Page images
PDF
EPUB

I have given you the above background to indicate that my professional experience has been in both large and small public welfare departments and in a private agency. Thus, I believe that this experience and training qualifies me to speak with knowledge about H.R. 10032, a bill affecting public welfare amendments of 1962, currently pending action in the Senate.

In my opinion, this bill needs further strengthening if it is to accomplish the purpose for which it is designed, namely, to provide not only more adequate financial assistance, but services to the recipients which will enable them to become rehabilitated for productive citizenship.

I am particularly concerned about the following three areas: As Federal legislation sets the tone and control necessary for the proper use of Federal funds in the various States, I believe it is imperative that better safeguards be placed around restrictive payments which this bill would permit. In its current form, the States would be free to pass laws permitting anything which they believe to be necessary to protect the interest of the child. This would allow some States to insert punitive restrictions which would prevent the rehabilitative efforts for which all of us familiar with the program believe necessary. Therefore, I urge that the Senate reconsider the section and place proper safeguards around these restricted payment provisions.

Secondly, as you are undoubtedly cognizant that our Nation is indeed a mobile society, this mobility is our strength. It allows us to seek opportunities across the breadth of our Nation and thereby to contribute to communities as new residents therein. Many of us take advantage of this mobility to improve our individual opportunities and it becomes advantageous to the community in which we settle. But with this mobility comes the danger also of becoming dependent in the community to which we migrate. Thus, residence laws are punitive to the person who becomes dependent. There are many people in our country that suffer from the lack of necessities of life and the necessary social services because they are not a resident where this dependency occurs. Therefore, it is my opinion that as a community accepts nonresidents financially independent, it has a concurrent responsibility for its nonresident dependents. Also, the major portion of these expenses are borne by the Federal Government and they should, therefore, be entitled to this wherever they may be. I, therefore, urge that all residence requirements be disposed of by legislative provisions of the bill.

Our Federal public welfare laws are designed to strengthen our society by preventing dependency and establishing a minimum level of health and decency. The disparity between the amount of assistance which the Federal Government will share in is highly improper. Under present law and the above bill the needy aged, blind, and disabled may receive much larger amounts of financial assistance than can the needy parent and child in the aid to dependent children grants. Logically speaking, why are the needs of parents and children less than the needs of other recipients? Are we not penalizing the citizens of tomorrow by restricting their opportunities to the necessities of life as well as encouraging both physical and emotional depravity? I urge that the growing disparity in maximum grants between the aid to dependent children and the other programs be reversed and that we make the money payments and services to needy families more realistic to their needs.

As stated before, I urged that the Senate reconsider the sections of this bill relating to the above three items and to strengthen them so that all our citizens may share equally in the benefits of a sound law designed to provide for the necessities of life and rehabilitate, when possible, all dependent citizenry. Yours very truly,

R. WINFRED TYNDALL, Executive Director.

FAMILY SERVICE OF READING AND BERKS COUNTY, PA.,
Reading, Pa., April 6, 1962.

Hon. HARRY FLOOD BYRD,
Chairman, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR SENATOR BYRD: The board of directors of Family Service of Reading and Berks County recently voted to present their views to your committee, the Finance Committee of the U.S. Senate, and place their request that the committee introduce or reinstate legislation concerning residence requirements and public welfare which was omitted from H.R. 10606 now before your committee.

The members of this board believe that residence requirements for public assistance and public welfare services is incompatible with our present way of life in the United States. We have experienced in our dailyoperations the unreasonable human and administrative problems caused by residence requirements when misfortune causes people to need public welfare assistance. Rigid requirements of residence are contrary to the unparalleled mobility of the American economy and its needs. They are contrary to the American tradition of freedom of our citizens to seek advancement to a better life.

The philosophy of the present productive generations of our country is that "we are citizens of the United States," which gives the freedom which permits its citizens to seek opportunities for the betterment of life for families and for society. The inventiveness, ingenuity, and search for progress have created the instruments to make mobility easily possible for people wanting to find the desirable circumstances of living. Residence requirement penalize those with initiative and desire to improve and have independence. Residence requirements conflict with the social philosophy of the Social Security Act, that no person in this country should go without basic income to meet the essential needs to live. There will be increased moving of families with the developing public policy of the desirability for workers to move from depressed areas to those of greater economic opportunity.

