[nagdu] Who is NAC, and Why Should You Care

[David Andrews]

 From the file name it looks like January 1990.

Dave

At 01:27 PM 7/13/2015, you wrote:
>It would be helpful to have the date on this 
>article as well as the dates of any articles 
>that you were referencing in the resolution. 
>Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 13, 2015, at 12:08 
>PM, Aaron Cannon via nagdu <nagdu at nfbnet.org> 
>wrote: > > For anyone who said "huh?" when NAC 
>was mentioned, or for those of you > who have 
>heard of them but don't know what the big deal 
>is, you need > to read this article from the 
>Braille Monitor: > 
>https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0901/bm090103.htm  
> > > I've pasted it below for your 
>convenience: > > > Why Bother about NAC, > Or 
>What Can Abraham Lincoln Teach Us about the 
>Subject? > > by Peggy Elliott > > Peggy 
>Elliott > From the Editor: For as long as I have 
>been a member of the > Federation, the NFB has 
>opposed the National Accreditation Council for > 
>Agencies Serving Persons > with Blindness or 
>Visual Impairment (NAC). In the early years it 
>was a > war we fought with desperation every 
>time a battlefield appeared. When > the NAC 
>board > met in its closed meetings, the 
>organized blind gathered outside, > chanting, 
>marching, and singing NFB songs about NAC that 
>we found > clever and pointed, > whatever the 
>NAC board members thought of them. We called 
>the > demonstrations outside NAC’s annual 
>board meeting the “highlight of > the fall 
>social season” > in the same way that the 
>Washington Seminar in the winter and the > 
>national convention in summer provided both fun 
>and stimulating and > useful activity. > > > 
>Sometime in the eighties NAC tried moving its 
>meeting to mid-December > in the hope, we 
>assumed, that so close to the holiday season > 
>Federationists would > be unwilling to take the 
>time and unable to afford the expense of > 
>congregating outside their meetings. We 
>responded by writing NAC > carols with which 
>to > serenade them and entertain passers-by. We 
>called these protests “NAC > Tracking,” and, 
>though the activity took its toll on our voices, 
>it > instilled a toughness > and dedication that 
>were intensely invigorating to our movement. > 
>Fortunately or unfortunately, nothing in the 
>blindness field today > provides 
>Federationists > with equivalent training and 
>discipline. In fact, though it is > difficult 
>for people of my generation to comprehend, newer 
>and younger > Federationists know > only vaguely 
>about NAC and the threat to quality services 
>that it once > represented. > > I reflected on 
>all this when I was recently told that Colorado, 
>which > for decades, maybe always, could boast 
>of being a NAC-free > environment, had 
>suddenly > been saddled with a local agency’s 
>decision to seek NAC accreditation. > Partly 
>this happened because many blind Coloradans have 
>forgotten or > never really > understood what 
>NAC represents and what damage its attitudes 
>toward > quality service can bring about. > > 
>Whenever it is again time to examine the NAC 
>issue, I turn immediately > to Peggy Elliott, 
>who has helped general the NAC battles through 
>the > years and has > been our NAC historian of 
>record for almost two decades. Rather than > 
>asking her simply to report on NAC’s current 
>situation, I suggested > that she review > the 
>history for those who have forgotten and those 
>who have never > understood the antipathy 
>between NAC and the organized blind. The > 
>following article is > her review of the history 
>and assessment of NAC. This is what she 
>says: > > Abraham Lincoln and P.T. Barnum, 
>nineteenth century contemporaries and > each a 
>giant in his field of endeavor, both commented 
>upon the human > condition. > Lincoln famously 
>said: “You can fool some of the people all of 
>the > time, and all of the people some of the 
>time, but you cannot fool all > of the people > 
>all of the time.” More succinctly, P. T. 
>Barnum, the entertainment > impresario who 
>popularized the three-ring circus, is supposed 
>to have > said: “There’s > a sucker born 
>every minute,” though some historians dispute 
>this > quote, if not its sentiment. Both men in 
>their own ways pointed to a > human failing we > 
>all share: gullibility. > > We have all believed 
>things or believed in things or believed in > 
>people we later learn to be less than or 
>different from what we had > supposed. Our 
>human > capacity to believe and our human 
>yearning for the good can lead us to > believe 
>what we later discover were exaggerations, pure 
>puffery, or > lies. The motivation > of the 
>exaggerator or liar is usually obvious and can 
>range from > self-delusion through greed to 
>pure, mean evil. The impulses > motivating the 
>person being > tricked come from a much more 
>complex array of causes, including a > deep 
>desire to do good, and can range from greed and 
>malice through > inattention and > lack of 
>education to a yearning for the good of others. 
