L 2 o :

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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* T itle. TD156.U45 1975 331.1’1 74-28080

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1975 0-583-671 (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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Preface

Cutbacks in Federal defense and research and development expenditures in the early 1970’s and the resulting 

unemployment and dislocation of scientific and technical manpower, raised concern about the effects of shifting 

Federal expenditures and priorities on employment, especially of scientific, technical, and other ‘"high level” 

manpower. Very soon it was discovered that a comprehensive system did not exist for estimating the potential effect 

of shifts in Federal spending and priorities on the creation or elimination of jobs.

The development of the research techniques and data necessary for the analysis of such shifts is of major 

importance to those responsible for determining national priorities, planning manpower training programs, and 

planning and operating labor market service programs. The National Science Foundation recognized the need for 

developing these techniques and data, especially in relation to requirements for scientists and engineers, and provided 

support to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for research in this area. This bulletin presents the results of that research. 

The focus of the research was placed on developing a method for measuring employment generated by expenditures 

for a specific Federal program. The method was also used to develop estimates of the employment generated by 

Federal expenditures for pollution control and abatement. Illustrative projections of the requirements for scientific 

and technical personnel in the pollution control fields also were developed as well as the information on skill 

transferability of scientists and engineers from defense and aerospace activities to work related to pollution control 

and abatement.

Much of the data generated in this study is based on information gathered from interviews with officials of 

organizations engaged in pollution control activities in approximately 100 universities, nonprofit organizations, 

private firms, and provided by numerous Federal officials in the Environmental Protection Agency and other Federal, 

State, and local government agencies. Because of the small sample size, the pilot nature of the study, and the 

limitations of the methods, estimates of employment generated by Federal expenditures for pollution control in this 

bulletin should be viewed as rough orders of magnitude, rather than as precise numbers.

The work underlying this bulletin represents the cooperative efforts of two divisions of the Bureau—the Division of 

Manpower and Occupational Outlook, Office of Manpower Structure and Trends, and the Division of Economic 

Growth. Michael Crowley of the Division of Manpower and Occupational Outlook coordinated and directed the 

study. Edith Andrews and Daniel Hecker of the same Division prepared this bulletin together with Kenneth R. Tyree 

of the Division of Economic Growth, who assisted in the development of the study design and research methods.

Within the National Science Foundation, Norman Seltzer, Study Director, Scientific Manpower Studies Group, and 

Morris Cobern have been active participants from the outset.

in

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Contents

Page

Introduction................................................................................................................................... v

Highlights ....................... ...................................................................................................vii

Chapters:

I. Manpower impacts-Federal pollution control

abatement expenditures............................................................................................ 1

II. Illustrative p ro jectio n s.................................................................................................... 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 and media .......................................................................25

Appendixes:

A. Detailed tables ................................................................................................................31

B. Interview g u id e.................................. .............................................................................53

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 repercussions. 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 account 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 Huntsville, 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 pollutants 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 students who work on the project. A reduction in Government 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 Government 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 requirements 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 considered 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 manpower impact of Federal expenditures and use that 

technique to measure the employment requirements of 

Federal expenditures for pollution .control and abatement 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-employees 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 programs 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, hypothetical 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 institution, 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 programs 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 o f 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” employment 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.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Highlights

Findings. An average of 66.9 jobs were generated for 

each million dollars expended by the Federal Government for pollution control and abatement. This compares with 49.8 civilian jobs generated per million dollars 

of defense expenditures (in 1972), and 73.9 for nondefense expenditures. For every million dollars of Federal 

pollution control and abatement expenditures, requirements 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. Furthermore, 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.” Generally, 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 considerable 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.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter I. Manpower Impacts—Federal Pollution Control and

Abatement Expenditures

Federal funds

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 construction 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 environmental 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, amounting to $24 million, were separated and treated as a 

distinct activity as shown:

Adjusted

Outlays

for

radiation

outlays activities

Total .................................... 501 102

Financial aid to State and local governments ............................................... 252 -

Research, development, and demonstration .................................................. 180 78

Federal abatement and control operations ......................................................... 69 24

Radiation activities ............................ — -

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 activities were far larger than those for any other media or 

type of pollution and would overshadow the others if 

included.

Employment impacts—interpretation of data

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 employment impacts, facilitate a comparison of the relative 

importance and employment impact of different programs, 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 additional problem. Data were collected on the number of 

man-hours supported by the grant or contract, as well as

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 contractor. 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 supported 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 comparing 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 performer 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 engiTable 1. Total employment impact of Federal

pollution control and abatement expenditures, by

selected occupational groups

Selected occupational groups Number Percent

distribution

T o ta l................................. 33,530 100.0

Professional and technical............ 10,960 32.7

Engineers............................... 2,600 7.7

Natural scientists................. 3,860 11.5

Technicians.......................... 3,100 9.2

Other professional and

technical, including

medical w orkers............ 1,420 4.2

All other ........................................... 22,570 67.3

N O T E : D etail m ay no t add to totals because of rounding.

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 engineering-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 expenditures 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 municipal 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 directly—in-house on Federal payrolls or at grantees and 

contractors (tables 3 and 4)—and 53 percent were

generated indue city.through purchases of goods and

s er/: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 pollution 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 abateDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 2. Total and professional and technical employment, by program

Group

Total R&D

Abatement and

control

operations

Radiation

Municipal

waste

water treatment

Number 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 32.7 3,460 44.3 1,660 46.8 3,860 44.8 1,970 14.5

Engineers .......................... 2,600 7.7 800 10.2 490 13.8 700 8.1 610 4.5

Natural scientists.............. 3,860 11.5 1,540 19.7 590 16.0 1,710 19.9 30 .2

Technicians........................ 3,100 9.2 920 11.7 490 13.8 960 11.2 730 5.4

N O T E : Details m ay not add to totals because of rounding.

Table 3. Employment impact of pollution control and abatement expenditures, direct and indirect, by occupational

group

Occupational group Total

Direct Indirect

Number Percent Number Percent

T o ta l.............................................................. 33,530 15,860 100.0 17,670 100.0

Professional and technical......................................... 10,960 9,050 57.1 1,910 10.8

Engineers........................................................... 2,600 2,180 13.8 420 2.4

Natural scientists............................................. 3,860 3,790 23.9 70 .4

Technicians.......................................................

Other professional and technical,

3,100 2,740 17.3 360 2.0

including m ed ical...................................... 1,420 360 2.3 1,060 6.0

All other ....................................................................... 22,570 6,810 43.0 15,770 89.2

N O T E : Details m ay n o t add to totals because o f rounding.

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 expenditures for selected programs and components of demand.

Federal pollution control and abatement expenditures, however, generate a relatively high proportion of

Table 4. Percent distribution, direct and indirect

employment, by occupational group

Occupational group Total Percent distribution

number

Total Direct Indirect

T o ta l.............. 33,530 100.0 47.3 52.7

Professional and

technical................... 10,960 100.0 82.6 17.4

Engineers............ 2,600 100.0 83.9 16.2

Natural

scientists 3,860 100.0 98.1 1.8

Technicians 3,100 100.0 88.4 11.6

Other professional and

technical,

including

m edical.......... 1,420 100.0 25.4 74.6

All other ........................ 22,570 100.0 30.2 69.8

professional and technical jobs. The 22 professional and 

technical jobs generated per million dollars of expenditures for pollution control and abatement activities is 

considerably greater than the number generated per 

million dollars of Federal nondefense (except NASA) 

expenditures. (See table 6.)

Table 5. Manpower requirements per million dollars of

selected program expenditures 1972

Program Expenditures

TotaI public .............................................................. 94.2

Defense........................................................... 74.2

Nondefense.................................................... 74.1

N A S A .................................................. 62.5

Nondefense excluding

NASA ........................................... 74.6

State and local government........................ 106.0

New construction............................. 59.9

Excluding structures........................ 116.4

Total p rivate.................................................... . . . . 69.0

Personal consumption................................. 70.3

Durable goods.................................... 71.2

Nondurable goods............................. 76.6

Services ........................................ 63.8

Gross private domestic

fixed investment .................................... 67.6

S O U R C E : A dapted fro m Manpower Factbook, table 1 (U .S .

D ep artm en t of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, in press).

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 6. Employment impact, per million dollars of

expenditures for Federal nondefense (except NASA),

and pollution control and abatement activities

Occupational group Nondefense

Pollution

control and

abatement

activities

T o t a l.................................................. 74.6 66.9

Professional and technical . 15.9 21.9

Engineers ................... 1.4 5.2

Natural scientists . . . 1.1 7.7

Technicians................. 2.6 6.2

Other professional

and technical,

including medical

w orkers................. 10.8 2.8

All other ........................................... 58.7 45.0

N O T E : D etail m ay not add to totals because of rounding.

There were considerable differences in the impact of 

expenditures per million dollars for programs within 

pollution control and abatement. Radiation expenditures generated the highest number of jobs per million 

while construction generated the lowest as shown below.

Abatement Waste

and water

control treatment

Total R&D operations Radiation plants

.66.9 76.7 78.4 84.1 53.6

The manpower impacts associated with the four 

programs or activities studied - research and development, abatement and control operations, radiation related 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 supported 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 organizations carrying out the research grants and contracts.

Shown below is the employment impact of R&D 

outlays attributable to each performer. The data includes both direct and indirect employment.

T o t a l............................................................................................. 7,820

Inhouse............................................................................ 3,680

Extram ural..................................................................... 4,140

State and local government............................ 1,110

Universities......................................................... 1,800

Nonprofit organizations................................. 370

Private industry .................. 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

Table 7. Employment impact of research and development outlays, direct and indirect, by occupational group

Occupational group Total Percent

Direct Indirect

Number

Percent of

occupational

group

Number

Percent of

occupational

group

T o t a l........................................................... 7,820 100 4,130 52.8 3,690 47.2

Professional and

technical.................................... 3,460 44.2 3,090 89.3 370 10.7

Engineers............................. 800 10.2 720 90.0 80 10.0

Natural scientists.............. 1,540 19.7 1,520 98.7 20 1.3

Technicians........................ 920 11.7 850 92.4 70 7.6

Other professional

and technical,

including medical . . . . 210 2.7 20 10.0 190 90.0

All other ......................................... 4,350 55.8 1,040 23.9 3,320 76.1

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
occupational group

Total Inhouse Total

extramural

State

and local

government

Universities Nonprofit

organizations

Private

industry

T o ta l......................................................... 76.7 78.3 75.3 67.9 94.5 64.0 62.6

Professional and

technical .............. . . . . 33.9 34.9 33.0 17.5 57.3 31.2 20.0

Engineers ............ 7.8 6.9 8.5 4.2 13.8 7.3 6.7

Natural scientists . 15.1 16.7 13.8 5.8 26.1 13.3 6.2

Technicians......... 9.0 9.1 8.9 4.8 15.8 6.6 5.2

Other professional

and technical,

including

medical ......... 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.6 1.6 3.9 1.7

All o th e r...................................... 43.0 43.5 42.4 50.5 37.2 32.7 42.7

N O T E : D etail m ay not add to totals because of rounding.

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 extramural 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 generated 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.

Table 9. Employment impact of research and

development outlays, per billion dollars, by sources

and effects and control technology

Occupational group Sources and

effects

Control

technology

T o t a l.................................................. 83.4 70.1

Professional and

technical.......................... 47.1 23.9

Engineers................... 6.7 9.6

Natural Scientists . .. 27.4 4.8

Technicians.............. 10.9 7.6

Other professional

and technical,

including medical. 2.1 1.6

All other ............................... 36.2 46.2

N O T E : O n ly pertains to extram ural em p lo ym en t since data

on in-house activities and were n o t available by typ e o f program .

Details m ay not add to totals because o f rounding.

Abatement and control operations

The 45.2 million dollars of Federal abatement and 

control expenditures, all for in-house operations, generated 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 generated 78.4 jobs, roughly the same as the number of jobs 

generated per million dollars of R&D:

T o t a l............................................................................................... 78.4

Professional and technical............................................. 36.9

Engineers .............................................................. 10.8

Natural scientists ................................................ 12.9

Technicians............................................................ 10.7

Other professional and

technical, including

medical ........................................ 2.4

All o th e r............................................................................ 41.6

Radiation programs

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 10. Employment impact of abatement and control operations expenditures, direct and indirect, by

occupational groups

Total Direct Indirect

Occupational group

Number Percent

distribution

Number Percent

distribution Actual Percentdistribution

Total .............................................................. 3,550 100.0 2,300 100.0 1,250 100.0

Professional and

technical...................................... 1,660 46.8 1,500 65.2 160 12.8

Engineers............................... 490 13.8 470 20.4 20 1.6

Natural scientists ................. 590 16.3 580 25.2 10 0.8

Technicians .......................... 490 13.8 460 20.0 30 2.4

Other professional

and technical

including medical ......... 110 3.1 — — 110 8.8

All o th er............................................. 1,890 53.2 800 34.8 1,090 87.2

N O T E : D etail m ay n o t add to totals because of rounding.

was performed at Government owned-contractor operated (GOCO) laboratories, at universities, non-profit 

organizations and private firms, as well as at Atomic 

Energy Commission (AEC), and Environmental Protection 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 scientists, and 960 technicians. The largest number of 

engineering jobs generated were in the category other 

engineers-410, mostly nuclear. Within the natural sciences, 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:

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 er............................................................................ 46.4

Grants for construction of municipal waste

water treatment facilities

Grants to State and local governments for construction 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.

Table 11. Employment impact of radiation program outlays, direct and indirect, by occupational group

Total Direct I ndirect

Occupational group

T otal Percent

distribution Number Percentdistribution Number Percent

distribution

Total .............................................................. 8,610 100.0 4,710 100.0 3,900 100.0

Professional and

technical...................................... 3,860 44.8 3,420 72.6 440 11.3

Engineers............................... 700 8.1 610 13.0 90 2.3

Natural scientists ................. 1,710 19.9 1,690 35.9 20 0.5

Technicians .......................... 960 11.1 900 19.1 60 1.5

Other professional

and technical,

including medical .......... 480 5.5 220 4.7 260 6.7

All other............................................. 4,740 55.1 1,290 27.4 3,460 88.7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Total Direct Indirect

Occupational group

Number Percent

distribution Number Percent

distribution Number Percentdistribution

T ota 1 .............................................................. 13,550 100.0 4,730 100.0 8,820 100.0

Professional and

technical...................................... 1,970 14.5 1,040 22.0 930 10.5

Engineers............................... 610 4.5 380 8.0 230 2.6

Natural scientists ................. 30 .2 — — 30 0.3

Technicians .......................... 730 5.4 530 11.2 200 2.3

Other professional

and technical,

including medical .......... 560 4.1 100 2.1 460 5.2

All o th er............................................. 11,580 85.5 3,690 78.0 7,890 89.5

N O T E : D etail m ay not add to totals because of rounding.

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 directly. 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 services by engineering design firms and on-site construction 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.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 abatement 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. However, 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 construction 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 extremely 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 expenditures.

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 periodically issued warnings of damage to the environment. 

Gradually, however, public dissatisfaction increased as it 

became evident that bad air, foul water, noise, undetermined 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 

and charged with the mission of protecting and enhancing the environment. The creation of EPA resulted 

in the removal of a number of units previously concerned 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 13. Federal pollution control and abatement outlays in 1970

(In m illions of dollars)

Types of pollution

Component

T otal Air Water Solid

waste Pesticides Radiation Noise Other

T o ta l................................................................... 754.4 115.2 249.5 19.9 21.6 123.3 0.3 124.6

Financial assistance to

State and local governments. . . . 287.5 20.5 258.7 — — 1.6 - 6.7

Research, development and

dem onstration............................... 294.0 57.0 50.3 16.1 18.4 94.0 .2 62.0

Abatement and control

operations ...................................... 73.6 11.9 26.2 1.7 1.5 23.7 - 8.6

Other ................................. .................. 95.3 25.8 14.3 2.1 1.7 4.0 .1 47.3

S O U R C E : Based on unpublished data fro m the O ffice of data on expenditures shown in this rep ort. These data reflect

M anagem ent and Budget (O M B ). Totals shown are slightly m inor adjustm ents made by Bureau staff to reconcile O M B and

d iffe re n t fro m those published b y O M B and fro m tim e series agency data.

classified on some other functional basis. Thus, for 

purposes of developing projections, statistics relating to 

Federal pollution control and abatement expenditures 

are not available prior to 1970.

Table 13 shows Federal pollution control and abatement outlays for 1970 distributed by programs and 

types of pollution. Table 14 shows Federal pollution 

control and abatement expenditure for the period 1970 

to 1974.

Federal pollution control and abatement outlays over 

the 1970-74 period, showed large gains, with estimated 

1974 outlays almost 4 times greater than 1970 outlays. 

Although these expenditures have grown rapidly, they 

still constitute a small proportion of total Federal 

expenditures - about 1 percent in 1974.

Federal R&D expenditures for pollution control and 

abatement also constitute a relatively small proportion 

of total Federal R&D funds. (See table 15.) As a 

proportion of total Federal R&D funds, those for 

pollution control and abatement have increased from 

almost 2 percent in 1970 to an estimated 3 percent for 

fiscal 1973.

The increasing relative importance of Federal expenditures for pollution control and abatement are part of a

Table 14. Federal pollution control and abatement

expenditures, 1970-74

(In millions of dollars)

Item 19701 19711 1972* 19731 19741

Budget authority .. . $1,432 $1,823 $3,196 $8,334 $1,554

O utlays........................ 751 1,149 1,314 1,917 3,111

1 - actual. 3 - estimated.

S O U R C E : The Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year

1974, Special Analyses, Special Analysis " Q " , "F ed eral E n viro n ­

m ental Programs."

general shift of Federal expenditures from defense to 

nondefense related activities. (See table 16.) Along with 

a relative decline in defense expenditures, there have 

been relative declines in the share of Federal dollars for 

space exploration and related activities after a rapid 

build-up in the early 1960’s. The “human resource” area 

has shown the greatest gains, due in large part to 

increasing transfer payments such as social security.

Future trends in pollution control outlays

Present Federal legislation could significantly increase 

pollution control efforts in virtually all areas. Increasingly stringent clean air and water standards call for 

greater pollution control and abatement expenditures 

throughout the economy.

In addition to present legislation, there are many 

other factors that could affect Federal expenditures for 

pollution control and abatement. A waning of public 

enthusiasm or a shift in priorities to other areas could 

reduce Federal expenditures in this area. On the other 

hand, increased levels of Federal expenditures for 

pollution control and abatement could result from 

developments such as the discovery of previously unknown danger from certain kinds of pollutants.

The Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 

1972 require industries to use the “best practicable” 

technology to control pollution. Municipalities are to 

have secondary waste treatment capabilities by July 1, 

1977. By July 1, 1983, municipalities and industries are 

to use the “best available technology economically 

achievable” to treat waste water, and by 1985 the goal is 

to eliminate all water pollution. To help meet this goal, 

the Act appropriates $18 billion for grants to State and 

local governments for construction of waste treatment 

facilities. In addition, $6.6 billion is authorized for water

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 15. Federal pollution control R&D expenditures related to Federal R&D expenditures and total Federal

purchases

(In m illions of 1 97 0 dollars)

Year Federal purchases

(GNP component)

Federal R&D expenditures Federal pollution control

R&D expenditures

Outlays Percent of

Federal purchases Outlays Percent of Federal R&D

expenditures

1970 ............ $96,500 $15,159 15.7 $296 1.95

1971 ............ 90,700 14,193 15.6 339 2.38

1972 ............ 91,900 13.895 15.1 350 2.52

1973 ............ 94,400 14,396 15.2 436 3.04

S O U R C E : E xecu tive O ffice of T h e President, O ffice of M anagem ent and Budget, and N ational Science Found ation.

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 industry. Many other legislative items and agency appropriations provide for expenditures on noise, pesticides, 

and radiation pollution control and abatement.

Illustrative projections of Federal pollution

control expenditures

Since grants to State and local governments for 

construction of waste water treatment plants and lines, 

and research and development activities constitute the 

bulk of Federal expenditures for pollution control and 

abatement activities, only these two expenditure items 

were projected to illustrate possible manpower implications.

The actual and projected expenditure data shown 

below pertain only to Federal expenditures and do not

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 expenditures now and in the future probably will be grants to 

States and localities for sewer plant and lines construction. Water pollution control acts prior to 1972 provided 

significant support to localities for sewer construction 

and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 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 

appropriated for fiscal years 1973-75.

Table 17 shows actual and projected levels of Federal 

financial aid to State and local governments, 1970 to 

1980. The major portion of these funds are for the 

construction of sewage plants and lines, but also 

included are relatively small expenditures for support to 

State and local administrative efforts in setting standards 

and other minor aid programs.

The path of the expenditures shown in table 17 

assumes that the $18 billion called for in the legislation 

(Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972) will be “spread 

out” over a number of years rather than expended by

Table 16. Percent distribution of Federal budget outlays by function, selected years

Function 1955 1960 1965 1970 1974 1975

T o ta l.......................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

National defense........................ 58.7 49.8 41.9 40.8 30.2 29.7

Human resources ..................... 21.1 27.6 29.9 37.0 46.7 46.8

Physical resources..................... 8.3 10.9 12.3 10.7 9.6 10.1

I merest........................................ 8.8 9.0 8.7 9.3 9.2 8.8

Other ........................................... 3.1 2.7 7.2 2.2 4.3 4.6

S O U R C E : Th e Budget o f th e U nited States, Fiscal Year 1 9 7 4 .

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 17. Federal financial assistance to State and local

governments for pollution control, 1970-80

(In m illions o f 1970 dollars)

Year Outlays

19701 ......................................................................... $ 288

516

433

738

1,724

1,915

2,151

2,600

3,087

3,718

4,426

19711 .........................................................................

19721 ..........................................................................

19732 ..........................................................................

19743 .........................................................................

19753 .........................................................................

19763 .........................................................................

19773 .........................................................................

19783 ..........................................................................

19793 .........................................................................

19803 ..................... ...................................................

1 = A ctu al.

2 = Estim ated.

3 = Projected.

S O U R C E : 1 9 7 0 -7 3 actual and estim ated, O ffic e o f Managem ent and Budget. 1 9 7 4 -8 0 projected, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

the mid-1970’s as called for in the legislation. This path 

is more in line with administration goals in 1973 and was 

developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a special 

study for the Environmental Protection Agency.3

A pattern of steadily increasing expenditures, from 

$1.7 billion in 1974 to $4.4 billion in 1980 is shown in 

table 17. This pattern seems more likely to reflect what 

will actually occur for several reasons. (1) The legislation 

calls for obligation of the grants now and in the near 

future. However, the actual expenditures will occur as 

the construction progresses. Therefore, as more and 

more projects are approved and begin construction, the 

outlays will increase since most projects approved earlier 

will still be under construction into the late 1970’s, and 

(2), attempting to accomplish the level of construction 

provided for in the bill in a few years might be difficult 

because of manpower and construction industry capacity constraints.

Another major component of Federal pollution control expenditures is support for pollution control research and development. Table 18 indicates actual, 

estimated, and projected Federal pollution control R&D 

spending, 1970 to 1980. Pollution control R&D has 

risen rapidly in the last few years, from $296 million in 

fiscal year 1970 to an estimated $522 million in fiscal 

year 1974. Much of this rapid rise has been for research 

into pollution sources and effects, and for standards 

setting. Since much of this research has been completed, 

R&D expenditures will rise less rapidly in the future. 

Also, the decision was made in 1973 to shift emphasis to 

a reliance on the capabilities of the private sector to 

meet the technology requirements of a more intensive 

enforcement program.

Table 18. Federal pollution control R&D expenditures,

1970-74 and projected 1975-80

(In m illions o f 1 97 0 dollars)

Year Total

19701 ......................................................................... $296

19711 ......................................................................... 341

197 21 ....................................................................... 356

19732 .......................................................................... 444

19742 ......................................................................... 522

19753 ......................................................................... 546

19763 ......................................................................... 571

19773 .......................................................................... 598

19783 ......................................................................... 625

19793 ......................................................................... 654

19803 ......................................................................... 685

1 = A ctu al.

2 = Estim ated.

3 = Projected.

S O U R C E : 1 9 7 0 -7 4 actual and estim ated, O ffice of Managem ent and Budget. 1 9 7 5 -8 0 projected, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Attempting to project pollution control R&D from 

legislation is difficult because of the many sources of 

funds and the many agencies that expend the funds. 

There is also the problem of labeling - funds spent on 

development of clean energy sources, for example, also 

are partially pollution control R&D. In the absence of 

any other clear indications of the pattern of Federal 

pollution control R&D expenditures, outlays were assumed, for illustrative purposes only, to increase at the 

same rate as the projected increases in GNP implied in 

the Bureau’s Economic model for 1980. However, as 

pointed out (in chapter III), only $102 million of the 

$296 million of pollution control R&D funds fell within 

the scope of R&D for this study (another $78 million of 

the $296 million was radiation R&D, which was considered separately). If this same relationship were assumed 

for 1980, the comparable amount would be $236 

million.

Illustrative manpower requirements

Assuming Federal outlays of $4,426 million for 

construction of municipal waste treatment facilities, and 

$236.7 million for research and development projects 

for 1980, manpower requirements would total 179,000 

for the construction program and about 14,100 for the 

R&D program. (See table 19.)

The research and development projects would generate requirements for 6,260 professional and technical 

jobs, while the construction program would generate 

requirements for 26,030 professional and technical jobs.

These projected 1980 requirements attributable to 

the selected pollution control and abatement programs

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 19. Projected employment requirements for

selected Federal pollution control and abatement

activities, by selected occupations, 1980

Selected occupation

Research

and

development

Waste water

treatment

plant construction

T o ta l.............. 14,140 179,510

Professional and

technical................... 6,260 26,030

Engineers............ 1,440 8,080

Natural scientists 2,790 360

Technicians .... 1,654 9,690

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 professional 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 projected to be required for pollution control and abatement 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 adjusted 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 requirements 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 occupational 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 -

1 Special Analysis, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal

Year 1974, p. 274 (Office of Management and Budget), 1973. 2

2 Environmental Quality-The Fourth Annual Report of the

Council on Environmental Quality (The Council on Environmental Quality), 1973.

3Manpower Implications o f Alternative Levels o f Sewer

Works Construction (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of

Labor Statistics, 1973), Unpublished.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter III. Hiring Standards and Skill Transferability

In sample interviews of employers in the pollution 

control field information was obtained on hiring standards, 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 percent)

Performer category Number of

respondents

Number of EST

positions

reported

Total number.............. 81 2,870

Percent ..................... 100 100

State and local governments . . 17 5

Universities................................. 32 31

Nonprofit institutions............ 9 7

Private industry ........................ 40 50

Federal in-house1 ..................... 2 7

1 T h e 2 respondents reported for Federal inhouse refer to

field interviews o f regional Federal facilities engaged in abatem en t and control operations. Th eir inclusion is som ew hat

accidental since it was not the inten tion to collect in-house

em p lo ym en t data in such interview s, only regional response to

skill tran sferab ility questions. In-house em p lo ym en t and cost

data had been obtained on a universe basis, covering both

headquarters and field offices, fro m each sponsoring agency.

How ever, because tw o of the interviews for this program did

provide detailed staff breakdow ns to support statem ents on

training and w ork experience requirem ents, these have been

included to give a broader base to the tabulations w ith the

representation of 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 engineers, scientists, and technicians. (EST occupations.) 

