FEDERAL BOARD FOR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION. REPORT OF APPOINTMENT. (To be forwarded in duplicate.) To the chief clerk, through personnel officer: The following appointment has been made in the Division of Rehabilitation, effective the 22d day of July, 1919: Name, William Anthony Clark; age, 51; title of position, placement officer; salary, $3,000; State from which appointed, New York; Harvard Club, 27 West Forty-fourth Street, New York City. Office to which assigned, New York District No. 2. Character of appointment (check one) (x): 1. Probational (from civil service register) 2. Temporary (subject to civil service examination), June 30, 1920. 3. Temporary (for "job" employment, without examination), date of expiration of appointment There is attached hereto a biographical sketch showing the qualifications of the appointee for the position. There is also attached a statement of the duties of the position. Charge to V. R. Fund No. 2. Approved: H. L. SMITH, Chief of Division. C. A. PROSSER, Director. FEBRUARY 3, 1920. From: Chief, Division of Rehabilitation. To: Acting District Vocational Officer, District No. 2, New York City. 3. The first is in relation to the salary increase of Isaac F. Becker. I know you appreciate his work, but the suggestion has been made to me to-day that he has been turned down twice by the Civil Service Commission. If this is true, we, of course, should not have considered him at all for salary increase, inasmuch as we are refusing to make any salary adjustments until one has, at least, filed his papers. From: Chief, Division of Rehabilitation. UEL W. LAMKIN, Chief, Division of Rehabilitation. FEBRUARY 14, 1920. To: Acting district vocational officer, district No. 2, New York City. DEAR SIR: Replying to your letter of February 11, regarding the general question of salaries, I wrote you yesterday in regard to Mr. Becker. We certainly can not approve an increase for Becker or continue him at the increased rate if he has been rejected by the Civil Service Commission. In regard to Adkins, I believe a $300 raise is about all we should expect for him at one time. If, on the other hand, he has qualified as training assistant, we may be able to put him at $2,000, which would be, as I understand it, a $500 increase. I understand that he is now carried as a clerk. The principle involved in the Adkins case is that he has changed from one position to another, for example, from clerk to training assistant. It is not an increase in the way of salary for the same work. If he retains his civil service status of clerk, a $200 or $300 increase is all that we believe justified. If he takes another position I believe we can give him $2,000. Very truly, yours, UEL W. LAMKIN, Chief, Division of Rehabilitation. Charge 11.-"We charge that the board is lax in the payment of just bills." The statement is made that the board was indebted to the Post Graduate Hospital in New York for a period of eight months. The facts are that the first delay in payment of Post Graduate Hospital bills was due to the inability of the board to get a contract signed with them and further that said contract was held up in the offices of the board on account of the seemingly high rates charged for tuition. The contract was finally signed on December 18, 1919, and bills have been paid. The charge is made that the board owes Columbia University approximately $10,000. With reference to this obligation in the Evening Post of March 10, the following statement is made: "He (Chas. S. Danielson, the bursar) also stated that the board owes almost $10,000 for Federal board students who have enrolled during the present semester, but no bill for this amount has been submitted to the board as yet.' The accounts which have been submitted properly attested and properly vouchered are being paid. As of April 10, practically all accounts which have been submitted to this office have been settled. Charge 12.-"We charge that the following employees of the board drew two salaries from the Treasury: When the board was charged with the work of rehabilitation it had an organization which comprised the above-named men. They served both divisions of the board. The Comptroller of the Treasury was asked for a ruling concerning the payment of their salaries. See Volume XXV, Comptroller Decision, page 76. These men did not draw two salaries, but were paid partly out of each of the two funds, as their work belonged partly in each of the two divisions. It is stated that Mr. E. J. Aronoff drew a third salary from the Elk's War Relief Commission. If Mr. Aronoff draws such a salary, it is as an individual custodian of a fund which never passes out of the hands of the Elks War Relief Commission except when it is delivered to a man entering training. The board has authority, specifically granted by section 5 of the rehabilitation act, to cooperate with any agency, public or private. Charge 13.-"We charge that training is often a pretense * * * "Men without even high-school education are sent to colleges where they do not understand the lectures. They are left to absorb anything, if they can." "In trades, training is often no more than a pretense. The board gives a course of six months in linotype operating. The union requirement is four years. In this matter of training I should like to mention that there is a man with 100 per cent heart trouble who is the wireless cperator on a ship at sea. He is the only operator on that ship. The lives of all are in his hands. He has 100 per cent heart trouble." In connection with the training of disabled men the attention of the committee is directed to the fact that the board is dealing with men and not with boys, ranging in education from illiterate to college graduates. Obviously it was necessary to arrange for the education of some of these men in special classes and to direct attention specifically to those subjects required in the vocation for which they were being trained. Early the board determined to utilize existing educational institutions to full capacity in providing training facilities and resources for the benefit of disabled men under its supervision. That this was a sound and wise policy can not be questioned. To have established a complete system of separate schools throughout the country would have involved large expenditures, and would have retarded the work. Existing institutions have been requested to attempt all kinds of special arrangements to which they were unaccustomed, which constituted a burden, owing to the increased enrollment of regular students for the year 1919-20, but what would have been the situation if the board, instead of building on what existed, attempted to create an educational plant to accommodate thousands of men? To obtain places where effective training can be given and to establish satisfactory working arrangements is a task of great magnitude. To the credit of most educational institutions it