From what I have said earlier, it should also be apparent that the capacity of the Office of Human Development, which is only a little more than 1 year old, to weld itself into an effective crosscutting mechanism within the Department, could be impaired by saddling it at this point with a nearly $1 billion operating service program. OHD has already assumed many crucial new responsibilities, each of which requires the intensive and sustained attention of the OHD leadership. While Assistant Secretary Thomas and his staff have done an admirable job of getting these programs operational, the addition of a large operational program would add a substantial burden to young organization at a critical point in its development. By the same criteria, RSA belongs in SRS, where it has been since 1967. What makes this proposed transfer seem even more illogical is the close relationship which exists between the vocational rehabilitation program and the other programs presently operated within SRS. One argument presented in favor of removing RSA from SRS has been that the vocational rehabilitation program is not welfare-related and, therefore, should not be located organizationally with the other SRS programs. Actually, eligibility for other services and benefits administered by the SRS is not in all cases income related. For example, the child welfare services program authorized under title IV-B of the Social Security Act and administered by the Community Service Administration within SRS provides services to children and families regardless of their economic status. It is administered together with title IV-A, which is part of an income maintenance program providing similar services on the basis of financial need. Yet despite the difference in eligibility criteria, both programs have been placed under one roof because of their common focus. Another example is medicaid, which is available to certain persons whose income is above the normal standards for welfare programs, but who face large medical costs. Indeed, a close relationship exists between the vocational rehabilitation program and other programs administered by SRS. In Minnesota and in Michigan, the vocational rehabilitation program is administered by the Department of Education. In Ohio, the Rehabilitation Services Commission is a separate agency. Yet each of these States has conducted projects for developing close working relationships with the social service programs. This has included joint housing of vocational rehabilitation and social service staffs or outstanding staff of one agency in the offices of the other. This has resulted in a team approach in which there is a mutual understanding of programs, goals, and problems. A single plan for each individual is developed, rather than separate and poorly coordinated plans. These projects were initially funded by VR expansion grants. They have proved so successful that all three States have planned to continue them after the expansion grants expire. In one State, the coordinating funds will come from the VR program; in the other two, they will come from the social services agency. The VR staff in the regional office carried the lead in the development of these projects, but was able to do this only because of knowledge and understanding of the social service programs, through regular contact with regional social service personnel. If VR were administered in another office of the Secretary of HEW, collaboration with the SRS programs would still be possible. However, the organizational separation would make this more difficult. From the point of view of the States, they would, of necessity, have to deal with Federal representatives from the parts of HEW, each of whom would not be particularly familiar with the program of the other. Also illustrative of the accomplishment of SRS' mission is the cooperative effort between the Community Services Administration (CSA) and RSA on behalf of disabled Supplemental Security Income recipients. Since January 1, 1974, over 1.2 million disabled individuals, including children, have become SSI recipients, and therefore eligible for rehabilitation (social and/or vocational) which will help them to attain capability for self-support or self-care. To help them to achieve independent living, to make opportunities for them to live a fuller, richer, more satisfactory life, and to maximize their potential for employment, will require drawing upon all available resources under the nationwide public social service programs (title VI of the Social Security Act) and the Vocational Rehabilitation program (under various titles of the Rehabilitation Act). These acts are administered at the Federal level by SRS through the Community Services Administration and the Rehabilitation Services Administration. By statute, VR has specific responsibility for determining the disability status of new SSI applicants. In carrying out this responsibility, two significant actions are taken: (1) determining which of those SSI applicants are suitable candidates for employment and then providing VR services to help them to achieve this objective, and (2) referring applicants who are unsuitable candidates for employment or have other problems which indicate a need for social services to State departments of social services. Also, for blind and disabled children in the SSI program, a determination must be made regarding their treatment vis-a-vis the requirement for VR referral for all title XVI blind and disabled. The fullest cooperation, at the national, State and local levels, between VR and State service components must continue to carry out these actions. It will also be necessary for APA, CSA, and RSA to continue working cooperatively to: 1. See that those individuals determined to be eligible for the AFDC and SSI programs as disabled are prepared so that they can. find employment. For example, in fiscal year 1974, under the PA-VR program, an estimated 110,500 (63,800 AFDC and 46,700 SSI) individuals were so helped. There are approximately 200,000 fathers in AFDC families who are incapacitated. 