Our act says that if the plan submitted by the State board for vocational education is in accord with the provisions of the act, it shall be approved. The act gives us no discretion outside those provisions, and in the absence of provisions that there shall or shall not be residence requirements in a State plan, we would have to accept a plan, I believe, whether residence requirements were included or not included.

Mr. THOMAS. Do you think it would be at all feasible for your act to require, as one of the conditions of these grants, that a State would have to have a law compelling the attendance of all children, or has your office ever considered the problem of the exclusion of any group of children?

Mr. BILLINGTON. It has never been a problem with us. Frankly, we have never considered it, so far as I have been able to find out, until this questionnaire came to our office. We have had no history of complaint or difficulty along that line so far as vocational education is concerned. It has never come to our attention. Except in these cases of Federal projects being set up in a State, there has been no difficulty at all.

STATEMENT AND TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. KRATZ, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. THOMAS. Our next witness will be Mr. Kratz, Director of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation of the Office of Education.

STATEMENT IN REPLY TO COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE

1. How are the funds appropriated under title V of the Social Security Act allocated to the various States? What basis is used for such allotments? (If on population basis, are census figures used?)

On a population basis census figures are used.

2. Are any of the funds available under either program, subject to allocation on basis of State need, regardless of any other conditions?

No.

3. Do the above acts provide for any residence requirements? No.

4. Does either program require approval of a State plan? Yes.

5. Do any of the State plans, which are approved by the Office of Education, contain any provisions in relation to residence?

Yes; in some States, State laws require residence and some State plans cover these provisions. Without examination of all State plans and laws, it is impossible to determine the number of States which have residence requirements. However, in practice it does not appear to be a serious factor in establishing eligibility for rehabilitation.

6. Summarize or, if convenient, list such residence requirements, if any, as may be found in the plans of the various States.

Where plans contain residence requirements they refer to either 6 months or 1 year of residence.

7. Does your office feel that it has any discretion in the matter of approving a plan containing residence requirements, or is it possible that you could reject a plan which did contain residence requirements?

Our office feels that it has discretion in the matter of approving plans containing residence requirements except where those requirements are based on State law.

8. Does your office know whether or not nonresident persons in any State are precluded from the benefits of either program?

We do not have accurate data but the number of nonresident persons in any State precluded from service is relatively small because of the reciprocal agreements which have been worked out among the States.

9. If nonresidents are precluded from the benefits of either program, is such preclusion brought about by either (a) any provisions in the Federal Law, (b) any provision in a State Law, or (c) by reason of any administrative practice, either Federal or local?

Preclusions from the benefits of rehabilitation service are brought about by State law and not Federal law, by State administrative practice and not by Federal administrative practice.

10. How are the individual beneficiaries of your program selected?

Cases are selected on the basis of (a) permanent physical disability which constitutes a vocational handicap, and (b) susceptibility for the program on the basis of work capacity and mental capacity to profit by rehabilitation.

11. How many people (figures, if available) benefit from either program? (Are nonresidents included herein?)

At the present time there are 30,000 disabled persons in process of rehabilitation. There are some nonresidents included in this figure and in many instances the nonresident is only delayed in his program long enough to establish intent of or legal residence.

12. How much of an appropriation in your opinion, would be necessary to cover into either program all nonresident persons, if any, not now included? We are not at this time prepared to recommend any funds for this purpose. Certainly, under normal conditions the exclusion of nonresidents has not been a problem.

13. If, in fact, nonresidents are being excluded from either program, what, in your opinion, would be the probable effect of requiring, as a condition for receipt of funds, that all persons should be included regardless of any residence requirement?

This would not work a hardship on our cooperative programs in the States except where nonresidents were excluded by State law.

14. If such condition were imposed, how in relation to either program could it be made effective, i. e., by an amendment to the organic law or through administrative rules and regulations?

Through administrative rules and regulations.

15. If, in fact, nonresidents are being excluded from either program, in your opinion, could nonresidents be covered in if some of your funds were available on a variable basis, i. e., regardless of residence or any other condition? Yes.

