Mr. DWIGHT. You mean the order of magnitude of persons who might benefit from such service?

Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes. Again, to quote my own question, "How do you define the need for vocational rehabilitation service in the United States in, say, 1974?

Mr. DWIGHT. The first requirement is to identify individuals who are handicapped and who can benefit from this type of service. I believe, if my recollection serves me correctly there was some discussion at that meeting, and I believe Mr. Reedy was the primary individual who cited statistics. Using census-type information and this sort of assessment, there is somewhere in the ordinary magnitude of 4 or 5 million people in the country who represent the outward bounds of the need. Currently we are providing service for 1,500,000 or thereabouts, of which, last year, we rehabilitated 360,000 persons. So, I think that addresses the order of magnitude of the issue.

I think, second, many individuals are not dependent upon this program per se as a mechanism for rehabilitation, that is, there are other private mechanisms and there are other ways of addressing the issue. The vocational rehabilitation program is not the only mechanism which helps people toward rehabilitation.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I won't pursue this matter in greater detail right now, Mr. Dwight, but I am distressed that the subcommittee has not yet been given the specific information with respect to the need for vocational rehabilitation services in the United States that it had been promised.

It seems to me to be elementary that if you are going to be able intelligently to plan-for the short run and the long run-programs in this area, you are going to have to make some judgment on the needs for the service that you are going to recommend.

You are not just going to have a program absent any kind of judgment on the need for the program, I am sure. So, what we want to know is what is your best estimate of the need for vocational rehabilitation service in the United States in the short run and the long run? I am just repeating questions that we put in August and to which we are still awaiting more specific answers.

Mr. DWIGHT. I would say that the short run need, which may be the point that you are getting at, would be largely a function of continued orderly growth in the program so that more and more people can be served and more and more people can be rehabilitated.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You are telling me of what it would be a function; what I want to know is what is the magnitude? Can you tell me that? Mr. DWIGHT. I think the solution which is implied in your question

Mr. BRADEMAS. No solution is implied. What is your best judgment? Is it 1 or 85? You must have some assessment down there, must you not?

Mr. DWIGHT. I don't believe that the state of the art in assessing need has been refined to the point where you can make other than an intuitive judgment or a judgment which is the function of the kinds of insight that people like Mr. Reedy have to bring to the table in the decisionmaking process. But we will endeavor to get this in our work with Mr. Morrill so you will get the benefit of both of our thinking.

Mr. BRADEMAS. If I could ask you again to take a look at the hearing of August 3 before this subcommittee on page 50 and maybe you can take a look at those questions and submit to us in writing your

responses.

Mr. Dwight, Senator Cranston of California has called to my attention also, that in the testimony given by Mr. Morrill on August 3, he said that the preparation of recommendations, both for the short run and the long run, with respect to rehabilitation would be completed sometime in September.

Could you give us a summary of what these plans are and could you submit a copy of such reports to the subcommittee?

of

Mr. DWIGHT. I would have to indicate here that with the press other issues and, most particularly, the new legislation, that there has not been much progress made since we sat down in bringing forth this long-term planning document.

Mr. BRADEMAS. When do you expect you would have completed that work?

Mr. DWIGHT. I think that is largely a point about which Mr. Morrill would have to talk to you. It is conceivable the judgment expressed at that time would have to be modified or perhaps it has been given more consideration than I am aware of.

Mr. BRADEMAS. This is your area of responsibility, however, is it not, Mr. Dwight?

Mr. DWIGHT. Speaking to the things that we are doing nationally within the Rehabilitation Service Administration and in terms of associated rehabilitation service, we have not made a lot of progress in this area in the last several months.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Would you be good enough to ask Mr. Morrill to submit to us his response to those questions?

Mr. DWIGHT. Yes; I would be happy to communicate that to him. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. MORRILL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

ESTIMATION OF THE UNIVERSE OF NEED

RSA relies upon the States to provide an estimate of the Universe of Eligible Disabled Persons in the Program and Financial Plan for Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies. In 1969 each State conducted a survey to determine the universe of need for rehabilitation services. With the survey data as a base, the States have individually included other data sources and updated their estimates. No uniform method has been established among the States. RSA aggregates the State estimates. The aggregate estimate for FY 1974 is 9,408,486.

