2

90,000,000

80,000,000

70,000,000

TABLE 11.-Children receiving child welfare casework services from State and local public welfare agencies in 40 States reporting completely 1946–1958, classified by urban-rural character

1 States classified on basis of percentage of urban population as defined by the U.S. census of 1950.

TABLE 12.-Children receiving child welfare casework services from State and local public welfare agencies in 40 States reporting completely, 1946-58, classified by urban-rural character: Rates per 10,000 estimated child population under 21 years of age

TABLE 13.-Children receiving child welfare casework services from State and local public welfare agencies in 40 States reporting completely 1946-58: Percent distribution by living arrangement

TABLE 14.-Population size of place in which agencies serve, by type of agency, agencies responding to questionnaire inventory of health and welfare agencies and institutions related to the Protestant, Anglican, and Eastern Orthodox Churches and their organizations, 1955

Source: "Churches and Social Welfare," vol. II, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. TABLE 15.-Specialized services for families and children, by whereabouts of children, monthly average, 1951 and 1953, 20 urban areas

TABLE 16.-Children adopted in the United States, by relationship of adoptive parents, selected years 1944-58 1

1 National estimates from State reports to the Children's Bureau. ↑ Children placed in adoptive homes without the aid of a recognized child-placing agency or institution.

TABLE 17.-Children in foster family care and in institutions for dependent and neglected children, by auspices of agency, 1933, 1950, 1952, and 1958 1

TABLE 18.-Estimated community chest and united fund allocations to agencies,

80118 O 62 - 19

TABLE 19.-Estimated community chest and united fund allocations to agencies, detailed data, 1950–58

Source: United Community Funds and Councils of America, Inc., May 1959.

TABLE 20.-Urban and rural population of the United States, March 1958 1

1 Data for the civilian population, including about 895,000 members of the Armed Forces in 1958 who were living offpost or with their families onpost, but excluding all other members of the Armed Forces. Source: Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 88, November 17, 1958.

Mr. CURTIS. One other comment. Of course some areas have welldeveloped private institutions with child guidance which has a tendency, I might say, not to develop through the public sector at the local level in this area. I do not know how we evaluate that, but I just comment on that as a further problem in this evaluation.

Of course this runs through the problem, and I have already mentioned this generally. On page 14 you set forth certain conditions in the State plans which assure a prevailing wage would be paid, health and safety standards will be observed, and so forth.

That worries me when you put in these requirements of Federal standards until we establish the need that such standards should be in there. I think it diverts our attention from what should be our primary goal, to see that there is adequate financing of this thing, if that is the problem; or maybe it is inadequate standards.

It could be one or it could be the other, and I think they should be kept separate. Again on page 14 at the bottom you recommend that States be required to consider such expense if they are to receive Federal funds.

Again it comes up, this twofold question. I think we have two problems. One is financing, whether or not the State and local, plus private, charities do provide the proper funds. That is one thing. Maybe we have to use a Federal tax structure. I suggest the Federal tax structure is awfully burdened right now and it is a pretty weak reed and we might better pay a little more attention to our local property tax which I think is an excellent tax and certainly has borne the brunt of this great expansion in the area of education and welfare since World War II, and also again in the private sector. That is

one area.

The other area is this one of standards and that is the one I am most concerned with because in an area that is moving forward, where we still have to experiment and find out which is best, I like the way Justice Brandeis put it, 48 State laboratories to test out ideas, and as soon as you impose the central standard, and maybe it is necessary, you stop the innovation.

Secretary RIBICOFF. I think the problem you have here, Mr. Curtis, is this, and I do not mean you personally. Congress has charged this Department with the efficient and effective administration of these laws. Frankly, I wish that the Federal Government was not in it, but it is to the extent of over $2 billion, which is a lot of money.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Secretary, let me assure you that I could not agree more that when we do use Federal funds, Congress has an obligation to be sure that they are spent along certain guidelines; and much as we might want to free them up and provide for State and local innovation, and so on, we have to put guidelines on; and again another reason why I am very hesitant to use the Federal tax structure as a method of getting money into this field, because of this very restriction that we have to impose but I do not ban that.

I say that maybe these problems need it. On page 15, where you go into this business of training welfare workers, I am interested in knowing what we are doing now in the way of training welfare workers. I am sure you have studies on that, how many people we have in there, how many graduates are we getting each year, and how many schools, how much money is going in there?