optmistic, but it is going better than it did last year. There seems to be a kind of general sense of tightening up a little bit as far as jobs are concerned, and we are afraid that that will affect this some. All the evidence we have so far would indicate that the net of the program, the gross of the program would probably be about the same as last year and that as far as the minority groups are concerned, the percentage of participation will be considerably higher.

Senator RIBICOFF. Do you really think you can do this job just by sending out cards or forms? Is not somebody going to have to make personal contacts with manufacturers' associations, chambers of commerce, and individual employers in the community? Is there not some agency that has the manpower to do just that, to make the personal contacts with the manufacturers and the employers?

PERSONAL CONTACT WITH EMPLOYERS HAS BEEN ADEQUATE

Secretary WIRTZ. A very great deal of that is being done. There have first been the personal meetings with the Governors. The Vice President has been meeting with a good many of the mayors. As far as the employers are concerned, there have been meetings with the trade association representatives, a large number of them.

My impression is that the contact with the employer associations has been quite complete. The details of that, I am frank to say, I do not have. But I think there has been an extensive amount-in fact I know there has-of personal discussion.

UNION-GOVERNMENT COOPERATION IN TRAINING PROGRAM

Senator RIBICOFF. I think that is the problem that has been bothering us throughout all these hearings. How do you coordinate the various departments who have a piece of the responsibility to get the result you want?

Now, Mr. Schoemann of the Carpenters Union told us that Assistant Secretary for Manpower Stanley Ruttenberg had asked certain union officials and some employees of the Labor Department staff to work out some training programs for the summer and the months beyond. What is the status of that program that Mr. Schoemann talked about? Mr. Ruttenberg is here. Perhaps he could answer, if he wants How large do you expect this program to be? How do you expect to train them and for what kind of jobs and skills?

to.

UNION COMMITTEE WILL HELP INVESTIGATE DISCRIMINATION IN

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. RUTTENBERG. Mr. Schoemann, as president of one of the building trades unions and as a member of the executive council of the Building and Construction Trades Department, has agreed with four other presidents of building trades unions to set up a five-member committee that will meet with us and begin exploring, first of allthe first problem and major one which we will explore is the implementation of the nondiscrimination program in apprenticeship.

This was the original concept behind the establishment of the committee which Mr. Schoemann referred to.

Senator RIBICOFF. When did this start? How long ago did these consultations start?

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED

Mr. RUTTENBERG. On this particular issue it started only within the last 2 months, but there have been-as Secretary Wirtz pointed out, we have an Advisory Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities which has been meeting regularly. The Federal Committee on Apprenticeship meets regularly with the building trades unions and explores all forms of training programs. We have developed rather extensive training programs for the Carpenters Union. For example, some 3,000 job-training slots have been developed which will be moving along this summer.

The International Laborers Union, the hod carriers as they were formerly called, has got a big contract with 2,000 to 3,000 additional training slots there. We have, also, an extensive program with the Bricklayers Union.

So that there are ongoing Manpower Development and Training Act programs designed to increase employment opportunities and at the same time get at the minority problem, which is a very important one in most of these building trades groups.

Senator RIBICOFF. You have today three separate departments in the Government, 10 different agencies, involved in manpower training programs. How do you feel about combining all these 10 different programs in one department-yours? I have the feeling that to really solve this I mean, I can understand the Secretary's problem. He said this piece is in the Commerce Department; another piece is in OEO: another piece can be in HEW. Why not take all manpower training and give it to the Labor Department and place the responsibility upon you?

Secretary WIRTZ. Mr. Chairman, I did not say that various parts of the summer youth employment program are scattered in various places. What I said was that the Department of Commerce has been undertaking that part of it which involves contact with the American businessmen and American associations. I do not count it an illustration of dispersal of either responsibility or authority. I count it as just a natural use of the Department of Commerce, as part of a coordinated program as the best conduit with the best people of this country. So, I do not believe that the reference to the summer employment program is in any way a suggestion of a dispersal of responsibility.

