[nfbmi-talk] on COMSTAC and NAC

[trising at sbcglobal.net]

NAC: WHAT PRICE ACCREDITATION

A Report to National Federation of the Blind Members
 on COMSTAC and NAC
 by Kenneth Jernigan, President
 National Federation of the Blind

>From the Editor: I delivered this address at the 1971 convention of the National Federation of the Blind in Houston. NAC's president 
and executive director had come to discuss what NAC was doing and why. My remarks were meant to set the tone for the debate. In the 
context of NAC's current maneuvering I think this 1971 analysis is still pertinent. Here it is:

When the Commission on Standards and Accreditation on Services for the Blind (COMSTAC) and its successor organization, the National 
Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Impaired (NAC), came into being during the 1960s, the leaders of 
the organized blind movement sounded the alarm. It was pointed out that the American Association of Workers for the Blind had 
unsuccessfully tried, during the 1950s, to gain control of the field of work for the blind by instituting what it called a "seal of 
good practices." Of the several hundred agencies and organizations in this country doing work with the blind only twenty or thirty 
ever applied for and received this "seal." Several of those which did were not regarded by the blind as either very effective or 
very progressive. As the decade of the '60s approached, the proponents of rigid agency control apparently decided to change tactics. 
The American Foundation for the Blind and certain other leading agency officials adopted the idea of establishing a so-called 
"independent" accrediting system for all groups doing work with the blind. Although individual blind persons who were agency 
officials were involved in the establishment and development of COMSTAC, the blind as a group were not consulted--that is, the 
representative organizations of the blind were not given a voice, except occasionally as a matter of tokenism. Thus, the consumers 
of the services were not heard in any meaningful way, and they had no part in developing or promulgating the standards to govern the 
agencies established to give them assistance.

 Profiting by the earlier failure of the AAWB "seal of good practices" experiment, the authors of COMSTAC built more carefully. The 
American Foundation for the Blind appointed an "independent" commission--the Commission on Standards and Accreditation for Services 
for the Blind (COMSTAC). The full-time staff consultant for COMSTAC was a staff member of the AFB, on loan to the group, purely as a 
means of demonstrating the Foundation's concern with the improvement of services for the blind. To add respectability, people of 
prestige outside of the field of work with the blind were placed on the commission-- public officials, business executives, the dean 
of the Temple Law School, etc. These were people of good will and integrity, but they were not knowledgeable concerning the problems 
of blindness. Obviously they took their tone and orientation from the Foundation appointees on COMSTAC. All of these appointees, it 
must be borne in mind, were high-ranking officials doing work with the blind. Not one of them represented the blind themselves. Not 
one of them came from a membership organization of blind persons.

 As its work developed, COMSTAC divided into subcommittees, involving hundreds of people throughout the country, since the 
subcommittees further subdivided into smaller groups. Again, the pattern was followed. The subcommittees, or the subcommittees of 
the subcommittees, had, in every instance, at least one of the COMSTAC agency officials as a member, plus people of prestige and 
ordinary rank and file agency workers or board members. In fact, at the sub-subcommittee level a few members of the organized blind 
movement were even added.

 The American Foundation for the Blind and COMSTAC were later to proclaim with pride that they had sought and achieved a broad 
consensus throughout the field of work with the blind. However, the method of arriving at that consensus was, to say the least, 
novel. At Denver in the summer of 1965, for instance, the AAWB convention was largely taken up with a discussion of the COMSTAC 
standards--to gather opinions and achieve consensus, it was said. Only the discussion leaders had copies of the standards (there had 
been a delay in mimeographing), and any touchy point which was raised was answered either by the statement that it was covered 
somewhere else in the COMSTAC standards or that another group was discussing that matter and it was not properly the concern of the 
group in which it had been raised.

 Home teachers from throughout the country were present and were considering the standards affecting their specialty. The 
overwhelming majority apparently disagreed with a particular item in the COMSTAC document and suggested that a vote be taken to 
determine the sentiments of the group. They were informed by the discussion leader that a vote certainly would not be taken but that 
their views would be reported to COMSTAC, which had the sole responsibility for deciding such matters.

 Throughout the summer and fall of 1965 promises were repeatedly made that copies of the proposed COMSTAC standards would be made 
available. They were forthcoming, hundreds of pages of them--three days prior to the final conference in New York City, which 
brought together hundreds of agency representatives for the announced purpose of arriving at a final consensus. Dr. Jacobus tenBroek 
and I attended that conference. Again, the democracy and fair play with which it was conducted were novel. One had to indicate in 
writing ahead of time which particular group discussion he would like to attend. There was no assurance that his choice would be 
honored. He might be assigned to another group. He could not move from group to group at all. If he had not received a special 
invitation, he could not attend the meetings. COMSTAC appointees were stationed at the door to check credentials, and I personally 
witnessed the turning away of one agency director who had been critical of COMSTAC.

 It is no wonder that the blind people of the country felt apprehensive. What type of standards were likely to emerge from a 
commission so appointed and so conducted? Not only the blind but also many of the agencies expressed concern. Many felt that the AFB 
and federal rehabilitation officials (unwittingly aided by people of prestige in the broader community) would impose a system of 
rigid controls--which would stifle initiative, foster domination, and take the emphasis off of real service and place it on 
bureaucracy, red tape, and professional jargon. It was further felt that what purported to begin as a voluntary system would (once 
firmly established) become mandatory. The AFB and other proponents of COMSTAC and its successor organization, NAC, vigorously denied 
these assertions. COMSTAC and NAC were to be truly independent. Their very watchword was to be objectivity. They were to be the 
means of improving services to blind people throughout the country and the vehicle for progressive thought and constructive change.

 Readers of the Braille Monitor will remember that from 1965 through 1968 a detailed analysis was made of the COMSTAC and NAC 
reports and activities. The fact that the Federation has not called attention in recent months to COMSTAC and NAC should not lead 
the blind to believe that the threat has passed or the situation improved. Quite the contrary is the case.

 The question of NAC's independence, for example, is no longer a matter for serious debate. The Scriptures tell us that "where a 
man's treasure is, there will his heart be also." In an official NAC document entitled "Budget Comparison--1968 and 1969," dated 
April 15, 1968, the following items appear.

 "Total approved budget calendar year 1968, $154,034; total projected calendar year 1969, $154,000. Estimated income 1968: grant 
from American Foundation for the Blind $70,000; grant from Department of Health, Education, and Welfare $75,000. Estimated income 
1969: grant from American Foundation for the Blind $70,000; grant from Department of Health, Education, and Welfare $70,000."

 Today (in 1971) the overwhelming majority of NAC's funds still come from HEW and the American Foundation for the Blind. Many of the 
NAC meetings are held at the AFB building in New York, and the executive director of NAC is a former Foundation staff member, the 
same one who was on "loan" to COMSTAC. When the first annual NAC awards were given, in 1970, it may be of significance that two 
recipients were named: Mr. Jansen Noyes, President of the Board of Directors of the American Foundation for the Blind; and Miss Mary 
Switzer, the long-time head of rehabilitation in the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Even more to the point 
may be Miss Switzer's comments upon that occasion as reported in the NAC minutes of April 24, 1970: "She predicted that difficult 
times might lie ahead if agencies accept the idea of standards but do nothing about them. The expending or withholding of public 
money can provide the incentive that is needed."