>Studying > gullibility, in other words, requires 
>probing both the motives of the > deceiver and 
>of > the deceived. > > Our American form of 
>government, for example, is rooted in the 
>belief > that self-interest is the strongest 
>guardian of political, economic, > and civil 
>rights. > We all learn some version of the 
>concept so lucidly explained by James > Madison 
>that public discussion during elections and 
>concerning issues > of the day > is the best 
>guarantee that good ideas will prevail and bad 
>or crooked > or discriminatory ones will be 
>discovered and rejected. Madison’s > 
>prescription for > preventing gullibility by 
>government, government officials, and the > 
>people was constant, routine, omnivorous free 
>speech. > > Much of what the National Federation 
>of the Blind does involves > combating 
>gullibility. The public at large and, all too 
>often, blind > people ourselves believe > myths 
>and erroneous stereotypes about blindness and 
>then act, > individually or collectively, upon 
>those myths as truth. If a blind > person’s 
>vocational goal > or an agency’s array of 
>services is based on myth, that goal or those > 
>services will miss the mark. Part of the 
>Federation’s mission is to > untangle 
>deceived > from deceiver, to explain to those 
>who have been deceived what the > truth is and 
>how to shed erroneous beliefs while, at the same 
>time, > hunting down and > exposing the 
>deceivers, those who derive wealth or power or 
>community > approval by exaggerating or lying 
>about the blind to aggrandize > themselves. 
>Federationists > long ago abandoned our 
>gullibility when it comes to proclamations of > 
>concern for blind people. Applying the 
>Madisonian test, the more > someone claims to > 
>care about and want to help blind people and the 
>more we probe the > resulting motives and 
>actions, the more often we find that claimed > 
>motives of charity > are being worn like 
>sheep’s clothing to cover actions rooted in 
>the > oldest and most false myths about the 
>incompetence and inability of > blind 
>people. > > Take NAC, for example. To the 
>surprise of some and unbeknown to most, > the 
>National Accreditation Council for Agencies 
>Serving People with > Blindness or > Visual 
>Impairment (the modern, politically correct 
>version of that > venerable old name “NAC”) 
>has now passed its fortieth birthday and is > a 
>mere eight years > from achieving the 
>half-century mark. NAC’s survival is a tribute 
>to > human gullibility and also a regrettable 
>reminder of the persistent > impulse of some > 
>humans to fool their fellow men and women. > > 
>NAC was born with fanfare, spent its early years 
>in controversy, and > has idled away its last 
>several decades not even on the sidelines but > 
>somewhere behind > the bleachers, out of sight 
>and unnoticed by most. For a long time it > 
>didn’t have its own Website, lurking hidden 
>away on the Website of a > supporter. Recently > 
>NAC acquired its own Web address (Nacasb.org) to 
>which, in mid-August > of 2008, the most recent 
>postings were from December 2006, and on > which 
>the most > recent list of NAC-accredited 
>agencies was dated in 2003. Attempts to > review 
>additional material on the site were for a time 
>frustrated by > the expiration > of the site on 
>August 16, 2008, a fitting metaphor for 
>NAC’s > viability. By late September the site 
>had reappeared, but the content > had not been 
>updated > in the slightest. > > A review of 
>Monitor articles on the subject of NAC along 
>with > knowledge of NFB history yields the 
>following historical summary. The > National 
>Federation > of the Blind from its founding in 
>1940 grew slowly for its first > decade and 
>then, in the 1950s, more quickly to the point 
>where, in the > late 1950s, it > was clearly 
>going to establish affiliates in every state. 