We view this as a national problem which can only be solved through strong national policy based on Federal action and therefore urge that your Senate Committee add constructive proposals in this 1962 legislation to eliminate residence requirements for all public welfare assistance. We trust that your committee will base this consideration on the sound philosophy of the Social Security Act that eligibility for public welfare assistance be based on actual need for aid and that you would include in your bill incentives for States to eliminate residence requirements, something similar to the proposals of the original H.R. 10032, section 137.

If your honest consideration deems this too drastic a measure to be acceptable to the States this year, then an interim step in this direction such as reduction in present maximums on State residence requirements of no more than 1 year. Our board made up of 29 active civic-minded citizens looks forward to the action of your committee which will result in a historic step forward of adopting this public welfare provision so necessary for these present-day realities.

Very truly yours,

(Mrs.) CHARLOTTE K. HUTCHISON, Executive Director.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS FAMILY SERVICE OF READING AND BERKS COUNTY Samuel B. Russell, president, 15 East 34th Street, Reiffton, Reading, Pa. Everett E. Smith, first vice president, 208 Brookline Plaza, Reading, Pa. Joseph R. Scherer, second vice president, 2701 Cumberland Avenue, Mount Penn, Reading, Pa.

Fred E. Luckenbill, secretary, 1533 Darien Street, Reading, Pa.

Charles M. Guthrie, Jr., treasurer, Box 1091, Reading, Pa.

Daniel F. Ancona, Jr., 1423 Rose Virginia Road, Wyomissing, Pa.
Theodore C. Auman, Jr., 1539 Reading Avenue, Wyomissing, Pa.
Paul Barclay, 1336 Garfield Avenue, Wyomissing, Pa.
William C. Brenner, 1305 Garden Lane, Reading, Pa.

Harold E. Bright, 1408 Monroe Avenue, Wyomissing, Pa.

Clarence E. Carter, 1044 Cotton Street, Reading, Pa.

Rev. Harold D. Flood, 329 North Fifth Street, Reading, Pa.

Mrs. John S. Giles, Jr., 1320 Monroe Avenue, Wyomissing, Pa.
Mrs. Arthur Hammel, 702 Byram Avenue, Pennside, Reading, Pa.
Miss Dorathea A. Hassler, R.D. No. 1, Shoemakersville, Pa.
Mrs. Frederick S. Luden, 1500 Hill Road, Reading, Pa.
Alexander J. MacRae, 601 Elnore Road, Temple, Pa.

Mrs. Leroy C. Milliken, R.D. No. 1, Robesonia, Pa.

Mrs. Lionel E. Newcomer, 21 Walnut Street, Fleetwood, Pa.

Mrs. J. Archer O'Reilly, Jr., Box 271, R.D. No. 1, Sinking Spring, Pa.
Mrs. G. Raymond Parry, 1300 Garden Lane, Reading, Pa.

Loyal C. Radtke, 703 Trent Avenue, Wyomissing, Pa.
Dr. Leon Reidenberg, 325 North Fifth Street, Reading, Pa.

Mrs. Howard G. Riley, 1511 Meadow Lark Road, Wyomissing, Pa.

Mrs. William L. Seidel, 1114 Reading Boulevard, Wyomissing. Pa.
Mrs. Harold H. Staudt, Greenfields. Reading, Pa.

Mrs. Theodore C. Templeton, 1126 North Sixth Street, Reading, Pa.
Everett G. Walk, R.D. No. 1, Sheerlund, Reading, Pa.

William R. Werley, North Grand Street, Hamburg, Pa.

