6

The National Center, by working closely with public

and private agencies, could give impetus to the rehabilitation

of these people so long neglected.

The President's Committee strongly endorses the

propsed National Center for the Homebound. It is long overdue.

Fourth and finally, we should like to see a provision

in the act for a system of Federal payments supplementing the incomes that certain handicapped people in sheltered workshops are able to earn by their own efforts.

These, of course, are people whose productivity is

so low, because of their disabilities, that they cannot hope to earn anything near the minimum wage. Yet we know we cannot stop there and claim we have done all we can for them. Their expenses of living go on, the same as ours. for the minimums of life go on, the same as ours. Perhaps their needs are greater than ours, because of their

disabilities.

Their needs

It is time that America recognized their needs, and supplemented their incomes to bring their wages up to

existing minimums. These levels, I might point out, are not far from the poverty levels for our country.

- 7

of course, there would have to be safeguards. These handicapped people would have to be in an "employee" status

in the workshop, rather than a "trainee" status. They would have to be employed full-time. Certification would have to

be made that they are producing at their highest level of skill and earning power. They would have to be reviewed periodically regarding their potential for outside employment.

Along with such a program would come national recognition of a right to live a halfway decent life right to have a roof over your head and bread to eat.

These, then, are my four suggestions for the

-

funding of Governors'

Committees on Employment of the Handicapped; removal of the ceiling on expenditures of the President's Committee; a

Sational Center for the Homebound; a system of wage

supplements for severely handicapped persons in workshops.

Thank you for your attention.

6/1972

Senator CRANSTON. We now have a panel of witnesses composed of Ed Carney, board of directors, Council of Organizations Serving the Deaf, accompanied by John T. Crandall, special assistant for legislation; Joy York, administrative secretary-interpreter; George Fellendorf, executive director, Alexander Graham Bell Association of the Deaf; and Willis Man, assistant to the executive secretary, National Association of the Deaf.

I appreciate very much your appearing as a panel, which makes it easy for us to direct questions to you.

If it can be possible to summarize your prepared statement, the prepared statements will go into the record fully.

Mr. Carney, do you want to proceed?

STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. CARNEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COUNCIL OF ORGANIZATIONS SERVING THE DEAF, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN T. CRANDALL, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGISLATION; JOY YORK, ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY-INTERPRETER; GEORGE FELLENDORF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEAF; AND WILLIS MANN, ASSISTANT TO THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEAF

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am appreciative of the opportunity afforded me to appear before you today to discuss the vocational rehabilitation amendments of 1972 and legislation affecting the lives of handicapped people. The Council of Organizations Serving the Deaf is strongly consumer-oriented and is composed of 28 organizations whose activities are directly related to the vocational, social, educational, economic, and cultural advancement of deaf persons.

Included in the active members are every national organization of or for the deaf except one, and specifically includes the Professional Rehabilitation Workers With the Adult Deaf. Associate membership is open to groups not nationally organized but which in some manner are concerned with problems of deafness. Included among the latter are the Deafness Research Foundation, The National Grange, The National Rehabilitation Association, and New York University Deafness Research and Training Center.

Aggregate individual memberships represented by this Council exceed 800,000 professionals and laymen. Established in 1967, the Council has, as one of its prime functions, the responsibility of presenting a concensus of opinion from the deaf community to honorable bodies such as this whose activities can have profound and lasting effects on the lives of handicapped people.

Other witnesses undoubtedly already have, or later will, provide the members of this subcommittee with analysis in depth of those portions of the legislation under consideration with which they are most familiar. The Council will confine its testimony to matters related to the concerns of its members, but would first like to express its support generally, with the provisions of H.R. 8395. We are pleased that the legislation provides for the establishment of centers to assist low achieving deaf persons. However, we trust that the wording will be

revised to include a specific appropriation for these badly needed ties. As presently proposed, no specific amounts are authorized an past experience leads us to believe that unless the intent of the Congress is clearly defined in the laws, the ultimate decision as to what amounts of supportive funds may be necessary is made by persons not nearly as well informed as members of this subcommittee, and the programs suffer accordingly.

