STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INC. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to have this opportunity of appearing before you and your committee to testify on the various bills affecting blind persons which are under consideration. At the outset, I should like to point out that, as the executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association, I represent a membership organization which is composed exclusively of blind persons. The U.S. Selective Service Act was and is a great leveler; and, to that extent, I feel that our membership is broadly representative of this country's population. As General Maas has indicated, we find ourselves in opposition to H.R. 14, principally, I think, on technical grounds. The bill seeks to promote or to protect the right of the blind to self-expression through organizations of the blind, and we could hardly oppose that on a philosophic basis. However, we do seriously question the enactment of legislation on behalf of a rather small segment of our population for purposes guaranteed to everyone in our Constitution. As the general has indicated, we also feel that a dangerous precedent might be established. Other minority groups do not appear to need similar legislation. We feel that this bill, if enacted, would inevitably set apart blind persons in just one more way. We feel that there is already entirely too much segregation connected with blindness. We believe that H.R. 14 is unrealistic because it allows the easy inference that there must be a great many blind persons all over the country who need this protection. We do not feel that this is so, and we are inclined to think that it is not quite cricket to imply carelessly massive prejudice against blind persons. This contention that some of the implications of the bill are unfair is borne out by the experience of our field service program, which is operating in 26 States and the District of Columbia. We have been alarmed by the variance in the quality of service which exists in different parts of the country. We have found paternalism and an overweaning attitude on the part of certain agencies with respect to their blind clients. We have not, however, found anything to resemble a unified movement designed to inhibit the growth and development of organizations of blind persons, interested in their own best interests. We would be in favor of any approach which will assist blind persons in living more dignified lives in a positive fashion. We would not go about this by burning down the barn to kill a few rats. As far as the other three bills before the committee are concerned, H.R. 356, 1855, and 5243, I am very pleased to say, as the general has indicated, that we heartily endorse this idea of a broad study plan. I have indicated that we are disturbed by certain aspects which we see in the program of services to blind persons throughout the country. Anyone charged with the duty of identifying and evaluating the roles of the various departments, bureaus, divisions, offices in the Federal Government which have some responsibility in serving blind persons, would be appalled by the hodge-podge effect, the overlapping effort which exists. And this is only the beginning. Other public and voluntary agencies are on the scene. The duplication of effort is enormous. There are too many left hands which do not know what the right hands are doing. Yet, ironically enough, it is not uncommon in this confusion to fall, that the client has fallen into a crack and become lost. If we are to plan positively for the future, we must know where we stand today, and I do not fear contradiction when I say that there is no identifiable group of individuals, nor an agency, in existence now which has this information in a useful form. I would like to refer back for a moment to H.R. 14 once more. The things embodied in that resolution, I believe, an expression of outrage born of frustration, would not have been made if what we have now in the way of knowledge, techniques, facilities, in the field of blind rehabilitation were properly channeled and effectively harnessed. We believe it is reasonable to expect that just such a signpost indicating the way to this effectiveness can be gained from a broad study. We feel, as the general has said, that H.R. 5243 is the most effective instrument designed to implement this study plan, and we heartily commend it to the favorable consideration of the committee. Thank you. (Mr. Thompson's complete prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INC. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity of appearing before you and your committee to testify on the various bills affecting blind persons which are under consideration. At the outset, I should like to point out that, as the executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association, I represent a membership organization which is composed exclusively of blind persons. The U.S. Selective Service Act was and is a great leveler; and, to that extent, I feel that our membership is broadly representative of this country's population. Regarding H.R. 14, the BVA finds itself opposed to this legislation on somewhat technical grounds. The bill seeks to "protect the right of the blind to selfexpression through organizations of the blind," and we could hardly oppose this philosophy. However, we strongly question the enactment of legislation on behalf of a relatively small segment of the population for purposes already guaranteed to everyone in our Constitution. It would inevitably set apart blind persons in just one more way, and we feel there is already far too much segregation tied in with blindness. Other minority groups do not appear to need similar legislation. Granting this specific protection to the blind might produce an undesirable precedent. The BVA believes H.R. 14 is unrealistic because it allows the easy inference that there must be a great many blind persons all over the country who need this protection. We think this is not the case and are also inclined to feel that it is not quite cricket to imply carelessly mass prejudice against individuals who are blind. The question of blindness is closely hedged in with emotions easily aroused but in many ways irrational. If the rights of even one blind person are being infringed, then he should have clear and direct recourse. But, does this require the enactment of a U.S. public law? We do not think so. State and Federal courts provide a much more appropriate avenue of redress for these grievances. The contention that H.R. 14 is unfair in its implication is borne out by the experience of our own field service program which is operating in 26 States and the District of Columbia. We are alarmed by the considerable variance in the quality of services available to blind persons in different parts of the country. We have found paternalism and an overweening attitude on the part of certain agencies with respect to their blind clients. We have not, however, found anything resembling a unified movement to inhibit the growth and development of organizations of blind persons interested in their own welfare. We would heartily endorse a program designed to increase the opportunity of blind persons to enjoy dignified and productive lives. But, we would not set about this by burning down the barn to kill a few rats. In the case of the other three bills before the committee, H.R. 356, H.R. 1855, and H.R. 5243, all of which are concerned with the establishment of a Presidential commission to study the field of work for the blind, I am glad to say that the Blinded Veterans Association strongly supports the idea. As I mentioned earlier. the experience of our field staff indicates there are disturbing aspects connected with the program of overall service to blind persons in the United States. This has led us to believe along with others that a broad study in this area is not only desirable but essential. Anyone presented with the task of sorting out the roles of the various depart ments, bureaus, divisions, offices, and