The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
L 2o: Impact of Federal Pollution Control and Abatement Expenditures on Manpower Requirements Bulletin 1836 U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics 1975 DOCUMENT COLLECTION United States* Bureau of Labor Statistics* Impact of Federal pollution control and abatement expenditures on manpower requirements. 1* Environmental engineering as a profession* 2* Retraining, Occupational—United States* I* Title. 74-28080 TD156.U45 1975 331.1’1 Impact of Federal Pollution Control and Abatement Expenditures on Manpower Requirements Bulletin 1836 U.S. Department of Labor Peter J. Brennan, Secretary Bureau of Labor Statistics Julius Shiskin, Commissioner 1975 ☆ U.S. G O V ERN M EN T PRINTING OFFICE : 1975 0 -5 8 3 -6 7 1 (49) For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, GPO Bookstores, or BLS Regional Offices listed on inside back cover. Price $1.25 Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents Stock No. 029-001-01361 Preface Cutbacks in Federal defense and research and development expenditures in the early 1970’s and the resulting unemployment and dislocation of scientific and technical manpower, raised concern about the effects of shifting Federal expenditures and priorities on employment, especially of scientific, technical, and other ‘"high level” manpower. Very soon it was discovered that a comprehensive system did not exist for estimating the potential effect of shifts in Federal spending and priorities on the creation or elimination of jobs. The development of the research techniques and data necessary for the analysis of such shifts is of major importance to those responsible for determining national priorities, planning manpower training programs, and planning and operating labor market service programs. The National Science Foundation recognized the need for developing these techniques and data, especially in relation to requirements for scientists and engineers, and provided support to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for research in this area. This bulletin presents the results of that research. The focus of the research was placed on developing a method for measuring employment generated by expenditures for a specific Federal program. The method was also used to develop estimates of the employment generated by Federal expenditures for pollution control and abatement. Illustrative projections of the requirements for scientific and technical personnel in the pollution control fields also were developed as well as the information on skill transferability of scientists and engineers from defense and aerospace activities to work related to pollution control and abatement. Much of the data generated in this study is based on information gathered from interviews with officials of organizations engaged in pollution control activities in approximately 100 universities, nonprofit organizations, private firms, and provided by numerous Federal officials in the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal, State, and local government agencies. Because of the small sample size, the pilot nature of the study, and the limitations of the methods, estimates of employment generated by Federal expenditures for pollution control in this bulletin should be viewed as rough orders of magnitude, rather than as precise numbers. The work underlying this bulletin represents the cooperative efforts of two divisions of the Bureau—the Division of Manpower and Occupational Outlook, Office of Manpower Structure and Trends, and the Division of Economic Growth. Michael Crowley of the Division of Manpower and Occupational Outlook coordinated and directed the study. Edith Andrews and Daniel Hecker of the same Division prepared this bulletin together with Kenneth R. Tyree of the Division of Economic Growth, who assisted in the development of the study design and research methods. Within the National Science Foundation, Norman Seltzer, Study Director, Scientific Manpower Studies Group, and Morris Cobern have been active participants from the outset. in Contents Page Introduction................................................................................................................................... v Highlights ..........................................................................................................................vii Chapters: I. Manpower impacts-Federal pollution control abatement expenditures............................................................................................ 1 II. Illustrative projections.................................................................................................... 8 III. Hiring standards and skill transferability ......................................................................... 13 IV. Study design and methods ................................................................................................ 19 Charts: 1. Structure for collecting R&D d a t a .....................................................................................23 2. Performers of R&D ............................................................................................................24 3. Private industry R&D-program andmedia .......................................................................25 Appendixes: A. Detailed tables ................................................................................................................31 B. Interview g u id e .................................. ..............................................................................53 Introduction The repercussions of Government actions and policies on employment are far reaching and exceedingly complex. Many Federal programs are developed without any real consideration or assessment of the consequences of their operations on the manpower resources of the country and while such an assessment perhaps would not solve any conflict in values or in priorities inherent in the operation of different programs, it would assist in the decisionmaking process. “If this country is to move efficiently toward optimal trends, the manpower consequences of Government action in all fields should be projected and appraised on a continuing basis and in a much more comprehensive, integrated manner.”1 Several examples may serve as background to the need for the prior assessment of manpower implications before starting, stopping, or changing, the direction of Government programs. Where the Government is the principal, sometimes only, purchaser of particular goods and services, and also supplies most of the investment for their production, any change in its spending or financial support to the program can have far reaching manpov/er implications. This situation is illustrated in spending for national defense, and particularly in Government-supported defense related research and development. Since the Government uses private companies and non-profit institutions as the principal channels for carrying on these activities, budget changes have extensive repercus sions. Where the contractors and sub-contractors are concentrated in a few areas, the effects of either a rapid increase or decrease in Government spending are greatly magnified; and where the contractor’s employees ac count for a large percent of the local labor force, the effect on the whole community is great. The cutback in defense orders in the early 1970’s had marked effects in some areas, for example, in Seattle, Wash., and Hunts ville, A1&., because layoffs by contractors working on such orders snowballed throughout the community. Failure to consider the manpower implications of Federal programs is somewhat akin to dumping pollut ants in the river upstream and letting the people downstream worry about ways and means of cleaning up the environment. Reductions in Government financed R&D at the university level have equally direct but perhaps less immediate manpower implications. Grants to universities to carry on certain kinds of R&D for, or connected with, particular Government programs have a dual impact in that they necessarily influence (l)the direction of the university’s research and development potential, the specialization of its staff, and the character of its physical equipment for R&D purposes and, at the same time, (2) the training of the predoctoral graduate stu dents who work on the project. A reduction in Govern ment spending for R&D in a particular program will have an immediate fiscal effect on the university’s income, but a certain timelag will occur in translating this into a manpower impact. Graduate students will probably continue in the same area of specialization they had chosen when Government-financed fellowships were available. Even at the undergraduate level the pipeline may be turning out specialists for nonexistent Govern ment or Government-financed jobs. In Government planning there are a multitude of considerations involved in choosing one program over another or in changing an existing program. If the manpower implications of a program, or program shift, often have been neglected or only imperfectly assessed, a major part of the reason for this neglect has been the lack of data necessary for such analysis and assessment. As background for decisionmaking, information is needed on: (a) What industries would be most affected by any new program, (b) how much new employment would be generated, and the occupational mix of such employment, and (c) whether the manpower require ments of the new program could be satisfied without putting into jeopardy other aspects of the economy. Proper analysis of such information can put into focus possible manpower problems that would result frorfi following various alternatives. Two contingencies might be noted: (a) where the supply of skills available fora program appears inadequate except at the risk of creating shortages or bottlenecks elsewhere in the economy, or impairing other Federal programs with higher priorities, and (b) where changes in an existing program could start substantial cutbacks in employment in particular industries, occupations, or areas which could snowball and precipitate a recession of significant local, if not regional or national, proportions. While forewarning alone will not eliminate either of these occurrences, it can mitigate the consequences through a careful phasing of a program, as well as the planning or adjustment of alternative or supplementary programs. Objectives The preceding discussion briefly examined some ways of looking at the manpower implications of Federal programs and policies, and is designed to show the possible range of interrelationships that must be consid ered when analyzing the manpower implications of Federal programs and policies. In order to bring this study into manageable limits, “impact” is defined strictly in quantitive terms and is restricted to that traceable to Federal spending only. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to develop an analytical technique capable of measuring the man power impact of Federal expenditures and use that technique to measure the employment requirements of Federal expenditures for pollution .control and abate ment activities. A second objective of the study is to examine the extent of skill transferability among fields of work for scientists and engineers, and specifically for ex-em ployees in aerospace and defense activities moving into professional jobs in the field of pollution control and abatement. Pollution control and abatement was a new and developing area to which the Government was giving increased priority in its allocation of funds at the time this study was initiated in 1972. The popular assumption was that unemployed scientists and engineers could be shifted easily to pollution related occupations and thereby help eliminate manpower problems associated with cutbacks in defense, space, and R&D support. The study has placed primary emphasis on engineers, scientists, and technicians, both in response to NSF’s sponsorship of the study and because these occupations are considered essential to economic growth. Any sudden or sharp increase or decrease in requirements for scientists and engineers poses problems because of the relatively long leadtime necessary to train these workers. Besides the 4-years plus of college training needed, there is also the preparatory work in student counseling and career guidance necessary to direct students to select engineering or science as a career. Moreover, society has a substantial financial investment in such training, so that unemployment or underutilization of such workers apart from the personal suffering of those involved, represents a capital loss and social waste for society. Limitations of data Employment impact data in the context of this study only refer to the estimated potential employment generated or lost by specific Federal spending programs. Employment includes those working directly on the program and on Federal Government payrolls (including recipients of Federal grants and contracts),2 as well as the indirect employment represented in the goods and services purchased and used in the operation of the program. It is important to emphasize that the data only quantify the jobgenerating capability of particular pro grams and have nothing to do with “good” or “better.” The fact that one program shows a higher jobgenerating capacity per million dollars spent than another does not give it value—except insofar as the number itself has value. The value concept is tied up with the larger context of manpower implications, the full perspective of possible consequences by occupation, industry, or geographic area, along with analytical inferences, hypo thetical conclusions, and value judgments as to the role of the program in furthering the broad goals and objectives of the government. Thus, employment impact data cannot and will not indicate whether (a) one program fulfills its purpose better than another, (b) has greater social-use value than another, or (c) yields better results executed under one category of performer or another (for example, a university, a nonprofit institu tion, private industry, state or local government, or the responsible Federal agency itself). All of these judgments would require additional data and criteria by decision makers. Employment impact data can, however, represent a significant input to the decisionmaking process. The Government may and does undertake policies or pro grams for reasons quite removed from labor market consideration — for example, national defense. However, in many cases, employment impact data are or should be a prerequisite to the consideration of the economic and social costs (and benefits) of a given Federal program. 1Manpower Report of the President, March 1972. (U.S, Department of Labor, 1972.) 2 In this report, a man year is equated with 2,080 man-hours paid for, except for onsite construction, where 1,800 man-hours constitute a man-year. This convention also was used to compute the man years of graduate students working on project at colleges and universities. However, most graduate students are paid for less than 2,080 hours per year, but it was not clear how many hours of work per year constitutes “full-time” employ ment for graduate students. Thus, a somewhat higher number of graduate student man years than indicated in this report could be supported if less than 2,080 man hours were considered a man year. Highlights Findings. An average of 66.9 jobs were generated for each million dollars expended by the Federal Govern ment for pollution control and abatement. This com pares with 49.8 civilian jobs generated per million dollars of defense expenditures (in 1972), and 73.9 for nonde fense expenditures. For every million dollars of Federal pollution control and abatement expenditures, require ments were generated for 5 engineers, 8 scientists, and 6 technicians. The approximately $500 million of Federal pollution control and abatement funds in 1970 generated requirements for about 33,500 workers. Of these, approximately 2,600 were engineers, over 3,800 were scientists and 3,100 were technicians. In addition, requirements were generated for 5,300 clerical workers, 5,100 craftworkers, 5,300 operatives, 1,700 laborers, and 1,200 service workers. In the aerospace and defense industries, respondents indicated that a fair number of skills were transferable, but they saw little incentive to hiring ex-aerospace or defense oriented workers since they were not having problems in meeting their manpower requirements. Only in an expanding economy where potential or real manpower shortages exerted pressure on the employer, did skill transferability really enter the picture. Further more, as far as the employer was concerned, technology bore a datemark, so there was not only a question of transferring a skill, but of updating a basic training. However, many employers raised serious questions as to where, and how much, one could “retrain.” Gener ally, retraining was more applicable, and easier, for engineers than for scientists, and in certain specialities. But, in no case was this a matter of a simple brush-up or a few weeks’, or months’, work. In most cases it meant going back to college and getting a graduate degree in another specialty —a matter of 1 to 2 years work plus a substantial capital outlay in addition to the earnings foregone in the interim. Skill transferability does exist, but to be overly optimistic on the prospects of quick retraining and absorption of professionals into new jobs of comparable level in the labor market is unrealistic. It may appear negative to minimize the number of openings that may exist for the retrained professional, but it is unrealistic to encourage individuals to take up retraining at consid erable cost and effort and still not be able to find suitable employment. Of course, employers could view questions relating to skill transferability differently if, for example, a very large amount of money were introduced into the economy for energy R&D. In such a situation, the existing manpower supply might not be sufficient to meet demand without retraining of personnel. Methods. Analysis of the effects of Federal expenditures on the generation of employment involves two tools in current use by manpower specialists: Input-output tables, and the industry-occupational matrix. Despite certain limitations, these tools provide the basis for a useful method of conducting “impact studies.” Using the method devised for this study, expenditures for a specific program are translated into estimates of employment generated in all major industries through input-output tables. These industry employment tables are then translated into occupational employment through the industry-occupational matrix. Detailed expenditure information from a central source provided the most effective data for use in this study. However, the study found that expenditure data can be collected successfully when they are not from a central source. Although personal interviews were used in the study, respondents did indicate that data could have been provided in response to a mail survey. Chapter I. Manpower Impacts— Federal Pollution Control and Abatement Expenditures Federal funds Employment impacts—interpretation of data Federal outlays for pollution control and abatement activities totaled $751 million in 1970. These funds supported a variety of programs and activities ranging from grants to State and local governments for construc tion of municipal waste water treatment facilities, to manpower development programs to train workers for environmental protection activities. As pointed out in Chapter I, not all activities labeled as Federal pollution control and abatement funds by OMB were within the scope of this study. In general, only those activities that could be considered as uniquely pollution control and abatement were retained. Thus, funds for manpower development in the environ mental protection field were excluded since manpower development is not specifically or uniquely related to pollution control. In addition, minor amounts of monies were eliminated because the agencies involved could not provide needed data. Outlays for the activities within the scope of this study amounted to $501 million in 1970. One further adjustment was made to the data. Radiation R&D, amounting to $78 million, as well as Radiation Abatement and Control Operations, amount ing to $24 million, were separated and treated as a distinct activity as shown: Employment impact of requirements data can be presented in two ways. The actual impact of total expenditures on a program can be given. In this study the $501 million of expenditures generated requirements for 33,530 jobs. Another way of looking at this impact is to say that 66.9 jobs (33,530 jobs divided by $501 million) were generated by each million dollars spent on the program. Data on the manpower requirements generated by the total expenditures show the magnitude of the employ ment impacts, facilitate a comparison of the relative importance and employment impact of different pro grams, and provide a basis for placing a particular program within an overall economic framework and analyzing the manpower impact of a particular program on the overall demand for specific occupations or groups of occupations. Manpower data shown on a per million dollar basis facilitates a comparison of the employment impact of different types of activities or programs, since each activity has a common reference or expenditure level. Both presentations have merit and both are used in this report. The direct and indirect manpower data in this study are not strictly comparable. The direct manpower data are on a man-years or full-time equivalent basis. Indirect manpower data, generated by the input-output system and the occupational matrix, represent the average number of full and part-time jobs supported throughout the remainder of the economy. In the man-year concept, a man-year may be a combination of a number of part-time jobs, while under the jobs concept, each part-time job is counted as a job, just as is each full-time job. For Federal in-house activities almost all employees, particularly those in professional and technical jobs, were full-time employees who worked full-time on pollution control activities, so there is little difference between the total on a manyears basis and the total if it had been calculated on a jobs basis. Extramural grants and contracts presented an addi tional problem. Data were collected on the number of man-hours supported by the grant or contract, as well as Total .................................... Financial aid to State and local governments ............................................... Research, development, and demon stration .................................................. Federal abatement and control opera tions ......................................................... Radiation activities ............................ A djusted outlays 501 Outlays fo r radiation activities 102 252 - 180 78 69 24 - — This was done because radiation activities were, for the most part, carried out by one agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, and were thought to be somewhat unique. Furthermore, outlays for radiation R&D activi ties were far larger than those for any other media or type of pollution and would overshadow the others if included. the total number of positions supported, if only in part. The number of positions supported by a grant or contract usually was substantially greater than the number of man-years supported. This was because most of those who worked on grants and contracts worked on them for less than a full year, or spent less than 40 hours of their time on them each week, even if they were full-time permanent employees of the grantee or con tractor. The total number of position supported by the grants and contracts is clearly not the same thing as jobs used for indirect employment, and furthermore is extremely difficult to interpret in terms of manpower impact analysis. Therefore, it was decided that man-year data, which is more meaningful in terms of manpower impact analysis, should be used. The data collected does not indicate how many part-time positions were sup ported by these grants and contracts, and therefore there is no way of determining how much higher the total would be under a jobs concept. Since the total employment impact data include data on both a jobs and on a man-years basis, there is no completely correct term to use to describe this total. However, for ease of presentation, the term jobs will be used in this report to refer to both types of manpower data. Several points should be kept in mind when compar ing the employment requirements, per million dollars, of different activities and programs. Differences in the number of jobs generated per million dollars reflect to some extent the occupational mix of the jobs supported. Because of salary differentials, fewer professional than clerical workers, for example, can be supported. A second point which must be kept in mind is that R&D consists of a wide variety of projects. Basic research projects generally have a high percent of their costs going for direct labor input, which supports mostly professional and technical jobs, while denvu projects have a high percent of their costs going ,0 : iix purchases of goods and services, which usually generate a low proportion of professional and technical jobs. Differences in employment requirements between per former and media reflect, to some extent, differences in the type and mix of projects and do not necessarily reflect inherent differences in the operations by type of performer, or in the costs of doing similar projects for different media. Data results The $501 million of Federal pollution control and abatement expenditures in FY 1970 generated about 33,530 jobs. (See table 1.) Roughly a third, or 10,960, were professional and technical, including 2,600 engi Table 1. Total employment impact of Federal pollution control and abatement expenditures, by selected occupational groups Number Percent distribution T o ta l................................. 33,530 100.0 Professional and te c h n ic a l............ Engineers............................... Natural scientists................. Technicians.......................... Other professional and technical, including medical w o rk e rs ............ All other ........................................... 10,960 2,600 3,860 3,100 32.7 7.7 11.5 9.2 1,420 22,570 4.2 67.3 Selected occupational groups NOTE: D e ta il m ay n o t add to to ta ls because o f ro u n d in g . neers, 3,860 natural scientists, and 3,100 technicians. These represented less than one-half of 1 percent of the engineers and technicians employed in 1970, and less than 1 percent of all scientists. The largest number of engineering jobs generated were in civil engineering-1,130, and other engineer ing-590 mostly nuclear engineers. Within the natural sciences, 1,380 chemist and 1,040 biologist jobs were generated. (Appendix table A-l provides considerably more occupational detail.) Roughly 45 percent of the jobs generated by expendi tures on the radiation program, on R&D, and on abatement and control operations were professional and technical. This compares to only about 15 percent of the jobs generated by grants for the construction of munici pal waste water treatment facilities. (See table 2.) The proportion in each occupational group, however, differs by program. About 47 percent of the jobs were generated direct ly—in-house on Federal payrolls or at grantees and contractors (tables 3 and 4)—and 53 percent were generated indue city.through purchases of goods and s e r / : m support of inhouse operations and grant and contract work. However, about 83 percent of the professional and technical jobs were generated directly. From another perspective, 57 percent of the jobs generated directly were professional and technical, while only 11 percent of the job generated indirectly were professional and technical. This impact can also be viewed on a per million dollar basis. The job generating capabilities of Federal pollu tion control and abatement activities, per million dollars, are somewhat less (66.9) than the 74.1 jobs generated per million dollars of Federal nondefense expenditures (1972), and significantly lower than the job generating capabilities of expenditure categories that do not involve construction activities. The relatively low number of jobs generated by Federal pollution control and abate- Table 2. Total and professional and technical employment, by program Total Abatement and control operations R&D Group Number Municipal waste water treatment Radiation Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total ............................. 33,530 100.0 7,820 100.0 3,550 100.0 8,610 100.0 13,550 100.0 Professional and technical.......... 10,960 Engineers .......................... 2,600 Natural scientists.............. 3,860 Technicians........................ 3,100 32.7 7.7 11.5 9.2 3,460 800 1,540 920 44.3 10.2 19.7 11.7 1,660 490 590 490 46.8 13.8 16.0 13.8 3,860 700 1,710 960 44.8 8.1 19.9 11.2 1,970 610 30 730 14.5 4.5 .2 5.4 NOTE: Table 3. group D etails m ay n o t add to to ta ls because of ro u n d in g . Employment impact of pollution control and abatement expenditures, direct and indirect, by occupational Indirect Direct Occupational group Total Number Percent Number Percent T o t a l.............................................................. 33,530 15,860 100.0 17,670 100.0 Professional and te c h n ic a l......................................... Engineers........................................................... Natural scientists............................................. Technicians....................................................... Other professional and technical, including m e d ic a l...................................... All other ....................................................................... 10,960 2,600 3,860 3,100 9,050 2,180 3,790 2,740 57.1 13.8 23.9 17.3 1,910 420 70 360 10.8 2.4 .4 2.0 1,420 22,570 360 6,810 2.3 43.0 1,060 15,770 6.0 89.2 NOTE: D eta ils m a y n o t add to to ta ls because o f ro u n d in g . ment expenditures primarily reflects the relatively greater importance of construction within pollution control and abatement expenditures. Table 5 shows the manpower requirements per million dollars of expendi tures for selected programs and components of demand. Federal pollution control and abatement expendi tures, however, generate a relatively high proportion of Table 4. Percent distribution, direct and indirect employment, by occupational group Occupational group T o t a l.............. Total number 33,530 Professional and technical................... 10,960 2,600 Engineers............ Natural 3,860 scientists 3,100 Technicians Other profes sional and technical, including 1,420 m ed ical.......... All other ........................ 22,570 Percent distribution Total Direct Indirect 100.0 47.3 52.7 100.0 100.0 82.6 83.9 17.4 16.2 100.0 100.0 98.1 88.4 1.8 11.6 100.0 100.0 25.4 30.2 74.6 69.8 professional and technical jobs. The 22 professional and technical jobs generated per million dollars of expendi tures for pollution control and abatement activities is considerably greater than the number generated per million dollars of Federal nondefense (except NASA) expenditures. (See table 6.) Table 5. Manpower requirements per million dollars of selected program expenditures 1972 Program Expenditures TotaI public .............................................................. Defense........................................................... Nondefense.................................................... N A S A .................................................. Nondefense excluding NASA ........................................... State and local government........................ New construction ............................. Excluding structures........................ 94.2 74.2 74.1 62.5 Total p riv a te .................................................. .. . . . . Personal consum ption................................. Durable goods.................................... Nondurable goods............................. Services ........................................ Gross private domestic fixed investment .................................... 74.6 106.0 59.9 116.4 69.0 70.3 71.2 76.6 63.8 67.6 S O U R C E : A d a p te d f r o m M anpower F actb o o k , ta b le 1 (U .S . D e p a rtm e n t o f L a b o r, B ureau o f Labor S tatis tic s , in press). Table 6. Employment impact, per million dollars of expenditures for Federal nondefense (except NASA), and pollution control and abatement activities Occupational group Non defense Pollution control and abatement activities T o t a l .................................................. 74.6 66.9 Professional and technical . Engineers ................... Natural scientists . . . Technicians................. Other professional and technical, including medical w o rk e rs ................. All other ........................................... 15.9 1.4 1.1 2.6 21.9 5.2 7.7 6.2 10.8 58.7 2.8 45.0 NOTE: D eta il m ay n o t add to to ta ls because of ro u n d in g . There were considerable differences in the impact of expenditures per million dollars for programs within pollution control and abatement. Radiation expendi tures generated the highest number of jobs per million while construction generated the lowest as shown below. Total R&D Abatement and control operations .6 6 .9 76.7 78.4 Radiation Waste water treatment plants 84.1 53.6 The manpower impacts associated with the four programs or activities studied - research and develop ment, abatement and control operations, radiation re lated activities and construction of municipal water treatment facilities - are discussed in more detail below. Research and development The 102 million dollars of outlays for pollution control and abatement research and development sup Table 7. ported 7,820 jobs. About 2,490 of these were in air pollution R&D, 3,130 in water pollution R&D and 2,200 in all other R&D, including solid waste, and pesticide. About 3,460 jobs were professional and technical, and approximately 800 were engineers, 1,540 were natural scientists, and 920 technicians. (See table 7.) The largest number of engineering jobs were in civil-290, chemical-170, and mechanical-160. Within the natural sciences, 700 chemist and 400 biologists jobs were generated. The other engineering and science technician category generated the largest number of technicians-470. (Tables A-2 to A-16 provide additional detail.) About 53 percent of the jobs were generated directly and 47 percent were generated indirectly (table 7). However, 89 percent of the professional and technical jobs were generated directly on the payrolls of organiza tions carrying out the research grants and contracts. Shown below is the employment impact of R&D outlays attributable to each performer. The data in cludes both direct and indirect employment. T o t a l ............................................................................................. Inhouse............................................................................ E x tra m u ra l..................................................................... State and local government............................ Universities......................................................... Nonprofit organizations................................. Private industry .................. 7,820 3,680 4,140 1,110 1,800 370 880 Appendix tables A-5 to A-16 show a more detailed distribution between direct and indirect employment, by performer. For each million dollars spent on pollution control and abatement R&D, 76.7 jobs were generated (table 10), more than the number generated by each million dollars spent on the entire program (66.9). The total employment impact was fairly similar for inhouse operations and for extramural activities. In-house R&D programs generated 78.3 jobs per million dollars, while Employment impact of research and development outlays, direct and indirect, by occupational group Direct Occupational group T o t a l ........................................................... Professional and technical.................................... Engineers............................. Natural scientists.............. Technicians........................ Other professional and technical, including medical . . . . All other ......................................... Total Indirect Number Percent of occupational group Number Percent of occupational group Percent 7,820 100 4,130 52.8 3,690 47.2 3,460 800 1,540 920 44.2 10.2 19.7 11.7 3,090 720 1,520 850 89.3 90.0 98.7 92.4 370 80 20 70 10.7 10.0 1.3 7.6 210 4,350 2.7 55.8 20 1,040 10.0 23.9 190 3,320 90.0 76.1 occupational group T o t a l......................................................... Professional and technical ............ .. . . . . Engineers ............ Natural scientists . Technicians......... Other professional and technical, including medical ......... All o th e r ...................................... NOTE: Total Inhouse Total extramural State and local government Universities Nonprofit organizations Private industry 76.7 78.3 75.3 67.9 94.5 64.0 62.6 33.9 7.8 15.1 9.0 34.9 6.9 16.7 9.1 33.0 8.5 13.8 8.9 17.5 4.2 5.8 4.8 57.3 13.8 26.1 15.8 31.2 7.3 13.3 6.6 20.0 6.7 6.2 5.2 2.1 43.0 2.2 43.5 1.9 42.4 2.6 50.5 1.6 37.2 3.9 32.7 1.7 42.7 D e ta il m ay n o t add to to ta ls because o f ro u n d in g . extramural R&D programs generated 75.3. However, some difference between extramural performers was evident. Grants and contracts to colleges and universities generated 94.6 jobs per million dollars, considerably more than those of any other performer. The number of professional and technical jobs for inhouse and for extramural R&D also was similar —34.9 for inhouse and 33.0 for extramural (See table 8.) Here also, the number differed considerably between extra mural performers. In addition to generating the greatest number of jobs, grants and contracts to colleges and universities also generated roughly 2 or 3 times as many professional and technical jobs as grants and contracts to the other performers. Sources and effects R&D generated 83.4 jobs per million dollars, while Control Technology R&D gener ated 70.1 jobs. (See table 9.) Although generating only about 12 percent more jobs per million dollars, sources and effects R&D generated twice as many professional and technical jobs. Sources and effects Control technology 83.4 70.1 47.1 6.7 27.4 10.9 23.9 9.6 4.8 7.6 Radiation programs 2.1 36.2 1.6 46.2 and effects and control technology T o t a l .................................................. Professional and tech nical.......................... Engineers................... Natural Scientists . . . Technicians.............. Other professional and technical, including medical. All other ............................... N O T E : O n ly p ertain s to e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t since data on in-house a c tiv itie s and w ere n o t a vailable b y ty p e o f prog ram . D etails m ay n o t add to to ta ls because o f ro u n d in g . The 45.2 million dollars of Federal abatement and control expenditures, all for in-house operations, gener ated 3,550 jobs. (See table 10.) About 1,670 were professional and technical, including 490 engineers, 580 scientists, and 490 technicians. The largest number of engineering jobs generated were in civil engineering-340. Within natural sciences 310 chemist jobs were generated. About 210 jobs were generated for other engineering and science technicians; as well as 210 for other technicians. (Table A-17 contains greater occupational detail.) About 65 percent of all jobs were generated directly at Federal agencies, and 35 percent were generated indirectly. However, 90 percent of the professional and technical jobs were generated directly. As shown, abatement and control operations gener ated 78.4 jobs, roughly the same as the number of jobs generated per million dollars of R&D: T o t a l ............................................................................................... Professional and technical............................................. Engineers .............................................................. Natural scientists ................................................ Technicians............................................................ Other professional and technical, including medical ........................................ All o th e r............................................................................ Table 9. Employment impact of research and development outlays, per billion dollars, by sources Occupational group Abatement and control operations 78.4 36.9 10.8 12.9 10.7 2.4 41.6 Data on the impact of Federal outlays for radiation pollution control and abatement include both R&D and abatement and control operations. Impact data for radiation programs were developed separately in this study for reasons explained earlier in this chapter. R&D Table 10. Employment impact of abatement and control operations expenditures, direct and indirect, by occupational groups Total Occupational group Total .............................................................. Professional and te c h n ic a l...................................... Engineers............................... Natural scientists ................. Technicians .......................... Other professional and technical including medical ......... All o th e r............................................. NO TE: Direct Number Percent distribution Number Percent distribution Actual Percent distribution 3,550 100.0 2,300 100.0 1,250 100.0 1,660 490 590 490 46.8 13.8 16.3 13.8 1,500 470 580 460 65.2 20.4 25.2 20.0 160 20 10 30 12.8 1.6 0.8 2.4 110 1,890 3.1 53.2 800 110 1,090 8.8 87.2 — — 34.8 D e ta il m ay n o t add to to ta ls because o f ro u n d in g . was performed at Government owned-contractor oper ated (GOCO) laboratories, at universities, non-profit organizations and private firms, as well as at Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) laboratories. Most abatement and control operations were performed inhouse, by AEC and EPA. Outlays for radiation pollution in FY 1970 totalled 102.4 million dollars and generated approximately 8,610 jobs. (See table 11.) About 3,860 were professional and technical, including 710 engineers, 1,710 natural sci entists, and 960 technicians. The largest number of engineering jobs generated were in the category other engineers-410, mostly nuclear. Within the natural sci ences, 480 biologist, 460 physicist, and 340 chemist jobs were generated. The other engineering and science technicians category generated the largest number of technicians jobs—500. (Table A-18 provides greater occupational detail.) On a per million dollar basis the radiation program generated 84.1 jobs, the highest of any program in the study: Table 11. T o t a l ............................................................................................... 84.1 Professional and technical............................................. 37.7 Engineers .............................................................. 6.9 Natural scientists ................................................ 16.7 Technicians.......................... 9.4 Other professional and technical, including medical ........................................................... 4.7 All o th e r............................................................................ 46.4 Grants for construction of municipal waste water treatment facilities Grants to State and local governments for construc tion of waste water treatment facilities amounted to $252.7 million, supporting 13,540 jobs. (See table 12.) About 2,040 were professional and technical including 610 engineers, 30 natural scientists, and 700 technicians. The largest number of engineering jobs generated were in civil-400. Draftsmen (330) and other engineering and science technicians were the technician categories with the most jobs generated. These expenditures generated the lowest proportion of professional and technical jobs of any program in this study. Employment impact of radiation program outlays, direct and indirect, by occupational group Total Occupational group Total Indirect .............................................................. Professional and te c h n ic a l...................................... Engineers............................... Natural scientists ................. Technicians .......................... Other professional and technical, including medical .......... All o th e r............................................. Direct I ndirect T otal Percent distribution Number Percent distribution Number Percent distribution 8,610 100.0 4,710 100.0 3,900 100.0 3,860 700 1,710 960 44.8 8.1 19.9 11.1 3,420 610 1,690 900 72.6 13.0 35.9 19.1 440 90 20 60 11.3 2.3 0.5 1.5 480 4,740 5.5 55.1 220 1,290 4.7 27.4 260 3,460 6.7 88.7 Total Occupational group T ota 1 .............................................................. Professional and te c h n ic a l...................................... Engineers............................... Natural scientists ................. Technicians .......................... Other professional and technical, including medical .......... All o th e r............................................. NOTE: Indirect Direct Number Percent distribution Number Percent distribution Number Percent distribution 13,550 100.0 4,730 100.0 8,820 100.0 1,970 610 30 730 14.5 4.5 .2 5.4 1,040 380 530 22.0 8.0 — 11.2 930 230 30 200 10.5 2.6 0.3 2.3 560 11,580 4.1 85.5 100 3,690 2.1 78.0 460 7,890 5.2 89.5 — D e ta il m ay n o t add to to ta ls because o f ro u n d in g . About a third of the jobs were generated directly, and two-thirds were generated indirectly, the opposite of other programs, where most jobs were generated di rectly. Slightly more than half of the professional and technical jobs were generated directly and slightly less were generated indirectly. On a per million dollar basis, the municipal waste water treatment program generated 53.6 jobs, also the lowest of any program within the scope of this study: T o t a l ............................................................................................... 53.6 Professional and technical............................................. 7.8 Engineers .............................................................. 2.4 Natural scientists ..........................................................1 Technicians............................................................ 2.9 Other professional and technical, including medical ............................................................ 2.2 All o th e r............................................................................ 45.8 The construction program involved both design ser vices by engineering design firms and on-site construc tion by construction contractors. As would be expected, funds to design engineering firms generated a relatively high proportion of professional and technical jobs, particularly engineers and technicians, while on-site construction generated a relatively low proportion. Since most of the funds were for on site construction, the total more closely resembled the onsite construction pattern, with its low proportion of professional and technical jobs. Separate occupational impact data for engineering design and for onsite construction are shown in tables A-19 to A-21. Chapter II. Illustrative Projections: Manpower Implications of 1980 Federal Pollution Control and Abatement Expenditures Pollution-energy interactions: Some caveats Projections of Federal pollution control and abate ment expenditures are difficult under the best of circumstances. Besides the obvious problems associated with estimating long term Federal priorities, and the relative lack of good historical data and relationships, the emergence of the “energy crisis” raises questions concerning possible trade offs between environmental concerns and energy concerns. Frequently, trade offs may be called for because of cost considerations rather than purely technological limitations. For example, pollution control devices on automobiles-needed to meet Federal standards - have resulted in automobiles delivering less miles per gallon of gasoline. With increasing cost of gasoline, public opinion may view automotive pollution control standards as “luxuries” which cannot be afforded. Many of the interfaces between Federal pollution expenditures and the energy crisis surface in questions relating to air pollution control and abatement. How ever, the bulk of Federal funds for pollution control and abatement activities are in the water pollution field. In 1972, for example, about 62 percent, $1.2 billion, of the $1.9 billion of Federal funds for pollution control and abatement activities were for water pollution control and abatement activities.1 In addition, most of the monies for water pollution activities are in the form of grants to State and local governments for the construc tion of waste water treatment facilities. The bulk of Federal funds for pollution control and abatement other than for the construction of waste treatment facilities are for research and development. In 1972, Federal R&D expenditures for air pollution control and abatement constituted 39 percent2 of total R&D for all forms of pollution control and abatement. The interface between air pollution and the energy crisis makes any projections of Federal funds for pollution control and abatement research and development ex tremely tentative. Another problem in projecting Federal R&D funds for pollution control and abatement concerns the labeling or re-labeling of Federal R&D funds. At one time, for example, R&D funds concerned with the problems of burning coal cleanly could be labeled pollution control research and at another time labeled energy research. How particular R&D funds are labeled depends to some extent on what is “popular” at a given time, and to some extent on the particular set of instructions and definitions used to report R&D expen ditures. Historic trends Pollution control became a national issue in the late 1960’s. Prior to that time, personal and local concerns with pollution problems existed, and ecologists periodi cally issued warnings of damage to the environment. Gradually, however, public dissatisfaction increased as it became evident that bad air, foul water, noise, undeter mined effects of radiation, the overuse of pesticides, and solid waste-singly and in their cumulative effects— posed dangers to health and well being. The pollution issue emerged on the national scene with the public realization that pollution was not something that could be solved locally with piecemeal adjustments. The Federal Government, thus, came to be regarded as the primary source of funds and standards. Factors which increased popular awareness of the pollution problem included the increasing urbanization of the population with the resultant concentration of pollution; rising standards of living resulting in increasing per capita waste; and scientific and medical findings which emphasized previously unknown dangers from pollution. In response to this new national priority, the Environ mental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 and charged with the mission of protecting and en hancing the environment. The creation of EPA resulted in the removal of a number of units previously con cerned with some aspect of pollution control from existing Federal agencies and their consolidation into a single agency. Prior to the creation of EPA, pollution control activities of the Federal Government, and their associated dollars, were often buried in agency totals or Table 13. Federal pollution control and abatement outlays in 1970 (In m illio n s o f do llars) Types of pollution Component T o t a l................................................................... Financial assistance to State and local governments. . . . Research, development and dem onstration............................... Abatement and control operations ................... ................... Other ................................. .................. T otal Air Water Solid waste 754.4 115.2 249.5 19.9 21.6 287.5 20.5 258.7 — — 294.0 57.0 50.3 16.1 18.4 94.0 73.6 95.3 11.9 25.8 26.2 14.3 1.7 2.1 1.5 1.7 23.7 4.0 S O U R C E : Based on u n pub lished data fro m th e O ffic e of M a n a g e m e n t and B udg et (O M B ). T o tals show n are s lig h tly d iffe r e n t fr o m tho se published b y O M B and fro m tim e series Pesticides Radiation Noise Other 123.3 0.3 124.6 1.6 - 6.7 .2 62.0 .1 8.6 47.3 - data on e x p e n d itu re s show n in this re p o rt. These data refle c t m in o r adju stm e n ts m ade b y B ureau s taff to rec o n c ile O M B and agency d a ta . classified on some other functional basis. Thus, for general shift of Federal expenditures from defense to purposes of developing projections, statistics relating to nondefense related activities. (See table 16.) Along with Federal pollution control and abatement expenditures a relative decline in defense expenditures, there have been relative declines in the share of Federal dollars for are not available prior to 1970. Table 13 shows Federal pollution control and abate space exploration and related activities after a rapid ment outlays for 1970 distributed by programs and build-up in the early 1960’s. The “human resource” area types of pollution. Table 14 shows Federal pollution has shown the greatest gains, due in large part to control and abatement expenditure for the period 1970 increasing transfer payments such as social security. to 1974. Federal pollution control and abatement outlays over the 1970-74 period, showed large gains, with estimated Future trends in pollution control outlays 1974 outlays almost 4 times greater than 1970 outlays. Present Federal legislation could significantly increase Although these expenditures have grown rapidly, they pollution control efforts in virtually all areas. Increas still constitute a small proportion of total Federal ingly stringent clean air and water standards call for expenditures - about 1 percent in 1974. greater pollution control and abatement expenditures Federal R&D expenditures for pollution control and throughout the economy. abatement also constitute a relatively small proportion In addition to present legislation, there are many of total Federal R&D funds. (See table 15.) As a other factors that could affect Federal expenditures for proportion of total Federal R&D funds, those for pollution and abatement. A waning of public pollution control and abatement have increased from enthusiasmcontrol or a shift in priorities to other areas could almost 2 percent in 1970 to an estimated 3 percent for reduce Federal expenditures in this area. On the other fiscal 1973. hand, increased levels of Federal expenditures for The increasing relative importance of Federal expen pollution control and abatement could result from ditures for pollution control and abatement are part of a developments such as the discovery of previously un known danger from certain kinds of pollutants. Table 14. Federal pollution control and abatement The Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of expenditures, 1970-74 1972 require industries to use the “best practicable” technology to control pollution. Municipalities are to (In millions of dollars) have secondary waste treatment capabilities by July 1, 19731 19741 Item 19701 1 9711 1972* 1977. By July 1, 1983, municipalities and industries are Budget authority . . . $1,432 $1,823 $3,196 $8,334 $1,554 to use the “best available technology economically 1,917 1,314 3,111 751 1,149 O u tla y s ........................ achievable” to treat waste water, and by 1985 the goal is 1 - actual. to eliminate all water pollution. To help meet this goal, 3 - estimated. the Act appropriates $18 billion for grants to State and The Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year local governments for construction of waste treatment 1974, Special Analyses, facilities. In addition, $6.6 billion is authorized for water SOURCE: Special A nalysis " Q " , " F e d e ra l E n v iro n m e n ta l P rogram s." Table 15. Federal pollution control R&D expenditures related to Federal R&D expenditures and total Federal purchases (In m illio n s o f 1 9 7 0 do llars) Federal pollution control R&D expenditures Federal R&D expenditures Federal purchases (GNP component) Year 1970 1971 1972 1973 $96,500 90,700 91,900 94,400 ............ ............ ............ ............ SOURCE: Outlays Percent of Federal purchases Outlays Percent of Federal R&D expenditures $15,159 14,193 13.895 14,396 15.7 15.6 15.1 15.2 $296 339 350 436 1.95 2.38 2.52 3.04 E x e c u tiv e O ffic e o f T h e P resident, O ffic e o f M a n a g e m e n t and B udg et, and N a tio n a l Science F o u n d a tio n . pollution research, development, and demonstration projects, as well as other activities such as manpower training. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 are similar to the Water Pollution Act in that they set stringent air quality standards. Although the Act calls for significant increases in research and development, standard setting, and enforcement expenditures, Federal expenditures for air pollution control and abatement will not be as great as for water because of the absence of large construction grants. In addition, a significant portion of the R&D needed for air pollution control, such as the control of automobile emissions, will be financed by private in dustry. Many other legislative items and agency appro priations provide for expenditures on noise, pesticides, and radiation pollution control and abatement. reflect additional spending called for or resulting from the Federal expenditures. For example, Federal support for sewer plant construction amounts to about 75 percent of total costs, with the remainder coming from State and local agencies. The major item of Federal pollution control expen ditures now and in the future probably will be grants to States and localities for sewer plant and lines construc tion. Water pollution control acts prior to 1972 provided significant support to localities for sewer construction and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend ments of 1972 will control the amount of involvement and the level of expenditures of the Federal Government in water pollution control construction through the 1970’s. This Act raises the level of Federal support to 75 percent of new State and local sewer plant and lines construction expenditures and appropriates $18 billion for this purpose. The bill provides that those funds be Illustrative projections of Federal pollution appropriated for fiscal years 1973-75. control expenditures Table 17 shows actual and projected levels of Federal financial aid to State and local governments, 1970 to Since grants to State and local governments for 1980. The major portion of these funds are for the construction of waste water treatment plants and lines, construction of sewage plants and lines, but also and research and development activities constitute the included are relatively small expenditures for support to bulk of Federal expenditures for pollution control and State and local administrative efforts in setting standards abatement activities, only these two expenditure items and other minor aid programs. were projected to illustrate possible manpower implica The path of the expenditures shown in table 17 tions. assumes that the $18 billion called for in the legislation The actual and projected expenditure data shown (Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972) will be “spread below pertain only to Federal expenditures and do not out” over a number of years rather than expended by Table 16. Percent distribution of Federal budget outlays by function, selected years 1955 1960 1965 1970 1974 1975 T o t a l .......................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 National defense........................ Human resources ..................... Physical resources..................... I m erest........................................ Other ........................................... 58.7 21.1 8.3 8.8 3.1 49.8 27.6 10.9 9.0 2.7 41.9 29.9 12.3 8.7 7.2 40.8 37.0 10.7 9.3 2.2 30.2 46.7 9.6 9.2 4.3 29.7 46.8 10.1 8.8 4.6 Function SOURCE: T h e B udget o f th e U n ite d States, Fiscal Y ear 1 9 7 4 . Table 17. Federal financial assistance to State and local governments for pollution control, 1970-80 Table 18. Federal pollution control R&D expenditures, 1970-74 and projected 1975-80 (In m illio n s o f 1 9 7 0 do llars) (In m illio n s o f 1 9 7 0 do llars) Year 19 7 0 1 19711 19721 19732 19743 19753 19763 19773 19783 19793 19803 ............ ............................................................. ......................................................................... .......................................................................... .......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .......................................................................... ......................................................................... ..................... ................................................... Outlays $ 288 516 433 738 1,724 1,915 2,151 2,600 3,087 3,718 4,426 1 = A c tu a l. 2 = E s tim a te d . 3 = P rojected. S O U R C E : 1 9 7 0 -7 3 actual and e s tim a te d , O ffic e o f M anage m e n t and B udg et. 1 9 7 4 -8 0 p ro je c te d , B ureau o f L a b o r S tatistics. Year 19701 19711 197 2 1 19732 19742 19753 19763 19773 19783 19793 19 8 0 3 ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ....................................................................... .......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... Total $296 341 356 444 522 546 571 598 625 654 685 1 = A c tu a l. 2 = E s tim a te d . 3 = P rojected. SOURCE: 1 9 7 0 -7 4 actual and e s tim a te d , O ffic e o f M anage m e n t and B udg et. 1 9 7 5 -8 0 p ro je c te d , B ureau of Labo r Statistics. the mid-1970’s as called for in the legislation. This path Attempting to project pollution control R&D from is more in line with administration goals in 1973 and was legislation is difficult because of the many sources of developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a special funds and the many agencies that expend the funds. There is also the problem of labeling - funds spent on study for the Environmental Protection Agency.3 A pattern of steadily increasing expenditures, from development of clean energy sources, for example, also $1.7 billion in 1974 to $4.4 billion in 1980 is shown in are partially pollution control R&D. In the absence of table 17. This pattern seems more likely to reflect what any other clear indications of the pattern of Federal will actually occur for several reasons. (1) The legislation pollution control R&D expenditures, outlays were as calls for obligation of the grants now and in the near sumed, for illustrative purposes only, to increase at the future. However, the actual expenditures will occur as same rate as the projected increases in GNP implied in the construction progresses. Therefore, as more and the Bureau’s Economic model for 1980. However, as more projects are approved and begin construction, the pointed out (in chapter III), only $102 million of the outlays will increase since most projects approved earlier $296 million of pollution control R&D funds fell within will still be under construction into the late 1970’s, and the scope of R&D for this study (another $78 million of (2), attempting to accomplish the level of construction the $296 million was radiation R&D, which was consid provided for in the bill in a few years might be difficult ered separately). If this same relationship were assumed because of manpower and construction industry capac for 1980, the comparable amount would be $236 million. ity constraints. Another major component of Federal pollution con trol expenditures is support for pollution control re Illustrative manpower requirements search and development. Table 18 indicates actual, estimated, and projected Federal pollution control R&D Assuming Federal outlays of $4,426 million for spending, 1970 to 1980. Pollution control R&D has construction of municipal waste treatment facilities, and risen rapidly in the last few years, from $296 million in $236.7 million for research and development projects fiscal year 1970 to an estimated $522 million in fiscal for 1980, manpower requirements would total 179,000 year 1974. Much of this rapid rise has been for research for the construction program and about 14,100 for the into pollution sources and effects, and for standards R&D program. (See table 19.) setting. Since much of this research has been completed, The research and development projects would gen R&D expenditures will rise less rapidly in the future. erate requirements for 6,260 professional and technical Also, the decision was made in 1973 to shift emphasis to jobs, while the construction program would generate a reliance on the capabilities of the private sector to requirements for 26,030 professional and technical jobs. meet the technology requirements of a more intensive These projected 1980 requirements attributable to enforcement program. the selected pollution control and abatement programs Table 19. Projected employment requirements for selected Federal pollution control and abatement activities, by selected occupations, 1980 Research and development Waste water treatment plant construction T o t a l.............. 14,140 179,510 Professional and technical................... Engineers............ Natural scientists Technicians . . . . 6,260 1,440 2,790 1,654 26,030 8,080 360 9,690 Selected occupation represent only a small part of the professional and technical manpower requirements projected for the total economy. The R&D program represents about 0.04 pvrcent and the construction program about 0.10 percent of total professional and technical manpower requirements for 1980. The projected 1980 requirements for scientists and engineers attributable to the selected pollution control and abatement programs represents a larger proportion of the scientist and engineer requirements projected for the total economy than do requirements for all profes sional and technical manpower combined. Although larger, these programs would still have a relatively insignificant impact on total requirements for scientists and engineers. The approximately 9,500 engineers pro jected to be required for pollution control and abate ment activities in 1980 only represent about 0.7 percent of the estimated requirements for engineers in the total economy. Openings for engineers in the total economy resulting from both growth in requirements and the need to replace those who die, retire, or leave the labor force for other reasons are projected to average about 57,000 per year through the 1970’s. Assuming that engineers in pollution control and abatement activities have death and labor force separation rates similar to those for all engineers, openings for engineers in pollution control and abatement activities would average about 850 per year through the 1970’s, or about 1.5 percent of total openings. Requirements for scientists show a pattern similar to that for engineers. Thus, requirements for scientists in pollution control and abatement activities in 1980 total about 2,800, compared to requirements of 650,000 for the total economy. Through the 1970’s, openings for scientists in the economy are expected to average about 30,000 per year. In the pollution control and abatement field, openings are projected to average 200 per year, or 0.6 percent of the total openings for scientists. The 1980 employment requirements have been ad justed for productivity increases —2.5 percent per year in R&D and 1.5 percent per year in waste water treatment plant construction. The projected require ments are based on an assumption that the “mix” of projects within R&D will be the same in 1980 as it was in 1970, and that engineering design costs will represent the same percent of construction costs. The occu pational distribution, which depends on the patterns for individual projects and industries, as well as on the “mix”, is also assumed to be the same as in 1970. -F O O T N O T E S 1Special Analysis, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1974, p. 274 (Office of Management and Budget), 1973.2 2Environmental Quality-The Fourth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (The Council on Environ mental Quality), 1973. 3Manpower Implications of Alternative Levels of Sewer Works Construction (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1973), Unpublished. Chapter III. Hiring Standards and Skill Transferability In sample interviews of employers in the pollution control field information was obtained on hiring stan dards, skill transferability, and any barriers to hiring scientific and technical manpower with aerospace or defense experience, or both. Purpose and scope of survey At the time this study was conducted, unemployment among professional and technical workers with defenseoriented experience focused attention on the question of how much and what kind of retraining would be required to qualify them for employment in other fields. To help focus on this and related concerns, a series of questions were raised during the course of the interviews underlying this study. (See interview guide in appendix B.) Although specifically concerned with the transferability of ex-aerospace-defense workers into the polluTable 20. Distribution of respondents and engineer, scientist, and technician employment covered in sample, by performer category (In p e rce n t) Number of respondents Number of EST positions reported Total number.............. Percent ..................... 81 100 2,870 100 State and local governments . . Universities................................. Nonprofit in s titu tio n s ............ Private industry ........................ Federal in-house1 ..................... 17 32 9 40 2 5 31 7 50 7 Performer category 1 T h e 2 respondents rep o rted fo r Federal inhouse refe r to fie ld in terv ie w s o f regional Federal fa c ilitie s engaged in a b a te m e n t and c o n tro l o p era tio n s. T h e ir inclusion is som ew hat a cc id e n ta l since it was n o t th e in te n tio n to c o llec t in-house e m p lo y m e n t data in such in terv ie w s , o n ly regional response to skill tra n s fe ra b ility questions. In-house e m p lo y m e n t and cost data had been o b ta in e d on a universe basis, covering b o th headqu arters and fie ld o ffice s , fr o m each sponsoring agency. H o w e v e r, because tw o of th e in terv ie w s fo r th is program did p rovid e d e ta ile d s taff b re a k d o w n s to supp ort s tatem ents on tra in in g and w o rk exp e rien ce re q u ire m e n ts , these have been included to give a bro a d e r base to th e ta b u la tio n s w ith the rep re s e n ta tio n o f Federal inhouse. tion control field, the study has served as a vehicle for investigating basic questions on the relationship of academic qualifications and work experience for engi neers, scientists, and technicians. (EST occupations.) Whether, and to what extent, specialization is a hin drance to job transfer was an important part of the discussions with respondents. These questions and the problems they raise are prevalent wherever modern technology is used. While the answers received were keyed to pollution control activities, they are indicative of a wide area of responses from government, industry, and universities. For analytical purposes, responses were initially classified by (1) performer, (2) program, and (3) media or area of pollution—air, water, radiation, pesticides, and solid waste. However, a preliminary analysis of the data suggested that responses should be classified by performer. (See table 20.) Apart from the fact that certain programs are dominantly identified with certain performers (for example, construction is exclusively private industry, abatement and control is almost en tirely Federal inhouse, and the greater part of R&D sources and effects is performed by universities), there were certain basic similarities in occupational and hiring patterns found among similar performers regardless of the program or media or area of pollution. As a generalization, the differences between categories of performers researching in the same media or a related field usually exceed their similarities. Conversely, the similarities between performers of the same category exceed whatever differences may be imposed by working with different media and in different programs. Sample observations covered almost 3,000 EST em ployees of whom approximately 33 percent were engi neers, 39 percent scientists, and 28 percent technicians. Of these, private industry employed the bulk of the engineers, because of its emphasis on construction and design programs, while universities and nonprofit institu tions were more research-oriented and employed a large percent of scientists. (See table 21.) The R&D sources and effects program (in which most of the university work fell) deals exclusively with research projects and employed 90 percent of the scientists and 64 percent of all EST’s covered in the Table 21. Engineer, scientist, and technician positions covered in sample, distributed by occupational group and performer category of respondent Number of respondents Total Engineers Scientists Technicians T o t a l................................. 81 2,870 934 1,108 828 State and local governments . . . . Universities ...................................... Nonprofit institu tio ns................... Private in d u s try ............................... Federal inhouse1 ............................. 14 26 7 32 2 134 872 209 1,434 221 53 66 29 680 106 30 550 71 397 60 51 256 109 357 55 Performer category Number of EST positions reported 1See footnote, table 20. sample. In contrast, construction design and building programs together employed roughly 20 percent of the engineers and 23 percent of the technicians, but only one-tenth of 1 percent of the scientists. These construc tion programs employed 13 percent of all EST em ployees covered in the sample and were represented under a single performer category-private industry. Hiring standards Universities and nonprofit institutions had stringent criteria for prospective employees, and many universities hire professionals only as faculty members, a status which usually requires a Ph. D. degree. Universities, and nonprofit institutions aligned with universities, have a ready source of employment candidates in their graduate schools and seek to widen the education of the graduates with actual work experience in their specialty to supplement the classroom. Most employers require that engineers have a basic engineering degree, although in some specialized engi neering occupations, a master’s degree or even a doctor ate may be required. An advanced degree in engineering appeared to be a prerequisite for employment by some of the nonprofit institutions (notably in openings as program chiefs with administrative responsibilities). In a few selected cases involving the on-site construction of waste water treatment facilities, there were no firm academic requirements for an engineering position. These employers appeared reluctant to hire overqualified people for positions which they felt did not demand their specialized skills. Educational standards for technicians were broadly based, depending on the particular job and, to some extent, the category of the employer. The fact that universities had the highest overall level of educational requirements may be due to the extensive science training needed for their research. For computer technicians and others, formal training is a requirement in most employment areas. The specialized knowledge expected of many engineering and science technicians necessitates an educational back ground beyond a high school diploma. However, some technicians are hired without stringent educational requirements where the nature of their job is relatively uncomplicated and requires basically manual skills. Examples of this practice occurred in some radiation labs concerned with the care and testing of animals’ reactions to radiation. Here, employers were more concerned with the attitude, personality, and experience of their technicians. State and local governments and private industry involved in water pollution control activity likewise expressed their desire to hire tech nicians who were dedicated to this type of work. Work experience requirements Requirements for work experience were closely aligned to educational background and to a limited extent interchangeable. For example, many respondents in private industry would accept a combination of education plus work experience to substitute for a higher degree, and for certain engineering jobs work experience was an essential prerequisite for employment. Many firms look for specific experience in such areas as combustion and work with radiants, and allow more flexibility in educational requirements for persons with the desired experience. A period of from 2 to 5 years’ work experience was common in the survey, although a few employers demanded up to 10 years of specialized experience in engineering. It is difficult to stipulate work experience require ments for scientists when dealing with Ph. D.’s who have been involved in one field for much of their professional lives. Some pollution projects do call for very specific skills requiring an experienced individual in a particular area: exceptional weight may then be put on experience in selecting candidates. Technicians generally are required to fill educational requirements and also have job experience. For them practical experience may in some cases substitute for formal education, but the reverse holds true where the performer is a university. Here the experience require ments may be dropped if the applicant has the necessary skills plus a good educational background. In assessing their past experience in matching qualifi cations to job vacancies, more than half (63 percent) of the respondents expressed no difficulty in hiring EST’s. (See table 22.) Many respondents alluded to the situa tion in recent times as a “buyer’s market” in which there