Secretary RIBICOFF. You can get back to the Federal Government again. If they are not doing it commendably, then that means the Federal Government or the Secretary must have a series of regulations as to what is commendable, and you get back into this dilemma.

Of course basically this committee has the full power to write this law in such a way that it deems will best serve the interests of the people of this country and the people of the respective States. This is the committee that writes these laws and under the laws this committee writes we operate. I mean, this is our charter.

Mr. KNOX. Of course, Mr. Secretary, that is the purpose of the hearings, to endeavor to bring this into proper focus so that the committee will have the answers that you have given or that any others give to this committee for their consideration.

One thing disturbed me greatly which brought this into proper focus here this morning. I have an editorial from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. It says:

CALLING THE TUNE

Abraham Ribicoff, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, has made public a new set of regulations regarding the administration of the public assistance program. The Federal Government contributes money to the States for this program. In making the announcement Ribicoff said he would expect to have cooperation from the States in this. He added, according to the Associated Press, that "if the States refused to cooperate, then we get tough. If a State does not conform, then we cut off their money."

Secretary RIBICOFF. I would say this: We brought into Washington the welfare administrators of all the 50 States and they spent 3 days. Then there was a report from the 50 State administrators, which we will put in the record, in which they were in agreement with the purposes and the willingness to cooperate, and I will read from the last page of this memorandum :

We

The States appreciate the splendid cooperative effort that went into this meeting. We recognize that there will be much work, many dealings between the State and Federal levels in connection with the program changes. are concerned that all of us commit ourselves to the highest possible degree of cooperation in the difficult planning which lies ahead. On the part of the States there is full support for this large scale effort to reevaluate and redirect public welfare. To this end we pledge to the Secretary and his associates our very best efforts.

(The above-mentioned report is as follows:)

COMBINED SUMMARY REPORT OF DISCUSSION GROUPS OF STATE ADMINISTRATORS, JANUARY 31, 1962

Mr. Commissioner, Miss Goodwin, Miss Oettinger, fellow State administrators, ladies and gentlemen, this job was given to me, and most reluctantly accepted, late yesterday afternoon but I will do my best to summarize for the four groups, recognizing that I was present only in one, and with most of the material reported verbally rather than in written form as a basis for this report. Summaries or minutes of the four groups will be sent to the Director of the Bureau of Family Services. Representatives from all four groups met, reviewed, and accepted the report this morning.

Throughout the 2 preceding days we have all been impressed by the basic agreement between the two levels of government, the eagerness to move forward on a broad front in improving and strengthening our public welfare programs, and the satisfaction of the State people in the far-reaching progressive leadership being given by Secretary Ribicoff, Wilbur Cohen, and other members of the Department.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Each of the four groups literally went off on its own. They discussed various topics at varying length with varying degrees of emphasis, and some of the topics were not discussed at all by some groups.

Taking the address of Secretary Ribicoff as the basic platform, it was decided that within the brief time limit for preparation of this report the fastest way to organize the material was to take the State letters in order and then the legislative summary presented by Mr. Cohen on Monday afternoon. I will comment not on the specific content of those statements except in relation to opinions expressed by the several groups or questions raised.

Within that framework, we begin with

State letter 537, locating deserting parents

There was agreement that additional clarification is needed in relation to the requirement establishing a central unit to serve as a registry for the receipt of information. Moreover, material is needed to clarify the role of the State agency in locating deserting parents in contrast with the role of the law enforcing agencies. It was suggested by at least one group that consideration be given to coordinating the policies in this letter with those in State letter 549 dealing with social services to meet special problems of families receiving aid to dependent children, rather than having a separate State letter. State letter 538, consideration of income of eligible children in ADC

"It was the carefully considered consensus of the State administrators in one section" and concurred in by the representative of the other three groups, that the policy with respect to the use of income for special needs as set forth in State letter 538 appears to be in conflict with the public statements of both the Secreary and the Assistant Secretary. The public statements appear to relate to providing an incentive to children who have income from employment while State letter 538 relates to all income including, for example, income from OASI or from Veterans' Administration pensions. Earned income of working children in ADC families as an incentive for the strengthening of family life, pursuit of higher education, and the restoration of family and individual children to self-support and productive citizenship, should command a separate policy statement in State letter 538.

It is the further consensus that the income proposals for the use of earned income by working mothers and children in ADC families be considered separate and distinct from the use of any other form of income in the development of administrative policies in the consideration of the use of such income and special needs.

If the specified objectives cannot be adopted by administrative action, legislation is recommended.

One of the four groups specified that for both children and mothers that there should be an exemption for the costs and expenses of employment plus an earned income exemption on a percentage basis.

State letter 539, staff development

There was full agreement with the necessity for strengthening staff development programs. The Department is urged to give strong leadership in helping States gain recognition of social work as a profession. It is considered essential that individual State conditions be carefully considered in applying the timetable set forth in State letter 539. The States request that the Bureau of Family Services supply maximum leadership in providing help with their inservice training programs. It is strongly urged that the required annual reports be as simple as possible and that outlines for the data to be requested be issued as soon as possible.

There was much discussion in all the groups around the standard setting role of the Federal agency. There was little question about the appropriateness of setting standards in the staff development field but many States felt this was a precedent to be watched with care. There was no agreement among the groups as to whether the Federal agency should require standards to the extent delineated in State letter 539. There were many who welcomed such requirements while others did not, depending upon variations in philosophy with respect to the standard setting role of the Federal agency. One group in particular warned that we must be very careful to avoid riffs in this area.

Some expressed concern as to whether schools of social work were in a position to meet the needs of the States and a specific request came from one group that there be a report to the States on the conference which will be held shortly wih the deans of schools of social work.

State letter 540, receipient fraud

Generally, the groups asked for clarification with respect to what would be expected in the way of reports in this area and, as in the case of desertion, of the role of the social agencies as contrasted with the responsibilities of the law enforcement agencies. Useful clarification was given by a representative of the Department to one group as follows: Policy is not intended as a great stimulus to go out hunting fraud, rather to look at what is going on to stay within the law and to protect the client's rights. We want the facts to know what welfare fraud actually exists with orderly accumulation of facts.

State letter 549 on social services

As anticipated, this letter was the basis for extensive discussion. One group summarized its position thus: "This section favors the objectives expressed in State letter 549 and believes they provide a basis for planning in the right direction for social services to meet problems of families receiving aid to dependent children. The establishment of a caseload standard is noted and identified as a helpful guide in planning staffing to provide such services. This section believes that in many States administrative and budgetary difficulties and legislative dates will make it impossible to meet the deadline dates required in State letter 549. Although the section believes that deadline dates are essential, it is requested that the Bureau give serious consideration to moving forward the deadline dates currently required. Such a revision would permit the States to comply with a specified time schedule by submitting plan material reflecting sound administrative planning.

"This section urges the Bureau to develop and issue additional material for State use in developing plans to provide for social services on a statewide basis, recognizing that lack of available community resources in remote areas and differences in staff capabilities must be taken into account in providing services to people throughout the State."

Another of the groups adopted a resolution recommending the appointment of a committee representing State departments of public welfare to work out details with appropriate Federal personnel prior to the final release of the policy material. It was pointed out repeatedly that a sound service program must be based upon truly adequate financial assistance.

Other suggestions coming from the groups included the request that the material in State letter 549 be tightened up and organized as effectively as possible, with the suggestion from one group of a package deal on the plan material, and that there be an 18-month period before required implementation. Question was raised in one or more groups as to how there could be more effective coordination between child welfare services and services provided under State letter 549. Also, the suggestion was made that there might be plan material already on file regarding child welfare services that could be helpful in this connection. It was recognized that many States will have problems around actual preparation of plan material and will need specific help in case classification.

Questions were raised in more than one group around the need for clarification of the anticipated role of State departments of public welfare in community planning, particularly when community planning goes beyond public assistance programs as such; also what would be the Federal matching in this area? (A recurrent question.)

Generally, the groups were concerned that the increased emphasis on services for chidlren not result in a diminution of services in the other categories, namely OAA, AB, and APTD.

Having dealt in this summary fashion with the State letters, the items contained in the memorandum on "Proposed Revisions in Welfare Legislation" dated January 22, 1962, will now be dealt with in order.

1. SERVICES AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

There was general concern expressed as to what would be included in the 75 percent matching. For example, additional work would be involved in connection with location of deserting parents, the requirements in State letter 537. In order to meet the additional responsibilities of the States, even 75 percent

matching still raises a tremendous financial obligation for States and localities. Discussed intensively in two groups, one raised question about the advisability of the legislative proposal in permitting the Department of Public Welfare to purchase service from other public agencies, including those agencies identified with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. We believe that extension of those services are needed and should be available on a cooperative basis rather than purchased by public welfare.

This group was in favor of the proposed legislation to increase the Federal share to 75 percent of the cost of services for the purpose of encouraging the States to provide public welfare services. Prior to the release of policy material implementing this legislation, however, it strongly urged that the States be given an opportunity for reviewing and commenting on the policy. The group also urged that the Bureau give serious consideration to keeping the requirements relating to cost allocation and reporting of social services as simple as possible. In addition to including the social work activities, it is believed to be essential to recognize related activities and functions of other staff as necessary to provide services and, therefore, subject to the 75 percent matching. To assure the elimination of unnecessary paperwork in this connection, the States should be permitted to submit an overall plan providing for services, including the basic determination of eligibility as a service, rather than a detailed time-study procedure.

2. EXPANSION AND IMPROVEMENT OF CHILD WELFARE SERVICES

The States welcome the planning for child welfare services for an extended period of time as a sound basis for the continued development of adequate services to children.

They ask that there be clarification around where there could be an extension of the present method of determining matching funds in child-welfare services as related to the day-care field, or whether this latter would require separate matching provisions. Hopefully the present general matching can be used. Furthermore, recognizing that there will be increased funds from both bureaus for education leave, it is requested that the policies bs sufficiently flexible so there may be interchange of workers who have benefited from such leave.

3. WELFARE SERVICES FOR EACH CHILD UNDER DEPENDENT CHILDREN PROGRAM

The subject matter of item 3 was covered by each group, but no group had special recommendations.

4. TECHNICAL CHANGES TO REFLECT EMPHASIS ON REHABILITATION AND OTHER

SERVICES

Item 4 was considered clear and there were no questions around it. All agencies, starting at the Federal level, should be encouraged to cooperate to the fullest extent in bringing about the objectives of increased rehabilitative services.

5. COMMUNITY WORK AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

With regard to item 5, "Community work and training programs," this was actually discussed in detail by only one of the groups. Out of the discussion came questions around the matching funds for the State agency personnel that will be necessary in connection with one operation of any such program and one recommendation that full consideration be given to the fact that this is only part of the answer to the problems of automation, unemployment, etc.

6. INCENTIVE FOR EMPLOYMENT THROUGH CONSIDERATION OF EXPENSES IN EARNING This item was actually covered in detail in connection with the discussion of State letter 538. The groups were in favor of this item as stated.

7. PROTECTIVE PAYMENTS UNDER THE DEPENDENT CHILDREN PROGRAM

There was lively and detailed discussions in each group on the item "protective payments under ADC." There was a general feeling that it is preferable to take the percentage of cases to be allowed out of the law and to leave this to administrative rulings based on actual State experience so that there can be flexibility in setting the percentage. There was one further strong recommendation that

this type of payment should be made only after there have been appropriate services offered to, and intensive work with, the families, and that there should be a careful plan for periodic review with regard to these cases. In other words it was specified that there should be careful prior work before a decision is reached and special attention to protective reviews.

8. CONTINUATION OF AID TO CARETAKER RELATIVE AFTER REMOVAL OF CHILD FROM

HOME

There was a recommendation that this should be a permissive provision for use by the individual State or locality as determined by appropriate policy.

9. AID FOR SPOUSE OF RELATIVE WITH WHOM DEPENDENT CHILD IS LIVING

This item was generally approved, and was strongly endorsed by the one group which gave special attention to it.

There was a recommendation that this should be a permissive provision for use by the individual State or locality as appropriate.

10.

INCREASE IN ADEQUATELY TRAINED FAMILY WELFARE PERSONNEL It was felt that this was relatively well covered in the discussion on the State letters.

11. ADVISORY COUNCIL ON PUBLIC WELFARE

The groups recognized the fact that it had been useful in the past to have advisory councils and that another advisory council would be appropriate from time to time. It was noted one appointment of a council was not apparently mandatory upon the Secretary, and that is as it should be.

12. WAIVER OF STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATIONS

The two groups that gave attention to this item strongly endorsed the proposal for waiver of State plan requirements for demonstrations.

13. EXTENSION OF AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN OF UNEMPLOYED PARENTS OR IN FOSTER HOMES

There was general support, as was anticipated, for the extension of the several provisions which otherwise would expire as of June 30, 1962.

14. EXTENSION OF INCREASE IN FEDERAL SHARE OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS

There was support for this provision.

15. EXTENSION OF ASSISTANCE TO REPATRIATED AMERICAN CITIZENS

There was general support for this provision.

16. REFUSAL OF UNEMPLOYED PARENT TO ACCEPT RETRAINING

This item apparently was discussed in two of the groups, one of which simply approved the addition-the other recommended that a State be permitted to deny aid for this reason rather than making it a mandatory requirement.

17. LIMITATION ON DURATION OF RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS

The groups that discussed limitation on duration of residence requirements were in full agreement with this proposal.

18. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS FOR STATES WITHOUT ANY RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS With regard to this item, to the extent that it was discussed, States were generally in favor recognizing the fact that they would be computing the additional Federal funds which they would receive. Unless the State figure that a bonus gives more than the added cost, they probably would be interested. There were scattered questions raised as to the desirability of 100-percent Federal funds for the first year until residence was acquired.