43microenterprise.pdf

David

£.

Buchholz

a

'ebbyDeter did notsetouttobe an entrepreneur.

Itjust

happened

thatway.

Debby

was

strugglingto

make

ends meet,

working

several jobs in the food industry.

One

of

them

was

with herfriendMari,

who

had started a catering business.

"When

she catered specialoccasions,shewantedtorentnice tablecloths, but the

companies

doing that were very unreliable.

So

I said, 'Well, shoot, I can dothat!'"

Thus

began

ServietteService.

Starting the business in her home,

Debby

found

several interested customers. But she did not have

thecashtobuy

new

tablecloths.

Banks would

nothelp

herbecause the loan

amounts

she needed were too

small to "justify the paperwork." She also needed

help with marketing and accounting, but could not

afford to hire professionals. It

was

a struggle toget the business offthe ground.

Threeyears later,

Debby was

still struggling

when

she got a call from Mari. "Mari said, 'Deb, I think

Tve

finally found the

answer

to our problems,'"

Debby

recalls. She hadjustlearned abouta

new

pro-gram

that "promised help with the exact problems

we

had."

Debby

and Marijoined

Good

Work,

a

pro-gram

whichoffered

them

accesstoloancapital,

busi-nesstraining,technical assistance, andongoingpeer support. "There

was

this exchange of energy right

offthebat.

None

ofushad

money,

but

we

could share the

same

concerns.

We

startedlearningandkept

learn-ingall thetime."

Debby's

business has

grown

exponentially, and

she has openeda second business selling

handmade

birdhouses. Shehas refinanced her

home

andreduced

David

E.

B

licitliolzistheExecutive Directorof

Good

Work, Inc.

Good

Work

was

one ofeleven recipients

nationwide ofthe

1996

Harry Chapin

SelfReliance

Awards.

herdebtload. Shehasused four business loans with

Good

Work

to buy inventory, build storage

facili-ties,and get a truck. Sheis

now

setting hersightson

anevenbiggergoal,openingan innanda restaurant.

"A

friend of

mine

started a business about the

same

time I did,"

Debby

says. "Because ofthe

sup-port I get in this program, I'm probably five years

aheadofhernow.Shegetsoverwhelmed, anddoesn't

know

where

to turn for help. She's still struggling with questionsthatI had answeredlong ago."

Debby

labels lack ofcapital asa "huge" problem forsmall businesses, butalsothinks learning and support are

critical.

"How

many

smallbusinessesfail?

Some

may

have the

money,

butthey don't havethe

knowledge

to succeed.

Good

Work

not only gives us access to

thecapital,but alsogivesus thechancetolearnfrom

theexperience."

The Need

for

Microbusiness

Development

Most

businesses, regardless of size, share

Debby's needs: start-up and operating capital until

the business is profitable (often a period ofyears),

management

and technical expertise, andsocial and

business supportstructureswhichprovide encourage-ment, networking,and problem-solving.This is par-ticularly true for "microbusinesses," enterprises

which beginvery small and usuallyhave fewerthan

fiveemployees.

Many

entrepreneursareableto

suc-ceed because they begin with these resources or at

leasthavethe

means

topayforthem.

This is not true, however, for everyone with a

good

businessidea.

Lower

incomepeople

commonly

lack these critical resources.

Debby knew

how

to

assistance, she might have

become

one ofthe mil-lions ofbusiness "failures" each year in the United

States.

Many

people like

Debby

have the potential to

succeed at self-employment but are limited

by

this

scarcityofresources.Thisisparticularlycritical

when

it

comes

to investable finances. Withoutsubstantial personal or familyassetstoinvestorborrowagainst,

it is

much

harder to get a business offthe ground. Historically,thishasbeenespecially true for

women

and minorities, asillustratedby thefollowing facts:

• African-Americans have an average net worth

about

8%

thatofwhites (OliverandShapiro 1995,

86).'

•

79%

_ofblackhouseholds,

more

thandoublethe

rate for white households, do not have a

suffi-cient safety net tosurvive atthepovertyline for three

months

(ibid,88).

•

About

_{three-fourths of} all African-American

children (nearlydouble therate of whites)

grow

up in households possessing no financial assets

(ibid,90).

• _{Females havesignificantly}lowerincomes andnet

assetsthanmales,and

female-owned

businesses

begin with halfthe capital of

male-owned

firms

(NC

Equity 1991, 5-25; U.S.

