The policy and definitions with respect to behavioral disorders were further clarified in the Vocational Rehabilitation Manual, Chapter 16, Section 1, as follows (Italic is added to point to the reasons that new language is needed in order to allow evaluation services to disadvantaged persons):

Behavioral disorders are included in the Regulations under "physical or mental disability." Behavioral disorders may be, but are not necessarily medically diagnosable conditions. Their presence will be established by either a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, whichever is appropriate.

Individuals with behavioral disorders exhibit a condition having aspects distinguishable by a pattern of deviant behavior or inability to carry out normal relationships with family and community. Behavioral disorders may result from vocational, educational, cultural, social, environmental, or other factors.

A behavioral disorder is present when, through an evaluation, it is determined that an individual's behavior significantly deviates from what is considered normal or that his ability to carry on normal relationships with family and community is significantly impaired.

An individual with a behavioral disorder exhibits abnormal behavior which persists over a period of time and manifests itself in various settings such as in school, on the job, before the courts, and in the family. In some instances, it may be necessary to supplement psychiatric or psychological evaluations with reports from a variety of examiners and observers such as teachers, employers, probation officers, social service agencies, or police. Such incidents and behavior as family quarrels, arrests, truancy, idiosyncracies, or mannerisms do not, in themselves, constitute a behavioral disorder but may be suggestive of the existence of such a disability.

Factors such as cultural and social deprivation, chronic poverty, public offense, illiteracy and educational deficit, and long-term unemployment do not, in themselves, constitute behavioral disorders, but may contribute to the formation of a behavioral disorder.

(b) Answer implicit in the above.

(c) Continuing discussions are being held with DOL staff for assuring adequate and effective communication on new program developments involving vocational rehabilitation services to disadvantaged persons, including those with employment handicaps resulting from mental, physical and behavioral disabilities. Assurances that overlap and duplication of effort are not intended by this new program have been given to all interested parties. This program is looked upon as a source of help to complement other programs serving the disadvantaged not as a competitor or duplicator.

Q. 6. It has been suggested by the National Association for Retarded Children (NARC) that Sec. 11(b) of the Act be amended, in part, as follows:

The term "handicapped individual” means any individual who is under a physical or mental disability which constitutes a substantial handicap to employment, but which is of such a nature that vocational rehabilitation services may reasonably be expected to enable him to engage in a gainful occupation. What are the Administration's views on this suggested amendment?

A. The Administration would have no objections to substituting the word "enable" for render him fit as proposed by the NARC. The concepts implied by both of these phrases appear to be directed toward the same goal, namely, to permit some degree of flexibility in testing out whether, in fact, a disabled individual can engage in a gainful occupation. The 1965 amendments which provided for extended evaluation, provided the program with the means for providing a wide range of services over an extended period of time to help in reaching a realistic conclusion regarding the individual's ability to engage in a gainful occupation Q. 7. It is suggested by the National Rehabilitation Association that Sec. 11(a)(2)(B) of the Act be amended to read as follows:

(b) maintenance during rehabilitation which may include in the case of an individual undergoing rehabilitation in a rehabilitation facility as defined in Sec. 11 of this Act, allowances based upon the number of the individual's dependents but an amount not to exceed those authorized in Sec. 13 of the Act. What are the Administration's views on this proposed amendment?

A. The 1965 Amendments to the Vocational Rehabilitation Act authorized the payment of training allowances for clients, including dependents, while undergoing job skill training in approved project facilities and sheltered workshops.

In general, we support the concept of training allowances on a project basis for the purpose of gaining experience as to the import and applicability to the entire rehabilitatiou program.

Inasmuch as the Department is actively exploring various kinds of income maintenance, we suggest that no changes be made in present allowance provisions in the Vocational Rehabilitation Act.

Q. 8. Sec. 3 of H.R. 16819 provides a minimum allotment to a State under Sec. 2 of the Act of $1 million. Which States would benefit by this provision and by how much? How much would the allotments of other individual States be reduced-please list by State?

Q. 9. Sec. 6 of HR 16819 provides that the Secretary determines that the funds allotted to a State under Sec. 3 of the Act for innovative programs are insufficient to enable the State to carry out the purposes of that section, he may increase that State's allotment. However, corresponding reduction must be made in the allotments of other States. How does the Administration intend to administer this provision? Does not the provision in effect authorize the Secretary to bypass the allocation formula of Sec. 3 of the Act at will?

A. The administration of Sec. 6 of HR 16819 must be carried out in such a way so as to assure that no State will be denied the opportunity to utilize to the fullest its allotment under Section 3 of the Act. The intent of this amendment is to permit those States which do not intend to use all or part of their Section 3 allotment to release that portion of the allotment which will not be used thereby permitting other States ready and willing to use amounts in excess of their initial allotment to do so.

Q. 10. Does not an allocation formula placing special emphasis on State per capita income put at a disadvantage private, non-profit organizations with modest resources located within high income States?

A. The allocation formula upon which State allotments are based does not put at a disadvantage private, non-profit organizations with modest resources. The support available to private, non-profit organizations under Section 2 of the Act is based on the regular 75-25 matching and is the same in all States and without regard to the resources of the private, non-profit organizations.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else you would like to add, sir? Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You brought us some very fine testimony. Again, I would like to thank you for some very, very kind words. They were rehabilitative. You are wonderfully kind and generous, and I am deeply grateful to you.

Is there anything you would like to add, sir?

Mr. HALPERIN. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You believe silence is golden?
Mr. HALPERIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Whitten, executive director of the National Rehabilitation Association.

