OREGON University of Oregon, Department of Sociology, Eugene, Oreg., Herbert Bisno. Our Lady of Cincinnati College, Department of Sociology, Cincinnati 6, Ohio, Sister Mary Constance Barrett, R.S.M. University of Dayton, Department of Sociology, Dayton 9, Ohio, Edward A. Huth. Youngstown University, Department of Sociology, Youngstown 3, Ohio, Mrs. Pauline E. Botty. OKLAHOMA University of Tulsa, Department of Sociology, Tulsa 4, Okla., Sandor B. Kovacs. OREGON University of Oregon, Department of Sociology, Eugene, Oreg., Herbert Bisno. PENNSYLVANIA La Salle College, Department of Sociology, Philadelphia 41, Pa., Brother Augustine McCaffrey, F.S.C. Mercyhurst College, Department of Sociology, Erie, Pa., Sister Mary Daniel, R.S.M. Muhlenberg College, Department of Sociology and Social Welfare, Allentown, Pa., Morris S. Greth. Pennsylvania State University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University Park, Pa., Mrs. Margaret B. Matson. University of Pittsburgh, College of Liberal Arts, Department of Sociology, Pittsburgh 13, Pa., Mrs. Erma T. Meyerson. University of Scranton, Department of Social Sciences, Scranton 3, Pa., John J. Baldi. Temple University, College of Liberal Arts, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, Pa., Kenneth E. Burnham. Temple University, Department of Secondary Education, Pre-Social-Work Program, Philadelphia, Pa., Mrs. Zelda Samoff. SOUTH CAROLINA Furman University, Sociology Department, Greenville, S.C., Laura Smith Ebaugh. Winthrop College, Department of Sociology, Rock Hill, S. C., Allen D. Edwards. SOUTH DAKOTA Augustana College, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Sioux Falls, S. Dak., F.O.M. Westby. State University of South Dakota, Department of Sociology, Vermillion, S. Dak., Carrol Mickey. TENNESSEE East Tennessee State College, Department of Sociology, Johnson City, Tenn., Louis E. Nelson. University of Chattanooga, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Chattanooga, Tenn., Stanley B. Williams. University of Tennessee, Department of Sociology and School of Social Work, 301 Claxton Hall, Knoxville, Tenn., Ethel J. Panter. TEXAS Prairie View Agricultural and Mechanical College, Department of Sociology and Social Service, Prairie View, Tex., G. R. Ragland. WISCONSIN University of Wisconsin, School of Social Work, Madison 6, Wis., E. E. Le Masters. University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, College of Letters and Science, Department of Social Work, Milwaukee 11, Wis., John W. Teter. 84071-62- -14 COUNCIL ON SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION Ruth E. Smalley, president Ernest F. Witte, executive director Katherine A. Kendall, associate director Cordelia Cox, consultant on undergraduate education POSITION STATEMENT ON MOBILITY AND PROGRESS National Social Welfare Assembly, Inc. A POSITION STATEMENT CONCERNING THE NEED FOR POLICIES WHICH RECOGNIZE THE CONTRIBUTION OF MIGRATION TO THE SOLUTION OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS MIGRATION PAST AND PRESENT Survival and progress for the human race have always depended in part on man's ability to move from a limiting environment to another location affording better opportunity. The United States owes its very existence and growth to the migration of millions of people seeking a better life for themselves and their families. In today's complex society mobility of the American working force is more than ever an essential aspect of economic and social progress. The individual or family that, through a successful move, improves a personal situation, contributes also to the better functioning of society as a whole. In fact a democracy relies largely on this kind of individual response to economic or social pressure to bring about adjustments to economic change. Thus the men who leave an area where resources have been depleted for one where industry is expanding are helping to meet a manpower need as well as finding a new source of income for their families. Boys who leave the farm for work in a factory are not simply seeking their own fortune in the city; they are also helping to correct the population imbalance which helps keep farm income low. Workers who are drawn to high wage areas from those where surplus labor keeps wage-rates depressed contribute to the welfare of those left behind as well as to their own. GOVERNMENT POLICIES The development of this country was based on governmental policies which recognized the positive social role of migration. Free land on the frontier stimulated repeated waves of migration which served both as a capital investment in the Nation's hitherto undeveloped areas and a form of relief against the economic and social pressures in its older settlements. Immigration policies were designed to bring not only farmer-settlers for the land but also the workers who stretched our transportation and productive facilities across the country. Tariff policies protected the infant industries which in turn attracted people in increasing numbers to the cities and other centers of industrial and commercial development. In later years, other public policies encouraged the world trade which has further expanded markets for a growing production. At each stage people moved in order to adapt to these changing circumstances in our national life. TODAY'S CHALLENGE Today migration is still needed to maintain the growth and adaptation of a healthy national economy; the programs and policies that will encourage constructive movement must be suited to new conditions. It is science and technology that create today's frontiers: first, by opening up new fields of production and services and, second, by making it possible to produce more goods and services with a lesser investment of human labor. In the process of adapting to these changes old plants give way to new, old jobs become obsolescent as new ones open up, and the distribution of our working force must follow suit if the benefits of economic progress are to be fairly shared by all parts of the country and all groups in the population. New job opportunities must be continuously created not only to take the place of those displaced by progress but also to absorb a growing work force: people must be guided to these jobs, trained for the skills they require, and helped to move-if necessary-to the places where their work is needed. While there are obvious economic and social advantages to bring new job opportunities into the communities where people are already living, to the extent that this is not feasible, migration is the only answer to stagnation and dependency. Moreover, many essential functions