should be said they have, for the most part, responded nobly and have felt the quickening influence that always comes in attempting to solve new problems under new conditions. It can be said without reservation that suitable training opportunities up to date can be provided for every man who has been awarded training, provided he will go where the training opportunity exists, but large numbers of men can not be trained near their homes and refuse training elsewhere. The training facilities there are inadequate, and in many instances employment facilities do not exist in the line which the man has requested that he be employed. This necessitates transfer of men from one point to another, and causes a loss of time which has never been taken into account by the public as a reasonable source of delay for putting men in training. It has been the constant task of the Rehabilitation Division not only to educate its own staff, but to educate the staffs of educational institutions to the idea that the work is predicated on the principle of fitting a man to take a position as a wage earner, to set standards and suggest training courses, to assist institutions in enlarging their facilities, by providing the additional machinery, equipment and supplies, these have been a necessary part of the board's work in order that disabled men might be prepared for gainful employment after they have completed a training course. In passing, it can be said in all fairness that hundreds of men have discontinued their courses because they have found before their completion their occupational niche, and have preferred to go to work at an attractive salary or wage rather than complete the course which the board had prescribed and to which the man had agreed. "The board gives a six months' course in linotype operating" is cited as evidence that "Trade training is often no more than a pretense. Trade training is finished in all cases "on the job" directly in the operations which the man is to perform as a worker, and he thus demonstrates his ability to meet the requirements on the job before his training is completed and before training pay is discontinued. There is no grounds, therefore, for the charge that for trades the training given by the board is either too short or otherwise insufficient to prepare the man for the job. Only one man has thus far completed training in linotype operation. This man had been a printer for 15 years previous to entering the service, and while he was approved for a longer course he was able at the end of two months training to engage as a linotype operator with the Atlanta Printing Co., of Atlanta, Ga., which position he has held since December 31, on which date he completed training. Two men have completed training as monotype operators, Both of these men were printers; one for a period of two and one-half years and the other for three years prior to entering the service, Both of these men are now suitably employed as a result of their training. A total of 118 men have entered training as monotype and linotype operators. Irrespective of what initial course is taken by these men, thorough training merging into employment will be provided in each case. As to the statement there is a man with 100 per cent heart trouble who is a wireless operator on a ship at sea, it is noted that the board is not charged with any connection in the matter. The board has not wittingly handled such a case. From the circumstances cited, no case handled by the board can be identified. Charge 14.-"We charge that 10 per cent of the men who begin training discontinue training." For proof attention is directed to hearing on the second deficiency appropriation bill held on January 17, 1920, wherein Mr. Lamkin states that approximately 10 per cent of the men entering training discontinue. The answer is that the statement is approximately correct. Forty-five per cent of these dicontinuances are due to recurrences of the man's disabilities and other illnesses. The remainder of the discontinuances are due to various causes, such as misconduct, disinterest, and to accept other employment. Twenty-five per cent of those who discontinue reenter training. Charges 15, 16, and 17.--“We charge that 30 per cent of the men approved for training throw up their chances of training." "We charge that more than 13,000 disabled soldiers approved for training were not in training on January 17 last.' "We charge that in district No. 2, the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut district, for every man in training there is another approved but not in training." It is not necessary to dispute these figures. We point out that the board was free to act in placing men in training without an award of compensation from the Bureau of War Risk Insurance only after July 11. At the end of June, 1919, only 3,606 men were in training. The following numbers of men were put in training since: The other activities of the board during these months are described elsewhere. The board is prepared to admit that at no time has over 73 per cent of the men approved for training actually entered training. The inference that this constitutes failure on the part of the board is false. The eligibility squad, referred to elsewhere, approved for training 12,782 cases. All of these men were at once notified and instructed to report for training. The analysis of approximately 5,350 of these cases 45 days after the eligibility audit was completed shows the following results: Refusing, deferring, or postponing training does not deny to a man the right to accept at a later date, and their cases are followed up through correspondence, through the Red Cross, the American Legion posts, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and other agencies, as it is undisputed that many who have been awarded training will avail themselves of it when their physical condition will permit, or when existing conditions change. This burden of follow-up work entails an enormous correspondence and field work, but yet is absolutely essential in order that the board may discharge the duties imposed upon it by Congress. Mr. Littledale also charges that very few men have completed training and that only 43 have been trained and placed in district No. 2 (New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut). This statement is approximately correct and tends to disprove the charge made elsewhere by Mr. Littledale that courses are too short. A total of 232 have completed training up to this date. There are more than 5,000 men, however, now finishing their training on the job where they will adjust themselves to employment requirements before being classed as completed. Charge 18.