the third quarter of fiscal year 1976, and training began in the fourth quarter. I can speak of one university, again the University of Bridgeport, because I am aware of what is going on there, although several universities have contracts. The University of Bridgeport has approximately 200 students enrolled taking anywhere from 3 to 9 equivalent credits, either oncampus or onsite, and the tuition is about $85,000. Mr. JENSEN. You don't know what it is Statewide? Mr. LIPP. No, there are no figures yet available, because the bills don't have to be in and payment doesn't have to be made until June 30 in terms of tuition reimbursement or salaries. It became operational in Connecticut in the spring semester, which I believe is also the case in California. Mr. JENSEN. No more questions. Mr. HAWLEY. Did I understand you to say that having a position in a title XX nature is a prerequisite to participation in the training program? Mr. LIPP. Yes; there are three major statements which have been made following Federal guidelines. Óne, you must have face-to-face contact with clients. Two, part or all of your salary must be audited to a title XX contract if you are in a provider agency. Three, attending course work will not in any way debilitate your services that you are currently rendering to title XX clients. Those are the three major guidelines. Mr. HAWLEY. Thank you. [The prepared statement and attachment follow:] STATEMENT OF JOSEPH J. LIPP, PRESIDENT-TREASURER, CIRP, INC., This is a request for time to testify before the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Public Assistance concerning the possibility of putting a ceiling on Title XX Tuition Reimbursement of established Title XX Training Programs. The testimony will be centered on describing operational training programs initiated during FY 1976.1 These programs involve some 200 Qualified Title XX participants in the State of Connecticut, and is representative of one of the many programs in the state. It involves workers from some 35 Provider Agencies, servicing a large population of Title XX clients in the 16 service areas of Connecticut State Title XX Plan. Projected programs call for involvement of several hundred more Qualified Title XX participants in continuing training to upgrade the services to Title XX Clients throughout the State of Connecticut. In order to establish a reasonable ceiling for tuition reimbursement of Title XX, an analysis of present and projected costs of training at least until September 30, 1978, should be done in order to provide the training so desperately necessary to upgrade the delivery of services to Title XX clients. In closing, we are confident that the Subcommittee is aware that there is not sufficient funds in the State operational plans to provide such training, nor can Title XX workers afford personally the cost of such training. We fe lethat the committee should have the opportunity to review evaluations and needs assess. ments now going on for FY 76 before it makes any decisions concerning a ceiling funding for FY 77. In accordance with Federal (FR Vol. 40, No. 125. Friday, June 27, 1976, Subpart h, sections 228.83 Financial Assistance to Students) and state guidelines. 2 Almost all (over 90% of those enrolled fall below the median income of the State. 74-332-76-9 STATE OF CONNECTICUT COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES PROGRAM PLAN, OCTOBER 1, 1975, TO JUNE 30, 1976 Mr. CORMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lipp. We appreciate your coming on rather short notice. Mr. LIPP. I think it is a very important thing in terms of the people. [The following was subsequently received for the record:] COOPERATIVE INDIVIDUALIZED READING PROGRAM, INC., UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT, Bridgeport, Conn., June 23, 1976. Re corrected transcript and additional information requested by the Subcommittee on Public Assistance concerning H.R. 12175. To: John M. Martin, Jr. chief counsel. From: Joseph J. Lipp. *** Attached is a mailgram dated June 14, 1976, with an estimate of tuition reimbursement through December 31, 1978. This figure was generated upon Title XX participants attending programs related to Title XX Service training needs at the University of Bridgeport. The total figure for the period is 1.37 million dollars. If we include monies to be expended by the University of Bridgeport for curriculum development and other training costs, the 75% reimbursement for this would be $847,000. In conclusion, the total training cost for Title XX participants through the period December 31, 1978 would be $2,218,500 which represents roughly 15% of the estimated training cost for the State of $15,000,000, through December, 1978 **. Sincerely, Enclosures. APPENDIX A JOSEPH J. LIPP, President-Treasurer. PARTICIPATING AGENCIES IN TITLE XX, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE, TRAINING PROGRAM-UNIVERSITY OF BRIDGEPORT Agency Address and Director Committee-Training-Employment, 433 Atlantic St., Stamford, Conn.-John T. Brown Hall Neighborhood House, 52 Green St., Bridgeport, Conn.-George E. Pipkin ABCD, 815 Pembroke St., Bridgeport, Conn.-Charles Tisdale Y.W.C.A., 48 Howe St., New Haven, Conn.-Mark Refowitz Y.W.C.A., 651 State St., Bridgeport, Conn.-Jack Smith Torrington Mental Health, P.O. Box 676, Winsted, Conn.-John Hutchinson Mountain Top Day Care, 40 Stillwater Ave., Stamford, Conn.- Stamford Day Care, 64 Palmers Hill Rd., Stamford, Conn.-Jeanne H. Ellis Mahalia Jackson Day Care Center, 170 Carrie St., Bridgeport, Conn.-Roe Sharp Long Lane DCYS-Aftercare Services, Middletown, Conn.-David Scott Legal Services, Court of Common Pleas, Hoyt St., Stamford, Conn.-Raymond Merriam Grady Pre-School, 48 Valley View Dr., Farmington, Conn.-Carol A. Pfeiffer Boy's Village, 528 Wheelers Farm Rd., Milford, Conn.-Walter Baker Bulls Head Hollow Senior Citizens Home, 815 Pembrake St., Bridgeport, Conn.Branford Day Care Center, 31 Rogers St., Branford, Conn.-Fe-Friedman Childrens Adv. Center, Church Hill Rd., Sandy Hook, Conn.-Marge Dujnic County State Department of Children and Youth Services (boys), 345 Main St., Hartford, Conn.-Shirley Coddington Childrens World, 1544 Byam Rd., Chesire, Conn. Commission on Human Rights, 60 Sargent Dr., New Haven, Conn.-Elizabeth Green CTE.-Stamford, 72 Spruce St., Stamford, Conn.--Carmen Domonkos Department of Aging, 263 Golden Hill St., Bridgeport, Conn.-Richard Marchionni Department of Correction, 1862 E. Main St., Bridgeport, Conn.-R. Houston Family Services-Woodfield, 100 Clinton Ave., Bridgeport, Conn.-Richard Lewis GTR.-Bpt. Elderly Nutrition Program, 30 Elm St., Bridgeport, Conn.-Rita Cimino Mental Health Center, 1635 Center Ave., Bridgeport, Conn.— ATTACHMENT B STATE OF CONNECTICUT COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES PROGRAM PLAN, JULY 1, 1976 TO JUNE 30, 1977 STATE OF CONNECTICUT COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES PROGRAM PLAN, OCTOBER 1, 1975, TO JUNE 30, 1976 Re: Projection of tuition reimbursement through December 31, 1978. Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Public Assistance, In response to testimony given at last Friday's hearing June 11, 1976, in room B-316 Rayburn House Office Building I have computed a project 75 percent tuition reimbursement through December 31, 1978, in the amount of $1,371,000. Please note this represents the geographic area of Connecticut and interfaces with one of some 15 post secondary institutional grants for title XX training located in various geographic areas in Connecticut. I hope this data requested by the committee on Friday will be helpful in determining a realistic figure for title XX training as established, further backup detail is available upon request. JOE LIPP, President-Treasurer. Mr. CORMAN. Thank you, sir. The committee stands adjourned until 10 o'clock Friday next. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL The social services program is again under attack by the Administration. In 1972 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare issued regulations which were so restrictive both as to what services could be provided and who could receive them, that Congress, feeling its intent had been deliberately misinterpreted, placed a moratorium on the issuance of regulations, setting the stage for Title XX. After the passage of title XX, the compressed time periods required by HEW for implementing the law appeared to be intended not to assist but instead to harass the states. The proposed regulations were published on April 14 with a short period for comment. The final ones were released June 27. The proposed plan for using social services funds that each state must develop had to be finished four days later for the required 45 days of public comment. The final plan had then to be completed and everything ready for implementation by October 1. The restrictive regulations and absurdly complicated guidelines continue to flow out of HEW into the states. A social service worker must go through 80 pages of guideline materials to fill out an eligibility form for a single client seeking services. Organizational energy of the professional program workers in the states has had to be directed to defending the programs from the Federal government. There is a total absence of exchange of fresh ideas and methods of solutions to the human tragedy requiring services. Stimulation and technical assistance from the national level has been nonexistant. Federal consultants have been replaced by private proprietary firms performing ad hoc assignments for a contractual fee. Valuable time is lost in educating the temporary consultants, and follow-up services do not exist after the contract elapses. And now the Administration proposes a block grant for social services which would totally abdicate a Federal role by eliminating Federal standard setting authority, and doing away with any accountability by states as to how Federal funds are used, including whether they are used to supplant Federal or state efforts in the human services area. The Federal government is the only branch of government which can concern itself with the national system of social services, and when that level of government does not give leadership, the whole system is adversely affected through the lack of nationwide statistics, the provision of accurate information to Congress, and the provision of an early warning system for new problems and needs. ELIMINATION OF STATE MATCH The AFL-CIO objects to the provision in the block grant proposal which eliminates the requirement that the states put up 25% matching funds. It is no secret that state and local governments are experiencing tremendous financial difficulties. There will be enormous pressure to divert money now being spent on services to other areas. At the time Title XX was enacted the broadened eligibility base made the Federal ceiling totally inadequate. At that time, thirteen of the largest states were spending their total allocation on the welfare related population, leaving nothing to respond to the needs of the newly-eligbile working poor. State governments are not fooled by this move being masked as one intended to alleviate financial pressures on the states. Let me quote from a speech given by the welfare director of one of the most populous states. "The HEW block grant proposal for social services does convert the Title XX program into a 100% Federally funded program for the present, but it is clear that the intent is to have state and local governments assume the entire burden for increased caseloads and growth in the social services program in the future while the Federal effort is held at a $2.5 billion level." LIMITING TRAINING MONEY We object to further attempts to erode the social services system by limiting training expenditures by folding them under the $2.5 billion ceiling. The Federal role in the creation of adequate manpower with adequate training is an absolute essential for the delivery of effective social services. Unlike investments in housing or defense production, investments in social, education and health services require the intervention of professionals who actually provide the financed services. If professionals are poorly trained and enlisted in inadequate numbers, the dollars spent on services are wasted. There is a strong demand in the states for more, not less, Federal leadership in this area. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare should be utilizing professionals from the field to determine priorities with regard to types of training and distribution of manpower by function and geography. No social service system can work unless properly trained manpower is available at the place where services are needed. REQUIRING 75 PERCENT BE SPENT ON THE POOR The attempt to turn social services back to being a poor people's program by requiring 75% of the funds be spent on the poor is totally unacceptable. The AFL-CIO supported the passage of Title XX only because we felt it was a step toward rationalizing and strengthening the social services program by beginning to make services available to all persons who need them. The poor, because they are poor, often need special programs to alleviate their suffering. But we also recognize that social services of various kinds are needed by Americans from all socio-economic backgrounds. We reject the proposition that Federal involvement in service programs should be for the sole purpose of reducing the welfare rolls. Many families and individuals experience tragedies totally unrelated to their income capacity-child abuse, alcoholism, mental and physical disabilities, age, to name a few. Services must be made universally available to people on the basis of their need for the service and not on their income. |