View original document

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— Division of
the
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)— 53 percent were
and
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

Total
number

T o t a l..............

33,530




Table 5.
Manpower requirements per million dollars of
selected program expenditures 1972
Program

Percent distribution
Total

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

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.)

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

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

Indirect

Number

Occupational group

T o t a l ...........................................................
Professional and
technical....................................
Engineers.............................
Natural scientists..............
Technicians........................
Other professional
and technical,
including medical . . . .
All other .........................................




Total

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
Total

NOTE:

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

T o t a l.........................................................
Professional and
technical ............ .. . . . .
Engineers ............
Natural scientists .
Technicians.........
Other professional
and technical,
including
medical .........
All o th e r ......................................

Inhouse

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

Direct

Indirect

Number
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:

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

—

—

..............................................................
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

Indirect

Direct

Number
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:

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 otal
T o t a l...................................................................
Financial assistance to
State and local governments. . . .
Research, development and
dem onstration...............................
Abatement and control
operations ................... ...................
Other ................................. ..................

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
Although these expenditures have grown rapidly, they pollution control efforts in virtually all areas. increase
still constitute a small proportion of total Federal ingly stringent clean air and water standards Increas­
call for
expenditures - about 1 percent in 1974.
greater pollution control and abatement expenditures
Federal R&D expenditures for pollution control and
abatement also constitute a relatively small proportion throughout the economy. legislation, there are many
In addition to present
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
pollution control and abatement have increased from enthusiasmcontrolshift in priorities to waning of public
or a
other areas
almost 2 percent in 1970 to an estimated 3 percent for reduce Federal expenditures in this area. On the could
other
fiscal 1973.
hand, increased levels of Federal expenditures for
The increasing relative importance of Federal expen­ pollution control
abatement
result
ditures for pollution control and abatement are part of a developments such and the discoverycouldpreviouslyfrom
as
of
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

Percent of
Federal purchases

Outlays

Percent of Federal R&D
expenditures

$15,159
14,193
13.895
14,396

$96,500
90,700
91,900
94,400

............
............
............
............

SOURCE:

Outlays

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— water, radiation, pesticides,
air,
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— changes, if any,
what
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— was a particular point of and those knowledgeable in particle technology.
this
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— many respects universities were the
In
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:
a.

b.

5.

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^/
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.

a.

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.

F.

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.)

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


Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, One Federal Reserve Bank Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63102