CASE ILLUSTRATION-SUPPLEMENT TO TESTIMONY ON RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS AND PUBLIC WELFARE SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY SERVICE OF READING AND BERKS COUNTY BY MRS. CHARLOTTE K. HUTCHINSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

The L family, the parents ages 28 and 26 years, and two children, 2 and 5 years moved to Berks County in June 1961. In October, Mr. L was laid off from his job, with the promise to be called back again when there was work. When their funds were exhausted the family was helped by Mrs. L's parents, who receive public assistance, as her father is disabled. It was necessary for the L's to apply for financial assistance, which had to be refused because they had not gained the year's residence. Thus they had to tread the path from one community agency to another to be rejected in one after another, with each resource trying to be helpful within their functions. This treadmill consisted of being referred first to the local county institution district, where they were told they could not be helped immediately, as their problem had to be decided by the commissioners and they were referred to the Salvation Army for emergency assistance for food. Mr. L had registered at the employment office for work and for unemployment compensation. He was not eligible for immediate compensation because he had not worked on this job long enough, he had left his job in the Midwestern State to move here. The employment office promised to review his possibilities for compensation but this would take time because of interstate communications. On return to public assistance they received a one-time grant while residence in the other State was verified.

Mr. and Mrs. L, met while they were both in military service. After discharge, Mr. L pursued his skill as baker, which he had learned in service, in his home community in a Midwestern State. Mrs. L was born and reared in Berks County, Pa., where her parents still live. Mr. and Mrs. L. were married after she left the service and they settled where he was employed. When her father became disabled she increasingly felt as the oldest daughter she should be able to help her parents and she wished to move here to be closer to them. They planned for the change, so that she and the children would get along while her husband came to Reading to seek employment and find a place to live. When he accomplished this, the family moved here with the intent to stay permanently.

This month of insecurity began to take its toll in disturbed family relationships. Mrs. L's father's disability is based on emotional instability. These family upsets brought the two families to family service. Feelings were very taut. When on the second visit to the local county institution district, Mr. L was strongly urged to return to the State of residence and support his family from there. He talked back about unjustice and unfairness and his intention to keep his family together. Upset by his behavior, a physical fight between him and his father-in-law developed on the street and the police had to interfere. Within 2 weeks there was general family contentions which threatened the relationship of husband and wife; the children were upset: Mrs. L was due to have a baby in 6 weeks. Hurt, brooding relationship grew up between her and her parents. Counseling and intensive casework helped to maintain an equilibrium for the young couple during this upheavel which need not have happened if their rights, needs, and security could have been respected.

In desperation the L's agreed to return to their place of former residence, and they left with a rift in her relationships with her family. This family was quite capable of managing their maintenance and independence. They needed to have financial maintenance for a short time until they could work things out. The public assistance personnel were terribly caught as they wanted to be able to help this family according to their needs yet they were helpless because of the residence restrictions.

As soon as the family said they would return to their former community, public welfare agencies were only too happy to pay the expenses to send them back.

FAMILY SERVICE SOCIETY, New Orleans, La., April 9, 1962.

Senator HARRY F. BYRD,

Chairman, Senate Finance Committee,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BYRD: As executive director of the Family Service Society, I am writing to comment on H.R. 10606, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962, which is currently before your committee.

The Family Service Society offers a communitywide service of professional family casework counseling, supported primarily by the United Fund, the local, voluntary, found-raising body. Its services are provided by a staff of 23 persons. Its affairs are managed by a voluntary group of 30 community-representative persons. It has an interest constituency of 99 associate members, composed of citizens with a special interest in strong, healthy family life. It serves approximately 2,000 families a year, composed roughly of 10,000 adults and children. The central purpose of the Family Service Society is to contribute to harmonious family interrelationships, to strengthen the positive values of family life, and to promote healthy personality development and satisfactory social functioning of various family members. It is one of 308 family agencies in the United States and Canada that belong to the national standard-setting and accrediting body, the Family Service Association of America.

Family agencies like us know a good deal about public welfare. From our inception in 1896 until the early 1930's, we administered the main financial assistance resources in New Orleans. When the federally supported public welfare program was created in 1935, our staff members were loaned to the city and State to set up the new public welfare programs.

Private agencies supported by voluntary dollars cannot provide a universal, basic, financial assistance program, but they can demonstrate, experiment, and generally lead the way to show the value of professional casework in the strengthening and rehabilitation of families and individuals. Basic to all of this is an adequate public welfare, tax-supported, financial assistance program. Counseling services such as ours cannot be effective when families and individuals have a primary need for food, shelter, clothing, and medical care. And, similarly, financial assistance alone is not sufficient help toward rehabilitation; it takes both as we well know out of our 66 years of experience with these matters. Our public issues committee and our board of directors have met to study H.R. 10606. They want you to know that H.R. 10606 is generally favored by them, and that they especially commend and support the following provisions :

(a) Rehabilitation of families and individuals by measures such as family casework services, and work and training programs.

