A number of programs are closely related to social services. Primary among these are maintenance assistance ($6.9 billion in FY 73) and WIN ($454 million of HEW funds in FY 73). These programs are dealt with under income maintenance, as their major emphases are on income security and placement in employment.

Program description

Briefly, the programs can be described as follows:

Social Services: matching grants are made to States for a portion of the cost of operating social services programs, approved by DHEW, with the general objective of assisting families and individuals in overcoming the conditions which cause them to need public assistance.

Vocational Rehabilitation: matching funds are provided to States to assist them in programs which attempt to move physical or mentally disabled persons into self supporting positions.

Development Disabilities: grants are made to States to assist in developing coordinated programs of assistance to persons with mental retardation, epilepsy, cerebral palsey, and other neurologically disability conditions.

Aging grants are made to States to assist communities in developing coordinated service options for the elderly, and to provide a program of nutrition services for the elderly.

Youth Development: demonstration project grants are made for the development of youth service systems which attempt to divert youth from the criminal justice system.

Child Development: demonstration project grants are made to develop child development services focussing on the first five years of life.

Detailed analyses of the individual programs is attached at Tab A.

In general, the programs in this area have not held up well under critical scrutiny of their performance. This is true for a number of reasons, including: The program objectives are vaguely defined, or conflicting objectives are held by various actors in the process. For example, the Federal goal for vocational rehabiiltation is to obtain employment for the physically handicapped; at the individual counselor level that goal tends to translate into "classify as rehabilitated as many eligible persons as possible." The warping effect such goal differences have on programs is documented in the VR program analysis (Tab A). The explicit objectives of the program may be outside the power of the program to attain. For example, Title TVA day care is designed to enable welfare recipients to get and keep a job. Although adequate child care arrangements may be necessary to allow employment, the availability of steady employment is the overwhelming determinant of employment success. Thus it is inappropriate to assess day care programs solely on the basis of meeting objectives over which they have little if any control.

The available evaluation measures do not reflect the objectives of the program. The stress on IQ change in Head Start for example, is to a large extent determined by the fact that IQ is one of the only measures we have for assessing the competency of young children.

The responsibility for assuring good program management has been diffiused, so that no one level of government can be held accountable for the successful administration of programs. For example, until the recent regulations were published many social services under Title IVA were Federally mandated but not monitored, allowing the states de facto but not de jure control of the program, and engendering massive amounts of paper work to camouflage the situation.

In sum, the social services and human development programs present a mixed bag of rationales, structures, funding mechanisms, eligible populations, and program objectives. In order to attain some conceptual control of the area, a basic rethinking of the Federal purposes in this area is attempted in the following sections of the paper.

III. CRITERIA FOR FEDERAL INTEREST AND INVOLVEMENT

Determination of governmental role

Although the governmental role in the United States can-and sometimes doesamount to just about anything, the sensitivity and resistance of the populace to increased taxes and increased encroachment of government upon individual liberties and the private market places a substantial burden of proof upon those who advocate new or expanded governmental programs. Such pressure for minimiza

tion of government has led to a stabilized condition to which a few broad principles may generally be used to review proposed changes in governmental programs. Among these criteria are:

Equity: the economic or social system is perceived by society as being unfair to particular segments of society, e.g. discrimination;

Externalities: forces not taken into account by the economic or social system cause hardship to certain groups, e.g. pollution, crime, etc.,

Minimum level of care: the society elects to provide a minimum level of maintenance or service to selected members of society, frequently those who cannot be expected to fend for themselves;

Economies of scale: certain services which society wishes to see provided cannot be provided on a large enough scale by the private sector, e.g. Social Security; Assuring access to services: society decides that it is important that certain services be distributed equally to the entire population regardless of ability to pay, e.g. public education.

Most forms of public programs focus on one or more of these criteria. In general the satisfaction of one of these criteria is necessary, but not sufficient, for a program to be initiated since funds are limited and tradeoffs must be made among the competing claims for government attention.

