Page images
PDF
EPUB

level and busy officials from a nonofficial source. We sent out 349 letters, and from that we received 182 replies, and we found enough substance in those replies that we were able to analyze about 118 of them, and if you recognize that these came from every part of the country, from every State of the Union, and represented a broad cross section of leadership, this is a significant finding. Every one of them recognized the need for some sort of major changes, and considerably more than half of them, I would say, emphasized the very point which to my mind is central to this bill, and that is we must have more individual attention in these family situations where the need is not simply economic, but where the economic need is compounded by social factors.

I am sorry Mr. Alger isn't here, because I would like to talk with him about this problem of noneconomic need. There are many problems in family situations that may ultimately involve actual destitution, but where the initial problem is one where there is desertion and nonsupport by a father, and inability of a mother who might wish to go to work but cannot because there are no provisions for the care of her children. These are all social problems, and I think again that there is the strongest evidence in this document that this is a crucial point. One thing I would like to say, because I don't really want to take up too much time on this now, is there is a great deal of discussion these days about how can we cut public welfare costs, and I think probably a good bit of the anxiety that is now surrounding public welfare is related to its large caseloads and its heavy cost. Well, there are really only two ways to cut costs. One is to prevent the need in the first place, and that, I think, you do most effectively perhaps through things like the expanding social insurance program, and I think you know, Mr. King, that I am one of the most articulate supporters of your bill because in bringing health care under social insurance this would be an enormous factor in reducing public welfare costs. That is one way to do it. The other way is where the cost results from some personal circumstance within the family group itself, whereby a marshaling of all your resources at a critical time, while it may be expensive as you do it, all this concentration of this social worker advice, special care, and special provisions, in the long run saves so much money that it cannot be measured.

Last year when we were conducting this project we began to note that there had been already in various parts of the country a considerable experimentation without Federal aid, and I might say your own State of California is one of the most forward-looking in this respect, as to what would be the effect of intensive social service for small caseloads of assistance families, what would be the effect on the size of the continuation of those families on public assistance. As we began to study these we found a really remarkable success, that those that we had reports on consistently showed that this was a good investment from the point of view of the taxpayers as well as from the point of view of the individual, and that you did save money, so we prepared under the project a paper, which was prepared by my colleague, Miss Winifred Bell, which we entitled, "The Practical Value of Social Work Service," and it showed the reduction in caseload and end costs as the result of these services, and I would also like to request, if I may, that this be inserted in the record of the

hearing because I think the provision in this bill, which would have the effect of encouraging such demonstration projects, is one of the most important that is contained there, and should receive strong support. Of course, I could run through practically every provision in this bill and show where at some point in this report there is evidence that would support this move.

I think it is a major forward step, and I have been in this business since 1933. I came to work with Harry Hopkins in the Relief Administration. This, I think, represents a major forward step, and I hope that the committee will be able to move it along quickly.

(The statement referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY ON H.R. 10032, PUBLIC WELFARE AMENDMENTS OF 1962, BY ELIZABETH WICKENDEN, DIRECTOR OF PROJECT ON PUBLIC SERVICES FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN, SPONSORED BY THE NEW YORK SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK

My name is Elizabeth Wickenden and I appear before you today in my capacity as director of the project on public services for families and children and coauthor of its report "Public Welfare-Time for a Change." Since this report and the inquiry which preceded it concern the very areas covered by the proposal before you and have aroused substantial interest both with the public and the professional workers in the field throughout the country, I thought it would be useful to tell you something about it. It is my opinion after many years of direct experience with public welfare beginning in 1933 with the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and its successor agencies and subsequently with the American Public Welfare Association and a large number of voluntary welfare organizations-that this proposal represents a major landmark in the history of public welfare development in the country and deserves the most thoughtful consideration of Congress.

In the past year there has been a steadily growing interest in the program of public welfare, especially as it concerns families and children, and a considerable public debate concerning its provisions and problems all of which can be considered a healthy contribution to the democratic process. But long before this debate assumed its present lively condition, the problems involved were troubling the persons directly and indirectly concerned with this area of public policy. The project on public services for families and children was an effort to channel the concern into articulate and constructive channels.

This project was initiated in November 1960 by the New York School of Social Work acting in collaboration with a group of professional persons concerned with the current situation in public welfare, especially as it involves families and children. Their concern was both with the controversies beginning to build up throughout the country around public welfare and their own awareness of the need for changes in the program. It was, in effect, an effort at self-criticism from within the field of social welfare since most of those involved had either a direct involvement in the public program or a professional basis for close observation of its functioning.

This was a wholly independent inquiry which came into existence prior to the assumption of responsibility by the new administration. Subsequent to its initiation several official and quasi-official inquiries into the same field of public policy have been made. These included that of the Task Force on Health and Social Security appointed by President-elect Kennedy on which I served, and two studies initiated by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. One of the latter, the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Welfare, included in its membership many of the same individuals concerned with the project. The report of the project is, however, independent of these other inquiries. It is a staff report, carried forward with the advice of an advisory committee and help from a number of consultants, and presents material and a point of view which should be useful in considering all pending recommendations in this field.

