Page images

Research and demonstration activities designed to improve the education of the handicapped are also extremely important and are authorized under this bill. The Bureau of Education for the Handicapped made awards totalling $8.1 million in fiscal year 1967 in the area of research, demonstrations and developmental activities. This program has made an effective contribution to the development of improved teaching techniques for the handicapped.

An attachment to this statement includes examples of research being carried on, as well as other information on educational programs made possible through this existing legislative authority. TRAINING AND RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS IN THE EDUCATION OF


Some of the major achievements of this program to date are as follows:

(1) Since this grant program begar, over 32,000 individual grants have been awarded for training in education of the handicapped.

(2) Since 1964 the number of participating colleges and universities, i.e.. colleges and universities receiving Federal funds to prepare teachers of the handicapped, has increased from 154 to 245. One hundred and thirty-six colleges and universities have been able to develop teacher training programs in the various areas of the handicapped through a program development grant ander the provisions of P.L. 88–164 as amended. “Program development grants," as the name suggests, are for the purpose of finanically assisting colleges and universities in the initial development or expansion of quality programs of teacher education. A major factor in the awarding of a program development grant for handicapped education is a strong geographical need for a teacher training program.

(3) All 50 States, District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are now actively participating in the grant program.

(1) Two follow-up studies conducted by the Office of Education show that over 92 percent of the fellowship and traineeship recipients under this program remain in, or go into, the field of education of the handicapped upon completion of their studies. By contrast, only 60 percent of general education majors who are qualified to teach actually do so after graduation.

(5) An estimated 175-200 participating colleges and universities have faculty members and teacher-trainers who are former grant recipients.

(6) Through special study institutes the grant program has brought new knowledge and techniques to thousands of on-the-job teachers of handicappel children. These institutes have been particularly beneficial to rural teachers who have not had ready access to college and university programs.

RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM During 1967 the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped invested $8.1 million in research, demonstration, and developmental activities designed to improve the education of handicapped children. The most significant grant provided $2 million for a comprehensive research and demonstration center for handicapped children to be constructed at Teachers College, Columbia l'niversity, New York City. The center will bring together leading researchers and educators who will dedicate their talents to the search for new techniques in education for the handicapped.

Other significant advances were made during the year. Researchers in Illinois found that deaf youngsters do not use vision effectively, possibly because of their heavy emphasis on speech and language development. A number of researchers are working on development of a typewriter for the blind that will work without keys or a keyboard. The University of Washington is experimenting with new teacher training techniques for emotionally disturbed children while the University of Texas is exploring the improved use of instructional materials. Yeshiva University in New York City is developing specialized curricula for the mentally retarded.

Applications for model special education components to complement the mental retardation university-affiliated facility will serve as prototypes for similar programs at such facilities. Such a program merges educational and medical efforts in a creative new partnership.

Of the $11.1 million requested for fiscal year 1968, approximately $2 million will develop and support eight or ten special purpose research programs. We hope to see research institutes attacking specific education problems in each area of the handicapped. Additional institutes will investigate major problem areas which affect more than a single category of handicapped children. We expect to invest $4 million in the support of research and demonstration projects with a high priority given to research relating to curricula and to newer media for the handicapped. Almost $1 million will be invested in research programs while $750,000 will develop research capabilities in settings where little or no research is now undertaken. Remaining funds will go to a variety of special projects such as our joint OE-SRS program for the deaf, and the Instructional Materials ('enter Program,

The CHAIRMAX. You may proceed, Senator Javits.



Senator Juits. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the committee is today also conducting hearings on my bill s. 389, the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act Amendments of 1967. I introduced this bill, with Senator Prouty, of Vermont as a cosponsor, on January 17 of this year, and ask that my introductory statement in the Senate appear in the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

The Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Fla., earlier this year adopted a resolution endorsing this bill. I ask unanimous consent that this resolution also appear in the record at the conclusion of my remarks.

I am pleased that section + of H.R. 6430, the House-passed bill, which provides for grants for staffing of community mental retardation facilities, is almost identical with S. 2836, which I had introduced in the last Congress on January 26, 1966.

Last year the Senate included in S. 3008 an amendment I sponsored to amend section 101 of the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 to permit the acquisition of land to be considered as an authorized cost of construction. Unfortunately, this provision was also lost in the House. However, it is my intention to introduce a similar amendment to H.R. 6430.

The mentally retarded can be educated to be useful citizens, self-supporting, and free of institutional care. This legislation will help to achieve this end and also to ease the terrible burden borne by the families of the retarded. Our aid to the mentally retarded can mean the difference between their being a whole human person and being an impersonal statistic in an institution. It is for this reason, Mr. Chairman, that I express my appreciation to the Chair for conducting this hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Without objection, the resolution of the Dade County, Fla., Board of County Commissioners, submitted by Senator Javits will appear in the record.

Senator Javits. I also want to put a copy of my letter addressed to Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare into the record reporting a matter brought to my attention by the New York State Association for Retarded Children.

The CHAIRMAN. We will put that in the record.
Senator Javits. As well as their response.
The CHAIRMAN. Both will be placed in the record.
(The material referred to follows:)

[From the Congressional Record, Jan. 17, 1967]

STAFFING OF MENTAL RETARDATION FACILITIES Mr. Javits. Mr. President, I introduce for myself and the Senator from Ver. mont (Mr. Prouty], the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health ('enters Construction Act Amendments of 1967 to provide Federal aid for the staffing of community mental retardation facilities.

This bill provides Federal matching grants up to 75 percent for staffing and operations of public and nonprofit private mental retardation facilities. Thus. this proposal would extend to facilities for the mentally retarded the same kind of Federal assistance that was authorized by the 89th Congress to meet initial staffing costs at community mental health centers and at sheltered workshops and rehabilitation facilities. After June 30, 1968, preference would be given to new or expanded services part of the cost of which is paid by State or local public funds.

The bill also amends present law to include the cost of acquiring sites as part of construction costs for community mental health centers and mental retardation facilities.

This measure is similar to the amendment I sponsored which was included in S. 3008, which passed the Senate on October 3, 1966, but unfortunately this provision was deleted by the House before the bill was sent to the President for signature into law. It has had the support of both the National Association for Retarded Children and the Council for Exceptional Children, the principal organizations in this field.

The bill authorizes an appropriation of $7 million for fiscal year 1968, $12 million for fiscal year 1969 and $15 million for each of fiscal years 1970 and 1971. These Federal funds must be used to supplement the level of State and local expenditures for mental retardation facility operations.

This measure is, in effect, an investment in rehabilitation. Mentally retarded children can be educated to be useful citizens, in many cases self-supporting, and in most instances to be free of the need for expensive institutional care. If adequately rehabilitated, between 75 percent to 85 percent of the mentally retarded can become self-supporting, and between 10 percent and 20 percent can become partially self-supporting: the remainder will remain completely dependent.

More important-and incapable of measurement—is the effect this rehabilitation will have on parents and family to whom the necessity for institutionalization is a shattering experience. And the meaning to the retarded themselves also cannot be measured in money—it is the difference between being a whole human person and being an impersonal statistic in an institution.

Three out of every 100 children born are destined to be mentally retarded. Mental retardation is the major cause of disability among the young adults, aged 21 to 35, who receive assistance under the Federal program for aid to the permanent and totally disabled.

While communities are spending more than $650 million annually for treatment, education, and training of the mentally retarded, these services fall short of the need for special training and care that is required. They require the staffing assistance provided by this bill.

The Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Centers Construction Act of 1963 would be further amended by the measure I introduce today to include the cost of acquiring sites as part of construction costs for mental health centers and mental retardation facilities. Experience has shown that the original act was not broad enough to cover critical situations, especially in urban areas where land is expensive and often difficult to obtain. In urban areas, this shortcoming represents a serious deterrent to the public and private agencies desiring to provide buildings for services. The provision to correct this situation follows the pattern of the amendment to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act adopted by the 89th Congress.

While recognizing that the matching formula in the present law is inadequate, I have refrained from including corrective language in my bill at this time. However, when this 90th Congress considers renewal of the present statute, it

is my intention to press in committee for reform of this and other inequitable allocation formulas. Under present law, the Federal share of construction projects varies from 3343 to 66% percent among the States. Thus, an organization or community with modest resources would receive the minimum Federal share if located in a high-income State and, conversely, a well-to do community or organization would receive the maximum Federal contribution if located in a lowincome State. This obviously is unfair and demands correction.

I urge all who are concerned with the well-being and rehabilitation of the mentally retarded to join in this effort to bring to these unfortunates the care and training they require and which, all too often, overburdened State, local and private agencies are unable to provide.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will be received and appropriately referred.

The bill (S. 389) to amend the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 to provide grants for costs of initiating services in community mental retardation facilities, introduced by Mr. Javits (for himself and Mr. Prouty), was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare.