Whether, and to what extent, specialization is a hindrance to job transfer was an important part of the 

discussions with respondents. These questions and the 

problems they raise are prevalent wherever modern 

technology is used. While the answers received were 

keyed to pollution control activities, they are indicative 

of a wide area of responses from government, industry, 

and universities.

For analytical purposes, responses were initially 

classified by (1) performer, (2) program, and (3) media 

or area of pollution—air, water, radiation, pesticides, 

and solid waste. However, a preliminary analysis of the 

data suggested that responses should be classified by 

performer. (See table 20.) Apart from the fact that 

certain programs are dominantly identified with certain 

performers (for example, construction is exclusively 

private industry, abatement and control is almost entirely 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 employees of whom approximately 33 percent were engineers, 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 institutions 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Table 21. Engineer, scientist, and technician positions covered in sample, distributed by occupational group

and performer category of respondent

Performer category

Number

of

respondents

Number of EST positions reported

Total Engineers Scientists Technicians

T o ta l................................. 81 2,870 934 1,108 828

State and local governments .... 14 134 53 30 51

Universities ...................................... 26 872 66 550 256

Nonprofit institutions................... 7 209 29 71 109

Private industry............................... 32 1,434 680 397 357

Federal inhouse1 ............................. 2 221 106 60 55

1 See 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 construction programs employed 13 percent of all EST employees 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 engineering occupations, a master’s degree or even a doctorate 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 background 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 technicians 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 requirements 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
practical experience may in some cases substitute for 

formal education, but the reverse holds true where the 

performer is a university. Here the experience requirements may be dropped if the applicant has the necessary 

skills plus a good educational background.

In assessing their past experience in matching qualifications 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 situation in recent times as a “buyer’s market” in which there 

existed a surplus of talented people looking for positions. 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 employees. 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 institutions 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 drawback by those employers who had trouble in finding 

qualified engineers. But there were other deterrents to 

hiring, peculiar to individual respondents. Some researchers 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 experiences for professional and specialized job openings

Degree of difficulty experienced

Percent

of

respondents

No d ifficu lty.............................................................. 63

Some difficulty in highly specialized jobs— ....

Have adopted a calculated risk approachwilling to accept or try substitute

29

combinations of training and experience . . .

Have had to adopt a no-compromise approach

2

because of rigid requirements..........................

Seek and accept only work (projects) which

2

fit skill capabilities of present staff .............. 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 governments 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 respondents bemoaned the general lack of training funds. Lack 

of funds was also cited as the principal reason by many 

respondents for not being able to expand their existing 

staffs. State and local governments listed low pay scales 

as hindrances to drawing better qualified people into 

pollution control occupations.

Staffing patterns and current labor

market conditions

Respondents were asked-in the context of today’s 

(1972-73) labor market situation—what changes, if any, 

they would make in their staffing patterns in work done 

in the past year or two. At least four possible categories 

of revisions were anticipated prior to conducting the 

interviews:

1. Different com binations of scientific and engineering manpower. For exam ple, substituting chem ists

where physicists had been em ployed, or m athematicians for engineers.

2. Increases or decreases in the number o f scientific

and technical personnel.

3. Changes in the proportion of technicians relative

to scientists or engineers.

4. Substituting professional and technical staff for

capital investm ents, 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
replied, 80 percent would have made no changes in 

staffing pattern. Of the remaining 20 percent who would 

have made changes, the majority would have increased 

the number of engineers, technicians, and scientists in 

that order.

Respondents were also asked if they were considering 

any deliberate upward revision of the qualifications of 

their scientific and technical staffs in light of the 

reported availability of highly educated manpower. 

“Revision” was not understood in the negative sense of 

automatically upgrading educational requirements, but 

as a positive and deliberate move to reverse whatever 

dilution of skills might have occurred as a matter of 

necessity during past periods of skill shortages.1

Two-thirds of the respondents replied negatively, or 

did not offer any opinion, on possible upgrading of their 

existing staff. Of the remainder, a selected few stressed 

raising minimum educational qualifications. The private 

industry respondents wanted higher standards for engineers, while universities sought the same for scientists. 

Little or no attention was given to increasing the ratio of 

technical support to scientists or engineers, but other 

changes specifically mentioned included: Need for instrumentation experience for engineers; need for project 

and plant operation managers, and need for reorganization of staff assignments.

Skill transferability—defense and aerospace

to pollution control

All respondents were asked to help pinpoint areas of 

possible skill transferability in engineering, scientific, 

and technical occupations between aerospace and defense industries and their own work in the pollution 

control field. At the time the interviews were conducted-mid 1972—this was a particular point of 

interest since many in engineering, scientific, and technical occupations recently had been laid off by aerospace and defense firms, and unemployment rates were 

relatively high for these workers. Similarities and dissimilarities or actual barriers were considered under four 

major headings: (a) academic qualifications, (b) work 

experience, (c) retraining possibilities, and (d) economic, 

social, and other barriers.

While all respondents cooperated in this exercise, 

almost half (45 percent) reported that they had not been 

approached for employment by any ex-aerospace or 

defense industry personnel. Their comments were, therefore, based on judgment and personal opinion only. It 

should be noted in this connection that the sample had 

not been specifically designed to elicit a high response 

from employers who had employed, or at least had

received a substantial number of applications from, 

ex-aerospace and defense industry employees. As a 

result, many of the respondents, in the Middle West and 

in the South particularly, were insulated by distance 

from the job-hunting which pervaded the West Coast and 

parts of the East Coast. While their opinions and, in 

some cases, their prejudices, might have been changed in 

the process of interviewing and evaluating specific job 

applicants, the overriding consideration was that they 

were, or spoke for, employers in the specific areas and 

programs under investigation.

Nonprofit organizations found similarity and transferability of academic training among mechanical, aerospace, electrical, chemical, and combustion engineers. A 

science degree also was useful, especially in physics and 

chemistry.

Inhouse programs, as reported by EPA regional 

offices, looked for staff with an engineering background, 

and especially civil and mechanical engineers. Administrative skills in manpower planning also were an asset.

Finally, private industry employers in the sample 

reported the academic qualifications for mechanical, 

electrical, and civil engineers with water management 

training, as those most in demand in the pollution 

control field. Next in order of preference were construction, aeronautical, and instrumentation engineers. Other 

engineering fields with similarities in academic qualifications, also in demand, were: Architectural, electronic, 

chemical, industrial, and process and control engineering, as well as skills in radiation, stress analysis, 

thermodynamics, and systems and project management. 

In the science field, chemists and mathematicians were 

occupations cited most where there was an identity in 

background training (for pollution control work). For 

technicians, similarities and carryover in training existed 

for design draftsmen, computer technicians, programers, 

and those knowledgeable in particle technology.

Academic qualifications and work experience. Concerning the similarity or equivalence of the academic 

qualifications of their own staff and of personnel most 

commonly employed in aerospace/defense industries, 

some respondents found no similarity; others felt that 

while their particular project was totally dissimilar to 

aerospace work, a particularly gifted individual might 

make the transition; one respondent felt sure there must 

be some similarity but just could not think of any.

State and local government respondents found greater 

similarity and transferability among the less specialized 

occupations, notably, civil and mechanical engineers. 

Systems and computer technical skills also were found 

transferable as well as any skills in interviewing other 

technically qualified persons.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Universities listed a variety of engineering backgrounds 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 experienced in instrumentation and air-flow inhalation chambers. 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 occupations. (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 carryover in engineer, scientist, and technician occupations

in pollution control from aerospace-defense employment

Estimated extent of possible skill carryover

Percent of

total

responses1

Total:1 Number .................................................. 198

Percent .................................................... 100

N o n e............................................................................ 14

Negligible ................................................................... 28

Som e............................................................................ 41

Considerable.............................................................. 17

1 Responses refer to estimates for th e individual EST occupations, not to respondents as the em ployer-establishm ents.

C onceivably, a single respondent could provide three responses,

one each for engineers, scientists and technicians, and all

d iffe re n t. Som e did , and some did not reply at all. The

d istrib utio n of responses by perform er in their to ta lity o n ly is

shown below :

Percent

T o tal ..............................................................................................100

S tate and local governm ents ............................................................... 18

Universities .................................................................................................. 31

N o n p ro fit in s titu tio n s ............................................................................. 11

Private in d u s tr 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 graduates 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 divergence 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 personnel; 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 er........................................ 160

Percent ........................................... 100

Labor market supply:

No shortages—other recruits available . . . 16

Economic costs:

Higher wages expected ............................... 26

Entry at higher grade levels........................ 2

Costs of retraining........................................ 5

Skill deficiencies:

Dated technology (age gap)........................ 4

Retraining an abbreviated substitute .... 4

Experience factor:

Not cost-conscious ...................................... 4

Not competitive market-minded.............. 1

Psychological factors:

Disappointment over wage cut ................. 6

Age-adjustment problem ............................. 4

Domestic and social problems

in area m ove............................................. 1

Other, n.e.c.2 ........................................................... 27

1 Response was a count of each barrier cited by a respondent,

so th at it was possible for a single respondent to account for

several responses. M oreover, alm ost o n e-fifth of the respondents

sampled either did no t answer this question or did not cite any

specific barriers.

2 This was an unstructured question in w hich th e respondent

form ulated the barrier him self, rather than checked w h at was

given him . As a result there was great variety in the responses

and only the most rep etitive could be isolated and tabulated

above.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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

1 Upgrading 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 department stores may make a college degree a prerequisite for any

salesman’s job. Screening applicants for high academic qualifications 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 responsible, spoiled, and so forth.

State and local governments sometimes have residency 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 pursuing 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.

2 Responses varied for each occupation. The data, however,

are too thin to cross-classify by each occupation and performer.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Chapter IV. Study Design and Methods

The method used in this study to analyze the 

employment impact of Federal Government expenditures, 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 production system, industry by industry by a specific amount 

of final demand such as Federal Government expenditures. 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. Employment estimates by occupation are generated by 

applying the matrix to estimates of industry employment requirements.

The preparation of employment impact or requirements data, therefore, does not represent any radical 

deviation from current BLS programs. Rather, such data 

may be viewed as a natural evolution since the techniques used in this study use and expand upon established ones. Thus, the method used is neither revolutionary 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

matrix—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 employment 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 composition 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 economic problems that might arise from various defense 

programs. In recent years, a strong interest has developed in determining manpower needs for other purposes. 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 occupational distribution for a particular year. As such, 

they most appropriately reflect the employment requirements 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 employment 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 occupational composition of this increase may differ considerably from the average occupational composition of the 

industry or industries. Depending on the specific circumstances, 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 employment 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 reasonably 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 engineers 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
increase in unemployment among scientific and technical manpower in the early 1970’s raised the possibility 

of aerospace and defense-related scientists and engineers 

transfering their skills to pollution control and abatement 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 “universe” 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 illions o f dollars

Budget authority........................................................... $1,432

Obligations..................................................................... 1,071

O utlays............................................................................ 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 (including 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 abatement 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 necessary 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 eliminated where they were too small, involved a great many 

heterogeneous activities, or contained some unmeasurable 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 engineering 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 attributable 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
(in m illions o f dollars)

Activity OMB reported total

1970 Federal outlays

Adjusted outlays

within scope

of study

Dollars Percent

Total ................................................................... $751 $501 100

Financial aid to State and local governments

for municipal waste water

treatment facilities....................................................... 288 252 50.5

Research, development, and demonstration................. 296 180 35.8

Federal abatement and control operations................. 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 concerned with detecting and measuring various sources of 

pollutants, and studying their movements as well as 

evaluating their effects. Control technology R&D is concerned 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, radiation, 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, universities, 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, “manpower 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 o f 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, however, tradeoffs are necessary between collecting data and

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
relying on input-output techniques to generate employment. Also, there are practical limitations as to how far 

actual purchases can be traced throughout the economy. 

Thus, data collection in this study was restricted to one, 

and in a few cases, two levels removed from the 

sponsoring Federal agency. These levels are described 

below.

First level included all activities performed by the 

Federal agency itself under any of the three pollution 

control programs. These activities varied greatly among 

agencies. Most agencies, for example, contracted out 

much of their R&D work, while some performed a 

significant amount of R&D work in-house.

Second level included all extramural work, whether 

on a grant or contract basis, classified into four 

performer categories:5

State and local governments Universities Nonprofit institutions Private profitmaking firms

Third level covered contractors, subcontractors, and 

suppliers to performers at the second level. Theoretically, subcontractors exist in some form and to some 

degree, in every program, but the problems of identifying and quantifying their costs quickly becomes very 

involved.

With each step away from the Federal agency 

responsible for funding an activity, the data collection 

problems multiply and it becomes increasingly difficult 

for suppliers to relate a fraction of their total output to 

a specific government program. Nevertheless, this level 

was explored to some extent in the case of grants to 

State and local governments who functioned primarily as 

financial administrators and contracted out actual operations. This generally was the rule for grants for waste 

water treatment plants and demonstration projects.

Data availability

An initial investigation was conducted to determine if 

some or most of the needed cost data for the second 

level Federal extramural projects could be obtained from 

agency records.

Federal agencies require grantees and contractors to 

submit proposals and keep records using a fairly standardized format, which includes a detailed listing of 

direct manpower payroll costs and goods and services 

purchased. The financial summary of a typical proposal 

format specifies cost data for R&D projects for the 

following categories:

Salary and wages Fringe benefits

Chart 1

Structure for Collecting R&D Data

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 performers. At the same time information was obtained on 

skill transferability and hiring standards. In doing this, a 

sample survey was designed and implemented. A personal 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 proportionately 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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. Stratification 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
split, proportionate to dollar outlays, between on-site 

and off site categories as follows:7

T o ta l..........

Universities.................

Nonprofit institutions

Private industry ....

