CALIFORNIA PROBATION, PAROLE & CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION, Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, DEAR SENATOR BYRD: The purpose of this letter is to enlist your support to amend section 152 (a) and (b) of H.R. 10606. This bill (originally H.R. 10032) is discriminatory and denies Federal funds to certain dependent children. The attached amendment proposed by Congressman John F. Baldwin of California would have accomplished this but was not acceptable to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare which is supposed to submit a reworded modification before the bill is considered by the Senate Finance Committee. We urge that you examine the modification carefully to be sure it accomplishes the needed correction. This section provides that Federal aid to dependent children funds will be denied unless complete responsibility for the planning and supervision of the child is carried out by the agency administering the aid to needy children funding program. As interpreted by the Children's Bureau of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and by the California Department of Social Welfare, this means the loss of Federal funds in the amount of $20.50 monthly for each dependent child eligible for aid to needy children funds who has, by order of the juvenile court, been placed under the supervision of the probation officer, either in his own home or, if that home is unfit, in a foster home. Such action is discriminatory in that it denies Federal funds to a dependent child unless the child is supervised by a single designated agency when the legal responsibility for such supervision is vested in another public agency. This Federal regulation in effect decrees that one county governmental agency shall assume the duties and responsibilities of another established department. Judges of the juvenile court in major counties have expressed their opposition to such a ruling, and have indicated that they will not make orders placing such children under the jurisdiction of welfare departments, but will continue to order these children supervised by the probation officer, a court officer legally vested with the power and authority to carry out such supervision. It is interesting to note in passing that most of the cases of this type have been referred to the juvenile court by welfare departments because they were unable within the limits of their own authority, to deal effectively with the problems presented. There are many excellent probation services operating in the United States. If this Federal regulation were followed, the effect would be to require that these children be supervised by a staff completely untrained in court practices and legal requirements, and lacking the authority to take certain emergency actions necessary for the welfare of the child. The effort of this section of the Federal law to usurp the vested authority and responsibility of probation services is resented. It is requested that you support action to provide that: 1. In States where probation services are provided, independent of agencies administering welfare funds, the use of such probation services by the juvenile court in planning for and supervising dependent children shall not make such children ineligible for participation in Federal funds under the social security law. 2. Such probation services may cooperate with the agency administering welfare funds in any way which will be in the best interest of the child and the community. 3. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare recognize that probation services are an integral part of the juvenile court system and discharge legal and supervisory duties which cannot be performed by an agency not directly responsible to the court. Sincerely yours, CHARLES T. G.. ROGERS, Chief Probation Officer, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 152 ON PAGE 67 OF H.R. 10032 SUBMITTED BY CONGRESSMAN JOHN F. BALDWIN OF CALIFORNIA "Section 152 should be revised to read as follows: "Section 152(a) clause (2) of section 408 (a) of the Social Security Act is amended to read "(2) for whose placement and care the State or local agency administering the State plan approved under section 402, or any other local public agency either supervised by the State agency administering or supervising the administration of such State plan or authorized to place and supervise dependent children under the laws of the State, is responsible. (b) Clause (2) of section 408 (f) of the Social Security Act is amended to read "(2) use by the State or local agency administering the State plan, to the maximum extent practicable, in placing such a child in a foster family home, of the services of employees, of the State public welfare agency referred to in section 522 (a) (relating to allotments to States for child welfare services under part 3 of title V) or of any local agency participating in the administration of the plan referred to in such section, who performs functions in the administration of such plan, or of the services of employees of any other local public agency authorized to place and supervise dependent children under the laws of the State." (c) The last sentence of section 408 of such act is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof "or has been approved, by the State public welfare agency, referred to in section 522(a), as meeting the standards established by such agency for foster family homes." COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Hon. JOSEPH S. CLARK, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR CLARK: Pennsylvania is very much concerned about some of the provisions in H.R. 10606, the proposed Public Welfare Amendments of 1962. These provisions have a direct and important bearing on the State's ability to administer public assistance effectively. The original Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 was H.R. 10032, which was considered by the Ways and Means Committee and set aside in order to introduce a clean bill, H.R. 10606, incorporating all of their changes and recommendations. H.R. 10032, in section 152, page 67 of the bill, contained a provision which is extremely important to Pennsylvania. This provision has not been included in H.R. 10606. The provision is needed to enable Pennsylvania to qualify as a State which may receive Federal reimbursement for continuation of aid-to-dependentchildren grants to children placed in foster care because of unsuitable home conditions. As section 408(a) of the Social Security Act now reads, only those States in which the public assistance and public child welfare programs are administered by the same agency may receive Federal funds for ADC grants in foster home cases. In Pennsylvania, as you know, the public assistance program is administered by this agency, the department of public welfare, but the child welfare program is administered by county agencies, subject to supervision by the department. The wording inserted by section 152(a) of H.R. 10032 would have qualified Pennsylvania, and should be