Without attempting to give details of our reasons other than that we are of the opinion they will greatly enhance the delivery of services to all handicapped persons, we especially support those features of the pending legislation which would provide for minimum allotments to States under title I, advance funding for all titles, and broadening the base of rehabilitative processes to include a number of handicapped groups not heretofore eligible for services. We join other groups in recommending that the appropriation authority for title III, Comprehensive Services for the Severely Handicapped, be increased to million for the first year, $80 million for the second year, and $100 milion for the third year.

We respectfully suggest that the Senate subcommittee give earnest consideration to restoring to this act the comprehensive phrasing of part B-Services to the Deaf-of title III as originally submitted to the House by Congressman Perkins on behalf of himself and 23 assocates. We have been distressed that the House Committee on Education and Labor saw fit to delete this part entirely. As consumers, we had anticipated that, for the first time in history, there would be comprehensive service programs and funds specifically earmarked for the amelioration of the complex problems of severe and profound deafness.

While provisions of many parts of the laws now under consideration will be of assistance to deaf persons in the routine carrying out of rehabilitation programs, historically the deaf have ended up with the "short end of the stick," as it were, when grouped with other handicapped clients of rehabilitation programs. Deafness is not a visible handicap and in consequence its inherent problems are less well understood. The frustrating communication barriers, along with other compiating factors, all too frequently have caused rehabilitation personnel to use available funds to assist clients who are less difficult to serve.

It may come as something of a surprise and shock to you to learn that there is no legal definition of deafness. There long has been a legal definition of blindness, and of course, with many other handicapping conditions the disability is readily perceptible to the observer. The serion we hope will be restored would require that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare promulgate regulations setting forth definitions to serve as a legal base in determining who shall be considered a deaf person.

Additionally, this deleted section set forth in precise detail never fore included in any type of legislation descriptions of the sundry types of services needed and to be provided for deaf persons. These ncluded diagnostic study to determine type and degree of hearing loss, Comprehensive evaluation of pertinent audiological, medical, psychological, social, and other factors bearing on the individual's handicap and rehabilitation potential. It lists in depth the services to the deaf

bearing on identification and referral for needed services, surgical or therapeutic treatment necessary to prevent, correct, or substantially modify hearing loss or other disabilities. Provision is made for many other needed services which customarily are overlooked by untrained rehabilitation personnel such as development of language and communicative skills, individual and family counseling, activities of daily living, interpreter services, and the provision of aids or materials to improve communication and independent living.

Current estimates of the number of deaf men and women in this country exceed 450,000. The word estimate is used advisedly for common census procedures do not permit the kind of search in depth that will yield the fine discriminations that separate those who are deaf from those who are hard of hearing. The latter number is in the millions. They have an entirely different set of problems which are treated by different procedures.

The hearing loss of deaf people is generally irreversible. It rarely yields to medical intervention such as drugs, surgery, or prosthesis but is amenable, in approximate proportion to their availability in quality and depth, to training and adjustment services. Persons who are hard of hearing, on the other hand, can almost always be helped medically. Deaf people must use their other senses to receive information while hard-of-hearing people can and do rely mostly upon their sense of hearing, however limited. Consequently, the hard-ofhearing population differs only in degree from the general population while deaf people stand apart psychologically and socially.

Many deaf people are without useful speech despite years of training. Many of them also have very limited language skills. They receive information mainly through their eyes. They impart information by combinations of signs, gestures, speech, and writing, although the large majority prefer signs between themselves and hearings persons who are masters of sign language. Most deaf people have normal strength, mobility, and intelligence and strive for achievement within the limits society sets in response to their serious communication inadequacies. This then is the handicapping base of their disability. It is primarily psychosocial. It manifests itself in many ways, each of which is in turn an important life problem of deaf people: underinvolvement in the main stream of community life; limited sharing with fellow men; lack of acceptance among family, neighbors, employers; severe underemployment, to mention a few.

Of especial importance were the requirements that State plans be developed in accordance with regulations set forth by the Secretary. The current wide difference in services to deaf persons between adjoining States would be significantly reduced. In no State is there currently an adequate vocational rehabilitation program for deaf clients. Some States have given special attention to the needs of their deaf population and their efforts are both commendable and appreciated. However, at best they are superficial in terms of the documented needs. They are reasonably effective with well-educated deaf persons but for the vast majority of deaf people, who function far below their native abilities for want of opportunity, meaningful services are not now provided. The legislation would insure an adequate minimal program for the deaf in every state and place a ceiling on none. States with proven agency interest and leadership could