The Effects of the New Priorities for Rehabilitation Services, a Statutes and Regulations, providing for extended sheltered workshop Executive Summary of the Comprehensive Needs Study of Individuals Federal Legislation, pertinent Public Laws and Regulations (including The Economics of Mental Retardation, Ronald W. Conley, Johns Hopkins Selected Readings, American Handbook on Psychiatry, Volume One, Basic Mental Health Statistical Note, No. 132, DHEW, July 1976 Law and Behavior, (periodical), Project on Law and Behavior Mental Disability Law Reporter, (periodical), American Bar Association Manpower, Human Resource Department, Special Report #14, National The Retarded Adult, (periodical), American Association of Special Educators 28-105 - 78-70 COMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DIRECT LONG TERM 212 Ninth Street Oakland, CA 94607 (415) 451-8786 APPENDIX: THE CASE FOR FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR EXTENDED SHELTERED WORK SHOP SERVICES June, 1977 Additional information just received is worthy of appending to this Case. It is from "Special Report: Schizophrenia, 1976", by Keith, Gunderson, Reifman, Buchsbaum, and Mosher; published in the quarterly Schizophrenia Bulletin of the National Institute of Mental Health, DHEW. In 1955 there were 1.7 million inpatient and outpatient care episodes reported in U.S. mental health facilities. In 1973 there were 5.2 million. During the same period, the closing of State hospitals brought up to 76% reduction in the institutional population in some states; so that the increased need for services was met in community treatment. Research shows that community treated patients spent less time unemployed; more time in independent living situations; were more satisfied with their lives; and that the average cost per direct care episode was $1,000 less for community treatment than for treatment in the hospital. The disruptive effects of schizophrenia, which has its highest incidence between age 18 and 35, often interrupts normal vocational training for skilled work. Therefore, when able to work, schizophrenics are frequently qualified only for low-paying jobs at levels lower than that expected from socio-economic and intellectual abilities. Gunderson and Mosher in 1975 estimated that schizophrenics living in the community accout for 50% of the loss of productivity of all discharged patients each year, or about $7.5 billion in 1968. Calculating the loss another way (degree of work disability X no. of disabled X average yearly income), figuring the prevalence rate of schizophrenia at 2% to 3%, and allowing generous discounts for those not normally in the labor market as well as discounting average income, the report concludes that "these unemployed schizophrenia patients could be earning some $10 billion more annually for themselves and adding that amount to the Nation's total production." Finally, it says, "By working productively, the schizophrenic is more likely to contribute to his or her psychiatric support and to the well-being of the community." STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, DAVID L. CORN WELL, PATRICIA SCHROEDER, AND FORTNEY J. (PETE) STARK, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of H.R. 13213, a bill we have introduced to assist educational institutions--including institutions of higher education as well as elementary and secondary schools--in paying for the cost of removing architectural barriers as required by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. We believe that federal assistance must be provided, if the goals of 504 are to be achieved. We strongly supported the long-delayed issuance of the section 504 regulations believing then, as now, that the protections they establish for the handicapped are very much needed. As we all know, it was well over three years after the Rehabilitation Act was enacted that regulations implementing section 504 were finally signed. A major factor in the delay in the issuance of these regulations was the reluctance of HEW since 1974 to require educational institutions to pay large sums of money for the removal of architectural barriers. As you know, it was only under great pressure from handicapped groups and Congress that these regulations were finally signed in May, 1977. At the time the regulations were signed, Secretary Califano said that he would "aggressively seek" new federal funds to help meet the "elementary and secondary educational accessibility obligations of the school districts of the nation." However, since that time the Secretary has made no recommendations to Congress on this matter, and help for state and local school districts has not been mentioned in the President's budget request for fiscal year 1979. While it remains unclear whether federal assistance for the removal of architectural barriers will be provided, educational institutions throughout the nation remain under a deadline of June 30, 1980 to make all of their programs accessible to the handicapped. In addition to the costs of removing architectural barriers, all school systems will have the cost of providing for the special education needs of all handicapped children, ages six to eighteen, as required by the Education of All Handicapped Children Act. By this September, over four million handicapped children will be served by our nation's schools at an estimated cost of $1.44 billion for special education services alone. Add to this the cost of removing architectural barriers which some groups have estimated to be as high as $4 billion, and it becomes clear why school systems are concerned about the money they will have to spend to accomodate handicapped students. While the Education of All Handicapped Children Act does provide assistance to educational institutions for up to 40% of the costs of special educational services, the Federal Government has made no similar commitment to assist in the removal of architectural barriers. There isn't any question that "mainstreaming" handicapped children benefits all children--non-handicapped as well as handicapped. However, we cannot overlook the large cost of reaching this goal for our nation's already overburdened municipal budgets. We also feel that it is entirely contradictory for the federal government on the one hand to establish direct assistance programs such as countercyclical aid in recognition of the budgetary pressures on local communities, and on the other hand to impose provisions that result in tremendous increases in the increases budgets of these same local communities. Quite frankly, we believe HEW is guilty of having failed to make even a good faith effort to provide educational institutions with assistance to remove architectural barriers. HEW's record on this matter speaks for itself. HEW has failed to issue regulations implementing section 607 of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act which authorizes the Department to make grants to state and local governments for the removal of architectural barriers. These regulations originally were expected to have been published for comment last fall. In fact, we were informed recently that the regulations had been finalized and were "pulled back" at the last minute. For whatever reason, HEW has apparently decided that it will not utilize the authority which Congress gave it and will not request funds to help local communities remove architectural barriers. Furthermore, we have been told that HEW was considering requesting only $5 million to implement section 607. Despite HEW's own estimation that the total cost of removing architectural barriers would be between $250 million and $400 million, HEW appears to have been willing to commit only the meager sum of $5 million. |