#3

dealing with the many thousands of welfare recipients who can profit from rehabilitation services. If this section were funded, and funded adequately, many such persons could be properly evaluated and placed in employment. With the Administration's priority on rehabilitation of the welfare recipients, it is a tragic irony that this Section of the Act has not been funded. This is false economy. The authorization of $50 million for FY 1973, $75 million for FY 1974, and $100 million for FY 1975 is reflective of the needs in this area.

We also strongly endorse Title III of the bill which would authorize grants to support the provision of comprehensive services to the severely handicapped. We applaud the House Committee Report on H.R. 8395 in that it directs that RSA give priority to services to those who are severely physically and mentally handicapped, and Title III stresses this objective. The most important feature of Title III is its authority to provide needed rehabilitation services to those so severely disabled that a vocational goal may not appear possible. These handicapped citizens could benefit to the extent of improving their ability to function more independently in their homes or communities--and should not be denied essential rehabilitation services as they are under the current Act. We have also learned that many who receive such "independent living" services are later able to enter vocational evaluation and employment does become a possibility.

Related to the intent of Title III in serving the severely disabled is the establishment of National Centers for Spinal Cord Injuries. We give strong support for this provision since it would allow development of services for one of the most neglected groups among those severely disabled. We are concerned, however, about an apparent inconsistency in the House bill which might limit these services to strictly vocational rehabilitation. It is essential that services in Centers for Spinal Cord Injuries include such early treatment as emergency evacuation,

79-88572 - pt. 2 - 40

acute care and total rehabilitation management. We would support any language changes in the Act to make it clear that these services are intended and that no interpretation could be made to restrict services to vocational rehabilitation as

now stated in H. R. 8395.

Mr. Chairman, while our organization strongly supports the thrust of this legislation, and particularly those items I have referenced, it is to several portions of Title IV of this bill that we have given detailed study. This is primarily because IARF represents the rehabilitation facilities movement and, as such, we believe has particular competence in evaluating those sections of the bill which pertain to the development and improvement of facilities. Therefore, we have focused our attention on Title IV of the bill and with the involvement of our mem

bers and Board, have identified a number of specific improvements which can,

First, we strongly support the provision of grant funds for facility construction and improvement. Considering the marginal financial position of nonprofit rehabilitation facilities, such grant funds are highly preferable to those Sections of H. R. 8395 which provide for mortgage insurance and interest grants

on loans for construction.

However, if the current policy of limited construction grants continues

(and next year's Administration budget recommends no funds for facility construction grants) then we certainly favor the inclusion in H. R. 8395 of provisions for mortgage insurance and interest grants. To make these two sections more workable and meaningful, we will suggest several changes in amendment form at the close of our testimony for your consideration.

Justification and documented need for facility construction and improvement are readily available. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has published a monograph entitled, "Rehabilitation Facility Needs in the '70s." This reports the results of a nationwide survey of need for construction and improvement of rehabilitation facilities, both immediate and long range. The survey was conducted in each State by the Vocational Rehabilitation Agency which utilizes these facilities in providing services to the handicapped and determined that 1,829 new rehabilitation facilities, including 584 sheltered workshops, are needed immediately. The estimated Federal funds needed for this are over $282 million. 1,130 existing facilities have known improvement needs (i.e., staff, equipment, technical consultation) and estimated Federal funds needed for this improvement are over $41 million. Since this study was completed, new legislation makes construction and improvement even more essential.

In 1971 the Congress passed legislation to amend the Wagner-O'Day Act, which will give government contract bidding priority on certain goods and services to workshops serving the blind and other severely disabled. Without the means to upgrade their present capabilities, these workshops cannot extend their services to more disabled, which was the intent of the law.

With a view toward making the programs contained in Title IV more effective

and responsive to the need for rehabilitation facilities, we wish to propose a number of changes. We have prepared these in amendment form and wish to submit them for your consideration. I will summarize them briefly.

1. The bill authorizes funds for grants for construction and equipment of

rehabilitation facilities and for project improvement grants; however, the

#5

authorization contained in Section 402 of $35,000,000 for Fy 1973, $45,000,000 for FY 1974, and $55,000,000 for FY 1975 should be increased substantially. These authorizations are considerably below those in the current Act. This reduction appears to stem from the fact that the authorization for construction grants (Section 12 in the current law) and the authorizations for facility improvement grants (Section 13 in the current law) were combined in H.R. 8395, but without an appropriate adjustment in the consolidated authorization. Accordingly, it is proposed that the authorizations in Section 402 be increased to $60,000,000 for FY 1973, $70,000,000 for FY 1974, and $80,000,000 for FY 1975. It should be noted that the authorizations in Sections 12 and 13 for

FY 1972 total $60,000,000. While the budget for FY 1973 contains only $13,000,000 for these programs, it is essential that new legislation from the Congress establish authorizations which are more reflective of the rehabilitation facility needs in the country and are at least at the current level of auth

orization.

2. We suggest that the authorization for technical assistance be shifted from Section 403, Administration, to Section 408, Rehabilitation Facility Improvement. The provision of technical assistance is a program function

rather than an administrative function and should be so identified. The

provision of a separate authorization for technical assistance will facilitate an identified appropriation for this very important purpose.

3. We suggest amendment of Section 408(b) to permit Rehabilitation Facility Improvement Grants to be made to entities composed of, or representing, rehabilitation facilities. Amendments to the Wagner-O'Day Act in 1971 extended the special priority in the sale of certain products and services to the Federal

Government, previously reserved for the blind, to other severely handicapped workers in sheltered workshops. It is anticipated that realization of the opportunities thus afforded will require joint ventures, pooling agreements, and a variety of other new arrangements among workshops to develop the required capacity. Addition of the proposed language would permit facility improvement grants to be made where appropriate to such entities.

4.

We suggest amendment of the mortgage insurance program to permit its

use of acquisition of existing buildings and to limit its application to projects sponsored by public and nonprofit agencies. While the definition of "construction" in Section 405(i)(1) includes the acquisition, expansion, remodeling, and renovation of existing buildings, the use of the word "new" in Section 406(d) seems to restrict the mortgage insurance program to the construction of new buildings. Deletion of the word "new" would have the effect of authorizing the Secretary to insure mortgages, the proceeds of which were used to acquire, expand, remodel, alter, renovate, and equip existing buildings. Many rehabilitation facilities are located in older buildings, and it is desirable to permit the acquisition of buildings which may be utilized at present on a rental basis or permit the acquisition of older, but serviceable buildings at lower costs than would be required by new construction.

Insertion of language to establish public and nonprofit sponsors as eligible would conform the mortgage insurance program to the grant programs under Sections 405 and 407.

Reference to the definition of a "rehabilitation facility" which appears in Section 106(c) is suggested because there is no definition of a "multipurpose rehabilitation facility" contained in the bill.

#7