dissemination of that information to the appropriate people who are interested in the affairs of the handicapped. Senator CRANSTON. Thank you, very much. You referred to some data, statistics, and I wish you would submit, for the record, an indication of what data you have and are working on. Mr. THOMAS. Fine. [The material subsequently supplied may be found in the "DHEW Answers to Questions Raised Orally," on p. 81.] Senator CRANSTON. The law provides a special emphasis be given to qualified handicapped individuals in selecting personnel to carry out the functions of the Office for the Handicapped. That was alluded to by the chairman, Mr. Randolph, and I wish you would indicate, for the record, just how you are carrying out that mandate. Mr. THOMAS. Fine. I would be delighted to. Mr. Chairman, the chief of our planning and coordination unit, which will be that unit primarily concerned along with the development of the plan, is a handicapped individual. We have an additional four positions that we are recruiting for, and we are giving particular premium to filling those positions with handicapped individuals. But, we are particularly concerned with paying attention to that. And, relative to the problem of barriers and inaccessibility in this building, initially, we had planned to have the Office for the Handicapped in one particular complex of the Department. We noted it was not barrier-free, and, as a result, we are not moving in there, and we are making sure it is in a barrier-free environment. Senator CRANSTON. Thank you, very much. Mr. Carlucci, does the Secretary contemplate submitting to Congress a delegation plan pursuant to section 3(a) of the act, similar to the one you submitted under the Older Americans Act? Mr. CARLUCCI. Let me ask Mr. Dwight to address that question. Mr. DWIGHT. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, in response to your questions about the way that the regional offices function in relation to their State rehabilitation counterparts, we are currently looking at all the alternatives to determine whether or not the present mode-which you suggested we need to look a little harder at-can be improved upon. We have not yet transmitted a proposed delegation plan to the Secretary. That is a very distinct possibility, if we feel it would provide a more effective means of meeting the rehabilitation needs of the State. Senator CRANSTON. Thank you, very much. If it was not included in the prepared statement, and frankly I am not sure whether you covered this or not, would you please submit to the committee a brief explanation now, and a detailed explanation later, including all possible supporting documents of the exact status of HEW's, or where appropriate, any other agencies that are concerned, implementation of the various sections and programs of the new act? I will be specific in writing, as to exactly what I am referring to here. I would also like to ask if we can have copies of the guidelines for the record that Dr. Adams mentioned on how States should go about reaching severely handicapped individuals? [The material subsequently supplied may be found in the "DHEW Answers to Questions Raised Orally," on p. 81.] Senator CRANSTON. I have a lot more questions, but I am going to have to submit them in writing because of my schedule. Senator Stafford will carry on and complete this morning's hearing at this point. I want to thank each of you for your helpfulness and for the cooperation we have had in so many ways that can be so important to both our responsibilities. I want to indicate that, subject to our schedules here, I hope very much that we can proceed with Senator Randolph, Senator Stafford, and others to go to markup as soon as we can get back responses. There is one other thing I would like to touch on today very briefly before I depart. I have reviewed, Mr. Secretary, the May 20, 1974, memorandum, from Assistant General Counsel Powers, to Mr. Dwight, with respect to what the Department is required to do in connection wth the individualized written rehabilitation program requirements, in this act. I do not think we have any quarrel with the legal conclusion of counsel, with respect to what the act requires-I stress requires-regarding the written program and recordkeeping by rehabilitation agencies. [The memorandum referred to follows:] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Memorandum to: Mr. James S. Dwight, Jr., Administrator, SRS. We have cleared these regulations with the revisions described below. Section 401.22 contained a State plan requirement that any construction contract entered into by a State agency under the vocational rehabilitation program contained an Affirmative Action Plan for qualified physically or mentally disabled persons. We find no legal support for this requirement under the State plan provisions of the Act. At such time as section 504 of the Act is implemented, we will be glad to review this proposal with you to determine if that section would provide legal support for such a requirement. The remaining revisions reflect our position on problems relating to the individualized written rehabilitation program under the State plan. Section 101 (a) (9) of the Act requires, in part, that "an individualized written rehabilitation program meeting the requirements of § 102 will be developed for each handicapped individual eligible for vocational rehabilitation services under this Act... "A handicapped individual is defined by the Act (§7(6)) as an individual who has a physical or mental disability which results in a substantial handicap to employment and who can be expected to benefit in terms of employability from the provision of vocational rehabilitation