 Thus spoke Miss Switzer, confirming what Federation leaders had predicted and COMSTAC spokesmen had denied a decade ago. The full 
meaning of Miss Switzer's statement was spelled out by Alexander Handel, Executive Director of NAC, as reported in the NAC minutes 
of April 25, 1970: "Mr. Handel reported a new and important step in encouraging accreditation. The Council of State Administrators 
has passed a resolution that by July 1, 1974, state rehabilitation agencies will require that agencies from which they purchase 
services be accredited." The use of the word "encouraging" in this context is almost reminiscent of George Orwell's double-think and 
new-speak of 1984--only thirteen years away, at that. Perhaps sooner. The "encouraging" of agencies to seek accreditation from NAC 
will probably be called by some by the ugly name of blackmail. The pressure for conformity and the concentration of power could well 
be the most serious threat to good programs for the blind in the decade ahead.

 Federationists who attended the 1966 Louisville convention will remember that a report on COMSTAC and NAC was given at that time. I 
had been officially asked to serve on the NAC board. The offer was, of course, tokenism of the most blatant sort; and the question 
was whether to accept, leaving the Federation open to the charge of approving NAC actions, or to reject, exposing us to the charge 
of non-cooperation and leaving us with no means of observing and getting information. Federationists will remember that it was 
decided that I should accept the invitation. Thus, I have been a member of the NAC board since its inception. In the spring of 1970 
I was elected to another three-year term. There are more than thirty NAC board members, of whom I am one.

 While expressing my minority views, I have tried to be personally congenial and friendly with the NAC board members. Nevertheless, 
tokenism remains tokenism. The other members of the board not only seemed unconcerned with but unaware of the non- representative 
character of NAC. It is as if General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, and American Motors should set up a council and put six or seven 
officials from each of their companies on its board and then ask the UAW to contribute a single representative. What would the 
unions do in such a situation? What would racial minorities do if their representative organizations were offered such tokenism--in 
the establishment and promulgation of standards affecting their lives? I think we know what they would do. They would take both 
political and court action, and they would instigate mass demonstrations. Perhaps the blind should take a leaf from the same book. 
We cannot and should not exhibit endless patience. We cannot and should not forever tolerate the intolerable. I continue to sit on 
the NAC board, but I often wonder why. It does not discuss the real problems which face the blind today or the methods of solving 
those problems. In fact, NAC itself may well be more a part of the problem than the solution. I repeat that tokenism by any other 
name is still tokenism. In May of 1969, for instance, I received a document from NAC entitled "Statement of Understanding Among 
National Accreditation Council, National Industries for the Blind and the General Council of Workshops for the Blind." This document 
was sent to all NAC board members with the request that they vote to approve or disapprove it. It contained six points, of which one 
and five are particularly pertinent. They are as follows: "1. By June 30, 1970, all NIB affiliated shops shall have either: a. 
applied to NAC for accreditation and submitted a self-study guide (or) b. applied to the General Council for a Certificate of 
Affiliation with NIB and submitted a self-study guide. 5. Certificates of Affiliation with NIB entitle shops to membership in the 
General Council and to access through NIB to: a. Government business allocated by NIB, b. Commercial business allocated by NIB, c. 
Consulting services of NIB, d. Any and all other benefits of NIB affiliation." In other words if a workshop for the blind wishes any 
contracts from the federal government, it had better get into line and "volunteer" for accreditation by NAC. No pressure, of course, 
merely a system of "voluntary accreditation!" As you might expect, I voted no on the NIB agreement. Along with my ballot, I sent the 
following comments:

 "I do not approve this statement because I do not believe government contracts and other benefits to workshops should be 
conditioned upon their accreditation by NAC. Rather, receipt of government contracts and other benefits should depend upon the 
quality of performance of the workshop in question. Does the shop pay at least a minimum wage? Do its workers have the rights 
associated with collective bargaining? What sort of image of blindness does it present to the public?

 "Prior to NAC (in the days of COMSTAC) many of us said that NAC would become a vehicle for blackmail--dressed out nicely, of 
course, in professional jargon. It would appear that the prophecy is beginning to come true, earlier assurances to the contrary 
notwithstanding."

 As I say, I voted no. What do you suppose the final tally of the ballots indicated? Twenty-seven yes votes and one no vote. How 
different the results might have been if there had been equal representation of the blind themselves and the agencies! Yes, tokenism 
is still tokenism.

 In order that my position cannot be twisted or misinterpreted I would like to say that the quarrel is not with the concept of 
accreditation itself. Rather, we object to what is being done in the name of accreditation. Proper accreditation by a properly 
accredited group is a constructive thing. What NAC is doing is something else altogether.

 There is, of course, not time here to go into the details of all of the standards originally developed by COMSTAC and how being 
fostered by NAC, but a brief sample is sufficient to make the point. Federationists will remember that the Braille Monitorfor 
February, 1966, carried an analysis of the COMSTAC standards on physical facilities. That analysis said in part:

 --------------------

The standards [on physical facilities] are perhaps notable chiefly in that they are so vague and minimal as to be equally applicable 
to office buildings, nursing homes, or universities by the simple substitution of the names of these other facilities....

 Perhaps a brief run-down of the standards themselves would serve as the best and most complete illustration (headings theirs).

 1. Overall Suitability--The total facility is constructed to best serve the needs of the particular agency. It will adequately 
serve everyone concerned. It will meet the requirements of its governing body, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and 
the city building code. The physical facilities will be helpful to the program.

 2. Location--The facility is located where it can easily be reached by staff, clients, and others who need to use it. The facility 
should be close to shopping and other community interests. The location is reasonably safe, with hazards minimized.

 3. Grounds--The grounds will be large enough to allow for future expansion. They will be pleasant ("free of undue nuisances and 
hazards,"), with parking areas and roadways. Signs will be posted to help people locate the proper areas.

 4. Activity Area--The layout of the facility will be efficient. The facility will be designed for the planned activities, will be 
large enough and well organized (reception rooms next to entries, work areas together, etc.). Sufficient maintenance will be 
provided for.

 5. Privacy--People will have as much privacy as individual cases call for. Confidentiality will be maintained.

 6. Health and Safety--The health and safety codes of the community will be met. Sufficient heat and light will be provided. 
Sanitary conditions will be as good as possible. Suitable entries will be provided for wheelchairs, etc. Safety features will be 
related to the level of competence of the occupants, the activities undertaken, and the equipment used. Adequate first aid 
facilities are provided.

 7. Fire and Disaster Protection--All buildings will be so designed and equipped as to minimize the danger of fire. The buildings 
will be inspected by local authorities and/or independent authorities and records of inspection kept. Smoking areas are clearly 
specified. Proper protection shall be provided the occupants of the facility to minimize danger should fire or disaster occur. 
Suitable fire extinguishers will be provided. Fire alarms will be installed as to be heard throughout the facility. Fire drills will 
be held irregularly. Special provisions will be made for fire warnings to deaf-blind.

 8. Maintenance--"The condition of the physical facility gives evidence of planful and effective maintenance and housekeeping."