the like, within the Federal Government which have some responsibility in serving blind persons would be appalled at the multiplicity of function, overlapping of effort, and general hodgepodge effect which exists. And, that is only the beginning. Public and voluntary agencies throng the scene, each offering one or more types of assistance to their blind clients. The duplication of effort is enormous. There are too many left hands which do not know what the right hands are doing. Ironically enough, however, it is not uncommon to discover that at some point in the confusion the client has slipped into a crack and been lost. We are convinced that, in order to plan effectively for the future, it is necessary to know where we stand today; and I do not fear contradiction when I say that there is neither an identifiable group of individuals nor any agency in existence now which has this information in a useful form. Referring back to H.R. 14 for a moment, I believe the expressions embodied there have a very important bearing upon a study of services to blind persons. It is quite likely this expression of outrage born of frustration would never have been made if what we have now in the way of knowledge, techniques, and facilities in the field of rehabilitation for the blind was properly channeled and ef fectively harnessed. A study commission on blindness can reasonably be ex pected to provide us with the means for bringing just such a coordinated approach into being. H.R. 5243 appears to us to be a carefully thought-out instrument which would most effectively implement a broad study plan. The Blinded Veterans Association supports this bill and urges the committee to give it its favorable consideration. Mr. ELLIOTT. Dr. Thompson, of all the study commission bills, if I understand your testimony correctly, you most favor H.R. 5243? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. The Chair will recognize the gentlewoman from Oregon, Mrs. Green. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Thompson, I know on page 1 you say that your organization is composed exclusively of blind people. Is it also composed exclusively of veterans? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. You referred to the duplication of effort and the multiplicity of function and overlapping, general hodgepodge. Do you know how many organizationse there are, separate from the Government, having to do with blind people, or whose membership is made up of the blind? Mr. THOMPSON. No, ma'am; I have no idea. Mrs. GREEN. Could you hazard a guess? Mr. THOMPSON. Let me put it this way: The American Foundation for the Blind publishes from time to time a directory of, I think they claim, between 85 and 90 percent of these agencies, just the ones you are talking about. The most recent issue of that book is just out and it has over 300 pages in it. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. How many members do you have in your organization? Mr. THOMPSON. At the moment, we have approximately 900 members. Mrs. GREEN. And you are organized in 26 States and the District of Columbia? Mr. THOMPSON. No, ma'am. The Blinded Veterans Association is a national organization. I referred to our field service program, which is currently operating in 26 States and the District. There is a portion of the country which we have not been able yet to serve with a field representative. Our membership is spread over the entire country. Mrs. GREEN. Your membership is 900, though? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, ma'am. That would be out of a potential of between 3,300 and 3,400, representing the blinded veterans of all wars and peacetime. Mrs. GREEN. Do your members pay dues? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, ma'am. Dues are $5 per year. We have a life membership plan of $50, payable in 2 years. Mrs. GREEN. The $5 is the sum total of National and State or local dues? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. Do you also have fundraising drives? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes; we do. Our fundraising is rather diverse. We have been, over the past 5 years, approved by the National Budget Committee of the Community Chest and Councils, and a portion of our funds come from individual community chests and United Funds. We are currently included in about 80 of those. That is throughout the country. We receive funds on a recurring basis from the Bowlers' Victory League, which is a philanthropic arm of the bowling interests in this country. Mrs. GREEN. Outside of the funds, how do you conduct your drives for additional funds? Mr. THOMPSON. We have some direct mail fundraising, which has been conducted on a rather discrete basis to selected groups of individuals, mostly industry and the leaders of corporate interests. Mrs. GREEN. What is the direct mail? Is that the license tag? Is that yours? Mr. THOMPSON. No. We have never used any kind of unordered merchandise or the so-called gimmick mailings, feeling that the ends to which our money would be put would not justify the means it would take to raise money in that way. We are not at all impressed with that type of direct fundraising. Our direct mail fundraising consists of a letter and sometimes a small brochure, a very straightforward request for funds to sponsor our programs, which are set forth. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have a paid staff at the National and State levels, besides your field service people? Mr. THOMPSON. We have three male staff members in our Washington office and three clerical persons. In addition to that, we have five field representatives, all of which are in the field all the time. Mrs. GREEN. Do you work with the National Veterans' Administration? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, we do. In fact, we have an extremely close relationship with the VA regarding our field service program. It was designed to supplement their activities. 38450-5917 Mrs. GREEN. Are your members ones who were blinded during the service or since the service, or both? Mr. THOMPSON. We have an associate membership category, wherein veterans whose blindness is not service-connected can belong to the association. They have no voting rights. We call it an associate membership. It is more of an honorary membership. Mrs. GREEN. Could you estimate the approximate amount of your budget for this last year? Mr. THOMPSON. In the fiscal year of July 1957 through June 1958, our expenditures were in the neighborhood of $88,000. The budget on which we are working now is $104,000. We will probably be somewhat under budget on June 30. Mrs. GREEN. This is a matter of public knowledge? Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that it might be helpful to the committee if we did have the budgets of the various groups to help us try to evaluate the programs. I had asked the National Federation of the Blind. I wonder if I might ask you, also, to furnish this material to the committee. Mr. THOMPSON. I will be glad to. BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. CARL ELLIOTT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Special Education, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ELLIOTT: On this past Friday morning, March 13, during the course of my testimony before your subcommittee regarding the various bills affecting blind persons, I was requested to supply the subcommittee with financial data concerning the Blinded Veterans Association. I am pleased, therefore, to enclose with this letter a copy of the report of the national officers and board of directors which was made to our 13th annual convention last July. It includes a treasurer's report covering income and expenditures during the past complete fiscal year. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of the current 1958-59 budget upon which the organization is now operating. Very truly yours, WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Executive Director. BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION |