The Urgent Need for Funding in Order to Proceed with Construction of the National Center 11 Letter from Regional Engineer, dated April 17, 1972, outlining actions taken at a meeting held April 11, 1972, with summary of costs and authorization for action to be taken 14 Chronology 16 CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR DEAF-BLIND YOUTHS AND ADULTS HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Briefly stated, the idea of the National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults grew out of several movements in relation to deaf-blind persons which were sponsored by the Social and Rehabilitation Service of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The most important of these was Project No. RD 1004S, a sever-year project that provided services to deafblind persons in Regions I, II, and III (HEW), primarily along the Northeast coast of the United States, but was not strictly limited to this area. It demonstrated clearly the need for a national program for deaf-blind persons, which ultimately led to special legislation that created two separate programs the Centers and Services for Deaf-Blind Children under the U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, which provides services through ten regional areas of the United States for the training and education of deaf-blind children. Separate legislation was provided for deaf-blind youths and adults, with national headquarters to be located in Sands Point, L.I., N.Y., and it is operated by The Industrial Home for the Blind. The legislation for each of these programs was developed in 1966, and the law creating the National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults was signed on October 3, 1967 (PL 90-99), while the law creating the Centers and Services for Deaf-Blind Children was signed on January 2, 1968 (PL 90-247). The original legislation relative to deaf-blind youths and adults provided for a main facility with three additional satellites at different points in the United States. The satellite phase was deleted by the Senate, and the permanent National Center was provided for, with four regional -2 offices in different parts of the United States. Three of these are presently operating in Glendale, California; Atlanta, Georgia; and Chicago, Illinois; and a fourth is planned for an Eastern city, possibly Philadelphia. REGISTER At the time the legislation was projected there was no accurate estimate of the number of deaf-blind persons in the United States. In the intervening years, a better estimate has been developed, with some 4,600 children identified as presumed deaf-blind, and more than 5,000 youths and adults, making a total of approximately 10,000 deaf-blind persons in the United States. Plans are under way between the National Center and the U.S. Office of Education for developing a plan for an unduplicated register of deaf-blind children, youths, and adults. These figures will never be accurate until adequate services are available. make these services available for deaf-blind youths and adults is the ob jective of this testimony. То PROGRAM AND CONSTRUCTION PROJECTIONS At the time of the consideration of the legislation we were asked to make a guess as to how much money would be needed for program and for capital funds. The first three years of the programming was set at $600,000., and the fourth year at $750,000. It was not, of course, possible to project anything in the way of an accurate figure for the construction of the permanent facilities because at that time we did not have the land and the legislation itself was only projected, but -3 the figure of $2.5 million was suggested as a starting point. In the legislative hearings we pointed out the need for additional funds for the permanent facilities. Our first concept of a design for a facility to house rehabilitation and research services for deaf-blind persons was developed in 1967. It was so greatly influenced by a preoccupation with economy of construction that, aside from containing residential accommodations for up to fifty trainees, it could offer little more than our present temporary facility offers. It would have perpetuated a major dependence on the IHB Rehabilitation Center. It lacked flexibility to accommodate the changes in services that grow out of continuing experience and research; and it would have provided a highly institutionalized living environment. It consisted of a single structure for the housing of all residence, rehabilitation, research, and administration. We soon realized that a single structure to house all of the functions of the headquarters of the National Center would be an excessively large structure. We recognized that providing residential and all training activities in a single building was not conducive to a normal pattern of living. People typically leave their places of residence to go about their work, regardless of whether that work is employment, study, training, or almost any other undertaking. Accordingly, we changed our concept of suitable permanent facilities for the National Center and designed one structure for residence and another structure for training, research, and administration, set sufficiently apart without connecting covered walks |