-It is charged that the eligibility squad threw out cases wholesale. It is charged that the eligibility squad throw out cases in a wholesale manner, and that by throwing out cases they reduced a total registration of 209,000 to 129,912. The official results of the eligibility audit, which were not available at the time figures were given to Mr. Littledale, show that the total registration was reduced from 238,623 to 135,643. This number, 135,643, added to 48,000 found ineligible, makes the total of approximately 185,000 registration referred to elsewhere. The cases which Mr. Littledale charged were "thrown out" were actually handled as follows: (a) Fifty-three thousand and fifty-one of these cases had been transferred to another district. The district receiving the cases was in a position to handle the men and the original district had dropped the case. It is hard to see how any injustice can be done to a disabled man by dropping his case in one district when his case is receiving attention in another district. It would not be economy for the Government to have two or three offices in communication with the same man concerning the same matter. (b) One thousand five hundred and seventy-five cases had been opened in the district office in error. A large proportion of these were dulpicate cases which had been consolidated into one case file. No injustice can be done a disabled man by combining all the papers in his case into one folder. (c) The eligibility squad closed 35,431 cases and 12,923 cases had previously been closed by central office, a total of 48,534 cases. The cases closed by the eligibility squad were closed for the following reasons: The man had died. The man had reenlisted in the service. The man had not been discharged from the Army, but had been placed on the retired list, and was therefore not eligible for training. The man stated that he did not desire training. The man requested that his case be closed and that no more letters be written him. The man was apparently not interested in training, as evidenced by his failure to reply to several letters. The man could not be located. Inquiry at the office of the Adjutant General at Washington, the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, the local Red Cross, the American Legion, and other agencies had failed to discover his present address. The man was carrying on successfully in employment and was not in need of training. The man had no disability and claimed no disability. The man's disability was a negligble handicap. The man's disability was a minor handicap and he had stated that he was not interested in section 3 training. The disability existed prior to enlistment and was not aggravated by service and he was therefore not eligible for training under the act. The man was in the Army only a few days, having been discharged from draft. The information in the man's folder was so meager that contact with the man could not be made on the basis of this information. The man had left the country. The man had not been discharged under honorable conditions. A case once closed may be reopened at any time. In stating that cases were thrown out in a wholesale manner, Mr. Littledale apparently wishes to imply that injustice has been done to disabled men. It is apparent that no injustice could be done by dropping a case which has been transferred to another district or by combining all papers in one folder and all cases that were closed were closed for one or more reasons which were entirely sufficient. Under this heading, "it is charged that the eligibility squad, which was composed of laymen, reduced the load of the board by changing the medical classification of a major case entitled to training pay to a negligible handicap' classification in which training pay was denied." In proof of this extravagant statement, Mr. Littledale cites the following case: "Case 670. The man has fallen arches. The medical decision is that the disability was aggravated in the service. Three doctors classify him as a major case. The eligibility squad overrules that classification. The squad gives him a negligible handicap and refuses him training pay." At the time this case was reviewed by the eligibility squad, the folder contained two medical examinations-one by Dr. Tracy, of the New York office, and one by the Army medical officer, who examined the man at the time of his discharge. Dr. Tracy's examination stated that the disability was a major disability and constituted a major permanent handicap which was aggravated by service. The Army medical examiner stated that the disability was third degree flat feet, which was not aggravated by service. On account of the conflicting medical reports, the central office case board representative had to choose between two suppositions The man's enlisment record showed that he was discharged from draft after being in camp only six weeks during the fall of 1917, and that he was never accepted for enlistment in the Army. Both medical opinions show that the disability undoubtedly existed prior to enlistment. The man carried on successfully before entering the Army in spite of his disability, which consisted of flat feet, and the record showed that for two years since being rejected from the draft he had been employed as a car painter and stenciler. In view of the undeniable evidence that the disability existed prior to enlistment, and in view of the fact that the man had successfully carried on for two years following his brief stay at a military camp, the central office case board representative ruled that the man was not eligible for training under the conditions of section 2 of the vocational rehabilitation act. The handicap rating was not changed from major to negligible and the man denied training on the grounds that his disability was aggravated by service. Mr. Littledale also cites the case 13192. Case 13192. The man's occupation is a clerk. He was wounded and is suffering from epilepsy. Medical opinion classifies him as a major case. The eligibility squad overrules that. The squad calls him a minor case and refused him training with pay." The facts in this case show that at the time this case was rated by a member of the eligibility squad there was no evidence in the man's folder that he was suffering from epilepsy, and the file contained no rating by any member of the district medical staff. The folder contained an old medical examination stating that the man's disability was a slight limitation of the movement of his right arm. Inasmuch as the man prior to enlistment was employed as a clerk, it was not considered that he was suffering from a major occupational handicap and it was ruled that he was not eligible for section 2 training. Mr. Littledale cites the following case: "Case 27675. The man is suffering from dementia precox; medical opinion classifies him as a major case. The eligibility squad overrules that, calls him a minor case, and refuses him training with pay.' The facts in this case showed that no ruling was made by the eligibility squad, the decision having previously been made by central office. The official report from the Navy Department shows that the man was not discharged, but was placed on the |