My belief is that the testimony to be presented later by representatives of the American Public Welfare Association, of which I am a member of the policy committee and a member of the Executive Committee of the National Council of State Administrators, will cover the special emphasis upon individual sections of the bill in which public welfare administrators are interested.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, my name is Patrick A. Tompkins; I am 55 years of age; and for 29 years I have been a public welfare administrator at the local and State jurisdictions of government in two States-the State of New York and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I am currently, and have been for 17 years, commissioner of public welfare for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I am authorized by His Excellency Gov. John A. Volpe of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to inform you, Mr. Chairman and members of your honorable committee, that he has reviewed this testimony and that it has his full and unqualified endorsement. Governor Volpe is and has been for some time concerned with the scores of thousands of aged, handicapped, and dependent persons and families whose economic, emotional, medical, and mental problems, plus a variety of environmental social ills have contributed to the expenditure of billions of dollars nationally and in excess of $160 million within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the last several years.

Both as a chief executive of an industrial and urbanized State and as a successful businessman, Governor Volpe has a strong conviction that such large governmental expenditures should represent an investment in human resources which eventually produce dividends in productive and self-sufficient citizens.

H.R. 10032 charts a new and long-overdue network of integrated road systems to support and stengthen the primary and most important natural resources of our national life-the individual and the family. Stable, purposefully directed and religiously conditioned American and immigrant families were the raw, as well as the polished intrinisic strengths in the rapid growth and development of the United States during an agrarian economy and the first industrial revolution. The patriarchal, closely knit, ethnic neighborhoods and communities of the 19th century and the first four decades of the 20th century have disappeared. We are now at the threshold of the second industrial revolution which, of itself, is creating and accelerating a variety of economic, social, health, and welfare problems novel to the United States of America.

In time of great prosperity, a great population increase and the greatest number of employees in our history, we still have large pockets of able unemployed individuals. Automation is rapidly displacing both the unskilled and the semiskilled; in many instances, even the skilled artisan particularly of advanced age is no longer essential to industrial production.

H.R. 10032 is a reaffirmed declaration of national responsibility to provide the tools and the leadership for constructive services to families and the individuals whose latent talents cannot be completely fulfilled by the individual or the family working by itself. The legislation is concerned both with protection and conservation of the dignity of the individual and the stability and strength of the family.

Its primary purpose is to assist by means of social and allied services the personal rehabilitation of individuals and families who are the innocent victims of our changing economy, our mobile population, and the phenomena of suburbia and automation.

National leadership for prevention of dependency and a construetive attack and treatment of the causes of dependency have been the continuing cry of health and welfare leaders, State and local administrators of public welfare and health programs during the 16 postwar years. Public welfare administrators welcome the administrative course and new emphasis on rehabilitation, prevention, positive services, and training both of staff and recipients already charted by the Secretary and the staff of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

H.R. 10032 implements by law this broad program of prevention, service, rehabilitation, and training wherein the administrative discretion of the Secretary and the Department is either delimited or not clearly spelled out for latitude in administrative action.

The financial commitments implied in the proposed legislation are minimal when contrasted with the billions of dollars currently expended in the Federal, State, local partnership on the several public assistance categories. The emphasis upon skilled social services and the purchase of supporting services from existing resources carries an incentive for such administrative costs, including the cost of training, by adding 25 percent Federal matching funds for the introduction of and continuation of such services and training.

A much-needed, long-range goal in the extension and improvement of services to children and special recognition of the problems of day care for working mothers is set forth in section 102 of the bill wherein progressive increases in the authorization of money to be appropriated for each of the next 7 fiscal years is requested. Special provisions for protection of children in day-care facilities is a realistic recognition of the fact that there are millions of working mothers in our employed population and that the children of such mothers should receive substitute care in only approved and high standard facilities. Public welfare administrators welcome the subsections under section 102 which command the coordination of our current child-welfare programs with the public-assistance category of aid to dependent children, so that such services will be equally available to all children irrespective of problem, circumstances, or degree of need. Both the administrative emphases of the Secretary and the Department and the legislative change in title IV of the Social Security Act which, for the first time, publicly acknowledges the family as the strength of our society and the obvious target of our skills and resources is to be commended.

Both for immediate and long-range purposes in the national struggle to prevent dependency and to assist each individual and family to realize to their productive fullness their God-given talents, sections 105 and 106 of H.R. 10032 give public emphasis and support to a basic philosophy of both private and public agency social workers. The national policy inherent in these sections will stimulate and encourage the several States into new, imaginative and creative planning with and for our disadvantaged families and individuals.

Finally, although many States, including the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, have for some time experimented with one or more of the administrative and legislative proposals set forth by the Secretary and the Department in establishing a new focus and new emphasis in public welfare administration, the broad purposes and objectives of H.R. 10032 establish as a national public policy both the leadership and the ways and means for a broad revision of the emphasis of the last quarter century; a concentration of our skills and resources upon the family as the most important segment of American society; and a recognition of the rights of each family and each individual to the assistance and resources available in his community to assist him to a self-supporting, productive station with dignity and status in his community.

His Excellency, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Honorable John A. Volpe, sincerely urges favorable action by your committee on this legislation.

Mr. KING (presiding). Does that complete your statement, Commissioner Tompkins?

Mr. TOMPKINS. Yes, sir.

Mr. KING. The committee wishes to thank you for the benefit of your views. Are there any questions? Mr. Burke will inquire.

Mr. BURKE, Mr. Tompkins, is Massachusetts ready to implement this program if it is passed into law?

Mr. TOMPKINS. I do not think any State is completely ready as of this moment.

Mr. BURKE. May I put it this way? Have you made any plans to implement the program?