2. See that those individuals who are disabled and who require services, but who cannot qualify for the VR program, are referred to social services so that their needs for health care, housing, transportation and other services can be met. For example, in fiscal year 1974, approximately 190,000 individuals were provided public social services for these purposes. 43-192 75 - 3 3. See that eligible SSI recipients who are alcoholics and drug abusers are directed to treatment, rehabilitation and further employment, after their disability is determined. For example, in fiscal year 1974, 71,000 alcoholics and 116,000 drug abusers were so aided by the joint VR and social service efforts at State and local levels. 4. See that the developmentally disabled, which includes the mentally retarded, epileptic, and cerebral palsied, referred by State VR agencies to State public social services agencies for services, receive the service which they need to help them leave institutions for community-based care and services. In fiscal year 1974, approximately 166,000 developmentally disabled individuals were helped to leave such institutions for community placement, services, and care. Moreover, there is a very strong relationship and compatibility between the population dealt with by the vocational rehabilitation program, the public assistance population, and the potential welfare population. Based on preliminary 1973 program data analysis (R300's) of the approximately 361,000 total rehabilitants, 65,800, or approximately 18 percent, were on public assistance (AFDC, AB, and ATD). However, in addition, 289,000 or approximately 80 percent, entered the program with no earnings. Even if these individuals were not on public assistance, they represent a large and potential reservoir of persons who may go on public assistance, either Federal, State, or local. Although this data precedes SSI, a large number of these individuals will enter the SSI program. Of these 289,000 cases, approximately 231,000 were earning wages at the time their cases were closed. The Vocational Rehabilitation program is not a welfare program in the sense that it is not a meanstested program. However, these figures indicate that VR plays a major preventive role to deter people from going on public welfare. For the reasons I have stated, we are opposed to the enactment of S. 3108. We would not object to enactment of H.R. 14225, if amended, to delete the provision transferring RSA to the Office of the Secretary and to change the authorization level and the due date of the Comprehensive Service Needs special study, as I indicated earlier. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I have now two additional comments that I would like to make with your indulgence. Senator CRANSTON. Certainly. Mr. CARLUCCI. One is that, as you know, section 407 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 mandated a study of the State allocation formula. The law requires that this study be completed and results submitted along with the Secretary's recommendation for modification of the State allocation formula by June 30 of this year. The study has been completed, Mr. Chairman. I have it with me and am prepared to present it to you. We, of course, have not had the time yet to determine the Department's position, but I wanted to let you know, particularly since we did not get our testimony up on time, that we got the study up on time. Senator CRANSTON. Great. That will go in the record as part of the appendix. Mr. CARLUCCI. The second comment I would like to make relates to something that the previous witness said with regard to individuals selected from jobs in SRS, and I am particularly appreciative of the statement by Senator Stafford, to the effect that nothing in his bill was directed at any individuals. I would like to go on record as saying we think the new commissioner of the Rehabilitation Service Administration is eminently qualified for that position. He has a rich background. He has had experience in vocational rehabilitation, and I would like to be able to submit his résumé for the record, Mr. Chairman. Senator CRANSTON. That will be included, at this point, in the record. [The résumé of Dr. Adams, referred to by Mr. Carlucci, follows:] RESUME: BIRTHPLACE DR. ANDREW S. ADAMS San Francisco, California July 8, 1922 EDUCATION: EXPERIENCE: 1973-1974 1964-1974 1955-1974 1970-1973 1964-1970 1962-1964 1960-1962 1960-1962 1956-1960 1955-1956 1951-1955 1946-1950 1942-1945 AWARDS: WRITINGS: MEMBERSHIPS: San Francisco City College, 1940-1942, Associate University of California, Berkeley, 1942-1949, Baccalaureate Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, HEW, Deputy Director, Education and Rehabilitation Service, Veterans Management, education and training consultant for President's Superintendent, Kansas City Public Schools, Missouri Education and Training Officer, Naval Ordnance Test Station, Teacher and Administrator, Contra Costa Public Schools, California Military Service, U.S. Army Air Corps Citations for job performance and exceptional contributions for Author of several published articles in professional journals on education and rehabilitation; and numerous organizational staff reports on programs for volunteers, students, handicapped persons, government employees, veterans, et cetera. Member and officer of numerous professional and civic organizations, |