By the way, there are some people who do not see that as clearly, as you well know.

The CHAIRMAN. You cannot run a car unless you have gasoline in the tank; is that not right?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is just what we have found out from bitter experiences, Senator Hill.

Dr. JARRELL. If I may say this, with these new programs which are being established in numerous colleges throughout the country training vocational rehabilitation counselors and other specialists, we feel and we do have that program of training at the University of Georgia of vocational counselors and social workers-that in a period of 2 years we will be in a position to rehabilitate 10,000 to 12,000 cases instead of 7,000 as at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. Very good.

Mr. WHITTEN. I would like to call attention to the fact that if this 75-percent Federal share should prevail in section 2 it will not be necessary to have separate financing under the evaluation title which has been presented in the administration's bill, since the whole program would be on the 75-percent basis.

However, the new definition of the evaluation services would still be needed, so this will be a very valuable section, even if the program is made 75-percent Federal across the board.

And while I am speaking of the evaluation section, I just want to call your attention to one other thing about it. We are not quite sure of the scope of this program. We had originally thought that it covered all of the diagnostic and evaluation services that would be carried on under the State rehabilitation agency. Some conversations we have had recently have indicated some doubt about this. We really think it would be unfortunate if diagnostic and evaluation services were divided into two parts, one financed out of the basic section 2 program and one out of a new program. We do not see any practical way to divide them, since everything that would be done under the new evaluation title is already being done, but in a limited way, and for a shorter duration of time. Splitting diagnostic and evaluation services into two parts we think would present great technical and administrative difficulties. I just ask the committee to be sure of the meaning, what is intended and how it will be interpreted. We think by all means it should cover all of the diagnostic and evaluation services. And it may be that you find that it does.

We also are proposing a 90-percent Federal share under the training of handicapped people in the workshop provision of this bill, which, I believe, by the way, is on page 11 of the text of the bill, if any of you are following it.

Here, again, I will say very briefly that this legislation is almost directly comparable to the manpower development and training

program.

For instance, both of these programs are set up as 5-year programs. Both of them have to do with unemployed people. One agency will deal with the population in general, while the other will deal with those people whose disabilities constitute such difficulties and present such problems that they have to have specialized services in workshops. It seems to me that it would be difficult to justify a higher Federal share for one of these programs than for the other.

The amendment I want to suggest next is one with respect to which, Senator Hill, you are very familiar. In the appropriation act for several years you have been writing in a provision that authorizes allotments on the basis of a sum higher than the appropriation and also allowing additional allotments to States that have more money than is needed to take up the Federal money allotted.

What we are asking is that this be written into the law. You see, this has become a very important part of this program. If that should collapse it would be a most serious thing, and we have been told that it may be subject to a point of order. Since Congress seems to be agreed upon this as a method of financing, we would just like to see it made a part of law, so we would not have any worry about it.

We are also suggesting a few technical amendments to the definition of rehabilitation. I do not think that any of these, with one possible exception, anybody would raise any serious question.

First, we are asking that the definition be amended so that the means test for services to support an individual while he is receiving training would be eliminated. As you know, there is not a means test now for training tuition but there is a means test required if the agency provides the books and the supplies or pays his board while he is in training. By the way, this same restriction does not occur in the manpower development training program, where unemployment is considered to be prima facie evidence of need which, I think, it certainly should-protracted unemployment at any rate. We know that we can do a much better job if this restriction is removed.

We are suggesting removing the means test just for the training services. We are not suggesting that it be removed for medical

services.

By the way, to further emphasize this, it was found in a study last year that nearly 80 percent of all the people rehabilitated by the rehabilitation agencies had no income at the time they applied for services, and only 4 percent had incomes as high as $3,000 a year. I think that emphasizes the fact that if there ever was a program dealing with poverty, this is certainly it, and it has been for many, many years. We also are suggesting that the definition of services include mobility devices. These would include such things as a ramp, an elevator from a man's bedroom to his basement, a lifting device to get in and out of automobiles, automobile driver controls, and so forth. These cannot be bought under the present definition of rehabilitation services.

We also are asking for amendments that would make it possible for an agency to pay the cost of transporting a man's family to the place of employment.

I have talked recently to rehabilitation counselors who tell me that frequently they have individuals who are trained and ready to work and want to work, but the $300 or $400 that it will take to move his family from where he is currently living to where his job will be is not available. The agency cannot help him, and no one else can help him. The employment plan collapses to everybody's consternation.

We also would like a definition of rehabilitation services to be amended to allow followup of clients after they are rehabilitated for some extended period of time.

The CHAIRMAN. How long a time would you suggest?

Mr. WHITTEN. I would think 6 months to a year. For instance, a mentally retarded person is rehabilitated. Somebody needs to check up on him for a rather protracted period of time; or a paraplegic, somebody should see that he gets back to the hospital every 6 months for his checkup, which is absolutely necessary if he is to maintain the gains that he has received in rehabilitation center.

I think our present practice of closing cases with the agency having no further responsibility for them is not realistic at all in terms of the kind of caseload that the agencies are handling now.

We also are asking that the definition of workshop found in the Rehabilitation Act, section 11, be amended to include initial staffing. By some mistake of drafting, initial staffing was included for the rehabilitation facilities but was omitted in the section defining the workshop. This would just put one on terms of equality with the other.

I also want to mention the section on flexibility in State administration. The administration suggests another alternative for administering rehabilitation, this being that vocational rehabilitation could be administered in a department that includes one or more major programs of a related nature. We are not opposed to some flexibility, although we do not know of any demand for any change along this line. Our suggestion is that an alternative be added allowing the program to be administered in an agency that includes two or more of these departments. We would think that it would be fine if the State wants to reorganize its social services and put health and welfare and rehabilitation and mental health in one agency as California has recently done, but we do not think it would be wise to put rehabilitation, say, in a department of health or in a department of welfare where, being relatively small in relation to the total complex, it would likely be submerged. We think that independence of operation is an essential thing.

