Now, to get to your question, Senator Kerr, on 107, which has been a rather touchy thing. I want to say, first, that the unrestricted money payment principle which was adopted a good many years ago is a sound principle and the changes in our society that have occurred since that principle was adopted, are not changes that affect the validity of the principle.

The principle of the unrestricted money payment relates to this: When you get welfare into a public law, when you get payments into a public law, then under the law people have an absolute right to it if they meet the eligibility requirements.

If they are eligible and aren't given the assistance, if they apply for it and need it, then you really deprive them of a legal right.

If you have a provision for a voucher payment so that you take the money away from a family, and providing something different, you really are depriving them of a legal right and if this is done simply in a welfare department, simply administratively, then there isn't any protection of the individual for a difference between his assistance from the public and someone else's.

Senator KERR. Let me ask you this.

Under present law your courts have the authority to appoint a guardian for a person who is a welfare beneficiary, do they not?

Mr. LARSON. Yes, and this is the way I think that this should be handled. As the Secretary originally proposed this bill you had a real guide to the States for handling a real difficult problem. We do have payees who

Senator KERR. Have what?

Mr. LARSON. We have payees in ADC who either cannot or will not handle the money for the benefit of the children.

Senator KERR. Yes.

Mr. LARSON. And this money is in trust for the children. That is the intention of the Congress and we have judicial decisions that it is.

Then if they do not instead of negating the whole thing and tossing this payment over into voucher payments, you should have a guardian to receive the money, and States can simplify for this special ad hoc guardianship the laws to provide this.

Senator KERR. They not only can appoint a guardian to spend the money, they can take the child away from the parent and give it to another foster parent now.

Mr. LARSON. And still continue the ADC program.

Senator KERR. Yes.

Mr. LARSON. Yes.

Senator KERR. And you think those are adequate protections and that the expansion of it to where the administrative discretion would exist covered by the responsibility for the voucher payments would create more problems than contribute to the matter of solving the one that you have?

Mr. LARSON. That is correct. I think that to permit a State to introduce this voucher payment thing really violates the human dignity of this family, and it permits a type of punitive action that we had not brought any State legislation into a program in which Congress has as much money as it has in this one.

Now, the other thing I want to say is that public welfare is an essential commitment to any religious and democractic society. We have a great many people who, because of changes in our society, find themselves caught in a net of helplessness, in a situation in which they cannot provide for the care of their children, and then these children lose out insofar as the associations that we ordinarily think American children should have.

This relates especially to a democracy where we are bringing up children to be future voters in this country.

These kids, scorned, not always clothed well enough so that they function well in school, are denied the appropriate human contacts that American children are supposed to have.

This bill, I think, might help in some small way to bring up children to be the kind of citizens that we should have in the future, and I am specially impressed with the provision for day care because here might be for those children whose parents are primitive in their means of communication, for those parents who must work, a way of providing during the very formative early years of children, appropriate adult, human contact which a great many kids now do not have. We are prone, I think, to consider a democracy as being popular sovereignty, the right of people to vote; and this is an erroneous concept.

Actually democracy is a government of high moral principles announced in a constitution and interpreted by a supreme court and popular sovereignty, the right to vote, is democracy's lawful commitment, and hence we have the terrific commitment providing to children who don't otherwise get it, where our present current institutions of the family and the school and the church and the community, do not provide it, that we devise a welfare program that does give it to them.

This means improved people to provide this appropriate human contact, day-care centers for children who parents must work or whose parents can't really communicate with children, adult older volunteers to provide some human appreciation to the little kid who isn't getting along very well in school, where his parents are both uneducated and cannot provide this incentive to him and to give to the principles of social work ahead of the place where they apply for public assistance, to get to the troubled family with the child welfare services on referral from the school, on referral from the juvenile department, and so on. This bill, I think, presents a good start toward this kind of a concept of preventing many, many children from growing up not to be appropriate American citizens and who, Mr. Kerr, are going to vote with my kids, and I am trying to bring mine up the right way.

I mean, let's get to this thing. This is something of real national importance to a democratic society, and I wish I had a little bit more time.

But, you know, the two ultimate weapons, the two ultimate weapons in the present cold war that is going on, are not the atomic bomb and all the munitions we are creating. The two basic weapons are food of which we have too much, goodness knows we have it and we don't get it to all of our poor people nor do we get it to other people. That is one basic weapon.

The other is compassion, compassion, really compassion for all people and the recognition of human dignity.

Senator KERR. Don't you think the ultimate weapon is the Christian ingredient in people?

Mr. LARSON. The ultimate ingredient of Christianity is indeed compassion. Thank you, Senator Kerr.

Senator KERR. No, compassion is a manifestation of Christianity. Mr. LARSON. Yes.

Senator KERR. Yes. If you put it on that basis, I couldn't be more completely in accord with you. Thank you very much, Mr. Larson, you have given us a good statement on the basis of an effective presen

tation.