Total Onsite Offsite

10 8 2

8 6 2

1 1 —

1 1 —

A working matrix was then developed to distribute 

the remaining 65 interviews by media, program, and 

performer in the same proportion that each contributed 

to total outlays. Minor adjustments were then made to 

assure a minimum of three interviews for any active cell. 

Solid waste was an exception to this minimum because 

one large project included most of the outlays in the 

private sector.

In terms of program, the 65 interviews were split 

almost 2 to 1 between R&D-control technology (41 

interviews) and R&D-source and effects (24 interviews). 

(See table 26.)

The next step was to develop a sampling frame. The 

Environmental Protection Agency provided lists of the 

R&D projects being funded during fiscal year 70. 

However, due to time-lags and to the fact that a number 

of projects funded were active over a number of years, 

these lists were not considered representative of fiscal 

year 70 outlays. Instead, an appropriate list of projects 

active during fiscal year 70 had to be developed along 

with estimated outlays for each during this period. This 

was done by: (1) Adding projects funded in previous 

years which extended into fiscal year 70, (2) dropping 

fiscal year 70 funded projects not scheduled to being 

until after June 30, 1970, and then (3) prorating total 

costs of those projects which extended beyond fiscal

year 70. Information needed for these adjustments was 

furnished by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Grants and contracts were then randomly selected from 

these lists in accordance with the sample design.

In the case of the Atomic Energy Commission’s 

(radiation) contracts at on-site laboratories, complete 

lists of projects active during fiscal year 70 were 

available. Although the dollar amounts for each project 

were not available, total outlays for all projects combined at each laboratory were known. Since these 

laboratories were handled as if they represented a single 

project, this total outlays figure was all that was 

necessary. A complete list of off-site contracts was 

available from which interviews were selected.

2. Grants for construction of sewer works

This program covered both costs of actual construction and design engineering costs. While the results of an 

earlier BLS survey on sewage plant construction material 

and labor requirements8 could be used for the construction segment, these were not applicable to the design 

engineering part. A limited sample, therefore, was 

necessary to develop both manpower and expenditure 

data for the design element. The 23 interviews allotted 

to this program were split with 12 marked for full 

collection of data from design engineering firms (occupational and cost data as well as information on skill 

transferability) and 11 for skill transferability data only 

from construction contractors. The interviews were 

paired, that is, the same construction project supplied 

both. As part of another project, the BLS had received 

from EPA a complete listing of all grants for construction of waste water treatment facilities. From this list,

Table 26. Distribution of interview sample, by program and performer, fiscal year 1970

Programs and performers Total Air Water Solid

waste

Pesticides

Total—all p rogram ................................. 65 13 32 12 8

State and local governments................................. 20 - 10 6 4

Universities................................................................ 22 5 8 5 4

Nonprofit institutions............................................. 7 4 3 - -

Private industry......................................................... 16 4 11 1 —

Sources and effects—to ta l...................................... 24 9 7 - 8

State and local governments................................. 4 — - - 4

Universities................................................................ 13 5 4 - 4

Nonprofit institutions............................................. 4 4 - - -

Private industry......................................................... 3 — 3 — —

Control technology—to ta l...................................... 41 4 25 12 -

State and local governments................................. 16 - 10 6 -

Universities................................................................ 9 — 4 5 —

Nonprofit institutions............ ................................ 3 - 3 - -

Private industry......................................................... 13 4 8 1 —

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
23 projects were selected subject to the following 

constraints:

1. Project costs to be betw een $1 million and $5

m illion (to elim inate 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 treatm ent plant.

4. Projects to be distributed in 11 designated location .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, consideration 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 manpower 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 conducted at various EPA regional offices and AEC installations.

Interviews

As an aid in interviewing, an Interview Guide (appendix B) was developed. The guide provided interviewers 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 background 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 “standard” 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 information 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 particular 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 purchased, or contracted for, fall, are:

Travel

Transportation of things

Rent, com m unications 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 classifications to suit its own particular needs. In some cases these 

sub-object classes provided data which permitted identification 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 determine the producer industry either from data in purchasing 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) research 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 governments 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 “performers” 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 system.

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 government’s own inputs in the form of project administration 

and supervision.

Universities—In many respects universities were the 

easiest performer from which to collect data. The 

projects funded by Federal agencies fell exclusively 

under the R&D program, and the great majority were in 

the sources and effects category, commonly identified 

with basic and applied research. These projects were 

fairly small, with the greater part of outlays for direct 

labor rather than materials and supplies, so that their 

employment impact, outside the direct measurements of 

faculty and graduate students employed on the project, 

was minimal.

Overhead is often the most significant nonpayroll 

cost for university research projects and for this study 

could not be ignored despite major difficulties in trying 

to break it down as an expense item. For this purpose a 

standard distribution pattern was ultimately developed 

from a variety of sources. (See Allocation o f 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 management, marketing, and legal pressures, large establishments 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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 functions, 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 universities, 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. Engineering 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 institutions base the charge on total payroll for a project. 

Considerable variation also exists in the rate charged.10 At universities and nonprofit institutions the overhead 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, Development, 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 compensation for actual construction work, supervision, and 

testing, involving few professional occupations in contrast 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 expenDigitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
ditures and the resulting data can be considered as 

“average.”

In the case of the engineering design part of construction 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.

4. Comparability of in-house and extramural R&D 

expenditures

In-house R&D activities involved two fairly distinct

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 

travel, and less of other, like equipment and supplies. 

Because of the inability to identify the component costs 

of the two operations, data for in-house R&D and 

extramural R&D are not strictly comparable.1 2

-FOOTNOTES-

*For a discussion of the uses of input-output data see

forthcoming BLS Bulletin on the Structure of the U.S. Economy, 1980 and 1985.

2 See Occupational Employment Statistics, 1960-70, Bulletin 1738, (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 1972).

3 Special 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.

5 Contract 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.

6 The 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 Construction, 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 Direction 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.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 Federal pollution control and abatement activities: Generated employment by selected 

occupations

A-2 Research, development, and demonstration expenditures 

A-3 Air research, development, and demonstration 

A-4 Water research, development, and demonstration 

A-5 Inhouse research, development, and demonstration 

A-6 Inhouse air research, development, and demonstration 

A-7 Inhouse water research, development, and demonstration 

A-8 Extramural research, development, and demonstration 

A-9 Extramural air research, development, and demonstration 

A-10 Extramural water research, development, and demonstration

A-l 1 Extramural research, development, and demonstration by State and local governments

A-l2 Extramural research, development, and demonstration by universities

A-l 3 Extramural research, development, and demonstration by nonprofit organizations

A-l4 Extramural research, development, and demonstration by private industry

A-l 5 Extramural sources and effects research, development, and demonstration

A-l6 Extramural control technology research, development, and demonstration

A-l7 Abatement and control operations

A-l 8 Radiation programs

A-l 9 Construction of waste water treatment plants 

A-20 Engineering design of waste water treatment plants 

A-21 On-site construction of waste water treatment plants

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
occupations

Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total .................................................................. 33,530 15,860 17,670 66.9 31.7 35.3

Professional and technical............................................... 10,960 9,050 1,910 21.9 18.1 3.8

Engineers ................................................................ 2,600 2,180 420 5.2 4.3 .9

Aeronautical............................................... 10 10 — — — —

Chemical....................................................... 240 240 — .5 .5 —

Civil .............................................................. 1,130 1,050 80 2.5 2.1 .2

(Sanitary)1'2 ................................... (460) (460) - (.9) (.9) -

Electrical....................................................... 210 130 80 .4 .2 .2

Industrial .................................................... 60 10 50 .1 .1 —

Mechanical .................................................. 300 210 90 .6 .4 .2

Other ........................................................... 590 500 90 1.2 1.0 .2

Natural Scientists .................................................. 3,860 3,790 70 7.7 7.5 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 150 150 - .3 .3 -

Biological .................................................... 1,040 1,040 — 2.1 2.1 -

(Microbiologists)3 ........................... (40) (40) - (.1) (.1) -

(Zoologists)3 ................................... (10) (10) — — — —

M edical......................................................... 230 230 — .5 .5 —

Mathematicians........................................... 80 80 - .2 .2 -

Systems analysts.............................1.......... 60 60 - .1 .1 -

Chemists...................................................... 1,380 1,330 50 2.8 2.7 .1

(Biochemists)3 ................................. (50) (50) - (.1) (.1) -

Geologists and geophysicists................... 30 30 - .1 .1 -

Physicists .................................................... 430 430 — .9 .9 —

Meteorologists............................................. 70 70 - .1 .1 -

Other natural scientists............................. 330 330 - .7 .7 -

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 3,100 2,740 360 6.2 5.5 .7

Drafters......................................................... 420 210 210 .8 .4 .4

Surveyor....................................................... 50 30 20 .1 - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... 330 260 70 .7 .6 .1

Other engineering and science................. 1,430 1,360 70 2.9 2.8 .1

Computer programmers .......................... 100 100 — .2 .2 -

Other ........................................................... 800 800 - 1.6 1.6 -

Medical and other health w orkers..................... 250 180 70 .5 .4 .1

Other professional and technical........................ 1,170 180 990 2.3 .4 1.9

Accountants............................................... 240 30 210 .5 .1 .4

Pilots.............................................................. 70 40 30 .1 — —

Architects.................................................... 20 — 20 — — —

Designers....................................................... 80 30 50 .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... 40 — 40 .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... 190 - 190 .4 - .4

Personnel and labor relations workers . . 50 — 50 .1 — .1

Other ........................................................... 490 90 400 1.0 - -

Managers and administrators........................................... 2,820 1,000 1,820 5.6 2.0 3.6

Clerical workers ................................................................ 5,310 1,920 3,390 10.6 3.8 6.8

Sales workers ..................................................................... 810 — 810 1.6 — 1.6

Craft workers ..................................................................... 5,130 2,160 2,970 10.2 4.3 5.9

Operatives............................................................................ 5,300 840 4,460 10.6 1.7 8.9

Service workers................................................................... 1,200 200 1,000 2.4 .4 2.0

Laborers.............................................................................. 1,740 640 1,100 3.5 1.3 2.2

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 200 - 200 .4 - .4

1 D etail available fo r direct em p lo ym en t on ly. 3 D etail available fo r direct extram ural em p lo ym en t o n ly.

2 Does not include detail fo r grants fo r waste w ater treatm en t N O T E : D etail m ay no t add to to tals because of rounding

p lan t construction. — represents less than 5 or none.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Generated employment by selected occupations

Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total D irect Indirect

Total ................................................................... 7,820 4,130 3,690 76.7 40.5 36.2

Professional and technical................................................ 3,460 3,090 370 33.9 30.3 3.6

Engineers ................................................................ 800 720 80 7.8 7.0 .8

Aeronautical................................................ 10 10 — .1 .1 —

Chemical....................................................... 170 170 - 1.7 1.7 -

Civil .............................................................. 290 280 10 2.8 2.7 .1

(Sanitary)1^2 .................................... (170) (170) - (1.7) (1.7) -

Electrical....................................................... 40 20 20 .4 .2 .2

Industrial .................................................... 20 10 10 .2 .1 .1

Mechanical .................................................. 160 150 10 2.6 1.5 1.1

Other ........................................................... 100 90 10 1.0 .8 .2

Natural scientists.................................................... 1,540 1,520 20 15.1 14.9 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 130 130 - 1.3 1.3 -

Biological .................................................... 400 400 — 3.9 3.9 —

(Microbiologists)3 ........................... (40) (40) - (.4) (.4) -

(Zoologists)3 ................................... (10) (10) - (.1) (.1) -

M edical......................................................... 130 130 — 1.3 1.3 —

Mathematicians........................................... 50 50 - .5 .5 —

Systems analysts........................................ 20 20 - .2 .2 -

Chemists....................................................... 700 690 10 6.9 6.8 .1

(Biochemists)3 ................................. (10) (10) - (.1) (.1) -

Geologists and geophysicists................... 20 20 - .2 .2 -

Physicists .................................................... 10 10 — .1 .1 —

Meteorologists............................................. 20 20 - .2 .2 -

Other natural scientists............................. 50 50 - .5 .5 —

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 920 850 70 9.0 8.3 .7

Drafters......................................................... 50 20 30 .5 .2 .3

Surveyor ....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... 40 20 20 .4 .2 .2

Other engineering and science................. 470 450 20 4.6 4.4 .2

Computer programmers .......................... 30 30 - .3 .3 -

Other ............................................................ 320 320 - 3.1 3.1 -

Medical and other health w orkers...................... 10 _ 10 .1 _ .1

Other professional and technical........................ 200 20 180 2.0 .2 1.8

Accountants................................................ 30 — 30 .3 — .3

Pilots.............................................................. 10 - 10 .1 - .1

Architects.................................................... - - - - - -

Designers....................................................... 10 - 10 .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... 10 - 10 .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... 20 - 20 .2 — .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . 10 - 10 .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 100 - 100 1.0 - 1.0

Managers and administrators........................................... 520 120 400 5.1 1.2 3.9

Clerical workers ................................................................ 1,350 540 810 13.2 5.3 7.9

Sales workers ..................................................................... 170 — 170 1.7 — 1.7

Craft workers ..................................................................... 710 60 650 7.0 .6 6.4

Operatives............................................................................ 890 90 800 8.7 .9 7.8

Service workers................................................................... 310 30 280 3.0 .3 2.7

Laborers.............................................................................. 370 200 170 3.7 2.0 1.7

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 60 - 60 .6 - .6

1 D etail available fo r direct e m p lo ym en t o n ly . 3 D etail available fo r direct extram ural e m p lo ym en t on ly.

2 Does n o t include detail fo r grants fo r waste w ater treatm en t

plan t construction.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 2,490 1,340 1,150 78.1 42.0 36.1

Professional and technical................................................ 1,180 1,060 120 36.9 33.3 3.6

Engineers ................................................................ 300 270 30 9.3 8.4 .9

Aeronautical................................................

