ESTIMATED FEDERAL SHARE OF EXPENDITURES FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRAINING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1976

ESTIMATED FEDERAL SHARE OF EXPENDITURES FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRAINING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE FOR THE TRANSITIONAL QUARTER

78

17

95

428

96

524

1,770

495

2,265

947

106

1, 053

312

880

1, 192

120

30

150

0

14

14

ESTIMATED FEDERAL SHARE OF EXPENDITURES FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRAINING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE FOR THE TRANSITIONAL QUARTER-Continued

ESTIMATED FEDERAL SHARE OF EXPENDITURES FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRAINING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977

54

14

68

153

150

303

402

114

516

206

1

207

48

173

221

115

118

0

7

25

25

ESTIMATED FEDERAL SHARE OF EXPENDITURES FOR STATE AND LOCAL TRAINING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES AND MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1977-Continued

Mr. JENSEN. Would you discuss HEW action since title XX went into effect regarding day care from the moratorium to now concerning the denial of Federal funds to the States or actions you have taken which may result in that when they were found not to meet the relevant day care standards.

Mr. MORRILL. The normal manner in which these issues would come to light would be as a result of an audit of the activity and it would then appear as an audit exception. There have not been to my knowledge, any audit exceptions taken in this interim period, but it is the kind of thing that will occur as time progresses; the auditors will be routinely going through the State books and will undoubtedly find some, and given the current status of the law, we are stuck with that problem.

As far as any specialized efforts, I think the Secretary has said on several occasions that we recognize this is a matter pending before the Congress and we prefer not to be doing anything special until this matter is resolved, in some facet, in connection with the 12455 issue. Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Hawley?

476

22

498

2,343

1,272

3,615

938

45

983

208

55

263

612

656

1,268

1,619

457

2,076

824

2

826

Mr. HAWLEY. No questions.

Mr. CORMAN. Steve, as I understand it now, we spend $2.25 billion this year out of the $21/2 billion?

Mr. KURZMAN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CORMAN. So the States contributed in 2.5?

Mr. KURZMAN. No, they kicked in one-third of that.

Mr. CORMAN. Is it two-third to one-third?

Mr. KURZMAN. It is 75-percent Federal, 25-percent State and local. Mr. CORMAN. Oh, yes, I forget which section we are in.

What other kinds of Federal moneys go into identical programs? I ran across it in the Older Americans Act and the title XX money. Are there other places where for the same beneficiaries and the same activities or almost the same activities you get money from two sources?

Mr. KURZMAN. Oh, yes. We would be happy to supply a list of those for you. You mentioned the Older Americans Act. That clearly is

one.

The Vocational Rehabilitation Act is another. That amounts to
Mr. CORMAN. How much is that?

Mr. MORRILL. $600 or $700 million a year.

Mr. KURZMAN. In formula grants. When you add the project grants, I think it is close to a $1 billion program.

Mr. CORMAN. How is that going to work in the future if we assume for the moment that we go into the block grant procedures for title XX. What happens with the older Americans' money and the vocational and rehab money?

Mr. KURZMAN. Pressumably it would continue under those acts as they are.

Mr. CORMAN. Older Americans is not a matching fund, is it?
Mr. KURZMAN. I have forgotten.

Mr. SUZUKI. Many of the programs are grants and one of the real advantages and problems that come up between title XX and the Older Americans Act, for instance, is that under the Older Americans Act you have meals-on-wheels and so on for senior citizens. One of the problems we have is that it is funded from title XX. You have this odd predictament that under the Older Americans Act you can't screen for eligibility while we have to and there are a number of programs in that situation.

Mr. CORMAN. That is what I want to get a handle on. First of all, the Older Americans Act does not require a match?

Mr. KURZMAN. It does require a 10-percent State match. That is title III.

Mr. CORMAN. How much money is that?

Mr. KURZMAN. I think the Federal share is over $100 million a year in the basic program and for title VII, nutrition, I think it is another $180 million.

Mr. MORRILL. Yes, $180 million, I believe.

Mr. KURZMAN. Vocational rehabilitation, I think, all told is close to $1 billion, if not over it now.

Mr. MORRILL. But the

Mr. KURZMAN. The Developmental Disabilities Act which I should have mentioned yesterday in connection with the Keys' amendment, is another, I think, $50 million now. That is also mainly for the men

tally retarded and others with developmental disabilities and goes directly to State agencies and thence to institutions.

The WIN services program under title IV-C of the Social Security Act is another one that is overlapping, and so on.

Mr. MORRILL. Specialized native Americans programs.

Mr. KURZMAN. Child abuse.

Mr. MORRILL. We probably could run on the better part of the next 15 minutes, but we can give you a list for the record.

Mr. KURZMAN. If we could submit a complete one for the record, and I gather what you

Mr. CORMAN. Submit it to the staff, if it doesn't cost too much we will print it in the record.

[The information requested was not available at time of printing.] Mr. KURZMAN. I take it you would like to know whether there is a match or no match and what the dollars this year are?

Mr. CORMAN. Yes, and we do get terribly confused about one of the problems, of course, is the beneficiaries that we are talking about and there is so much overlap and you know, somebody is eligible for this, but not eligible for that.

Mr. KURZMAN. I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, for thinking about those programs even though other committees have jurisdiction over them. We seem to come up every day saying there are these other subcommittees and committees and other programs and they overlap. Mr. MORRILL. The LEAA money can also be moved right in and provide an overlap for similar populations, juvenile populations for example.

Mr. SUZUKI. I think day care is an example where we have multiple programs. Just on day care, I can't remember all of them, but it can be funded under CETA, Housing and Community Development Act, certainly the services programs, title IV-B, WIN, title XX, it is not that they are total programs being congruent. They may have specifically different target groups, but if you take a particular service you can often find a number of programs that fund this service and it really is a difficult problem of trying at the local operating level to match these.

Mr. CORMAN. If we are not careful, somebody will run for President on the basis that he will simplify all this and he will get elected. Are my figures right that, for whatever the past year is, we spent $2.25 billion and the States spent $750 million? Some may have spent beyond that, but that is the obligated part.

Mr. KURZMAN. Yes.

Mr. CORMAN. I wish you would think about how we might get the Federal share up to that point, so at least we know that there will be as much money spent for these people next year as there was this year. Now, if the States do want to be more generous, they could, but at least we know there would be that much Federal money in it.

I really do worry because I think being poor is not popular this year and paying taxes is not popular and I really anticipate some tough problems at the State level in trying to keep some of these programs afloat.

I would suspect that those 20 States that have not even taken the bait may be States in which there are a tremendous number of poor people living.