The CHAIRMAN. Do you experience any difficulty at the present time in securing the necessary personnel? Mr. HIGGINS. It is in our rehabilitation facilities field. I think this is true across the Nation. We find difficulty in getting people with experience, such as workshop directors, occupational therapists and physical therapists but our workshops are somewhat different. We are very grateful, for example, that there are now two colleges that are providing training for this particular work, the University of San Francisco and the University of Wisconsin which began helping by providing an upgrading of our people and giving us better people as a result of this training. Also, there have been several institutes held across the country which are continuing institutes which are helping to broaden the base and the qualities of the leadership in our workshop field particularly. The CHAIRMAN. I wish that you would submit for the record the organizations that are sponsors of the majority of the workshops throughout the country. Can you supply that for the record? You may do it after you get home. Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, sir. I believe that I could be mistaken but I would believe that the Goodwill Industries of America is, perhaps the largest in number of workshops throughout the country today. I think that their number is approximately approaching 130 workshops across the Nation and in foreign countries, too. (The information requested follows:) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHELTERED WORKSHOPS Hon. LISTER HILL, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. AND HOMEBOUND PROGRAMS, INC., DEAR SENATOR HILL: As requested by you at the recent hearings held on S. 1525, we are pleased to submit the following information for the record: The following organizations either sponsor or have workshops affiliated with them: 1. Goodwill Industries has 128 affiliated workshops. 2. The National Association for Retarded Children support 200 workshops. 3. United Cerebral Palsy supports 100 workshops. 4. The Society for Crippled Children has 36 affiliated workshops. 5. National Industries for the Blind has 65 affiliated workshops. 6. Jewish Vocational Service has 17 affiliated workshops. We trust that this information is sufficient to complete the records of the committee. If you are in need of additional information, we shall be delighted to furnish you with additional details. Thank you again for the privilege of testifying before your committee in behalf of this much-needed legislation. Sincerely yours, ANTONIO C. SUAZO, Executive Director. The CHAIRMAN. Well, gentlemen, we certainly want to thank you. You have been most helpful. We appreciate it. You have offered some splendid testimony. We certainly thank you. Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you. Mr. SUAZO. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mrs. Fitzhugh Boggs, chairman of the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the National Association for Retarded Children, Inc., who is also a member of the President's Panel on Mental Retardation. You have been with us before. We are very happy to have you with us today.. STATEMENT OF MRS. FITZHUGH BOGGS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN, INC.; ACCOMPANIED BY HARRY BLANK, ASSISTANT ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS Mrs. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman and members of subcommittee, I present the greetings of our president, Dr. Cobb, who looks forward to an opportunity to appear personally before you at some future occasion but, unfortunately, was not able to be present today, and, also, I would like to present Mr. Harry Blank, a member of our staff who works with me on these matters. The Chairman, It is nice to have you all here. Mrs. BOGGS. The National Association for Retarded Children, as you know, is a nationwide organization which has over 1,000 local associations, constituent units, which are distributed in all of the 50 States of the Union. We wish to address ourselves particularly to the implications for the mentally retarded in the legislation before you, which implications we think are very far reaching and very significant. The contributions of vocational rehabilitation and the State-Federal programs to the comprehensive program for the mentally retarded as developed over the past decade have been very important ones and we appreciate the support which you have given personally, both in this committee and in the Committee on Appropriations, in bringing this about. We recognize also that the needs of the mentally retarded are best served when there is progress on a broad front, but I think that you will understand that we direct our attention, primarily, to those provisions which we think have the greatest significance for the group in which we have a special interest. First of all, there is the provision relating to extended evaluation. We appreciate not only that the Federal percentage, the Federal share of the proposed program would be larger, but we appreciate particularly the provisions for extending the time of the evaluation for mentally retarded persons. We still do not know really how to assess the potential of many of the mentally retarded and in many cases it is necessary to observe them in a job-simulating situation over a period of time and to see what can be done to remove the adverse motivations that in many cases affect potential outcome. I would like to say also that if this section is to have its full effect as an incentive to the States and those providing services it will be necessary for it to have generous support in terms of appropriations and an adequate allotment base, but I think that you understand that mechanism very well. The provisions for workshops seems particularly hopeful to