Mr. TOMPKINS. Yes. For 3 months our staff has been working on a variety of approaches, including agreements with the State department of education for full utilization of their adult education classes for the training or retraining or the equipping of the adult employables who have no skills or who have latent skills that have not been used for many years, to equip them for productive employment.

We are also in the process of socially diagnosing our aid-to-dependent-children cases with some emphasis upon those mothers who have only one high school or adolescent child for purposes of stimulating that type of mother; that is, with the one single child in the family of high school age, to return to these adult education classes, because if she waits to reemploy herself, or to find new employment, until the child has reached age 18 she is 3 to 6 years older than she is today. She is 3 to 6 years more removed from the skills that she had at the time that she was single and did not have family responsibilities to carry. We have also developed for immediate use within the next month a crash training program of our social workers, in the aid-to-dependent-children program particularly of 40 hours of institute work, and set up a requirement for a segregation of the family cases within the public assistance categories as one administrative unit, and the adult individual caseloads of disability assistance, old age assistance, and unattached general relief persons; plus medical assistance to the aged as a second administrative unit.

That is broadly what we have been working on since November 15, 1961.

Mr. BURKE. You honestly feel that this program will help these people help themselves?

Mr. TOMPKINS. I have no doubt about it. I think it has been long overdue. As I indicated in my prepared statement, public welfare leadership in the States and in the cities and counties of America have been crying for and hoping for national public policy and national leadership in this entire field of intensive social services, rehabilitation, retraining, and reequipping individuals who are basically employable for productive employment; plus protection of children.

Mr. BURKE. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions of Mr. Tompkins?

Mr. TOMPKINS. I would like to thank the committee, Mr. Chairman, through you, for the courtesies extended to me over the years. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tompkins, we are always very pleased to have you before this committee and so today on this subject.

Mr. TOMPKINS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lourie. Mr. Lourie, you have been with us before, but for purposes of this record will you again identify yourself?

STATEMENTS OF NORMAN V. LOURIE, PRESIDENT, AND WAYNE VASEY, IN BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS; ACCOMPANIED BY RUDOLPH T. DANSTEDT, DIRECTOR OF WASHINGTON BRANCH OFFICE

Mr. LOURIE. Yes, sir. My name is Norman Lourie. I am president of the National Association of Social Workers. I am employed as the deputy secretary of public welfare in the Commonwealth of Pennsyl vania, and I have with me on my left Dr. Wayne Vasey, who is the dean of the School of Social Work at Rutgers University, who was a consultant to the Ad Hoc Committee on Public Welfare which Secre tary Ribicoff appointed in 1961 to advise him on public welfare programs; and also Mr. Rudolph Danstedt, who is the Washington representative of the association.

The CHAIRMAN. We are pleased to have you gentlemen with us today also. You are recognized.

Mr. LOURIE. Thank you, sir. I just wanted to comment that the national association, as some of you may know, is a national professional association of approximately 34,000 people who work in governmental and voluntary Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, and nonsectarian health and welfare agencies.

We have long supported what the President called in his recent welfare message the "rehabilitative road" to the alleviation and prevention of economic and social poverty

We would like to call the attention, and we do call the attention of the committee in our written statement, to the fact that we presented to both major political parties for inclusion in their platform our own notions as to what their platforms ought to be, and we were pleased to note that the platforms of both parties were addressed quite significantly to improvements in the public welfare program.

The 1960 Democratic platform, for example, stated that

The Federal Government, which now shares the cost of aid to some of these (i.e., persons in need), should share in all, and benefits should be made available without regard to residence.

The Republican platform the same year advocated, and I quote:

A single, Federal assistance grant to each State for aid to needy persons rather than dividing such grants into specific categories.

We believe that H.R. 10032 fulfills these promises in part through its sections 136 and 137, which reduce or eliminate residence, in title XVI, which provides an option for combining the old age assistance, the disability, and the medical aid to the aged into a single State plan. Under the heading "Child welfare," the Democratic platform, you will recall, promised, and I quote:

The child welfare program and other services already established under the Social Security Act should be expanded.

The bill provides such expansion not only for increasing child welfare authorization to $50 million by fiscal 1969-that is in section 102-but also provides for day-care services in its section 527. I would like to ask now for the opportunity to have Mr. Vasey present his part of our statement.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Vasey.

Mr. VASEY. As indicated earlier by Mr. Lourie, I did serve as consultant to the Ad Hoc Committee which advised the Secretary on recommended changes in public welfare laws. This group included 25 persons, all with extensive experience in social welfare.

This group worked without any per diem or travel expenses from Government, and they took this assignment very seriously and did examine and recommend upon a number of issues. The report was presented to the Secretary early in September 1961, and I understand that a copy of this report has been placed by the Secretary in the record, and the report contains these recommendations.

We made a number of recommendations which we felt would enhance and strengthen the public welfare program, a number which we are pleased to find are included in this bill, or at least some of the provisions. I will not go over these in detail, these points of similarity, but I would note the deduction of earnings of an employed child in an ADC family should not be required so that there would be greater incentive.

Also the amendments of 1961 providing for ADC to needy children of unemployed parents, extension of this measure was another one. Research and demonstration projects to deal with the problems of illegitimacy, desertion, and other forms of social maladjustment, some provisions recommendations were made to that effect also by the committee.

I want to indicate at this point that our association endorses H.R. 9299 introduced by Mr. Mills last September. This bill authorizes the Children's Bureau to provide grants, execute contracts, and provide other arrangements for research related to maternal and child health services and crippled children's services. It provides essentially the same authority, these sections of the title, that was granted to child welfare services last year.