 9. Remodeling--When remodeling is undertaken, it should be to best suit the needs of the program.

 The preceding is an inclusive summary! One can imagine the breadth of interpretation that can result from application of these 
standards. One can also imagine the range of individual whim and axe-grinding, not to say blackmail and favoritism, that can enter 
into the proposed accreditation of agencies for the blind based on such vague and capricious requirements. The danger to be 
anticipated is the possibility of varying application of standards to friends and foes when "accrediting" agencies....

 One is tempted to dismiss this entire report of "Standards for Physical Facilities" with the single word, "Blah!" But more 
intensive study indicates otherwise. Tucked away among the platitudes and the generalities are the age-old misconceptions and 
stereotypes.

 What, for instance, is meant by the requirement that a facility for the blind be located near to shopping and other community 
interests, and that it be in a location reasonably safe, with hazards minimized? The exact words of the committee are, "Where undue 
hazards cannot be avoided, proper measures are instituted to assure the safety of all persons coming to the agency. (For example, 
where an agency is on a street with heavy traffic, a light or crosswalk or other means is available for safe crossing by blind 
persons.)"

 If this standard is simply meant to express the general pious platitude that everybody ought to be as safe as possible, then what a 
farcical and pathetic waste of time and money to assemble a committee to spell out what everybody already knows. On the other hand, 
if the standard means to imply that the blind are not able to live and compete among the ordinary hazards of the regular workaday 
world and that they need more shelter and care than others, the implications are not only false but the are insidiously vicious.

 Of a similar character is the committee's statement that the grounds must "provide pleasant and appropriate surroundings, and be 
free of undue nuisances and hazards." Surely we do not need a special commission on standards and accreditation to tell us that 
people should live in pleasant surroundings that are free of undue hazards, if this is all that is meant. If, however, the committee 
is saying that the blind require surroundings that are more "pleasant and free from hazards" than the surroundings required by other 
people, one cannot help but be unhappily reminded of the 19th century concept that the blind should be entertained and provided with 
recreation, that they should be helped in every way possible to "live with their misfortune."

 If this type of analysis seems blunt, one can only reply that this is no time for nice words and mousy phrases. The people who were 
formerly the Commission on Standards, and are now the National Accreditation, hold themselves out to the public at large as the 
qualified experts, the people who have the right to make standards and grant or refuse accreditation to all and the sundry. These 
are not children indulging in the innocent games of childhood. They are adults, playing with the lives of hundreds of people.

 --------------------

 Federationists should review the Braille Monitor from 1965 through 1968 to study the COMSTAC reports in light of present 
developments. I have not tried here to analyze the content of those reports. Mostly it is bad, and the standards and rules 
established by COMSTAC and NAC harmful. Let anyone who doubts this assertion read the COMSTAC reports and the Monitor analyses. They 
speak for themselves.

 One final matter requires comment. At a recent meeting of the National Accreditation Council I was telling a new member of the 
board (a prominent businessman totally uninformed about the problems faced by the blind) that I thought most of the actions of NAC 
were irrelevant. He seemed surprised and said something to this effect:

 "If you think what we are doing here is not relevant, what is relevant?"

 To which I said, "Last fall a blind man in Minneapolis (a person who had worked for several years as a computer programmer at 
Honeywell and was laid off because of the recession) applied to take a civil service examination for computer programmer with the 
city of Minneapolis. His application was rejected, on the grounds of blindness. The National Federation of the Blind helped him with 
advice and legal counsel. As a result, he took the examination, and he now has a job with the city of Minneapolis as a computer 
programmer.

 "How many of the people who are on the NAC board," I asked, "are even aware that such an incident occurred? How many of them think 
it is important?"

 "Or," I went on, "consider another incident. A few weeks ago in Ohio a blind high school senior (duly elected by her class) was 
denied the right to attend the American Legion Girls' State. The story was carried nationwide by United Press, and the matter is 
still pending. Do you see any of these people here today concerned or excited about this case? Do you see them trying to do anything 
about it?"

 "Well," my companion replied, "your organization seems to be working on matters like this. Maybe NAC is doing good in other areas."

 "The difficulty," I told him, "is that the actions of NAC are helping to create the kind of problem situations I have been 
describing to you."

 "How?" he asked me.

 "NAC," I said, "accredits workshops, for instance. What kind of standards does it use in determining whether a shop should be 
approved and presented to the public as a worthy and progressive institution? NAC is concerned about whether the workshop has a good 
accounting system. It is concerned about good pay and good working conditions for the professional staff (almost all of them 
sighted). It is concerned with the physical facilities and (perhaps) whether there is a psychologist or psychiatrist available to 
minister to the blind workers. But what about minimum wages for those same blind workers, or the right of collective bargaining, or 
grievance committees? On such items NAC is silent. It will accredit a sheltered shop which pays less than fifty cents an hour to its 
blind workers. By so doing, it puts its stamp of approval on such practices. It helps perpetuate the system that has kept the blind 
in bondage and made them second-class citizens through the centuries. It helps to slam the door on the computer programmer in 
Minneapolis and the high school student in Ohio. Worst of all, perhaps, it reinforces and helps to continue the myth that blindness 
means inferiority, that the blind are unable to compete on terms of equality in regular industry or the professions, that the blind 
should be grateful for what they have and stay in their places. The workshop example is only that, an example. The same theme is 
everywhere present in NAC's action and standards--and, for that matter, in its very makeup."

 As we talked, my businessman companion seemed shocked that there were sheltered shops paying less than the minimum wage to blind 
workers. Yet, he is on the NAC board, lending his name to the accreditation. I pointed out to him a variety of other ways in which 
the work of NAC is helping to promote misconceptions about blindness and add to our problems. I can only hope that the seeds I 
planted will bear fruit.

 To round out the picture we are considering today, one further item might be mentioned. The April 25, 1968 minutes of NAC report as 
follows:

 "Over thirty agencies and schools have indicated, in writing, an interest in applying for accreditation. Official applications have 
been received from six agencies. Some of these have already paid the application fee. The American Council of the Blind is the first 
membership association to apply for membership in the National Accreditation Council."

 In a letter dated July 11, 1968, from Alexander Handel, Executive Director of the National Accreditation Council for Agencies 
Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped, to members of the NAC Board of Directors an article is discussed which appears in the 
July, 1968, issue of the Braille Forum (the official publication of the American Council of the Blind). The article says in part:

 "It should be emphasized, however, that from the first, ACB officers and members actively consulted with the various committees 
developing the standards, and ACB was the only national organization of the blind which both participated in and financially 
supported the National Conference on Standards which led to the formation of the National Accreditation Council."

 I give you this quotation without comment. It speaks for itself. So do the actions of NAC. I presume all of you have read the 
exchange of correspondence concerning the appearance of NAC representatives at this meeting today. The contempt and condescension 
inherent in NAC's bland assumption that it was proper to reject our invitation to appear at this convention because a debate might 
occur are clear for all to see. Likewise, the agreement just concluded between NAC and the American Foundation for the Blind whereby 
the Foundation will work with agencies and help prepare them for accreditation is equally revealing.

 In any case the one central point which must be repeatedly hammered home is the total irrelevance of NAC as it is now constituted 
and as it is now performing. What we need today and in the years ahead is not more detailed standards but a real belief in the 
competence and innate normality of blind people, a willingness on the part of agency officials to help blind people secure 
meaningful training and competitive employment, a recognition that the blind are able to participate fully in the mainstream of 
American life. We need acceptance and equality, not shelter and care.