existed a surplus of talented people looking for posi tions. Some employers foresaw a tightening in supply of qualified personnel, but felt that the prestige of their institutions enabled them to choose from the “cream of the crop,” although they expressed the opinion that other employers might encounter difficulty. Less than one-third of the employers reported any difficulty in filling specialized jobs. In private industry, these employers reported shortages of environmental researchers; sanitary, civil, and mechanical engineers; design engineers and drafters; and, in air pollution projects, applicants with experience in combustion. In the university sector, shortages also were noted of qualified applicants with combustion experience, as well as pathologists, biological scientists, environmentalists, foresters with mathematical skills, and lab technicians. Of the remaining respondents, some had developed a “calculated risk approach” in which they combined training with selected prior experience to develop qualified applicants. Others showed a “no compromise approach” in maintaining rigid requirements for em ployees. And, finally, some only accepted contracts for which the work qualifications complemented those available in their present staff. The “no compromise approach” was conspicuous among nonprofit institu tions and embodied the philosophy that, “We sit and wait and do without rather than hire (the academically unqualified).” Lack of experience was cited as the principal draw back by those employers who had trouble in finding qualified engineers. But there were other deterrents to hiring, peculiar to individual respondents. Some re searchers engaged in field assignments for pollution studies cited the location of the work as a hindrance. In radiation studies, the danger of work with radioisotopes was cited as a problem in hiring professionals, especially women. Some respondents detected a marked reluctance on the part of some qualified people to work for universities, institutions, or industries which were closely associated with defense projects and bore the “stigma of weaponry.” Of all performers, construction design firms in private industry apparently had the most difficulty in filling Table 22. Respondents' assessment of hiring experi ences for professional and specialized job openings Degree of difficulty experienced No d iffic u lty .............................................................. Some difficulty in highly specialized jobs— . . . . Have adopted a calculated risk approachwilling to accept or try substitute combinations of training and experience . . . Have had to adopt a no-compromise approach because of rigid requirements.......................... Seek and accept only work (projects) which fit skill capabilities of present staff .............. Percent of respondents 63 29 2 2 4 their staffing requirements. Adequately trained designer drafters were at a premium with many of these firms, and others had perceived shortages in design, hydraulic, and pollution control engineers. State and local govern ments competing for pollution control grants reported problems in finding sufficiently trained minority workers to fill quotas and, in some cases, had been forced to reduce their normal standards. Many respon dents bemoaned the general lack of training funds. Lack of funds was also cited as the principal reason by many respondents for not being able to expand their existing staffs. State and local governments listed low pay scales as hindrances to drawing better qualified people into pollution control occupations. Staffing patterns and current labor market conditions Respondents were asked-in the context of today’s (1972-73) labor market situation—what changes, if any, they would make in their staffing patterns in work done in the past year or two. At least four possible categories of revisions were anticipated prior to conducting the interviews: 1. Different combinations of scientific and engineer ing manpower. For example, substituting chemists where physicists had been em ployed, or mathe maticians for engineers. 2. Increases or decreases in the number of scientific and technical personnel. 3. Changes in the proportion of technicians relative to scientists or engineers. 4. Substituting professional and technical staff for capital investments, or vice versa. Respondents generally had difficulty discussing this area, either because retrospective program planning had not been previously conducted, or, if it had, there was a reluctance to suggest that the way the project was staffed in the past was incorrect. Thus, of those who replied, 80 percent would have made no changes in received a substantial number of applications from, staffing pattern. Of the remaining 20 percent who would ex-aerospace and defense industry employees. As a have made changes, the majority would have increased result, many of the respondents, in the Middle West and the number of engineers, technicians, and scientists in in the South particularly, were insulated by distance from the job-hunting which pervaded the West Coast and that order. Respondents were also asked if they were considering parts of the East Coast. While their opinions and, in any deliberate upward revision of the qualifications of some cases, their prejudices, might have been changed in their scientific and technical staffs in light of the the process of interviewing and evaluating specific job reported availability of highly educated manpower. applicants, the overriding consideration was that they “Revision” was not understood in the negative sense of were, or spoke for, employers in the specific areas and automatically upgrading educational requirements, but programs under investigation. Nonprofit organizations found similarity and transferas a positive and deliberate move to reverse whatever dilution of skills might have occurred as a matter of ability of academic training among mechanical, aero space, electrical, chemical, and combustion engineers. A necessity during past periods of skill shortages.1 Two-thirds of the respondents replied negatively, or science degree also was useful, especially in physics and did not offer any opinion, on possible upgrading of their chemistry. Inhouse programs, as reported by EPA regional existing staff. Of the remainder, a selected few stressed raising minimum educational qualifications. The private offices, looked for staff with an engineering background, industry respondents wanted higher standards for engi and especially civil and mechanical engineers. Adminis neers, while universities sought the same for scientists. trative skills in manpower planning also were an asset. Finally, private industry employers in the sample Little or no attention was given to increasing the ratio of technical support to scientists or engineers, but other reported the academic qualifications for mechanical, changes specifically mentioned included: Need for in electrical, and civil engineers with water management strumentation experience for engineers; need for project training, as those most in demand in the pollution and plant operation managers, and need for reorganiza control field. Next in order of preference were construc tion, aeronautical, and instrumentation engineers. Other tion of staff assignments. engineering fields with similarities in academic qualifica tions, also in demand, were: Architectural, electronic, Skill transferability—defense and aerospace chemical, industrial, and process and control engineer to pollution control ing, as well as skills in radiation, stress analysis, thermodynamics, and systems and project management. All respondents were asked to help pinpoint areas of In the science field, chemists and mathematicians were possible skill transferability in engineering, scientific, occupations cited most where there was an identity in and technical occupations between aerospace and de background training (for pollution control work). For fense industries and their own work in the pollution technicians, similarities and carryover in training existed control field. At the time the interviews were con- for design draftsmen, computer technicians, programers, ducted-mid 1972—this was a particular point of and those knowledgeable in particle technology. interest since many in engineering, scientific, and tech nical occupations recently had been laid off by aero Academic qualifications and work experience. Concern space and defense firms, and unemployment rates were ing the similarity or equivalence of the academic relatively high for these workers. Similarities and dissimi qualifications of their own staff and of personnel most larities or actual barriers were considered under four commonly employed in aerospace/defense industries, major headings: (a) academic qualifications, (b) work some respondents found no similarity; others felt that experience, (c) retraining possibilities, and (d) economic, while their particular project was totally dissimilar to social, and other barriers. aerospace work, a particularly gifted individual might While all respondents cooperated in this exercise, make the transition; one respondent felt sure there must almost half (45 percent) reported that they had not been be some similarity but just could not think of any. approached for employment by any ex-aerospace or State and local government respondents found greater defense industry personnel. Their comments were, there similarity and transferability among the less specialized fore, based on judgment and personal opinion only. It occupations, notably, civil and mechanical engineers. should be noted in this connection that the sample had Systems and computer technical skills also were found not been specifically designed to elicit a high response transferable as well as any skills in interviewing other from employers who had employed, or at least had technically qualified persons. Universities listed a variety of engineering back grounds as common to, or transferable to, pollution control work, namely: Combustion; electronic, civil, chemical, electrical, and mechanical engineering. System analysis also were considered transferable. Among the science professions, the transferability of academic training was high for: Biologists, physical chemists, life scientists and mathematicians, and, to a lesser degree, for physiologists, statisticians, physicists, and those experi enced in instrumentation and air-flow inhalation cham bers. Among easily acclimated technicians were: Labor technicians, computer personnel, technical editors, and persons experienced in radar and infra-red technology. In their totality, the responses indicated a decided majority (58 percent) supporting the view that there was some skill carryover for scientific and technical occupa tions. (See table 23.) Nonprofit institutions showed a higher proportion of “considerable” carryover skill ratings and State and local governments were at the other extreme with the highest proportion of “none” or “negligible.” Retraining possibilities. Where the skill carryover from jobs in aerospace and defense-industries to pollution control is negligible, can retraining bridge the gap? This was an obvious question even before knowing that a considerable minority (42 percent) of EST occupations covered in the sample were rated in this “none” or “negligible” skill carryover category. Considering all EST Table 23. Responses to extent of possible skill carry over in engineer, scientist, and technician occupations in pollution control from aerospace-defense employment Estimated extent of possible skill carryover Percent of total responses1 Number .................................................. Percent .................................................... 198 100 N o n e ............................................................................ Negligible ................................................................... S o m e ............................................................................ Considerable.............................................................. 14 28 41 17 T o ta l:1 1 Responses refe r to estim ates fo r th e in d iv id u a l EST o c c u patio n s , n o t to respondents as th e e m p lo y e r-es ta b lish m e n ts . C o n c e iv a b ly , a single re s p o n d e n t could pro v id e th re e responses, one each fo r engineers, scientists and te ch nicians, and all d iffe r e n t. Som e d id , and som e did no t rep ly at all. Th e d is trib u tio n o f responses b y p e rfo rm e r in th e ir to ta lity o n ly is show n b e lo w : Percent T o ta l ..............................................................................................1 0 0 S ta te and local go vernm ents ............................................................... 18 U niversities .................................................................................................. 31 N o n p ro fit in s t i t u t io n s ............................................................................. 11 Private i n d u s t r y .......................................................................................... 35 Federal ........................................................................................................... 5 occupations together,2 and tabulating responses for all respondents, the results showed: 60 percent felt retraining was possible. 15 percent felt retraining was feasible but costly. 18 percent felt retraining was difficult and ill-advised. 7 percent felt retraining was not possible. And, where it is possible, how different is such “retraining” from that normally given to college gradu ates entering the labor market for the first time, with the same academic qualifications but without the work experience of the aerospace-defense-industry applicant? A plurality (47 percent) of the responses indicated the same level for “retraining” and “job-entry training” for new graduates, but the remainder were divided between two extremes of much (23 percent) and little (30 percent) retraining required, and there was great diver gence on the issue of retraining itself. Some did not have the funds or the time for retraining, or cited special difficulties in retraining aerospace and defense per sonnel; in contrast, a few saw no retraining needed at all Table 24. Kinds of barriers cited as deterrent to hiring ex-aerospace-defense personnel and relative importance as a percent of total responses Barrier characteristics Percent of total responses1 Total responses: N u m b e r........................................ Percent ........................................... 160 100 Labor market supply: No shortages—other recruits available . . . 16 Economic costs: Higher wages expected ............................... Entry at higher grade levels........................ Costs of retraining........................................ 26 2 5 Skill deficiencies: Dated technology (age g a p )........................ Retraining an abbreviated substitute . . . . 4 4 Experience factor: Not cost-conscious ...................................... Not competitive m arket-m inded.............. 4 1 Psychological factors: Disappointment over wage cut ................. Age-adjustment p ro b le m ............................. Domestic and social problems in area m o ve............................................. Other, n.e.c.2 ........................................................... 6 4 1 27 1 Response was a c o u n t o f each b arrier cited by a res p o n d e n t, so th a t it was possible fo r a single res p o n d e n t to a c c o u n t fo r several responses. M o re o v e r, a lm o s t o n e -fifth o f th e respondents sam pled e ith e r did n o t answer th is qu estio n or did n o t cite any specific barriers. 2 Th is was an un stru c tu re d qu estio n in w h ic h th e res p o n d e n t fo rm u la te d th e b a rrie r h im s e lf, ra th e r th a n checked w h a t was given him . As a result th e re was great v arie ty in th e responses and o n ly th e m ost re p e titiv e could be isolated and ta b u la te d above. and reported large numbers of ex-aerospace-defense workers already on their staff. Economic, social, and other barriers. The most common barriers respondents cited against recruiting or hiring ex-aerospace or defense-industry scientific and technical personnel were that: (1) They demanded or expected too high a salary, and (2) other recruits were available without this or other barriers. Among the “other” barriers cited were: Dated technology, lack of costconsciousness, problems involved in moving to a new area, and, as psychological barriers, disappointment and bitterness over wage cuts, and adjustments to working with or under those junior in age. (See table 24.) It must be remembered that this discussion is based on responses from a limited number of interviews. Thus, responses summarized in this report may not be indicative of the views held by all establishments in the pollution control field. Some employers felt that if the aerospace industry picked up again, they would lose any ex-aerospace workers they had; others felt the aerospace-defense worker was too specialized and did not have sufficiently 1Upgrading entry qualifications without reference to the skill requirements for job performance is an easy but negative way of reducing the number of job applicants who have to be sorted through, e.g., a municipality may “up” the qualifications of its garbage collectors to include a high school diploma, or depart ment stores may make a college degree a prerequisite for any salesman’s job. Screening applicants for high academic qualifi cations merely to reduce the number of applicants to more manageable proportions, or to add to degree of social prestige to broad experience within a given technical specialty; and a few were very negative, labeling aerospace workers as “conference types,” over-specialized and lazy, not re sponsible, spoiled, and so forth. State and local governments sometimes have resi dency requirements for hiring which would be a barrier for many aerospace workers. Universities often demand that their professionals qualify as faculty members. Some employers do not wish to hire “over-qualified” personnel for technical positions that need little training. Other respondents simply generalized that it would be “uncomfortable” for all concerned to hire ex-aerospace workers, while a few saw no reason to go out of their way as they wanted to avoid problems. Ex-aerospace engineers were sometimes felt to have difficulty in acquiring new skills, and as one private industry respondent put it, “We can’t train engineers.” The underlying question in essence was: Is he qualified for the job? While many respondents saw no barriers to employment, apart from the individual problem of wages, the fact remains that most employers were quite able to meet their staffing requirements without pur suing ex-aerospace-defense workers. the establishment, or to circumvent anti-discrimination laws by restricting applicants to particular social and income groups who have had the economic resources to complete more years of schooling than others, are all examples of negative upgrading this is not what is meant. 2Responses varied for each occupation. The data, however, are too thin to cross-classify by each occupation and performer. Chapter IV. Study Design and Methods The method used in this study to analyze the employment impact of Federal Government expen ditures, is designed around two analytical tools in current use by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: (1) inputoutput tables (and associated interindustry employment tables), and (2) the industry-occupational matrix. The input-output tables show what each industry in the economy purchases from every other industry, as well as from itself, in order to produce its own output. They provide a tool for measuring the effect on the produc tion system, industry by industry by a specific amount of final demand such as Federal Government expen ditures. When converted through the use of industry productivity ratios, these input-output tables also yield employment requirements by industry related to the same Federal Government expenditures. The industryoccupational matrix shows the average occupational distribution of each industry’s total employment. Em ployment estimates by occupation are generated by applying the matrix to estimates of industry employ ment requirements. The preparation of employment impact or require ments data, therefore, does not represent any radical deviation from current BLS programs. Rather, such data may be viewed as a natural evolution since the tech niques used in this study use and expand upon estab lished ones. Thus, the method used is neither revolu tionary or wholly new. What is new is the method’s application to a very specific Federal program, complex in subject matter and structure. Input-output table and the occupational m atrix—their limitations Input-output tables are marked by the ability to identify the intermediate sales and purchases, that is, outputs and inputs, that carry goods and services from industry to industry, from manufacturer to distributor and on to their final purchaser in the market. The pressures of World War II stimulated the application of the technique by forcibly illustrating the pitfalls that building production for one goal could run into in the way of material or manpower shortages at earlier or intermediate stages of the production. The technique rests on the interdependency of a highly integrated economy where each output from one industry is the input into another, where every sale is also a purchase until the product reaches the stage of final demand. On this basis the output of an industry is the sum of all of its inputs (plus, of course, the “value added” entry for the industry’s own wage bill and other prime factor changes which represents the industry’s own contribution to GNP). At the time this study was under way, the input-output table for 1963 constructed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, showing inter-industry relationships for the U.S. economy was aggregated to 134 sectors and updated to 1970 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.1 This technique is valuable in analyzing the employ ment impact of a Federal expenditure because once the final demand, in this case the bill of goods, is known, the system can identify the output needed to be generated in each industry to produce this final demand. The relationship of employment by industry to output by industry in 1970 was used to translate the data on output needed to produce the final demand into data on jobs needed to produce the final demand. The industry-occupational matrix is a comprehensive set of data on the occupational employment composi tion of all industry sectors in the economy for 1970, These data are set up to form a matrix, or table, of about 160 specific occupations cross-classified with 116 industries which shows the proportion each occupation is of total employment in an industry. Initially, work on the industry-occupation matrix grew out of concern by the Department of Defense for anticipating the eco nomic problems that might arise from various defense programs. In recent years, a strong interest has devel oped in determining manpower needs for other pur poses. The latter have included training new workers, retraining displaced workers, and providing information to counselors and to students making career decisions. Data for the industry-occupational matrix are brought together from a wide variety of sources.2 Limitations. There are certain limitations, however, in both the input-output and industry-occupational matrix systems which should be kept in mind when evaluating the indirect employment impact data. 1. Average vs. Marginal Employment requirements generated by the inputoutput system reflect the average employment required to produce the total annual output of each industry. These requirements are based upon overall or average interindustry relationships, productivity ratios, and oc cupational distribution for a particular year. As such, they most appropriately reflect the employment require ments of the total purchases from an industry. In most instances, however, these relationships are used to determine the employment requirements of a change in a given program or an increment in purchases from a particular industry. For these purposes, marginal em ployment requirements would be more appropriate. The use of average requirements imply that employment will increase in proportion to this increase in output. At any point in time, however, average and marginal manpower requirements are likely to be different. Where an industry is operating at less than capacity, there may be a certain margin of under-employed staff. With an increase in production, staff and skills are more fully utilized and this margin can be expected to narrow. Other possibilities exist in (1) recourse to more overtime or (2) organizational changes with further streamlining of the production process. Any of these could account for greater output without an increase in employment. Even if employment were to increase, the occupa tional composition of this increase may differ consider ably from the average occupational composition of the industry or industries. Depending on the specific circum stances, most of the increase might take place in semi-skilled operative positions, with little or no increase in the employment of professional and other whitecollar workers. For example, an increase in the demand for automobiles would result, at least in the short run, in increased employment of production related (bluecollar) workers, with little or no increase in the employment of nonproduction (white-collar) workers. 