DOC

1989).

Thislackofinvestablecapitalseriously

underminesthe ability of

new

enterprises

to get offthe ground.

The

primary

finan-cialalternative

—

abankloan

—

isoften un-availabletonewerbusinesses.

A

1991 study

bytheMassachusettsInstituteof

Technol-ogy

showed

that 73 percent ofbusinesses

funded their start-up needs through

per-sonal savings, while almost none utilized

banks (Roberts 1991).

Banks

rarelyfind

what

they

are

looking

for in

microbusinesses: fiawless credit, highly secured and liquid collateral, a.business

track record ofthree to five years, and a highly polished business plan that speaks their language. Furthermore, $1,000 to

$20,000 neededtocapitalize

many

ventures

is, ironically,

much

too small tobe

profit-able to commercial lenders.

As

the North

Carolina Institute for Minority

Economic

Develop-ment

putit:

Banks are traditionally corservative and are

aversetodoingbusinesswith

new

or small

busi-nesses requiring small loans or loans with longer repayment periods. The high transaction costs

involvedinsuch loans

may make

iteconomically

unattractive for the lender. Lending institutions

usually evaluate a potential customer's credit risks using the three "C's"

—

collateral,

charac-ter,andcredit. [Minority-ownedbusinesses] are

usually weakoncollateral,theircharacteris

un-familiartobankers andtheyhaven'thadthe op-portunitytoestablish credit

(NC

Institutefor

Mi-norityEconomic Development 1994).

Thisoftenprovestobe a"chickenand egg"

prob-lem. Withoutcapital with

which

to begin, lower

in-come

entrepreneurscannotinvestintheirbusinesses

(which

would

buildcapital).

And

withoutcapital,they

cannotborrow from traditional lenders.

In addition, lower

income

peopleoften lack the technical expertise and support

which

is critical to turn a

good

business ideaintoaprofitableventure.

A

shortage ofcash to hire accountants, lawyers, and

other professionalsfurtherexacerbatesthis informa-tiongap.

The

lackofcapital, businessexpertise,and

support represents a significant handicap. Without

specialized assistance,

many

potentially successful entrepreneurswill fail.

Learning

From

the

"Third

World"

In the 1980s,

community

leaders began search-ing for

new

modelsto assistlow-incomepopulations. For decades, various povertyalleviationstrategieshad

focused on

income

supplements

which

were

essen-tially redistributive. These strategies

were

very suc-cessful inamelioratingtheworst excessesofpoverty

in the United States, but failed to

make

systemic

changes

which

would

enable the poor to

move

be-yond

subsistence. Attention thus shifted to models which promised"capacity building"economic

devel-opment. These positive

sum

strategies focused on

increasing the

economic

pie ratherthansimply chang-ing the

way

it

was

distributed.

Small businesscreation

was

one strategy which

offeredseveral benefitsatthe

same

time. Small busi-nessescan provide income,create jobs, provide train-ing,buildassets,andnurturehope and

empowerment

in

low-income

communities.Although

self-employ-ment

offered such clear benefits, it

was

often

diffi-cult for lower

income

entrepreneurs to succeed for

the reasons cited above, in developing programsto

addressthese obstacles,programplannersbegan look-ingat successful

models

from overseas.

The

powerful examples of microbusiness

pro-grams

in the developing world were hard to ignore.

Programs

in impoverished countries

were showing

dramaticincreasesinincome,assets,andsavings.

The

largestandbest

known

program,the

Grameen

Bank,

began in Bangladesh in 1976.

The

founder, a

U.S.-trainedBangladeshi,recognizedthe potentialandthe obstacles for

poor

entrepreneurs in his country.

Grameen

began

making

tiny loans averaging $40 to

women who

worked

extremely hard butjust barely

made

ends meet.

An

infusionofcapital,evenasmall

one, enabled borrowers to

buy

labor-saving

equip-ment, purchase materials in bulk, or

buy

things that theyhad onlybeen ableto rent before.

The

loans

were

made

in "peer groups"

which

acted as loan committees and social support

struc-tures. Borrowers were accountable to one another,

and wereready withassistance

—

andpressure

—

when

needed.