(The text of S. 389 appears on p. 16.)


No. R-334-67



Whereas, the Honorable Senators Jacob K. Javits and Winston L. Prouty have proposed and introduced a bill in the United States Senate on January 17, 1967 under which Federal aid up to 75% of the cost of staffing and operating public or non-profit mental retardation care, treatment, education and training facilities; and

Whereas, local governments throughout the United States spend more than $650 million annually for the treatment, education and training of the mentally retarded; and

Whereas, the enactment of such proposed Federal legislation would be of great value to Dade County and to the citizens and residents of Dade County : Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, that the proposed legislation sponsored by the Honorable Senators Jacob K. Javits and Winston L. Prouty, to provide Federal aid for community programs and facilities designed to care for, treat, educate and train the mentally retarded, is hereby endorsed and approved in principle. The Clerk of this Board is directed to furnish certified copies of this Resolution to the Honorable Senators Spressard Holland, George Smathers, Jacob K. Javits and Winston L. Prouty, and to the Honorable Representatives Dante Fascell and Claude Pepper.

The foregoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Earl M. Starnes, who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Alexander S. Gordon, and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:

Joseph A. Boyd, Jr., Absent
Alexander S. Gordon, Aye
Harold A. Greene, Aye
R. Hardy Matheson, Absent
Thomas D. O'Malley, Absent
Arthur H. Patten, Jr., Aye
Earl M. Starnes, Aye
Lewis B. Whitworth, Absent

Chuck Hall, Aye The Mayor thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this 20th day of March, 1967.

By EDWARD D. PHELAN, Deputy Clerk.

[merged small][ocr errors]


Washington, D.C., October 4, 1967.
Seoretary, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Recently, one of the Chapters of the New York State Association for Retarded Children indicated its intention to apply for funds under P.L. 88–164 to augment its complex of services for the mentally retarded. The facility for which they intend to apply is a sheltered workshop which would be part of a complex that includes a clinic, counseling, school for pre-school, school-age and post-school age retarded youngsters, camping and recreation.

The organization was informed that a sheltered workshop must be erected on the ground of the general services for the mentally retarded being maintained by that organization. This statement is purported to be based on a ruling by counsel for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

I am informed by professional opinion in the field of mental retardation that the one facility which should not be part of a school, clinic, etc., is a sheltered workshop, which is vocational ind industrial in character. On the contrary, it is important that this be in an industrial part of town, to provide the retarded with a normal manner of work rather than tie them in with children forever to a "school” situation.

The State Plan in New York State, accepted by the Federal government, clearly states that a mental retardation center may be a complex of services, not necessarily centralized and, in fact, in many areas decentralized.

May I have clarification of this situation as such a ruling, if it exists, is contrary to the New York State Plan, is not contained in the Regulations for P.L. 88-164, and is contravened by all professional opinion I have been able to adduce. Sincerely,

JACOB K. JAVITS, U.S. Senator.



Washington, D.C., October 16, 1967. Hon. JACOB K. JAVITS, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR JAVITS : Your letter to Secretary Gardner dated October 4, 1967, regarding a proposed sheltered workshop for mentally retarded persons has been referred to me for reply.

You advise that one of the chapters of the New York State Association for Re tarded Children had indicated its intention to apply for funds under P.L. 88–164 (Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963) to construct a sheltered workshop which would be part of a complex offering many other services, but located at a different site. As a result the potential applicant was informed, on the basis of a “ruling" of counsel of this Department, that a sheltered workshop must be erected on the same site at which general services for the mentally retarded are provided.

There are certain limitations in P.L. 88–164 applicable to the construction of sheltered workshops which are not applicable to the construction of other facilities for the mentally retarded. Thus, the statute expressly provides for Federal assistance in the construction of a sheltered workshop "only if such workshops are part of facilities which provide or will provide comprehensive services for the mentally retarded.” After full consideration of the statute and the legislative history, and after advice from the Office of the General Counsel, we have concluded that a project for the construction of a sheltered workshop alone is not eligible where the applicant does not own or operate other facilities providing comprehensive services, even though the applicant might be able to enter into arrangements with other separately owned and administered facilities for access to such other facilities by patients in the sheltered workshop. We believe that the statutory requirement that the sheltered workshop be "part of facilities" providing comprehensive services, was intended to require more than that the workshop be part of a community program under which comprehensive services would be provided by independent and separate organizations. Congress has provided

« PreviousContinue »