OPERATIVE FUNCTIONS OF WORK TRAINING PROGRAMS SHOULD

BE IN ONE DEPARTMENT

On your question of whether I would feel that it would be a good thing to put all of the manpower programs to which you have referred into the Department of Labor, I think not because I think that the lines are at some point so close with some of the other functions, particularly the educational functions, that to take the 10 to which you

referred would necessarily and I think I know the ones to which you refer-present problems. I do think and feel quite strongly that the operating responsibility, the administration of the programs which relate to the work training area, should be concentrated in a single department, as today most of them are not all of them. There are some other points along that line which I think are still appropriately subject to consideration, so that I would oppose a consolidation of all 10 lock, stock, and barrel-but I would favor the location in a single department, the Department of Labor, of the operating responsibility for the work part of the work training programs.

SUBEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM IN SLUM AREAS

Senator RIBICOFF. The Labor Department's recent report on unemployment in the slums produced some startling statistics on underemployment or "subemployment," as you have called it. This includes those looking for work, those with part-time jobs, those who are not paid an adequate wage and an estimate of those who are never counted. I would like to include in the record at this point a portion of Secretary Wirtz' press conference of March 15, 1967, at which he reported on the Labor Department's efforts in establishing a reporting system on unemployment in the 20 largest cities in the United States which have one-third of the Nation's unemployment; outlined a concentrated employment program in 19 cities; and released the report of the survey of 10 slum areas which I just mentioned.

(The material follows:)

EXHIBIT 260

PRESS CONFERENCE OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR

Secretary WIRTZ. I have a number of things to cover. Some of them pick up from the President's Message yesterday on urban and rural poverty in which he described the outlines of a concentrated employment program.

The President's Message indicates his request of the Congress for an additional $135 million in 1968 for a program of concentrated attack on the unemployment situation, and he also, in his Message, referred to his direction to the Secretary of Labor and the Director of OEO, with the assistance of other agencies, to begin immediately a special program using all available resources to provide concentrated assistance to those with the greatest need.

I want to bring you up to date on what we are doing in connection with the carrying out of the immediate steps, respective steps, in connection with that program.

I would like to make it very clear at the outset that this is no new crash program. It is a focusing of present programs on those areas in which there is the greatest need to be met.

What we are proposing to do specifically is this. To take the amount of money which is available under present appropriations from one source or another, and to concentrate that especially on a group of areas in which we know from recent studies the unemployment is concentrated.

I would like to give you just a bit of the background of this, because it is not only an operational program which is illustrated here, but the development of a new program of the measurement of unemployment with which some of you are familiar, but which there has not been earlier occasion or opportunity to describe.

Starting last summer with the President's Message, at the time Stanley Ruttenberg was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of Labor and Manpower Administrator, the President indicated his dissatisfaction with the overall unemployment statistics which we have and which we have had.

Since that time there have been a series of more concentrated studies. Those are reported in this report which I am releasing today entitled "A Sharper Look at the Unemployment in U.S. Cities and Slums".

There are a lot of details there, some of which I think you would be very much interested in, but which I will come back to only as you have questions about them.

Specifically, we have done these three additional things.

We did not have, until the last six months, any comprehensive or reliable employment figures on a city by city basis. We have now established and it will be a permanent part of our reporting a series on the unemployment situation in the twenty largest cities in the country. About a third of the population is in those twenty cities and about a third of the unemployment is there. And we will have now, probably on a quarterly basis, although that has not been fully decided, completely decided, reports which will permit us to make comparisons on a much more localized basis. But those reports still bring the suburbs and the slums together-and the President's instruction was that we find out what is going on as far as the slum situation is concerned.

We have done two things in that connection, and I am still on the measurement side as distinguished from the operational side of the program.

We have now started to take off of the monthly surveys, nationwide surveys, the figures for the 25 per cent worst census tract areas in the country. Those are in the cities-the particular report to which I refer will be based on these worst census tract areas in all the cities in the country with 250,000 population or

more.

We can take off of the computer information on which we base the nationwide report this narrower report for these particular areas.

It is already clear from what has been done on that that what is going to show up here is an overall unemployment rate of about 7 to 8 per cent, compared with the 3.7 per cent for the country as a whole. And the outlines of that information are included here.

But we have then done another thing which is to go into this matter on an intensive survey basis-in particular areas in the country.

In November we took a three-week period and sent survey groups, rather large groups, into ten of the urban slum areas in the country. And on a questionnaire basis assembled information which gives us, I think, the first really reliable picture we have of what the unemployment situation is in this area— in these areas. It is a pretty startling, discouraging picture.

It shows that the nationwide figures have almost no relevance to the situation in these slum areas. It shows that in the slum areas in the country, the unemployment, as traditionally figured, is just about three times what it is for the nation as a whole.

