Secretary RIBICOFF. Just to give you some figures, of the sum total of all the welfare workers, of the 34,539, 18 percent have had graduate social work study of one sort or another; 42 percent have had 2 years or more; 1 year, less than 2, 4.3 percent; less than 1 year, 9.2 percent; no graduate social work at all, 82 percent. Mr. CURTIS. I guess we have a lot of sort of on-the-job trained people, have we not? Is there anyway you can evaluate their competence? Secretary RIBICOFF. You might be interested, Mr. Curtis, to know that in one of the administrative rulings the Department is requiring that each State welfare department set up within its own department a training program of an inservice training where they even start training their own, and that is seven. I think you and I are in agreement. You might be interested in this administrative ruling: The central core of proper and efficient administration is personnel-adequate in number and appropriately trained to do the job required. With the changing characteristics of the public assistance caseload, and the need to emphasize more and more the preventive and rehabilitative aspects of public welfare, the existence in each State of an adequate staff development program is imperative. Each State should have a statewide staff development plan which would include both inservice training and opportunities for professional and technical education. In other words, we are asking the States to start a 5-year plan and to have at least one full-time training position in each State agency by July 1, 1962. You are not going to be able, Mr. Curtis, to suddenly get so many people. However, you do have people and there is much that could be done by bringing in a full-time training person. There might be lecturers you might bring in from each State university or school of social service, give time off to some of these employees that take extra courses, give them summers off, have periods of lectures and inservice training, and that is what we are requiring to be done internally by each State doing some of its own training to make sure it has effective personnel. Mr. CURTIS. There is one other area I know our committee will go into at least I hope it will-in considerable depth. There is one other general area in the Federal educational program now, and of course we are not talking about the professionals, but the technician, and we do need technicians in this field to assist the professionals, do we not? Secretary RIBICOFF. Yes. Mr. CURTIS. Has our Federal vocational education program geared itself in any way toward possibly assisting this manpower shortage? Secretary RIBICOFF. No; it has not in the past, and I recognize the deficiency in this field, too, Mr. Curtis, and I have appointed a committee which represents all groups in this field and which is undertaking a complete restudy of the whole vocational educational program in this country to come up with recommendations for next year in a realistic approach to what has to be done. Mr. CURTIS. I am most pleased to hear it. Incidentally, to relate it, I was very happy to sponsor and introduce a bill, along with others, which is now law, to extend vocational education to practical nursing. I think we have two problems we meet. One of our great areas of unemployment is women who come into the labor market at 45 or 50 who have had real practical experience in this kind of thing and possibly with good adult vocational education they could become excellent technicians. So we would be hitting the very labor market we need to do something with and also get people that would be well suited to move into this kind of work. I have two other questions and one will just be a breakdown for the record. However, on page 15 you go into the question of residence requirements, and I was under the impression our States had pretty generally gotten together on reciprocity agreements. How many States do we have that do not have reciprocity agreements in regard to residence? Secretary RIBICOFF. We do not have the figures of how many have reciprocity agreements, but we can supply that to you, Mr. Curtis. (The following information was supplied to the committee:) INFORMATION ON RECIPROCAL AGREEMENTS IN PUBLIC ASSISTANCE The Bureau of Family Services has summarized the latest available information on the subject of reciprocal agreements among the States in dealing with the problems of State residence requirements. Eighteen States have the authority under their law to make reciprocal agreements, of which 12 are located in the northeastern part of the United States. In half of these States, the authority to make agreements covers all four of the assistance programs (old-age assistance, aid to dependent children, aid to the blind, and aid to the permanently and totally disabled). In contrast, in two States, the authority covers but one of the State's four programs; and in four States, it covered only two programs. States with authority to make agreements are predominately States that have low residence requirements. No State has authority to enter into reciprocal agreements with all States; such agreements are made usually with a few nearby States. The following limited information about the use of authority to make reciprocal agreements is available: New Hampshire has agreements with seven States. Rhode Island has agreements with six States. Connecticut and Maine each have agreements with five States. West Virginia has agreements with three States. Vermont has agreements with two States. Pennsylvania had agreements (in 1958) with 18 States. COMPILATIONS BASED ON CHARACTERISTICS OF STATE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PLANS IN EFFECT NOVEMBER 1, 1959, WITH REVISIONS THROUGH DECEMBER 1961 Residence as an eligibility factor in old-age assistance Federal requirement: The State plan may not include any residence requirement more restrictive than the maximum in the act for old-age asssitance-5 years in the last 9 years and 1 year immediately preceding application. No durational requirement on residence (seven States): Connecticut Guam New York Virgin Islands Six months immediately preceding application (one State): Kentucky More than 1 year but different from wording of Federal act (four States): 4 Arkansas (3 of 5) Massachusetts (3 of 9) Ohio (3 of 9) Vermont (2 of 6) New Hampshire1 Oklahoma Identical or similar to wording of Federal act (19 States): Oregon Texas Washington Residence as an eligibility factor in aid to the blind Federal requirement: The State plan may not include any residence requirement more restrictive than the maximums in the act for aid to the blind: 5 years in the last 9 years and 1 year immediately preceding application. No durational residence requirement (eight States): Six months immediately preceding application (one State): Kentucky One year immediately preceding application (24 States): More than 1 year but different from wording of Federal act (five States): Identical or similar to wording of Federal act (16 States): Residence as an eligibility factor in aid to the permanently and totally disabled Federal requirement: The State plan may not include any residence requirement more restrictive than the maximum in the act for aid to the permanently and totally disabled: 5 years in the last 9 and 1 year immediately preceding the application. No durational residence requirement (9 States): Connecticut Hawaii New York Rhode Island South Carolina Virgin Islands Six months immediately preceding application (1 State): Kentucky More than 1 year but different from wording of Federal act (2 States): Arkansas (3 of 5) * Identical or similar to wording of Federal act (8 States): Vermont (2 of 6) Oklahoma No program of APTD on December 31, 1961 (4 States): Alaska Arizona Indiana (1963) Nevada Residence as an eligibility factor in aid to dependent children Federal requirement: The State plan may not include any residence requirement more restrictive than the maximums in the act for aid to dependent children: 1 year immediately preceding the application or born within 1 year imme diately preceding application if the parent or other relative with whom the child is living has resided in the State for 1 year immediately preceding the birth of the child. No durational residence requirement (10 States): Six months immediately preceding application (one State): Kentucky. Identical or similar to wording of Federal act (43 States-all others): FEE Florida Illinois Indiana Iowa 3 8 Kansas Maine1 Nevada 8 1 New Hampshire 1 Ohio 8 Vermont' Virginia 1 Reciprocal agreements may be made with other States to waive or alter residence requirements for nonresident applicants who are otherwise eligible for public assistance. For nonresident applicant who is otherwise eligible, residence requirement is based upon the corresponding provision of the State in which applicant has residence. 3 These States have special modifications; refer to published document. 4 Arkansas: "3 years during the 5 years immediately preceding application, and last 1 year continuously (legal) or, 5 years of the past 9 years immediately preceding application and 1 year immediately preceding application (administrative)." Special provision to reduce or waive residence requirement when blindness developed while applicant was a resident of the State (23 States). Special provisions reducing requirement for blind minors. Special provision for waiving requirement when disability results from an accident or condition occurring after recipient became a resident of the State. 8 Payments for assistance may be made in behalf of an unborn child. Source of information: Bureau of Family Service (SSA). |