Grameen

met

amajor need and

grew

tremen-dously.Itnot only offered loansbutencouraged sav-ings,

promoted

gender equity in a male-dominated

society, and pushed public health and education

re-forms

among

itsparticipants.

By

themid-1990s,the

Grameen

Bank

had 1.7million

members,

a

98%

loan

repaymentrate,andbillionsofdollarsin

money

lent

andsaved.

The

success ofthe

Grameen

Bank was

not lost

on others inthedevelopingworld. Similarprograms

popped

up inAsia, Africa,andLatin America,

some

ofwhich developed remarkabletrackrecordsoftheir

own.Eventually, organizersbeganadaptingthe

same

basic

model

to impoverished areas in

more

affluent countries. In 1987,therewereabouttenmicrobusiness

programs inthe United States.

By

1993, the

number

hadballoonedtoabout200 (Self-Employment Learn-ingProject 1994).Sincethen,the

number

ofU.S.

pro-grams

has

grown

even

more

sharply.

One

Local

Response:

Good

Work

In 1991,

community

activists in

Durham,

North

Carolina,begansearchingfor

ways

tobuildlocal

eco-nomic

opportunities.

They

wantedto

do

this ina

way

that could reach people from different racial,

eco-nomic, and educational backgrounds.

With

a

few

Grameen-type programs

as models, they founded

Good

Work,

Inc. Securing$100,000 in loan capital

from the Self-Help Credit Union, they developed a peer lendingprogramtailored to localneeds. Debby,

Mari, and about a dozen others formed the nucleus for

Good

Work's

membership.

Good

Work

emerged

in a local

economy

which

appearedquite vibrant.

With

majorresearch

univer-sities,renownedmedicalcenters,andhigh-techfirms, the "Research Triangle" area of

Durham,

Raleigh,

and Chapel Hill benefited from high and sustained

growth in the 1980s and 1990s.

The median income

was

roughlydoublethatofthe national average,the

areahad one ofthe highestconcentration ofPh.D.'s

in the country, andthe

unemployment

rate

was

con-sistently in the lowsingle digits.

Yet, like

much

ofthe nation, the local

economy

was

becoming

increasingly two-tiered. For those withoutadvanceddegrees,the

economic

growth

was

largely in the service sector,

which

offered low pay.

National Results(AspenInstitute 1994):

•

_{Over 200}

programs

•

_Over

_{55,000businesses}assisted

•

_Over

_{$44 million} in loans

Good

Work

Results:

•

98%

businesssurvival

•

_100%

_loan repayment

Good

Work

members

atatrainingsession.

few

benefits, and little job security.

The

disparity

between

the

"good"

and "bad"jobs grew, and

pock-ets of poverty deepened.- Despite generally high

growth,

whole

sectorsofthe

community

were being

leftbehind.

Good

Work

was

offered as a viable

economic

de-velopmentstrategy in areas

where

fewexisted.

Mo-tivated individuals

who

dreamed

of success could

work

with others to turn those dreams into reality.

Good

Work

targeted mdividuals

who

most

needed

the

program

—

low

income

persons, minorities, and

women

—

but remained open to any potential entre-preneur.

From

the outset,thisledtoaprogram which

brought togetherentrepreneurs from different

back-grounds. This, in turn, led to a synergy ofideas and

support

which

made

theprogram particularly strong.

By

early 1996,

some

130 entrepreneurs had

be-come

full-fledged

"members"

of

Good

Work,

and

thousands of others had taken advantage of other

training and assistance.

Over

time, the

program

de-velopeda localreputationofhelping thosethatcould

not find assistance elsewhere.

As

Governor

James

Hunt

putit,"For

many

ofthesebusinessowners.

Good

Work

istheonly

means

by

which

their business

po-tential can befulfilled."

Thanks

to growing assistance through the

pro-gram,

98%

of

members

and alumni are still in

busi-ness. Althoughall of

Good

Work's

loansare

consid-ered too riskyor unprofitablefor banks, theyha\ e arepaymentrate

of

100%.

Good

Work

has

begun

working

with local banksto gain accessto greater

amounts

ofloan capital forexpandingbusinesses.

A

Comprehensive Approach

Many

microbusiness

pro-grams, including

Good

Work,

have concluded that there is no

single"key"to

making

businesses succeed. Rather, successful

pro-grams haveprovided anintegrated

setofresourcesto entrepreneurs, either in-house orthrough

coop-eration with existing

organiza-tions.