Determining the Federal role

The following discussion is based upon the tenet that any given governmental function should be carried out at as decentralized a level as possible. This assumption is made for a variety of reasons, including:

A belief that decentralized government can better address specific problems of specific area; and

A concern for the potential loss of personal liberties brought on by strong, centralized government.

Nevertheless, there are areas in which a Federal presence has been established. In these areas one might identify four general bases for Federal intervention in otherwise purely State-operated programs:

State income and wealth levels may differ widely enough so that Federal equalization measures are warranted;

States may suffer a chronic insufficiency of revenue-raising capacity, either because some tax sources are monopolized by the Federal government, or because inter-State competition to attract industry tends to prevent increases in State tax rates;

State political priorities may differ widely from national ones, because different groups exert power at the two levels, or the problem is perceived differently;

or

The effects of a given State program expenditure (or lack thereof) may spill over beyond the State's boundaries. There is then little reason to expect the State to take them into account.

Since data reflecting these criteria are scarce and what exists is subject to varying interpretations, and past development of and the future role for the Federal government cannot be reduced to a simple formula. Concern with the above criteria has evolved over time.

History of Federal/State responsibility

For most of the first third of this century, the concept of dual Federalism prevailed, essentially holding that there is no basis for Federal involvement in State concerns. With the New Deal came the idea that in certain instances, the Federal and State governments shared joint goals, although the emphasis was placed on Federal assistance to States in reaching goals set by them. The 1960's, an era of Federal action and distrust of State and local governments witnessed a deluge of social legislation which emphasized national goals, frequently by passed lower level governments and used aid to States as a means to induce States to carry out national objectives. The volume of Federal aid to States increased dramatically during that decade: from $7 billion in 1960 to $25 billion in 1970.

Recently the Federal government has begun a new phase which may be termed sub-Federal centralization. Managerial in nature, it is a response to the loss of effectiveness of related programs which occurs with the proliferation of uncoordinated projects under a variety of authorities controlled by actors at various levels of government, all responding in one fashion or another to Federal mandate. The thesis of sub-Federal centralization is that effectiveness and efficiency can be substantially increased by pulling together social programs through the following reforms:

1. Centralized management of a broad range of programs by elected State and

local officials, and authority for such officials to make programmatic and budget tradeoffs across programs;

2. Assuring capability within the office of such officials to plan and manage programs effectively.

The various social services programs were initiated to respond to social problems as perceived at the time of passage of the authorizing legislation, and to respond in the manner considered appropriate at that time. For that reason, the services present a mixture of funding structures and implied Federal-State-local relationships. The VR program was designed on the premise that the proper Federal role is to support State-controlled programs. Head Start, a product of the last decade, by passes state and often local governments to fund community-level prime grantees. Developmental Disabilities and the Older Americans Act, quite recently redesigned, reflect the current emphasis on planning and coordination of existing resources, found in the sub-Federal centralization concept. Form of Federal presence

As stated above, a number of new proposals (Special Revenue Sharing, Allied Services, administrative implementation of revenue sharing, etc.) do not increase the decentralization of funds, but rather suggest that the program authorities be moved from State operations agencies and centralized under the Governor so that broad interprogram planning and budgeting can take place.

Accompanying such proposals for sub-Federal centralization are proposals for a substantial capacity building effort. Currently, it is felt that most State agencies do not have adequate planning, management, and information systems to rationally allocate their resources. Therefore, under a move to more sub-Federal centralization, Federally coordinated efforts would focus upon upgrading the planning, management, and budgeting capacity of the States.

Another form of capacity building is the concentration of Federal resources on generating market activity-both supply and demand-for certain identified services (home health, meals for the aged etc.), and after a time-limited intervention, removing Federal development funds.

The basic issue in realigning Federal programs is in determining which current programs should become sub-Federally centralized, which programs should phase down Federal support for services in favor of planning or market and services development, and which programs the States will not appropriately handle and which should therefore be subject to Federal direction. To develop more specific criteria to make decisions in the social services/human development area, the concept of "goal congruence," may be defined as meaning that the Federal government judges that funds allocated to the States for particular purposes, however broad, will be expended to achieve goals which are satisfactory to the Federal government. This does not necessarily mean that the Federal State priorities are the same (if they were, general revenue sharing would be more appropriate), but rather that the State will view a given goal in a manner acceptable to the Federal government.

In focusing in on its appropriate role, DHEW faces a constraint-its characteristic dependence upon the non-DHEW system for implementation—and several determinants: the degree of goal congruence between the DHEW and nonDHEW system (upon which DHEW relies for implementation); the capacities of the non-DHEW system; and in the absence of goal congruence, the degree of leverage DHEW can bring to bear on the non-DHEW network.

These constraints and determinants suggest the following general decision rules:

(a) Where there is goal congruence between DHEW and non-DHEW systems upon which DHEW depends, and where the non-DHEW system lacks administrative, programmatic, or technical capacity, DHEW's role should be active in building capacity.

(b) Where there is goal congruence, and where the non-DHEW capacity is adequate (excepting financial capacity), DHEW's role should be passive and limited to transferring resources. If the States are judged to have adequate fiscal capacity, or if another program (general revenue sharing and tax coordination) provides fiscal relief, DHEW should have no role at all.

(c) Where there is not goal congruence between DHEW and non-DHEW system upon which it depends, and where DHEW's leverage potential is high, DHEW's role ought to be active with the appropriate lever (s).

(d) Where there is not goal congruence, and where DHEW's leverage potential is low, DHEW has two options-either no role at all, or legislative initiatives which would provide leverage over state behavior which is not available.

In sum then, the model indicates that various states of goal congruence should lead to different Federal response. In one case a Federal grant should concentrate upon capacity building without heavy usage of levers. In other cases, the Federal program will require the application of selected levers. These "levers" include such mechanisms as State plan approval, incentive monies, political pressure, etc.

Therefore, based upon the concept of goal congruence, the Federal role becomes focused through a systematic determination of Federal goals, State intent and goals, and State capacity.

In applying this concept of goal congruence to concrete situations, two tangible problems arise: the fact of inter-State variation, and the complexity of determining Federal goals.

In terms of the latter, it is frequently difficult to specify national intent and Federal goals in various social services/human development areas. One option is to accept the goal language provided by Congress and legislation. Several problems arise from this approach:

Goal language is often general and nonoperational and almost impossible to plan for and measure performance against;

Authorizations to address goals usually exceed appropriations and tradeoffs which essentially "weight" goals are left, to a large extent, to noncongressional processes.

These problems, to a large extent, compel the executive branch to define its own more operational goals so that programs can be managed and assessed and so that tradeoffs can be made with a specific understanding of exactly what type of program products are being traded. The answer then to the issue of defining program goals, is that the Congress and legislation must be referred to for broad intent, but that DHEW is also responsible for more specifically defining and operationalizing the goal so that desired outcomes are understood and the program can be managed and results can be measured.

Addressing the point of inter-State variation, the issue arises as to what Federal role results from the goal congruence model if the goals and objectives of States vary; how does the Federal role adjust for inter-State variation. There appears to be no principle which is wholly satisfactory in addressing this quesintent, but that DHEW is also responsible for more specifically defining and even encouraged. In other cases the Federal government may feel that it is critical for a service to be available in all States, and that it be Federally subsidized in States which would not otherwise have a program.

Consequently, the answer emerges that each case has to be reviewed separately, the Federal government must decide if it is sufficient for certain services to be available in most States, or if it is essential that they be available in all States. The specific discussion in program areas will make this point more clear.

ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCES FOR STUDENT RECIPIENTS OF SUPPORT FROM THE SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICE OF DHEW

(Prepared by the Office of Manpower Development and Training, OPRT/SRS) Since funding for SRS Direct Training Grant Programs is scheduled to be phased out completely by August 31, 1974, the Division of Standards for Educational Institutions/OMDT, has been charged with the task of furnishing for concerned SRS officials pertinent information regarding alternate sources of support for students in such programs. The SRS programs are among those categorical direct training grant programs that are being discontinued in favor of broad programs of support for higher education. Primary reliance for future manpower development and training is SRS-related fields and activities will be placed on general student aid programs administered by the Office of Education. Some other support may be found in the "formula grant” training programs. This paper sets forth general and specialized description of these programs.

These noncategorical student aid programs give the person who seeks a higher education the power of choice of a field of study and even allow a grant-loan mix for some students in support of their education. The potential social worker, rehabilitation counselor, worker with the elderly, etc., therefore can be supported through a program of Basic Grants and/or Guaranteed Loans.

The Division of Student Assistance of the Bureau of Higher Education of the Office of Education administers two of the student assistance programs which are now in effect: the National Direct Student Loan Program and the

College Work-Study Program. The Division of Insured Loans of the Office of Education administers the Guaranteed Student Loan Program and coordinates in the Student Loan Marketing Association. The Basic Educational Opportunity Grants Program is administered from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education by the Acting Coordinator for the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants Program.

The descriptions which follow reflect any changes in the Federally supported programs of financial aid administered by OE under the Educational Amendments of 1972 which were signed by the President on June 23, 1972. The Fact Sheet regarding the Guaranteed Student Loan Program was secured from OE and has a release date of March 1, 1973. It should be noted that March 31 is the realistic date by which all mentioned OE programs will have completed their periods of adjustment.

Alternative support programs in the order of their appearance are:

I. Basic Educational Opportunity Grants Program (BEOG)

II. Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants Program (SEOG)

III. College Work-Study Program (CWSP)

IV. National Direct Student Loan Program (NDSLP)

V. Guaranteed Student Loan Program (GSLP)

VI. The Public Assistance Formula Grants (FG)

I. The BASIC EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GRANT PROGRAM (Basic Grants) makes funds available to eligible students attending approved COLLEGES, COMMUNITY/JUNIOR COLLEGES, VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS, TECHNICAL INSTITUTES, HOSPITAL SCHOOLS OF NURSING, and other post-high school institutions.

In academic year 1973–74, you may apply for a Basic Grant if you are entering an APPROVED postsecondary educational institution for the FIRST TIME and on a FULL-TIME basis.

To APPLY for a Basic Grant, you must complete a form called "APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF EXPECTED FAMILY CONTRIBUTION."

You may get copies of the application from POSTSECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, HIGH SCHOOLS, POST OFFICES, STATE EMPLOYMENT OFFICES, COUNTY AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENTS, COLLEGES, TALENT SEARCH and UPWARD BOUND PROJECTS, or by writing to BOX G, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240.

Send the completed form to BOX B, IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240. Within 4-weeks, you will receive a "FAMILY CONTRIBUTION ANALYSIS REPORT." SUBMIT the Report to your SCHOOL which will calculate the AMOUNT of the Basic Grant you are ELIGIBLE to receive. (You may submit the Report to more than one school.) The amount of your award will be based on your Expected Family Contribution, the cost of attendance at your school, and a payment schedule issued to all approved educational institutions by the U.S. Office of Education.

II. The SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GRANT (SEOG) PROGRAM is for students of EXCEPTIONAL FINANCIAL NEED who without the grant would be unable to continue their education.

You are eligible to apply if you are enrolled at least half-time as an UNDERGRADUATE or VOCATIONAL student in an educational institution participating in the program. Graduate students are not eligible.

If you receive an SEOG, it cannot be less than $200 or more than $1,500 a year. Normally, SEOG may be received for up to four years. However, the grant may be received for five years when the course of study requires the extra time. The total that may be awarded is $4,000 for a four-year course of study or $5,000 for a five-year course.

If you are selected for an SEOG, your educational institution must provide you with ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE at least equal to the amount of the grant.

APPLY THROUGH YOUR FINANCIAL AID OFFICER. He is responsible for determining who will receive an SEOG and the amount.

III. The COLLEGE WORK-STUDY (CWS) PROGRAM provides jobs for students who have great financial NEED and who must EARN a part of their educational expenses. You may apply if you are enrolled at least halftime as a GRADUATE, UNDERGRADUATE, or VOCATIONAL student in an approved postsecondary educational institution.

The educational institution which participates in College Work-Study arranges