>This > nationwide spread was temporarily halted 
>when the Federation underwent > a four-year 
>period > of progressively more divisive internal 
>strife from 1957 to 1961, > concluding at the 
>1961 national convention when a significant 
>minority > was either expelled > or voluntarily 
>departed from the organization. > > Shortly 
>after the Federation’s 1961 convention, 
>planning meetings were > called and discussions 
>begun about establishing an accreditation > 
>organization for > the field of work with the 
>blind. Observers of the field may differ > about 
>whether accreditation was merely thought of at 
>the same time the > NFB suffered > a split or 
>whether that low point in the organized blind 
>movement gave > agencies for the blind the idea 
>that they needed to consolidate their > power 
>before > the Federation could rebuild, but the 
>historical coincidence is as > undeniable as is 
>the fact that Federationists were rare indeed 
>among > the hundreds of > people invited to 
>think up an accreditation plan. The American > 
>Foundation for the Blind spearheaded and largely 
>funded these > discussions, attended by all > 
>the well-known leaders of blindness agencies 
>from around the country. > > As a result of 
>these discussions NAC itself was founded in 
>1966, still > largely funded by the American 
>Foundation for the Blind, to accredit > agencies 
>serving > blind people. It was intended to be 
>the path through which agencies > received not 
>only blindness-community approval but also 
>funding, which > should, in NAC’s > view, be 
>conditioned on NAC accreditation. Federationists 
>from the > beginning characterized NAC as 
>expensive, irrelevant, and designed to > 
>enshrine agency > control of assessment of 
>service quality as a means of keeping the > 
>weakened and then recrudescent consumer movement 
>from having a voice > in those assessments. > > 
>NAC’s first eight years of operation, from 
>1967 to 1975, saw half of > all agencies that 
>have ever chosen to be accredited by NAC apply 
>and > receive accreditation. > During those same 
>eight years the Federation rebounded from its 
>split > and established affiliates in every 
>state. NAC reached its high-water > mark in 
>1986 > with 104 accredited agencies. From 1986 
>to 1999 NAC accredited twenty > new agencies and 
>lost seventy-seven, leaving its total of U.S. > 
>accredited agencies > at forty-six. (Adding 
>twenty to the 1986 total and then subtracting > 
>seventy-seven leaves forty-seven, one more than 
>the actual number in > 1999, likely explained > 
>by the addition of a Canadian agency counted in 
>the earlier numbers > but excluded by NFB by the 
>time of the 1999 report. All numbers since > 
>1999 are U.S.-only > numbers.) From 1999 to 
>2003, the last list NAC has published, the > 
>total sank even lower, to forty. > > 
>Thirty-three states (including the District of 
>Columbia and Puerto > Rico) have no NAC agency 
>within their borders. Thirteen more states > 
>have only a single > NAC agency, leaving only 
>six states that have more than one NAC > 
>agency--Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, 
>Missouri, and Ohio. The > organized blind in > 
>those six states make no claim to the NAC 
>agencies where they live > being superior to 
>those in other states and often assert the 
>reverse. > Moreover, in at > least two of those 
>states NAC’s original desire to condition 
>federal, > state, and private money on holding 
>NAC certification was actually or > virtually 
>achieved; > many Florida agencies believe they 
>need NAC accreditation to receive > state funds, 
>even though this is not true, and Ohio agencies 
>receiving > state funds > must show 
>accreditation from a short state-approved list 
>on which NAC > has managed to appear. Florida 
>and Ohio are the two states with the > highest 
>number > of NAC-accredited agencies, accounting 
>for nearly half of the forty > remaining NAC 
>agencies, and it is easy to see why agencies in 
>those > states remain loyal: > they must or 
>think they must do so to get their money. > > 
>The field of work with the blind has three large 
>types of agencies > along with numerous smaller 
>geographically or issue-focused agencies. > The 
>three large > types are a vocational 
>rehabilitation agency in each state, schools > 
>for the blind in most states, and sheltered 
>workshops for the blind > affiliated with > 
>National Industries for the Blind and included 
>as one of the three > mainline types of agencies 
>because their NIB affiliation brings in > 
>substantial federal > procurement contracts. In 
>2008 not a single state vocational > 
>rehabilitation agency for the blind holds NAC 
>accreditation; only > eight schools for the 
>blind > do; and only ten workshops do. Fewer 
>than half of the forty accredited > agencies 
>come from one of the three mainline agency 
>types. In other > words, a majority > of the 
>current NAC agencies, twenty-two (55 percent) 
>are the smaller > geographic or issue-focused 
>agencies. And, interestingly, ten of the > 
>thirteen states > with only one NAC agency have 
>as their one NAC agency a mainline > agency, 
>suggesting that these six schools and four 
>workshops still > hearken back to the > 
>all-knowing agency professional model and are 
