services and the training of additional competent welfare personnel to provide these services. We find it hard to believe that anyone would quarrel with provisions designed to achieve these purposes. As the President stated in his message to the Congress communities which have tried the rehabilitative road * * * have demonstrated what can be done with creative, thoughtfully conceived, properly managed, programs of preventive and social rehabilitation. In those communities, families have been restored to self-reliance, and relief rolls have been reduced. We are particularly pleased that States will be encouraged to provide services not only to those who are already on the relief rolls but also to those who in the absence of help would likely become applicants for relief. Moneys spent to prevent dependency are of greater benefit to society as well as the individual than moneys spent on assistance grants. The provisions of H.R. 10032 making permanent the provisions for aid to dependent children of unemployed parents and expanding the child welfare services are also designed to achieve these ends. With further reference to the need for broadened programs in the area of child health needs, may I direct the committee's attention to the Mills bill, H.R. 9299. While this measure is not specifically a subject of these hearings, its purposes are consistent with those of H.R. 10032, and we would strongly urge the incorporation of its proposals into the bill which you report. It is our feeling that H.R. 9299, particularly if amended to give substantially greater support to the neglected areas of need in our great urban centers, would substantially increase the ability of the Children's Bureau to carry out its responsibilities in child health research as complementary to and coordinated with the program of the National Institutes of Health. The AFL-CIO has long supported the elimination of residence requirements in public assistance programs. We are all aware of the shifting population trends in our Nation. We believe that people who find themselves caught in these movements should not be denied help. We believe, therefore, that the provisions of the bill which would reduce the maximum residence limitations to 1 year and would encourage the elimination of any residence requirements are a step in the right direction. We would, however, prefer to see all residence requirements completely eliminated. As the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare pointed out in his testimony before this committee, the Federal Government's share in these programs represents nearly 80 percent of the cost in some States and for the Nation as a whole averages nearly 60 percent. These moneys are collected from citizens in every State. They should not be denied to a citizen in need because he has too recently become a resident of a particular State. We do not believe that the elimination of residence requirements will encourage people to wander from State to State in search of higher relief checks. Nor do we believe that American people prefer a relief check to an opportunity to work. At the same time, we recognize that there are many who are not equipped to seek work in the labor market. We, therefore, support the purposes of the community work and training provisions of H.R. 10032. We strongly believe, however, that the protections now incorporated in the bill to assure that the prevailing wage will be paid, that health and safety standards will be observed, that children will not be adversely affected if mothers are assigned to work, and that persons will not be denied aid for refusal of such work if good cause exists for the refusal, are essential if a program such as this is to be enacted by the Congress. We also believe that every care must be taken to assure that such work projects should not be used as a substitute for work which has normally been provided by the community to all unemployed persons regardless of their status as relief recipients. The provisions of section 409 (a) (1) (C) on page 28 of the bill requiring that such projects "do not result either in displacement of regular workers or in the performance of work that would otherwise be performed by employees of public and private agencies, institutions, or organizations" are intended to assure this result. We believe, however, that a specific requirement that such project is not of a kind which has normally been undertaken by the community in the past might make more certain that a State could not use these work projects and Federal funds to finance normal community functions. Our support of H.R. 10032 does not rest on the belief that it will solve all the problems of need, dependency, or destitution. We know of no person or organization that so believes. In fact, some of the most tragic occurrences of the past several months have arisen from the misguided efforts of those who believe or claim they have simple, shortcut solutions to these complex social problems. This measure does, however, present a fresh, and, we believe, thoughtfully constructive approach to these problems, and for this reason we hope your committee will report it favorably and that the Congress will enact it without undue delay. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cruikshank, we thank you, sir, and Mr. Lesser and Mr. Fair for coming to the committee. You are always very helpful in your discussions of matters before the committee and that is true today.. Are there any questions of Mr. Cruikshank? Mr. KNOX. One question. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Knox. Mr. Knox. Mr. Cruikshank, I note that you support the provisions of H.R. 10032 relative to making permanent provisions for aid to dependent children of unemployed parents. Has your department done any work in this field to determine the number of States that have not passed the enabling legislation in order to make these payments to unemployed persons? Mr. CRUIKSHANK. We are aware, sir, that there are some States that have not taken up this program. There are a number of States that have not taken advantage of the provisions enacted last year, yes, sir. Mr. KNOX. I understand there are, but I was wondering if your department had made any research work in this field to determine the number of States that had not passed the enabling legislation to make the payments to unemployed. Mr. CRUIKSHAK. We have made note of the States that have not. I do not have the figure with me now. We would be glad to supply it. Mr. Knox. Would you supply it for the record? (The material referred to above follows:) AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESSS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Washington, D.C., February 14, 1962. Hon. VICTOR A. KNOX, DEAR CONGRESSMAN KNOX: Yesterday when we appeared before the Ways and Means Committee, you asked if we in the AFL-CIO had made any study of the States which had taken action to implement the new provision for aid to dependent children of unemployed parents. We replied that we had tried to keep abreast of these developments and promised to send you information concerning the number of States which had taken action. We find that there are approved plans in the following 15 States: Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. One State Wisconsin-has legislation in process to give basis for the program. In the following 12 States, bills were considered in the 1961 sessions of the legislatures, but were not enacted: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Vermont. In the following 26 States there was no action taken in 1961 and there is no intention for action in 1962: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virgin Islands, Virginia, and Wyoming. For your further information we find that on June 23, 1961, the director of the Department of Social Security, AFL-CIO, sent a general letter to all presidents and secretaries of the State AFL-CIO bodies containing suggestions as to how they could assist their States to take full advantage of the new legislation authorizing Federal grants to aid dependent children of unemployed parents. This was followed up on July 12 and July 18, by memorandum addressed to union education directors, research directors, and legislative representatives suggesting similar action. If there is any other information that you think we might have which would be useful to you in consideration of the legislative proposal now before you please feel free to call on us. Yours sincerely, NELSON H. CRUIKSHANK, Director, Department of Social Security. Director, Social Security Activities, Thank you again. Mr. Knox. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? Mr. CRUIKSHANK. Thank you, gentlemen. The CHAIRMAN. Is Dr. Winston present? Dr. Winston, I apologize. I did not see you in the center of the room. You have been before the committee on numerous occasions in the past. We welcome you back today and ask you to again identify yourself for the record. STATEMENT OF DR. ELLEN WINSTON, PAST PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION Dr. WINSTON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Dr. Ellen Winston. I am the commissioner of the North Carolina State Board of Public Welfare. As a past president of the American Public Welfare Association, and currently a member of the association's committee on public welfare policy, I am representing that organization here today. The American Public Welfare Association is the national organization of State and local public welfare departments and of individuals engaged in public welfare at all levels of government. Its membership includes Federal, State, and local welfare administrators, welfare workers, and board members from every jurisdiction. On the basis of discussions and recommendations in our councils, committees, and the conferences we hold throughout the country, the association's board of directors, which represents all parts of the Nation, adopts official policy positions on issues of current significance. These policy positions govern the association's testimony on proposed legislation relevant to the field of public welfare, and we are asking that the association's Federal legislative objectives for 1962 be entered as part of the record of these hearings. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection they will be at the conclusion of your remarks. Dr. WINSTON. Thank you, sir. The association, through evaluation of experience in the administration of these programs, and knowledge of the needs of the families and communities they are designed to serve, had identified a number of steps that might be taken to increase their effectiveness and efficiency. These are set forth in the association's "Federal Legislative objectives" which are attached to this statement, and which I should like to introduce as a part of the record. With reference to the present proposals I should like to call special attention to items (a) and (c) in the preamble of these objectives, which state that: (a) A democracy has the special obligation to assure to all persons in the Nation full and equitable opportunity for family life, healthful living, and maximum utilization of their potentialities. (c) Public welfare programs should be family centered and should provide effective services to all who require them, including financial assistance and preventive, protective, and rehabilitative services, and these services should be available to all persons without regard to residence, settlement, citizenship requirements, or circumstances of birth. The bill now before your committee, Mr. Chairman, proposes a number of changes in the public assistance and child welfare titles of the Social Security Act, which, in their overall effect, would bring about some rather substantial changes in the content and administration of these programs. While they would not constitute a major departure from the major outlines of the public welfare system as it is now established, these changes would bring a new emphasis on the preventive and rehabilitative potentialities which are inherent in the public welfare program. Essentially they would be further steps in the progression of constructive measures which Congress has taken in improving the system in response to changing needs and conditions. Through this process of continuing congressional review and amendment, together with the support of State and local governments and the dedicated efforts of the administrative agencies, the public welfare program stands as a humanitarian achievement in which our Nation can take pride. It is the view of the American Public Welfare Association that the present proposals would contribute significantly to the capabilities of public welfare agencies to provide the assistance and services which are required in 1962 and in the years immediately ahead. From the passage of the Social Security Act, and even before, this association has urged the development of preventive and rehabilitative services on a sound professional basis as an integral part of public welfare programs. We have supported this view from time to time. before your committee, and we wish again to express our gratification for the actions you have taken on measures to help maintain and strengthen family life and to help * ** parents or relatives to attain the maximum self-support and personal independence * * *. The basic purpose of public assistance categories from their beginning has been to provide assistance to needy individuals and families. This will obviously continue to be true. The routine provision of financial assistance to individuals and families falling within an eligibility formula, however, fails to take into account the many complex factors which may have contributed to their dependency and which, in many instances, could be alleviated or resolved through the use of appropriate services and facilities. Although the value of preventive and rehabilitative services in public welfare has been long recognized and repeatedly demonstrated, these services have not yet been built up to a level which even begins to approach their potential effectiveness. Some States and localities have made more progress in this direction than others, and it might be argued that they could all do more. Under the existing FederalState-local system of public welfare, however, the tone and tempo, as well as the quality, of program advances are determined in large measure by Federal legislation and leadership. For that reason, the proposals now being considered take on an added dimension of importance. What is most urgently needed is a clear declaration of policy, set forth in Federal statute, which places a major emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation. The public welfare agencies then have a solid platform upon which to develop services and facilities necessary to accomplish that objective. This is the central purpose of the amendments recommended in the present bill. As I have indicated earlier, this is consistent with the Federal legislative objectives which have been adopted formally by the board of directors of our association. Among the specific proposals in this bill we attach great importance to the authorization of funds for the training of persons who would provide services to families with children, as well as the proposal to authorize States to pay for the costs of training under the increased matching formula for services. The acute shortage of personnel qualified to provide services through public welfare agencies is unquestionably the major obstacle to overcome in attaining the objectives of prevention and rehabilitation as projected in this bill. In fact, there have always been a great many vacancies for qualified personnel in the public welfare agencies, and there is no doubt that much more could have been accomplished, |