Box 3, Folder 13, Document 16

Box 3, Folder 13, Document 16

MEMORANDUM

/ ;
TO: Orn. Car

FROM: TT. M. Jim Parham, Executive Administrator
Economic Opportunity Atlanta, Inc.

RE: ACEP (Atlanta Concentrated Employment Program)

DATE: September 3, 1968

We are alarmed about continued reductions in second year
funds for ACEP. As of now we are told by regional U.S.
Labor Department officials that we must take a one million
dollar cut in federal funds budgeted for ACEP for the
period September 1, 1968 thru August 31, 1969:



Year Federal Funds
9/67 - 8/68 $3,980,531
9/68 -— 9/69 $2,967,789

We learned many lessons in our first CEP year and had pro-
jected a modified program for the second year which incorpo-
rated many of these lessons. These continued reductions in
funds, however, have required alterations in our second year
projections for training and employment opportunities:

Program Original Plans Reduced
Component for 2nd Year Plans
New Careers 300 150
Youth Jobs 250 150
Atlanta Beauti- 100 60
fication Corps
Skills Training 500 300
Direct Placements 600 600

TOTAL 1,750 1,260


=e

If you don't count direct placements (since this involves
little or no training investment), we are left with only
660 training opportunities for this large disadvantaged
area which includes our total Model Cities community.

In addition to these reductions in potential training
opportunities, these fund cuts have seriously diminished

the ability of certain program components to be staffed at

a level to give close, individual attention to the multiple
problems of CEP clients. Of particular significance is the
vital counseling and follow-up activity of Employment Service
personnel.

Even if the amount of funds available had not been reduced
it had been the concensus of planners (including business,
representatives of the poor, employment service, the schools,
U.S. Labor, and EOA) that the number of persons served should
be reduced and the length of training increased. This con-
clusion was the result of the first year's experience that
the socially and educationally crippled people enrolled in
CEP could not be upgraded in a brief training program. With
this substantial reduction in funds, however, the number of
training opportunities is drastically reduced and the poten-
tial impact of the program watered down significantly. Any
action which has this result is a danger to us and should

be avoided if possible.

TMIP/gj