The

balanceofloancapital,

technical expertise,andpeer sup-portprovidesflexibleassistanceto

entrepreneurs.

Through

partner-ships and peerparticipation, sub-stantial support can be offered while keeping the

program

efficient.

Good

Work's

program

combines

several features:

Outreach.

To

be effective, microbusinessprograms

normally

commit

substantial resourcestoproactively

seek potential clients in low

income

communities.

Lackingbigadvertising budgets,programslike

Good

Work

partner with

community

groups, churches, small business agencies, minority business

associa-tions, public housing councils, and the like.

Most

outreach and training is

done

athomes, businesses,

and

community

centers. This first step is critical to

overcoming

the

common

perceptionthat lendersand

assistance programswill nothelpmicrobusinesses.

Access to

Loan

Capital. All small businesses need

capital togetoff theground,but

many

needsgo

unmet

bybanks.

Good

Work

provides"highrisk"loansthat

the banks cannot or will not make.

As

the Federal

Reserve

Bank

noted in 1995,

"Good

Work

has

made

[loans] that range from

$500

to $10,000. Business

loansofthistypearenearlyimpossibletogetthrough

the

bank

for microbusinesses due to lack of

collat-eral,creditproblems,ageofthe business,orbecause

theyareconsidered unprofitable

by

banks"(Federal

Reserve

Bank

of

Richmond

1990, 130).

As

ofearly

1996,

Good

Work

had

made

over 70 loans with no

such as credit, planning, financial analysis, and so on, thatlimittheirabilitytoobtaintraditional loans. Business Training. Up-front business training is critical toentrepreneurs

who

have had little

expo-sure to formal business concepts. While training

sometimesexists inthe

community,

itoften either

assumesfamiliaritywith businessterminologyand

concepts, or istaught in aformal lecture-style

for-mat which

gives participants few practical skills.

Afterseveralyearsofexperimentation.

Good

Work

designed a highly effective training curriculum

called Building Your Business^^.

The

training is

hands-on,honingparticipants" nuts-and-bolts busi-ness skills.

The

interactive

workshops

cover such

fundamentals as budgeting, cash fiow, licensing,

marketing, hiring, and business planning.

A

wait-ing list often forms forthe training, which is

now

being used under license by other microbusiness

programs aroundthecountry.

Loan

Circle Orientation. Followingthecourse, par-ticipantscontinue withtrainingintheirpeergroups

(called

Loan

Circles). This training offers

partici-pantsfeedbackandadviceontheirbusinesses. Par-ticipants traveltoone another's

homes

orplacesof businesses and reviewtheirfinancial and other

in-formation.

They

also organize their Circle, write by-laws, choose aname, and electofficers.

Center

and Network

Meetings.

Good Work

mem-bersmeeteverymonth.

Upon

enteringtheprogram,

members

join a"Center,"atwhichtheynetworkwith

andadviseoneanother.Outsidespeakersoffer

train-ing in such issues as goal setting,tax planning,

mar-keting techniques,businesscommunication,legal pro-tection, bankexpectations, and so on. After cycling throughtheyear-longtraining,

members

graduateinto

the "Network."

The program

for the

Network

is

de-veloped bythe

members.

Mentoring. Senior

Good Work

members,

eager to

give back to

new

participants,

become

mentors for

new

Good

Work

members. Having

walked in their

shoes,theyare ableto help

them

notonly with busi-ness issues, but with guiding

them

through

Good

Work's

program.

One-On-One

Consulting.

Good

Work

provides

indi-vidualized consultingasan important

component

of

membership.This one-on-one assistance hashelped

the

program

respond tothe individualneedsof

busi-In 1995,

two

evaluations were

done

through the University ofNorth Carolina, Chapel Hill's

De-partment ofCityand Regional Planning.

The

re-suhs

showed

that

among Good

Work's

member

businesses:

•

They

hadan averagerevenueincreaseof

492%

since joining

Good

Work

•

They

hadan averageprofit increaseof

217%

sincejoining

Good

Work

•

82%

_reportedthat

Good

Work

_hadhelped

"sig-nificantly"or"very

much"

with theiroverall businessskills

•

Between

71%

and

82%

had

"improved"

or "greatlyimproved"theirself-confidence,

abil-itytoface challenges, senseof belongingtoa

community,

andsenseofpersonalfulfillment

•

87%

rated

Good

Work's program

overall as "excellent" or"very

good"

•

92%

_saidthey

_were

_{"committed"or "strongly}

committed"to

Good

Work

•

100%

would

recommend

Good

Work

_to a friend

who

was

startingasmall business

nesses

which

are struggling or planning forgrowth.

