with possible neglect of the children involved? What should be done about reportedly too many instances of the second generation on assistance? The 87th Congress reviewed at some length the proposals that were put forward for dealing with some of these issues and others, and enacted the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 (Public Law 87-543), whose key elements are the following: First, and foremost, the legislation recognized the absolute necessity for public welfare personnel qualified by education and experience to deal with the difficult problems of human behavior and adjustment represented by many families on assistance. Second, incentives and opportunities were provided for preparation for and assumption of employment where this is practical and possible. Third, arrangements were devised to provide for the constructive protection of children where mismanagement of funds or irresponsible behavior of the adult demanded it. THE LEADERSHIP ROLE OF THE WELFARE ADMINISTRATION In January this year the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare took an additional step to insure the effectiveness of the proposals that Congress had enacted into the law by creating a Welfare Administration and providing for a Commissioner of Welfare whose time and thought would be uniquely and especially directed toward the improvement of and coordination of programs in the public welfare field affecting families and children. This arrangement was strengthened markedly by the appointment of a career public welfare administrator, Dr. Ellen Winston, formerly commissioner of public welfare for North Carolina. MAKING THE AMENDMENTS EFFECTIVE THROUGH APPROPRIATIONS We want to direct ourselves to the particulars of three programs that require sufficient appropriations if these public welfare amendments are to get off the ground. Training of public welfare personnel In the area of the preparation of qualified personnel in the welfare field, the amendments made two important provisions. First, they provide that 75 percent of the cost of rehabilitative, preventive, and protective services rendered to recipients of public assistance, including the cost for the training of personnel for such services, shall be financed by the Federal Government. These 75percent matching funds can be claimed by the States just as soon as a program has been developed that renders certain services as specified by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Then, in order to accelerate the development of trained individuals in key supervisory positions, the amendments established a program of direct training of grants or contracts with public or nonprofit private agencies or institutions at an authorized level of $2 million. This is along the lines of the familiar 100 percent federally financed training program so long in effect in the health field. For fiscal 1964, $2 million is requested for this sort of training of special leadership staff. It is our judgment, based in part upon a study made by the Metropolitan Washington chapter of our association, that one of the factors in the reporting of finding of high ineligibility among ADC families in the District of Columbia is the high turnover of staff, and the lack of any program of training. Parenthetically, we would also like to note that another very important factor is the lack of any program for assistance to the needy children of unemployed parents. It seems to us fairly obvious that the effective administration of any program, whether fire, police, health, or public welfare, is heavily dependent upon a career emphasis which recruits and holds intelligent and concerned personnel and then provides for their development and increased efficiency by a system of both intramural as well as extramural training. Day care Another significant public welfare amendment is the authorization for funds for the establishment of a day care program as means of assisting mothers of dependent children, who desire it, to seek employment under the assurances and safeguards, however, that adequate provisions will be made for the care of the child while the mother is absent from home. For this purpose the Department is requesting $8 million for fiscal year 1964 which we strongly endorse. The supplemental request now being considered proposes $3 million for the remainder of the current fiscal year. Social welfare research Finally, we support the 1964 fiscal year request of $2 million for cooperative research in welfare and social security, and $4 million for research, training, and demonstration projects in child welfare. We have been impressed by the number and quality of requests that have been made for projects under the cooperative research authorization and believe that we are in the process of obtaining significant findings about special factors that contribute to dependency and their implications to securing more effective programs in public welfare. Similarly, there has been an encouraging response to the program for research and demonstration projects in child welfare. Investigation in process or proposed with respect to the effectiveness of various forms of foster care, and the preventive potential of homemaker and day care services hold significant possibilities. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Annually something over $4 billion of Federal, State, and local tax funds are distributed to several million recipients of public assistance by about 40,000 employees of our State and local public welfare agencies. Each of these staff members is a trustee in a sense for an average of about $100,000. This can be largely a handout, or an investment in human dignity, hope, and progress. The key to a constructive approach rest uniquely in the hands of our public welfare personnel whose morale and sense of personal worth are key determinants in their capacity to be helpful to others. The measure of our valuation of these staff personnel's worth lies in our willingness to help them acquire needed skills in counseling and service and to receive a financial reward adequate to the obligations assumed. Mr. DANSTEDT. Thank you very much. As you know, we are interested in a lot of the programs in HEW, but there are only about three of them I am going to talk to very briefly. One is training, and you have heard this before; another is day care; and the last one is funds for research. About all Iwant to bring out on this is just to remind ourselves again that last year the Congress passed a rather unusual piece of legislation, Public Welfare Amendments of 1962. You remember, every now and then, in the public welfare field, I think about every 3 or 4 years, there is a big public fuss about ADC. And you know all the troubles tied in with that. In 1961, the Secretary decided to make a study of that whole situation. As a result of that, they came out with the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962. We are supposed to do something about the ADC of working mothers and problems tied in with that; and a number of other operations. As one looks at this public welfare legislation of 1962, you come to a quick conclusion that there are three points of important emphasis. First, it stressed the importance of qualified and trained personnel. This is found to be the key to the situation. You can have all the issues and problems you want, but if you do not have people to help some of these people on assistance with their problems, you do not make much progress. The other one you stress is to make it possible for these mothers of dependent children to be able to work, and make it possible for day care for their children while they are employed. And they underline the importance of research. I just want again to address myself, as a number of us have in the past, to the importance of training, pointing out these Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 did two things in training, you recall: One, they made a 75 percent matching for training possible on an open-end basis. If the State comes up to certain standards of service they give to the people in public assistance, they can claim 75 percent matching Federal funds. Then they did a very important thing I do not think this has been stressed enough-they made it possible for 100-percent grants to be made directly to institutions of higher education for the purpose of training leadership personnel. I think sometimes there is some confusion between these two aspects. Take the public welfare department that hasn't done much in the area of training. I think we have a good example right here in the District, where I do not think they have trained anybody on their staff for, I don't know how long. What is needed for the first 2 or 3 years is some intensive kind of application, whereby some of the most promising people in the program are selected and given good, solid training, so they can go back as leadership personnel and provide some sort of inservice training. So the $2 million the Department is asking, we will say, for 1964 is important. As a matter of fact, I think key, in terms of if the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 are even going to get off the ground in terms of really trying to deal with these issues that were fussed over back in 1960 and 1961, and have come up here in the District also. I know our chapter here in Washington made a little study of the District welfare operation. I think we have come to a conclusion that one of the reasons they were having all the problems here is because of the fact they had very few really qualified persons to handle that job. In other words, you have people on the staff here administering something like $200,000 a year, and they come and go. There is a high turnover. I think they turn over every 2 or 3 years. There is no career plan of any sort. There is no incentive to make them feel as if they were important and necessary in this important job. So I just want to underline again the importance of this $2 million that is being asked for, which is along the pattern, as you well know, of the grants that are being made in the field of health for training of personnel. On day care, I think the situation is again one, we will say, in which the effort is to provide some day care money. So if a mother on ADC wants to go to work some plan can be made for her to go to work, and she can be sure of some provision being made for her children. Finally, in the area of research, you know there are two research programs: One is cooperative health in welfare and social security, something like $2 million is being asked for fiscal year 1964. This program is administered by the Social Security Administration-I don't know whether anyone knows whether it is going to stay there or be transferred to the Welfare Administration. Then, $4 million is being asked by the Children's Bureau for demonstration projects in child welfare. Again, as has been stressed in the past, when we are spending the kind of money that is now being spent, something like $4 million by the Federal Government, and the State and local governments, it makes a great deal of sense to move ahead on some kind of research projects. Finally, I just want to point out again that they have got something like 40,000 persons who are employed by the States and local governments in administering these public welfare grants. To me, and I am sure the money tied in with this is important, I think these persons should be given a sense of dignity and a sense of personal worth. There are two ways to do that, as I see it. One is to pay them adequate salaries, which is a problem; they are not paid, in many localities, adequate salaries. The second is to make them feel they are a part of a career system and are needed, and therefore ought to be trained and prepared to do the job of counseling that is involved in their responsibilities. I know you are busy, and you have a week and a half of witnesses. This concludes the comments I want to make. Mr. FOGARTY. Thank you. Mr. Denton? Mr. DENTON. I just would like to ask you one question. Mr. DANSTEDT. Yes, sir. Mr. DENTON. You spoke about the new law. They provide that under certain circumstances, the States receive 75 percent from the Government for administrative expenses; and in certain circumstances 50 percent. Mr. DANSTEDT. Right. Mr. DENTON. The act is very general. It is under such circumstances as the Secretary of HEW prescribes. Mr. DANSTEDT. That is correct. Mr. DENTON. Could you tell me what he has prescribed? Mr. DANSTEDT. I haven't seen the regulations in black and white, myself. I have understood that they are directed toward reducing the caseloads. In other words, instead of having them running, as they often do, 200 cases per worker, they want to reduce them, on a gradual scale. They are also directed toward providing in every State someone in charge of training who is responsible for seeing staffs encouraged to go and get some graduate education for themselves. Also, I think there is a requirement that at the end of a certain period of time, a certain percentage of the staff has to be qualified by education for carrying on the job that is being done by public welfare. I do not know whether all these regulations have been issued or not. I would be glad, Mr. Congressman, to see if I could get ahold of the regulations for you. Mr. DENTON. I cannot get one from HEW, and the Printing Office said they would get me one, that it would be out today. I have not received it yet. Maybe it will come in today. I would like to read it. Mr. DANSTEDT. I have not seen them in black and white; but if you want me to, I would be willing to try to get a set for you, although I should think it would be a lot easier for you to get it than for me. Mr. DENTON. That is what I thought. I will try to get them. Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Laird? Mr. LAIRD. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FOGARTY. Thank you. Mr. DANSTEDT. Thank you very much. TRAINING WELFARE WORKERS Mr. FOGARTY. I believe this would be a good place to put in the record a telegram and two letters we have received supporting the request for funds for direct Federal training grants for training welfare workers. (The communications follow:) Hon. JOHN E. FOGARTY, NEW YORK, N.Y., March 27, 1963. Chairman, House Subcommittee on Appropriations, for Labor-HEW, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: Urge committee approval of $2 million appropriation in the 1963-64 budget of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to finance direct Federal training grants to schools of social work and scholarships under the Bureau of Family Services. Availability of skilled trained personnel to administer welfare programs is indispensable requirement for success of entire public welfare effort to restore individuals to self-support through rehabilitative services. Relatively modest investment can produce tremendous ultimate human and dollar savings and results. LOUIS STERN, President, Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds. Congressman JOHN E. FOGARTY, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. FOGARTY: This year President Kennedy's budget includes a request for $2 million in the 1963-64 budget of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to finance the program of direct Federal training grants to schools of social work and scholarships under the Bureau of Family Services. The University of Missouri School of Social Work is vitally concerned that this appropriation be retained. We see it as a major way for implementing the 1962 public welfare amendments that call for increased training in order to provide a nationwide public assistance program that emphasizes services for social and economic rehabilitation. As a State university, we have an obligation to assist in this absolutely necessary endeavor, and we feel strongly that this can be best accomplished in direct partnership with our own State welfare department and the Federal agency. Toward this end, here at the University of Missouri, we are in the process of developing an experimental program that would be greatly facilitated by such cooperation. We hope that you will lend your support to this important appropriation which can be of such benefit to our State and Nation. Sincerely, ARTHUR W. NEBEL, Director, School of Social Work. FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Hon. JOHN E. FOGARTY, |