 When seen in this light, NAC must be viewed as one of our most serious problems in the decade ahead. The blind of the nation should 
thoroughly inform themselves about its activities and should insist upon a voice in determining the character of programs affecting 
their lives. We should insist that state and federal governments not delegate their powers of setting standards for state agencies 
to a private group, which is not responsive to the needs or views of the consumers of the services. It is true that many of the 
agencies doing work with the blind need to be reformed and improved, but NAC is not the entity to do it. We the organized blind 
intend (in the best tradition of American democracy) to have something to say about the scope and direction of the reform and the 
improvement. We are not children, nor are we psychological cripples. We are free citizens, fully capable of participating in the 
determination of our own destiny, and we have every right and intention of having something to say about what is done with our 
lives.

NAC AT 25: A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS

by Peggy Pinder

Anniversaries are times to pause and look back, to take stock and contemplate the future. As everyone in the blindness field knows, 
the National Accreditation Council for Agencies Serving the Blind and Visually Handicapped (NAC) is approaching its twenty-fifth 
birthday, so the time would seem right for an in-depth look. What has NAC done? Where has it been, and where is it going?

 At the time of its founding, NAC proclaimed that it would serve the "universe of agencies" serving blind people in the United 
States. It said that this universe consisted of approximately 500 agencies. The major agencies in the blindness field are, of 
course, the state vocational rehabilitation agencies, the schools, and the sheltered shops. Each of the fifty states and the 
District of Columbia has a rehabilitation agency (total 51). The American Foundation for the Blind lists 71 schools in its Directory 
of Services for Blind and Visually Impaired Persons in the United States, 23rd Edition, Copyright, 1988. National Industries for the 
Blind lists 80 workshops on its roster. Thus, there should be a total of about 200 major agencies in the United States. From these 
numbers it can easily be seen that NAC contemplated accrediting all of the large mainstream agencies, as well as about 300 of the 
smaller regional or city- based agencies scattered throughout the country. But in its first quarter century, how has it measured up?

Vocational Rehabilitation Agencies

 The federal Rehabilitation Services Administration identifies one agency in each state and the District of Columbia to receive the 
congressionally appropriated vocational rehabilitation money to give services to the blind of that state. The number of state 
agencies that have agreed to accept NAC accreditation has always been low. A mere ten of these agencies held NAC accreditation in 
1990. These ten are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Virginia. This means 
that after nearly twenty-five years of arduous work NAC can claim as members fewer than twenty percent of the state agencies 
delivering basic services to the blind of the continental United States.

 But the small number of accredited state rehabilitation agencies is not the entire story. NAC holds itself out as the nation's 
standard-setter in work with the blind. How do these ten agencies perform? Leaders of the blind from throughout the nation were 
surveyed on this point. Each survey respondent travels around the country regularly, and routinely discusses matters concerning 
blindness with people living across the nation. These leaders have the sophistication and the information to look beyond agency 
claims of achievement to the results of agency work in the lives of blind men and women, state by state and in comparison with other 
agencies. Survey respondents were asked to list the ten worst vocational rehabilitation agencies in the country without knowing why 
the list was wanted. In every single case, eight or nine of the NAC-accredited agencies appeared on the list. As one survey 
respondent commented, "If you are a blind person living in one or another of most of these ten states, it is almost impossible for 
you to get quality services."

Schools

 As has been said, the American Foundation for the Blind lists seventy-one schools in its Directory of Services. Of these, only 26 
schools (or 37 percent) have agreed to accept NAC accreditation.

Workshops

 Of the 80 workshops listed on the roster of National Industries for the Blind, only 33 (or 41 percent) have agreed to accept NAC 
accreditation. While workshops are accredited in the highest proportion of the three major service categories, it must be remembered 
that National Industries for the Blind offered four years ago to pay all costs of accreditation for any workshop that would agree to 
accredit. The offer has been available for those four years, and it remains available today. In view of this free offer (and there 
has been a great deal of pressure to accept it) a showing of only forty-one percent is astonishingly low. As recent events have 
demonstrated, NAC is not loved by a majority of the workshops. In fact, from 1986 through 1990, only two workshops agreed to accept 
NAC accreditation while three dropped it.

Totals

 Approaching its twenty-fifth anniversary, NAC has accredited only 34 percent of the agencies in the three large service categories. 
At the moment (late 1990) it is accrediting only ninety-seven agencies in the United States--fewer than one-fifth of the universe it 
defined for itself at its founding. It also accredits one agency in Canada.

The Rest of the Ninety-Eight

 Who are the other agencies accredited by NAC, the ones not included on any of the lists of the three major service-provider types? 
These are entities drawn from that three hundred-agency figure NAC placed in its original estimate of five hundred agencies to 
accredit--the regional and city-based agencies around the country. The list of NAC-accredited agencies is conspicuously padded. 
Almost one-third of the list of NAC members (twenty-eight) do not appear on any of the three lists of major service providers. That 
is quite a high proportion of smaller agencies, but they swell NAC's list of adherents, bringing it to its current size. Yet, this 
is a mere ten percent of the three hundred smaller agencies originally defined by NAC. Here is a sampling: Center for the Partially 
Sighted, Santa Monica, California; Visually Impaired Persons of Southwest Florida, North Ft. Myers; Vision Enrichment Services, 
Grand Rapids, Michigan; the Alliance for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Memphis, Tennessee; and the Sight Center, Toledo, Ohio.

Geography

 An odd geographical pattern emerges from an analysis of the NAC-accredited agencies. A mere thirteen are accredited by NAC from 
that vast part of the country that lies west of Nebraska--roughly the Mountain Time Zone and farther west. Apparently, as one gets 
farther from New York, the influence of NAC wanes in proportion. And nearly half of these western accredited agencies lie within the 
borders of Arizona--the home of NAC'S long-time and belligerently loyal former executive director, Richard Bleecker. In fact, if one 
counts the accredited agencies in four states (Arizona, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania), one has accounted for one-third 
(thirty-two) of the NAC list. Yet it would be very hard to find anyone familiar with the conditions of blind people in these four 
states and throughout the rest of the country who would maintain that these four lead the rest in excellence--or, for that matter, 
even fall within the top ranks.

 Sixteen states have no NAC-accredited agencies at all. They are: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, 
Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wyoming. Fifteen more 
states have only one NAC-accredited agency. They are: Alabama, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New 
Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Costs to Agencies

 What are the costs of this accreditation which so very many agencies have chosen to reject? There are several. One (and only one) 
is the actual outlay of cash. In the course of considering re-accreditation, the Virginia Department for the Visually Handicapped 
recently reviewed the following figures:

 $12,000 annual accreditation fees ($2,400 per year for each of five years)

 $5,000 cost to agency for on-site review team

 Total for the five-year period, $17,000

 According to Grant Mack, one of NAC's principal proponents, the annual dues are figured on a sliding scale at 0.0075 of annual 
budget. However, the minimum is $250, and the scale escalates quickly to reach the top level of $2,250 per year, according to Mack, 
who says that no agency is required to pay more than this top figure, regardless of budget. If Mack has accurately described the 
assessment schedule, then any agency with an income in excess of $300,000 will pay the top assessment.