Members

seek assistance in writing business plans,

doingmarketresearch,expandingtheirmarkets,and

the like.

Volunteer Technical Assistance.

Good

Work

relies

heavilyon

community

partnersto

make

the

program

more

effective.

Good

Work

operates a Volunteer

Technical Assistance Program, tappingthe energies

ofbusiness owners, accountants, lawyers, and

mar-keting experts

who

meet one-on-onewith

Good

Work

members.

Thisprogramactsas acriticalsupplement to in-houseconsulting.

Successfulmicrobusinessprogramsdo

more

than provide loan checks, they also offer a

comprehen-sive

program

to support participants. Beverly

El-Amin,

an early

Good Work

member,

says the

As

a minority, female entrepreneurI have

ben-efited greatly from

my

affiliation with

Good

Work.Thefinancialandtechnicalsupport1have

receivedfromthisorganizationisGod-sent.Since

becomingamember, 1haveappliedfor,received,

andpaid backthree businessloans, and

am

now

payingback a fourth.

Good Work

hasdone and continuestodo what commercial lending

institu-tionshaverefusedtodo

—

give

me

achance.The

technical assistance I have received has helped

me

develop competenceindevelopingabusiness

plan, cash flow sheets, marketing plans, market

research, taxes, and

much

moi

My

confidencein

my

abilityto

op-erate abusiness is strong. Income

generated from

my

business has

tripledsince 1993. Without

Good

Work's assistance this would not

have happened. Theyhelp people

otherswon't.

Challenges

for the

Future

Good

Work,

and programslike

it, have celebrated

some

tremen-dous successes. Often working on

ashoestring, microbusiness

devel-opment

programs havenonetheless

been able to assist entrepreneurs

who,

statisticstell us,

would

likely

have

gone

out of business other-wise.

These

businesses

have

in-creased incomes, built assets, cre-atedjobs,and developedleadership

and self-confidence skills

among

participantsand theirfamilies.

Despite

the successc"

microbusiness

development

pi

grams

face

many

challenges.

A

scarcity of operating support and

loancapital

hampers

theabilityofnonprofitstokeep

such programs operational. Regulations in

some

ar-eas

which

discourage

home-based

businesses and

which

effectively prohibit welfare recipients from

buildingabusinesssafety netput additionalobstacles

inthe

way

ofparticipants.

The

abilityofprogramsto

deliverhigh-qualityserviceswhilekeepingcosts for suchservicesminimalwillalsobe an important chal-lenge forprogramsin cost-cutting times.

The

potential ofthe field is also limited by the perceptionthatthese"little"businesses generate such small levels of

economic

activity that they are not takenseriously as a tool for

economic

development.

In fact,the activityofentrepreneurs like

Debby

and

Beverlyhas generatedfar

more

growthinthelast

de-cade than have "downsizing" corporations. Yetit is

harder to visualize the

community

impact oftheir

combined

businessesthan theimpactofa

newly

re-located factory.

Much

publicpolicyby statesand local

commu-nitiescontinues to focus on high visibility projects, such as luring in large corporations with tax

abate-ments and other incentives,

which

are essentially

CynthiaWilliams-Hillsopeneda24-hourchildcarebusinessinherhome.

"zerosum." Subsidized industrial recruitmentis

re-distributiveatitsbase, pittingoneneedy

community

against another. Itisalsoincreasinglyexpensive.

Tax

costs forcorporateincentiveshaverisendramatically forsubsidized industrial recruitment, with

some

re-cent deals costing over $150,000 perjob created

(Schweke

e?a/. 1994,23).'

On

the other hand, capacity-building strategies

like microbusiness development have the potential

displac-ing the problem from one

community

to another.

While

they often lack the

glamour

found at the

rib-bon-cuttingofa

new

plant,theeconomic

sum

of thou-sands of

home-grown

businesses is an investment

which

can

improve

the

whole community.

This

broader

view

of

what

constitutes

"economic

devel-opment"

is challenging precisely because it is

more

complicated. Yet,just as

we

learned that redistribu-tiononan individual levelhasitslimitations,

we

must

also learn that redistributing the benefitsofindustry

fromone

community

tothenext hasitslimitations as well.

Meanwhile,theentrepreneurs forge ahead.Their

visions,dreams,andhard

work

willcontinueto

move

their families and communities forward. With the support of microbusiness

development

programs,

more

peoplelike

Debby

and Beverlywill continueto succeed.

"Idiscoveredthat ifnoone"sthereteaching you,

ifnoone'stherestrugglingwith you, then you're not

goingto build yourbusiness on a solid foundation,"

saysCynthiaWilliams-Hills. Beforelaunching

Gen-esis I

Day

Care, she

was

working long hours

away

from

home

toprovideforherfamily."I

was

working

asan administrativeassistantandwaitingtables.But

I

knew

I had to

make

a change.

My

son criedevery

morning

and

work was

gettingbad.

My

mentor con-vinced

me

that I could

make

it in business, and she sent

me

to

Good

Work."

Because ofher love for children,Cynthia decided to opena child care busi-ness inher

home.

Cynthia'sidea

—

the area's first24-hourchildcare business

—

filledavoidin themarket."1 hadtheidea,

but

when

I got into it, I discovered it wasn't that simple. I needed

money,

and I needed to build

my

skills.

Good

Work

helped

me

learn aboutbudgeting and advertising.

And

with

my

credit at the time, no oneelse

would

give

me

a loan." Cynthia plannedfor

months

andofficiallylaunchedherbusinessin 1995.

Today, Cynthiacares for 27 children overthree

shifts, seven days a week. Besides herself, she

em-ploys fourpeoplefull-time.Pendingan

upcoming

li-censing review, she planstobe ina

new

housesoon, renovating her currentonetocarefor

more

children.

By

mid-1996, sheexpectsGenesisI to care forover

80children,with ten full timeemployees. She

cred-its

much

ofher success to the support she has

re-ceived fromfellow

members.

"It's

good

tobe ableto

put yourself around a lot of positive people. Here,

everybody'scheering

you

on;even

when

you're

hav-ing aroughtime,they're stillcheeringyou on. 1

was

talking toanother

Good Work member

theotherday,

and I said that I've finallygottentothe point

where

the business isn'trunning

me

any more. At last, I'm

the onerunningthebusiness."

<©

Acknowledgments

The

authorwishestothank JenniferSherwin and

theSelf-HelpCredit

Union

forhelpingtocollect lend-ing data. I

would

also like to thank

Debby

Deter, BeverlyEl-Amin, CynthiaWilliams-Hills,andallthe dedicated

members

of

Good

Work.

Endnotes

1. The average whitenetworth is $43,800,versus S3,700

forblacks.

2. One large tractofDurhamhad a poverty rate morethan

2.5 times the city average. Itshousehold income was littlemorethan athirdofthecounty'sas awhole,and

itsunemployment ratewas over4.5 times the county

rate. Sources: Durham City/County Planning Depart-ment; North/EastCentralDurhamDataScan 1994; data

and baselinecomparisons from 1990 census.

3. Public incentivesfor luringtheMercedes-Benzplantto

Alabama in 1994,forexample,costbetween $153,133 and $200,000perjobcreated.

References

Aspen Institute. Self-Employment Learning Project. 1994. DirectoryofU.S. Microenterprise Programs.

Federal ReserveBankofRichmond. 1995. Community

In-vestmentOpportunities.

NC

Equity.1991."Whatisa

Woman

Worth?North Carolina

Women,Families

&

TheEconomyinTransition."

NorthCarolinaInstituteforMinorityEconomicDevelopment.

1994. Minority Business FinancingWhitePaper. Oliver, Melvin andThomas Shapiro. 1995. Black Wealth/

White Wealth;

A

New

Perspectiveon Racial Inequal-ity.

Roberts, Edward, 1991.

MIT

Sloan School ofManagement

Study. Cited in Capital Opportunities for Small

Busi-nesses,TheUniversityofNorthCarolina'sSmall

Busi-ness andTechnology DevelopmentCenter. 1992.

Schweke, William,Carl Rist,and Brian Dabson. 1994. Bid-ding forBusiness.Corporation forEnterprise Develop-ment.

UnitedStatesDepartment ofLabor. 1989. FactsonWorking