Chemical . .,.................................................. 50 50 - 1.7 1.7 -

Civil .............................................................. 30 30 — 1.1 1.0 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 .................................... (30) (30) (1.0) (1.0) -

Electrical....................................................... 20 10 10 .6 .4 .2

Industrial .................................................... 10 — 10 .3 .1 .2

Mechanical .................................................. 140 130 10 4.3 4.1 .2

Other ............................................................ 30 20 10 .9 .6 .3

Natural scientists.................................................... 470 460 10 14.6 14.4 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 10 10 - .3 .3 -

Biological .................................................... 90 90 — 2.7 2.7

(Microbiologists)............................. (10) (10) - (.4) (.4)

(Zoologists)......................................

M edical......................................................... 70 70 2.2 2.2

Mathematicians........................................... 20 20 .5 .5

Systems analysts........................................ - - .1 .1

Chemists....................................................... 250 250 7.7 7.7

(Biochemists) .................................

Geologists and geophysicists...................

Physicists .................................................... — — — .1 .1

Meteorologists............................................. 25 25 — .8 .8

Other natural scientists............................. 0 0 0 0

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 350 330 20 11.0 18.4

Drafters......................................................... 20 20 — .6 .6

Surveyor....................................................... - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... 20 20 — .5 .5

Other engineering and science................. 210 210 - 6.5 6.5

Computer programmers .......................... 10 10 .4 .4

Other ........................................................... 80 80 2.5 2.5

Medical and other health w orkers.....................

Other professional and technical........................ 70 10 60 2.0 .2 1.8

Accountants................................................ 10 — 10 .2 — .2

Pilots.............................................................. — — .1 — .1

Architects....................................................

Designers....................................................... - - .1 .1

Editors and reporters ............................... - — .1 .1

Lawyers .................................................... . 10 10 .2 .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — .1 .1

Other ........................................................... 30 30 1.0 1.0

Managers and administrators........................................... 190 60 130 5.9 1.9 4.0

Clerical workers ................................................................ 430 180 250 13.5 5.6 7.9

Sales workers ..................................................................... 60 — 60 2.0 — 2.0

Craft workers ..................................................................... 190 10 180 5.8 .2 5.6

Operatives............................................................................ 300 30 270 9.3 .9 8.4

Service workers................................................................... 90 - 90 2.7 — 2.7

Laborers.............................................................................. 50 - 50 1.5 — 1.5

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 20 - 20 .5 - .5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Generated employment, by selected occupations

Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 3,130 1,670 1,460 73.5 39.3 34.2

Professional and technical................................................ 1,290 1,160 130 30.4 27.2 3.2

Engineers ................................................................ 300 270 30 7.0 6.3 .7

Aeronautical................................................ 10 10 — .2 .2 —

Chemical....................................................... 50 50 — 1.2 1.2 -

Civil .............................................................. 160 160 — 3.7 3.6 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 .................................... (90) (90) - (2.1) (2.1) -

Electrical....................................................... 10 — — .2 .1 .1

Industrial .................................................... — — — .1 — .1

Mechanical .................................................. 20 20 — .5 .4 .1

Other ........................................................... 40 40 - 1.1 1.0 .1

Natural scientists.................................................... 670 660 10 15.8 15.6 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 60 60 - 1.5 1.5 -

Biological .................................................... 230 230 — 5.5 5.5 —

(Microbiologists)3 .......................... (10) (10) - (.3) (.3) —

(Zoologists)3 .................................... (10) (10) - (.3) (.3) -

M edical......................................................... 30 30 — .6 .6 —

Mathematicians........................................... 10 10 - .3 .3 -

Systems analysts......................................... 10 10 - .2 .2 -

Chemists....................................................... 300 300 — 7.0 7.0 —

(Biochemists)3 ............................... (4) (4) - (.1) (.1) -

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - - - -

Physicists .................................................... - — .1 .1 -

Meteorologists............................................. - - - - - -

Other natural scientists............................. 20 20 — .4 .4 —

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 60 20 30 6.0 5.4 .1

Drafters......................................................... 10 - 10 .6 .1 .2

Surveyor....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Electrical and electronic.......................... 10 10 — .3 .2 .1

Other engineering and science................. 140 140 - 3.3 3.2 .1

Computer programmers .......................... — - .1 .1 -

Other ........................................................... 90 90 — 2.0 2.0 —

Medical and other health w orkers...................... _ _ _ .1 — .1

Other professional and technical........................ 60 - 60 1.5 - 1.5

Accountants................................................ — — — .2 — .2

Pilots.............................................................. 10 — 10 — — —

Architects.................................................... — — — — — —

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — — .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... 10 - 10 .2 — .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 30 - 30 .7 — .7

Managers and administrators........................................... 170 30 140 4.0 .6 3.4

Clerical workers ................................................................ 540 220 320 12.7 5.2 7.5

Sales workers ..................................................................... 60 — 60 1.5 — 1.5

Craft workers ................................................................ 330 50 280 7.2 1.1 6.1

Operatives............................................................................ 350 50 300 8.2 1.2 7.0

Service workers................................................................... 100 10 90 2.3 .2 2.1

Laborers............................................................................... 285 185 100 .5 _ .5

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. -

1 Data available fo r d irect e m p lo ym en t o n ly . 3 D etail available fo r d irect extram u ral em p lo ym en t o n ly .

2 Does not include detail fo r grants fo r waste w ater treatm en t

plant construction.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 3,680 1,950 1,730 78.3 41.5 36.8

Professional and technical................................................ 1,640 1,450 190 34.9 30.9 4.0

Engineers ................................................................ 320 280 40 6.9 6.0 .9

Aeronautical................................................ — — — - — —

Chemical....................................................... 80 80 — 1.7 1.7 —

Civil .............................................................. 120 120 — 2.6 2.5 .1

(Sanitary)1*2 .................................... (100) (100) - (2.2) (2.2) -

Electrical...................................................... 20 10 10 .4 .2 .2

Industrial .................................................... 10 — — .2 .1 .1

Mechanical .................................................. 30 20 10 .6 .4 .2

Other ........................................................... 60 50 10 1.4 1.1 .3

Natural scientists.................................................... 780 770 10 16.7 16.5 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 60 60 - 1.3 1.3 -

Biological .................................................... 180 180 — 3.9 3.9 —

(Microbiologists)3 .......................... - - - - - -

(Zoologists)3 .................................... - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... 100 100 — 2.2 2.2 -

Mathematicians........................................... 20 20 — .4 .4 —

Systems analysts........................................ 10 10 - .1 .1 -

Chemists....................................................... 340 330 10 7.2 7.1 .1

(Biochemists)3 ............................... — — - — - —

Geologists and geophysicists................... 10 10 - .3 .3 -

Physicists .................................................... 10 10 — .1 .1 —

Meteorologists............................................. 20 20 - (.4) (.4) -

Other natural scientists............................. 30 30 - .9 .9 -

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 430 400 30 9.1 8.4 .7

Drafters......................................................... 10 — 10 .3 — .3

Surveyor....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... 30 20 10 .6 .4 .2

Other engineering and science................. 170 160 10 3.7 3.5 .2

Computer programmers .......................... 10 10 - .3 .3 -

Other ........................................................... 200 200 — 4.2 4.2 -

Medical and other health w orkers..................... _ _ — _ _ _

Other professional and technical........................ 100 - 100 2.2 — 2.2

Accountants................................................ 10 — 10 .3 — .3

Pilots.............................................................. 10 — 10 .1 — .1

Architects.................................................... — — — — - —

Designers....................................................... 10 - 10 .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... 10 — 10 .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... 10 - 10 .2 - .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . 10 — 10 .1 — .1

Other ........................................................... 60 - 60 1.3 - 1.3

Managers and administrators........................................... 280 100 180 6.0 2.1 3.9

Clerical workers ................................................................ 700 360 340 14.8 7.6 7.2

Sales workers ..................................................................... 90 - 90 1.9 — 1.9

Craft workers ..................................................................... 300 30 270 6.3 .6 5.7

Operatives............................................................................ 400 10 390 8.5 .2 8.3

Service workers.................................................................. 170 - 170 3.6 — 3.6

Laborers.............................................................................. 80 10 70 1.6 .2 1.4

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 40 - 40 .8 - .8

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 1,480 710 770 77.4 36.9 40.5

Professional and technical................................................ 590 510 80 30.8 26.6 4.2

Engineers ................................................................ 150 130 20 7.8 6.7 1.1

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — — —

Chemical....................................................... 50 50 — 2.8 2.8 —

Civil .............................................................. 30 30 — 1.8 1.7 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 .................................... (30) (30) - (1.7) (1.7) -

Electrical....................................................... 10 10 — .7 .4 .3

Industrial .................................................... 10 — — .2 .1 .1

Mechanical .................................................. 20 10 _ .9 .7 .2

Other ............................................................ 30 20 10 1.3 1.0 .3

Natural scientists.................................................... 250 250 _ 13.1 12.9 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 10 10 - .5 .5 -

Biological .................................................... 20 20 — .9 .9 —

(Microbiologists)3 .......................... - - - - - -

(Zoologists)...................................... - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... 70 70 — 3.6 3.6 —

Mathematicians........................................... 20 20 - .8 .8 -

Systems analysts......................................... - - - .1 .1 -

Chemists....................................................... 110 110 - 5.9 5.8 .1

(Biochemists) ................................. - - - - - -

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - - - -

Physicists .................................................... — — .2 .2 —

Meteorologists............................................. (20) (20) - (1.0) (1.0) -

Other natural scientists............................. — - - - - -

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 150 130 20 7.8 7.0 .8

Drafters......................................................... - - - - - -

Surveyor....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... 10 10 — .7 .7 —

Other engineering and science................. 80 80 - 4.0 4.0 -

Computer programmers .......................... 10 10 - .6 .6 —

Other ........................................................... 30 30 - 1.7 1.7 -

Medical and other health w orkers..................... _ — _ _ _ —

Other professional and technical........................ 40 - 40 2.1 - 2.1

Accountants................................................ — — — .3 — .3

Pilots.............................................................. - - - .1 - .1

Architects.................................................... - - - - - -

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — — .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... — — — .2 — .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 20 - 20 1.2 - 1.2

Managers and administrators........................................... 140 60 80 7.5 3.1 4.4

Clerical workers ................................................................ 280 130 150 14.5 6.8 7.7

Sales workers ..................................................................... 40 — 40 2.3 — 2.3

Craft workers ..................................................................... 120 - 120 6.6 .2 6.4

Operatives............................................................................ 200 - 200 10.4 - 10.4

Service workers................................................................... 60 — 60 2.9 — 2.9

Laborers.............................................................................. 30 - 30 1.7 — 1.7

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 10 - 10 .5 - .5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 1,240 810 430 78.0 51.0 27.0

Professional and technical................................................ 640 580 50 40.1 36.7 3.4

Engineers ................................................................ 140 130 10 8.7 8.1 .6

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — — —

Chemical....................................................... 30 30 — 1.6 1.6 —

Civil .............................................................. 80 80 — 5.0 5.0 _

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... (70) (70) - (4.3) (4.3) —

Electrical....................................................... 10 — — .3 .1 .2

Industrial .................................................... — - - .1 — .1

Mechanical ................................................. 10 — — .3 .2 .1

Other ........................................................... 20 20 - 1.3 1.2 .1

Natural scientists.................................................... 330 330 _ 21.1 20.9 .2

Agricultural ................................................ 10 10 - .8 .8 -

Biological .................................................... 140 140 — 8.6 8.6 —

(Microbiologists)............................ - - - — - -

(Zoologists)...................................... - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... 10 10 — .7 .7 —

Mathematicians........................................... — — - .2 .2 —

Systems analysts........................................ - - - .2 .2 -

Chemists....................................................... 150 150 — 9.4 9.3 .1

(Biochemists) ................................. — - - — — —

Geologists and Geophysicists ................. - - - .1 .1 -

Physicists .................................................... — - - .1 .1 -

Meteorologists............................................. - - - - - -

Other natural scientists............................. 10 10 — .9 .9 -

Technicians, except medical and dental ......... 130 120 10 8.2 7.7 .5

Drafters......................................................... — - - .2 — .2

Surveyor....................................................... 10 10 - .4 .3 .1

Electrical and electronic.......................... 10 10 — .4 .3 .1

Other engineering and science .............. 70 70 - 4.2 4.1 .1

Computer programmers .......................... — — — — — —

Other ........................................................... 50 50 - 3.3 3.3 -

Medical and other health w orkers..................... 10 _ 10 .3 _ .3

Other professional and technical........................ 20 - 20 1.4 - 1.4

Accountants................................................ — — — .2 _ .2

Pilots ........................................................... — — — .1 — .1

Architects .................................................. — — — — — —

Designers .................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — — .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... — — — .2 — .2

Personnel and labor relations workers — — — .1 — .1

Other ........................................................... 10 - 10 .9 - .9

Managers and administrators........................................... 70 20 50 4.6 1.6 3.0

Clerical workers ................................................................ 260 160 90 16.2 10.3 5.9

Sales workers ..................................................................... 20 - 20 1.4 — 1.4

Craft workers ..................................................................... 80 20 60 5.3 1.5 3.8

Operatives............................................................................ 90 10 80 5.5 .4 5.1

Service workers.................................................................. 50 - 50 2.9 — 2.9

Laborers.............................................................................. 20 10 10 1.5 .6 .9

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 10 - 10 .6 - .6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
demonstrations: Generated employment, by selected occupations

Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect T otal Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 4,140 2,180 1,960 75.3 39.6 35.7

Professional and technical................................................ 1,820 1,640 180 33.0 29.8 3.2

Engineers ................................................................ 470 430 40 8.5 7.8 .7

Aeronautical................................................ 10 10 — .1 .1 —

Chemical....................................................... 90 90 - 1.7 1.7 -

Civil .............................................................. 170 160 10 3.0 2.9 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... (70) (70) - (1.3) (1.3) -