in modern production require seasonal labor which can only be provided by migratory workers. Too often these workers and their families are denied the benefits, opportunities, and assurances generally available to the American people, and are viewed with prejudice and suspicion by the very communities which benefit from their labor. Policies which impede needed migration place a heavy burden on the economy and a grave injustice upon those whose labor is thus devalued. When people remain where their labor can no longer be efficiently employed, the locality is handicapped in three different ways: (1) the community must carry a disproportionate cost in dependency; (2) the wages and income of all are threatened by the competition of surplus labor and the loss of purchasing power; and (3) the individuals who cannot find work are unfairly deprived of opportunity, independence, and self-respect. A positive program for constructive migration must, therefore, provide not only an expanding frontier of job opportunities for all available workers but also for the removal of existing barriers to their needed migration. Among such barriers is the obsolescent concept of "legal residence" which restricts entitlement to public benefits to those persons who have lived in a particular State or locality for a period of time specified by the State. This is especially indefensible in those programs, like public assistance, where the major share comes from the taxes paid by people in all parts of the country to the Federal Government. In a country which owes its own existence and growth to people with the courage to pioneer in new locations and will only continue to prosper as its people make the adaptations needed for progress these restrictions constitute a self-defeating anachronism which should not be tolerated. Because this is a national problem it will only be solved through national policy based on Federal action. One way in which this could be achieved is through requirements or incentives attached to the Federal grant-in-aid programs which help support State-administered programs of public welfare, public health and related fields of direct service to individuals. The Supreme Court has already, through its decision in the Edwards case, established free movement as one of the rights guaranteed to individuals under the Federal Constitution. The economic well-being of the country requires that this right be implemented in all aspects of Federal policy. Community welfare requires that all persons exercising this right be protected on the same basis as other members of the community against the hazards inhering in the organization of modern life. The welfare of individuals and families, on which depends in turn the welfare of Nation and community, requires that there be no exclusion from the protections which a democratic society affords its members. Adopted by the Executive Committee of the National Social Welfare Assembly, January 16, 1962. The National Social Welfare Assembly is the central national planning and coordinating agency for the social welfare field. Adoption of a position statement by the Assembly shall not be construed as speaking for the affiliate organizations. National Social Welfare Assembly, 345 East 46th Street, New York, N.Y. POSITION STATEMENT ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Approved by Board of Directors United Community Funds and Councils of America May 6, 1960 The broad coverage social welfare programs, such as public assistance, are primarily the responsibility of Government. Voluntary agencies provide many specialized services aimed at strengthening the family and enriching community life. Thus governmental and voluntary agencies are complementary. Both should build upon the dignity and self-respect of the individual and should develop services for the rehabilitation of those who can become self-supporting, productive members of society. Public assistance programs without arbitrary restrictions such as residence or place of birth should be available in all parts of the country on the basis of need. While public assistance is primarily the responsibility of State and local governments, Federal participation has produced some degree of uniformity throughout the country for specific categories of need. There has been inequity, however, for those needy persons not falling within these categories. The Federal Government should take leadership in studying and seeking, with the several States and voluntary social welfare interests, an equitable and common solution to this problem. TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF PROVISIONS IN THE BUDGETS OF THE U.S. BUREAU OF FAMILY SERVICES AND THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU FOR TRAINING OF PUBLIC WELFARE PERSONNEL (H.R. 10606), COUNCIL ON SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION INC., NEW YORK, N.Y. There are currently more than 35,000 State and local public assistance employees throughout the country, only 4.5 percent of whom have had the basic social work training recommended for practice in this field, and yet they are expected to deal with some of the most complicated personal and family problems coming to any social agency, such as unmarried parenthood, dependent children, family breakdown, desertion, delinquency, and chronic dependency.' The acute shortage of personnel qualified by education to staff State and local public welfare and particularly aid to dependent children programs is, of course, directly worsened by the critical shortage of social workers throughout the whole field. I would like to emphasize to this committee that this is the most neglected area of training in the field. Since Congress has before it requests for funds for training doctors, nurses, dentists, and other categories of professional personnel which are in short supply, we need to bring to your attention the critical need for funds to help train public welfare staffs who deal with the largest number of cases requiring public care. The reason why this lack of training of public welfare personnel is viewed so seriously is that we now have enough evidence resulting from recent research and experimentation to show that properly trained social work personnel working intensively with ADC families can restore them to greater self-reliance, give the children of these families an honest chance to become self-reliant citizens, to conserve human and economic values and resources as well as to save public funds." The request that you provide training funds for public welfare staff is in no sense new to the Federal Government, for Federal funds have been