STATEMENT OF E. B. WHITTEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. WHITTEN. Senator, I, too, have a pang when I realize this is the last committee on this subject that you might chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you have been in this business for a long time. Why have you not done something up here?

Mr. WHITTEN. We decided over here in the corner, another person who needs the same kind of thing we do and I, that we would start something called a Hill Memorial, dedicated to the restoration of hair.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to file a brief statement which you have for the record. I may not refer to it again.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have it appear in the record, Mr. Whitten. Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. How long have you been coming up here with us? Mr. WHITTEN. For nearly 20 years. We were here in 1954, with the big splurge that was made.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. WHITTEN. I am going to introduce in writing an amendment to section 11, the effect of which would be to extend to handicapped

people receiving rehabilitation services in any rehabilitation facility the opportunity to receive family allowances based upon dependents as they can now do in the special projects under section 13. We will submit a written statement justifying this. I will not go into more detail about it.

The CHAIRMAN. We shall be glad to have that.

(The amendment referred to follows:)

Sec. 10(a) (2) B, Page 11, shall be amended to read as follows:

"Maintenance during rehabilitation which may include, in the case of an individual undergoing rehabilitation in a rehabilitation facility as defined in Sec. 11 of this Act, allowances based upon the number of the individual's dependents but in amounts not to exceed those authorized in Sec. 13 of this Act."

The CHAIRMAN. All right, sir.

Mr. WHITTEN. Thank you, second, we will want to support an amendment to section 4, which will be submitted in writing, which would broaden the authority of the social and rehabilitation service to make project grants to certain programs in the area of mental retardation which social and rehabilitation services cannot now do because of the limitation that all such projects have to be directed toward employment opportunities. You are familiar with the problems resulting in this respect from the transfer of some of the programs in the Department. I shall not go further into detail.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you bring this matter to the attention of the House?

Mr. WHITTEN. We were not ready to do it at that time.
The CHAIRMAN. I see.

Very well.

Mr. WHITTEN. Now, I want to speak directly to some of the provisions of H.R. 16819, first about the appropriation authority.

We far prefer that the appropriation authority of section 2 be extended for 2 years as is found in the House bill. We think it is very important that it be extended at least 1 year, through 1971. Otherwise, we are going to have to come back next year again, next spring, to try to get the authority extended, for this kind of program has to be kept at least 3 years ahead or the States cannot plan. So we would far prefer that the House version be retained in that respect. Now, I want to say a few words about

The CHAIRMAN. You say otherwise you would be right back here next year, would you not?

Mr. WHITTEN. We would have to come back next year if it is not extended at least one additional year beyond the authority of the bill. I also now want to direct your attention to the program of vocational evaluation and work adjustments. I must say that I find myself much more in harmony with the spirit of the subjective statement Mr. Hunt made than I do with the cold and analytical provisions for amendments now in the administration bill. We think this is the important new concept in this legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. You agreed with me when I spoke about one subject he had there, "we recommend," that is should be, "it is recommended?"

Mr. WHITTEN. I think if I were Mr. Hunt, that is the way I would want to put it. Personally, of course, I have no restraints upon me as some people do.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. You do not have to worry about

that.

Mr. WHITTEN. That is right.

Now, when I tried to analyze the administration's position on that and I did not see this until a few moments ago, although I got a rumor that it was coming, yesterday, I think it resolves to this: Shall this program of work evaluation, work adjustment, which both the administration and the rest of us want, be a special project program or shall it be a grant program to the States? Second, there are some little differences of opinion with respect to financing.

Now, I want to say a word about the special project features. Sometimes I think that we special-project things to death in this country. I think the only justification for making this a special project program would be the assumption that we do not really know what we are talking about, that we need demonstration and pilot projects and so forth, to demonstrate that this will work when, in fact, we know it will work. This process has been carried on for many years in many areas. In fact, this is just the sort of thing for which the workshops in Alabama were established, as you know, by the State agency and the Society for Crippled Children. These are the services being provided in these workshops every day; they are being provided to some degree in every State in the Union. This is not a new program. We know how to do this in the rehabilitation movement. So it cannot be justified, I believe, on the basis that this is something we are demonstrating or something we are trying out.

Another thing I would like to mention is that we would like to have all the States participate in the benefits of the section, which does improve the financing of this particular part of the program, as you know, sir.

Now, we recognize the fact that the State agencies cannot develop a comprehensive program of this kind in every nook and corner of every State. For that purpose, the House bill has a section which waives the statewide requirements and will make it possible for a State agency to develop these programs in the areas of greatest need. Now, for instance, in Alabama, it might be decided that Mobile, Birmingham, and Decatur might be the three places where such programs were needed and they could concentrate here. So we have, you might say, a special project program within a State grant by waiving this statewide authority, you see-I mean requirement which exists for the broad spectrum of the program.

The CHAIRMAN. You would not limit them? You would just remove the requirement?

Mr. WHITTEN. That is right, so that they do not have to operate in every county of every State, as they have to under section 2. And we think they ought to have to operate under section 2 in every corner. We think one of the great virtues of this program is that it has been carried virtually to every crossroads in this country. This is good.

Now, I worry about the financing. In the administration's proposal, you notice first they would have a special projects program; second, in the special projects program, the individuals who were handicapped under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act, those who were handicapped would have their services reimbursed under the 75-percent rate and those individuals who could not qualify for rehabilitation but for some reason or other needed the service would be reimbursed at a 90-percent rate. That seems a little difficult for me to comprehend. The CHAIRMAN. How does that enter into it?