The project report entitled "Public Welfare-Time for a Change" consists of two parts. The first part is a general analysis of the developing role and nature of the public welfare function, a discussion of the limitations of the present program in carrying out this function, and suggestions for a possible direction of change. The second is an analysis and summarization of the suggestions and comment received from over 100 leaders and administrators in public welfare

and related social welfare fields throughout the country in response to a stimulative inquiry widely distributed by the project. The latter is particularly interesting in revealing the widespread awareness of people throughout the country that the time has come for a major change in the direction of public welfare policy.

It is only possible for me to summarize briefly the points of view emerging from the inquiry that seem to me pertinent to the immediate proposals before you. I would like to say first, however, that adoption of the changes proposed in H.R. 10032 would constitute a major advance in the practical implementation of the point of view expressed in our report. In more specific terms, I would group these changes around the following points.

1. The nature of the public welfare program has undergone a revolutionary change since the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935. This is due to three factors: the expansion of the OASDI program to provide protection to most people against most forms of wage loss, the changing pattern of American life, and the wider acceptance of public social responsibility at all levels. This has meant that an increasing number of the persons supported by public assistance are confronted by need in which social, as will economic factors, play a major part.

2. This has meant in turn that the early emphasis on assistance as a simple cash payment to a few selected groups considered to be particularly deserving of public support is no longer entirely applicable to the present situation. Obviously people with special problems need special attention and this requires (a) more social service and (b) more flexible policies, both of which are emphasized in this bill.

3. Closely related to this problem insofar as children are concerned is how to make the best use of all our public welfare resources in helping children in families with social problems-especially how to coordinate assistance to needy children as provided in title IV and the child welfare services program authorized in title V. This was a particular concern in our project inquiry and the provisions of the bill directed to strengthening the child welfare services program and assuring its close coordination with the family assistance program are, therefore, of particular interest.

4. Much of the public concern with public welfare in recent years has been directed to the growing number of families of children being supported by the public on ADC especially in situations involving divorce, desertion or illegitimacy. The anxiety concerning this situation is, I believe, a legitimate one for care of children is among the most fundamental duties of human society. But expressing anxiety about this situation by punishing the children who are already its chief victims or attacking the public welfare agencies that are trying to ease their plight is no answer to this situation. Secretary Ribicoff has already taken such steps as are possible within the present law to assure maximum effort to secure parental support, especially from an absent father, to protect the public against fraud, and to encourage efforts at self-help. But further steps are needed along the lines proposed in this bill. I would like at this point to say a few words about the value of social service, both as a part of the regular program and on a special demonstration basis. Last year as a part of our project inquiry we began to study the experience already developed through special projects undertaken by State and local public welfare agencies to give intensive help to selected families and were interested to find how uniformly they resulted in a caseload reduction. Some of these were reviewed in a paper prepared by my colleague, Miss Winifred Bell, entitled "The Practical Value of Social Work Service," and I would like to request at this point that it be included as part of this hearing record. Since this was written many other projects have come to our attention of equal interest. As always, the limiting factor here for the States is personnel and cost. The proposals to help them meet this problem will, I feel certain, release a tremendous potential of positive and imaginative effort.

Of course it must be recognized that not all families or other dependents on public assistance can be helped to self-support. Not all couples can be reunited, not all fathers will or can contribute to their families' support, and certainly not all mothers can be expected to go to work to support their children, especially when they are small. People who are extremely old or chronically ill are not going to become self-supporting to any magic or social work service.

In actual fact there is only one satisfactory way to reduce the extent and hence the cost of public welfare. That is to remove the cause of economic or social need whether it lies in the larger social situation or in the particular circumstances of an individual or family. The repeated improvements made in the social insurance program by the Congress have moved steadily in the direction of reducing the extent of the first kind of need. Passage of this bill would go far toward helping the public welfare agences do a better job with the second.

Mr. KING. Thank you, Miss Wickenden.

You merely demonstrated again your awareness of many important things.

Miss WICKENDEN. Thank you.

Mr. KING. Can you identify that last material which you wish to have included in the record?

Miss WICKENDEN. Yes. I am going to. It is called the practical value of social work service.

Mr. KING. Without objection, it will be made a part of the record. (The statement referred to follows:)

PROJECT ON PUBLIC SERVICES FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN

Sponsored by the New York School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, N.Y.

THE PRACTICAL VALUE OF SOCIAL WORK SERVICE: PRELIMINARY REPORT ON 10 DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE

(By Winifred Bell, April 20, 1961)

During the last decade numerous demonstration projects carried out in public welfare agencies have provided convincing evidence that substantial savings to the taxpayer can be secured by reducing caseloads of public assistance workers so that they have time to counsel actively with the troubled families seeking financial aid.