incorporated in H.R. 10606. We have communicated to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare our request to have the section reinstated in H.R. 10606. H.R. 10032, in section 109, page 36 of the bill, originally provided that the spouse of the relative with whom the dependent children are living could be included in the Federal-State grant, thereby enabling the State to receive FederalState grant, thereby enabling the State to receive Federal reimbursement for the assistance granted on behalf of such spouse. H.R. 10606, however, limits inclusion of such a spouse only to those cases in which the children are living with the parents. This makes for the kind of complicated paperwork that Secretary Ribicoff urged the States to avoid. As section 109, page 41, of H.R. 10606 now reads, if dependent children are living with their mother and father, both parents are included in the Federal-State grant; but if children are living with an uncle and aunt, or with grandparents, or other relatives, only one of such relatives may be included in the Federal-State grant and the other must be provided for by State-only payments. This does not seem justifiable. The time and effort staff would save in not having to make the distinctions mentioned above and performing the necessary paperwork are worth the small additional amount of Federal funds involved. We have asked the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to reinstate original H.R. 10032 section 109 into H.R. 10606. Both H.R. 10032 and H.R. 10606 contain a provision concerning community work and training programs (sec. 105 in both bills) which we favor in general. They contain sufficient safeguards and limitations for the operation of relief work programs in which Federal funds would be used. However, this proposed Federal legislation provides that the relief work may be performed for public agencies only. Pennsylvania has had a relief work program in operation in a number of counties for the past 22 years. While our relief work law would have to and should be amended to meet the Federal requirements, it does contain a provision, absent from H.R. 10606, which we think desirable; namely, that relief work may also be performed for nonprofit private community agencies under the identical safeguards and limitations that apply for public agencies. Since it has been a feature of Pennsylvania's relief work program for so many years that relief work may be performed for public and certain nonprofit private agencies, we believe it would create serious problems for us if we had to limit the scope of the program in the light of the Federal requirements. We believe H.R. 10606 should be amended so that we may continue to allow certain legitimate nonprofit private agencies to benefit from the relief work program. Section 107 of H.R. 10606 contains a provision beginning on line 5, page 38, which we consider ill advised and even dangerous. This section states appropriately that, when payments to families with dependent children are not being used to the best interest of the child, the State agency may provide for counseling and guidance services, or may seek appointment of a guardian or legal representative of the relative in an effort to insure that the grant is spent for the benefit of the child. We approve these provisions. The section continues, however, with the provision that the State may take "other action authorized under State law which is deemed necessary to protect the interests of such child," and specifies that any such action, other than denial of assistance, shall be permissible. In effect, this means that States could issue voucher payment for rent or grocery orders for food instead of cash assistance. We believe this would definitely be a step backward in public welfare administration. present administration in Pennsylvania, of course, would not use this Federal provision. I wanted to record our belief that the Federal Government also should not permit any State to use the humiliating device of grocery orders and Voucher payments instead of cash assistance. The I hope you will do whatever may be within your power to secure such changes and additions to H.R. 10606, as outlined above, as would protect Pennsylvania's interests and enable us to continue administering public assistance with emphasis on rehabilitation, as we are already doing. Sincerely yours, Mrs. RUTH GRIGG HORTING, Secretary. AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, Hon. HARRY F. BYRD, Chairman, Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR: We understand that H.R. 10606 is now pending before your committee. We have not as yet had an opportunity to evaluate this bill in its entirety. If its purpose and effect is to encourage recipients of State and Federal assistance to become self-supporting citizens (and this we understand is the aim of this bill) we certainly strongly endorse such a goal. We would specifically ask your support for section 136 of this bill, which will permit the States of Missouri and Pennsylvania to continue their State financial programs of assistance to blind persons. These programs in these two States have been of immense value not only to the blind but to the citizenry as a whole. Please give section 136 of this bill your utmost support. Sincerely yours, NED FREEMAN, President. Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD, FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate OF BUCKS COUNTY, PA., Levittown, Pa., March 28, 1962. DEAR MR. BYRD: The Family Service Association of Bucks County is one of over 300 voluntary family counseling agencies in America with membership in the Family Service Association of America, and is dedicated to strengthening the positive value, in family life. We felt, therefore, that we should let you know our views concerning H.R. 10606, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962, which is currently before your Senate Finance Committee. It is imperative that the bill not be further weakened by elimination of any more of the original sections (as proposed in H.R. 10032) or the addition of any further restrictive sections. We protest the unfortunate addition of section 405 providing for restrictive payments with none of the safeguards applicable to the original proposal for protective payments. We recommend that you develop a combined proposal in which adequate safeguards could be included for both provisions. We deplore the omission of the provisions relating to residence requirements originally proposed in H.R. 10032 and we request that these be reinstated. The Family Service Association of Bucks County is currently involved in a study of public assistance in Bucks County in preparation for the hearings to be held by Pennsylvania's State and Local Welfare Commission in Philadelphia on April 11 and 12. Knowledge gained from our study points to the absolute necessity of retaining all the original provisions which would liberalize eligibilty for public assistance. We feel that it would be to the advantage of not only the potential welfare recipient but