Page images
PDF
EPUB

entered into agreements for substantial grants, we have found that so far they are not claiming these amounts in reimbursable expenses. At present it looks as if Connecticut total Title XX training expenditures will be $3 to $4 million in FY 77. This may grow in following years as the practical curricula are developed and made available to Title XX staff.

It is entirely too early for Congress to impose a ceiling before the States have had a chance to demonstrate the value of this training in improving the quality of services. We hope that a ceiling will not be considered until FY 79 when the evaluation reports are in. Please keep me informed on the status of this legislation. Sincerely,

EDWARD W. MAHER, Commissioner.

[Mailgram]

JOHN M. MARTIN, Jr.,

EASTERN CONNECTICUT STATE COLLEGE,
Willimantic, Conn., June 14, 1976.

Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, D.C.:

Strongly oppose bill H.R. 12175. Ceiling on title XX money at this time will impede progress on critical programs and services.

JOHN M. MARTIN, Jr., Esq.,

WILLIAM BILLINGHAM,
Dean of Professional Studies.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT,

MATTATUCK COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Waterbury, Conn., June 11, 1976.

Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MARTIN: I wish to comment on House of Representatives Bill No. 12175.

It is my belief that there should be no ceiling on Title XX training monies or at least no limit less than 10% of the State Services Money.

Training needs in this state are pressing and current funding is very inadequate. Title XX will help provide training to those delivering social services on a direct-line basis.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. JOHN MARTIN,

DONALD D. DONIHUE,

Director, Divison of Public and Social Service.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT,

SOUTH CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
New Haven, Conn., June 11, 1976.

Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MARTIN: It is my understanding that a bill, H.R. 12175, has been filed which would place a ceiling on the training funds available to states under Title XX of the Social Security Act of 1974. One of the goals of the Social Security Act is to help people to become or remain self-sufficient (economically). Here at South Central Community College we will shortly be operationalizing a training program using Title XX training money for 75 Family Day Care mothers who are under contract with the Connecticut Department of Welfare to watch children in their homes. That training will enable them to significantly improve the learning environments for the young children in their care. The program will also enable these women to began on a career ladder that will lead first to an Associate Degree here at South Central, then to a Bachelor's Degree at a local 4-year State college.

We here at South Central, along with the Connecticut Department of Welfare, feel strongly that this training program will impact significantly on the problem of helping low-income people remain economically self sufficient. Our program will benefit the children who, if not assisted, may become yet another generation of the economically dependent, their parents who need quality day

care in order to continue working, and the women who will be assisted to move up a career ladder toward greater economic independence.

I imagine, Mr. Martin, that there are those who would argue that not putting a ceiling on Title XX training monies would be failing to address the recognized need to reduce federal spending. I would maintain, however, that severely -limiting training programs for social service personnel nationwide will not, in the final analysis, achieve that end. The only way to make real inroads against the problem of rising numbers of economically dependent families is to mount training programs of the type outlined above.

Viable personnel training programs jointly developed by collegiate institutions and state Welfare agencies are not possible, given the fiscal crisis in academia without the resource of Title XX training grants. I ask that you weigh carefully before making your decision.

Best wishes for your continued success.
Sincerely,

W. DEHOMER WALLER, President.

[Telegram]

STATE OF CONNECTICUT TITLE XX ADVISORY BOARD,
Bridgeport, Conn., June 11, 1976.

JOHN M. MARTIN, Jr., Esq.,

Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MARTIN: I should like to file the following comments with respect to H.R. 12175 and urge that this measure designed to convert Title 20 of the Social Security Act into a block grant to the State not be given favorable consideration. While I am in agreement with the premise of loosening some of the current restrictions, I am adamantly opposed to this proposed legislation in general, specifically in the following areas:

1. The repeal of State share requirement: This current requirement of matching provides a measure of security to the utilization of funds for the desired purpose and does not free the State from any responsibility what so ever for providing these services.

2. The requirement that 75 percent of the funds to be utilized for welfare recipients: The intent of the current Title 20 50 percent is a recognition of a responsibility of a government for meeting human needs in the main stream of American society which ranges above the welfare roles to the 115 percent medical income level.

3. Striking the word "aggregate" in the above reference of 50 percentile of welfare recipients denys the intent to spread services to meet human need irrespective of the income level within the guideline factors indicated. The removal of the word "aggregate" would then mandate that each service be provided at the 75 percentile level to welfare recipients to those whose income are below the poverty level. This move would be completely destructive, biased and prejudicial to the equal provision of human services.

4. The repeal of the prohibition against funding educational, medical or nursing home services: Title 20 is a social service act and should not be used to offset our expenditures in the field of education or for medically related services provided for under title 19. The repeal of these constraints would destroy the effort toward provision of community based services. It would also make a sham out of the development of the State plan through an open, collaborative process between the State, municipal and private sector as is currently underway. Your consideration of these concerns will be greatly appreciated.

GEORGE W. WILKINSON, Ed.D.,

Hon. STEWART B. MCKINNEY,
House Office Building,

Chairman. TOWN OF GREENWICH, CONN., June 11, 1976.

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MCKINNEY: I would like to record the following reactions to the Administration's proposed Title XX amendments, H.R. 12175, and S. 3061.

I. Section 102-Section 2002(a) (2): A formula for the distribution of funds as block grants to States which is based entirely on the ratios of populations

within the States to the over-all population of the country is too simplistic. It fails to ensure that these funds will have their maximum effect on the social health of the country as a whole. Such matters as degree of unemployment, numbers of welfare recipients, per capita wealth, and degree of tax effort within the individual states should also be included in the formula.

II. Section 108-Section 2002 (a) (7); Section 110-Section 2002 (a) (10); Section 112-Section 2002 (a) (13): I support the general concept, which is reflected in these sections of the proposed bill, that state and local administrators should be freed from some of the inflexibilities of categorical programs of the past. However, I am alarmed that the kinds of flexibility which are permitted will have the ultimate effect of withering sources of funding for human services which are already in existence. Permitting states to use this money to fund educational programs which they have been supplying customarily and without cost or means test gives State officials, whose first priority is to reduce budgets, a tempting means of doing so at the expense of human services which would otherwise be eligible for the same Title XX funding. Similarly, the provision that this funding can also be put toward Medicare-eligible services merely reduces pressure on Medicare without doing anything to provide for filling gaps in services. A better provision would have been to provide for the funding of necessary services which are eligible for Medicare coverage, but only after Medicare coverage has been exhausted in a given case. Provision for capital funding, or "seed money," for setting up agencies which will provide services which would be subsequently Medicare-eligible should also be made. However, the wording should be specific on these points.

To sum up, all these sections tend to substitute Title XX funding for the funding of necessary services which is already available from other sources. Thus, the sum of monies to be spent on human services will tend to diminish. We trust that this is not the intent of the bill.

III. Section 107-Section 2002 (a) (6) B: I applaud the provision of group eligibility in certain cases, because of the beneficial effect this will have on services to the elderly.

IV. Section 102-Section 2002 (a) (2) (A): At a time when the unemployment of youth is a serious problem, restricting any portion of training costs by placing them under the 2.5 billion limitations of Title XX is unwise.

V. Section 109 (a)-Section 2002(a) (9): Leaving standards in day care entirely up to the mercies of State administrations could be dangerous. I believe that HEW could devise minimal standards of safety which would allow for sufficient flexibility to respond to local conditions.

VI. Section 115(a) (1) (A)—Para. 2 of Section 2003; Section 116(a)-Section 2003 (d) (1): The requirement for third party auditing and monitoring will create a hardship in many States unless additional funding for this is provided in the bill. This omission repeats the error contained in Medicare and Medicaid regulations for home health care, which require monitoring by States, but provide no funding of a staff adequate to carry out this function. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yours,

E. ADELE BRUCE,

Chairman, Board of Social Services.

[Mailgram]

GREATER HARTFORD COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Hartford, Conn., June 11, 1976.

JOHN M. MARTIN, Jr., Esq.,

Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, D.C.:

Please effect defeat of H.R. 12175 which imposes limits on allocations to States under title XX of Social Security Act. If limits are imposed suggest no less than 10 percent of State's social services budget be funded. Need for improvement of training for service providers is acute in Connecticut.

RICHARD DOLLIVER,
Dean of Faculty.

GREATER NORWALK COMMUNITY COUNCIL,
Norwalk, Conn., June 10, 1976.

Chief Counsel JOHN M. MARTIN, Jr., Esq.,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MARTIN: The Board of Directors of the Greater Norwalk Community Council reviewed H.R. 12175 at their meetiing on June 9, 1976, and would like to go on record opposing this bill for several reasons.

The Board feels that one of the greatest assets of the present Title XX is the concept of social planning. We strongly endorse the State's effort to develop a state social plan in cooperation with the regional advisory committees. In Connecticut, the Department of Social Services has only begun to develop a comprehensive plan. We applaud the Connecticut Department of Social Services for their real desire to have local input into the State Plan. We feel the Connecticut plan for Fiscal 1976-77 is more viable and relevant because there has been local input into it. H.R. 12175 would abolish this concept and return to the old way of doing business which often results in the maintaining of the status quo. The Board of Directors was opposed to the provision in H.R. 12175 of abolishing the need for the States to maintain their present financial efforts and the provision for local match. We feel this is a regressive measure and would result in less social services since it is our opinion most states would withdraw their funds. One only has to look at our experience with general revenue sharing to see the effect of eliminating the need for local match for generally it appears that revenue sharing funds went to finance services that local tax dollars were previously used for and thus no new services were created. We feel there are many unmet needs in this country and federal funds should be used creatively to meet some of these needs. As an example, in Connecticut, the Connecticut United Way has developed a partnership with the Connecticut Department of Social Services in meeting one of the most critical unmet needs in this State-information and referral.

Because of the present Title XX regulations we are able to provide a comprehensive twenty-four-hour-seven-day-a-week information and referral service in the major metropolitan areas of this State which is 75% funded by Title XX and 25% by the local united ways. We think this is a wise use of federal and local tax dollars and many persons are beiing served in the most economic manner possible.

The Board of Directors is of the opinion that the proposed repeal on the present restriction of Title XX funds to be used in providing institutional care is regressive. Numerous studies have indicated that generally speaking most persons are better off in community based facilities rather than being institutionalized in a hospital, nursing home, mental hospital and school for the retarded. It is also recognized that while it is generally cheaper maintaining a person in their local community it is also harder to administer. However, the benefits to the individual client far outweigh the extra administrative difficulties incurred in administering a community based program. We feel that this provision in H.R. 12175 will result in the tendency for the states to support institutional programs and abolish any efforts to create or maintain community based programs such as halfway houses, quarter houses, out-patient clinics or foster care homes.

We applaud the Congress for passing Title XX and we urge the Congress to vote against H.R. 12175 for the above reasons.

If you have any questions please feel free to call on us.
Sincerely,

ARTHUR J. GOLDBLATT, President.

PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY,

SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK, Portland, Oreg., June 16, 1976.

Hon. AL ULLMAN,
Rayburn Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN ULLMAN: I have been following with a great deal of interest the hearing in your committee on HR 12175 and would like to comment and offer some suggestions for what they may be worth.

It is my understanding that the committee is generally supportive of keeping training and service separate in Title XX. I hope this will prevail, because it is absolutely crucial and essential to the survival of training in the program.

It is also my understanding that consideration is being given to having separate ceilings for the two aspects of the program. This is understandable and justifiable as a way of maintaining fiscal responsibility in the training as well as the service sectors. However, certain safeguards would need to be built in if training is to be adequately and equitably supported.

1. The amount for training should be some percent of the amount allocated for service.

2. In order to allow for the orderly development of educational programs particularly in those states which have not participated to any great extent in training, the percent should become progressively greater over the next few years until it reaches some reasonable limit. For instance, one might start at 3% going to 4% and 5% in succeeding years.

3. The states should receive money for training on the basis of the same formula as used for service.

4. The same proportion of the allocation for training should be designated for long-term training (say 50%) and the remainder for short-term and inservice education.

I would like to reiterate a point I made in an earlier letter, namely that whenever money is allocated for a service project the manpower and training implications of the new program must be identified so that the training sector can respond. This, the reverse of the process that is now provided in the law that all training projects have to have the approval of the service agency. Title XX was designed to encourage collaboration between service and education. This is not likely to happen, in my view, unless there is a structural revision in the program.

Thank you again for your continued interest in this problem and the fine leadership you are giving.

Respectfully yours,

JOHN M. MARTIN, Jr., Esq.,

Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, D.C.

GORDON HEARN, Dean.

WESTPORT, CONN., June 10, 1976.

DEAR MR. MARTIN: I can not even offer qualified support for the proposals being considered under the above noted bill. In general, block grants not contingent upon matching state or local funds are desirable. However, it is of great concern that states have been and will continue to use such funding only to perpetuate existing state institutions and programs, and that no funds will be available for innovative programs to serve the people most in need.

In removing restrictions on how social service monies may be spent, there should still be stipulations that funds are to be directed to "social services" at local levels. To date, Westport has not received the Title XX funds from the State of Connecticut to which it is entitled.

In conclusion, any additional funding appropriated at a federal level will, of course, be of great assistance to states, and to municapilities only if the funds are directed to that level.

I am sure you are giving these proposals your most careful consideration. Yours truly,

JACQUELINE P. HENEAGE,
First Selectman.

STATEMENT OF BERNARD R. MARKS, JYC SENIOR CENTER/NORTHEAST,

PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Hon. James C. Corman, Chairman: I regret that I am not able to present my testimony to the Committee in person. I do appreciate the opportunity to present this statement.

Much thanks to you, Mr. Corman, for your leadership in bringing about the passage of H.R. 12455 by the House of Representatives in March 1976. Please recall that I participated, with a delegation of several hundred Senior Adults, in the public hearings sponsored by this Committee on March 8. The Senior

« PreviousContinue »