services. The Act further provides in § 7(4) that the term "evaluation of rehabilitation potential" includes, as appropriate in each case, "a preliminary diagnostic study to determine that the individual has a substantial handicap to employment and that vocational rehabilitation services are needed". Therefore, a preliminary diagnostic study is necessary to determine whether a person meets the definition of a "handicapped individual" and is therefore eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. If the person is eligible and becomes a client of the State agency, an individualized written rehabilitation program must be prepared for him pursuant to the requirements in section 102. In addition to the "handicapped individual" identified by the preliminary diagnostic study, §7(4) (G) provides that vocational rehabilitation services may be provided to any individual for a period not in excess of 18 months in order to determine whether he is a handicapped individual for whom a vocational goal is feasible. Such determination is to be made in accordance with § 102(c). Therefore, in addition to the "handicapped individual", the person in extended evaluation of rehabilitation potential must be provided vocational rehabilitation services in accordance with the requirements of the individualized written rehabilitation program set forth in section 102. Thus, while there must be an individualized written rehabilitation program for those who have been determined to be "handicapped individuals" and for those for whom an extended period of evaluation of rehabilitation potential is necessary, there is no requirement under the State plan provisions of the Act that an individualized written rehabilitation program must be prepared for each applicant applying for services under the program. Such persons have not yet been determined to be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. Similarly, we conclude that the requirement in § 102 (c) for an annual review by the State agency after a determination that a vocational goal is not feasible pertains only to those persons for whom an individualized written rehabilitation program is required, i.e., the "handicapped individual" and the person for whom vocational rehabilitation services are provided during an extended period of evaluation of rehabilitation potential. Consistent with this analysis, the following revisions were made: 1. Section 201.1(i)(4), defining “evaluation of rehabilitation potential", had included as an element of the definition, the initiation and development of the individualized written rehabilitation program. Such requirement now is included only in that part of the definition pertaining to the provision of vocational rehabilitation services for a period of time not exceeding 18 months in order to determine if a vocational goal is feasible. 2. Section 401.34 (a), dealing with the preliminary diagnostic study, has had deleted from it the reference to the individualized written rehabilitation program. 3. Section 401.34 (c), requiring periodic review for each applicant declared ineligible for services after the preliminary diagnostic study indicated that a vocational goal was not feasible, has been deleted. 4. Section 401.36 (e) (2), dealing with termination of services during an extended evaluation to determine rehabilitation potential, now includes a cross reference to § 401.38 (e) reflecting the requirements in § 102 (c) of the Act. 5. Section 401.38 (a), setting forth the requirements of the individualized written rehabilitation program, has had deleted from it reference to applicants for vocational rehabilitation services. 6. Section 401.38 (b), dealing with the time of initiation of the individualized program, now refers to certification of eligibility of an individual or certification for extended evaluation. Senator CRANSTON. More important, it seems to me, is what the act permits. In this regard, Senator Stafford and I join in urging that regulations be appropriately revised. I am not aware that there is lack of authority, and I stress authority, as distinguished from a requirement, for you to do two things, which would be extremely helpful in carrying out the purposes of the act. One, require for every individual who, under your regulations, prior to initiation of the individualized program, is found beyond reasonable doubt either to have a substantial handicap to employment, or not feasibly to be able to achieve vocational goals, that an annual review requirement be instituted. Over the last 2 years, we have been deeply concerned with developing a method to assure ourselves that people are not being unfairly excluded from the program by so-called creaming, a practice which makes the program concerned with less severely handicapped individuals. And two, I would strongly urge that you revise your regulations administratively, so as to require that records be maintained by all local agencies in cases where an individual was rejected for admission into the program prior to initiation of the individualized program, during a preliminary diagnostic study; and that each State agency, as part of its plan, should maintain statistical and categorical data with respect to these types of rejections and transmit that information regularly to the Department. In addition, the individual case records of such early rejections should be maintained by individual agencies for purposes of evaluation and monitoring by HEW. I would appreciate it very much if you would explore that. Mr. CARLUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We certainly will explore it. Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure it is your intention, and it would be mine, that any questions submitted in writing and the answers thereto will be a part of this hearing record immediately adjacent to the testimony that we have offered this morning. Senator CRANSTON. Absolutely. So we really should get the answers back within 3 days after we submit them. Senator STAFFORD. Mr. Chairman, first, let me, for Senator Williams, the chairman of the full committee, direct a question on his behalf, to Dr. Adams. Dr. Adams, there has been some problem over the continuing operation of section 304, "Special Projects," especially as they relate to the developmentally disabled. Senator Williams requested over a month ago a letter detailing your complete policy on this matter. How many projects were affected, how long a period of continuation of ongoing projects would be given, and how your office would deal with new projects, tentatively approved by the regional offices, but not yet funded? As far as Senator Williams is aware, and any other members of this subcommittee or the full committee, this bipartisan request for information has not yet been forthcoming. Could you tell us exactly what your plans are with regard to these projects? I repeat the question I am putting to you on behalf of Senator Williams. Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. As you know, these over 300 projects were covered under the old Vocational Rehabilitation Act, and they were covered without having a proviso for the vocational objective. Under the new act, the vocational objective is mandatory. Therefore, we have about 23 percent of the present projects which are in question as to disposition. I have called for personal review of this 23 percent, because it is my policy to do all in my power to keep those projects eligible, if otherwise on a quality level. The critical question on the projects that deal with early childhood is how well can we build in a vocational objective? Here, I am exploring with the Office of Education their ideas on career education to see if they do consider career education at the early childhood level. If so, it may be possible to make these projects eligible. In the other projects, our regional people have been instructed to work closely with the project sponsors in order to try to revise the possible to make these projects eligible. So in conclusion, my policy is to do, again, all I can to keep them eligible through cooperation with the project sponsors, by making necessary revisions for finding ways to legitimatize and make legal existing projects. Senator STAFFORD. Are you in a position this morning, Dr. Adams, to advise the subcommittee when a written response to Senator Williams' question might be available to him? Dr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. I prepared the draft of that response, as of a week now, and it should be leaving my office in a day or two. Senator STAFFORD. In my own behalf, Dr. Adams, how are rehabilitation counselors being evaluated? Dr. ADAMS. Sir, I would like to call upon one of my assistant commissioners to answer. Senator STAFFORD. If you will identify who you are calling on. Dr. ADAMS. I would like to call on Mr. Sachs. Mr. SACHS. As you are aware, the program revolves around the autonomy of the State agency for purposes of hiring their own staff, and the Federal agency establishes the general framework within which the State programs are expected to operate. I think, as we begin developing and carrying out the rest of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, we will be focusing a great deal on how everybody is carrying out their job. At this moment, there are no specific tools that the Federal Government is using to assess State agency personnel. Senator STAFFORD. That means to assess the performance of rehabilitation counselors as individuals. Mr. SACHS. Right. Senator STAFFORD. Dr. Adams, your predecessor, Dr. Newman, told the committee in March 1972 that RSA would have a weighted case closure system in effect within 18 months. Is such a system going to be implemented, and I ask that question in that way because 27 months have now transpired and apparently we do not have a system? Dr. ADAMS. I am not aware of that proposed system. Mr. DWIGHT. Senator, my recollection is that within the last 12 months-and my fix on it is 9 or 10 months ago-well, the question arose as to the effectiveness of this weighted case closure technique, as a mechanism to combat the creaming that has been raised as a point of concern on several occasions in the hearing this morning. The conclusion reached was that the weighted case closure system was just as fraught with problems as the current system. In other words, if one were to want to manipulate statistics, one could do so as well with one system as the other. We are working currently on another approach which is an evaluation approach which goes to looking at different kinds of comparison groups. The objective is the same, that is, to eliminate the propensity for singling out easy cases for admission into rehabilitation services programs. We concluded-and I am restating the point-we concluded that the weighted case closure system would not live up to its earlier expectations and, therefore, we are not currently pursuing it. These decisions were made prior to Dr. Adams' arrival as Commissioner of RSA. Senator STAFFORD. Thank you, Mr. Dwight. Mr. Carlucci, as you are aware, the Congress adopted this Senator's proposal for the individualized written rehabilitation program as, among other things, a means of protecting the rights of the individual from arbitrary decisions on the part of the program that affects it. The legislative history is clear that the Congress intended this writ 43-192 O-75-6 |