also to industry and the community as well if Pennsylvania could be encouraged to abolish its 1-year residence requirement. We are sure that Bucks County is not alone in the current problems that are created by the State's and counties' residence requirements-problems which have been multiplied in recent years by the population explosion. People are encouraged to move from one community to another to meet industry's manpower needs, yet those who have enough initiative to move to a new community are penalized if they are struck with incapacitating illness or some other very human problem before they have attained 1 year's residence in the new community. They find that not only are they legally ineligible for assistance from any public source but also that private, voluntary funds are insufficient to meet financial need of other than temporary and brief duration. Our agency's own study indicated that while the community (State and local) is powerless under current outdated residence requirements to grant assistance to those lacking 1 year's residence, this does not mean that welfare costs are therefore lower than they would be without any residence requirements. On the contrary, denying assistance not only does not solve the immediate problem but tends to create additional problems not only for the assistance applicant but for the community. Particularly when children are involved the community is faced sooner or later with higher welfare costs than would have been the case if assistance could have been granted when trouble first started. Just as the medical world has demonstrated that it is cheaper to cure a physical illness if the patient goes to the doctor in the earliest stages of illness, so the field of social work has proved that the bill for the cure and prevention of social illness is lower if prompt treatment is available. We commend to your attention the very fine testimony given on February 9, 1962, before the House Ways and Means Committee, by Mrs. Savilla Millis Simons, general director, National Travelers Aid Association in regard to the residence provisions of H.R. 10032. She stated "that residence requirements are utterly incompatible with the unparalleled mobility of the American economy today and its needs." It is notable that H.R. 10606 has provided for an increase in payments to the needy aged, blind, and disabled. We insist that the same consideration be granted to families receiving aid from the aid to dependent children program. Depriving these families of adequate financial support not only does not solve any of their immediate problems but tends to make it more difficult for them to provide a satisfactory home environment for their children. Moreover it is not only the children who are harmed by inadequate grants, but the community as well, for it is deprived of many future mature, happy, and productive citizens. We will be interested in hearing from you concerning your efforts to incorporate the above suggestions in H.R. 10606 in order that it may be as strong and effective a bill as was the original intent. Sincerely, ELLEN H. DEMPSTER SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF THE FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF BUCKS COUNTY FOR THE APRIL 11 AND 12 HEARINGS ON PUBLIC WELFARE BEFORE THE STATE AND LOCAL WELFARE COMMISSION The Family Service Association of Bucks County declares that we will not be achieving the full intent of the public assistance law in Pennsylvania until there is a basic change in the attitude of the public toward public welfare. Our present custodial philosophy needs to be changed to a curative and preventive one focused on long-range family solidity. Current public welfare practices constitute a flagrant violation of the public assistance law for the following reasons: (1) casework staff is inadequate both in terms of quantity and quality; (2) assistance grants are below the minimum health and decency levels established by officially sanctioned studies; (3) the 1-year residence requirement is unrealistic in our modern mobile society. We recommend: (1) Substantial enlargement of the casework staff of the Bucks County Board of Assistance to provide a more realistic proportion of cases to workers. Since many families receiving assistance in Bucks County are "multiproblem families" every effort must be made to secure more fully trained and highly skilled caseworkers. We urge the continuation and expansion of the pilot projects in family rehabilitation and also the current in-service training provisions. We demand the elimination of the 1-year State residence requirement for casework staff. (2) Regular and more realistic increases in assistance grants consistent with constant changes in the minimum health and decency standard of living. This would include increasing the amount of earned income families are per mitted without reduction in the assistance grant. It is imperative that the various cost-of-living surveys which are officially requested periodically be actually utilized. (3) Elimination of the requirements of citizenship for general assistance; the 1-year's State residence to receive aid from the board of assistance and the 1-year's county residence to recefve aid from the county institution district. If this cannot be realized immediately we urgently request that the Commonwealth assume its stated responsibility for nonresidents. (4) Coordination of State and local welfare services to avoid duplication in some services and gaps in others. We advise that there be a regional base for public welfare administration with direct service offices located in other than political subdivisions. (5) Greater utilization by county boards of assistance of their local family agencies when appropriate in terms of the latter's services. (6) A sufficient enough increase in taxes to finance a welfare program which is geared toward prevention of human distress and dedicated to investing in human welfare and happiness. Just as the medical world has demonstrated that it is cheaper to cure a physical illness if the patient goes to the doctor in the earliest stages of illness, so the field of social work has proved that the bill for the cure and prevention of social illness is lower if prompt and adequate treatment is available. TESTIMONY OF THE FAMILY SERVICE ASSOCIATION OF BUCKS COUNTY FOR THE APRIL 11 AND 12 HEARINGS ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BEFORE THE STATE AND LOCAL WELFARE COMMISSION The Family Service Association of Bucks County agrees with the statement adopted by the National Social Welfare Assembly on December 13, 1961, at its annual meeting: "* * * public welfare (is) a vital responsibility of a democracy which recognizes the dignity and rights of human beings." We feel, however, that America has not yet succeeded in adopting such an attitude of acceptance toward public welfare. Our American philosophy toward public welfare has been and continues to be a custodial one, rather than a curative and preventive one. It is time for the American public to be made fully aware of the |