Federal support of university-based training regarding IDD dates back to the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935. That legislation contained the Maternal and Child Health Service Block Grant (also known as Title V of the Social Security Act), which created the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB). The goals of the MCHB were to support public health efforts to reduce infant mortality and the incidence of handicapping conditions; to provide and assure access to rehabilitation services to children with disabilities; and to help to develop comprehensive, family-centered, community-based, culturally competent, coordinated systems of services for children with special health care needs and their families. Federal support for services to children and adults with IDD grew during the 1940s and 1950s along with the Civil Rights movement (Scheerenberger, 1987).

During the administration of John F. Kennedy, the President’s Panel on Mental Retardation [sic] was created as an advisory group to the President. The President's sister Rosemary had mild IDD until she was in her twenties, when she had a prefrontal lobotomy and was left severely disabled for the remainder of her life (Larson, 2015). Thus, President Kennedy was aware of the importance of developing and maintaining services and supports for people with IDD. This step marked the first time that IDD received attention from high levels of the US federal government. In its initial reports to the President (President's Panel on Mental Retardation, 1963), the Panel recognized the need for federally funded programs to improve the quality of service delivery to people with IDD and to increase training opportunities available to professionals in the field of IDD services. The Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Health Centers Construction Act of 1963 (Public Law 88–164) was the first public law guaranteeing services to persons with developmental disabilities. It authorized the University Affiliated Facilities (UAF) Program to provide core and administrative funds to improve training opportunities as well as facilitate the development of service models to provide care to people with IDD. However, UAFs were not authorized to use core and administrative funds to support direct clinical services.