This study shows that even among this worst group--the non white teenagers--the total number (as distinguis bed from the percentages) are mot forbiddingly large. The total for the 12 areas is about 82,000, and this includes those in school and looking only for part-time work. This first study confirmed the problem, (the worst one we have) bat also confirmed that it is one that can be licked by boring in on it. Helpful and illuminating as this new 20-area information is, it has the deficiency of lumping slums and suburbs together, thereby hiding the magnitude of the problem in those areas in which it is concentrated-the slums. 2 An analysis was then made of the data collected in the March 1966 Current Population Survey in the worst 25% of the areas (census tracts) in all U.S. cities with more than 250,000 population. This analysis shows that (except as the sitation has changed since these data were collectedwhich is comparatively little in these "worst" areas): • The over-all unemployment rate in these areas is about 7.5%. Forty-two percent of those living in these areas are nonwhite (compared with 10.7% nonwhite population) and over a third of all nonwhite workers in the U.S. live in these areas. The nonwhite unemployment rate in these areas is 9.4%. The data show (but on a very small sample) an unemployment rate in these areas among nonwhite 14-to-19 year olds of 31% for boys, 46% for girls. This analysis also has its limitations. It was based on a nationwide report and did not show the the situation in particular cities. It was based on a sampling survey and the sample used was small. In addition, the areas covered by this survey included a good deal more than the actual slum areas (and had been selected on the basis of 1960 in formation). This infomation, furthermore, is a year old. (It is now being brought down to date.) 83-453 O-68-pt. 19-3 This traditional unemployment measure counts as employed the person who is working only parttime, although he is trying to find full-time work; gives no consideration to the amount of earnings; omits. those who are not "actively looking for work"--even though the reason for this is their conviction (whether right or wrong) that they can't find a job, at least one they want; and omits the "under-count" factor--those who are known to be present in the community but who do not show up at all under the present survey methods. The November ten-area survey disclosed that: ⚫6.9% of those listed as employed are working only part-time, although they are trying to find full-time work. (The comparable figure for the nation as a whole is 2.3%). 21% of those working full time are eaming less than $60 a week (the equivalent of the $3000 poverty figure on an annual basis). The comparable figure for the U.S. as a whole is 15.4%. Thirty-seven percent of the slum area families report annual incomes under $3000 (the national figure is 25%; and the average (median) family income figure about $3,800 (which compares with a national figure of $6,300). Almost half -- 47% of the survey families report income during the past year from--unemployment insurance (5.1%), welfare or ADC (18.1%), or other nonemployment sources (24.6%). A large number of persons in the survey areas who should be working, are not working and are not looking for work. (They are therefore not counted either as in the work force or as being "unemployed"). This "nonparticipation" rate in these areas is 11% among men in the 20-64 year age group (the only group for which it can be meaningfully detemined). This compares with a 7% rate for this group in the country as a whole. |