and are being made available for the training of social workers in psychiatric, medical, vocational rehabilitation, and military programs. Although the need for trained public welfare staff is acute, there are large numbers of public welfare employees and college students who are eager to study social work if they can get some help in meeting the costs and if the schools of social work can accommodate them. Scholarships and traineeships are needed, but this is not enough. The schools of social work graduated 2,300 students last year and have come very close to reaching full capacity in enrollments. This capacity is totally inadequate to meet the increased staff training requirements. These schools are grossly underfinanced and will need financial aid to expand their faculty and facilities in order to train the additional people needed for this public welfare program. We respectfully urge this committee to restore to H.R. 10606 the provisions which were in the original bill (H.R. 10032) authorizing under both titles IV and V of the Social Security Act direct grants to institutions of higher learning by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Under these provisions, the Secretary could make grants to schools of social work and for scholarships in order to facilitate the training of public welfare staff. These provisions are extremely important to the purpose of the legislation to bring about an emphasis on rehabilitation of public welfare recipients. They would make it possible for the Department to supplement whatever State training programs are carried out under the 75-percent matching provisions of the bill. There are some of our States which do not have a school of social work, even though there are public welfare staff members and college students interested in preparing themselves for work in this field but who may have difficulty in 1 Salaries and Working Conditions of Social Welfare Manpower," 1960, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. See "The Practical Value of Social Work Service: Preliminary Report on 10 Demonstration Projects in Public Assistance" (copy attached). doing so under a program which channels all Federal training funds for welfare personnel through the State welfare department. In such States there are very substantial difficulties standing in the way of the welfare departments making direct grants to a school of social work in another State in order to enable that school to expand its capacity and improve its educational program. This is one of the major reasons why we hope that direct Federal grants can be made to schools of social work in addition to the grants which may be going to the State welfare departments for training purposes. These provisions would greatly augment the number of staff being trained in the State programs and thus facilitate reaching the goal of staff competence which is required. We have attached to this statement appendixes which provide certain factual information about the supply and demand of social workers, including a report of 10 demonstration projects in public welfare which show how intensive social services by trained personnel can rehabilitate dependent families, resulting in more productive and useful lives for the individuals and ultimately in savings to the taxpayers. Since then more evidence has come to our attention, further confirming this fact. In conclusion, let me state that only if funds are provided to help universities provide a larger number of well-qualified social workers can the basic objectives of rehabilitating people and reducing dependency be carried out in an economical and effective manner. STATEMENT OF NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SETTLEMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS SUBMITTED BY ELIZABETH WICKENDEN, NATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE ASSEMBLY The National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers favors the public welfare amendments as embodied in H.R. 10606, except for section 107(a). SPECIAL NEEDS THIS LEGISLATION CAN MEET Our experience in working with today's problems leads us to believe that dependency can be reduced, particularly in relation to some of the newer problems which we now face. We see these, generally, as follows: There is the so-called hard-core unemployed. Almost always these families are the victims of dependency which may be caused by lack of education, or because their jobs have disappeared due to scientific improvements of our time. A health or accident problem may have impaired their ability to work. The wage earners in these families can be helped, either through a training program, a retraining program, or a counseling program, so that they may find their place in society. These families that are now unproductive can become productive. Jobs must also be made available with local communities. Then we have a whole group of disorganized families for whom life has become too complex, so that they tend to become spectators rather than participants. They need the kind of friendly hand that will help them to find their places in their own communities and help them to learn the very elementary steps that have to be taken so that responsibility can be assumed for one's future. This is particularly true of many of our younger people. With the two or three generations of families whose sole income has been from relief, we find this group of families associating with each other; the daughters marry the weaker, dependent men of other dependent families, and each generation producing a weaker family. We believe that this cycle must be stopped and know from results already achieved in this area that it can be stopped. Migration has meant that families are cut off from the ties with near relatives, and the wider family upon which previous generations could depend is not present in the new community. These families need the social worker as a friend and counselor at many critical times in their lives. Often these families beget big trouble that began with little troubles, but the friendly hand has been absent to help them through these little troubles. In their home communities, a relative might have given this support; in the urban areas these relatives are not present. In previous generations the church might have given this support, but in our communities today too often these people do not affiliate with any church. As urban communities have become more and more complex we find families in need of help do not know how to ask for help, or where to turn. May I say that this phenomenon of our complex urban areas is not only true of low-income |