>thus uninterested in > what blind consumers 
>think, while the rest of the agencies in those > 
>states have moved > forward with the times. > > 
>Combining lists from an AFB-published list of 
>agencies on its Website, > which includes all VR 
>agencies, with lists from National Industries > 
>for the Blind, > the Council of Schools for the 
>Blind, and the National Council of > Private 
>Agencies for the Blind and Visually Impaired, 
>and eliminating > duplications yields > in 2008 
>a total of 440 agencies serving the blind in the 
>United > States, of which fewer than 10 percent 
>are accredited by NAC forty-two > years after 
>NAC’s > founding. > > NAC’s early years 
>featured board and membership meetings closed to 
>the > public and blind consumers, provoking 
>charges of secret > decision-making but never > 
>an effort to hide the identities of the 
>accredited agencies. In these > latter days it 
>is impossible to find a public list of 
>NAC-accredited > agencies dated > later than 
>2003, provoking snickers of derision and 
>suggestions that > NAC’s remaining remnant of 
>agencies prefers not to be publicly > 
>identified. > > Stepping back from this 
>historical summary and review of NAC > 
>statistics, the observer can readily detect that 
>the entire field of > work with blind people > 
>would have been different if the Federation had 
>not opposed NAC. > Whatever its standards, 
>whatever their value, whatever else had > 
>happened, NAC was on a > trajectory in its early 
>years to achieve control of work with the > 
>blind, logging over 20 percent affiliation with 
>it in its first two > decades. Today its > 
>adherents are less than 10 percent and a secret. 
>Even the director of > the American Foundation 
>for the Blind, a former NAC staffer himself > 
>and a proponent > of NAC accreditation in 
>service agencies he headed or worked with for > 
>most of his career, publicly urged NAC to 
>dissolve in 2003 at a summit > NAC called > to 
>assess its future. So how does it happen that 
>NAC is still around > even though it’s hard to 
>find and harder to justify? > > Let us remember 
>the subject of gullibility so well described 
>by > Abraham Lincoln and P. T. Barnum and then 
>move to a summary of the > Federation’s 
>criticisms > of NAC as a means of discerning why 
>that gullibility still moves some > to associate 
>with this odd anachronism from the 1960s. Here 
>is a list > of NAC’s failings > described by 
>the Federation during NAC’s forty-two-year 
>history. While > these seven NAC failings are 
>summarized here, ample documentation in > 
>Federation > literature exists for all, and they 
>are provided in no particular > order, 
>especially since they often reinforce one 
>another: > > 1. NAC costs too much. For most of 
>its life NAC’s accreditation cost > most 
>agencies $2,500 a year plus the costs of the 
>on-site team doing > the accreditation > review 
>and the cost of agency staff performing the 
>required self-study > prior to accreditation. 
>Estimates of NAC’s five-year cost ranged 
>from > $15,000 to > $20,000 for most agencies, 
>depending on how large the on-site team was > 
>and how lavishly it was entertained. These 
>estimates never included > the cost of > staff 
>time for the mandatory self-study, which 
>precedes accreditation > in the NAC context. As 
>NAC fell on hard times, it reportedly lowered > 
>the cost of > the annual accreditation fee, 
>promised small teams, which were often > two 
>people, to keep costs down, and pledged to keep 
>costs down by > bringing people > from nearby 
>agencies only. None of these moves has increased 
>its customer base. > > 2. NAC’s standards are 
>so irrelevant that no cost whatsoever is > 
>justified. Early versions of the NAC standards 
>mimicked local fire and > building codes, > 
>which already applied to the agency anyway and 
>applied administrative > and budgetary rules 
>from then-current management theory. The 
>standards > in effect > measured easily 
>measurable facts while completely ignoring 
>quality of > service or outcome for clients, 
>harder to measure than the number of > building 
>exits > provided by an agency, but the real 
>point of having an agency at all. > By the 2003 
>summit initiated by NAC to determine its future, 
>even its > adherents agreed > that the standards 
>were out of date and needed revision. NAC used 
>to > have a Commission on Standards, but it was 
>disbanded for financial > reasons and has > not 
>functioned for at least a decade. At the 2003 
>summit NAC’s > supporters agreed that 
>outcome-based assessment was undesirable and > 
>pledged to find grant > funding for updating 
>their objective, measurable standards. In 
>other > words they agreed to keep the structure 
>of ignoring agency outcomes as > their model > 
>for accreditation. > > 3. NAC accredits anyone 
>who pays its fees, and no agency has ever been > 
>reported to have failed NAC accreditation, which 
>makes that > accreditation useless. > In fact, 
>there are numerous instances during NAC’s 
>forty-two years of > existence when agencies who 
>ceased payment of accreditation fees were > 
>still included > as accredited on NAC’s list 
>of accredited agencies because NAC hoped > to 
>retain them in its fold by this act of kindness. 