16. Even if a State, through its law or administrative practice, were excluding nonresidents from either program, if its plan conformed to your present law, would you feel bound to accept it?

Our basic law does not carry a residence requirement. Therefore, the office would have to accept a State plan carrying residence requirements if such requirements were based on State law.

17. Does your office have any effective means of determining whether or not nonresidents are covered by either program?

Such information could be secured but is not now available.

18. If your office should ascertain that nonresidents were excluded from either program, could you withhold the allotments of Federal money on that account?

No.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN A. KRATZ

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Kratz, in your statement you say that residence requirements have not been a serious factor in establishing eligibility for rehabilitation service. Will you expand that statement a little for us?

Mr. KRATZ. Yes; our program is a little different from that described by Mr. Billington. The question of compulsory attendance does not come in at all. A disabled person, if he has a permanent physical disability and needs service, may apply for it and receive it. Now some of the States, as I have indicated in my statement,

do have residence requirements and will insist that an applicant have resided in the State, say 6 months-perhaps as much as a year but usually 6 months-before they will spend money to rehabilitate. However, there is a certain amount of reciprocity between States. For instance, a bona fide resident of Ohio might go to Indiana for the purpose of living with relatives, or for the purpose of getting training for a particular vocation available there which wouldn't be available in his home State, and the sending State would pay the bill. The receiving State would supervise the training and, perhaps, place the case after training.

Mr. THOMAS. Has your office ever been called upon to settle any controversy arising in connection with any of these reciprocal agreements, or a particular problem affecting some person needing rehabilitation who went from one State to another?

COVERAGE OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Mr. KRATZ. No; I can't say that they have appealed to us to settle the difficulty. We deal with rather small numbers compared with other programs. For example, we have about 45,000 persons in service at any one time in the entire country. They turn out about 15,000 cases a year as rehabilitants. The States are generally able to adjust those matters among themselves. Of course, you have something of a problem where the work is seasonal. A person goes to what he thinks is a favorable climate and makes application in the State in which he is attempting to gain residence. That would affect such States as Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, CaliforniaStates of that kind-but the providing of services is dependent upon available facilities and money, and the State would not ordinarily turn down an applicant because he was a migrant.

Mr. THOMAS. În your act there is no residence requirement?
Mr. KRATZ. No.

Mr. THOMAS. And yet your office approves plans which have a residence requirement?

Mr. KRATZ. We feel that if those requirements are based on State law we have to accept them. We wouldn't tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or age, except that we can't serve persons who are below the age of legal employability.

Mr. THOMAS. Now, considering the fact that your law has no residence requirement, and the fact that some State plans by reason of the State law provide a residence requirement, wouldn't it seem to be more practicable if the Federal act prohibited residence requirements? Then you probably wouldn't have all of this reciprocal agreement procedure which is now necessary between States.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. KRATZ. I think that is true. We have something of a precedent to work on. If you have read our act, you will find that where persons are disabled in the employ of the United States Government, a State must, as one of the conditions for receipt of Federal aid, give service to such persons under such rules and regulations as our office establishes. All we have had to do thus far in handling such a case is to say to California, for instance, "Now, this man was injured in

the Navy Yard of Philadelphia, but he is now in California and you will have to rehabilitate him." Of course, as one of the conditions of the act they do that, but they wouldn't have to perform this service in the case of the ordinary migrant.

Mr. THOMAS. Under your law, as presently set up, it merely says that the States shall give service to a disabled employee of the Federal Government. The Office of Rehabilitation reserves the right, as we understand it, to require any State to give service to an employee of the Federal Government regardless of residence.

Mr. KRATZ. Right.

Mr. THOMAS. That would be without regard to whether or not the State law required it.

Mr. KRATZ. Yes. The Federal act would take precedence over the State law.

Mr. THOMAS. Now, the Federal act itself doesn't require that any State would have to take a civilian employee of the Federal Government regardless of residence, does it?

Mr. KRATZ. It says that as one of the conditions of acceptance of Federal aid or receiving Federal aid, the State must accept the civilans employed by the Federal Government under such regulations as our office sets up.

Mr. THOMAS. That's what I want to ask. For instance, your office says that the Office of Education reserves the right to request any State to give aid to a civilian employee of the Federal Government regardless of residence. That would appear to be by reason of one of your rules and regulations, and not because of the act itself.

Mr. KRATZ. It is based on the act itself. We have to accept persons for service. We could probably send them all to one State, but that wouldn't be practicable. It is better to rehabilitate in the State of residence, and they generally go back to the original State of residence after being helped and discharged.

Mr. THOMAS. Do you find that any States lack facilities to rehabilitate disabled persons?

Mr. KRATZ. Yes. A number of them haven't funds enough, but that is a general condition, not one arising out of this migratory problem.

Mr. THOMAS. But your office wouldn't feel that it could force a State to take an ordinary citizen of another State if the particular State in which he might be located lacked facilities to rehabilitate? Mr. KRATZ. No. We couldn't force them to do that. But if we felt there was discrimination we would raise the question and find out why.

RESIDENCE AS A FACTOR IN VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. THOMAS. In line with what Congressman Tolan has said, don't you think that all citizens should be entitled to rehabilitation regardless of residence?

Mr. KRATZ. Absolutely, regardless of residence.

Mr. THOMAS. Do you think these reciprocal agreements have worked in any way to minimize the problem of residence? Is that a satisfactory solution?

Mr. KRATZ. I shouldn't answer that question without more information than I really have. Problems of this sort have to come

60396-41-pt. 17--20

definitely to our attention, which wouldn't mean that a number of persons are not receiving service who ought to have it. I would really like to look into that.

Mr. THOMAS. It would seem that where a reciprocal agreement procedure was set up in lieu of the Federal act eliminating residence, if every State entered into some sort of reciprocal agreement with every other State, you would have a top-heavy, many-sided picture; almost be creating problems rather than solving them.

Mr. KRATZ. Yes.

STATEMENT OF KATHARINE F. LENROOT, CHIEF, CHILDREN'S BUREAU, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C.; TESTIMONY OF EDITH ROCKWOOD, SPECIALIST IN CHILD WELFARE, AND LAURA ELMORE WARREN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT, CHILDREN'S BUREAU, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mr. THOMAS. Miss Rockwood and Mrs. Warren, of the Children's Bureau, Department of Labor, will now testify.

STATEMENT IN REPLY TO COMMITTEE QUESTIONNAIRE

Summarizing the material presented in the attached table submitted in answer to the questions in your letter of July 7, 1941:

There are no residence restrictions in title V of the Social Security Act that make it impossible to use Federal funds for maternal and child-welfare services for mothers and children who, as defense migrants, do not have legal residence in the State or county where they find themselves.

Maternal and child-health services (title V, pt. 1) and child-welfare services (title V, pt. 3) are made available in local communities on the basis of the need of those who are to be served, without limitation as to legal residence. Under the crippled children's program (title V, pt. 2) there are some States that have residence restrictions as to the crippled children who can be given care. However, it has been possible to work out reciprocal agreements between State crippled children's agencies to cover the costs of care of children transferring their residence between States, so that in practice there is no residence restriction on the giving of service to crippled children under this program.

The limitations that do affect the giving of service to children of defense migrants are financial. The annual appropriations for each service now equal the total amounts authorized, and expansion of the programs would be possible only through legislation authorizing increased sums. Unless more funds are made available for maternal and child-welfare services, the only possibility of increasing service in defense areas to any extent is to curtail service in other areas where the needs are also great and the foundations of a program are just being established.

In my statement to your committee December 11, 1940, I reported on the effects of migration on family life and child welfare, including defense migration, and submitted recommendations by Children's Bureau advisory committees that grants to the States for maternal and child-health services and for childwelfare services under title V. parts 1 and 3, of the Social Security Act, be increased, especially in view of the intensified needs associated with defense

measures.

This year the Children's Bureau has been in frequent consultation with State health and welfare agencies on health and social problems affecting mothers and children in defense areas. They have recognized the need for increasing medical and public-health-nursing services for mothers and children, and child-welfare services in these areas. They are also conscious of the great need for hospital beds and for medical and nursing services for mothers at the time of delivery and for sick children.