Electrical....................................................... 20 10 10 .4 .2 .2

Industrial .................................................... 10 — 10 .1 — .1

Mechanical .................................................. 140 130 10 2.5 2.4 .1

Other ........................................................... 40 30 10 .7 .5 .2

Natural scientists.................................................... 760 750 10 13.8 13.6 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 70 70 - 1.3 1.3 -

Biological .................................................... 210 210 — 3.8 3.8 —

(Microbiologists)3 .......................... (40) (40) - (.7) (.7) -

(Zoologists)3 .................................... (10) (10) - (.2) (.2) -

M edical........................................................ 30 30 — .6 .6 —

Mathematicians........................................... 30 30 - .6 .6 -

Systems analysts........................................ 10 10 - .2 .2 -

Chemists....................................................... 360 360 — 6.5 6.5 —

(Biochemists)3 ............................... (10) (10) - (.2) (.2) -

Geologists and geophysicists................... 10 10 - .1 .1 -

Physicists .................................................... 10 10 — .1 .1 —

Meteorologists............................................. (10) (10) - (.1) (.1) -

Other natural scientists............................. 10 10 — .2 .2 —

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 490 450 40 8.9 8.2 .7

Drafters......................................................... 30 20 10 .6 .4 .2

Surveyor....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... 20 10 10 .3 .1 .2

Other engineering and science................. 300 290 10 5.4 5.2 .2

Computer programmers .......................... 10 10 - .2 .2 -

Other ........................................................... 130 130 — 2.3 2.3 —

Medical and other health w orkers...................... 10 _ 10 .1 _ .1

Other professional and technical........................ 100 20 80 1.8 .3 1.5

Accountants................................................ 10 — 10 .2 — .2

Pilots.............................................................. 10 - 10 .1 - .1

Architects ..................................................... — — — — — —

Designers....................................................... 10 - 10 .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... 10 — 10 .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... 10 — 10 .2 — .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . 10 — 10 .1 — .1

Other ........................................................... 40 - 40 .7 - .7

Managers and administrators........................................... 240 30 210 4.3 .5 3.8

Clerical workers ................................................................ 650 190 460 11.8 3.4 8.4

Sales workers ..................................................................... 90 — 90 1.6 — 1.6

Craft workers ..................................................................... 420 30 390 7.6 .6 7.0

Operatives............................................................................ 490 80 410 8.8 1.4 7.4

Service workers.................................................................. 140 30 110 2.5 .5 2.0

Laborers............................................................................... 300 190 110 5.4 3.4 2.0

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 20 - 20 .4 - .4

1 D etail available fo r direct e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 3 D etail available fo r direct extram ural e m p lo ym en t o n ly.

2 Does not include d etail fo r grants fo r waste w ater trea tm e n t

p lan t construction.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect T otal Direct Indirect

Total .................................................................. 1,010 630 380 78.9 49.5 29.4

Professional and technical............................................... 590 560 30 46.1 43.4 2.7

Engineers ................................................................ 150 140 10 11.5 10.9 .6

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — — —

Chemical....................................................... 20 20 - 1.6 1.6 -

Civil .............................................................. — — — — — —

(Sanitary)1'2 .................................... - - - - - -

Electrical....................................................... 10 — — .5 .3 .2

Industrial .................................................... - — - .1 - .1

Mechanical .................................................. 120 120 — 9.2 9.1 .1

Other ........................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Natural scientists.................................................... 210 210 — 16.8 16.6 .2

Agricultural.................................................. - - - - - -

Biological .................................................... 70 70 — 5.5 5.5 —

(Microbiologists)3 .......................... (10) (10) — (.9) (.9) —

(Zoologists)3 .................................... - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... — — — — — —

Mathematicians........................................... — 1 — .1 .1 —

Systems analysts......................................... - - - - - -

Chemists....................................................... 130 130 — 10.5 10.4 .1

(Biochemists)3 ............................... — - - - - -

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - - - -

Physicists .................................................... — — — — — —

Meteorologists............................................. 10 10 - (.6) (.6) -

Other natural scientists............................. — — — — — —

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 210 200 10 15.8 15.4 .4

Drafters......................................................... 20 20 - 1.6 1.5 .1

Surveyor....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... — — — .2 .1 .1

Other engineering and science................. 130 130 - 10.3 10.2 .1

Computer programmers .......................... - - - - - -

Other ........................................................... 50 50 — 3.6 3.6 —

Medical and other health w orkers..................... — _ — _ _ —

Other professional and technical........................ 30 10 20 1.9 .5 1.4

Accountants................................................ — — — .1 — .1

Pilots.............................................................. - - - .1 - .1

Architects.................................................... - — — — — —

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — — .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... - — - .2 - .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ........................................................... 10 - 10 .6 - .6

Managers and administrators........................................... 40 — 40 3.4 .1 3.3

Clerical workers ................................................................ 150 50 100 11.9 3.8 8.1

Sales workers ..................................................................... 20 - 20 1.6 - 1.6

Craft workers ..................................................................... 60 — 60 4.4 .1 4.3

Operatives............................................................................ 100 30 70 7.7 2.2 5.5

Service workers.................................................................. 30 — 30 2.3 — 2.3

Laborers.............................................................................. 20 — 20 1.3 .1 1.2

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 10 - 10 .4 - .4

1 D etail available fo r direct e m p lo ym en t o n ly. 3 D etail available fo r direct extram ural e m p lo ym en t o n ly.

2 Does not include d etail fo r grants fo r waste w ater treatm en t

p lan t construction .

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
demonstration: Generated employment, by selected occupations

Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 1,890 860 1,030 70.7 32.3 38.4

Professional and technical................................................ 660 580 80 24.6 21.6 3.0

Engineers ................................................................ 160 140 20 5.9 5.2 .7

Aeronautical................................................ 10 10 — .3 .3 —

Chemical....................................................... 20 20 — .9 .9 —

Civil .............................................................. 80 80 — 2.9 2.8 .1

(Sanitary)lf2 ............................... (20) (20) - (.8) (.8) -

Electrical....................................................... 10 — — .2 .1 .1

Industrial .................................................... — - - .1 - .1

Mechanical .................................................. 10 10 — .6 .5 .1

Other ........................................................... - - - .9 .8 .1

Natural scientists.................................................... 330 320 10 12.5 12.3 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 50 50 - 1.9 1.9 -

Biological .................................................... 100 100 — 3.6 3.6 —

(Microbiologists)3 ........................ (10) (10) - (.4) (.4) -

(Zoologists)3 ................................. (10) (10) - (.5) (.5) -

M edical......................................................... 10 10 — .5 .5 —

Mathematicians........................................... 10 10 - .3 .3 -

Systems analysts......................................... 10 10 - .2 .2 -

Chemists....................................................... 150 150 — 5.7 5.6 .1

(Biochemists)3 ............................. (10) (10) - (.2) (.2) -

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - - - -

Physicists .................................................... - - - .1 .1 -

Meteorologists............................................. - - - - - -

Other natural scientists............................. — — — .1 .1 —

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 130 110 20 4.7 4.1 .6

Drafters......................................................... 10 - 10 .3 .1 .2

Surveyor....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Electrical and electronic.......................... 10 — — .2 .1 .1

Other engineering and science................. 70 70 - 2.7 2.6 .1

Computer programmers .......................... — - — .1 .1 —

Other ........................................................... 30 30 — 1.2 1.2 —

Medical and other health w orkers...................... _ — — — — —

Other professional and technical........................ 40 - 40 1.5 - 1.5

Accountants................................................ 10 — — .2 — .2

Pilots.............................................................. - - - - - -

Architects.................................................... — — — — — —

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — — .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... 10 — 10 .2 — .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 20 - 20 .7 - .7

Managers and administrators..........................- .............. 100 — 100 3.7 .1 3.6

Clerical workers ................................................................ 290 60 230 10.7 2.2 8.5

Sales workers ..................................................................... 40 — 40 1.6 — 1.6

Craft w o rkers..................................................................... 240 20 220 9.1 .9 8.2

Operatives............................................................................ 260 40 220 9.9 1.7 8.2

Service workers.................................................................. 50 10 40 2.0 .3 1.7

Laborers.............................................................................. 240 150 90 8.8 5.6 3.2

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 10 - 10 .4 — .4

1 D etail available fo r direct em p lo ym en t o n ly . 3 Detail available fo r d irect extram ural e m p lo ym en t o n ly.

2 Does not include detail fo r grants fo r waste w ater trea tm e n t

plan t construction.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect T ota I Direct Indirect

Total .................................................................. 1,110 330 780 67.9 20.2 47.7

Professional and technical............................................... 280 200 80 17.5 12.5 5.0

Engineers ................................................................ 70 50 20 4.2 3.3 .9

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — — —

Chemical....................................................... — — — .1 .1 —

Civil .............................................................. 50 50 — 3.1 2.9 .2

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... - - - (.1) (.1) -

Electrical....................................................... 10 — — .4 .2 .2

Industrial .................................................... — — — — — —

Mechanical .................................................. — — — .1 .1 —

Other ........................................................... 10 - - .2 .1 .1

Natural scientists.................................................... 90 90 _ 5.8 5.6 .2

Agricultural.................................................. - - _ - - -

Biological .................................................... 10 10 - .8 .8 —

(Microbiologists)3 ........................ — - _ - - -

(Zoologists)3 ................................. - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... 10 10 — .6 .6 —

Mathematicians..................... .................... 10 10 - .6 .6 —

Systems analysts........................................ - - - .1 .1 -

Chemists....................................................... 60 50 — 3.4 3.3 .1

(Biochemists)3 ............................... (10) (10) - (.5) (.5) -

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - - - -

Physicists .................................................... — — — — — —

Meteorologists............................................. - - - - - -

Other natural scientists............................. 10 10 - .3 .3 -

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 80 60 20 4.8 3.5 1.3

Drafters......................................................... 10 — 10 .2 .1 .1

Surveyor....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Electrical and electronic.......................... 10 — 10 .4 .1 .3

Other engineering and science................. 40 30 10 2.6 2.1 .5

Computer programmers .......................... 10 10 - .4 .4 -

Other ........................................................... 10 10 - .8 .7 .1

Medical and other health w orkers..................... _ _ _ .2 _ .2

Other professional and technical........................ 40 - 40 2.4 - 2.4

Accountants................................................ — - - .2 — .2

Pilots.............................................................. — — — — — —

Architects.................................................... — - — — — —

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — - — — -

Lawyers ....................................................... — — — .2 — .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ........................................................... 30 - 30 1.8 - 1.8

Managers and administrators........................................... 90 20 70 5.6 1.0 4.6

Clerical workers ................................................................ 180 40 140 11.1 2.3 8.8

Sales workers ..................................................................... 30 - 30 1.6 — 1.6

Craft workers ..................................................................... 190 10 180 11.7 .3 11.4

Operatives............................................................................ 200 20 180 12.0 .9 11.1

Service workers.................................................................. 50 20 30 2.9 1.1 1.8

Laborers.............................................................................. 90 40 50 5.4 2.2 3.2

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. - - - .2 - .2

1 D etail available fo r direct e m p lo y m e n t o n ly. 3 D etail available fo r direct extram ural e m p lo ym en t o n ly.

2 Does not include detail fo r grants fo r waste w ater trea tm e n t

p lan t construction.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
demonstration by universities: Generated employment, by selected occupations

Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total . ................................................................ 1,800 1,290 510 94.5 67.6 26.9

Professional and technical................................................ 1,090 1,050 40 57.3 55.0 2.3

Engineers ................................................................ 260 250 10 13.8 13.2 .6

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — — —

Chemical....................................................... 60 60 — 2.9 2.9 —

Civil ........................................... .................. 100 100 — 5.2 5.1 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 (60) (60) - (3.1) (3.1) -

Electrical....................................................... — — — .2 — .2

Industrial .............. .. ................... ............. — - - .1 - .1

Mechanical .................................................. 90 90 — 4.8 4.7 .1

Other ............................................................ 10 10 - .6 .5 .1

Natural scientists.................................................... 500 500 — 26.1 26.0 .1

Agricultural.................................................. 70 70 - 3.8 3.8 -

Biological .................................................... 150 150 — 7.6 7.6 —

(Microbiologists)3 .......................... (30) (30) — (1.3) (1.3) —

(Zoologists)3 .................................... (10) (10) - (.7) (.7) -

M edical......................................................... 20 20 — 1.0 1.0 —

Mathematicians........................................... 10 10 — .7 .7 —

Systems analysts......................................... 10 10 - .5 .5 -

Chemists....................................................... 220 220 — 11.8 11.7 .1

(Biochemists)3 ............................... - - - - - -

Geologists and geophysicists................... 10 10 - .3 .3 -

Physicists .................................................... — — — .1 .1 —

Meteorologists............................................. — — — — — —

Other natural scientists............................. 10 10 — .3 .3 —

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 300 290 10 15.8 15.4 .4

Drafters......................................................... 10 10 - .8 .7 .1

Surveyor....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... — — — .1 — .1

Other engineering and science................. 180 180 - 9.5 9.5 -

Computer programmers .......................... 10 10 — .3 .3 —

Other ............................................................ 100 100 — 5.1 5.0 .1

Medical and other health w orkers...................... _ — — — - -

Other professional and technical........................ 30 10 20 1.6 .5 1.1

Accountants................................................ — — — .1 — .1

Pilots.............................................................. - - - .1 - .1

Architects..................................................... - - - - - -

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — - — .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... - - - .1 — .1

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 10 - 10 .5 — .5

Managers and administrators........................................... 60 10 50 3.3 .4 2.9

Clerical workers ................................................................ 220 100 120 11.4 5.1 6.3

Sales workers ..................................................................... 30 - 30 1.5 - 1.5

Craft workers ...................................................................... 90 — 90 4.6 — 4.6

Operatives............................................................................ 110 - 110 5.7 - 5.7

Service workers................................................................... 40 10 30 2.1 .4 1.7

Laborers............................................................................... 150 130 20 7.9 6.7 1.2

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 10 — 10 .7 — .7

1 D etail available fo r direct e m p lo y m e n t o n ly . 3 Detail available fo r d irect extram u ral e m p lo y m e n t o n ly.

