than it is for a general placement officer. But, as more and more people are being handled, both by the Labor Department's Employment Service, and our rehabilitation officers, the coordinating becomes more and more important; and one of the very great areas of concern on the part of the House committee this year when our law was being revised, was this question of people dropping out between the Rehabilitation Office and the Placement Office. If they had been rehabilitated once and were placed, and something happens that they lose their job, then in some cases the Employment Service would take care of them, but in other cases they do not. Some of the discussion on that resulted in section 8 of the law which directs the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of Labor and the Chairman of the President's Committee on Employment of the Physically Handicapped to get together and work out this relationship. We do some of it now but this would be a more direct and more intense effort in that direction. STATE PROVISIONS FOR MATCHING FUNDS Mr. HAND. Are you satisfied all the States have already made a provision for matching funds under the new act? Miss SWITZER. All of the States have not, and all of them will not, but considering the shortness of the time and considering the fact that this is the first opportunity-this is the legislative year- this is the biennium year-and we were able to give them sort of a pitch on the new act rather late in their budget planning-we are much encouraged by what has happened. I think the fact that so many of the States that have gone to the legislature, with tremendous increases in their own commitments for money, is very encouraging and something that I really frankly would not have forecast 18 months ago. Mr. HUNT. You might be interested in this memorandum we just received, Miss Switzer, which says the Governor has recommended the full amount authorized under the act in New Jersey. The New York situation, too is very good. Miss SWITZER. New York is a good example of a State that had a very conservative program, under the old act, and has now in its budget recommended to the legislature-this was done by Governor Dewey and was confirmed by Governor Harriman and even increasedthe full amount that they could pick up under the authorization, the full authorization. This gives you a little measure of the movement and the ferment that has been going on in the program. Now, a State like Georgia, for instance, was very well supported under the old program, as you know, Mr. Lanham, and Georgia almost had enough money last year to pick up their authorization under the new act. They have practically gotten their money in their pocket, and it is already in their fist down there. Almost all States have to go through the legislative process this year. Our experience has been this: If it is in the governor's budget, supported by the State budget authority, it has very little trouble in the legislature. The difficulty in the past has been that it has not been in the State budget when it went to the legislature. Mr. HAND. How firm are your estimates for grants to the States in view of the fact that some have not and some will not make their full provision for matching? Miss SWITZER. Our estimates are based on the figures we have from the States as of the time we put them in. Some of them are very firm, such as Louisiana which has its money. The others are just as firm as the legislative picture permits. Now, you might say to me how do I know New Jersey will come across. Well, I don't. That is, you cannot tell for sure, but the only thing you can say is that in the past the experience has been that when budgets went to the legislature for this program, they got everything that was asked for and in many cases more, and I think this year most of the money that has been asked for will be appropriated by the legislatures. There will be some shrinkage but there will also be some increases. In some cases where the community groups do not feel that enough money was asked for, there is already evidence that they are going to go to the legislature and get this increase. Mr. HAND. These grants to the States have no relationship to the incidence of the need for rehabilitation, but are determined by the State program, how much they will appropriate. Miss SWITZER. That is right. Mr. HAND. You mentioned the State of Georgia, for example, having slightly more money in 1954 than the State of New York. To pick two more out at random, the State of Michigan with its great industrial complex, has about the same amount of money as the State of North Carolina. It depends on what the State does. Miss SWITZER. Yes; and on the attitude and the need and the leadership. I mean it depends on the vision of the people who are concerned with rehabilitation. Mr. HAND. Would you be prepared to say, Miss Switzer, how many States are prepared to put up their entire share? Mrs. LAMBORN. Twenty-seven States for sections 2 and 3. In section 4 where there has been a matching requirement, there are fewer. Miss SWITZER. There is very little money in that. Mr. HAND. As far as the States are concerned is that a matter of planning or actual appropriated funds? Mr. LANHAM. Some of the legislatures have not met yet. Miss SWITZER. There are some that are already in. Mr. LANHAM. Only four got them last year. FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR REHABILITATION Mr. HAND. Could we have a table furnished on that? Mr. FOGARTY. Yes. (The table requested follows:) Federal and State funds for vocational rehabilitation for 1956, all sections 1 1 See supplementary table for data on sec. 2, Vocational rehabilitation services. Includes State funds available for secs. 2, 3, and 4 (a) (2) of act; excludes funds available from nonprofi organizations. Includes grants under secs. 2, 3, and 4 (a) (2) of act; excludes grants under sec. 4 (a) (1) which are mad for unique special projects which will contribute to the solution of vocational rehabilitation problem common to several States. Federal and State funds for vocational rehabilitation for 1956 under sec. 2 1 $36 million for sec. 2 is based on the full authorization in the act for appropriations for 1956. $32,500,000 of the $36 million specified in the appropriation language is the total which States can earn on the basis of their estimates of State funds available for sec. 2 for 1956. $32,500,000 is, therefore, the amount requested to be appropriated for sec. 2 for 1956. Mr. DENTON. What is Indiana? Mr. FOGARTY. Indiana is way down. Miss SWITZER. Mr. Denton, there are a lot of things going on in Indiana that will step this program up and I wouldn't be surprised if you see something. Mr. Denton. I am very much surprised with that. Miss SWITZER. That is right. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1955. FREEDMEN'S HOSPITAL WITNESSES DR. CHARLES E. BURBRIDGE, SUPERINTENDENT DR. PAUL B. CORNELY, MEDICAL DIRECTOR H. HERBERT BAIRD, BUDGET AND FISCAL OFFICER DR. JACK MASUR, CHIEF, BUREAU OF MEDICAL SERVICES DR. G. HALSEY HUNT, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, BUREAU OF MEDICAL SERVICES RALPH BAHN, BUREAU OF MEDICAL SERVICES EDMUND BAXTER, CONSULTANT, SPECIAL INSTITUTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE JAMES F. KELLY, BUDGET OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE (Previous testimony on Freedmen's Hospital may be found beginning on page 70.) Mr. FOGARTY. The committee will come to order and we will resume with Freedmen's Hospital. I am going to ask to have inserted in the record these two new tables that have been provided by you. (The tables referred to follow:) SALARIES AND EXPENSES, FREEDMEN'S HOSPITAL |