Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Simple and straightforward as is this purpose, reactions from a large number of states bear testimony to the fact that the complexities and variations of state government on the one hand and the broad, multifaceted nature of mental retardation on the other hand will make the implementation of these provisions, once enacted, a difficult and undoubtedly controversial task.

Anyone who has studied broadly the problem of mental retardation realizes that it cannot be brought down to a simple, common, administrative denominator. The wish has been expressed from time to time that there should be created one state department responsible for all aspects of mental retardation. No such plan has ever come to the fore. It just is not possible to combine into one administrative entity effective consideration of "services in the fields of education, employment, rehabilitation, welfare, health, and the law" to quote the aforementioned bills.

If these bills recognize so clearly the many and so varied aspects of mental retardation, where then lies the problem to which I have alluded?

Here we come upon a most interesting complication, arriving from new policies developed in recent years with regard to federal-state relationships. The purpose of these policies is clear: the Federal Government does not wish to dictate to states how they should administratively implement federal legislation dealing with grants-in-aid to such fields as health and welfare.

In our case, however, this purpose collides with another policy of the Federal Government; that in the case of such grants-in-aid programs the State must designate a single state agency "as the sole agency for carrying out the purpose of this title," and indeed these exact words appear in both these bills in section 1703 of the proposed Title XVII. There just is not in any of the 50 States any one state agency suitable to carry out the broad mandate inherent in the above quoted section of the President's Message and subsequently included in these bills. Indeed, the trend in the States has been in recent years to separate out from large, omnibus departments discreet entities and establish them as separate, functional state departments. There have been a few exceptions to this but the trend is clear and has led to the fact that anyone concerned with planning services for the mentally retarded must deal with as many as six to eight, and in some States even more, separate departments.

This is not a new problem. It was clearly recognized by the Council of State Governments in 1958 when a Conference on Mental Retardation went on record as follows:

1. The conference, therefore, recommended that each state establish an interdepartmental agency, such as an interdepartmental committee, council or board for the joint planning and coordination of state services for the mentally retarded. This interdepartmental agency may be established by the Governor or the legislature, depending upon conditions prevailing in the state.

2. Such departments as education, mental health, health, welfare, labor, corrections, and institutions of higher education offer programs and services for the mentally retarded. Within a given State there may be other departments concerned with the mentally retarded. Within each of these departments there should be a division or bureau for services to the mentally retarded or a special consultant with specific responsibility for the development and administration of these services.

(Reference to this will be found in Volume XIII of "The Book of the States" published by the Council of State Governments.)

A few of the States have already established interdepartmental committees in the area of mental retardation which have functioned successfully over the past several years. The question has been raised, however, whether an interdepartmental committee appointed by the Governor through executive action does constitute a "State Agency" as prescribed by Section 17.03 in the proposed Title XVII. Furthermore, some of these committees, even if eligible, would not appear to be prepared administratively to administer a federal planning grant.

It is worth noting that one State, North Dakota, has enacted in March of 1963 a law creating a State coordinating committee on mental retardation. This new Statute prescribes that the committee "shall have the duty and responsibility of making or providing for such studies and surveys of the needs of retarded persons in North Dakota as it may deem necessary, and shall coordinate the activities of all state departments, divisions, agencies, and institutions having responsibilities in the field of mental retardation." Thus, North Dakota is the first State that has responded to the President's Message by a legislative enactment facilitating the proposed mental retardation planning grants.

Not all states may have an opportunity or the desire to pass such special legislation. The question then arises what pattern of procedure can be developed to reconcile what would appear to be two contradictory provisions of the aforementioned Section 17.03: the first one requires "a single state agency as the sole agency for carrying out the purposes of this Title; the second that "provision will be made to assure full consideration of all aspects of services essential to planning for comprehensive State and community action to combat mental retardation, including services in the fields of education, employment, rehabilitation, welfare, health, and the law ... ."