SUBJECT: Vocational Rehabilitation--Authority of the Commissioner over personnel This is in response to your oral request for my views on the question Section 3 (a) establishes within the Department a Rehabilitation Services With respect to the Regional Offices, HEW personnel administration authority is delegated as follows. The appointment authority is delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, who has in turn delegated the authority to the Regional Directors, who have in turn delegated the authority to the regional personnel officers. The classification authority follows this same delegation pattern except that the authority to classify above the GS-15 level is retained by the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management. HEW personnel management authority is delegated, with respect to the 2. The Associate Regional Commissioner for RSA, the chief RSA official in the regions, is a GS-15 and thus is selected only with the concurrence of the Commissioner of RSA. I am informed that on all program matters the VR regional office personnel are responsible to the Commissioner of RSA rather than to the Regional Commissioners of SRS. Thus, the Commissioner not only has ultimate responsibility on all program matters, but also has the authority to give program direction in the regions through an Associate Regional Commissioner who is selected only with the concurrence of the Commissioner. I see Under these circumstances, the only legal question that might arise is whether the selection and appointment of personnel below the GS-15 level who carry out VR activities in the regions are "unctions" of the Commissioner of RSA that cannot be delegated to the Regional Commissioners of SRS without first submitting a delegation plan to the Congress. nothing unreasonable in concluding that they are not. There is nothing specific in the legislative history on this point. Section 3 (a) presumably intends that the Commissioner of RSA have adequate authority to carry out the VR program and not delegate that authority to others without first notifying the Congress. The mere creation of an agency would not necessarily vest in its head all appointment, selection, and other personnel authority (setting of hours of work, etc.) when that agency is created within a department. In other words, appointment and selection authority are not necessarily "functions" of the Commissioner under section 3(a). Since personnel who carry out his program in the regions are responsible to him, and not to the SRS Regional Commissioners, on all program matters, and since the chief VR official in each region is selected only with the concurrence of the Commissioner of RSA, it seems reasonable to conclude that no command of section 3(a) has been violated. Senator CRANSTON. Who, in the regional office, has authority to sign off on basic decisions of grants under the act in the regional office? Mr. DWIGHT. The associate regional commissioner for rehabilitation. Senator CRANSTON. Can the RSA Commissioner hire his own central office or regional office personnel without additional signoffs higher up in the agency? Mr. DWIGHT. The authority to fill vacancies in central office is clearly the authority of Dr. Adams. He receives personnel services from the central personnel agency, but the authority is clearly his. In the regional office, as I indicated earlier, we are in a transitional stage and we are trying to figure out the best way of complying with the law that he made reference to earlier, Mr. Chairman. Senator CRANSTON. Is approval required from the SRS regional commissioner when there is a signoff on basic decisions in grants? Mr. DWIGHT. Not to my knowledge. Senator CRANSTON. By the associate commissioner? Mr. DWIGHT. The authority clearly vests in the associate commissioner for rehabilitation. Senator CRANSTON. The regional commissioner is not involved in that decisionmaking in any firm way? Mr. DWIGHT. By way of control? Senator CRANSTON. By way of control. Mr. DWIGHT. That is my understanding, and I have had many discussions with our regional officers on the subject, that they are not involved as a review and concurrence mechanism. Senator CRANSTON. Mr. Carlucci, is this your understanding that the line runs directly from associate regional commissioners to Dr. Adams? Mr. CARLUCCI. Yes, that is my understanding. Mr. Chairman, as you know, we are not in favor of this provision of the law, but it is law and we will live with it. Senator CRANSTON. Senator Stafford has some questions with regard to the human development program, and we would like to turn to you now. Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I gather, from your statement, Mr. Secretary, on page 6, again, from the conclusions that the administration forthrightly does not support the bill which is before this subcommittee this morning as S. 3108. My first question is directed to you, Mr. Secretary, and that is, I understand that the Department of HEW has done an internal study of the relationship of titles IV-A and IV-B of the Social Security Act. My question is, has the study reached a conclusion, and if so, have any recommendations been reached and might they be available to this subcommittee? Mr. CARLUCCI. We have done a study, Senator Stafford. As a matter of fact, the study is sitting on my desk at the present time. There are recommendations attached to the study-but I think it would be pre mature to talk about conclusions of the study at this time, for the following reason, and it is the same reason that the study is sitting on my desk and has been sitting on my desk for a while. That is that we are examining the whole title IV-A program and have been having a series of discussions with Governors' representatives and Members of the Congress. As you know, we have had statutory prohibition on this for new regulations in that program and we are trying to develop a set of statutory requirements which would meet the goals of the Congress and Governors and the Department. If we are successful in this effort, it will obviously have an impact on the program. Hence, we have not forwarded the studies to the Secretary. Senator STAFFORD. All right. Let me direct this question to the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Thomas. How does the Office of Human Development function and what are its present responsibilities, in brief? Mr. THOMAS. Senator Stafford. The Office of Human Development provides leadership on issues affecting the groups cited before. We also have responsibilities for allocation of resources for programs such as Headstart, youth development and administration on aging programs. Our current staff size is approximately 900 people. Senator STAFFORD. Repeat that. How many? Mr. THOMAS. Approximately 900 people. Our budget is approximately $680 million in fiscal 1974. Senator STAFFORD. Do you also function as an adviser to Secretary Weinberger? Mr. THOMAS. Yes, along with, obviously, my other colleagues at my level, we do provide advice and counsel to the Secretary and Under Secretary Carlucci on matters pertaining primarily to those groups that are part of Human Development. Senator STAFFORD. Getting into the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, itself, Secretary Carlucci, realizing that consultation with congressional staffs consumed 2 weeks in the process, why does it take from September 26, 1973, to May 28 of this year to publish such regulations on the act? Mr. CARLUCCI. Senator Stafford, the act is a complex act, and it involved major changes in the approach taken by the program. It takes time to do the basic drafting, but in a program like the vocational rehabilitation program, which relates to so many other areas of the Department, such as health and education, so we circulate the regulations and ask for comments from other areas of the Department. It also requires a review by the general counsel's office, and I think it was in light of this that the legislation allowed us to issue interim regulations on January 3, 1974. If I may make a general comment, I think it is fair to say that both the Secretary and I are less than fully satisfied with the process in HEW of getting regulations out. We find, generally, that we are not as prompt as we might be, and we have taken steps to deal with that issue. We are now installing a tracking system on our regulations. We found one case where we actually lost a regulation. That is not going 43-192 O 75-5 to happen any more. I am confident our ability to get regulations out quickly will improve. Senator STAFFORD. I think I can appreciate some of the difficulties that a department as big as yours encounters in administering programs, a large number of programs that come under your banner. Let me ask you, as a mechanical problem, if S. 3108 does become the law of the land, can the office of Human Development handle mechanically the administration's program? Mr. CARLUCCI. I have a great deal of confidence in Assistant Secretary Thomas, and the office of Human Development. Both the Secretary and I have been very pleased in the way they have come along. Obviously, any transfer within HEW is going to cause a certain amount of disruption, particularly when you are transferring a program at the very time that you are implementing new statutes and new regulations. The answer is, if it becomes law, we will implement the law and it will be administered out of the office of Human Development to the best of our ability. I am confident they can administer the program, but it will not be without disruptions, some of which might be serious, and it will not be without certain strains on the office of Human Development. Senator STAFFORD. Thank you for that forthright answer. Doctor, is the individualized written program requirement being implemented by State programs? Dr. ADAMS. It is being implemented by regulations. Senator STAFFORD. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires that severely handicapped individuals be served first. Could you tell us, this subcommittee, what safeguards you are taking to insure that that is being done? Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. I have given this priority and if you don't mind, I will answer your question with a lengthy statement. I am most interested, No. 1, in how many severely handicapped people today need the service, want the service, and are eligible for the service, in accordance with a vocational objective; and how many of these people do not receive services and why. Obviously, this proviso, with the priority the Congress put in the new act, was based on the Congress concern with this sort of question. I am trying to get even harder information on what this looks like State by State. I have set up an objective that, all severely handicapped who have a need, want, and are eligible for the service, will be able to receive that service; and then, as a second general objective, after all who need, want, and are eligible actually receive the service, I would like to move into an outreach program, where we would not wait for those who want service, but we would reach out and get handicapped people who do not come forward and try to motivate them. Those are my general two-phase objectives that I will be working hard on in RSA. As to the specific implementation of the law, we have a few guidelines to the regions, so that the States can begin gearing up to increasing the number of severely handicapped citizens in the program. We have some issues that we are facing such as the fact that our estimates show that it may cost between 21/2 to 3 times the time and money to rehabilitate severely handicapped individuals. |