 At any rate, according to those close to the situation in Virginia, the agency was assured by NAC officials that the on-site review 
would be conducted as cheaply as possible. In other words, review team members would be brought from nearby, saving travel costs. It 
should be noted that it took the Virginia Department several years beyond its 5-year accreditation term to decide to accept 
re-accreditation by NAC. During this time (and in flagrant violation of its own carefully-stated accreditation standards) NAC simply 
continued the accreditation status of the Virginia agency even though the annual fee was not paid and the agency did not request 
continuation of its accredited status. Obviously NAC hoped to convince Virginia to sign up again and was willing to beg, wheedle, 
and pay to get the job done.

 One can be certain that the Virginia review team members (when they are appointed) will not only be from nearby but will also be 
strongly predisposed to grant the re-accreditation just to keep Virginia in the fold--a predisposition which necessarily defeats the 
purpose of the on-site review. NAC estimated that the review would cost $3,500, but Virginia officials are sure that the cost will 
reach at least $5,000 unless the hand-picked members of the team don't pass along their costs. Based on NAC's conservative figures, 
accreditation will cost Virginia over $3,000 per year for the five-year accreditation period. Using more realistic figures and 
adding in the costs of the self-study, it is more likely to cost $4,000 to $6,000 per year. In fact, another agency recently 
considering NAC accreditation was told that the cost would be $6,000 to $7,000 per year.

 But there is a second, hidden cost not directly paid to NAC--the self-study. This step in the accreditation process is performed 
before the on-site team arrives. Virginia Department staff declined to estimate the cost for this preliminary step of 
re-accreditation. They did so, based on NAC's assurances that the self-study step could be accomplished very inexpensively by merely 
copying the work that was done the previous time onto the new forms, with obvious and appropriate updating of information. This 
portrayal of the self-study by NAC is widely at variance with the other version which it usually puts forward when it is touting the 
rigor and thoroughness of its procedures to the public and to foundation and federal officials. This alternate version holds that 
the self-study is the heart of the accreditation process, the means by which staff members working at the agency can step back and 
(with the help of professionally- created assessment tools) review from the loftier perspective of goals, objectives, and missions 
the operation of the institution in which they do their day-to-day tasks. In this view of self- study, involved staffers disengage 
themselves from their normal duties, offer honest assessments, and learn how they and their agency can work better through honest 
self-analysis and clear- headed criticism. Done this way, the self-study would necessarily cost thousands and thousands of dollars 
in staff time.

 The final cost paid by an agency accrediting with NAC is that of soured relations with the blind community. NAC is offensive and 
insulting to many blind people, and an accredited agency can expect that its NAC membership will complicate its on- going 
relationship with members of the blind community. Some agencies do not choose to engage in this interaction with blind consumers, so 
they are (at least, in the short run) unaware of this fact of life. Agencies that are interested in their blind clients and wish to 
avoid a source of conflict simply decline association with NAC or abandon the relationship created by others before them.

Expansion and Attrition

 In its early years NAC experienced steady growth in its list of accredited agencies. NAC acquired half of all the agencies it has 
ever accredited in its first eight years, and during the same time period (1968-1975) it did not lose a single agency.

 After 1975 the picture changed. NAC began to lose agencies in 1976. In no year after 1975 has NAC accredited more than ten new 
agencies. In one year, 1988, it accredited no new agencies. NAC's peak year was 1986 when it had 104 member agencies. Since that 
time the trend has been steadily downward. In the most recent five-year period, 1986-1990, NAC accredited ten new agencies while 
sixteen dissociated themselves from it.

Benefits of NAC Accreditation

 People generally pay money in exchange for some benefit, and institutions do the same. What one gets from NAC is the questionable 
privilege of using its seal of approval and the even more questionable honor of a place on its list of accredited agencies. People 
often ask what else the agency gets. The answer is nothing. Some describe the NAC seal as aesthetically unpleasant, symbolically 
offensive, and otherwise worthless. (It is a stylized eye--an odd symbol for blindness.) NAC adherents describe the seal as 
symbolizing the agency's upholding of the high-quality standards approved by the profession itself. Either way, that is all there is 
to it. There is no other benefit to NAC accreditation.

 NAC has tried for years to add a third dimension to its accreditation. This attempt can best be described as an effort at legalized 
blackmail since it would actually be a form of compelled adherence to NAC. NAC has tried repeatedly to condition every agency's 
receipt of vocational rehabilitation funds on NAC accreditation. NAC has recently coined a term for this concept, calling it 
"linkage." NAC has declared that it will seek linkage of accreditation with funding in the 1991 reauthorization of the 
Rehabilitation Act. If NAC has its way, no state rehabilitation agency will get federal money unless the agency is accredited. With 
the low number of vocational rehabilitation agencies currently agreeing to accept NAC accreditation, this will clearly be an uphill 
battle with no chance of ultimate success. In its most recent attempt to foster linkage, NAC sought to have National Industries for 
the Blind (one of NAC's strongest supporters) take a stand in favor of "linkage." Even the NIB board, which is supporting NAC 
financially, refused to adopt a resolution supporting compelled accreditation. (See the article entitled "NIB, NAC, and Tanstaafl" 
elsewhere in this issue.)

NAC Agencies Whose Accreditation Expires in 1991

 The following list shows agencies whose NAC accreditation (according to NAC's own statistics) expires in 1991. There are 37. 
Curiously, more than half of these 37 agencies originally had accreditation only through 1990. It appears that NAC simply extended 
the accreditation for 19 agencies from 1990 to 1991. Originally, there were 31 agencies whose accreditation expired in 1990. Of 
these 31, 8 were re-accredited, but for terms varying from two years to four years to the standard five-year re- accreditation 
period. One dissociated from NAC, and three are still shown as having their accreditation expire in 1990. Of the 31 agencies, only 9 
were handled in some way by December of 1990.

 The vast majority of the 31 agencies whose accreditation was due to expire in 1990 are now shown as having their accreditation 
expire in 1991. There could be several reasons for this. One possibility is that NAC is so small that it simply cannot deal with the 
re-accreditation of 31 agencies in a single year. Another possibility is that some of the agencies whose accreditation was extended 
have no intention of re-accrediting, but NAC is trying to keep them in the fold by extending the accreditation while it pleads with 
them to stick around. Still another possibility (and one experienced by a number of agencies in the past) is that the agency has 
decided to dissociate itself from NAC but cannot convince NAC to take it off the list. For any or all of these reasons, the majority 
of agencies due to be re- accredited in 1990 are now scheduled to have their accreditation expire or be renewed in 1991.

 Those agencies listed by NAC as coming up for re- accreditation in 1991 are listed here. Those agencies whose names are starred 
once were originally scheduled for re-accreditation in 1990. Those agencies whose names are starred twice were originally scheduled 
for re-accreditation in 1989 or before and have been carried forward to 1991 by NAC. One final oddity appears on the 1990 list. 
Though NAC only managed to handle nine of the thirty-one agencies scheduled for handling in 1990, it found the time to deal with one 
agency scheduled for re- accreditation in 1991, the Arkansas School for the Blind. The Arkansas School is one of the oldest and 
staunchest adherents of NAC and, although its accreditation extended into 1991, NAC jumped it ahead of many agencies scheduled for 
1990 review and has already re-accredited it. This commentary concerning NAC re- accreditation would not be complete without noting 
that the Arkansas School, according to NAC's records, received only a two- year extension of accreditation rather than the standard 
five years. Here is the list:

Arizona State Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired 12/91
 Low Vision Services, Regional Eye Center (AZ) 12/91
 Tucson Association for the Blind (AZ) 6/91 *
 Division of Services for the Blind (AR) 6/91
 Conklin Center for Multihandicapped Blind (FL) 12/91
 Suncoast Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired (FL) 12/91 *
 Visually Impaired Persons Center (FL) 12/91
 Independence for the Blind (FL) 6/91 *
 Lighthouse for the Blind of the Palm Beaches (FL) 12/91 *
 Center for the Visually Impaired (GA) 12/91
 Georgia Industries for the Blind 12/91
 The Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind (IL) 12/91
 Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School 12/91
 Louisiana Association for the Blind 6/91
 Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired (ME) 12/91 *
 Maryland School for the Blind 6/91 *
 Perkins School for the Blind (MA) 6/91 **
 Greater Detroit Society for the Blind (MI) 6/91
 Duluth Lighthouse for the Blind (MN) 12/91
 MSB (MN) 6/91
 New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired 12/91 *
 Northeastern Association of the Blind at Albany (NY) 6/91
 The Lighthouse, Inc. (NY) 12/91 *
 North Dakota School for the Blind 12/91 *
 Ohio State School for the Blind 12/91 **
 The Sight Center (OH) 6/91
 Parkview School (OK) 12/91 *
 Delaware County Branch, Pennsylvania Association for the Blind 12/91 *
 Pittsburgh Blind Association (PA) 6/91 *
 York County Blind Center (PA) 6/91 *
 Loaiza Cordera Institute for Blind Children (PR) 12/91 **
 IN-SIGHT (RI) 6/91 *
 Tennessee School for the Blind 12/91 *
 Ed Lindsey Industries for the Blind (TN) 12/91 *
 Dallas Lighthouse for the Blind (TX) 6/91 *
 Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston (TX) 12/91
 Utah School for the Blind 12/91 *


ROLL CALL OF SHAME:
 A LIST OF NAC-ACCREDITED ORGANIZATIONS


>From the Editor: We do not vouch for the accuracy of this list. It represents NAC's claim of membership as of July, 1990. The blind 
and interested professionals should check this list well and verify that the agencies which are named actually admit to association 
with NAC. This, indeed, is a roll call of shame and should be treated accordingly.

Alabama

Services for Blind and Visually Handicapped Children and Adults
 of the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind
 P. O. Box 698
 Talladega, AL 35160
 (205) 761-3200
 Dr. Thomas S. Bannister, President, AIDB
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1993

Arizona

Arizona State Services for the Blind and Visually Impaired
 4620 North 16th Street, Room 100
 Phoenix, AZ 85016
 (602) 255-1850
 Mr. K. Edward House, Manager
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Foundation for Blind Children
 1201 North 85th Place
 Scottsdale, AZ 85257
 (602) 947-3744
 Mr. Chris Tompkins, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Department for the Visually Handicapped
 Arizona State School for the Deaf and the Blind
 P. O. Box 5545
 Tucson, AZ 85703-0545
 (602) 628-5357
 Mr. Noel Stephens, Director
 Department for the Visually Handicapped
 Dr. Barry Griffing, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1992

Low Vision Services
 Regional Eye Center
 Carondelet St. Joseph's Hospital
 350 North Wilmot Road
 Tucson, AZ 85711
 (602) 296-3211
 Ms. Janet M. Dylla, Supervisor
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Tucson Association for the Blind
 3767 East Grant Road
 Tucson, AZ 85716
 (602) 795-1331
 Mr. Jon Miller, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Arkansas

Lions World Services for the Blind
 2811 Fair Park Boulevard
 Little Rock, AR 72204
 (501) 664-7100
 Mr. James A. Cordell, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1994

Arkansas School for the Blind
 2600 West Markham, Post Office Box 668
 Little Rock, AR 72203
 (501) 371-2109
 Mr. Leonard Ogburn, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Division of Services for the Blind
 P. O. Box 3237
 Little Rock, AR 72203
 (501) 371-2587
 Mr. James Hudson, Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

California

Lions Blind Center
 3834 Opal Street
 Oakland, CA 94609
 (415) 654-2561
 Ms. Barbara Green, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Sacramento Society for the Blind
 2750 24th Street
 Sacramento, CA 95818
 (916) 452-8271
 Mr. Thomas C. Ryan, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Center for the Partially Sighted
 720 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
 Santa Monica, CA 90401-1713
 (213) 458-3501
 Dr. Samuel M. Genensky, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Florida

Conklin Center for Multihandicapped Blind
 405 White Street
 Daytona Beach, FL 32014
 (904) 258-3441
 Mr. Edward F. McCoy, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Broward Center for the Blind
 650 North Andrews Avenue
 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311
 (305) 463-4217
 Dr. Elly du Pre, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1994

Florida Association of Workers for the Blind
 601 South West Eighth Avenue
 Miami, FL 33130
 (305) 856-2288
 Mr. Vernon Metcalf, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1993

Suncoast Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Inc.
 P. O. Box 486
 New Port Richey, FL 34656-0486
 (813) 845-3770
 Mr. Charles F. Jackson, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Visually Impaired Persons Center
 P. O. Box 4026
 North Fort Myers, FL 33918-4026
 (813) 997-7797
 Ms. Marian M. Geiger, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

School for the Blind
 Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind
 207 North San Marco Avenue
 St. Augustine, FL 32084
 (904) 823-4000
 Mr. Jerry Stewart, Principal
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Division of Blind Services
 2540 Executive Center Circle, West
 Tallahassee, FL 32301
 (904) 488-1330
 Mr. Carl McCoy, Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1994

Independence for the Blind
 307 East Seventh Avenue
 Tallahassee, FL 32303
 (904) 681-6835
 Mr. Pinkney C. Seale, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Tampa Lighthouse for the Blind
 1106 West Platt Street
 Tampa, FL 33606
 (813) 251-2407
 Mr. Clifford E. Olstrom, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Lighthouse for the Blind of the Palm Beaches
 7810 South Dixie Highway
 West Palm Beach, FL 33405
 (407) 586-5600
 Mr. William S. Thompson, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Georgia

Center for the Visually Impaired
 763 Peachtree Street, N. E.
 Atlanta, GA 30308
 (404) 875-9011
 Miss Carolyn Kokenge, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Georgia Industries for the Blind
 P. O. Box 218
 Bainbridge, GA 31717
 (912) 248-2666
 Mr. Clayton Penhallegon, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Georgia Academy for the Blind
 2895 Vineville Avenue
 Macon, GA 31294
 (912) 751-6083
 Dr. Richard Hyer, Jr., Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Savannah Association for the Blind
 64 Jasper Street
 P. O. Box 81
 Savannah, GA 31405
 (912) 236-4473
 Mr. W. Chandler Simmons, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1992

Hawaii

Services for the Blind Branch
 1901 Bachelot Street
 Honolulu, HI 96817
 (808) 548-7408
 Mrs. Jane Egi, Administrator
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1992

Illinois

The Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind
 1850 Roosevelt Road
 Chicago, IL 60608
 (312) 666-1331
 Mr. Milton Samuelson, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December 1991

Philip J. Rock Center and School
 818 DuPage Boulevard
 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
 (708) 790-2474
 Mr. Raymond Miller, Chief Administrative Officer
 Ms. Christine Dorsey, Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: August
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1994

Illinois Bureau of Rehabilitation Services for the Blind
 622 East Washington
 P. O. Box 19429
 Springfield, IL 62794-9429
 (217) 782-2093
 Mr. Gil Johnson, Deputy Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1990

Illinois School for the Visually Impaired
 658 East State Street
 Jacksonville, IL 62650
 (217) 245-4101
 Dr. Richard G. Umsted, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1990

Indiana

Indiana School for the Blind
 7725 North College Avenue
 Indianapolis, IN 46240
 (317) 253-1481
 Dr. Michael Bina, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1995

Iowa

Iowa Braille and Sight Saving School
 1002 G Avenue
 Vinton, IA 52349
 (319) 472-5221
 Mr. W. Dennis Thurman, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Louisiana

The Lighthouse for the Blind
 123 State Street
 New Orleans, LA 70118
 (504) 899-4501
 Mr. Regis Barber, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1994

Louisiana Association for the Blind
 1750 Claiborne Avenue
 Shreveport, LA 71103
 (318) 635-6471
 Dr. Hank Baud, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Maine

Division for the Blind and Visually Impaired
 32 Winthrop Street
 Augusta, ME 04330
 (207) 289-3484
 Mr. Bud Lewis, Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Maine Center for the Blind
 189 Park Avenue
 Portland, ME 04102
 (207) 774-6273
 Dr. Robert J. Crouse, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Maryland

Maryland School for the Blind
 3501 Taylor Avenue
 Baltimore, MD 21236
 (301) 444-5000
 Mr. Louis M. Tutt, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Massachusetts

Perkins School for the Blind
 175 North Beacon Street
 Watertown, MA 02172
 (617) 924-3434
 Mr. Kevin Lessard, Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: August
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Michigan

Greater Detroit Society for the Blind
 16625 Grand River
 Detroit, MI 48227
 (313) 272-3900
 Mr. Carroll L. Jackson, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Visually Impaired Center, Inc.
 725 Mason Street
 Flint, MI 48503
 (313) 235-2544
 Ms. Laurie McArthur, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1993

Vision Enrichment Services
 215 Sheldon, S. E.
 Grand Rapids, MI 49503
 (616) 458-1187
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Minnesota

Duluth Lighthouse for the Blind
 2701 West Superior Street
 Duluth, MN 55806
 (218) 624-4828
 Mr. Michael Conlan, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

MSB
 1936 Lyndale Avenue, South
 Minneapolis, MN 55403
 (612) 871-2222
 Mr. Steven A. Fischer, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Mississippi

Royal Maid Association for the Blind
 P. O. Drawer 30, Hansen Road
 Hazlehurst, MS 39083
 (601) 894-1771
 Mr. John E. Granger, President
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Mississippi School for the Blind
 1252 Eastover Drive
 Jackson, MS 39211
 (601) 987-3952
 Mr. John Parrisch, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Division of Vocational Rehabilitation for the Blind
 P. O. Box 4872, Fondren Station
 Jackson, MS 39216
 (601) 354-6411
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Missouri

Kansas City Association for the Blind
 1844 Broadway
 Kansas City, MO 64108
 (816) 421-5848
 Mr. Thomas Healy, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Association for the Blind
 25 Walker Street
 Concord, NH 03301
 (603) 224-4039
 Mr. Gale N. Stickler, President
 Fiscal Year Ending: August
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1994

New Jersey

St. Joseph's School for the Blind
 253 Baldwin Avenue
 Jersey City, NJ 07306
 (201) 653-0578
 Mr. Herbert Miller, Administrator
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

New Jersey Commission for the Blind and Visually Impaired
 1100 Raymond Boulevard
 Newark, NJ 07102
 (201) 648-3330
 Mr. Gerard P. Boyle, Acting Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991


New Mexico

New Mexico School for the Visually Handicapped
 1900 North White Sands Boulevard
 Alamogordo, NM 88310
 (505) 437-3505
 Mr. Jerry Watkins, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1994

New York

Northeastern Association of the Blind at Albany
 301 Washington Avenue
 Albany, NY 11206
 (518) 463-1211
 Dr. Michael B. Freedman, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Programs for the Visually Impaired
 New York Institute for Special Education
 999 Pelham Parkway
 Bronx, NY 10469
 (212) 519-7000
 Dr. Robert L. Guarino, Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1994

Helen Keller Services for the Blind
 57 Willoughby Street
 Brooklyn, NY 11201
 (718) 522-2122
 Mr. Martin Adler, President
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1990

Blind Association of Western New York
 1170 Main Street
 Buffalo, NY 14209
 (716) 882-1025
 Dr. Ronald S. Maier, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: October
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Catholic Guild for the Blind
 1011 First Avenue
 New York, NY 10022
 (212) 371-1000, Ext. 2520
 Ms. Ann Therese Snyder, Administrative Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: August
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Jewish Guild for the Blind
 15 West 65th Street
 New York, NY 10023
 (212) 769-6200
 Mr. John F. Heimerdinger, President and C.E.O.
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1994

The Lighthouse, Inc.
 111 East 59th Street
 New York, NY 10022
 (212) 355-2200
 Dr. Barbara M. Silverstone, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Rockland County Association for the Visually Impaired
 Rockland County Health Center, Building C
 Pomona, NY 10970
 (914) 354-0200, Ext. 2051
 Mrs. Ruth C. Wein, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1995

Association for the Blind and Visually
 Impaired of Greater Rochester
 422 South Clinton Avenue
 Rochester, NY 14620
 (716) 232-1111
 Mrs. Gidget Hopf, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: March
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1992

Syracuse Association of Workers for the Blind
 616 Salina Street
 Syracuse, NY 13202
 (315) 422-7263
 Mr. Milton Rosenblum, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Central Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired
 507 Kent Street
 Utica, NY 13501
 (315) 797-2233
 Mr. Donald L. LoGuidice, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Guiding Eyes for the Blind
 611 Granite Springs Road
 Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
 (914) 245-4024
 Mr. Martin Yablonski, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1990

North Dakota

North Dakota School for the Blind
 500 Stanford Road
 Grand Forks, ND 58201
 (701) 777-4144
 Mr. Alan J. Mealka, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Ohio

Cincinnati Association for the Blind
 2045 Gilbert Avenue
 Cincinnati, OH 45202
 (513) 221-8558
 Mr. Carl R. Augusto, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1995

The Clovernook Center, Opportunities for the Blind
 7000 Hamilton Avenue
 Cincinnati, OH 45231
 (513) 522-3860
 Dr. Gerald W. Mundy, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: April
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Ohio State School for the Blind
 5220 North High Street
 Columbus, OH 43214
 (614) 888-1154
 Mr. Dennis L. Holmes, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Vision Center of Central Ohio
 1393 North High Street
 Columbus, Ohio 43201
 (614) 294-5571
 Dr. Richard Oestreich, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1994

The Sight Center
 1819 Canton Street
 Toledo, OH 43624
 (419) 241-1183
 Mr. Barry A. McEwen, President and C.E.O.
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Oklahomam

Parkview School
 P. O. Box 309
 Muskogee, OK 74403
 (918) 682-6641
 Mr. R. Max Casey, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Visual Services Unit
 Department of Human Services
 P. O. Box 25352
 Oklahoma City, OK 73125
 (405) 424-6006
 Mr. Norman Dalke, Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1993