2. Aggregate industry classification The analytical framework used in the input-output systems divides all purchases into 134 industry sectors. Most sectors include more than one kind of product or service and the inputs to these sectors reflect the production and employment requirements of a number of products or services. In some cases, a program may require just one of several products produced in an industry sector. However, the interindustry model can not differentiate among the products or services within a sector. Thus, a purchase will create requirements for employment in all industries supporting the overall sector, although some of the manpower generated may not be related to the product purchased. Despite this difficulty, generated requirements for each sector will generally be close to the actual requirements for a single purchase since the industry sectors are defined to include related or homogeneous products. This problem also exists with the Industry Occupational Matrix. Occupational patterns are average for an entire sector and may not be representative of the occupations used to produce the specific goods and services purchased. 3. Generated employment requirements does not include multiplier and accelerator effects. Employment requirements include the primary em ployment required in the industries producing the goods or services actually purchased and the supporting labor required to produce the materials, parts, services, and other items embodied in these final products. They do not take into account the multiplier effect, which generates additional jobs as workers spend their earnings for consumer goods and services. Also excluded is the accelerator effect, which would increase jobs when business people expand their investment in plant and equipment in response to the increased demand for output. Program selection and basic data sources In order to use these analytical tools to measure the impact of a specific Federal program, cost data are necessary to construct a “bill of goods.” This represents a listing of an agency’s expenses, for a given program, arranged according to the producer industry responsible for supplying the goods and services purchases. Once the parameters of a specific program’s operations are reason ably well defined, and the necessary cost data have been obtained, it is possible to develop a usable gauge of the job-creating or job-reducing potential of that program. The Federal program to be studied had to meet certain criteria. Among these was the availability of cost data that could be gathered in a statistical sampling technique, and activity in major industry sectors of the economy. Also, the program had to have a potential to affect the employment market for scientists and engi neers if it were to expand or contract significantly. Pollution control and abatement expenditures were selected as the program to study. Several factors influenced this choice. At the time the project was started, “pollution” was high in public consciousness, and “pollution control” was high on the list of priorities that might be expected to absorb funds released because of the end of the Vietnam War. In addition, the sharp increase in unemployment among scientific and tech nical manpower in the early 1970’s raised the possibility of aerospace and defense-related scientists and engineers transfering their skills to pollution control and abate ment activities. Another reason reflects data availability. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) had completed an analysis of Federal expenditures in fiscal year 1970 for pollution control and abatement activities. The OMB study furnished a reference point from which a “uni verse” of all Federal spending relating to specific pollution control activities could be developed. Study parameters and concepts The data collection phase of the study had three basic parameters: (1) the time dimension; (2) the specific nature of the activities to be studied; and (3) the scope of the coverage. 1. Time dimension The Office of Management and Budget, in its Special Analysis3 , had collected fiscal year 1970 data on Federal pollution control expenditures under three different categories: In m illio n s o f dollars Budget a u th o rity ........................................................... $1,432 O blig atio ns..................................................................... 1,071 O u tla y s ............................................................................ 751 Before any data collection could begin, it was necessary to determine which of these categories was most appropriate for impact analysis. Budget authority was excluded since this included the total funds available for the program authorized by legislation. Such funds could be authorized to run over a number of years and would not necessarily, or even likely, be spent during fiscal year 70.4 In contrast, obligations represent funds committed for a single fiscal year, and outlays, payments actually made during the fiscal year. Either category might be appropriate for analyzing in-house Federal expenditures since there is usually no extensive timelag between purchase, delivery, and payment for goods and services supporting inhouse operations. However, this is not true for extramural work, and in the case of construction and R&D grants and contracts, considerable timelags can and do occur between project performance and payment. Obligations contracted in fiscal year 1970 would not necessarily result in project performance and payment in fiscal year 1970. Outlay data, therefore, were more closely related to delivery of goods and services (includ ing direct labor) and data were obtained on that basis wherever possible. Fiscal year 1970 was selected as the reference period because it was the only year for which outlays were reported (fiscal year 1971 and fiscal year 1972 were still estimates at the time this study was begun). 2. Specific nature of activities In its fiscal year 1970 survey, OMB had listed 16 different activities under pollution control and abate ment on which agencies were asked to supply data. Each of these activities was further broken out for seven media or pollutants — air, water, radiation solid waste, pesticides, noise, and multimedia) —but not all agencies performed all 16 activities in all seven media. After investigation, certain deletions appeared neces sary in order to concentrate the limited research resources available on the more important programs, and to eliminate programs of a dual or multipurpose nature where the pollution control component could not be isolated or quantified. Accordingly, activities were elimi nated where they were too small, involved a great many heterogeneous activities, or contained some unmeasur able portion of activities other than pollution control. The remaining activities were consolidated into three activities (table 25) as illustrated and discussed below. Under financial aid to State and local governments, only grants for construction of municipal waste water treatment facilities were included within the scope of the study. These grants were included in contracts and subcontracts to private construction firms and engineer ing design firms. Excluded were approximately $36 million for planning and control agency support because of the difficulty of isolating and identifying such funds with specific pollution control activities or programs. Approximately $116 million of the outlays reported by OMB for research, development and demonstration (R&D) were excluded from this category. Of this, about $86 million were excluded because they were allocated to a primary purpose other than pollution control, although they contributed to pollution control. The excluded R&D funds were an important category for many agencies. A conspicuous example was coal research where in the course of finding more economic methods for processing coal, or processing a finer quality, ways might be discovered for reducing the sulphur content and, thereby, the air-polluting character of coal as fuel. How much of the cost of such research should then be charged to pollution control? Because of the difficulties of quantifying the proportionate share of costs attribut able to pollution control where that was not the primary purpose of the research, all expenditures reported under this category were deleted. Another $30 million reported by various agencies as pollution control R&D had to be excluded because the (in m illio n s o f dollars) Activity Adjusted outlays within scope of study OMB reported total 1970 Federal outlays Dollars Percent Total ................................................................... $751 $501 100 Financial aid to State and local governments for municipal waste water treatment fac ilities ....................................................... 288 252 50.5 Research, development, and demonstration................. 296 180 35.8 Federal abatement and control o p e ra tio n s ................. 72 69 13.7 Other—includes manpower development, reduction of pollution from Federal facilities and program direction and support . . . . 96 agencies were unable to supply the detail necessary on the actual projects. In many R&D projects, pollution control conceptually was an important constraint, yet impossible to quantify except as an across-the-board percent of total costs for any given project. Research and development was the most complicated of the three activities included in the study because of its structure and ramifications. All R&D work fell into two subprograms, either R&D sources and effects or control technology. Sources and effects R&D is con cerned with detecting and measuring various sources of pollutants, and studying their movements as well as evaluating their effects. Control technology R&D is con cerned with discovering, developing and testing methods to prevent, control, and manage pollution problems. Research and development in each program on five media were considered in the study: air, water, radia tion, solid waste, and pesticides. The flow of Federal funds and the framework for collecting data on how such funds were spent are illustrated in chart 1. An additional consideration was the actual performer of the R&D. R&D was split between (1) in-house and (2) extramural grants and contracts, which in turn were distributed among State and local governments, univer sities, nonprofit institutions, and private industry (profit-making firms). This is illustrated in chart 2. But further detail was necessary in order to identify differences in the employment effects of R&D funds spent by each performer, by subprogram, and by media. This detail is illustrated for private industry in chart 3, but the same detail applies as well to the other extramural performers and in-house operations. Abatement and control operations were treated as a single activity or program, thereby consolidating four — — component activities which had been treated separately in the OMB survey: (1) planning, (2) monitoring and surveillance, (3) standard-setting and enforcement, and (4) technical support. All of these operations were conducted by Government agencies at Government installations. About $3 million had to be excluded because the agencies could not provide the needed detail and breakdown of cost data. Other included several smaller programs totaling $96 million. All of these were excluded from the scope because they could not be considered uniquely pollution control and abatement activities. For example, “man power development” was considered a generic title that could apply to any program. Likewise, some of the outlays reported for reducing pollution from Federal facilities were used to purchase “cleaner” heating units. There was some question as to how much of these expenditures were for normal replacements and how much for pollution control purposes. Scope of coverage-data collection. As indicated earlier, to measure the manpower impact of Federal expenditures it is necessary to trace the entire “chain reaction” of purchases through the economy, starting with salaries paid by the Federal Government and ending with purchases from mining and agriculture. Inputoutput tables can be used to simulate these transactions once a bill of goods is constructed, that is, a list of purchases of goods or services for a program classified by the industry producing the goods or services. However, greater accuracy would be obtained if data could be collected at each step for each particular bill of goods being analyzed because of the aggregation problem discussed earlier. Because of resource limitations, how ever, tradeoffs are necessary between collecting data and relying on input-output techniques to generate employ With each step away from the Federal agency ment. Also, there are practical limitations as to how far responsible for funding an activity, the data collection actual purchases can be traced throughout the economy. problems multiply and it becomes increasingly difficult Thus, data collection in this study was restricted to one, for suppliers to relate a fraction of their total output to and in a few cases, two levels removed from the a specific government program. Nevertheless, this level sponsoring Federal agency. These levels are described was explored to some extent in the case of grants to below. State and local governments who functioned primarily as First level included all activities performed by the financial administrators and contracted out actual oper Federal agency itself under any of the three pollution ations. This generally was the rule for grants for waste control programs. These activities varied greatly among water treatment plants and demonstration projects. agencies. Most agencies, for example, contracted out much of their R&D work, while some performed a Data availability significant amount of R&D work in-house. Second level included all extramural work, whether An initial investigation was conducted to determine if on a grant or contract basis, classified into four some or most of the needed cost data for the second performer categories:5 level Federal extramural projects could be obtained from agency records. State and local governments Universities Federal agencies require grantees and contractors to Nonprofit institutions submit proposals and keep records using a fairly stan Private profitmaking firms dardized format, which includes a detailed listing of Third level covered contractors, subcontractors, and direct manpower payroll costs and goods and services suppliers to performers at the second level. Theoreti purchased. The financial summary of a typical proposal cally, subcontractors exist in some form and to some format specifies cost data for R&D projects for the degree, in every program, but the problems of identify following categories: ing and quantifying their costs quickly becomes very Salary and wages involved. Fringe benefits Chart 1 Structure for Collecting R&D Data Performers of R&D R&D Consultant services Equipment Supplies Travel Publication costs Other Indirect costs (at a fixed percent of salary and wage) A detailed budget proposal is also required, indicating names and salaries of all directly employed personnel, specifications of consultants and their fees, and an itemized listing of equipment, supplies, and services included within the summary. Unfortunately, these budget proposals did not always contain the degree of detail needed to construct a “bill of goods,” the listing of expenditures by the industry producing or supplying the goods or services purchased, required for the input-output system. Also, the type of detail needed generally was not available from agency records for actual expenditures; in many cases there are significant differences between budgeted and actual expenditures. Because of the limitations, necessary expenditure data were collected from extramural per formers. At the same time information was obtained on skill transferability and hiring standards. In doing this, a sample survey was designed and implemented. A per sonal visit survey was considered to be more appropriate than a mail survey because of the experimental nature of this overall study. However, one of the key items on the survey was to identify if the data could be collected by mail, since mail surveys are much less expensive than personal interviews. Sample design and procedures Approximately 100 field interviews were conducted with the resources available for this study. In general, interviews were allocated to each program proportion ately to its share of total dollar outlays except where cost data were available either on a total program basis at the agency (for example, abatement and control oeprations were virtually all in-house programs), or were available from other sources (for example, an earlier BLS survey of sewer works construction supplied both labor and cost data for that program). In such cases interviews were only for the purpose of collecting information on skill transferability. The interviews were distributed among the three programs as follows: 1. Grants and contracts for R&D ....................................... 75 2. Grants for construction of sewage works .......................................................................... 23 3. Abatement and control operations (in-house) ....................................................................................8 Chart 3. Private Industry R&D — Program and Media The procedure and basis for selecting these interviews is described below for each program. 1. R&D programs Interviews for the R&D program were selected on the basis of a probability sample proportionate to program size (in dollar value) and first consideration was given to a valid sample of the R&D program in its entirety. To insure fully representative coverage, all performers and all media were represented in the sample but the design called for the development of data only for the total of the three largest media (air, water, and radiation) because the size of the sample would not warrant detail on the two smallest (solid waste and pesticides). A sample stratified by dollar value of outlays was judged most appropriate since each project could be easily classified into several distinct categories. Stratifica tion in this manner would also make possible the provision of data for each of the categories stratified, that is, program, sub-program, media, and performer. A first step in constructing the sample was to develop an overview showing total outlays for each media and performer within each of the subprograms — R&D sources and effects, and R&D control technology. However, difficulties were encountered. Some agencies did not have data available on fiscal year 70 outlays; there were no lists of projects on which money had been spent in fiscal year 70; and even where a project was known to have been active in fiscal year 70, it was impossible to determine what actual outlays were in fiscal year 70 without a thorough inspection of the project file. As a result of this impasse, the most acceptable procedure was to use a surrogate universe, the dollar value of projects funded during fiscal year 1970.6 Because of the disproportionate weight of one media, radiation, any attempt to distribute total outlays by media and program, and from this to allocate interviews, showed a marked imbalance. Radiation outlays made up slightly more than one-half of all extramural R&D and 75 percent of the subprogram, R&D sources and effects. Most of this R&D was performed at a small number of government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories. A test interview at one of these sites indicated the possibility of collecting data on all pollution control and abatement projects at the site, that is, on a universe basis, and that this could be done in a single interview. Since a small number of interviews could thus provide data for a substantial proportion of all radiation R&D performed, it was not necessary to assign interviews for this media in proportion to dollar value of outlays. Ten interviews were allocated for this aspect of the study, with the remaining 65 interviews distributed among the other four media. These 10 interviews (radiation) were split, proportionate to dollar outlays, between on-site and off site categories as follows:7 year 70. Information needed for these adjustments was furnished by the Environmental Protection Agency. Grants and contracts were then randomly selected from Total Onsite O ffsite these lists in accordance with the sample design. T o t a l .......... 10 8 2 In the case of the Atomic Energy Commission’s 8 Universities................. 6 2 (radiation) contracts at on-site laboratories, complete Nonprofit institutions 1 1 lists of projects active during fiscal year 70 were 1 1 Private industry . . . . available. Although the dollar amounts for each project A working matrix was then developed to distribute were not available, total outlays for all projects com the remaining 65 interviews by media, program, and bined at each laboratory were known. Since these performer in the same proportion that each contributed laboratories were handled as if they represented a single to total outlays. Minor adjustments were then made to project, this total outlays figure was all that was assure a minimum of three interviews for any active cell. necessary. A complete list of off-site contracts was Solid waste was an exception to this minimum because available from which interviews were selected. one large project included most of the outlays in the 2. Grants for construction of sewer works private sector. In terms of program, the 65 interviews were split This program covered both costs of actual construc almost 2 to 1 between R&D-control technology (41 tion and design engineering costs. While the results of an interviews) and R&D-source and effects (24 interviews). earlier BLS survey on sewage plant construction material (See table 26.) and labor requirements8 could be used for the construc The next step was to develop a sampling frame. The tion segment, these were not applicable to the design Environmental Protection Agency provided lists of the engineering part. A limited sample, therefore, was R&D projects being funded during fiscal year 70. necessary to develop both manpower and expenditure However, due to time-lags and to the fact that a number data for the design element. The 23 interviews allotted of projects funded were active over a number of years, to this program were split with 12 marked for full these lists were not considered representative of fiscal collection of data from design engineering firms (occu year 70 outlays. Instead, an appropriate list of projects pational and cost data as well as information on skill active during fiscal year 70 had to be developed along transferability) and 11 for skill transferability data only with estimated outlays for each during this period. This from construction contractors. The interviews were was done by: (1) Adding projects funded in previous paired, that is, the same construction project supplied years which extended into fiscal year 70, (2) dropping both. fiscal year 70 funded projects not scheduled to being As part of another project, the BLS had received until after June 30, 1970, and then (3) prorating total from EPA a complete listing of all grants for construc costs of those projects which extended beyond fiscal tion of waste water treatment facilities. From this list, — — Table 26. Distribution of interview sample, by program and performer, fiscal year 1970 Total Air Water Solid waste Pesti cides 65 13 32 12 8 State and local governments................................. Universities................................................................ Nonprofit institutions............................................. Private industry......................................................... 20 22 7 16 5 4 4 10 8 3 11 6 5 4 4 — Sources and effects—t o t a l ...................................... 24 9 7 State and local governments................................. Universities................................................................ Nonprofit institutions............................................. Private industry......................................................... 4 13 4 3 — 5 4 — Control technology—t o t a l...................................... 41 State and local governm ents................................. Universities................................................................ Nonprofit institutions............ ................................ Private industry......................................................... 16 9 3 13 Programs and performers Total—all p ro g ra m ................................. 1 - 8 3 — 4 4 — 4 25 12 - — 4 10 4 3 8 6 5 - 4 - 1 — — 23 projects were selected subject to the following constraints: 1. Project costs to be between $1 million and $5 million (to eliminate very small projects as well as exceptionally large ones). 2. A sizable portion of the work to have been done in fiscal year 70. 3. The project to include a treatment plant. 4. Projects to be distributed in 11 designated loca tion.9 EPA was then asked to supply the name of the engineering design firm and principal general contractor for each grant. In choosing between alternates, consider ation was given to avoiding contacting firms which supply information to BLS data collection programs, and preference was given to the larger design firms and building contractors specializing in sewer works. 3. Abatement and control operations These programs were conducted in-house with man power and cost data available in Washington. The eight interviews allocated to these programs were for the purpose of collecting information on hiring standards and skill transferability. These interviews were con ducted at various EPA regional offices and AEC instal lations. Interviews As an aid in interviewing, an Interview Guide (ap pendix B) was developed. The guide provided inter viewers with a series of questions in sequence but as the title suggests, it was primarily a guide to dialogue and not a questionnaire. Many of the questions required thoughtful evaluation-especially those relating to skill transferability. Several pretest interviews were made to decide on the actual phrasing of the guide and to insure that the kinds of information wanted were understood and available. All interviewers were provided with written back ground material describing the purpose of the study, the scope of the data to be analyzed, a definition of terms used, the reasons behind each question, and the type of data being sought. In addition, several training sessions were conducted at which these materials were discussed and problems ironed out. Because the structure of the interview guide had been deliberately left open, a good part of the success of any interview depended upon the interviewer’s skill and initiative in determining what data were available and how they should be evaluated. In addition to recognizing internal inconsistencies in the data, interviewers had to be able to judge whether respondents provided data in sufficient detail to fill the requirements of the input-output technique. Moreover, with reference to transferability questions, interviewers were encouraged to probe and discuss these complex issues rather than accept what might be termed “stan dard” answers. Data collection and operational problems Specific data collection and operational problems centered on the types of accounting systems and associated detail maintained by the various performers; the allocation of overhead costs; the time frame for the data collected; and the comparability of in-house and extramural Federal R&D costs. Since the availability of needed data from Federal agencies was an issue in this study, all Federal agencies reporting pollution control and abatement expenditures for fiscal year 1970 were contacted to obtain informa tion on how the funds were used. However, half of the fiscal year 1970 outlays attributed to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were in fact spent by other agencies since EPA did not come into existence until December 1970. While accounts were transferred, there was, however, a physical problem of transferring files (in some cases this had barely been completed at the time of our research in mid-1972). To overcome these problems many interviews were held with agency staff and internal records and work sheets were reviewed. Some agencies were unable to identify specific programs corresponding to the dollar amounts reported (to OMB) because they had developed their data by taking a fixed percent of the work in a program as being in the pollution control field. For example, virtually all of NASA’s research projects included a pollution control component. Conceivably one could make an across-theboard estimate of the amount to be attributed to pollution control. While these procedures may be quite satisfactory for developing estimates of the amount of funds expended for Federal pollution control and abatement activities, they are unsatisfactory for the purpose of this study. Because of this, the category was eliminated from consideration. Records were kept in different manners in each of the sectors of the economy and each had special problems as indicated below: Accounting records Federal agencies—In collecting data for manpower impact analysis, it seemed reasonable to use existing data systems as much as possible. But, in many cases it was very difficult to use existing Federal data for nonpayroll expenditures. Since expenditures had to be identified in sufficient detail to permit assignment to a particular industry at the three or four digit SIC level as a first step in distributing and aggregating such costs into a “bill of goods,” a great deal of work had to be done in interviewing and digging out records which would make such identification possible. The man hours devoted to this effort were substantial, and the results frequently frustrating. The OMB has prescribed a uniform system to be used by Federal agencies in classifying financial transactions for budget estimates and budget reports to OMB and Congress. Under this system, expenditures for any given Federal program are identified by code with the particu lar project or program to which they relate, and to the object class which describes their activity or purposes. Object classes reflect a functional structure for recording expenditures: They classify and describe expenditures in terms of what they do or are used for, but rarely provide the detail necessary to identify the producer industry which supplies the goods or services. Among major object classes in the Federal system, under which practically all equipment and goods or services pur chased, or contracted for, fall, are: Travel Transportation of things Rent, communications and utilities Printing and reproduction Other services Supplies and materials Equipment Under this system, each agency can set up sub-object classes providing further detail on these major classifica tions to suit its own particular needs. In some cases these sub-object classes provided data which permitted identi fication of producer industries, but in other cases the sub-object classes aggregated items from a wide range of industries which could not be separated out. Where this occurred, however, it was sometimes possible to deter mine the producer industry either from data in purchas ing records or from information obtained in personal interviews. State and local governments-Federal grants to States and local governments for pollution controls fall under two programs: (1) capital investments and (2) re search and development. Despite differences of titles, there is a close relationship, if not identity, in their final product and expenditures patterns. Grants under capital investments are intended almost entirely for regional and municipal sewage plants and lines. The bulk of funds for research and development to State and local govern ments has thus far been largely for control technology in water pollution and has almost invariably involved the construction of a “demonstration” sewage plant. In almost all cases, the actual work is contracted out to private industry—design engineers and construction firms. State and local governments are in effect “per formers” in name only. While they may contribute general administrative services, and varying amounts of supervision and inspection of work in process to maintain standards and fulfill the specifications of the contract, these charges generally represent only minimal costs in relation to the general magnitude of total costs for the construction work itself. Since the Bureau had made an intensive survey (in 1963) of costs in sewage plant construction, it was decided to exploit further the results of that survey and develop (with necessary adjustments for changes in prices and productivity during the interim) the data needed for running the fiscal year 70 outlays for the “construction” program through the input-output sys tem. The sewage plant construction bill of goods so developed and used for State and local governments is, in effect, the pattern of expenditures typical of private industry; no account has been taken (because no data were available) of the cost of State and local govern ment’s own inputs in the form of project administration and supervision. Universities—In many respects universities were the easiest performer from which to collect data. The projects funded by Federal agencies fell exclusively under the R&D program, and the great majority were in the sources and effects category, commonly identified with basic and applied research. These projects were fairly small, with the greater part of outlays for direct labor rather than materials and supplies, so that their employment impact, outside the direct measurements of faculty and graduate students employed on the project, was minimal. Overhead is often the most significant nonpayroll cost for university research projects and for this study could not be ignored despite major difficulties in trying to break it down as an expense item. For this purpose a standard distribution pattern was ultimately developed from a variety of sources. (See Allocation of Overhead below.) Private industry—Since the overall sample was selected on the basis of expenditure size, it included a large number of “big” projects. In many cases, this meant “big” establishments. Because of various manage ment, marketing, and legal pressures, large establish ments have developed fairly sophisticated accounting and retrieval systems. Thus, cost data are available in different ways for a variety of purposes, and the retrieval of data relating to a specific project, or collecting projects under a given program, did not present a significant problem for large establishments. Smaller establishments sometimes had difficulty in providing the requested data. Allocation of overhead Overhead normally includes a large number of func tions, such as general administration, plant operation and maintenance, security, library facilities, equipment depreciation and so forth. Together these functions comprise sizable amounts of payroll and purchases of goods and services. Thus, overhead averaged around 23 percent of total costs on projects performed by univer sities, somewhat less for State and local governments, and considerably more for nonprofit institutions and private industry. Overhead charges are a particular concern where the project is less than an organization’s entire operation and overhead costs must be prorated. On the other hand, where an organization is taken as a whole, the items normally within overhead are included as part of the organization’s direct costs split between payroll and nonpayroll categories. However, there is no way of applying input-output techniques to overhead per se\ it must be broken down into the various expense items. This was very difficult to do. To generalize from the sample responses, those with low overhead rates generally itemized most costs as direct, but details on overhead costs were generally poor for those organizations with large overhead costs. Engi neering design firms were an exception: For the most part they classified everything except direct technical manpower cost as overhead, but were able to itemize (based on an average computed for all projects) all of the expenses included in overhead. Overhead at universities is normally treated as a fixed charge, but there can be wide variations in the rate charged as well as the method of computation. Many research laboratories compute overhead as a fixed charge per professional employed on a project; other institu tions base the charge on total payroll for a project. Considerable variation also exists in the rate charged.10 At universities and nonprofit institutions the over head charge is basically an allocation of general costs over a number of projects with no attempt to allocate specific costs to specific projects. Moreover, overhead is generally charged at a standard rate applicable to all projects. Even though pollution control projects may use more than the average of one overhead resource and less of another, such distinctions are not reflected in overhead costs. The result is that any type of research performed at these institutions would show virtually the same manpower impact for a substantial portion of each dollar expended. On the basis of available information from all sources, standard patterns were developed for breaking down overhead into expense categories for each of the performer categories. Time frame for data collection Cost data for this project were collected for fiscal year 1970. There is, however, a problem with using data for just 1 year for Federal in-house operations since variations exist in the distribution of obligations by object class from 1 year to the next. Use of these single year data for any estimating purposes assumes that the distributions of purchases in any year will be the same as in the base year. However, there may be changes over time as methods of operation change or the base year may be atypical. Certain categories are more subject to variation than others, particularly expenses which can be more easily cut back or deferred, for example, travel or equipment purchases. On the other hand, equipment purchases may be unusually high if a new laboratory or facility is being furnished. The problem of taking data for a 1-year period to represent the impact of Federal in-house programs which run for more than 1 year is also found in Federal extramural programs. Many extramural projects likewise run for more than 1 year, so that cost data for any 1-year period gives a picture of only a segment of the project. A review of project proposals together with information obtained during interviews indicates that many projects go through various stages, each requiring different resource inputs. Two extreme patterns of phased expenditures were noted in extramural projects. (1) In Research, Develop ment, and Demonstration (RD&D) sources and effects projects, all major purchases for equipment, materials and supplies were usually made in the first year of the project; payroll costs for direct labor, plus overhead and maintenance charges, were usually the only costs in the second and third years of a 3-year cycle. However, (2) in RD&D control technology projects, the reverse pattern occurred. Here, and in all projects involving considerable construction (notably sewage plants and lines), costs in the first year were almost entirely compensation for engineering-design services; in the second year were purchases for heavy equipment, materials, and supplies to get the work under way; in the third year such purchases fell off and costs again were largely compensa tion for actual construction work, supervision, and testing, involving few professional occupations in con trast to the first year. In this study, these problems were reduced (if not eliminated) since the sampling frame included projects active in fiscal year 1970. These projects represented the entire pattern of phased expen types of operations: (1) performance of research at Federal laboratories, and (2) monitoring of extramural research performed by grantees and contractors. The latter is actually a cost of doing extramural research. The level of monitoring expenses is tied to the level of extramural R&D and conceptually should be added to extramural research. However, cost data were generally not available separately for the two operations.11 It would seem reasonable to assume that the cost patterns of the two operations differ. Monitoring of extramural research, for example, involves a greater proportion of certain costs, like communications and 4. Comparability of in-house and extramural R&D travel, and less of other, like equipment and supplies. Because of the inability to identify the component costs expenditures of the two operations, data for in-house R&D and In-house R&D activities involved two fairly distinct extramural R&D are not strictly comparable.12 ditures and the resulting data can be considered as “average.” In the case of the engineering design part of construc tion grants, this data collection problem did not occur. Design costs could not be given for a single year, so cost data for the entire project were obtained and then prorated for 1 year and applied to fiscal year 1970. Furthermore, since all costs in design engineering, except direct payroll, are treated as overhead, the distribution pattern applied in breaking overhead down into specific expense accounts tends to be an average for a large number of projects. -FOOTNOTES*For a discussion of the uses of input-output data see forthcoming BLS Bulletin on the Structure of the U.S. Econ omy, 1980 and 1985. 2 See Occupational Employment Statistics, 1960-70, Bul letin 1738, (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1972). 3Special Analyses, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 1974, Special Analysis Of Federal Environmental Programs, pp. 219-29, (Office of Management and Budget), 1973. 4The duration of a Budget Authority depends on the legislative act to which it is tied but normally runs up to 5 years, sometimes up to 10 years, and in a few cases the duration is unlimited. 5Contract work performed for one Federal agency by another conceptually constituted another type of performer but was disregarded on the assumption that the occupational pattern and cost structure would not differ significantly from work done by other Federal agencies. 6The sum of inhouse outlays or obligations (which were felt to be quite close to actual outlays) plus totals of grants and contracts let during Fiscal Year 70 for each agency, differed considerably in most cases from total outlays reported for the agency. This was not surprising considering the usual timelags between the letting of grants and contracts (obligations) and actual performance and payment (outlays). Therefore these grant and contract totals, distributed by media and performer, were “forced” into total Fiscal Year 70 outlays. In effect, they were assumed to be the difference between total outlays and inhouse outlays. These “forced” extramural figures formed the basis for the design of the sample. 7More than two-thirds of the research was carried on at “on-site” laboratories owned by, or operated for AEC. The remainder of the program consisted of support to work performed “off-site” in university laboratories, hospitals, other nonprofit institutions, commercial organizations, and other government agencies. Because of the concentration of R&D at the Oak Ridge Laboratory, the private industry sector would have been allocated two interviews based on dollar outlays. This “extra interview,” was added to the on-site university category. 8Labor and Material Requirements for Sewer Works Con struction, Bulletin 1490 (United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1966). 9 In order to give representative geographic coverage for construction in the entire country and at the same time fit in with known areas of sampling for other programs, 11 areas were designated as follows: District of Columbia, Raleigh-Durham, Boston, New York, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, Knoxville-Oakridge (Tenn.) Austin-Houston-San Antonio, and San Francisco. 10According to a National Science Foundation study of several thousand scientific research projects funded throughout the country in a variety of disciplines, the average project cost for Fiscal Year 70 was $43,833 of which 52.6 percent was for payroll (direct labor); 25.1 percent for equipment, materials, and services, and 22.3 percent for overhead. 11 For Federal inhouse operations certain agencies reported a substantial portion of their expenditures under “Program Direc tion and Support,” which includes activities normally considered overhead. Other agencies instead included them as part of either of two other programs, that is, R&D or abatement and control operations. Since Program Direction and Support expenditures are not included in this study or allocated to other programs, overhead on certain inhouse operations is to that extent understated. 12 Several agencies with R&D activities classified as “Other than primary purpose but contributes to pollution control,” and thereby excluded from detailed analysis in this study, contracted out or gave grants for all of their R&D. An analysis of their inhouse monitoring costs could possibly given an indication of the impact of this type of program. Appendix A. Detailed Tables The following detailed tables present data on direct and indirect actual expenditures for Federal pollution control and abatement activities, by type of program, and the direct and indirect employment generated for each million dollars of expenditures under each of the programs. A-l A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8 A-9 A-10 A-l 1 A-l2 A-l 3 A-l4 A-l 5 A-l6 A-l7 A-l 8 A-l 9 A-20 A-21 Federal pollution control and abatement activities: Generated employment by selected occupations Research, development, and demonstration expenditures Air research, development, and demonstration Water research, development, and demonstration Inhouse research, development, and demonstration Inhouse air research, development, and demonstration Inhouse water research, development, and demonstration Extramural research, development, and demonstration Extramural air research, development, and demonstration Extramural water research, development, and demonstration Extramural research, development, and demonstration by State and local governments Extramural research, development, and demonstration by universities Extramural research, development, and demonstration by nonprofit organizations Extramural research, development, and demonstration by private industry Extramural sources and effects research, development, and demonstration Extramural control technology research, development, and demonstration Abatement and control operations Radiation programs Construction of waste water treatment plants Engineering design of waste water treatment plants On-site construction of waste water treatment plants occupations Actual expenditures Per million dollars Occupation Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect 15,860 17,670 66.9 31.7 35.3 1,910 420 21.9 5.2 18.1 4.3 3.8 .9 Total .................................................................. 33,530 Professional and technical............................................... Engineers ................................................................ A ero nau tical............................................... C hem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ................................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 10,960 2,600 10 240 1,130 (460) 210 60 300 590 9,050 2,180 10 240 1,050 (460) 130 10 210 500 Natural Scientists .................................................. A gricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 ........................... (Zoologists)3 ................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts.............................1.......... Chem ists........................................... ........... (Biochemists)3 ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 3,860 150 1,040 (40) (10) 230 80 60 1,380 (50) 30 430 70 330 3,790 150 1,040 (40) (10) 230 80 60 1,330 (50) 30 430 70 330 70 — — Technicians, except medical and dental .......... D rafters......................................................... S u rveyo r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 3,100 420 50 330 1,430 100 800 2,740 210 30 260 1,360 100 800 360 210 20 70 70 Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccountants............................................... Pilots.............................................................. A rch itects.................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... 250 1,170 240 70 20 80 40 190 50 490 180 180 30 40 — 30 — — 90 Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 2,820 5,310 810 5,130 5,300 1,200 1,740 200 1,000 1,920 — 2,160 840 200 640 - 1 D e ta il a vailable fo r d ire c t e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 2 Does n o t in clu d e d e ta il fo r grants fo r w aste w a te r tre a tm e n t p la n t c o n s tru c tio n . — — — — .5 2.5 (.9) .4 .1 .6 1.2 .5 2.1 (.9) .2 .1 .4 1.0 — .2 .2 — .2 .2 7.7 .3 2.1 (.1) — .5 .2 .1 2.8 (.1) .1 .9 .1 .7 7.5 .3 2.1 (.1) .2 — .5 .2 .1 2.7 (.1) .1 .9 .1 .7 .1 — - 6.2 .8 .1 .7 2.9 .2 1.6 5.5 .4 .6 2.8 .2 1.6 .7 .4 .1 .1 - 70 990 210 30 20 50 40 190 50 400 .5 2.3 .5 .1 — .1 .1 .4 .1 1.0 .4 .4 .1 — — — — - .1 1.9 .4 — — .1 .1 .4 .1 - 1,820 3,390 810 2,970 4,460 1,000 1,100 200 5.6 10.6 1.6 10.2 10.6 2.4 3.5 .4 2.0 3.8 — 4.3 1.7 .4 1.3 - 3.6 6.8 1.6 5.9 8.9 2.0 2.2 .4 80 80 50 90 90 — - 50 — - — - — — — 3 D e ta il a va ila b le fo r d ire c t e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . N O T E : D eta il m ay n o t a d d to to ta ls because o f ro u n d in g — represents less th a n 5 or no n e . Generated employment by selected occupations Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Direct Indirect Total D irect Indirect 7,820 4,130 3,690 76.7 40.5 36.2 Professional and tech nical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ Aeronautical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1^2 .................................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 3,460 800 10 170 290 (170) 40 20 160 100 3,090 720 10 170 280 (170) 20 10 150 90 370 80 — 10 20 10 10 10 33.9 7.8 .1 1.7 2.8 (1.7) .4 .2 2.6 1.0 30.3 7.0 .1 1.7 2.7 (1.7) .2 .1 1.5 .8 3.6 .8 — .1 .2 .1 1.1 .2 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 ........................... (Zoologists)3 ................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists)3 ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 1,540 130 400 (40) (10) 130 50 20 700 (10) 20 10 20 50 1,520 130 400 (40) (10) 130 50 20 690 (10) 20 10 20 50 20 — — 10 — - 15.1 1.3 3.9 (.4) (.1) 1.3 .5 .2 6.9 (.1) .2 .1 .2 .5 14.9 1.3 3.9 (.4) (.1) 1.3 .5 .2 6.8 (.1) .2 .1 .2 .5 .2 — — — .1 — — Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters......................................................... Surveyor ....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ............................................................ 920 50 40 470 30 320 850 20 20 450 30 320 70 30 20 20 - 9.0 .5 .4 4.6 .3 3.1 8.3 .2 .2 4.4 .3 3.1 .7 .3 .2 .2 - Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccountants................................................ P ilo ts.............................................................. A rch itects.................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ 10 200 30 10 10 10 20 10 100 _ 20 — - 10 180 30 10 10 10 20 10 100 .1 2.0 .3 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 1.0 _ .2 — — — — - .1 1.8 .3 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 1.0 Managers and adm inistrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 520 1,350 170 710 890 310 370 60 120 540 400 810 170 650 800 280 170 60 5.1 13.2 1.7 7.0 8.7 3.0 3.7 .6 1.2 5.3 3.9 7.9 1.7 6.4 7.8 2.7 1.7 .6 Total Total ................................................................... 1 D e ta il available fo r d ire c t e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 2 Does n o t in clude d e ta il fo r grants fo r w aste w a te r tr e a tm e n t p la n t c o n s tru c tio n . — 60 90 30 200 - — .6 .9 .3 2.0 - 3 D e ta il available fo r d ire c t e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . Actual expenditures Per million dollars Occupation Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total ................................................................... 