By the way, we also have suggested words that we think will define more clearly what a major program is, but I will not go into that at this time.

We also are suggesting two or three minor amendments with respect to the workshop section. I do not think that I will go into these. They are quite technical and probably noncontroversial. There is one other thing that we would like to have the committee think about. This proposal has a provision for technical services and workshop improvement grants. Both of these are confined to workshops. Dr. Spencer yesterday mentioned the importance of making these available to workshops and rehabilitation facilities. We think that would be a good idea. We think there would be great advantage in having the technical assistance and these improvement grants made to the facility field across the board and to have the National Council which is formed in this legislation advise the Secretary on the entire question of rehabilitation facilities.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we are suggesting an amendment which would remove the ceiling on appropriations for the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped. I think you will agree that this is a good program and one we would like to see move on without having to come up here every 2 or 3 years to ask for a change in the law.

This concludes my testimony, Mr Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions that you have. We think this is good legislation but we know that it will be a lot better and that we can accomplish the goals much more quickly with the amendments we have suggested. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything that you would like to add, Dr. Jarrell?

Dr. JARRELL. No, sir, I do not have anything to add except to thank you, Senator, for giving Mr. Whitten and myself the opportunity of appearing before you this morning to present the testimony in behalf of S. 1525 and to say that if there is any additional information that you and the committee would like to have, that Mr. Whitten and I will be glad to make that available to you.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, sir. We want to thank both of you, Dr. Jarrell and Mr. Whitten. You have always been most helpful to this committee. You have offered some splendid testimony this morning. We want to express to you our deep appreciation for this testimony. We appreciate it very, very much.

Dr. JARRELL. Thank you.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. C. T. Higgins, president of the National Association of Sheltered Workshops & Homebound Programs, Inc., who is also assistant director of the Alabama Society for Crippled Children and Adults, of Montgomery, Ala.

We are glad to have you here and to have your assistant with you. We will be delighted now to have you proceed in your own way, sir. Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is, indeed, a very great favor for me to be here. I have with me Mr. A. C. Suazo, the executive director of the National Association of Sheltered Workshops.

The CHAIRMAN. We are very glad to have you here, too.

STATEMENT OF C. T. HIGGINS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHELTERED WORKSHOPS & HOMEBOUND PROGRAMS, INC., AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ALABAMA SOCIETY FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN AND ADULTS, MONTGOMERY, ALA.; ACCOMPANIED BY A. C. SUAZO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHELTERED WORKSHOPS & HOMEBOUND PROGRAMS, INC.

Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Charles T. Higgins. I am president of the National Association of Sheltered Workshops & Homebound Programs.

This organization represents the personnel and boards of 300 workshops throughout the country engaged in all types of rehabilitation and employment programs for handicapped people.

Before going further I want to thank the chairman and the members of the committee for this invitation to testify and to state further that the association deems itself privileged and honored to appear before such a distinguished body.

Mr. Chairman, before I go further I should like to request that a statement which has been prepared by Mr. P. J. Trevethan, executive vice president of the Goodwill Industries of America, Inc., be inserted into the record.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have that appear in full in the record at the conclusion of your statement.

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. And at this point may I state, Mr. Chairman, that Alabama, my own State, has more than 11 percent of all of the workshops and facilities for the disabled in the Nation. The CHAIRMAN. More than 11 percent?

Mr. HIGGINS. Yes. These facilities and workshops have been developed in our State to bridge the gap between unemployment and actual jobs.

Through the effective cooperation of our vocational rehabilitation service and the crippled children service and organizations such as I represent, the Alabama Society for Crippled Children and Adults, and the National Association for Retarded Children, and others, we have been able to develop these much-needed facilities. I might also add that certainly a lot, in fact, the majority of our work is done in make-do buildings. We certainly could take and use to an extreme advantage the matters which are proposed in this legislation concerning new construction. We need it very badly. We need it very badly, I repeat.

Mr. Chairman, the NASWHP strongly endorses this legislation and our comments will be general, although we would like to make some specific suggestions which we believe would further strengthen it. However, before doing this, for purposes of the record and general understanding I would like to describe the workshop program and some of the problems they face.

Workshops provide services to people who are too disabled to work in the competitive labor market. In general, they provide services to disabled persons whose work skills have never been developed or who have lost their skills through disuse or as a result of a physical or mental disability. The services provided in a workshop may include the following: Work evaluation, training, medical-psychological evaluations as related to specific job opportunities, social services, development of work tolerance and work conditioning, employment, personal adjustment and placement.

In addition to the rehabilitative services offered in the workshop an increasing number of workshops are providing long-term employment to an increasing number of individuals who because of the severity of their disability have virtually no hope of ever becoming a part of the regular labor force.

The workshop is unique because it uses work as a means of rehabilitating disabled persons. Because of the tremendous advances made in medicine and in techniques of rehabilitation there is a growing number of severely disabled persons who cannot compete in the open labor market, but who need employment opportunities such as are found in sheltered workshops. Sheltered workshops indeed offer a unique service to disabled people and are an essential factor and are an important link in the chain of rehabilitating severely disabled persons.

We certainly believe, as Mr. Whitten stated earlier, that consideration be given to expanding these programs. Let me state also that Alabama has led the way in providing special rehabilitation services to its blind, deaf, mentally retarded, and the severely physically handicapped. Each year more than 1,200 disabled adults in Alabama