>NAC’s original > pitch was that > its 
>standards represented all that was good about 
>service to blind > people, but that claim long 
>ago gave way to mere gratitude to any > agency 
>willing to > seek or renew accreditation and the 
>natural consequence that literally > anyone can 
>get accredited just by asking and paying a small 
>fee. In > contrast, the > Commission on 
>Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities 
>(CARF) has > rigorous standards by which it 
>measures applicants, and it rejects or > grants 
>provisional > accreditation to those agencies 
>barely meeting its standards with > noted 
>deficiencies. When CARF accreditation is 
>renewed, CARF on-site > teams show up with > 
>extensive notes of previous deficiencies and 
>commence a full review. > With CARF you get 
>rigor and public labeling of full, provisional, 
>or > no accreditation, > giving the label 
>meaning. And accreditation in the traditional 
>CARF > areas like hospitals is so well 
>understood and expected that entities > without 
>it are > easy to identify and the reason for 
>their lack of accreditation > learned. With NAC 
>you pay your money and go through the motions, 
>but > the accreditation > is assured by the mere 
>fact of application. So few agencies are > 
>accredited that lack of accreditation is 
>meaningless, and its presence > is usually so 
>little > understood as to be equally 
>meaningless. > > 4. NAC accreditation itself is 
>meaningless because it’s simply an > old-pal 
>network of pals affirming that their pals uphold 
>the outmoded > 1960s style of > all-knowing 
>professionals in charge of the blind. NAC 
>accreditation is > performed by peers, which in 
>the field of work with the blind means > friends 
>vouching > for friends. The pledge in recent 
>years to bring small on-site teams > from nearby 
>to cut costs has merely emphasized this flaw. 
> From its > inception NAC has > existed for the 
>purpose of imposing irrelevant objective 
>standards as > the sole measure of quality 
>service. In the relatively small field of > work 
>with the > blind, colleagues tend to know one 
>another and to know which > colleagues share 
>their views on service models and the consumer > 
>organizations. NAC at one > time represented the 
>dominant view in the field, but the paradigm 
>has > long since shifted away from the 
>all-knowing professional model > espoused by 
>NAC. > Whether early on or today, NAC’s 
>on-site teams already know what they > think of 
>the applicant for accreditation, and the result 
>is never in > doubt. > > 5. The widely 
>recognized and valued accreditation for 
>hospitals and > colleges is based on the 
>objective presence or absence of a highly > 
>specialized body > of knowledge acquired by 
>study and practice, but service to blind > 
>people does not contain such a body of 
>knowledge. NAC has tried to > convince people 
>that > the Federation opposes accreditation, but 
>this has never been true. > Instead the 
>Federation has consistently maintained that the 
>field of > work with the > blind is not like 
>those of hospitals or higher education. In the 
>NAC > view highly trained and experienced 
>professionals with rare and > arduously 
>acquired > specialized knowledge should be in 
>charge of agencies for the blind > and their 
>blind clients. These highly trained and 
>experienced > professionals can recognize > one 
>another when serving on on-site teams and thus 
>grant accreditation > appropriately. In the 
>Federation’s view NAC’s view is a lot of > 
>nonsense and held > the field of work with the 
>blind back for far too long. The Federation > 
>advocates a common-sense approach to blindness, 
>accessible to anyone > who thinks > clearly on 
>the subject and readily accessible to every 
>blind person. > Blind people more and more 
>understand that we do not need lifetime > 
>caregivers but > rather appropriate training and 
>positive beliefs, which are the > foundation for 
>each of us personally to create our own 
>independence by > living successful > lives 
>without sight. Much of the field of work with 
>the blind has > voted with its feet, choosing to 
>move away from the all-knowing > professional 
>model and > engage more directly with consumer 
>organizations and consumer > criticisms of 
>failed and inadequate service based on the 
>outmoded > caregiver model. While > some 
>agencies have more successfully rejected the 
>caregiver model than > others, agencies by the 
