front system for managing the purchase of services from public and private rehabilitation agencies and moving the case along. Finally, I would recommend that Congress enact legislation which is currently before it to extend the guarantees in Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act, which now do not apply to physically and mentally disabled persons, to those persons so that they are consistent with the general protection against discrimination in employment in interstate commerce. I note for the record that Assistant Attorney General Reynolds has endorsed a similar proposal, and I think there is some significant interest in moving that legislation along. Also, I think it is important as part of this overall approach that Congress take a very close look at the tax code and the incentives and disincentives in the tax code with respect to employment-related services-that is, those costs that persons with disabilities have that enable them to work, which would not normally be borne by other people in order to have to work, and how those costs are treated. Finally, I would recommend that Congress enact the Medicaid Home and Community Quality Services Act of 1987 which has been introduced, I believe, again in the Congress, which would allow the financing system for the community services side of the overall system to finally come into play. If you had enactment of that statute, then you could have, it seems to me, effective individual transitional planning and services on an ongoing basis, both with respect to employment and community living. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Martin H. Gerry follows:] STATEMENT OF MARTIN H. GERRY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES November 18, 1987 STATEMENT OF MARTIN H. GERRY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Select Education Subcommittee, let me first express my appreciation for your kind invitation to present testimony before the Subcommittee regarding the effectiveness of current Federally funded employment and independent living services for persons with severe disabilities. Four years ago, I had the pleasure of testifying before this Subcommittee in support of a report developed by the Commission on the Financing of a Free Appropriate Public Education for Special Needs Children, a commission established at the request of this Subcommittee to explore and recommend administrative, managerial and financing strategies to better marshal existing resources to ensure that handicapped children are provided a free appropriate public education. In that report the Cominission endorsed the concept of ongoing interagency case management and service coordination. During the last four years, including my current tenure as a member of a Congressionally created advisory council chartered to study the effectiveness of the referral system now in place between the SSI and SSDI programs administered by the Social Security Administration and the Federal/State vocational rehabilitation system, the wisdom of that 1983 recommendation has been clearly demonstrated. Mr. Chairman, before beginning my testimony, I would like to make clear for the record that I am testifying today as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organizations with which I am currently affiliated. In this regard, while I am a member of the Disability Advisory Council, I have not shared my testimony with the staff or members of the Council and am not here in any representative capacity. Focus of Testimony Developmentally disabled children and youth and their families currently receive a wide range of health, mental health, diagnostic, habilitative, Statement of Martin H. Gerry November 18, 1987 therapeutic, vocational and social services through several existing Federal and State service programs. The three most important of these programs for young persons with severe disabilities are the early childhood education, special education and transition programs established by Congress under the Education of the Handicapped Act (P.L. 94-142), the Federal/State VR program, and the Developmental Disabilities program. In addition to these "service" programs, the Social Security Administration oversees two large cash and medical benefit programs of vital importance to persons with severe disabilities who are 18 years of age or older. The first of these, the SSDI program is a program of public, employment-disability insurance created by Congress to insure workers contributing to the Social Security Trust Fund against the risk of future unemployment caused by the occurrence of a physically or mentally disabling condition. The second, the SSI program is a social welfare program intended to provide basic income replacement for poor people unable to achieve sustained, compensated employment because of a physical and/or mental disability. Mr. Chairman, in my testimony today I would like to address three basic questions regarding the overall effectiveness of these programs of publicly funded services for persons with disabilities within the context both of initial "transition" from school to working life within the community and of any subsequent "transition" for those persons within the labor force whose loose work capacity back to gainful employment: (a) What are American social policy goals for persons with disabilities? (b) How successful have current programs been in supporting the attainment of these goals? What factors have contributed most significantly to the lack of program success? (c) What additional contributions can and should be made toward the attainment of these goals by non-governmental, social and economic institutions? What legislative changes should be seriously considered by Congress to improve the effective coordination of services? Statement of Martin H. Gerry November 18, 1987 Before addressing each of these questions, it might be helpful to briefly outline my background and experience relevant to the conclusions which I have drawn and the specific recommendations which I will make. I have also attached a copy of my personal vita. Background and Experience I am a lawyer by training and from 1969 to 1977 I served in a series of positions within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. From 1969-70, I served as Executive Assistant to the Director of the Office for Civil Rights (Mr. Leon Panetta) and from 1970-73 as a Special Assistant to two HEW Secretaries (Hon. Elliot Richardson and the Hon. Caspar Weinberger). In 1974, I was appointed Deputy Director of the Office for Civil Rights and in 1975 became Director of the same office and remained in that position until the inauguration of President Carter in January of 1977. As Director and Deputy Director of the Office for Civil Rights I was closely involved in the formulation of HEW regulations to implement both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and P.L. 94-142. Upon leaving the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1977, I became the Special Counsel to the House Wednesday Group, a position which I continue to hold. In addition to providing policy and legislative assistance to members of the Wednesday Group, in 1985 I served as an active member of a special workgroup, composed of both current and former Members of the House of Representatives and outside experts, charged by the Wednesday Group with the articulation of American social policy goals and the formulation of a legislative agenda to advance those goals. During the last 10 years, I have also been active in providing policy advice and assistance to over 45 State education agencies and 1000 school districts concerning a wide range of educational and civil rights issues. In 1982-83 I served as Co-Chair of the Commission established by this |