(b) Professional social work training to make possible the provision of family casework services.

(c) Broadening the child welfare program by the bill's new plan for aid and services to needy families with children, day care for children of working mothers, and other related provisions.

In general, we feel that H.R. 10606 offers a constructive approach to many of the problems now seen in public welfare. We are impressed with the help it will make possible to strengthen families who have economic and social problems, and the provision for the training of the skilled social workers which is essential if this is to be carried out.

Sincerely yours,

FRANKLIN PARKS, ACSW, Executive Director.

Subject: H.R. 10606 (formerly H.R. 10032).

Hon. CLAIBORNE PELL,

Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CLAIBORNE: As a former president and a present director of Children's Friend and Service, a statewide agency here in Rhode Island, and as a director of the Child Welfare League of America, Inc., I am deeply concerned with the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 as contained in the above subject bill. I feel that this is the most important piece of social legislation that has been introduced since the Social Security Act of 1935.

The bill as originally introduced, contained many constructive and vital provisions which would have marked a giant step forward in our overall public and private welfare program.

In my opinion, the bill as it now stands revised, contains flaws and omissions which seriously diminish, if not completely eliminate these advantages.

It is to be regretted that all authority to purchase service from nonprofit private agencies has been stricken from the original bill.

I do not favor the use of voucher payments as provided for under "Use of Payments for Benefit of the Child." For the very few families for which money management is a serious problem. I believe there are adequate protective provisions included.

I do not think it is good practice to allow the States to deny assistance to a parent while continuing assistance for the child. This could lead to the parent, in effect, "eating from the bowl of the child."

I would hope that the bill, as finally enacted, would provide for Federal scholarships to train social work personnel. Properly trained social workers, in the long run, will go a long way toward decreasing public welfare problems. catching many incipient problems before they actually occur. There is a great need at the moment for properly trained and qualified personnel of this nature. I hope you will find it possible to promote the above-listed changes, and to support the bill in every way possible.

Cordially,

CARL W. HAFFENREFFER.

RESOLUTION OF NEVADA STATE WELFARE Board, Carson City, Nev.

(Adopted March 26, 1962)

Whereas the Nevada State Welfare Board recognizes that the standards of assistance for all the public assistance categories are far too low in comparison with cost of living and average national income; and

Whereas the revised bill containing the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 (H.R. 10606) provides for an increase in Federal matching for old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to the permanently and totally disabled; and

Whereas the aforementioned bill (H.R. 10606) retains the present Federal matching formula for aid to dependent children, only extends it to both parent caretakers if needy and in the home; and

Whereas the Federal matching limit for a needy parent is currently less than one-half that for a needy person over 65 years of age, and the proposed new formula further increases this inequity; and

Whereas in aid to dependent children, more than in any other Federal-State public assistance program, the amount of the Federal matching base tends to establish the ceiling for recommendations by budgetary authorities and for legislative appropriations by this State; and

Whereas, while the emphasis on preventive and rehabilitative service is extremely important and necessary, the desired goal will not be achieved unless basic maintenance needs of aid to dependent children families are met more adequately: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Federal matching limit for aid to dependent children and the other three public assistance categories be brought closer together by providing a commensurate increase in the Federal matching formula for aid to dependent children as that proposed for old-age assistance, aid to the blind, and aid to the permanently and totally disabled under H.R. 10606.

Senator STUART SYMINGTON,

[Telegram]

WEBSTER GROVES, MO., April 2, 1960.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

The St. Louis County Child Welfare Advisory Committee respectfully urges your consideration for amendment of House Bill 10606 to include identifiable funds for homemakers service for children whose mothers are temporarily ill or incapacitated. This provision would facilitate the realization of expanded constructive child welfare services contemplated in the bill.

MIRIAM M. PENNOYER, M.D., Chairman.

« PreviousContinue »