2 Does not include detail fo r grants fo r waste w ater trea tm e n t

plan t construction.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total D irect Indirect

Total ................................................................... 360 180 190 64.0 32.8 31.2

Professional and technical................................................ 180 160 20 31.2 27.3 3.9

Engineers ................................................................ 40 40 — 7.3 6.9 .4

Aeronautical................................................ 10 10 — .9 .9 —

Chemical....................................................... 20 20 — 3.3 3.3 _

Civil .............................................................. 10 10 — 2.0 2.0 _

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... (10) (10) - (1.8) (1.8) —

Electrical....................................................... 10 4 — .8 .7 .1

Industrial ............ ........................................ — _ _ .1 _ .1

Mechanical .................................................. — — .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ - - - - - -

Natural scientists.................................................... 70 70 — 13.3 13.1 .2

Agricultural.................................................. - - - — —

Biological .................................................... 10 10 — 2.0 2.0 —

(Microbiologists)............................. - - - - — —

(Zoologists)...................................... — — — — — —

M edical......................................................... — — — — — —

Mathematicians........................................... 10 10 — 1.1 1.1 —

Systems analysts........................................ - - - — — —

Chemists....................................................... 50 50 — 8.4 8.4 _

(Biochemists) ................................. — — — — — __

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - — _ —

Physicists .................................................... — — — .3 .3 —

Meteorologists............................................. (10) (10) - (1.3) (1.3) —

Other natural scientists............................ - - - .0 .0 -

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 40 40 _ 6.6 6.3 .3

Drafters......................................................... — — — .6 .5 .1

Surveyor....................................................... - _ - - - —

Electrical and electronic.......................... — — - .2 .1 .1

Other engineering and science................. 20 20 — 4.4 4.3 .1

Computer programmers .......................... - - - - - —

Other ............................................................ 10 10 - 1.4 1.4 -

Medical and other health w orkers...................... _ _ _ .1 _ .1

Other professional and technical........................ 20 - 20 3.8 1.0 2.8

Accountants................................................ — — _ .1 — .1

Pilots.............................................................. — — — .1 _ .1

Architects.................................................... — — — _ —

Designers....................................................... - - - — — —

Editors and reporters ............................... — — — .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... - - - — — —

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 30 10 20 1.0 - 1.0

Managers and administrators........................................... 20 — 20 3.7 .1 3.6

Clerical workers ................................................................ 60 20 40 10.6 3.4 7.2

Sales workers ..................................................................... 10 — 10 1.7 1.7

Craft workers ..................................................................... 20 — 20 4.2 — 4.2

Operatives............................................................................ 30 - 30 4.5 — 4.5

Service workers.................................................................. 20 - 20 4.3 — 4.3

Laborers.............................................................................. 20 10 10 3.0 1.9 1.1

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. - - - .7 - .7

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total D irect Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 880 380 500 62.6 27.1 35.5

Professional and technical................................................ 280 230 50 20.0 16.7 3.3

Engineers ................................................................ 90 80 10 6.7 6.0 .7

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — — —

Chemical....................................................... 20 20 - 1.4 1.4 -

Civil .............................................................. 10 4 — .4 .3 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... - - - .1 .1 -

Electrical....................................................... 10 — — .5 .3 .2

Industrial .................................................... — - - .1 - .1

Mechanical .................................................. 40 40 — 2.8 2.8 —

Other ............................................................ 20 20 - 1.4 1.1 .3

Natural scientists.................................................... 90 80 — 6.2 6.0 .2

Agricultural.................................................. - - - - - -

Biological .................................................... 40 40 — 2.7 2.7 —

(Microbiologists)............................. - - - - - -

(Zoologists)...................................... - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... 10 10 — .5 .5 —

Mathematicians........................................... - - - .3 .3 -

Systems analysts......................................... - - - - - -

Chemists....................................................... 40 40 — 2.6 2.5 .1

(Biochemists) ................................. — - - (.1) (.1) -

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - - - -

Physicists .................................................... — — — — — —

Meteorologists............................................. - - - - - -

Other natural scientists............................. — — — — — —

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 70 70 10 5.2 4.7 .5

Drafters......................................................... 10 10 - .6 .4 .2

Surveyor....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... — — — .2 .1 .1

Other engineering and science................. 50 50 - 3.4 3.3 .1

Computer programmers .......................... — — — — — —

Other ............................................................ 10 10 - .8 .8 —

Medical and other health w orkers...................... _ — — — — —

Other professional and technical........................ 20 - 20 1.7 - 1.7

Accountants................................................ — - — .2 — .2

Pilots.............................................................. - - - .1 - .1

A rchitects.................................................... - - - - - -

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — - .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... — — — .3 — .3

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 10 - 10 .8 - .8

Managers and administrators........................................... 60 10 50 4.2 .4 3.8

Clerical workers ................................................................ 180 40 140 12.5 2.5 10.0

Sales workers ..................................................................... 20 — 20 1.7 - 1.7

Craft workers ..................................................................... 120 30 90 8.2 2.0 6.2

Operatives............................................................................ 160 60 90 11.1 4.5 6.6

Service workers................................................................... 30 — 30 2.0 — 2.0

Laborers............................................................................... 40 10 30 2.7 .9 1.8

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. - — — .3 — .3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 1,820 1,190 630 83.4 54.7 28.7

Professional and technical................................................ 1,030 960 70 47.1 44.1 3.0

Engineers ................................................................ 150 140 10 6.7 6.2 .5

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — - —

Chemical....................................................... 10 10 — .4 .4 —

Civil .............................................................. 40 40 — 1.7 1.6 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... (10) (10) - (.6) (.6) —

Electrical....................................................... 10 10 — .4 .2 .2

Industrial .................................................... — — - .1 — .1

Mechanical .................................................. 90 90 — 4.0 3.9 .1

Other ............................................................ 10 - - .3 .2 .1

Natural scientists.................................................... 600 590 _ 27.4 27.2 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 30 30 - 1.2 1.2 -

Biological .................................................... 190 190 — 8.5 8.5 —

(Microbiologists)3 .......................... (30) (30) - (1.2) (1.2) -

(Zoologists)3 .................................... (10) (10) - (.6) (.6) -

M ed ical......................................................... 40 40 — 1.6 1.6 —

Mathematicians........................................... 30 30 - 1.3 1.3 —

Systems analysts......................................... - - - - - -

Chemists....................................................... 300 300 - 13.9 13.8 .1

(Biochemists)3 ............................... — - - (.2) (.2) —

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - - - -

Physicists .................................................... - - - - - -

Meteorologists............................................. (10) (10) - (.5) (.5) -

Other natural scientists............................. 10 10 - .5 .5 -

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 240 230 10 10.9 10.5 .4

Drafters......................................................... 20 10 - .7 .6 .1

Surveyor....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... — — — .1 — .1

Other engineering and science................. 120 120 - 5.4 5.3 .1

Computer programmers .......................... 10 10 - .4 .4 -

Other ........................................................... 90 90 - 4.2 4.2 -

Medical and other health w orkers..................... _ _ _ .1 _ .1

Other professional and technical........................ 40 10 40 2.0 .3 .7

Accountants................................................ — — — .1 — .1

Pilots.............................................................. — - - .1 — .1

Architects.................................................... — - — — - —

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — — .1 — .1

Lawyers ....................................................... — — — .1 — .1

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ........................................................... 20 - 20 1.1 - 1.1

Managers and administrators........................................... 90 20 70 4.0 .7 3.3

Clerical workers ................................................................ 280 110 170 12.7 5.0 7.7

Sales workers ..................................................................... 40 — 40 1.6 — 1.6

Craft workers ..................................................................... 100 10 90 4.8 .5 4.3

Operatives............................................................................ 110 - 110 4.8 - 4.8

Service workers................................................................... 70 10 60 3.1 .5 2.6

Laborers.............................................................................. 170 90 80 4.8 3.9 .9

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 10 - 10 .4 - .4

1 D etail available fo r direct e m p lo ym en t o n ly . 3 D etail available fo r direct extram ural em p lo ym en t o n ly .

2 Does not include detail fo r grants fo r waste w ater trea tm e n t

p lan t construction .

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
development and demonstration: Generated employment, by selected occupations

Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 2,330 990 1,340 70.1 29.8 40.3

Professional and technical................................................ 790 680 110 23.9 20.5 3.4

Engineers ........................................................... .. 320 290 30 9.6 8.8 .8

Aeronautical................................................ 10 10 — .2 .2 —

Chemical....................................................... 90 90 — 2.6 2.6 —

Civil .............................................................. 130 130 — 3.9 3.8 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... (60) (60) - (1.8) (1.8) -

Electrical....................................................... 10 10 10 .4 .2 .2

Industrial .................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Mechanical .................................................. 50 50 10 1.6 1.4 .2

Other ........................................................... 30 20 10 .9 .7 .2

Natural scientists.................................................... 160 150 10 4.8 4.6 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 50 50 - 1.4 1.4 -

Biological .................................................... 20 20 - .7 .7 -

(Microbiologists)3 .......................... (10) (10) — (.3) (.3) —

(Zoologists)...................................... - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... — — — — — —

Mathematicians........................................... 10 10 — .2 .2 —

Systems analysts........................................ 10 10 - .3 .3 -

Chemists....................................................... 60 60 — 1.9 1.8 .1

(Biochemists) ................................. - - - (.1) (.1) -

Geologists and geophysicists................... 10 10 - .2 .2 -

Physicists .................................................... - - - .1 .1 -

Meteorologists............................................. - - - - - -

Other natural scientists............................. — — — — — —

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 250 220 30 1.6 6.7 .9

Drafters......................................................... 20 10 10 1.1 .3 .8

Surveyor....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... 10 — — .3 .1 .2

Other engineering and science................. 180 170 10 5.4 5.1 .3

Computer programmers .......................... — — — .1 .1 —

Other ............................................................ 40 40 — 1.1 1.1 —

Medical and other health w orkers.....................

— — — — — -

Other professional and technical........................ 50 10 40 1.6 .3 1.3

Accountants................................................ 10 — 10 .2 — .2

Pilots.............................................................. - - - - - -

Architects.................................................... — — — — — —

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — — — — —

Lawyers ....................................................... 10 — 10 .2 — .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 20 - 20 .5 — .5

Managers and administrators........................................... 150 10 130 4.4 .4 4.0

Clerical workers ................................................................ 350 80 270 11.2 2.4 8.8

Sales workers ..................................................................... 50 - 50 1.6 - 1.6

Craft workers ..................................................................... 310 20 290 9.5 .7 8.8

Operatives............................................................................ 380 80 300 11.4 2.3 9.1

Service workers................................................................... 70 20 50 2.1 .5 1.6

Laborers............................................................................... 180 100 80 5.5 3.0 2.5

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 20 — 20 .5 — .5

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 3,550 2,300 1,250 78.4 50.7 27.7

Professional and technical................................................ 1,660 1,500 160 36.9 33.3 3.6

Engineers ................................................................ 490 470 20 10.8 10.3 .5

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — — —

Chemical....................................................... 60 60 — 1.4 1.4 —

Civil .............................................................. 330 330 — 7.4 7.3 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... (270) (270) - (5.7) (5.7) -

Electrical....................................................... 10 10 — .2 .1 .1

Industrial .................................................... — - — .1 — .1

Mechanical .................................................. 40 30 10 .9 .8 .1

Other ............................................................ 30 30 - .8 .7 .1

Natural scientists.................................................... 590 580 10 12.9 12.7 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 20 20 - .4 .4 -

Biological .................................................... 160 160 — 3.6 3.6 —

(Microbiologists)............................. - - - - - -

(Zoologists)...................................... - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... 10 10 — .2 .2 —

Mathematicians........................................... - - — .1 .1 —

Systems analysts........................................ 30 30 - .6 .6 -

Chemists....................................................... 310 310 — 6.9 6.8 .1

(Biochemists) ................................. - - - - - —

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - .1 .1 -

Physicists .................................................... - - - - - -

Meteorologists............................................. (30) (30) - (.7) (.7) -

Other natural scientists............................. 10 10 - .2 .2 -

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 490 460 30 10.7 10.2 .5

Drafters......................................................... 10 — 10 .2 — .2

Surveyor....................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... 40 40 — .9 .8 .1

Other engineering and science................. 210 210 - 4.6 4.5 .1

Computer programmers .......................... 10 10 - .3 .3 -

Other ............................................................ 210 210 - 4.6 4.6 -

Medical and other health w orkers..................... 20 _ 20 .4 _ .4

Other professional and technical........................ 90 — 90 2.0 — 2.0

Accountants................................................ 10 — 10 .3 — .3

Pilots.............................................................. — — — .1 - .1

Architects.................................................... — - - - — —

Designers....................................................... - - - .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... 10 — 10 .2 — .2

Lawyers ....................................................... 10 - 10 .2 - .2

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 50 - 50 1.1 - 1.1

Managers and administrators........................................... 410 260 150 9.0 5.8 3.2

Clerical workers ............................................. .................. 770 490 280 16.9 10.8 6.1

Sales workers ..................................................................... 60 - 60 1.4 — 1.4

Craft workers ..................................................................... 200 30 170 2.5 .7 7.8

Operatives............................................................................ 200 - 200 4.5 - 4.5

Service workers................................................................... 160 - 160 8.5 - 8.5

Laborers.............................................................................. 40 - 40 .9 — .9

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 30 - 30 .6 - .6

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ...................................... ............................ 8,610 4,710 3,900 84.1 46.0 38.1