(The prepared statement to accompanying exhibit of Mr. Larson follows:)

STATEMENT OF MARVIN E. LARSON REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Marvin E. Larson. I am the director of the Kansas State Department of Social Welfare and a member of the board of directors of the American Public Welfare Association, which organization I am representing here today.

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION

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 administrator, welfare workers, and board members from every jurisdiction. On the basis of discussions and recommendations in our councils, committees, and in our regional and national conferences, the association's board of directors, which represents all parts of the country, 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. 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, has 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.

Services for prevention and rehabilitation in public welfare

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 general 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 agen

84071-62- -16

cies, 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 most of 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 coming years.

From the time the Social Security Act was first adopted, and even before that, 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 Federal-State-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 would 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, it is in the main consistent with the Federal legislative objectives which have been adopted by the board of directors of our association.

There is one point in the proposal for the "improvement in services to prevent or reduce dependency," however, upon which we would raise a question. That is the clause which would prohibit the State public welfare agency from providing any services which are available from the State vocational rehabilitation agency, except to the extent agreed to by the vocational rehabilitation agency.

We have long advocated that the programs of the vocational rehabilitation agencies be expanded and strengthened, and we have supported measures designed to accomplish that purpose. Moreover, the services provided through these two fields are basically different in nature, and it is to be hoped that the renewed emphasis on rehabilitation as a public welfare function will not be diverted as a result of the similarity of terminology used in these two fields. However, certain services may be "available" through the vocational rehabilitation agency but in some States they may not be specifically available to all persons who need them. We fully acknowledge the proper responsibility of Congress to define the limits and purposes of the programs in which the Federal Government will participate financially. But we doubt the advisability of incorporating language in the Federal statute which would permit the State agency in one field to exercise unilateral discretion in the interpretation of the program requirements of another State agency in another field. We therefore recommend that this provision be deleted from the bill with respect to all four public assistance categories.

Training of personnel

Among the specific proposals in this bill we attach great importance to the authorization of grants for the training of personnel for reemployment in public welfare agencies, 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 agen

cies 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, even without these proposed amendments, if the personnel had been available. Therefore, we would select these training features for the highest priority. At the same time, it should be recognized that it will take several years before the impact of these training programs will attain their maximum usefulness. It is not possible to predict how many public welfare recipients will be enabled to leave the assistance rolls through increased services, and it may be that the results can never be precisely measured. It is known, however, that skilled counseling service is often effective in keeping families together, and in restoring families after a parent has deserted. Day-care facilities for children, vocational training opportunities, and realistic budgeting of the costs of holding a job, can enable some ADC parents to take employment without neglecting their children. However, if the welfare agency does not see a family until after the father has deserted, it is too late for prevention. And if the caseworker does not have the time or the skill or the resources to help a mother prepare for employment, she may continue to receive ADC at a cost much greater than the cost of the training or guidance she needs.

However much or little preventive and rehabilitative services may result in a net cash saving in assistance costs, they can be justified by their accomplishments in strengthening the fabric of family life, and in helping children to become productive and responsible citizens. It is also worth noting that in view of the present level of expenditures for public assistance the restoration of a relatively small proportion of families to self-support would offset the cost of the present proposals.

Identifying service costs

Separation of the costs of administration and services, and an increase in the Federal share for services as proposed in this bill, would give a further impetus to the attainment of the objectives of prevention and rehabilitation. The present method of charging all costs to either assistance or administration reflects unfavorably on those agencies that make the greatest effort to provide services, since expanded services are reported as increased administrative costs and may be interpreted as implying inefficient administration. A truer picture would be given by identifying separately expenditures for assistance, administration, and services, as H.R. 10606 would do, and it would not mislead the public and the legislative bodies in their evaluation of the progressive agencies. Coordination of public assistance and child welfare

Along with qualified personnel and fiscal support there are also a number of other adjustments and resources that are needed in order to enable the public welfare agencies to give full implementation to the objectives set forth in this bill. Of primary importance is the need for a high degree of coordination among the various specialized services, under both public and private auspices, so that they can be utilized to maximum effectiveness.

One of the most fruitful possibilities in this respect lies in bringing about a closer working relationship between public assistance and child welfare. While these two programs are usually administered by a single agency at both the State and local levels, there are inherent differences in their purpose and approach which make difficult their close integration. An important difference is that as a rule public assistance workers have large caseloads; they have little or no professional training; and even when they have the competence they may not have enough time to spend on services beyond the determination of financial eligibility. Child welfare workers usually have smaller caseloads (though often still too large); they usually have some professional training; and the central focus of their activities is on service. By assisting and encouraging States to improve the quality and coverage of services in both public assistance and child welfare the possibilities for a closer coordination would be greatly enhanced. The result would be a more effective utilization of services in the attainment of both the special as well as the common objective of these two important programs.

Strengthening child welfare services

As a logical corollary to improved coordination the bill proposes a long-term plan for strengthening and improving child welfare services. The grants to States for this program under title V of the Social Security Act have been