us and promising. We directly or indirectly sponsor about 200 workshops around the the country. Not all of them are operated by our association, by any means, but we have had an active role in organizing them and continue to offer support in many instances. We are pleased with the provisions included for the construction of living quarters for mentally retarded clients who are being rehabilitated in workshops and we are very pleased with the provisions for improving the workshop services. In this connection, however, I 45-602-65--9 want to point out that the need for improvement implies that things did not get off to a very good start, and it is for this reason that we would urge this committee most earnestly to consider the need for initial staffing funds for workshops when they are being established, regardless of how the workshop is housed or who pays for the housing. Let me give you a couple of examples. In my own State a workshop has recently been in the process of being organized under considerable difficulty. Housing was, in fact, no problem because a large industrial concern made available a very suitable building which had been an employee club, but the financial difficulty in securing a staff of appropriate competence and versatility at the outset of the operation has been a real handicap and has resulted in the program, as it is established, being on the thin edge so far as meriting continuing support under the basic program. Therefore we would strongly urge the elimination of the clause which reads "in which a grant for a construction project has been made under this section" in lines 14 to 16 on page 9 of the bill. This, we think, would make quite a bit of difference. The CHAIRMAN. It would make a substantial difference? Mrs. BOGGS. I think that it would, Senator. The time when the workshop needs staffing money is when it is established, regardless of how it happens to be housed. And I would go even further and say that in many instances it would be better if the construction were postponed until after the people who had organized the workshop had some initial experience. And I am not inferring that they are not qualified but, rather that experience in a particular locality helps: those responsible to determine the nature of the most suitable work and the extent and the demand for services in that locality. I believe that many of the requests for construction funds will come from organizations which have initially established workshops and which now understand very fully their needs for support for construction. We do not think that the particularly favorable provisions, in the bill, for initial staffing should be limited to facilities which are constructed with Federal funds. We are pleased, of course, with the proposal authorizing a center for information storage and retrieval relative to rehabilitation. We have a special request to make to you in connection with the use of the term "physically handicapped." We understand very well that the term "physically handicapped" in the existing act, and in the proposed bill is very well defined to include the mentally handicapped, but we find that there is consistent confusion on this subject. We are constantly having to explain that the retarded are not being discriminated against because of the language of the legislation. We would respectfully request that some attention be given to the feasibility of correcting this particular defect. And in that connection we call to your attention the need for an act of Congress to change the name of "National Employ the Physically Handicapped Week," which was established as an official observance by act of Congress whose title cannot be changed by any administrative action. The President, as you know, recently changed the name of the Committee so that we are now the Committee on Employment of the Handicapped and its efforts on behalf of both the physically and the mentally handicapped go forward hand in hand. It is possible that perhaps you might include such an amendment relative to the "Week" in this current bill or perhaps you would consider a separate piece of legislation. Those are the main points. We have a prepared statement which I hope might be entered in the record. Senator KENNEDY of New York. I did not understand what you want changed-you mean to eliminate the word "physically"? Mrs. BOGGS. We do with respect to the word "physically," yes. In the definition portion of the present act that is on the books it states that "physically handicapped individual" means a physically or mentally disabled individual and so forth, and the term "physically handicapped" is so used throughout the existing legislation and in several sections of this bill. We know that this includes the mentally retarded and the mentally restored. There is no question so far as the administration of the act is concerned. The mentally handicapped are included. We have not suffered any discrimination on that account but we do find continued difficulty in interpreting this to people who read the bill. We have had people look at the new legislation and say, "Oh, they are leaving us out-leaving the mentally retarded out." The CHAIRMAN. The basic act states that the term "physically" means any individual who is not only physically but mentally handicapped; is that correct? Mrs. BOGGS. That is correct. We are under no illusions ourselves about the applicability of this legislation but we are constantly encountering misunderstandings on the part of the public. Senator KENNEDY of New York. Do you have any specific suggestions about that? Mrs. BOGGS. We would suggest that the definition be changed so that the word "handicapped" individual is used to mean what "physically handicapped" now means, and that that same change be made throughout the existing legislation, where the term "physically handicapped" occurs. There is no place in the act or the bill that I know of where the term "physically handicapped" has a meaning other than "physically and mentally handicapped." So it just seems as though one could remove that word "physically" and have the definition revised accordingly and there would no longer be this confusion. The other specific change that I mentioned referred to the deletion of the terminology in lines 14-16 on page 9, but I think that you got that. While we are suggesting some of these changes, regardless of that fact, we are very much encouraged about this proposal and are very enthusiastic in our support of the package which we think has been very carefuuly considered and worked out. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything that you would like to add, Mr. Blank? Mr. BLANK. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Let us go off the record. (Discussion off the record.) The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record. Mrs. Boggs. We do have a prepared statement, Senator Hill, which I did not read in full which I should like to have included in the record. The CHAIRMAN. We will have that appear in the record. (The prepared statement of Mrs. Fitzhugh W. Boggs follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF MRS. FITZHUGH W. BOGGS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHIL DREN, INC. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a distinct honor to present to this distinguished subcommittee the views of the National Association for Retarded Children on the proposed amendments to the Vocational Rehabilita tion Act, S. 1525. We welcome the major improvements proposed in these amendments and wish to state at the outset our approval and support for the changes and extension proposed in this bill. These advances are of special concern to those of us wh have pressed for many years for the establishment of programs and facilitie which would provide training leading toward remunerative employment for th mentally retarded. Of the over 100,000 mentally retarded youths reaching th age of 18 each year, we estimate at least 85,000 are good prospects for competitiv or for sheltered employment, if the right kind of preparatory and transitions services are made available. In addition, at least an equal number are now i the age group 20 to 44 and have the potential to utilize rehabilitation and place ment services. The experience of the past 10 years demonstrates conclusively, we believe, tha the specialized services and approaches which make up a comprehensive program for the mentally retarded can be supplied within the broad framework of agencie providing more generalized services to a larger clientele. The State-Federa rehabilitation program exemplifies this fact. It has demonstrated that, give clear objectives and goals, there is a minimal need for the segregation of fund and the establishment of overly specialized programs. There are, of course, certain modes of approach and certain techniques require for most effective work with any particular handicap. Just as readers are supplie for blind university students, so are there measures particularly adapted to th training needs of the mentally retarded. For example, experience has show that the mentally retarded client may require a longer period of evaluation whic makes possible more consistent observation of the trainee and his performance i a practical situation. The provisions of section 2 of S. 1525 address themselve to this need. Another instrumentality which has demonstrated its value in a striking fashio over the past 10 years is the sheltered workshop. We note with particular en thusiasm the several provisions of the bill which support the services in and con struction of sheltered workshops. We have a recommendation to make later o the "staffing" provision (sec. 13(f)). (See item 6 below.) We wish to make particular note, also, of the other provisions of section 3 the bill pointed toward the improvement in the quality of sheltered workshop In our view, similar advantages will result from the proposals of section 5, parti ularly that which will permit the States to undertake both comprehensive an specific planning for vocational rehabilitation services. We would like to call to your attention a few provisions of the present act an of the proposed amendments on which we wish to suggest to the committee th necessity for further study or for immediate change. 1. We believe that it is time to review the equity of existing Federal formul grants to the States generally. Since this will take time, we do not propose the the burden of reform should fall on this overdue legislation. Programs admin istered by four major Health, Education, and Welfare agencies are involved. I rehabilitation it is the present formula support under section 2 of the act whic provides varying amounts to the States and also requires varying percentage of matching by the States within these formula grants. The fact is that State with a higher per capita income are penalized, both on the matching and on th allotment, after having contributed proportionately more in taxes to the Feder kitty. No account is taken of the fact that costs of services and of constructio are, in general, higher in such States. It appears that S. 1525 incorporate similar biases with respect to support for the construction of workshops. Th difficulties resulting from these and similar provisions as, for example, under th Public Health Service Act, are such that we believe that the time has come t review the whole matter of formula grants and allotments to the States. W believe revisionary action should follow at a later date. 2. We believe that a certain general consistency between different Feder programs should be fostered. We do not believe that Federal participation i |