We have set out those figures for each of the ten areas which we looked at in November.

Then we have gone beyond that, and then for the first time—what can be done to construct what we are now referring to or will from here on as a subemployment index, although "index" may be too precise a word.

The unemployment figures, as you know, traditionally computed, include only those who are actively looking for work and who are unable to find it. That figure leaves out those who have given up in one way or another and are no longer looking for work at all.

That traditional unemployment index counts as employed a person who is working only part time. That traditional index pays no attention at all to the situation of the person who is working full time but is earning a sub-marginal or a sub-poverty wage.

There are two other factors.

It gives no account-one other in particular. It gives no account at all to the fact, confirmed by the 1960 census, that a considerable number of people just do not appear in any of the counts that are taken. That is now a relatively wellestablished statistical fact and needs to be taken into account.

By taking all of these factors into account-that is the traditional unemployment, the part-time unemployment when somebody is looking for full-time employment, the employment which is yielding less than a poverty earning, even though it is full-time-that non-participation in the work force which is included when you get away from this traditional standard of actively looking for work, and the under-count-taking all those factors into account, and by a fairly precise

measurement which is set out in this report, we have come to the sub-employment result, and it reveals in general this: that as far as these slum areas are concerned, just about one-third of the people there who ought to be working face a severe employment problem of one sort or another.

We have constructed those indexes, the sub-employment indexes, and the rates for each of the areas which were surveyed here. They run between 24 per cent and 45-47 per cent. And in a good many ways this is a more realistic approach than the nationwide traditional unemployment measurement approach.

We are releasing today this report on this situation as a whole.

Also it reports on the situation in some eight or ten of the areas for which we are able to assemble that information.

So there has been, as far as the measurement of unemployment in the country is concerned, in the last eight months now, a considerable sharpening and a focusing, so that we have the information that we need now for the operation of the manpower program.

The other information was adequate when we were talking about a situation in which unemployment spread all over the country. It was not adequate for situations such as we have now, where that unemployment is much more sharply concentrated in particular areas.

The other significant fact which emerged from these surveys was that a considerable part of the remaining unemployment is more personal than it is economic and results from the situations which face particular individuals-the lack of training, the police record, the garnishment record, a transportation problem, things of that kind. Those are all reported as nearly as they can be statistically in these reports which we now put before you.

That of the measurement background of the program to which the President referred yesterday.

Now, with respect to the operational aspects of it, what we are doing is this. There are funds at this point in the fiscal year which can be assembled from the various manpower programs, partly from unused funds, partly from funds which have been allocated but which have not been used and can therefore be reclaimed. And they total in the neighborhood of $75 to $90 million.

The largest segment of that is about $40 million for the Manpower Development and Training Act program.

Another piece of it comes from the Career Ladders legislation, sometimes called the Scheuer Act, which was passed by the Congress last year. And then a sizeable factor from the Neighborhood Youth Corps program.

It will be possible for us to take between $75 million and $90 million and focus that, concentrate it immediately or as quickly as we can get around to it on the particular areas which seem to need that attention most.

I want to make it clear that this does not mean that these will be the only allocations for these areas. This will be a program which is established on top of the other programs which are already effective in that area.

There have been references for the last month or two to a 19-city approach, because we have been in the last six to eight weeks-been exploring the possibility of this kind of thing in various communities.

The 19-city figure is an over-simplification.

I am going to give you a list-three lists of areas in which there are so far varying degrees of activity.

There are eight cities in which our conversations with the local officials permit our being relatively certain that we can almost immediately proceed with the kind of program which I will come to the description of in a minute. Those eight areas are Cleveland, Washington, Chicago, Detroit, New York, Boston, Saint Louis, and Los Angeles.

In each of these areas we are presently engaged in an exchange of proposals with the local officials, and with the local agencies with whom we will be working on these programs.

There is a second group of cities, nine cities, in which there have been extensive preliminary discussions, but as yet no specific proposals. And the second group into which this program will be to which this program will be directed includes the following cities: Atlanta, Houston, Newark, New Orleans, Oakland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Antonio, San Francisco.

I can also give you the list of additional areas to which we are next directing our attention in which there has so far been relatively little done. But the next grouping that we have in mind to begin on include the following areas, some of them urban, some of them rural.