>hundreds have rejected the opportunity to > 
>accredit with > NAC and deliberately adopt the 
>all-knowing professional model. > > 6. NAC’s 
>standards should never be the gateway to funds 
>as NAC hoped > would happen. Agencies for the 
>blind receiving public money already > account 
>for this > money through the political process, 
>and agencies funded by charitable > donations in 
>a sense have a closer link to their funders, who 
>must be > motivated > to give by belief in the 
>value of gifts. In other words, for both > 
>public and private agencies, funding already 
>generates one type of > accountability 
>regarding > each agency’s funding sources. In 
>these days of tight budgets and > increased 
>demand for services, no agency is looking for 
>duplicative > ways to validate > its value, 
>leading to the conclusion that NAC has not only 
>irrelevant > standards but also irrelevant 
>accreditation. As mentioned previously, > NAC 
>has actually > managed to remain on a list of 
>accreditation agencies from which Ohio > 
>agencies receiving state funds must show 
>accreditation, and Florida’s > agencies act > 
>as though there is a similar requirement though 
>this is untrue. It > seems regrettable that Ohio 
>state officials are so unsure of their own > 
>ability to assess > quality service that they 
>are willing to accept accreditation based on > 
>an outmoded and frankly offensive service model. 
>The other forty-nine > states along > with D.C. 
>and Puerto Rico have no such trouble, and in 
>fact Florida > has state-based standards, which 
>are the actual requirement for > receipt of 
>state funds. > Put more bluntly, Ohio’s state 
>officials are still fooled by the large > number 
>of NAC agencies in that state into believing 
>they are doing the > right thing > when, in 
>fact, the rest of the nation has moved on to 
>another, much > more service-oriented approach, 
>leaving Ohio’s service system mired in > the 
>all-knowing > service model with which its own 
>agency beneficiaries are content. NAC > itself 
>is headquartered in Ohio, where the 
>second-largest number of > NAC agencies > per 
>state is located, suggesting that pure, 
>old-fashioned political > pull and not quality 
>service explains the outdated mandatory use of > 
>NAC’s dying service > model in that state 
>only. > > 7. The other existing type of 
>accountability for all agencies already > exists 
>in the results they achieve. Blind consumers who 
>use the > services and who > know about 
>blindness provide vital assessments of the value 
>of agency > services, and consumer organizations 
>of blind people provide routine, > ongoing 
>feedback > to agencies serving the blind who are 
>interested in their quality of > service, as 
>assessed by their customers. In fact federal law 
>requires > regular interaction > with blind 
>consumers as a condition of receiving 
>vocational > rehabilitation money, and the 
>boards of more and more agencies are > welcoming 
>blind members, > nearly unheard of when NAC was 
>founded. While blind consumers can > easily 
>agree that the quality of agency services can 
>still > significantly improve, we > less often 
>encounter these days the kind of in-your-face, > 
>sight-is-right arrogance and institutionalized 
>custodialism so > prevalent before and during 
>the > 1960s and embodied in the NAC standards. 
>In direct opposition to the > conclusion of the 
>NAC summit in 2003, agencies around the country 
>are > more alert today > than ever to the 
>outcome of their services, and the trend now 
>firmly > set is unlikely to be reversed. In 
>other words, NAC accreditation > seeks to 
>override > both funder and consumer 
>accountability, replacing them with the NAC > 
>all-knowing standard which completely validates 
>everything the agency > does at a time > when 
>most agencies serving the blind are content with 
>the > accountability they currently have. > > 
>Given NAC’s track record, almost everyone in 
>the field—funders, > consumers, and 
>agencies—a€”agree that paying any amount for its 
>services > is not justified > and that 
>accountability for funds and results already 
>exists. So the > reasonable question to ask is: 
>how does NAC survive? Another way to > ask this 
>question > is to divide the topic into two 
>halves and ask instead: why do some > agencies 
>retain their association with NAC, and why does 
>NAC continue > to offer its > outdated and 
>unwanted accreditation? Abraham Lincoln and P. 
>T. Barnum > may now re-emerge and urge us to 
>assay the motives of both the > deceiver and the 
>deceived. > Let us start with the deceived. > > 
>We earlier postulated that the range of motives 
>for the deceived can > be very wide and can 
>include both ignorance and benevolence. In the > 
>current century, > as we have seen, the model of 
>the all-knowing agency professional > class has 
>largely been rejected. But not completely. One 
>can still > find specimens in > the field of 
>work with the blind, people who believe that 
>their > professional training or their unique 
>gifts or experience entitle them > to instruct 
>blind > people what they may do, what they may 
>think, and on whom they should > be dependent. 
>This group of all-knowing professionals is 
>rightly > classified along > with NAC as part of 
>the deceiver class, and we will leave analysis 
>of > their motivations to be aggregated with 
>those of NAC itself. For the > rest, we can > 
>assume that agencies still associated with NAC 
>are either woefully > ignorant or misguidedly 
>benevolent. They are agency professionals who > 
>are either honestly > unaware of the changes in 
>the field of work with the blind, who can be > 
>fooled into thinking that NAC’s claims of high 
>standards and quality > validation > must be 
>true because no one would make such claims 
>without > justification, or they so yearn to do 
>good that they overlook the > possibility that 
>people who > mouth the words that NAC does may 
>not share their own impulse actually > to do 
>good. These uninformed or soft-headed 
>professionals have taken a > wrong turn, > but 
>they have been impelled into their unfortunate 
>detour by their own > gullibility and NAC’s 
>eagerness to entice them out of the 
>mainstream. > Observers > of the field can 
>rightly criticize their poor judgment and powers 
>of > observation without concluding that such 
>professionals are consciously > adopting the > 
>all-knowing professional model. In many cases 
>the agencies they > represent are smaller 
>city-based or regional agencies flattered by > 
>being invited to play > with the big boys. They 
>just don’t understand that the big boys they > 
>happen to be playing with are a small group of 
>bullies whose ideas > derive from the > last 
>century, with legitimate ties to the century 
>before that, and who > have chosen not to change 
>with the times but rather to hope that the > 
>times can be > brought back around to their 
>archaic stance and the good old days when > 
>agency professionals ruled and blind men and 
>women obeyed. > > Thus it is hard to categorize 
>the agency of today that has voluntarily > 
>associated itself with NAC. Rumors persist that 
>a small agency named > Insight in > Fort 
>Collins, Colorado, has recently sought and 
>accepted NAC > accreditation. With only a 
>five-year-old list of accredited agencies > and 
>no updated Website > information to check, this 
>agency’s insistence that it has recently > 
>become NAC-accredited must be accepted. Why 
>would an agency insist > that it is newly > 
>NAC-accredited, given all the reasons to run 
>fleet-footed from such > opprobrium, unless it 
>is true? The only thing an observer can do is > 
>shake the head > sadly, note that Abraham 
>Lincoln and P. T. Barnum both spoke truly, > and 
>then mourn for the Coloradans who have enjoyed a 
>NAC-free > environment for so many > years only 
>to have the gullibility of a small agency taint 
>that > pristine condition. > With most large 
>agencies for the blind casually uninterested in 
>NAC > and most states NAC-free, we can pity that 
>small group of agencies > whose gullibility > 
>betrays them into remaining NAC-accredited. But 
>what of NAC itself and > those agency 
>professionals who still proclaim that the 
>all-knowing > professional > model and not the 
>outcome model is the correct assessment tool 
>for > judging agency quality? These are not the 
>deceived but the deceivers, > the men and 
>women > who have chosen to espouse the outdated 
>service model first championed > by NAC in 1966 
>and now rejected by the field it claims to 
>measure. > These are not > people fooled by 
>ignorance or benevolence. They are the ones 
>doing the > fooling, the ones keeping alive that 
>silly notion that blind people > need guards > 
>and protectors and want lifetime dependency on 
>caring professionals. > > One of their leaders 
>is Steven Hegedeos, NAC’s executive director > 
>since 2001. Pretty much every time Mr. Hegedeos 
>speaks about > accreditation, he mentions > that 
>he has saved two other accreditation bodies from 
>dissolution > before joining the stumbling NAC. 
>It seems likely, then, that Mr. > Hegedeos has 
>assigned > himself the life task of taking 
>moribund accrediting bodies and > reviving them, 
>regardless of the reason for the body’s 
>original > decline. Or, put another > way, Mr. 
