Senator HUGHES. Senator Dominick?

Senator DOMINICK. Mr. Olson, in title VII, the bill refers to project grants to the States. Do you feel there is any need to change this to a formula grant, or adding on formula grants, saying that each State is entitled to a certain amount, based on a formula?

Mr. OLSON. The notion of a formula grant with authority by the State to allocate between various categories of needs would be helpful.

I frankly could live with either provision. I believe that the position of the Government and the governors generally has been that where categorical grants are developed, they should be as broad as possible.

Senator DOMINICK. As you well know our Governor is chairman of your National Governors Conference so it is a pleasure to have you here.

I did want to get your input on that question, and I gather that your answer is that formula grants would be helpful.

If so, do you have any suggestions for the record on how that formula might be developed?

Mr. OLSON. Because of the inadequacy of data as to the volume of drug abuse, that usually puts you back into relating to a distribution of population. I think that is the only acceptable basis that could be developed in this kind of situation.

You might want to consider a floor or a minimum payment to any given State, with the balance of distribution based on population above that.

The reason I don't particularly object at this point to the project grant approach is that the States vary considerably as to what their interests are in the drug field. It may be competition among the States for certain funds would be helpful. We don't feel it in Utah. I think the Governors conference program would be more adaptable to a formula grant application.

Senator DOMINICK. Colorado has people who come in, most of them from California, where the problem is acute. They keep coming into Colorado really substantially increasing the problems that are already there from our own local situation. The population level varies so some kind of a formula grant based only on a level of population isn't going to suit us as far as that is concerned, and I doubt if it would as far as Utah is concerned, either.

If we were going to do specific authorizations in this bill, what authorization level-in other words, how much money are we talking about what the States could actually put to use for these programs?

Mr. OLSON. I could only make a guess, and I prefer not to do that. What I would suggest is that the national Governors' conference could probably provide to you some type of estimate, and we would be happy to work that out.

Senator DOMINICK. I think this would be helpful if you could supply that for the record.

Mr. JENSEN. I might add on that that there is a great deal of difference between the States on that. I believe it is $80 million in New York State that the State has allocated for drug and narcotics problems, and another State, $35,000, just getting started in the program. I think we should add, as Mr. Olson indicated, the survey being done by the Government, on what States are doing in this area in

dicates a great deal of new legislation at the State level and a great deal of activity in the last 6 months. I did a survey on the legislation passed in the House, H.R. 9312, and it indicated very little activity as of now.

Trying to keep up with the States are doing in a survey is a problem now. In fact, we are being surveyed to death.

Senator DOMINICK. Either one of you gentlemen may be able to give me your comments on this.

In section 701, the bill adds to the requirements for State plans for State comprehensive health planning a detailed requirement that the plan provide services for the prevention and treatment of drug abuse and drug dependence.

What problem is this going to create amongst the various States in that, in the Partnership for Health Act and a variety of others, we try to get away from categorical grants so that the State can use the money wherever their need is greatest?

Mr. OLSON. That particular section of the act is generally a list of administrative requirements that the health planning agency must agree to and abide by before receiving the actual grant for health planning.

It relates to an application requiring them to put into that particular section of the act requirement for a fairly detailed drug abuse program. I think it is probably not the right place. I think the requirement, however, must be made at some point.

Senator DOMINICK. You mean the provision is misplaced?

Mr. OLSON. That is correct. But I think the requirement must be made in order to qualify for and receive funds relative to a drug abuse program that evidence must be submitted of a reasonable comprehensiveness of approach. It would do little good to continue to fragment the delivery system.

Senator DOMINICK. In other words, instead of putting it into an overall planning program, we could restrict this to the project plan specifically with regard to drug abuse and drug dependence?

Mr. OLSON. Provided you continue to maintain a broad comprehensive definition of drug abuse.

Senator DOMINICK. Section 702(a) of the present bill amends section 603 (a) of the Public Health Service Act, requiring the HEW regulations under the Hill-Burton program to give special consideration for construction and modernization of facilities for prevention and treatment of drug abuse and drug dependency.

Now, section 603 (a) presently doesn't try to dictate where special emphasis should be put. Section 207 of the Community Mental Health Centers Act in fact forbids construction grants for facilities under Hill-Burton unless funds are not available under the Community Mental Health Center Act.

So, we would seem to be going against the tenor of that and putting it into the other bill.

Do you feel we should modify this provision?

Mr. OLSON. I can give a personal opinion. My feeling is that the emphasis on construction should relate generally to the community mental health center program, and that is where the funding assistance really, I think, is needed at this point.

42-424 0-70-pt. 2- -8

However, it should be pointed out that there are also needs for other facilities. In Utah, for example, we intend the construction or acquisition of several neighborhood-oriented crises intervention centers. They will not provide extensive treatment. They will not attempt to provide continuing community-based treatment.

I can only say that my own view is that the focus ought to be on construction authorization by the community mental health centers which are being established throughout the country.

Senator DOMINICK. Should we, in this bill, require that under the Hill-Burton program special emphasis be given to this particular problem, drug abuse and drug dependence?

Mr. OLSON. I think it is not necessary, Senator.

Senator DOMINICK. Thank you.

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.

Senator HUGHES. I want to say, Mr. Olson, that in the Hill-Burton Act, we had a clause that stated they could not refuse treatment to an alcoholic patient. Wouldn't you agree that the same thing should be true of the drug abusers?

Mr. OLSON. Yes. I think the primary focus of treatment for individuals who are either alcoholics or drug abusers should be based on a community-based type of activity, but where they require institutional care, I think that a Hill-Burton facility should treat those

persons.

Senator HUGHES. If there is anything additional you think might be helpful to us, or if you do get the additional information you mentioned from the Governors Council, please supply it to the subcommittee at as early a date as possible. It will be helpful as we consider this legislation.

I want to thank you both for your patience. It has been a long morning, and your contribution will be beneficial to us.

Thank you both very much.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.)

FEDERAL DRUG ABUSE AND DRUG DEPENDENCE PREVENTION, TREATMENT, AND REHABILITATION ACT OF 1970

MONDAY, APRIL 13, 1970

U.S. SENATE,

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON ALCOHOLISM AND NARCOTICS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:45 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Harold E. Hughes (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Hughes (presiding) and Dominick.

Staff members present: Wade Clarke, majority counsel; Richard J. Spelts, minority counsel; and Jay Cutler, minority counsel.

Senator HUGHES. The Subcommittee on Alcoholism and Narcotics will come to order.

Dr. Robert L. Dupont has withdrawn as a witness this morning, so the Chair calls Colonel Hassan. If any of your aides are necessary to your testimony, feel free to bring them to the table with you. Colonel HASSAN. That is all right, sir; thank you.

Senator HUGHES. Colonel Hassan, you may proceed with your statement as you desire.

STATEMENT OF COL. HASSAN JERU-AHMED, DIRECTOR, BLACKMAN'S DEVELOPMENT CENTER, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Colonel HASSAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Col. Hassan Jeru-Ahmed. I am the commanding officer of Blackman's Volunteer Army of Liberation. I am also the director of Blackman's Development Center. Blackman's Development Center has created a drug cure program. Since May 15, 1969, the Blackman's Development Center community-based drug cure program has been having a highly significant impact on the drug problem in the District of Columbia, and has registered approximately 13,000 drug users since inception. Our headquarters is located at 6406 Georgia Avenue NW. And it provides spacious quarters for many phases of the comprehensive services extended to the drug users involved in the program.

Blackman's Development Center did not start out as a drug-related or oriented activity. In our attempt to reach out into the community and provide opportunity for individuals who were underemployed, overutilized, unemployed, and who had fallen between the cracks of existing welfare, health, education, employment, and other existing

(505)

"resources," and had become infested with a sense of despair and hopelessness, and who were generally abandoned by society, the concept of the drug cure center was implemented. The aim is to provide the basis for a new, meaningful, and productive life through developing the varying potentials of individuals so motivated to avail themselves of the opportunities to be found at the centers.

Significantly, the influx of users of various kinds of drugs, and in varying degrees of entrapment appeared, spontaneously as it were, to pose a major challenge to Blackman's Development Center's staff. The question of whether to turn our backs on these individuals and, in so doing, renege on our promises to help anyone who came for assistance, or to face forthwith the challenge, was the issue. The decision is now history. The full resource structure of Blackman's Volunteer Army of Liberation was mobilized; the issue was enjoined.

Despite the overwhelming odds of such an operation succeeding, and in many instances deliberate attempts to sabotage the efforts by various segments of the establishment, and outright physical attacks, arson included, drug users rallied to the program in unbelievable numbers. The down and out, the suburbanite, and many others from walks of life one finds almost incredible. No one was, or is, turned away. Socioeconomic, cultural, ethnic, and other artificial barriers were never considered as deterrents to service. Drug addiction knows none of these barriers. The drug program which is oriented toward cure as opposed to maintenance (methadone is used in limited strengths so as to alleviate the pain of withdrawal only) subsequently became a primary activity of the center.

To support the curative aspects of the program, users were given the opportunity to become involved in rehabilitation services geared to develop skills in one or more areas of endeavor. Intensive counseling, remedial education, training in all of the building trades, music, arts, employment services, et cetera, are among services provided to the drug users, and others, during withdrawal, and for sustained periods of time once involvement occurs. Additionally, withdrawal supervision, medication supervision, recordskeeping, and general administrative services are provided. Such services come from approximately 75 male and 25 female volunteers, along with the staff officers of Blackman's Volunteer Army of Liberation. These services form the core, the heart of the program. The intensity of the services, the vast amount of the time spent with each individual drug user during withdrawal and until such time as he can stand alone, the depth of support on an individual basis can only be provided through this type of organizational structure, use of paraprofessionals and volunteers as assembled and utilized in Blackman's Development Center's drug cure program. The apparent success of the program is perhaps best manifested in terms of traditional criteria, by the utilization of the center by the court of general sessions as a third-party custody release agency, approximately 300 such releases have been effected within the past 4 months. Of the 300, not more than six persons have failed to appear on date specified.

Staff of the Center have been engaged in consultation and education services to the community at large, but particularly to the public schools, church, and civic groups. There are many other volunteers