Oklahoma League for the Blind
 501 North Douglas Avenue
 P. O. Box 24020
 Oklahoma City, OK 73124
 (405) 232-4644
 Mr. LeRoy F. Saunders, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1993

Pennsylvania

Delaware County Branch
 Pennsylvania Association for the Blind
 100-106 West 15th Street
 Chester, PA 19013
 (215) 874-1476
 Mr. William J. DeAngelis, Managing Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Lancaster Association for the Blind
 244 North Queen Street
 Lancaster, PA 17603
 (717) 291-5951
 Mr. Stephen Patterson, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Feinbloom Vision Rehabilitation Center
 1200 West Godfrey Avenue
 Philadelphia, PA 19141
 (215) 276-6060
 Dr. Anna Bradfield, Administrative Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1990

Pittsburgh Blind Association
 300 South Craig Street
 Pittsburgh, PA 15213
 (412) 682-5600
 Mr. Dennis J. Huber, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

York County Blind Center
 800 East King Street
 York, PA 17403
 (717) 848-1690
 Mr. William Rhinesmith, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Puerto Rico

Loaiza Cordero Institute for Blind Children
 P. O. Box 8622, Santurce Station
 Santurce, PR 00910
 (809) 723-9160, 722-2498
 Mrs. Awilda Nunzez, Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Rhode Island

In-Sight
 43 Jefferson Boulevard
 Warwick, RI 02888
 (401) 941-3322
 Ms. Judith T. Smith, President
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

South Dakota

South Dakota School for the Visually Handicapped
 423 South East 17th Avenue
 Aberdeen, SD 57401
 (605) 622-2580
 Mrs. Marjorie Kaiser, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1990

Tennessee

Tennessee School for the Blind
 115 Stewarts Ferry Pike
 Donnelson, TN 37214
 (615) 885-2451
 Mr. Ralph Brewer, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

The Alliance for the Blind and Visually Impaired
 1331 Union Avenue, Suite 601
 Memphis, TN 38104
 (901) 276-4444
 Ms. Greta T. Tyler, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1994

Volunteer Blind Industries
 758 West First South Street
 Morristown, TN 37814
 (615) 586-3922
 Mr. Roy Proffitt, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Ed Lindsey Industries for the Blind
 4110 Charlotte Avenue
 Nashville, TN 37209
 (615) 741-2251
 Mr. Allen Broughton, Executive Vice President
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Texas

Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
 1100 West 45th Street
 Austin, Texas 78756
 (512) 454-8631
 Dr. Philip Hatlen, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: August
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Dallas Lighthouse for the Blind
 P. O. Box 64420
 Dallas, TX 75206
 (214) 821-2375
 Mr. Jeffrey Battle, President
 Fiscal Year Ending: September
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1991

Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston
 P. O. Box 13435
 Houston, TX 77219
 (713) 527-9561
 Mr. Gibson M. DuTerroil, President
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Southwest Lighthouse for the Blind
 607 Main Street
 Lubbock, TX 79401
 (806) 747-4215
 Mr. Robert Crain, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1990

Utah

Utah School for the Blind
 742 Harrison Boulevard
 Ogden, UT 84404
 (801) 399-3748
 Mr. Dwight C. Moore, Coordinator
 Dr. David West, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1991

Virginia

Virginia Department for the Visually Handicapped
 397 Azalea Avenue
 Richmond, VA 23227
 (804) 371-3140
 Mr. Don Cox, Commissioner
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1990

Washington

Lighthouse for the Blind
 P. O. Box C-14119
 Seattle, WA 98114
 (206) 322-4200
 Mr. George Jacobson, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1992

Community Services for the Blind and Partially Sighted
 9709 3rd Avenue, N. E., Suite 100
 Seattle, WA 98115
 (206) 525-5556
 Ms. June W. Mansfield, Executive Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: June, 1994

West Virginia

West Virginia School for the Deaf and the Blind
 301 East Main Street
 Romney, WV 26757
 (304) 822-3521
 Mr. Max Carpenter, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1992

Wisconsin

Industries for the Blind
 3220 West Vliet Street
 Milwaukee, WI 53208
 (414) 933-4319
 Mr. John Clark, Executive Vice President
 Fiscal Year Ending: December
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1993

Wisconsin School for the Visually Handicapped
 1700 West State Street
 Janesville, WI 53545
 (608) 755-2950
 Mr. William H. English, Superintendent
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1990

Visually Impaired Persons Program
 Milwaukee Area Technical College
 1015 North Sixth Street
 Milwaukee, WI 53203
 (414) 278-6838
 Mr. George Sippl, Manager
 Fiscal Year Ending: June
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1992

Canada

Centre for Sight Enhancement
 University of Waterloo
 Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1
 (519) 885-1211, Ext. 6330
 Dr. J. Graham Strong, Director
 Fiscal Year Ending: April 30
 Accreditation Expires: December, 1994



HONOR ROLL OF PRIDE:
 A LIST OF AGENCIES WHICH HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM NAC ACCREDITATION

>From the Editor: The following twenty-six agencies can hold their heads high. They once agreed to accept NAC accreditation but have 
now withdrawn. The blind of the nation salute them. Why, one may ask, would we salute agencies that were once accredited and have 
now withdrawn instead of saluting those that have never accepted the NAC stigma? We do salute that broader group, but (as in the 
biblical story) we especially rejoice at the return of the prodigal son. In the following list the first date is the time of 
original NAC accreditation; the second date is the time of withdrawal from NAC. Here is the honor roll of pride:

 NAC Members Dissociated
 26 Agencies
 As of December, 1990

Glenns Falls Association for the Blind (NY) 1984, 1990
 Virginia School for the Blind 1983, 1990
 Columbia Lighthouse for the Blind (DC) 1970, 1989
 Recording for the Blind (NJ) 1972, 1989
 Dallas Services for Visually Impaired Children (TX) 1970, 1989
 Division of Services to the Visually Impaired (SD) 1972, 1988
 Hadley School for the Blind (IL) 1970, 1987
 Blind Work Association (NY) 1971, 1987
 Governor Morehead School (NC) 1972, 1987
 Center for the Visually Impaired (OH) 1981, 1987
 Rhode Island State Services for the
 Blind & Visually Impaired 1970, 1987
 Travis Association for the Blind (TX) 1982, 1987
 Michigan School for the Blind 1970, 1986
 Kansas Division of Services for the Blind 1971, 1986
 Center for the Blind (AZ) 1982, 1986
 Center for Independent Living, VCB/CIL (NY) 1980, 1986
 Yuma Center for the Visually Impaired (AZ) 1981, 1984
 Recording for the Blind (NY) 1972, 1983
 Cleveland Society for the Blind (OH) 1968, 1983
 Evansville Association for the Blind (IN) 1971, 1981
 Oregon School for the Blind 1969, 1980
 Maine Institution for the Blind 1978, 1980
 Massachusetts Association for the Blind 1969, 1979
 Blind Industries and Services of Maryland
 (formerly the Maryland Workshop for the Blind) 1971, 1976
 Lions Club Industries for the Blind, Inc. (NC) 1970, 1976
 Raleigh Lions Clinic for the Blind, Inc. (NC) 1974, 1976



Sent from my Windows computer