>Hegedeos is determined to succeed in his life 
>goal whether > the field of work with the blind 
>wants accreditation or not. His > comments seem 
>largely > to involve the subject of 
>accreditation, regardless of context and > 
>unrelated to the alleged beneficiaries. A life 
>devoted to > accreditation has happened > to 
>collide with a dying accrediting body, and the 
>resulting fusion > will not be allowed by Mr. 
>Hegedeos to expire, not even if the field > 
>offered that accreditation > almost completely 
>ignores it. > > The remaining NAC champions, 
>mostly heads of a few NAC-accredited > agencies 
>themselves, get to be big fish in a little pond. 
>With only > forty agencies accredited, > it’s 
>not hard to rise to the top of the pool if you 
>shout louder than > the next guy about how great 
>NAC is. The same outmoded system NAC > 
>upholds—all-knowing > proofessionals providing 
>care to the frail blind—also creattes a > 
>hierarchy of professionals with those most 
>vocally supporting NAC the > ones tapped to 
>hold > its offices and go on its on-site 
>teams. > > Put in Lincoln’s terms, we have the 
>outdated fooling some gullible > agencies all 
>the time by annually collecting NAC 
>accreditation fees > from them, the outdated > 
>fooling the field of work with the blind all the 
>time by not appearing > to pose a sufficient 
>threat to be worth the euthanizing (except to 
>the > Federation > and AFB’s director), and 
>the outdated not able to fool all of the > field 
>all of the time since the field largely ignores 
>NAC though it > keeps receiving unpleasant > 
>reminders like the little Colorado agency’s 
>recent accreditation that > NAC has not yet left 
>the field for good. Or, put more succinctly, 
>the > Colorado agency > proves that P. T. Barnum 
>is right that suckers still exist, and we can > 
>hope for the day when, at least in the field of 
>work with the blind, > the chance > for the 
>anachronism of NAC to fool the gullible will 
>finally be > eliminated forever. > Or the field 
>of work with the blind can look at the whole 
>NAC > situation from a different perspective, 
>the one in the child’s rhyme: > > Yesterday 
>upon the stair, > I met a man who wasn’t 
>there. > He wasn’t there again today. > I 
>wish, I wish he’d go away. > > As kids we all 
>liked the fast-paced rhyming and weren’t 
>overly > bothered by the words’ making no 
>sense. Now as adults we can easily > apply them 
>to NAC, an > accreditation agency which 
>essentially hasn’t been there for more than > 
>half of its existence. In case after case, when 
>blind people were > receiving poor > service, 
>NAC issued and maintained accreditations. In 
>case after case > chronicled in the Monitor, 
>when blind people and especially children > were 
>being assaulted > and endangered to the point of 
>death, in case after case where > employees were 
>being mistreated and funds embezzled and the 
>analysis > of blind consumers > being ignored, 
>NAC issued and maintained accreditation. As the 
>field > moved on beyond NAC’s outmoded 
>approach, NAC issued and maintained > 
>accreditations > to an ever-shrinking list to 
>the point where NAC has become that man > upon 
>the stair, clearly there and clearly not, 
>encountered very > occasionally as in > the 
>instance of that little Colorado agency and then 
>disappearing > quite literally off the Web and, 
>when present, providing information > years out 
>of date. > It’s been time for a long while for 
>NAC to go away, though neither > lack of success 
>nor lack of funding nor even the recommendation 
>of the > > AFB director seems to get the job 
>done. But some day everyone knows > NAC will 
>quietly wither away. > Perhaps yet another way 
>of viewing NAC, of considering it that man > 
>upon the stair, is to go back to our wise 
>sixteenth president and rest > our hopes on > 
>one more quotation of his. Lincoln had that 
>knack of compressing into > a few words the 
>wisdom he had absorbed, and his deep sense of 
>equality > before the > law and before his God 
>comes out in a quotation which could as easily > 
>be applied to NAC and to those agencies which 
>seek to rule the blind > according to > the 
>all-knowing professional view. Just think if 
>this prescription by > Lincoln could be filled 
>by placing those all-knowing professionals > 
>where they seek > to place their clients. It’s 
>easy to imagine then how quickly NAC > would be 
>gone. Lincoln put it this way: "Whenever I hear 
>anyone > arguing for slavery, > I feel a strong 
>impulse to see it tried on him personally." > > 
>_______________________________________________

         David Andrews and long white cane Harry.
E-Mail:  dandrews at visi.com or david.andrews at nfbnet.org