In addition to this estimate, there are three other data sources on disabled populations which might be used as a basis for estimating the need for Vocational Rehabilitation Services. These methods of estimating are:

1. The 1970 Census of Persons with a Work Disability.

2. The Social Security Survey of 1966.

3. The National Health Survey of 1965-1969.

There are several difficulties with using these surveys as an estimate for VR purposes. No precise estimate of the universe of need for vocational rehabilitation services can be derived from existing data. Estimates of the universe may include persons who are too severely disabled to benefit from rehabilitation services or who have already received all possible services, who have attained the best possible adjustment to their limitations, or who have too slight a disability to justify rehabilitation services. Many eligible groups such as alcoholics, drug abusers, criminals, and the mentally retarded are not included in compiling the

estimates. Consequently, none of the surveys provide the full number of persons who do not work because of disability.

1970 census-persons with a work disability

Data on the total noninstitutional population between the age of 18 to 64 based on question 25 of the 5-percent Census sample were compiled. Persons hindered in their labor force activities by health or physical condition were identified. The question refers to a serious illness that has lasted for a relatively long time, or a serious physical or mental impairment or handicap. Also determined was whether or not such persons were able to work at all and for how long each person had been limited in his working ability. Twelve million persons were hindered in their labor force activities by a health or physical condition. Vive million of those individuals were prevented from doing any work at all. The Social Security survey

In 1966 the Social Security Administration conducted a national sample of 18,000 households comprising 2,000 households containing OASDI disability beneficiaries, 1,700 receiving public assistance, and 8,000 had members who were denied OASDI benefits. Intensive interviews were conducted with a sample of working age adults 18 to 64 years of age who were identified as disabled.

More than 17 million individuals were limited in the kind or amount of work they could perform as a result of a chronic condition or health impairment lasting three months or longer. Six million non-institutionalized persons were either unable to work at all, to work regularly, or to engage in substantial gainful activity.

This survey provides the best estimate of the number of adults for whom disability is a major reason for not working. If only the severely and occupationally disabled of the survey are counted, the estimate is 11.8 million persons which is very close to the census estimate.

The National Health survey

This survey consists of a continuous sample of 800 families weekly. During the course of a year, 42,000 households and 134,000 individuals are randomly selected. Between 1965 and 1969 an average of 12.5 million persons were limited in the amount or kind of major activity in which they could participate.

The survey does not count people, such as a homemaker who formerly may have been in the labor force, who changed their major activity. Consequently, many homemakers and individuals who may have retired early because of the disability are not classified as disabled. This survey provides the best estimate of the number who are economically idle-neither working nor homemaking. As estimated by each method, the total population with a work related disability is estimated to be approximately 12 million individuals between the ages of 18 and 64. This estimate provides an upper limit of the true universe of need; many are served by other programs, some would not be considered eligible for the vocational rehabilitation program, and some purchase rehabilitation services from private or third-party sources. The precise number of persons in those categories cannot be established.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The next question I want to raise relates to the ones which I have just been raising and has to do with the next steps following decisionmaking within the executive branch with respect to the plans that we have just been discussing.

I would like to know whether you will be acting in terms of making budget recommendations, program changes and so on, to implement your conclusions with respect to your plans assuming that your plans involve some significant departure from the present program. Or, on the other hand, will you come to Congress, before this subcommittee and the relevant subcommittee in the other body and submit your recommendations, and, then, engage in open, frank, and free discussion, with the members of the authorizing committees so that whatever conclusions are reached with respect to vocational rehabilitation, reflect the best judgment of both the legislative and executive branches of the Government?

Mr. DWIGHT. Very definitely, Mr. Chairman. I thought that that was one of the points that Mr. Morrill did address during that hearing. Just to repeat so that it is clear, the major thrust of this type of an effort, which is an overall HEW effort-is to subject all programs to this type of critical analysis. The extension of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 presumably would be a matter for discussion with the Congress about 12 years down the road.

That would be the basis, along with many of the provisions of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act itself, which call for several studies which will be pursued and will become a basic part of this type of an effort. One study has to do with the method in which we allocate funds to the various States and some of those kinds of questions which were posed by the Congress in the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate that response. I do think that it is exceedingly important that there be as much reasonable exchange as possible between the executive branch and the legislative branch on this particular matter so as to avoid, insofar as it is humanly possible to do so, any lack of appreciation on your part about the intent of Congress in having written the legislation.

If you disagree with us on what we have written, that is one thing. That is part of your line of work and ours, to squabble about these matters and come to some resolution. But where I think there has been a good deal of criticism on our part, has been an apprehension that Congress may have passed a law and you understand it but you don't agree with it so you don't carry it out; and that is what exercises us.

Before I turn to one other line of questioning and yield to Mr. Quie, I believe you said, Mr. Dwight, there will be a meeting of some of your staff, and I guess Mr. Reedy's staff, and congressional committee staff this afternoon on these interim regulations that we mentioned earlier. Mr. DWIGHT. That is my understanding.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Is that right, Mr. Reedy?

Mr. REEDY. The basic purpose of the meeting is to discuss a list of issues that must be addressed in the framing of regulations. Since the interim regulations have not been provided to the staff, we were of the opinion that they should have those in advance and schedule the actual discussion of those regulations at a later time.

Mr. BRADEMAS. When will those interim regulations be provided to the staff?

Mr. DWIGHT. It was our intent to make those available this afternoon. They have not as yet been cleared by our general counsel. In view of the discussions we had 10 days ago, we thought it would be inappropriate to share them until they had that approval.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Will you schedule a subsequent meeting with the staff prior to these regulations being put into effect in order to enable the staff to consider them and then to respond to them?

Mr. DWIGHT. We would be happy to.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I think that would be very important, to be blunt about it, as an indication of your good faith. I think it would be awkward if you were to come up and give us the regulations and feel that in having done so, you had complied with your commitment and, then, go off and put them into effect without giving members of the staff

and members of the committee an opportunity to examine them, reflect upon them and react to them.

So, I am pleased to hear that and we would hope-what is the date when they are supposed to go into effect, Mr. Reedy?

Mr. REEDY. December 24.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That is not enough time, you know. I want to tell you I am not impressed by what you are telling me because here, we are on the 10th, and the 24th, as I recall, is Christmas Eve. This place may conclude its labors here shortly before that, and we are going to be extremely busy. So I would urge you to schedule a subsequent hearing in such fashion as to afford members of the staff a reasonable opportunity to express the views of their Representatives on their committees, and I would strongly urge that you call another meeting later this week. Can you do that?

Mr. REEDY. Yes; I think during the meeting this afternoon, a convenient time for the second meeting can be negotiated with the staff who are present.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I appreciate that very much.

Let me turn to a second line of questions before I yield to Mr. Quie. This question follows one of our earlier conversations, Mr. Dwight, in respect of the basis State grants program authorized by title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The administration's 1974 request for this program was $609 million, approximately a $20 million increase over the 1973 estimate and, then, an additional amount was added to cover the grandfather clause with the result that the revised budget request was a total of $615 million to carry out title I of the basic State program.

Why was such a small increase requested?

Mr. DWIGHT. I think there are perhaps two other provisions which at least bear in my consideration. I am not sure I can recall the exact figures, but your recollection is correct on the basic grants. The other two are the new program which stemmed from the commencement of the SSI program for adults and, then, the continuing program dealing with SSI backing their trust fund activities which added about another $50 million increase into rehabilitation activities at the State level.

As you look at that, even with the significant reduction in training activities coming along, that we also discussed a week Friday, we find, I think, somewhere in the order of magnitude of a little over a 12-percent increase in actual rehabilitation dollars available. This seems to me to be a fairly healthy increase if your objective to orderly growth is sustained in the program which, as I indicated earlier, I think is a sound objective.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Dwight, let me make this comment on your response, because I think it is important that as we discuss the basic program this morning, we understand how it works. As you know, the rehabilitation legislature has been unique in that the State allotments are based not on appropriations but rather on the funds authorized to be appropriated and, in effect, this feature amounts to an entitlement for rehabilitation purposes, provided that the individual States appropriate the necessary matching funds.

What this means, in effect, is that we have given the States an enormous incentive to appropriate the matching funds, and this is one