2,490 1,340 1,150 78.1 42.0 36.1 Professional and tech nical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ Chemical . .,.................................................. Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 .................................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ 1,180 300 1,060 270 120 30 36.9 9.3 33.3 8.4 3.6 .9 50 30 (30) 20 10 140 30 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)............................. (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. Technicians, except medical and dental .......... D rafters......................................................... S u rveyo r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 50 30 (30) 10 130 20 10 10 10 10 1.7 1.1 (1.0) .6 .3 4.3 .9 1.7 1.0 (1.0) .4 .1 4.1 .6 470 10 90 (10) 460 10 90 (10) 10 — - 14.6 .3 2.7 (.4) 14.4 .3 2.7 (.4) 70 20 250 70 20 250 2.2 .5 .1 7.7 2.2 .5 .1 7.7 — 25 0 — 25 0 — — .1 .8 0 .1 .8 0 350 20 20 210 10 80 330 20 20 210 10 80 20 — — - 11.0 .6 18.4 .6 .5 6.5 .4 2.5 .5 6.5 .4 2.5 60 10 — 2.0 .2 .1 .2 — — — 10 — — Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and tech nical........................ A ccountants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch itects.................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers .................................................... . Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... — — 30 30 .1 .1 .2 .1 1.0 Managers and adm inistrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 190 430 60 190 300 90 50 20 130 250 60 180 270 90 50 20 5.9 13.5 2.0 5.8 9.3 2.7 1.5 .5 70 10 — 10 — 10 60 180 — 10 30 - - - .1 .2 .2 .2 .3 .2 - 1.8 .2 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 1.0 1.9 5.6 — .2 .9 — — - 4.0 7.9 2.0 5.6 8.4 2.7 1.5 .5 Generated employment, by selected occupations Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect 3,130 1,670 1,460 73.5 39.3 34.2 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ C hem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 .................................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 1,290 300 10 50 160 (90) 10 — 20 40 1,160 270 10 50 160 (90) 30.4 7.0 .2 1.2 3.7 (2.1) .2 .1 .5 1.1 27.2 6.3 .2 1.2 3.6 (2.1) .1 — .4 1.0 3.2 .7 — Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 .......................... (Zoologists)3 .................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts......................................... Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists)3 ............................... Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 670 60 230 (10) (10) 30 10 10 300 (4) 20 660 60 230 (10) (10) 30 10 10 300 (4) - — — — 15.8 1.5 5.5 (.3) (.3) .6 .3 .2 7.0 (.1) .1 .4 15.6 1.5 5.5 (.3) (.3) .6 .3 .2 7.0 (.1) .1 .4 .2 — — — — — Technicians, except medical and dental .......... D rafters......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 60 10 10 140 — 90 20 10 140 30 10 — — 6.0 .6 .1 .3 3.3 .1 2.0 5.4 .1 .2 3.2 .1 2.0 .1 .2 .1 .1 .1 — _ 60 .1 1.5 .2 — — .1 .1 .2 .1 .7 — — — — — — — — .1 1.5 .2 — — .1 .1 .2 .1 .7 4.0 12.7 1.5 7.2 8.2 2.3 .5 .6 5.2 — 1.1 1.2 .2 3.4 7.5 1.5 6.1 7.0 2.1 .5 Total Total ................................................................... Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch ite c ts.................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ................................................................ Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers............................................................................... Farmers and farm workers ............................................. — 20 40 20 90 _ _ 60 - — — — — — — 10 — — - — — 10 — — 10 — 30 — — — — - 10 — — 10 — 30 170 540 60 330 350 100 285 30 220 — 50 50 10 185 140 320 60 280 300 90 100 1 D ata ava ila b le fo r d ire c t e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 2 Does n o t in clu d e d e ta il f o r grants f o r w aste w a te r tre a tm e n t p la n t c o n s tru c tio n . — 130 30 — _ - .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 3 D e ta il a vailable fo r d ire c t e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . Actual expenditures Per million dollars Occupation Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect 3,680 1,950 1,730 78.3 41.5 36.8 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A ero nau tical................................................ C hem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1*2 .................................... Electrical...................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 1,640 320 — 80 120 (100) 20 10 30 60 1,450 280 — 80 120 (100) 10 — 20 50 190 40 — — — 10 — 10 10 34.9 6.9 1.7 2.6 (2.2) .4 .2 .6 1.4 30.9 6.0 — 1.7 2.5 (2.2) .2 .1 .4 1.1 4.0 .9 — — .1 .2 .1 .2 .3 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 .......................... (Zoologists)3 .................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists)3 ............................... Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 780 60 180 100 20 10 3 40 — 10 10 20 30 770 60 180 100 20 10 330 — 10 10 20 30 10 — - 16.5 1.3 3.9 2.2 .4 .1 7.1 .3 .1 (.4) .9 .2 — - 10 — - 16.7 1.3 3.9 2.2 .4 .1 7.2 — .3 .1 (.4) .9 Technicians, except medical and dental .......... D rafters......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 430 10 30 170 10 200 400 — 20 160 10 200 30 10 10 10 — 9.1 .3 .6 3.7 .3 4.2 8.4 — .4 3.5 .3 4.2 .7 .3 .2 .2 - _ _ — Total ................................................................... Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccountants................................................ P ilo ts .............................................................. A rch itects.................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers.................................................................. L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. _ 100 10 10 — 10 10 10 10 60 280 700 90 300 4 00 170 80 40 _ — — — - — — 100 360 - 30 10 - 10 - — — — 100 10 10 2.2 .3 .1 — — 10 10 10 10 60 .1 .1 .2 .1 1.3 180 340 90 270 390 170 70 40 6.0 14.8 1.9 6.3 8.5 3.6 1.6 .8 — — — — 2.1 7.6 — .6 .2 — .2 - - — .1 — — - _ 2.2 .3 .1 — .1 .1 .2 .1 1.3 3.9 7.2 1.9 5.7 8.3 3.6 1.4 .8 Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total ................................................................... 1,480 710 770 77.4 36.9 40.5 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ C hem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 .................................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ 590 150 — 50 30 (30) 10 10 20 30 510 130 — 50 30 (30) 10 — 10 20 80 20 30.8 7.8 — 2.8 1.8 (1.7) .7 .2 .9 1.3 26.6 6.7 4.2 1.1 — — Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 .......................... (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts......................................... Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 250 10 20 70 20 110 — (20) — 250 10 20 70 20 110 - _ — - Technicians, except medical and dental .......... D rafters......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccountants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch itects.................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. — — — — — _ 10 2.8 1.7 (1.7) .4 .1 .7 1.0 12.9 .5 .9 - — .1 .3 .1 .2 .3 .2 — — (20) - — - 13.1 .5 .9 3.6 .8 .1 5.9 .2 (1.0) - 3.6 .8 .1 5.8 .2 (1.0) - 150 10 80 10 30 130 10 80 10 30 20 — - 7.8 .7 4.0 .6 1.7 7.0 .7 4.0 .6 1.7 .8 — - _ — _ 40 — — — — 20 _ 2.1 .3 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 1.2 _ — — — — - — 2.1 .3 .1 .1 .1 .2 .1 1.2 80 150 40 120 200 60 30 10 7.5 14.5 2.3 6.6 10.4 2.9 1.7 .5 3.1 6.8 — .2 — — - 4.4 7.7 2.3 6.4 10.4 2.9 1.7 .5 40 — — — — 20 140 280 40 120 200 60 30 10 — — — — 60 130 — — - — - - - - - .1 — - — - Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect 810 430 78.0 51.0 27.0 Total ................................................................... 1,240 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ C hem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical ............................... .................. Other ........................................................... 640 140 — 30 80 (70) 10 — 10 20 580 130 — 30 80 (70) — — 20 50 10 — — — — — - 40.1 8.7 — 1.6 5.0 (4.3) .3 .1 .3 1.3 36.7 8.1 — 1.6 5.0 (4.3) .1 — .2 1.2 3.4 .6 — — _ — .2 .1 .1 .1 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural ................................................ Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)............................ (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and Geophysicists ................. Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 330 10 140 10 — 150 — — 10 330 10 140 10 — 150 10 _ — — — — 21.1 .8 8.6 — .7 .2 .2 9.4 — .1 .1 .9 20.9 .8 8.6 .7 .2 .2 9.3 — .1 .1 .9 .2 — — — .1 — - Technicians, except medical and dental ......... D rafters......................................................... S u rveyo r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science .............. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 130 — 10 10 70 — 50 120 10 10 70 — 50 10 — — - 8.2 .2 .4 .4 4.2 — 3.3 7.7 — .3 .3 4.1 — 3.3 .5 .2 .1 .1 .1 — - Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and tech nical........................ A ccountants................................................ Pilots ........................................................... Architects .................................................. Designers .................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers Other ........................................................... 10 20 — — — — — — 10 _ — — — — — — - 10 20 — — — — — — 10 .3 1.4 .2 .1 — .1 .1 .2 .1 .9 _ _ — — — — — - .3 1.4 .2 .1 — .1 .1 .2 .1 .9 Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers.................................................................. L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 70 260 20 80 90 50 20 10 20 160 20 10 10 - 50 90 20 60 80 50 10 10 4.6 16.2 1.4 5.3 5.5 2.9 1.5 .6 1.6 10.3 — 1.5 .4 — .6 - 3.0 5.9 1.4 3.8 5.1 2.9 .9 .6 demonstrations: Generated employment, by selected occupations Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Total ................................................................... Total 4,140 Direct Indirect 2,180 1,960 T otal Direct Indirect 35.7 75.3 39.6 33.0 8.5 .1 1.7 3.0 (1.3) .4 .1 2.5 .7 29.8 7.8 .1 1.7 2.9 (1.3) .2 — 2.4 .5 3.2 .7 — .1 .2 .1 .1 .2 Professional and tech nical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ C hem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 1,820 470 10 90 170 (70) 20 10 140 40 1,640 4 30 10 90 160 (70) 10 — 130 30 180 40 — 10 10 10 10 10 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 .......................... (Zoologists)3 .................................... M e d ic a l........................................................ Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists)3 ............................... Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 760 70 210 (40) (10) 30 30 10 360 (10) 10 10 (10) 10 750 70 210 (40) (10) 30 30 10 360 (10) 10 10 (10) 10 10 — — — — — 13.8 1.3 3.8 (.7) (.2) .6 .6 .2 6.5 (.2) .1 .1 (.1) .2 13.6 1.3 3.8 (.7) (.2) .6 .6 .2 6.5 (.2) .1 .1 (.1) .2 .2 — — — — — Technicians, except medical and dental .......... D rafters......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 490 30 20 300 10 130 450 20 10 290 10 130 40 10 10 10 — 8.9 .6 .3 5.4 .2 2.3 8.2 .4 .1 5.2 .2 2.3 .7 .2 .2 .2 — Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccountants................................................ P ilo ts.............................................................. Architects ..................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... 10 100 10 10 — 10 10 10 10 40 _ 10 80 10 10 — 10 10 10 10 40 .1 1.8 .2 .1 — .1 .1 .2 .1 .7 _ 20 — — — — — - .3 — — — — — - .1 1.5 .2 .1 — .1 .1 .2 .1 .7 Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers.................................................................. L ab orers............................................................................... Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 240 650 90 420 490 140 300 20 210 460 90 390 410 110 110 20 4.3 11.8 1.6 7.6 8.8 2.5 5.4 .4 1 D e ta il a vailable fo r d ire c t e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 2 Does n o t in clu d e d e ta il fo r grants fo r w aste w a te r tr e a tm e n t p la n t c o n s tru c tio n . 30 190 — 30 80 30 190 - .5 3.4 — .6 1.4 .5 3.4 - 3.8 8.4 1.6 7.0 7.4 2.0 2.0 .4 3 D e ta il available fo r d ire c t e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . Actual expenditures Occupation Total Direct Per million dollars Indirect T otal Direct Indirect 29.4 Total .................................................................. 1,010 630 380 78.9 49.5 Professional and tech nical............................................... Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ C hem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 .................................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 590 150 — 20 — 10 120 - 560 140 — 20 30 10 — - 46.1 11.5 — 1.6 43.4 10.9 — 1.6 — — 120 - — — - .5 .1 9.2 .1 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 .......................... (Zoologists)3 .................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathem aticians........................................... Systems analysts......................................... Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists)3 ............................... Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 210 70 (10) 210 70 (10) - — — — - 130 — — 10 — 1 130 — 10 — — — — 16.8 5.5 (.9) — .1 10.5 — (.6) — .1 10.4 — (.6) — .2 — — — — .1 — — Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 210 20 — 130 50 200 20 — 130 50 10 — — 15.8 1.6 .2 10.3 3.6 15.4 1.5 .1 10.2 3.6 .4 .1 .1 .1 — — _ 10 — 20 — — Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch ite c ts .................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers.................................................................. Lab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. — — — — — — — — — 10 — — — — - — — — 10 _ 1.9 .1 .1 — .1 .1 .2 .1 .6 40 150 20 60 100 30 20 10 — 50 40 100 20 60 70 30 20 10 3.4 11.9 1.6 4.4 7.7 2.3 1.3 .4 30 — 1 D e ta il ava ila b le fo r d ire c t e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 2 Does n o t in c lu d e d e ta il fo r grants fo r w aste w a te r tre a tm e n t p la n t c o n s tru c tio n . — — 30 — — - — - .3 9.1 16.6 5.5 (.9) — _ .5 — — — — .1 3.8 - .1 2.2 — .1 - 2.7 .6 — — .2 .1 .1 .1 — 1.4 .1 .1 — .1 .1 .2 .1 .6 3.3 8.1 1.6 4.3 5.5 2.3 1.2 .4 3 D e ta il a vailable fo r d ire c t e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . demonstration: Generated employment, by selected occupations Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect 1,030 Total ................................................................... 1,890 860 70.7 32.3 38.4 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A ero nau tical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary) lf2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 660 160 10 20 80 (20) 10 — 10 - 580 140 10 20 80 (20) — 10 - 80 20 — — — — — - 24.6 5.9 .3 .9 2.9 (.8) .2 .1 .6 .9 21.6 5.2 .3 .9 2.8 (.8) .1 .5 .8 3.0 .7 — — .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 ........................ (Zoologists)3 ................................. M e d ic a l......................................................... M athem aticians........................................... Systems analysts......................................... Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists)3 ............................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 330 50 100 (10) (10) 10 10 10 150 (10) — 320 50 100 (10) (10) 10 10 10 150 (10) — 10 — — — — 12.5 1.9 3.6 (.4) (.5) .5 .3 .2 5.7 (.2) .1 .1 12.3 1.9 3.6 (.4) (.5) .5 .3 .2 5.6 (.2) .1 .1 .2 — — .1 — Technicians, except medical and dental .......... D rafters......................................................... S u rveyor....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 130 10 10 70 — 30 110 — 70 30 20 10 — — — 4.7 .3 .1 .2 2.7 .1 1.2 4.1 .1 .1 2.6 .1 1.2 .6 .2 .1 .1 .1 — — Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccountants................................................ P ilo ts.............................................................. A rch ite c ts .................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ _ 40 10 — — 10 — 20 — — — — — — - — 40 — — — 10 — 20 1.5 .2 — .1 .1 .2 .1 .7 — — — — — - 1.5 .2 — .1 .1 .2 .1 .7 Managers and administrators.......................... - .............. Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft w o rk e rs ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers.................................................................. L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 100 290 40 240 260 50 240 10 — 60 — 20 40 10 150 - 100 230 40 220 220 40 90 10 3.7 10.7 1.6 9.1 9.9 2.0 8.8 .4 .1 2.2 — .9 1.7 .3 5.6 — 3.6 8.5 1.6 8.2 8.2 1.7 3.2 .4 1 D e ta il a vailable fo r d ire c t e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 2 Does n o t in clu d e d e ta il fo r grants fo r waste w a te r tr e a tm e n t p la n t c o n s tru c tio n . — — — 3 D eta il a vailable fo r d ire c t e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . Actual expenditures Per million dollars Occupation Total Direct Indirect T ota I Direct Indirect 1,110 330 780 280 70 — — 50 200 50 — — 50 80 20 — — — 67.9 20.2 47.7 17.5 4.2 — .1 3.1 (.1) .4 — .1 .2 12.5 3.3 — .1 2.9 (.1) .2 — .1 .1 5.0 .9 — - - - — — — — — — _ _ _ 5.8 .8 - .2 — - — — - .6 .6 .1 3.4 (.5) — .3 5.6 .8 .6 .6 .1 3.3 (.5) — .3 60 — — 30 10 10 20 10 10 10 - 4.8 .2 .1 .4 2.6 .4 .8 3.5 .1 .1 2.1 .4 .7 1.3 .1 .1 .3 .5 .1 _ - _ 40 _ — — — — 30 .2 2.4 .2 — — .1 — .2 .1 1.8 .2 2.4 .2 — — .1 .2 .1 1.8 70 140 30 180 180 30 50 - 5.6 11.1 1.6 11.7 12.0 2.9 5.4 .2 Total .................................................................. Professional and technical............................................... Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 10 — — 10 - - Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 ........................ (Zoologists)3 ................................. M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians..................... .................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists)3 ............................... Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 90 10 — 10 10 60 (10) — 10 90 10 10 10 50 (10) — 10 Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters......................................................... S u rveyo r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 80 10 10 40 10 10 Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccountants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch itects.................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... _ 40 — — — — 30 — — — - Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers.................................................................. L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 90 180 30 190 200 50 90 - 20 40 — - — — 1 D e ta il a va ila b le fo r d ire c t e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 2 Does n o t in clu d e d e ta il fo r grants fo r waste w a te r tr e a tm e n t p la n t c o n s tru c tio n . - 10 20 20 40 - — - - — — — — — — 1.0 2.3 — .3 .9 1.1 2.2 - — .2 - .2 — — .1 — — .1 — - 4.6 8.8 1.6 11.4 11.1 1.8 3.2 .2 3 D eta il ava ila b le fo r d ire c t e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . demonstration by universities: Generated employment, by selected occupations Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect 94.5 67.6 26.9 Total . ................................................................ 1,800 1,290 510 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil ........................................... .................. (Sanitary)1'2 Electrical....................................................... Industrial .............. .. ................... ............. Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ 1,090 260 — 60 100 (60) — — 90 10 1,050 250 — 60 100 (60) — 90 10 40 10 — — — — — - 57.3 13.8 — 2.9 5.2 (3.1) .2 .1 4.8 .6 55.0 13.2 — 2.9 5.1 (3.1) — 4.7 .5 2.3 .6 — — .1 .2 .1 .1 .1 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 .......................... (Zoologists)3 .................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts......................................... Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists)3 ............................... Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 500 70 150 (30) (10) 20 10 10 220 10 — — 10 500 70 150 (30) (10) 20 10 10 220 10 — — 10 — — — — — — — — — 26.1 3.8 7.6 (1.3) (.7) 1.0 .7 .5 11.8 .3 .1 — .3 26.0 3.8 7.6 (1.3) (.7) 1.0 .7 .5 11.7 .3 .1 — .3 .1 — — — — .1 — — — Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ............................................................ 300 10 — 180 10 100 290 10 — 180 10 100 10 — — — 15.8 .8 .1 9.5 .3 5.1 15.4 .7 — 9.5 .3 5.0 .4 .1 .1 — .1 Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ P ilots.............................................................. A rch ite c ts ..................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ _ 30 — — — 10 — 10 — — - 20 — — — 10 — 1.6 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .5 .5 — — — — — 1.1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .5 Managers and adm inistrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ...................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers............................................................................... Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 60 220 30 90 110 40 150 10 10 100 — 10 130 — 50 120 30 90 110 30 20 10 3.3 11.4 1.5 4.6 5.7 2.1 7.9 .7 .4 5.1 — .4 6.7 — 2.9 6.3 1.5 4.6 5.7 1.7 1.2 .7 1 D e ta il a vailable fo r d ire c t e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 2 Does n o t in clu d e d e ta il fo r grants fo r w aste w a te r tr e a tm e n t p la n t c o n s tru c tio n . — - - 3 D eta il a v a ila b le f o r d ire c t e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . Actual expenditures Occupation Total ................................................................... Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A ero nau tical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial ............ ........................................ Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ Natural scientists.................................................... A gricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)............................. (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... M athem aticians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................ Total Direct Indirect Total D irect Indirect 31.2 360 180 190 64.0 32.8 180 40 10 20 10 (10) 10 — — 160 40 10 20 10 (10) 4 _ — 20 27.3 6.9 .9 3.3 2.0 (1.8) .7 _ — - - - 31.2 7.3 .9 3.3 2.0 (1.8) .8 .1 .1 13.3 — 2.0 — 13.1 — — — — — _ 70 10 — — 10 50 — - 70 10 — — 10 50 — — — — — — — — — — (10) - (10) - Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ............................................................ 40 — — 20 10 40 — _ — 20 10 Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch ite c ts .................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ _ 20 — — — — — 30 _ — — — — — 10 Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... O peratives............................................................................ Service w orkers.................................................................. L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 20 60 10 20 30 20 20 - 20 — — 10 - Per million dollars — — - 2.0 — — — 1.1 — 8.4 — _ 3.9 .4 — _ _ — .1 .1 .1 .2 — — — — — — — _ __ — — — 1.1 — 8.4 — — .3 (1.3) .0 .3 (1.3) .0 6.6 .6 .2 4.4 1.4 6.3 .5 .1 4.3 1.4 .3 .1 — .1 .1 — 20 _ — — — — 20 .1 3.8 .1 .1 _ — .1 — .1 1.0 _ .1 2.8 .1 .1 20 40 10 20 30 20 10 - 3.7 10.6 1.7 4.2 4.5 4.3 3.0 .7 — _ — — - _ 1.0 — _ — — — — — .1 3.4 — — — 1.9 - - - — .1 — .1 1.0 3.6 7.2 1.7 4.2 4.5 4.3 1.1 .7 Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation D irect Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total ................................................................... 880 380 500 62.6 27.1 35.5 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A ero nau tical................................................ C hem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ 280 90 — 20 10 10 40 20 230 80 — 20 4 — 40 20 50 10 — — — — 20.0 6.7 — 1.4 .4 .1 .5 .1 2.8 1.4 16.7 6.0 — 1.4 .3 .1 .3 2.8 1.1 3.3 .7 — .1 .2 .1 — .3 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)............................. (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts......................................... Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 90 40 10 40 — — — 80 40 10 40 — — — — — — — 6.2 2.7 .5 .3 2.6 (.1) — — 6.0 2.7 .5 .3 2.5 (.1) — — .2 — — .1 — — Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ............................................................ 70 10 — 50 — 10 70 10 — 50 — 10 10 — — - 5.2 .6 .2 3.4 — .8 4.7 .4 .1 3.3 — .8 .5 .2 .1 .1 — — Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ P ilo ts.............................................................. A rch ite c ts .................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ _ — 20 — — — — 10 — — — - — 20 — — — 10 1.7 .2 .1 .1 .1 .3 .1 .8 — — — — — - 1.7 .2 .1 .1 .1 .3 .1 .8 Managers and adm inistrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... O peratives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers............................................................................... Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 60 180 20 120 160 30 40 - 10 40 — 30 60 — 10 — 50 140 20 90 90 30 30 — 4.2 12.5 1.7 8.2 11.1 2.0 2.7 .3 .4 2.5 2.0 4.5 — .9 — 3.8 10.0 1.7 6.2 6.6 2.0 1.8 .3 Total — — — — Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total ................................................................... 1,820 1,190 630 83.4 54.7 28.7 Professional and tech nical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A ero nau tical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ 1,030 150 — 10 40 (10) 10 — 90 10 960 140 — 10 40 (10) 10 — 90 - 70 10 — 47.1 6.7 — .4 1.7 (.6) .4 .1 4.0 .3 44.1 6.2 Natural scientists.................................................... A gricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 .......................... (Zoologists)3 .................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts......................................... Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists)3 ............................... Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 600 30 190 (30) (10) 40 30 300 590 30 190 (30) (10) 40 30 300 _ — — - (10) 10 (10) 10 - 27.4 1.2 8.5 (1.2) (.6) 1.6 1.3 13.9 (.2) (.5) .5 27.2 1.2 8.5 (1.2) (.6) 1.6 1.3 13.8 (.2) (.5) .5 .1 — - Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters......................................................... S u rveyor....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 240 20 — 120 10 90 230 10 — 120 10 90 10 — - 10.9 .7 .1 5.4 .4 4.2 10.5 .6 — 5.3 .4 4.2 .4 .1 .1 .1 - Total Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and tech nical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch itects.................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. — - — — - — — - - _ _ _ 40 10 — — — — - 40 — — — — — 20 .1 2.0 .1 .1 — .1 .1 .1 .1 1.1 20 110 — 10 70 170 40 90 110 60 80 10 4.0 12.7 1.6 4.8 4.8 3.1 4.8 .4 — — — — — — 20 90 280 40 100 110 70 170 10 1 D e ta il ava ila b le fo r d ire c t e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 2 D oes n o t in clu d e d e ta il f o r grants fo r waste w a te r tr e a tm e n t p la n t c o n s tru c tio n . Direct - 10 90 - - .4 1.6 (.6) .2 — 3.9 .2 _ 3.0 .5 — — .1 — .2 .1 .1 .1 .2 — — — - — — — — - .1 .7 .1 .1 — .1 .1 .1 .1 1.1 .7 5.0 — .5 .5 3.9 - 3.3 7.7 1.6 4.3 4.8 2.6 .9 .4 .3 — 3 D e ta il a vailable fo r d ire c t e x tra m u ra l e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . development and demonstration: Generated employment, by selected occupations Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect 40.3 Total ................................................................... 2,330 990 1,340 70.1 29.8 Professional and tech nical................................................ Engineers ........................................................... .. A ero nau tical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 790 320 10 90 130 (60) 10 50 30 680 290 10 90 130 (60) 10 50 20 110 30 — — — 10 10 10 23.9 9.6 .2 2.6 3.9 (1.8) .4 .1 1.6 .9 20.5 8.8 .2 2.6 3.8 (1.8) .2 1.4 .7 3.4 .8 — — .1 .2 .1 .2 .2 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)3 .......................... (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 160 50 20 (10) 10 10 60 10 — 150 50 20 (10) — 10 10 60 10 — 10 — — — — — 4.8 1.4 .7 (.3) — .2 .3 1.9 (.1) .2 .1 — 4.6 1.4 .7 (.3) — .2 .3 1.8 (.1) .2 .1 — .2 — — — .1 — Technicians, except medical and dental .......... D rafters......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ............................................................ 250 20 10 180 — 40 220 10 — 170 — 40 30 10 — 10 — — 1.6 1.1 .3 5.4 .1 1.1 6.7 .3 .1 5.1 .1 1.1 .9 .8 .2 .3 — — — — 10 — 20 — 10 — — — — — - — 40 10 — — 10 — 20 1.6 .2 — .1 — .2 .1 .5 .3 — — — — — — 1.3 .2 — .1 — .2 .1 .5 150 350 50 310 380 70 180 20 10 80 20 80 20 100 — 130 270 50 290 300 50 80 20 4.4 11.2 1.6 9.5 11.4 2.1 5.5 .5 .4 2.4 .7 2.3 .5 3.0 — 4.0 8.8 1.6 8.8 9.1 1.6 2.5 .5 Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and tech nical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch ite c ts .................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... Lab orers............................................................................... Farmers and farm workers ............................................. — — 50 10 - — — Actual expenditures Per million dollars Occupation Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect 27.7 Total ................................................................... 3,550 2,300 1,250 78.4 50.7 Professional and tech nical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A ero nau tical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ 1,660 490 — 60 330 (270) 10 — 40 30 1,500 470 — 60 330 (270) 10 30 30 160 20 — — — — — 10 - 36.9 10.8 — 1.4 7.4 (5.7) .2 .1 .9 .8 33.3 10.3 — 1.4 7.3 (5.7) .1 — .8 .7 3.6 .5 — — .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)............................. (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 590 20 160 10 30 3 10 (30) 10 580 20 160 10 30 310 (30) 10 10 — — — - 12.9 .4 3.6 .2 .1 .6 6.9 .1 (.7) .2 12.7 .4 3.6 .2 .1 .6 6.8 .1 (.7) .2 .2 — — — .1 — - Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters......................................................... S u rveyor....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ............................................................ 490 10 40 210 10 210 460 — 40 210 10 210 30 10 — - 10.7 .2 .9 4.6 .3 4.6 10.2 — .8 4.5 .3 4.6 .5 .2 .1 .1 - Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and tech nical........................ A ccountants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch ite c ts .................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ 20 90 10 — — 10 10 — 50 _ — — — — — - 20 90 10 — 10 10 — 50 .4 2.0 .3 .1 .1 .2 .2 .1 1.1 _ — — — — — - .4 2.0 .3 .1 — .1 .2 .2 .1 1.1 Managers and adm inistrators........................................... Clerical workers ............................................. .................. Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... O peratives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 410 770 60 200 200 160 40 30 260 490 30 - 150 280 60 170 200 160 40 30 9.0 16.9 1.4 2.5 4.5 8.5 .9 .6 5.8 10.8 — .7 - 3.2 6.1 1.4 7.8 4.5 8.5 .9 .6 - — - — - Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total ...................................... ............................ 8,610 4,710 3,900 84.1 46.0 38.1 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial ..................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ 3,860 700 440 90 — 10 30 10 20 10 37.7 6.9 .3 1.0 (.2) 1.1 .1 .4 4.0 33.4 6.0 .3 .9 (.2) .8 — .2 3.8 4.3 .9 30 100 (20) 110 10 40 410 3,420 610 30 90 (20) 80 — 20 400 Natural scientists..................................................... A gricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)............................. (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 1,710 30 480 90 20 10 340 (40) 10 420 (20) 270 1,690 30 480 — — 90 20 10 330 (40) 10 420 (20) 270 20 — — 10 — — — 16.7 .3 4.7 — .9 .2 .1 3.3 (.4) .1 4.1 (.2) 2.6 16.5 .3 4.7 — .9 .2 .1 3.2 (.4) .1 4.1 (.2) 2.6 .2 — — .1 — — — Technicans, except medical and d e n ta l............ D rafters......................................................... Surveyor .................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ............................................................ 960 30 170 500 30 230 900 10 9.4 .3 1.7 4.9 .3 8.8 .1 1.5 .6 .2 - 150 480 30 230 60 20 20 20 — — Medical and other health w o rk e rs ..................... Other professional and tech nical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ P ilo ts.............................................................. A rch ite c ts .................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ............................................................ 200 280 20 50 — 10 20 10 10 140 160 60 — 40 — — — — - Managers and adm inistrators........................................... Clerical workers ............................................................................................................... Sales workers ........................................................................................................................ Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers............................................................................... Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 660 1,510 190 750 890 480 230 30 240 690 Total — Direct - — 70 60 160 60 — 4.7 .3 2.2 2.2 40 220 20 10 — 10 20 10 10 140 2.0 2.7 1.6 .6 — 420 820 190 680 830 320 170 30 6.4 14.7 1.9 7.3 8.7 4.7 2.3 .3 .2 .5 — .1 .2 .1 .1 1.4 .4 — — — — 2.3 6.7 — — — .1 .3 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2 — — .4 2.1 .2 .1 — .1 .2 .1 .1 1.4 4.1 8.0 1.9 .7 6 .6 .6 8.1 3.1 1.7 .3 1.6 .6 - Actual expenditures Per million dollars Occupation D irect Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total ................................................................... 13,550 Total 4,730 8,820 53.6 18.7 34.9 Professional and tech nical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A ero nau tical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1'2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ 1,970 610 — — 400 1,040 380 7.8 2.4 — 4.1 1.5 — 3.7 .9 — - — — - - 30 — — - 1.6 .2 .1 .1 .2 1.4 .1 — — .2 50 30 50 50 930 230 — 50 20 30 50 50 - .1 .1 .1 .2 Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)............................. (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... M athem aticians........................................... Systems analysts........................................ Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 30 — - — — - 30 — - .1 — - _ — - .1 — - - - - — - - 30 — - — - 30 — - — .1 — - — — - — .1 — — - Technicians, except medical and dental .......... D rafters......................................................... Surveyor .................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ........................................................... 730 330 50 80 250 30 50 530 180 30 50 230 30 50 200 150 20 30 20 - 2.9 1.3 .2 .3 1.0 .1 .2 2.1 .7 .1 .2 .9 .1 .2 .8 .6 .1 .1 .1 - Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch ite c ts .................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. — — 350 — — — - — - _ _ _ 30 50 — 150 30 150 100 30 — — 20 — — 50 460 150 — 30 30 — 150 30 100 2.2 .7 _ .1 .2 — .6 .1 .6 .4 .1 _ _ .1 — — — .2 1.8 .6 _ .1 .1 — .6 .1 .4 1,240 1,690 380 3,460 3,310 250 1,090 80 380 200 — 2,000 680 380 - 860 1,490 380 1,460 2,630 250 710 80 4.9 6.7 1.5 13.7 13.1 1.0 4.3 .3 1.5 .8 — 7.9 2.7 — 1.5 - 3.4 5.9 1.5 5.8 10.4 1.0 2.8 .3 _ 560 180 _ _ _ Per million dollars Actual expenditures Occupation Total .................................................................. Total 1,020 Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect 690 330 65.1 43.8 21.3 6.4 1.9 — .6 .2 .1 .3 .6 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A eronautical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. ............................... (Sanitary)1'2 Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ............................................................ 720 360 — 10 300 20 — 10 10 620 330 — 10 300 10 — 10 - 100 30 — — 10 — — — 10 45.6 22.9 — .6 19.7 1.1 .1 .7 .6 39.2 21.0 — .6 19.1 .9 — .4 - Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)............................. (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts......................................... Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 2 — — - — — — — — 2 — — — — .1 — — — — — — — — .1 — — — _ _ Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters......................................................... S u rveyor....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ............................................................ 310 140 10 — 120 50 280 120 — 110 50 40 20 10 — — 20.0 9.0 .1 7.3 3.2 17.8 7.5 — 7.2 3.1 2.2 1.5 .4 .1 .1 .1 Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccou ntants................................................ Pilots.............................................................. A rch ite c ts.................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... — 30 20 — 10 — 10 — 10 10 — — — - — 30 10 — 10 — 10 — - — — — 2.5 1.0 — .4 .3 .2 .4 — .2 .4 .4 — — — — - 2.1 .6 — .4 .2 .2 .4 — .2 IVjanagers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft workers ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L aborers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 40 150 30 30 30 20 10 — 10 70 — — - 30 80 30 30 30 20 10 — 2.6 9.3 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.0 .5 .2 .4 4.2 — — — ~ 2.2 5.1 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.0 .5 .2 — — - — - - — - __ — Actual expenditures Occupation Total D irect Per million dollars Indirect Total Direct Indirect 9,490 52.8 17.0 35.8 1.8 .2 — — .2 — — — 3.5 .8 — — .2 — .1 .1 Total ................................................................... 12,510 4,030 Professional and technical................................................ Engineers ................................................................ A ero nau tical................................................ Chem ical....................................................... Civil .............................................................. (Sanitary)1/2 ............................... Electrical....................................................... Industrial .................................................... Mechanical .................................................. Other ........................................................... 1,260 240 — — 100 — 20 20 50 50 430 50 — — 50 — — _ — 830 190 — — 50 — 20 20 5.3 1.0 — — .4 .1 .1 - 50 .2 - .2 .1 — — .1 — - _ — — — — — - .1 — — — — .1 — — - 1.8 .7 .2 .3 .6 .1 - 1.1 .2 .1 .2 .5 .1 - .7 .5 .1 .1 .1 — - _ _ Natural scientists.................................................... Agricultural.................................................. Biological .................................................... (Microbiologists)............................. (Zoologists)...................................... M e d ic a l......................................................... Mathematicians........................................... Systems analysts......................................... Chem ists....................................................... (Biochemists) ................................. Geologists and geophysicists................... Physicists .................................................... Meteorologists............................................. Other natural scientists............................. 20 — — — 20 — — — - — — — — - 20 — — 20 — - Technicians, except medical and dental .......... Drafters ......................................................... S u rv e y o r....................................................... Electrical and e le c tro n ic .......................... Other engineering and science................. Computer programmers .......................... Other ............................................................ 4 30 170 50 70 140 20 - 260 50 20 50 120 20 - 170 120 20 20 20 — - Medical and other health w o rk e rs ...................... Other professional and technical........................ A ccountants................................................ P ilo ts.............................................................. A rch ite c ts .................................................... Designers....................................................... Editors and reporters ............................... Lawyers ....................................................... Personnel and labor relations workers . . Other ........................................................... 520 160 — 20 50 — 140 20 140 90 20 — — 20 — — 50 430 140 — 20 20 — 140 20 90 2.2 .7 — .1 .2 — .6 .1 .6 .4 .1 — — .1 — — .2 1.8 .6 — .1 .1 — .6 .1 .4 Managers and administrators........................................... Clerical workers ................................................................ Sales workers ..................................................................... Craft w o r k e rs ..................................................................... Operatives............................................................................ Service w orkers................................................................... L ab orers.............................................................................. Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 1,210 1,560 360 3,410 3,290 240 1,090 70 380 140 830 1,420 360 1,420 2,600 240 710 70 5.1 6.6 1.5 14.4 13.9 1.0 4.6 .3 1.6 .6 3.5 6.0 1.5 6.0 11.0 1.0 3.0 .3 _ _ — 1,990 690 380 - _ _ _ _ 8.4 2.9 — 1.6 - _ Appendix B. Interview Guide BLS 3021 Office of Management and Budget No, 44-S-72013 Approval expires 12-31-72 Employment Impact of Federal Expenditures for Pollution Control and Abatement Interview conducted at (company) with (address) _______________ ____________________________ (_________________ (official's name) (Telephone) on (date) A, Introduction This interview is being conducted by the BLS as part of a study to assess the employment impact of Federal pollution control and abatement expenditures. The study is being made for the National Science Foundation. It is designed to develop a methodology to assist Federal agencies in evaluating the employment impact of new programs. It will also provide information on the industrial and occupational transferability of skills at the professional and technical levels. The basic expenditure data on which this study is based was originally collected from Federal agencies by the Office of Management and Budget. In this interview, we will be asking respondents for information on their employment and other costs connected either directly or indirectly with Federal pollution control and abatement projects in which they are engaged. All sources of data and information obtained in the interview will be held in strict confience by the BLS, and any published information will not permit identification of individual organizations. B. Site Information 1. ^/Verify or obtain the following information (some entries are already known based on data received from OMB and other Federal agencies) for those who are directly receiving Federal funds^/ 1. Name of Federal agency funding project. 2. Project title or identification. 3. Activity. Financial assistance to State and local governments for capital investment (primarily sewage plant/pipeline con struction) Research, development and demonstration where the primary purpose is pollution control and abatement: Pollution sources and effects Basic research Development Pollution control technology Development Demonstration Abatement and control operations (at Federal facilities) Planning Monitoring and surveillance Standard setting and enforce ment Technical support Manufacturers and/or suppliers of goods and services used in pollution control and abatement projects ______________________ Brief description of project Ain two or three sentences, describe purpose and nature of the project and identify media involved^/ 5. Starting date 6. Scheduled completion date (if open-ended, indicate), 7. Total cost of project 8. Total cost of project, FY-1970 9. Federal funds for project received in FY 1970. Obtain the following from all respondents 10. Was any part of this project subcontracted for? (Obtain dollar amounts and names and addresses of subcontractors.) 11. Industry and SIC code of respondent. 12. Is the particular type of work in question different from your normal type of work? If yes, how? 13. How long has the organization been working in the pollution control and abatement field? C. Payroll costs 1. What were the total payroll costs related to the project for FY 1970? (Include wages, salaries, and all employer financed benefits, exclude overhead and fees to consulting firms, but include individuals who are consultants.) 2. How many workers were supported by this payroll? a. List number of workers by occupation in Col. A. b. List man-hours or man-years in Col. B. /Individual items should add to totaJL/ No. of Positions Occupations Total all occupations Professional, Technical and Kindred Occupations, Total Engineers Mechanical Electrical and Electronic All other engineers Mathematicians Systems Analysts Physical Scientists Chemists Physicists *A11 other physical scientists Life Scientists Biological scientists Medical scientists Agricultural scientists All other life scientists Technicians Computer Programmers Draftsmen Electrical and electronic technicians All other engineering technicians Science Technicians (exclude medical and dental technicians) All other technicians (Include medical and dental technicians in research and development exclude those who primary function is care or treatment of patients) Managerial occupations Sales occupations Clerical occupations Craftsmen Operatives No. of man-years or man-hours 3. If you received additional contracts in the same areas, what would be the effect on employment? (Discuss specific information relating to scientific and technical manpower. For example, if the contract were doubled, would employment of scientists and engineers double?) D. Non-Payroll Costs /Non-payroll costs include all charges to the project other than payroll reported under C-l. The following questions are designed to relate such expenditures to particular categories and industries in order to help measure the indirect employment resulting from this project^/ 1. Apart from payroll costs, what were the total outlays for the project in FY 1970? (Accept budget costs if actual outlays are not available.) 2. a. What kinds £f capital equipment are (were) needed for this project? /[Machinery or other durable goods lasting one year or longer. Include items purchased specifically for thjs project as well as existing items of capital equipment^/ b. What were the charges to the project for each item of capital equipment? Item Charge 3. What are the dollar amounts and kinds of goods and services charged to the project? (include services of consulting firms and obtain names and addresses of such firms. Individual con sultants included under payroll costs should not be included here.) 4. What were the total overhead costs charged to this project? a. Payroll costs - include dollar amounts and occupations supported by this overhead charge. b. Non payroll costs - include dollar amounts and types of services and supplies charged to overhead. E. Skill Transferability 1. In filling scientific and technical vacancies related^to pollution control projects, what qualifications do you seek? /Discuss relation-^ ship between education and general and/or specialized work experience^/ 2. How have your actual hiring experiences related to the qualifications you were seeking? 3. Has your organization experienced difficulty in expanding current projects or initiating new ones because o_f a shortage of manpower with the desirable training or skills? /Discuss time frame— past and current occupational shortages^/ 4. In the context of today's labor market situation: 5. a. If you were starting now the work you have done in the past year or two, would you change your staffing patterns.? /Determine expected occupational variations and/or manpower/capital varia tion and discuss reasons for any variations^/ b. Are you considering any staffing changes--for example, an upgrading of scientific qualifications In light of the reported availability of highly educated manpower? Skill Transferability from Defense and Aerospace Industries /This series of questions is designed to obtain the respondent's views concerning the transferability of defense and aerospace: skills to the area under discussion^/ Have you had any experience in hiring or interview ing people from the aerospace Industry? We would like you to answer the following questions based on your experience! or if you have had no experience along these lines we would like your opinions about this subject. F. a. Are there any similarities in academic qualifications between your scientific and technical personnel and those personnel most commonly employed in aerospace and defense? (For example, B.S. degree in electrical engineering.) b. Does the academic preparation and past experience of scientific and technical personnel in the defense and aerospace industries have any carryover to the work your organization is doing (in pollution control.) c. If the technologies are so different that skill carryover would be negligible, can retraining bridge this gap? How different is the retraining necessary for displaced areospace and defense personnel from what would normally be given to new college graduates with the same academic qualifications? d. Are there any barriers which could discourage your organiza tion from recruiting or hiring displaced scientific and technical personnel from the defense and aerospace industries? (Include economic and social barriers to recruiting these personnel.) What types of information obtained in this interview could you, and would you, have supplied in a mail questionnaire? /Be specific and cover items included under section C through E^/ BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS REGIONAL OFFICES Region I 1603 JFK Federal Building Government Center Boston, Mass. 02203 Phone: 223-6762 (Area Code 617) Region V Region II Suite 3400 1515 Broadway New York, N.Y. 10036 Phone: 971-5405 (Area Code 212) Region VI 1100 Commerce St., Rm. 6B7 Dallas, Tex. 75202 Phone: 749-3516 (Area Code 214) 9th Floor, 230 South Dearborn St. Chicago, III. 60604 Phone: 353-1880 (Area Code 312) Region III P.O. Box 13309 Philadelphia, Pa. 19101 Phone: 597-1154 (Area Code 215) Regions VII and VIII * Federal Office Building 911 Walnut St., 15th Floor Kansas City, Mo. 64106 Phone: 374-2481 (Area Code 816) Region IV Suite 540 1371 Peachtree St., NE. Atlanta, Ga. 30309 Phone: 526-5418 (Area Code 404) Regions IX and X ** 450 Golden Gate Ave. Box 36017 San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Phone: 556-4678 (Area Code 415) Regions VII and VIII are serviced by Kansas City Regions IX and X are serviced by San Francisco