Professional and technical................................................ 3,860 3,420 440 37.7 33.4 4.3

Engineers ................................................................ 700 610 90 6.9 6.0 .9

Aeronautical................................................ — - - - - —

Chemical....................................................... 30 30 — .3 .3 —

Civil .............................................................. 100 90 10 1.0 .9 .1

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... (20) (20) - (.2) (.2) -

Electrical....................................................... 110 80 30 1.1 .8 .3

Industrial ..................................................... 10 — 10 .1 — .1

Mechanical .................................................. 40 20 20 .4 .2 .2

Other ............................................................ 410 400 10 4.0 3.8 .2

Natural scientists..................................................... 1,710 1,690 20 16.7 16.5 .2

Agricultural.................................................. 30 30 - .3 .3 -

Biological .................................................... 480 480 — 4.7 4.7 —

(Microbiologists)............................. - — - - — -

(Zoologists)...................................... - — - — - -

M edical......................................................... 90 90 — .9 .9 —

Mathematicians........................................... 20 20 - .2 .2 -

Systems analysts........................................ 10 10 - .1 .1 -

Chemists....................................................... 340 330 10 3.3 3.2 .1

(Biochemists) ................................. (40) (40) - (.4) (.4) -

Geologists and geophysicists................... 10 10 - .1 .1 -

Physicists .................................................... 420 420 — 4.1 4.1 —

Meteorologists............................................. (20) (20) — (.2) (.2) —

Other natural scientists............................. 270 270 — 2.6 2.6 —

Technicans, except medical and d en tal............ 960 900 60 9.4 8.8 .6

Drafters......................................................... 30 10 20 .3 .1 .2

Surveyor .................................................... - - - - - -

Electrical and electronic.......................... 170 150 20 1.7 1.5 .2

Other engineering and science................. 500 480 20 4.9 4.7 .2

Computer programmers .......................... 30 30 — .3 .3 —

Other ............................................................ 230 230 — 2.2 2.2 —

Medical and other health w orkers..................... 200 160 40 2.0 1.6 .4

Other professional and technical........................ 280 60 220 2.7 .6 2.1

Accountants................................................ 20 — 20 .2 — .2

Pilots.............................................................. 50 40 10 .5 .4 .1

Architects.................................................... — — — — — —

Designers....................................................... 10 - 10 .1 - .1

Editors and reporters ............................... 20 — 20 .2 — .2

Lawyers ....................................................... 10 — 10 .1 — .1

Personnel and labor relations workers . . 10 — 10 .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 140 - 140 1.4 - 1.4

Managers and administrators........................................... 660 240 420 6.4 2.3 4.1

Clerical workers ............................................................................................................... 1,510 690 820 14.7 6.7 8.0

Sales workers ........................................................................................................................ 190 — 190 1.9 — 1.9

Craft workers ..................................................................... 750 70 680 7.3 .7 6.6

Operatives............................................................................ 890 60 830 8.7 .6 8.1

Service workers................................................................... 480 160 320 4.7 1.6 3.1

Laborers............................................................................... 230 60 170 2.3 .6 1.7

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 30 — 30 .3 - .3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total D irect Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 13,550 4,730 8,820 53.6 18.7 34.9

Professional and technical................................................ 1,970 1,040 930 7.8 4.1 3.7

Engineers ................................................................ 610 380 230 2.4 1.5 .9

Aeronautical................................................ — — - — — —

Chemical....................................................... — — — - — —

Civil .............................................................. 400 350 50 1.6 1.4 .2

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... - - - - - -

Electrical....................................................... 50 30 20 .2 .1 .1

Industrial .................................................... 30 — 30 .1 — .1

Mechanical .................................................. 50 — 50 .1 — .1

Other ............................................................ 50 - 50 .2 - .2

Natural scientists.................................................... 30 — 30 .1 _ .1

Agricultural.................................................. - - - - - -

Biological .................................................... — — — — — —

(Microbiologists)............................. - - - - - -

(Zoologists)...................................... - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... — — — — - -

Mathematicians........................................... — - - — — —

Systems analysts........................................ - - - - - -

Chemists....................................................... 30 — 30 .1 — .1

(Biochemists) ................................. — - — — - —

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - - - -

Physicists .................................................... - - - - - —

Meteorologists............................................. - - - - - -

Other natural scientists............................. - - - - - -

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 730 530 200 2.9 2.1 .8

Drafters......................................................... 330 180 150 1.3 .7 .6

Surveyor .................................................... 50 30 20 .2 .1 .1

Electrical and electronic.......................... 80 50 30 .3 .2 .1

Other engineering and science................. 250 230 20 1.0 .9 .1

Computer programmers .......................... 30 30 - .1 .1 -

Other ........................................................... 50 50 - .2 .2 -

Medical and other health workers...................... _ _ _ _ _ _

Other professional and technical........................ 560 100 460 2.2 .4 1.8

Accountants................................................ 180 30 150 .7 .1 .6

Pilots.............................................................. _ — — _ _ _

Architects.................................................... 30 — 30 .1 _ .1

Designers....................................................... 50 20 30 .2 .1 .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — - — — — —

Lawyers ....................................................... 150 — 150 .6 — .6

Personnel and labor relations workers . . 30 — 30 .1 — .1

Other ........................................................... 150 50 100 .6 .2 .4

Managers and administrators........................................... 1,240 380 860 4.9 1.5 3.4

Clerical workers ................................................................ 1,690 200 1,490 6.7 .8 5.9

Sales workers ..................................................................... 380 — 380 1.5 — 1.5

Craft workers ..................................................................... 3,460 2,000 1,460 13.7 7.9 5.8

Operatives............................................................................ 3,310 680 2,630 13.1 2.7 10.4

Service workers................................................................... 250 - 250 1.0 — 1.0

Laborers.............................................................................. 1,090 380 710 4.3 1.5 2.8

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 80 - 80 .3 - .3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total .................................................................. 1,020 690 330 65.1 43.8 21.3

Professional and technical................................................ 720 620 100 45.6 39.2 6.4

Engineers ................................................................ 360 330 30 22.9 21.0 1.9

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — — -

Chemical....................................................... 10 10 — .6 .6 —

Civil .............................................................. 300 300 10 19.7 19.1 .6

(Sanitary)1'2 ............................... - - - - - -

Electrical....................................................... 20 10 — 1.1 .9 .2

Industrial .................................................... — — — .1 — .1

Mechanical .................................................. 10 10 — .7 .4 .3

Other ............................................................ 10 - 10 .6 - .6

Natural scientists.................................................... 2 — 2 .1 — .1

Agricultural.................................................. - - - - - -

Biological .................................................... — — — — — —

(Microbiologists)............................. — - - - - -

(Zoologists)...................................... - - - - - -

M edical......................................................... — — — — — —

Mathematicians........................................... - - - - - -

Systems analysts......................................... - - - - - -

Chemists....................................................... — — — — — —

(Biochemists) ................................. - - - - - -

Geologists and geophysicists................... - - - - - -

Physicists .................................................... - - - - - -

Meteorologists............................................. - - - - -

_

Other natural scientists............................. - — — — — _

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 310 280 40 20.0 17.8 2.2

Drafters......................................................... 140 120 20 9.0 7.5 1.5

Surveyor....................................................... 10 - 10 - - .4

Electrical and electronic.......................... — — — .1 — .1

Other engineering and science................. 120 110 - 7.3 7.2 .1

Computer programmers .......................... - - - - - -

Other ............................................................ 50 50 — 3.2 3.1 .1

Medical and other health w orkers...................... — — — — — —

Other professional and technical........................ 30 10 30 2.5 .4 2.1

Accountants................................................ 20 10 10 1.0 .4 .6

Pilots.............................................................. — — — — — —

Architects.................................................... 10 - 10 .4 - .4

Designers....................................................... - - - .3 - .2

Editors and reporters ............................... — - — .2 — .2

Lawyers ....................................................... 10 — 10 .4 — .4

Personnel and labor relations workers . . — — — — — —

Other ........................................................... - - - .2 - .2

IVjanagers and administrators........................................... 40 10 30 2.6 .4 2.2

Clerical workers ................................................................ 150 70 80 9.3 4.2 5.1

Sales workers ..................................................................... 30 — 30 1.7 — 1.7

Craft workers ..................................................................... 30 — 30 2.1 — 2.1

Operatives............................................................................ 30 - 30 2.0 - 2.0

Service workers................................................................... 20 — 20 1.0 — 1.0

Laborers.............................................................................. 10 - 10 .5 - .5

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. — __ — .2 ~ .2

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Occupation

Actual expenditures Per million dollars

Total D irect Indirect Total Direct Indirect

Total ................................................................... 12,510 4,030 9,490 52.8 17.0 35.8

Professional and technical................................................ 1,260 430 830 5.3 1.8 3.5

Engineers ................................................................ 240 50 190 1.0 .2 .8

Aeronautical................................................ — — — — — —

Chemical....................................................... — — — — — —

Civil .............................................................. 100 50 50 .4 .2 .2

(Sanitary)1/2 ............................... — — — - — —

Electrical....................................................... 20 — 20 .1 — .1

Industrial .................................................... 20 _ 20 .1 — .1

Mechanical .................................................. 50 —

Other ........................................................... 50 - 50 .2 - .2

Natural scientists.................................................... 20 _ 20 .1 _ .1

Agricultural.................................................. - _ - - - -

Biological .................................................... - - - - - -

(Microbiologists)............................. — — — — — —

(Zoologists)...................................... - - - - - -

M ed ical......................................................... — — — — — —

Mathematicians........................................... — - - - — —

Systems analysts......................................... - - - - - —

Chemists....................................................... 20 — 20 .1 — .1

(Biochemists) ................................. — - - - - -

Geologists and geophysicists................... — - - - - —

Physicists .................................................... — — — — — —

Meteorologists............................................. - - - - - -

Other natural scientists............................. - - - - - -

Technicians, except medical and dental .......... 430 260 170 1.8 1.1 .7

Drafters ......................................................... 170 50 120 .7 .2 .5

Surveyor....................................................... 50 20 20 .2 .1 .1

Electrical and electronic.......................... 70 50 20 .3 .2 .1

Other engineering and science................. 140 120 20 .6 .5 .1

Computer programmers .......................... 20 20 — .1 .1 —

Other ............................................................ - - - - - -

Medical and other health w orkers...................... _ _ _ _ _ _

Other professional and technical........................ 520 90 430 2.2 .4 1.8

Accountants................................................ 160 20 140 .7 .1 .6

Pilots.............................................................. — — — — — —

Architects.................................................... 20 — 20 .1 — .1

Designers....................................................... 50 20 20 .2 .1 .1

Editors and reporters ............................... — — — — — —

Lawyers ....................................................... 140 - 140 .6 - .6

Personnel and labor relations workers . . 20 — 20 .1 — .1

Other ........................................................... 140 50 90 .6 .2 .4

Managers and administrators........................................... 1,210 380 830 5.1 1.6 3.5

Clerical workers ................................................................ 1,560 140 1,420 6.6 .6 6.0

Sales workers ..................................................................... 360 — 360 1.5 _ 1.5

Craft w o rkers..................................................................... 3,410 1,990 1,420 14.4 8.4 6.0

Operatives............................................................................ 3,290 690 2,600 13.9 2.9 11.0

Service workers................................................................... 240 - 240 1.0 — 1.0

Laborers.............................................................................. 1,090 380 710 4.6 1.6 3.0

Farmers and farm workers ............................................. 70 - 70 .3 - .3

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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

on

(address)

_______________ ____________________________(_________________

(official's name) (Telephone)

(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.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 construction) ______________________

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 enforcement

Technical support

Manufacturers and/or suppliers of

goods and services used in

pollution control and abatement

projects

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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/

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
No. of man-years

or man-hours

Total all occupations

Professional, Technical and

Kindred Occupations, Total

Engineers

Mechanical

Electrical and Electronic

Occupations

No. of

Positions

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
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 consultants 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. 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 variation and discuss reasons for any variations^/

b. Are you considering any staffing changes--for example, an

upgrading of scientific qualifications In light of the reported

availability of highly educated manpower?

5. 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 interviewing 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.

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
a. Are there any similarities in academic qualifications

between your scientific and technical personnel and those

personnel most commonly employed in aerospace and defense?

(For example, B.S. degree in electrical engineering.)

b. Does the academic preparation and past experience of

scientific and technical personnel in the defense and

aerospace industries have any carryover to the work

your organization is doing (in pollution control.)

c. If the technologies are so different that skill carryover

would be negligible, can retraining bridge this gap? How

different is the retraining necessary for displaced areospace and defense personnel from what would normally be

given to new college graduates with the same academic

qualifications?

d. Are there any barriers which could discourage your organization from recruiting or hiring displaced scientific and

technical personnel from the defense and aerospace industries?

(Include economic and social barriers to recruiting these

personnel.)

F. 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^/

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

REGIONAL OFFICES

Region I

1603 JFK Federal Building

Government Center

Boston, Mass. 02203

Phone: 223-6762 (Area Code 617)

Region II

Suite 3400

1515 Broadway

New York, N.Y. 10036

Phone: 971-5405 (Area Code 212)

Region III

P.O. Box 13309

Philadelphia, Pa. 19101

Phone: 597-1154 (Area Code 215)

Region IV

Suite 540

1371 Peachtree St., NE.

Atlanta, Ga. 30309

Phone: 526-5418 (Area Code 404)

Region V

9th Floor, 230 South Dearborn St.

Chicago, III. 60604

Phone: 353-1880 (Area Code 312)

Region VI

1100 Commerce St., Rm. 6B7

Dallas, Tex. 75202

Phone: 749-3516 (Area Code 214)

Regions VII and VIII *

Federal Office Building

911 Walnut St., 15th Floor

Kansas City, Mo. 64106

Phone: 374-2481 (Area Code 816)

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

Digitized for FRASER 

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ 

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis