As you no doubt know, our probation department places and supervises all juvenile court wards in placement, as do several other large probation departments in California. Sincerely yours, HOMER W. PATTERSON, Superior Court Judge, Department 1. Superior Court Judge, Department 2. Superior Court Judge, Department 4. Superior Court Judge, Department 5. Superior Court Judge, Department 6. Superior Court Judge, Department 7. Hon. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., November 24, 1961. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, DEAR MR. RIBICOFF: I am writing to you for an interpretation under Public Law 87-31, passed by the 87th Congress on May 8, 1961. Section 2 of this act added a new section 408 under title IV of the Social Security Act. Section 408 prescribes conditions under which aid to needy children funds can be paid where children are put in foster homes. In Contra Costa County, Calif., the usual procedure whereby children are placed in foster homes is as follows: A child is first made a ward of the juvenile court and the child is then placed in a foster home by the county probation department at the direction of the juvenile court. It is my understanding of the intent of Congress that such children are also intended to qualify for Federal grants according to the terms of Public Law 87-31. However, I have been requested by the Contra Costa County Probation Office to obtain an advisory opinion from your office on this point. Will you. therefore, please let me know whether a dependent child who has been placed in a foster home by the county probation department at the direction of the juvenile court can qualify for a Federal grant of aid to needy children funds according to the terms of Public Law 87-31? Sincerely yours, JOHN F. BALDWIN, THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, Hon. JOHN F. BALDWIN, DEAR Mr. BALDWIN : This is in reply to your letter requesting an interpretation of section 408 of the Social Security Act, as amended by section 2 of Public Law 87-31. You advise that under procedures used in Contra Costa County, Calif., a child is first made a ward of the juvenile court and the child is then placed in a foster home by the county probation department at the direction of the juvenile court. You asked if such a child can qualify for a Federal grant of aid to needy children funds according to the terms of section 408. Payments with respect to the child who has been placed in a foster home under the conditions which you have described would not meet the requirements for Federal financial participation in the aid to dependent children program. Section 408 (a) (2) sets forth as one of the conditions for Federal participation in foster care payments that the responsibility for the placement and care of the child who has been judicially removed from his home be in "the State or local agency administering the State plan approved under section 402." Under the California law and the approved State plan, the administration of the program for dependent children in Contra Costa County is in the Contra Costa County Social Service Department, not the county probation office. It seems clear, therefore, that the condition in section 408(a)(2) would be met only if the county social service department is given responsibility for placement and care of the child. Sincerely, ABE RIBICOFF. Mr. Chairman, the only changes made by this amendment are in the words that are underlined as compared to the section 152 which appears in the bill that is now pending before the committee, H.R. 10032, and the reason I am submitting this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is the law as it is presently interpreted by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare only makes possible the payment of aid to needy children when a child is placed in a foster home if the placement has been made by the Welfare Department. Now, in the State of California in the counties I represent and in many of the other major counties, as Mr. King, I am sure, knows, the placement is made by the juvenile court with the actual agency working with the juvenile court being the probation department. I have corresponded with Mr. Ribicoff asking if the placement by the juvenile court and the probation department would qualify under the existing law, and Mr. Ribicoff has indicated, no, it would not; and, Mr. Chairman, the second letter which I have attached to this correspondence that I have put before you is my letter dated November 24 to Mr. Ribicoff, in which I have asked him the specific question, and I would like to quote my first paragraph: I am writing to you for an interpretation under Public Law 87-31, passed by the 87th Congress on May 8, 1961. Section 2 of this act added a new section 408 under title IV of the Social Security Act. Section 408 prescribes conditions under which aid to needey children funds can be paid where children are put in foster homes. In Contra Costa County, Calif., the usual procedure whereby children are placed in foster homes is as follows: "A child is first made a ward of the juvenile court and the child is then placed in a foster home by the county probation department at the direction of the juvenile court." Then I asked him the question as to whether this would qualify under the provisions of the act and the letter from Mr. Ribicoff is the third letter I have attached, dated February 1, and it says: Dear Mr. Baldwin: and he refers to my letter and then says: Payments with respect to the child who has been placed in a foster home under the conditions which you have described would not meet the requirements for Federal financial participation in the aid-to-dependent-children program. The first letter I have attached, Mr. Chairman, is a letter from all seven superior court judges in Contra Costa County, a county of over 400,000 people, who point out, and I would like to quote: It is our considered opinion that the return of welfare funds to help these children should not require commitment to the welfare department. We feel that the juvenile court is in the best position to determine what agency should supervise the children. We prefer to use an agency under the control of the court. Then in their final paragraph they say: As you no doubt know, our probation department places and supervises all juvenile court wards in placement, as do several other large probation departments in California. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would not prevent anything that is now being done under the law passed last year. In other words, the amendment would allow the continuation of the welfare department procedure. All it would do would be to allow an alternate procedure that if the placement is made by any authorized public agency, authorized to place and supervise dependent children under the laws of the State, the children would qualify for aid to needy children funds when placed in a foster home. I am sure that it was not the intention of Congress to bar children placed in foster homes by a juvenile court procedure, which is an established procedure in our State, and I am sure in many other States, from receiving aid to dependent children, so this is the reason for this proposed amendment, simply to allow this alternate procedure, making it possible for the courts to continue to follow juvenile court placement procedure as an alternate to placement through a welfare department. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions of Mr. Baldwin? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. ALGER. I would like to comment, Mr. Chairman. I have had the opportunity to speak with our colleague, Mr. Baldwin, on this amendment and, knowing the care that we have exercised in this committee, over the time I have been on it at least, not to coerce the States any more than we have to and conform to Federal law, it seems to me that the spirit of his amendment is certainly in keeping with what Secretary Ribicoff, and I think the Department would like to adopt. I certainly want to add my support to this thought and hope that we will take it up further in the committee later on. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. King? Mr. KING. I can assure you, Mr. Baldwin, that I shall see that the amendment is brought about at the appropriate time. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you very much, Mr. King. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions or comments? Again we thank you, Mr. Baldwin, for coming to the committee. Mr. BALDWIN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness today is the Honorable James Roosevelt of the State of California. We are glad to have you with us today. Will you please come forward and be recognized. STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES ROOSEVELT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is with pleasure that I appear in support of the President's proposal to extend and improve the public assistance and child welfare services program of the Social Security Act and Chairman Mills' bill, H.R. 10032. Public welfare programs are designed to aid families or individuals handicapped not only by poverty, but by one or more of a variety of health or social handicaps-illness and disability, a deficiency in edu cation, or inadequate technical skills for employment, ignorance, and inadequate or destructive living conditions. There is no intention by anyone speaking in favor of this measure to give assurances that we are working toward a day when a public welfare program will be totally unnecessary. We know we will never reach that point. But it is vital that we exert our best efforts to reduce the problem to the greatest extent possible. A feature of prime importance in the proposal now before us is, I believe, the program to train additional welfare personnel. It was a disheartening revelation to me that in public assistance agencies only one welfare worker in eight has had any professional training, and only a fraction of that number has completed the required 2 years of schooling or social work experience to be considered a trained worker. Plans to prevent or reduce dependency are admirable, but it is futile to institute programs which are certain of failure unless an adequate supply of trained personnel is available to provide the necessary services. The Department's proposals wisely include provisions designed to give great impetus to training of welfare workers. With the availability of a greater number of workers with specialized skills, agencies responsible for administration of public welfare programs will be permitted wider latitude in experimentation and demonstration of new methods seeking to combat the serious social problems which now face so many thousands of our citizens. It is not my intention to quote statistics; I am sure Secretary Ribicoff has already provided you with a wealth of material designed to prove the genuine need for the legislation which has been proposed. Nor is it necessary or advisable for me to include in this statement estimates of what each of the proposals will cost-this year, next year, or projected to 1970. I know you will agree that it is unfortunate, but all too true, that the general public is inclined to hold the uncharitable attitude that welfare recipients are merely parasites who intend to live on public moneys as long as possible. In actual fact, however, special independent studies reveal that the proportion of ineligible persons who receive public assistance is not more than 1.5 percent-and those who do receive assistance as a result of willful misrepresentation are only a small part of that percentage. Though minute in number, these are the people who give the entire program a "black eye." It is important to note, therefore, that this bill will permit more effective steps for constant vigilance by Federal and State agencies to prevent fraud and to deal effectively with it when it occurs. While the public image will be slow to improve, it is vital for me to stress the importance of the ultimate result of the programs proposed-results which will no doubt take years to measure, but we must start now. Training for prevention and rehabilitation will lead to independence, and to the restoration of human dignity too long denied. Let us begin by supporting H.R. 10032. The CHAIRMAN. We are pleased to have with us today the Honorable Fernand J. St. Germain from the State of Rhode Island. Thank you for coming before the committee to give us your views. STATEMENT OF HON. FERNAND J. ST. GERMAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Mr. ST. GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am happy to have this opportunity to present my views on the proposed "Public Welfare Amendments of 1962" to your committee. In his state of the Union message to the Congress in January, President Kennedy called for a welfare program which would stress "services instead of support, rehabilitation instead of relief, and training for useful work instead of prolonged dependency." This very desirable objective is realized in the suggested bill which has been sent to this committee by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. I am confident that you will give the provisions of this proposed legislation most careful attention, since they provide concrete and positive solutions to many of our present welfare problems. The main purpose of welfare assistance is to help people to help themselves. Therefore, the theory motivating welfare programs must be oriented toward the return of welfare recipients to the highest possible degree of self-sufficiency. In order to bring this about, the suggested bill calls for aid to the States in providing the increased services required, and it directs the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to specify the minimum standards a State must maintain in order to receive such aid. Another important feature of the administration proposal is the broadening of child welfare services to include all areas of the country. This feature, along with increased Federal participation in day care for children of working parents, is a significant advancement. No welfare program is any better than the persons responsible for its direction. For this reason, the plan to increase the Federal Government's share in helping the States to train personnel for welfare work is a farsighted one. With better trained social workers, and other welfare specialists, assistance to the needy can be made more effective and meaningful. The provisions in the suggested bill for Federal participation in making payments to persons involved in community work and training programs, for giving maximum training opportunities to public assistance recipients, and for the utilization of training and retraining programs, are all vital links in a well integrated, realistic, welfare program. Since some parents are unable to handle money wisely and would endanger the welfare of dependent children, the proposed measure wisely makes provision for payments to be made on behalf of such children to other persons interested in their welfare when this is necessary. The granting of assistance to children of unemployed parents, the making of payments for children in foster homes and nonprofit, private, child-care institutions, and a permanent increase in Federal sharing in payments to the aged, disabled, and blind are other important features of the measure. Financial help to States in order to encourage them to eliminate residence requirements which might prevent aged, blind, or disabled persons from receiving benefits is offered in the Secretary's draft. I am happy to note that Rhode Island is one of the few States which |