But this is very close to your own field. I mean in these rehabilitation centers there are people who are injured, who are crippled, and if anything goes on there that it isn't either health or education, it would be very difficult to imagine how they exist at all. I can't conceive of a rehabilitation center being purely advisory. If it is, it shouldn't be so labeled. On the question of the blind, are the centers or schools operated differently because of the nature of the deficiency? I mean that education for the blind, of course, is a special field. Mr. GRAY. Senator, I might comment that to the best of my knowledge the blind schools are having no difficulty. Almost every State has laws providing for their approval or accreditation and the blind schools are receiving, or are eligible to receive surplus property. I don't think we have had any real problem with blind schools. That is quite a highly developed special school field. Senator GRUENING. Yes, it is. Dr. MACKIE. There are increasing numbers of children in day schools who will also be eligible. Special day school classes are very much on the increase for blind children. I believe that about half of the number now may be in day schools. We again will have statistics on this which we will be glad to supply at a future date for the subcommittee files. Senator GRUENING. They would be very useful. What about the children with limited vision, not totally blind, necessarily, but of sufficiently limited vision so that they are laboring under great handicaps? Is there some special provision for that? Dr. MACKIE. Yes. We will have statistics on the number of partially seeing children. They are mainly in day schools. I would like to supply for the record also some documents which I have with me, and I might like to mention one other place where a good many young people, mentally retarded, are getting some help. These children may not show up in our statistics because a number of high schools now are attempting to work out some kind of cooperative opportunities for work situations. We made a study with the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation and the American Association on Mental Deficiency on the opportunities for gainful employment for mentally retarded youth, and we identified some 50 school systems that have some kind of a work program. We will have a manuscript on this. It is now in the press, and we will be glad to make that available. This shows something of the way communities are cooperating to provide for these young people. (Additional statement of Dr. Mackie, later submitted for the record, is as follows:) SOME FACTS ON EDUCATION OF MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN AND YOUTH (By Romaine P. Mackie) There are estimated to be between 1 million and 1.5 million retarded children and youth of school age in the United States. The Office of Education is now compiling statistics on the numbers of mentally retarded children enrolled in special classes in the public day and public and private residential schools in the United States. The number of teachers is also being compiled. On the basis of preliminary data it is evident that there will be an increase over the numbers of pupils and teachers as reported in the "Statistics of Special Education" for the school year 1952-53. It appears that there will be an increase in the number of different public school systems having a special program, as well as the numbers of pupils and teachers, over the number of school systems operating programs in 1952–53. There were 1,244 different public school places reporting special classes for the mentally retarded. The total enrollment of pupils was 113,565. The total number of teachers was 7,067. Forty-seven States and the District of Columbia reported public school special classes for the mentally retarded. Comparable statistics for public and private residential schools were not compiled in 1952-53, but are being compiled for the new edition. The present returns indicate that there are about 200 public and private residential schools that have an educational program. Forty-seven States have residential schools for the retarded. In 1953-54 there were about 40 colleges offering a sequence of courses for the preparation of teachers of retarded children. Dr. MACKIE. We are submitting for the record copies of the following publications which have bearing on the information being sought here: 24 "College and University Programs for the Preparation of Teachers of Exceptional Children," by Romaine P. Mackie and Lloyd M. Dunn (Office of Education Bulletin 1954, No. 1). "State Certification Requirements for Teachers of Exceptional Children," by Romaine P. Mackie and Lloyd M. Dunn (Office of Education Bulletin, 1954, No. 13). "Teachers of Children Who Are Mentally Retarded," by Romaine P. Mackie, Harold M. Williams, and Lloyd M. Dunn (Office of Education Bulletin 1957, No. 3). "Statistics of Special Education for Exceptional Children," 1952-53, chapter 5 of "Biennial Survey of Education in the United States-1952-54," by Mabel C. Rice and Arthur H. Hill. Mr. DEAN. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the blind, which is particularly pertinent here in connection with sheltered workshops. I suppose if one were to pick out three groups, there are probably three groups that, today, are more widely involved in workshop operations than any other. That is the blind, the cerebral palsied, and the mentally retarded. And to the extent we have had much correspondence of inquiries on the question of surplus property, it primarily comes from those three groups. Senator GRUENING. Our next witness is Dr. William A. Fraenkel, consultant, Vocational Rehabilitation and Sheltered Workshops, National Association for Retarded Children. I would like to suggest while we are on this general subject that you all stay there so that we can continue this in the form of an informal discussion when questions arise. Dr. Fraenkel, do you have a written statement? Senator GRUENING. Have you any copies? Dr. FRAENKEL. I regret that I do not. I worked over the weekend on it, and I only have this one copy which I will read for the record. Senator GRUENING. You may proceed, Doctor. We would like to hear what you have to say. 24 The publication marked "Exhibtis 2 a, b, c, and d" have been retained in the files of the subcommittee. STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM A. FRAENKEL, CONSULTANT, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND SHELTERED WORKSHOPS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN Dr. FRAENKEL. I regret being late. Senator Gruening, we wish to thank you in behalf of the National Association for Retarded Children, Inc., for this privilege of testifying on S. 1365 which would amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to authorize the disposal of surplus property to certain welfare agencies. We regret that our attendance at the First International Conference on Mental Retardation held in Portland, Maine, prevents us from having our volunteers appear to testify in behalf of this act. We have asked our consultant on Vocational rehabilitation and sheltered workshops, Dr. William A. Fraenkel, to take time from his nationwide consultative work to be here today to present testimony in our behalf. The foregoing is a letter signed by Vincent J. Fitzpatrick, Secretary, and Gunnar Dybwad, executive director of the National Association for Retarded Children, Inc. This is a rather lengthy statement, Senator. It is about 20 pages, if I were to go through it. Senator GRUENING. Why don't you summarize the highlights and then submit it for the record. We have had a good deal of discussion on the subject, the benefit of which you have not had. Dr. FRAENKEL. I have some examples I think that might clarify some of the discussion as to why we feel rather than amend the act, we rightfully belong within the current act. Senator GRUENING. That seems to be the trend of most of the testimony this morning, or at least it is a subject for discussion and further exploration for the Department. Dr. FRAENKEL. I have an example. Senator GRUENING. Please give it. Dr. FRAENKEL. Example A would be workshops. An example is a situation in San Francisco, Calif., where we have a vocational rehabilitation center which has twice been "approved" as its instructional standards met those required in the State for such services, in this case vocational rehabilitation. It has been consistently denied surplus property even though the approving agency is the Department of Education of the State of California, in this case the Vocational Rehabilitation Service which is also a subdivision of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. On the one hand this vocational rehabilitation agency which is serving the mentally retarded adult in San Francisco is approved for a Federal grant from the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation under the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but is denied surplus property by another division within that same Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This vocational rehabilitation center provides a preliminary diag nostic workup and receives on those retardates admitted to the program, a medical report, social case study, educational report and psychological report. It provides both individual and group therapeutic vocational counseling. This program offers vocational training, job placement, and community followup. This vocational rehabilitation center in San Francisco, Calif., has as its director a Ph.D. and other qualified professional staff members. The other staff members' degrees run from a B.S. to a M.D. They have in addition on their advisory committee some of the top people in the State of California representing medicine, labor, education, and rehabilitation. They meet all of the criteria established under the law as such law refers to eligibility, yet they have been consistently denied the acquisition of Federal surplus property. Finally, this vocational rehabilitation center which is currently receiving a Federal grant which has research as one of its functions and which has been awarded to: (1) Accelerate vocational rehabilitation services to severely disabled persons; (2) Provide for prompt and widespread application of knowledge and experience acquired in the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation Research Grant Program; and (3) Test, insofar as possible, the application of the research findings under varying circumstances in different parts of the country, still is denied Federal surplus property. I have reference here, Senator, to the parts of the bill that we feel it applies to. Shall I pass that? Senator GRUENING. No. Go ahead. Dr. FRAENKEL. Include it? Senator GRUENING. Yes, please. Dr. FRAENKEL. In summing up we would like to refer to title 45, Public Welfare; Subtitle A-Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, General Administration; Part 13-Allocation and Utilization of Surplus Personal Property for Educational Public Health and Civil Defense Purposes Amendment. Under section 13.1: Definitions (c): "Approved" means recognition and approval by the State department of education, State department of health, or other appropriate authority with respect to an educational institution, such approval must relate to academic or instructional standards. Does not this vocational rehabilitation center meet the criteria for "Approved" under this act? We submit that example A just given meets the criteria under section 13.1, Definitions. Senator GRUENING. I might interrupt at this point to ask Mr. Gray for his comments on that. Mr. GRAY. Of course, I do not have their application before me. Let me say this: If they have the approval of the State department of health and the State department of education as a medical institution and as a school, it seems to me they would have been found eligible. Now, you didn't indicate to me that they have had that approval. If they have that approval, that is what we rely on. Senator GRUENING. Do they have that approval, Dr. Fraenkel? Dr. FRAENKEL. They do not have approval. We want to go further and submit that they have been denied approval and haven't been told why. Senator GRUENING. Your problem there is with your State agency? Dr. FRAENKEL. Apparently it is a State agency, yes. Senator GRUENING. That is, they are the ones who have refused to recognize you. Dr. FRAENKEL. I have the letters with me and I believe that is what it was. Senator GRUENING. Do you do training there? Dr. FRAENKEL. Yes, sir. They do a vocational evaluation as to whether or not this man can be employed for a reasonable period of time after training. They evaluate his adjustment to work, his readiness for work, which is followed up with the actual vocational training. This to us is an extension of education (in this case for the retarded). They go further and do job placement and followup in the community. They are also engaged, as I mentioned, in research. Senator GRUENING. Well, if your obstacle there is your State administration, isn't that the place where you should first present your case? I am not saying it shouldn't, but I am wondering whether the Federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should overrule or should supersede the judgment of the State agency or the State administration. I am making this in the form of an inquiry. What is your opinion on that subject? Dr. FRAENKEL. Here you have me, Senator, on a very technical one. I wouldn't have the answer. Senator GRUENING. Well, I don't know that it is so technical. I mean, it is an attempt to render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. If your State won't recognize you, how can you expect the Federal Government to do so? Dr. FRAENKEL. It might be because the States are not too clear themselves on the interpretation. I am not sure. Senator GRUENING. Probably it is an educational problem that should be referred to another part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I think this would be an interesting thing to look into and see just what the difficulty is back there. Mr. GRAY. We certainly will do so. Senator GRUENING. There is no reason why there shouldn't be a meeting, or an attempt to arrive at a meeting, of the minds between the State and Federal agency, and see just what the difficulty is, because it seems very clear to me that even if specific legislation to include rehabilitation centers had been asked for and not granted, it does not preclude the Department from treating these as what they If they carry out their functions, they are agencies engaged in physical and mental rehabilitation, and that is certainly in the field of medicine and health and also in the field of education to a lesser degree perhaps. are. Go ahead, Mr. Fraenkel. Dr. FRAENKEL. I have additional information on these educationalhealth institutions. We felt it also meets the criterion for health centers, as under 13.1, Definitions (p). Here it means an approved facility utilized by a health unit for the provisions of public health services, including related facilities such as laboratories and clinics. We went further and said that it met the same definition for a school, under "Title 45-Public Welfare; Subtitle A-The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; General Administration; Part 12-Disposal and Utilization of Surplus Real Property for Edu |