rural-nonfarm areas. The child population of the Nation, as this table shows, is mostly urban-although not to the same degree as the total population. Children constitute a larger proportion of total rural than of urban residents.

Between 1940 and 1950 urban population, using the definition adopted by the Bureau of the Census in 1950, grew by about 22 percent and rural nonfarm population by about 32 percent; ruralfarm population declined by roughly 18 percent. Between 1950 and 1958 urban population increased 9 percent; rural-nonfarm, 56 percent; rural-farm declined 17 percent.

Between 1950 and 1957 the Department of Agriculture reports, farm population decreased 4,662,000.

This is a continuation of a longtime downward trend which by 1957 reduced farm residents to 12 percent of the total population. Most of the loss occurred through migration of farm persons to nonfarm places of residence. Approximately half the farm population is in the South. The North Central States have about a third of this population, and the North, East, and West each slightly less than a tenth.

The South has undergone a more rapid decline in farm population in recent years than other regions. Farm population in the South was 22 percent smaller in 1957 than in 1950, compared with a decline of 15 percent in the rest of the Nation. In the 1960 census, farm population may number only 18 or 19 million and comprise only about 10 or 11 percent of the total instead of 15.5 percent as in 1950. The downward trend is expected to continue for at least another 20 years. At one time in our history the word "rural" was practically synonymous with "agricultural." In 1920 adoption by the Bureau of the Census of the classification "rural-nonfarm" acknowledged the no longer sharp distinction between "urban" and "rural."

A substantial part of rural-nonfarm population is essentially urban in the ordinary sense since one-half to two-thirds of it is clustered around the boundaries of smaller cities or strung along major highways. The recent rapid jump in rural-nonfarm population, therefore, represents growth of suburbs around cities of all sizes, especially the metropolitan areas. In the 1960 census, a large part of the population counted as rural-nonfarm undoubtedly will be included in metropolitan areas. The flight to the suburbs, no less than the growth of urbanization, has created new problems for child welfare agencies.

Generally speaking, the larger the community the greater the proportion of family disruptions. In 1950, for example, among urban residents the percentage of broken families with children was higher than among rural nonfarm and rural farm residents (8 percent as compared with 7 and 4 percent, respectively). In both types of rural areas, widowhood accounted for the majority of broken homes, while in urban areas divorce and separation caused the largest proportion of broken homes with children. Households and families with female heads are much more common in urban than in rural nonfarm areas, and least common in rural farm areas.

In recent years rural farm population has tended to be less mobile than urban. But rural nonfarm population has been residentially more mobile than either of the other two groups, a reflection of the movement to the suburbs.

In the city, women find employment more readily. The number of white urban women who work is about 51 percent greater than that of rural farm women, and about 27 percent greater than of rural nonfarm women.

Statistics collected by the Children's Bureau indicate that courts in predominantly urban areas handle about two-thirds of all delinquency cases in the country. Rates of delinquency court cases are about 31⁄2 times higher in predominantly urban than in predominantly rural areas (1958 data).

Of families receiving aid to dependent children in the latter part of 1958, 42 percent were in cities of 50,000 or more population, 8 percent. on farms.

Effects of the 1958 amendments on rural and urban child welfare services

The report of the House Ways and Means Committee states the intent "to assure that present services to children in rural areas are not reduced because of this change"-that is, change of the allotment formula consistent with the removal of the limitation of Federal funds to rural and other areas of special need. To accomplish this, the committee provided for a "base allotment" of Federal funds to States. The effect of this was to leave unchanged the previous formula for allotting Federal funds until such time as the annual appropriation exceeds $12 million. Since the 1959 appropriation was $12 million, the base allotment was the amount received by all States.

Therefore, services in either urban or rural areas have not expanded substantially in 1959. Services in rural areas were not curtailed for two reasons: First, many States formerly provided some services to urban areas under the legal provision that allowed use of Federal funds in "areas of special need" other than rural; second, by and large, States have not limited the use of their own State and local funds to rural areas.

Child welfare services needed in both rural and urban areas

Public child welfare services in both rural and urban areas must be further developed and improved to cover gaps in service and to reach all the people who need help. The dearth of personnel and finances limits child welfare services and facilities in both areas. As one State administrator said, "There are few, if any, appreciable differences between urban and rural areas in relation to unmet needs in child welfare programs." Or, as another said, "The needs of children do not seem to break down on the basis of urban and rural designations." These statements are not surprising in view of the great demand for child welfare services today and the fact that, unlike Federal funds, State, and local funds, by and large, have not been limited in their use to rural areas. The 1958 amendment to the Social Security Act recognizes in a realistic way the changed character of life in the United States, the wide scope of unmet problems, and the philosophy of equal consideration to children in rural and in urban areas.

UNMET NEEDS IN CHILD WELFARE

In response to the request of the Council, States provided current information on child welfare services. Unmet needs in child welfare were reported in both urban and rural areas. In some instances, lack

of resources seems greater in one or the other area. In a number of States, gaps in service are statewide. This, briefly, is what States reported in response to a questionnaire sent out by the Children's Bureau.

Personnel

At every level in the operation of child welfare services, the need for qualified personnel is the most urgent and most extensive of those reported by the States. Lack of qualified personnel has affected both the quantity and quality of basic child welfare services. This lack is made even more detrimental to children needing service by the fact that supervision at State and local levels is everywhere so limited. One State reflects a fear shared by many: "We are concerned with the fact that lack of personnel is resulting in some activity by persons not in any way equipped to deal with children's problems," adding it is undoubtedly true that we could get more local participation in the program both financial and supportive if more staff were available."

The need for more funds for recruitment, for expanded training opportunities through staff development programs and for educational stipends is referred to over and over again by the States. Low salaries, the States point out, present a problem in obtaining competent and sufficient child welfare staff.

Foster-care facilities

After personnel, States mention foster care facilities, especially for children requiring a particular kind of care, i.e., children with a physical handicap, children with mild mental retardation, children being released from correctional institutions, and infants needing temporary boarding care. Group homes for adolescents and detention facilities also are badly needed. One State's comment, typical of many, is "There is a chronic lack of adequate foster homes and especially of specialized group and receiving homes for children with special needs that cannot be filled by institutions or typical foster homes. Some of these children are emotionally disturbed adolescents who might be helped in small group home situations." Furthermore "More intensive effort is needed to recruit staff and supervise the operation. of such receiving and group homes ** * neither staff nor funds have been available for recruitment effort and supervising." Another State says: "Detention facilities which are more than mere places for custodial care for youth in conflict with the law are needed in both rural and urban areas.'

Specialized services

A majority of States report need for specialized services for children. Most frequently noted are psychiatric and psychological services, followed by remedial therapy, vocational guidance, services to the mentally retarded, dental and medical services, individual or family counseling, and residential treatment centers for emotionally disturbed children. One State stated that "Numerous requests for the care of mentally retarded children must be denied due to lack of facilities." Another said, "Completely lacking are specialized facilities *** such as group homes and residential treatment centers for emotionally disturbed children."

Homemaker service

The value of homemaker service as a preventive measure against family breakdown was emphasized in many reports. Some States have received requests for consultation and help in establishing homemaker service from communities in isolated areas. Unfortunately, because of lack of funds and personnel, this interest on the part of these communities has not been followed up. Although a number of urban areas have developed homemaker service to a limited degree, this service is, in general, lacking in both rural and urban areas. Many States urge establishment of this service on a statewide basis. Day-care services

If the upward trend of mothers entering the labor force continues, the need for day-care services will increase manyfold. About 7 million mothers with children under 18 are presently employed. Of these, about 3 million, with a total of 5 million children under 12, work full time. The fact that 39 percent of these 5 million children live in rural areas indicates that need for day-care facilities for children of working mothers is not limited to urban areas. In a typical statement, one State reports: "There are no day-care facilitities in rural areas other than those operated by private citizens." In some States this problem is highlighted by special circumstances such as an influx of migrant laborers whose children suffer acutely from lack of adequate day-care facilities.

Services to unmarried mothers

Lack of services to unmarried mothers, according to State reports, has become serious because increasing numbers of women, especially those in minority groups, are giving birth to children out of wedlock. Many communities across the Nation tell of "A serious need for the development under public auspices on a statewide basis of a service. geared specifically to helping unmarried mothers. * But funds are

* *

not available to develop such a service or to employ staff." One community reports: "The public agency was forced to reject 92 Negro unmarried mothers *** for lack of resources to place the infants in preadoptive homes, or for staff to recruit and study homes and to make and supervise placements."

Other child welfare services

A variety of other services are listed by States as being among unmet needs. One State reports: "Protective services to children should be extended and strengthened *** only one worker has been assigned to receive complaints of neglect and abuse. This does not begin to meet the need for this type of service." The importance of preventive service is underscored by some States. Said one: "The need for more counseling and help to those families and children especially vulnerable to breakdown, delinquency, and mental illness on a continuing preventive basis is so widespread and well documented as to be classified as a universal unmet need."

Lack of adequate adoption services is noted by States, although the emphasis varies. Some directed attention to the difficulty in placing for adoption children of minority races, older children, and other children who are hard to place for a variety of reasons. Among the comments received was: "Adoptive services, public and voluntary,

19 66* **

are insufficient especially for older children and those of minority groups.' we should expand adoptive services to older children and those with special needs."

Other States feel that adoption service generally should be expanded and strengthened in every way. One State feels the greatest need to be "*** adequate safeguards and protection of the rights of children, natural and adoptive parents in the adoption process." Research was mentioned by several States as essential to strengthening and expanding child welfare programs: * * * ** more knowledge and research in regard to administrative aspects in our inservice training program is a crying need." Another State is "unable to delve into causes for dependency in aid to dependent children and child welfare." This State also finds lacking "research in factors in unmarried parenthood" and in "other areas in child welfare such as protective services."

Improvement of standards, particularly for group-care facilities, community organization for child welfare "aimed at prevention of delinquency and emotional breakdown,' more public interpretation of child welfare," and “* more vehicles to facilitate coverage * to expand all phases of child welfare," are some of the other unmet needs identified by one or several States.

***

* *

In general, the material submitted by the States shows that unmet needs in child welfare are identified in terms of the needs of children wherever they are living rather than as urban or rural. Child welfare services in all the States are hampered by lack of qualified personnel to do the job. Psychiatric and psychological services are in short supply everywhere. Group care of good quality for children with special problems physical, emotional, and intellectual is lacking. Better day-care facilities and homemaker service are needed as are supervision and leadership for standard setting, consultation and program development in both cities and in rural areas. More research for better understanding of all problems relating to children is essential to building programs geared to our changing times.

GOALS FOR CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS

In a sense the goals for child welfare programs forecast their future and serve as guides to their development. For this reason, goals are an essential part of any background-and no background statement would be complete without some presentation of goals.

Since parents have primary responsibility for the physical, emotional, intellectual, social, and spiritual growth of their children, the overall goals for child welfare programs should—

1. Establish, extend, and strengthen services to safeguard families.

2. Provide a variety of services to children living in their own homes and in the homes of relatives, to parents who need help in child rearing, to children in new homes, or in care away from their own homes.

Basic community services

The first line of defense for the welfare of children is security within their own homes with parents capable of providing the understanding, love, and guidance all children need. To do their job well, parents