e., how is this program to be administered? 8. What has been your process to determine your community's needs? In conjunction, what has been the extent of local population input, and what form(s) has it taken? 9. Do you feel that the funding criteria worked to your ad- vantage or disadvantage? If to your disadvantage, what other criteria would you suggest? 10. Has there been adequate communication and coordination between your office and the state and/or federal offices? Would you prefer more control/assistance from the state and/or federal governments? If yes, why? 11. 12. 13. 14. 143 Table D-1.--Continued. What do you think is the proper level of government to administer such a program in a rural environment? Why? Do you think a program of this type can be improved to better meet the needs of rural areas? If yes, how? Does this program provide the mechanism by which you can increase the ability of your local programs to adapt to changing circumstances? Could you explain your answer? If you received assurances that this program would con- tinue indefinitely how could this knowledge affect, (a) your planning and implementation decision processes, and (b) your scheme of priorities.