Our past efforts to save money have led us to keep assistance grants to the minimum, to insist upon tight controls over eligibility, and to spread the caseloads over small, untrained and poorly paid staffs. The 10 demonstration projects reviewed to date consistently show that this has been a "penny wise, pound foolish" approach. It is, in fact, one way to guarantee that dependency will not only persist but will increase.

The cost of dependency is not easy to measure. Certainly, it far exceeds the cost to the public assistance agency, but even viewing this limited aspect of the problem, unless our investment is returning some dividends in terms of preparing families for independent living, we are wasting money. Our present pennypinching policies could not be better designed to encourage the continuation of dependency, not only for this generation but for generations to come. It could not better promote high turnover of staff, wasteful concentration on airtight controls at the expense of time to give constructive help.

If we did not know better, it would be more understandable. The conclusions set forth in this paper are not new. They have been presented in a variety of forms by their sponsors, but the impression is secured that they are in, but not of, the public domain.

What do they prove? (1) It is wasteful to concentrate the efforts of public assistance agencies exclusively on the determination and verification of eligibility. This may well continue to be the focus for those families with simple, uncomplicated economic need including mothers who are needed at home to care for young children. But for those with complicating social problems we must focus our efforts on discovering the obstacles to self-help and provide services to strengthen families if we wish to save money. (2) No investigator or social worker will have time to counsel with families unless he is responsible for only a “reasonable caseload," generally defined as ranging from 35 to 50 cases. (3) Skilled supervision and inservice training programs are essential to a constructive program in public assistance. This is particularly true in these days of acute shortage of graduate and experienced social workers. (4) Untrained investigators may have been able to verify eligibility, but effective family counsel

ing requires the skill of trained social workers, and the more skillful the staff the more money the community will save. This is tantamount to saying that we don't save money by hiring 10th graders to build missiles.

The 10 projects reviewed returned a significant number of families to selfsupport and decreased both the duration of grants and the incidence of reapplications. In some instances, the maximum money grants allowed by the States were increased during the studies; nonetheless, savings overbalanced costs incurred by smaller caseloads, more highly trained personnel and skilled supervision.

The 10 studies also showed that the public image of the "lazy, indolent" assistance recipient is simply not based on fact. Most of these families wish to be employed, and this includes the "ADC mother." But their marginal skills and minority status render them peculiarly vulnerable to shifts in the economy. Many of them came from families who had known only misfortune and discrimination, broken homes and dependency. The current adult on public assistance is our warning for the future, for our present policies are excellently devised to breed more in the same mold. Again and again, these studies note that the typical public assistance recipient is the "first fired, and last hired." In these demonstration projects, social workers devoted time and skill to building confidence, exploring difficulties, extending employment counseling and referring for vocational training. When mothers were in a position to work ingenuity was brought to bear on formulating adequate plans for children during their mothers' employment. The economy of providing adequate vocational training, day care and homemaker facilities was demonstrated. We can safely conclude when we study the result with care that given time to explore the obstacles to independent living, a concern about helping families to overcome those obstacles, a community atmosphere in which minority groups are employed during times of stress on somewhat equal terms with majority groups, and given day care facilities so that low-income mothers can work without neglecting their children, substantial social and economic savings could be effected.

The studies reviewed were carried out in California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas, New York, and Washington, D.C. Supporting evidence is found in studies made in Illinois, Maine, New Jersey and North Carolina.

In each of the demonstration projects, the focus of the work with families was changed from one exclusively concerned with the determination and verification of eligibility to one centered on helping families with their difficult problems, whether in the emotional, budgeting, employment, marital or parent-child areas. Most studies were self-consciously concerned with securing the employment or reemployment of the head of the family. When the projects dealt primarily with ADC cases, this goal might well be questioned, since the program was initially established to enable mothers to provide the supervision and nurture required by children in their formative years. In 1935 when the Social Security Act was passed, this appeared to require the presence of the mother in the home. However, these studies and others in recent years suggest that mothers on ADC consider themselves to be "second-class citizens" and they would prefer employment. The crux of the matter is how and why the mother decides to work and what plans she is able to make for her children. Should mothers on ADC be forced to work because insufficient appropriations mean that they cannot support their children in dignity and self-respect? Should social workers be pressured into forcing mothers into the economy as a proof of success? Or should mothers and social workers be free to plan jointly for the welfare of the family? These studies suggest that current inadequate assistance grants seriously limit the freedom of choice.

Without exception, in these demonstration projects, caseloads were reduced. In 1959, the median caseload of public assistance workers for the Nation was 147 cases. In these projects, on the whole, caseloads ranged from 35 to 50 cases. In the project reported in the 1960 Annual Report of the Texas Department of Public Welfare, the size of these special caseloads is not mentioned. However, note is made of "specialized caseloads" consisting primarily of ADC cases. "By intensive training along specialized lines, and by removing diversions caused by working with cases in other categories, these specialized ADC caseworkers were able to meet and overcome some of the problems facing ADC families. (1) Considering that Texas had the highest caseloads in the Nation at the time of that study (in June 1959, 360 cases per worker), it seems probable that these caseloads were not only specialized but reduced.

« PreviousContinue »