a member of the association's committee on public welfare policy, I am representing that organization here today.

The American Public Welfare Association is the national organization of State and local public welfare departments and of individuals engaged in public welfare at all levels of government. Its membership includes Federal, State, and local welfare administrators, welfare workers, and board members from every jurisdiction.

On the basis of discussions and recommendations in our councils, committees, and the conferences we hold throughout the country, the association's board of directors, which represents all parts of the Nation, adopts official policy positions on issues of current significance. These policy positions govern the association's testimony on proposed legislation relevant to the field of public welfare, and we are asking that the association's Federal legislative objectives for 1962 be entered as part of the record of these hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection they will be at the conclusion of your remarks.

Dr. WINSTON. Thank you, sir. The association, through evaluation of experience in the administration of these programs, and knowledge of the needs of the families and communities they are designed to serve, had identified a number of steps that might be taken to increase their effectiveness and efficiency. These are set forth in the association's "Federal Legislative objectives" which are attached to this statement, and which I should like to introduce as a part of the record.

With reference to the present proposals I should like to call special attention to items (a) and (c) in the preamble of these objectives, which state that:

(a) A democracy has the special obligation to assure to all persons in the Nation full and equitable opportunity for family life, healthful living, and maximum utilization of their potentialities.

(c) Public welfare programs should be family centered and should provide effective services to all who require them, including financial assistance and preventive, protective, and rehabilitative services, and these services should be available to all persons without regard to residence, settlement, citizenship requirements, or circumstances of birth.

The bill now before your committee, Mr. Chairman, proposes a number of changes in the public assistance and child welfare titles of the Social Security Act, which, in their overall effect, would bring about some rather substantial changes in the content and administration of these programs.

While they would not constitute a major departure from the major outlines of the public welfare system as it is now established, these changes would bring a new emphasis on the preventive and rehabilitative potentialities which are inherent in the public welfare program. Essentially they would be further steps in the progression of constructive measures which Congress has taken in improving the system in response to changing needs and conditions.

Through this process of continuing congressional review and amendment, together with the support of State and local governments and the dedicated efforts of the administrative agencies, the

public welfare program stands as a humanitarian achievement in which our Nation can take pride.

It is the view of the American Public Welfare Association that the present proposals would contribute significantly to the capabilities of public welfare agencies to provide the assistance and services which are required in 1962 and in the years immediately ahead.

From the passage of the Social Security Act, and even before, this association has urged the development of preventive and rehabilitative services on a sound professional basis as an integral part of public welfare programs. We have supported this view from time to time before your committee, and we wish again to express our gratification for the actions you have taken on measures to

help maintain and strengthen family life and to help ** parents or relatives to attain the maximum self-support and personal independence * * *. The basic purpose of public assistance categories from their beginning has been to provide assistance to needy individuals and families. This will obviously continue to be true. The routine provision of financial assistance to individuals and families falling within an eligibility formula, however, fails to take into account the many complex factors which may have contributed to their dependency and which, in many instances, could be alleviated or resolved through the use of appropriate services and facilities.

Although the value of preventive and rehabilitative services in public welfare has been long recognized and repeatedly demonstrated, these services have not yet been built up to a level which even begins to approach their potential effectiveness. Some States and localities have made more progress in this direction than others, and it might be argued that they could all do more. Under the existing FederalState-local system of public welfare, however, the tone and tempo, as well as the quality, of program advances are determined in large measure by Federal legislation and leadership. For that reason, the proposals now being considered take on an added dimension of importance.

What is most urgently needed is a clear declaration of policy, set forth in Federal statute, which places a major emphasis on prevention and rehabilitation. The public welfare agencies then have a solid platform upon which to develop services and facilities necessary to accomplish that objective.

This is the central purpose of the amendments recommended in the present bill. As I have indicated earlier, this is consistent with the Federal legislative objectives which have been adopted formally by the board of directors of our association.

Among the specific proposals in this bill we attach great importance to the authorization of funds for the training of persons who would provide services to families with children, as well as the proposal to authorize States to pay for the costs of training under the increased matching formula for services.

The acute shortage of personnel qualified to provide services through public welfare agencies is unquestionably the major obstacle to overcome in attaining the objectives of prevention and rehabilitation as projected in this bill. In fact, there have always been a great many vacancies for qualified personnel in the public welfare agencies, and there is no doubt that much more could have been accomplished,

even without these proposed amendments, if the personnel had been available.

Therefore, we would select these training features for the highest priority. At the same time, it should be recognized that it will take several years before the impact of these training programs will attain their maximum usefulness, because, you know, it takes 2 years normally of graduate training and then about another year of work back in the field before people are at their maximum usefulness.

It is not possible to predict how many public welfare recipients will be enabled to leave the assistance rolls through increased services, and it may be that the results can never be precisely measured. It is known, however, that skilled counseling service is often effective in keeping families together, and in restoring families after a parent has deserted.

Day-care facilities for children, vocational training opportunities, and realistic budgeting of the costs of holding a job, can enable some ADC parents to take employment without neglecting their children. However, if the welfare agency does not see a family until after the father has deserted, it is too late for prevention. And if the caseworker does not have the time or the skill or the resources to help a mother prepare for employment, she may continue to receive ADC at a cost much greater than the cost of the training or guidance she needs. However much or little preventive and rehabilitative services result in a net cash saving in assistance costs, they can be justified by their accomplishments in strengthening the fabric of family life, and in helping children to become productive and responsible citizens. It is also worth noting that in view of the present level of expenditures for public assistance the restoration of a relatively small proportion of families to self-support would offset the cost of the present proposals.

Separation of the costs of administration and services, and an increase in the Federal share for services as proposed in this bill, would give a further impetus to the attainment of the objectives of prevention and rehabilitation. The present method of charging all costs to either assistance or administration reflects unfavorably on those agencies that make the greatest effort to provide services, since expanded services are reported as increased administrative costs and may be interpreted as implying inefficient administration.

A truer picture would be given by identifying separately expenditures for assistance, administration, and services, as H.R. 10032 would do, and it would not mislead the public and the legislative bodies in their evaluation of the progressive agencies.

Along with qualified personnel and fiscal support there are also a number of other adjustments and resources that are needed in order to enable the public welfare agencies to give full implementation to the objectives set forth in this bill. Of primary importance is the need for a high degree of coordination among the various specialized services, under both public and private auspices, so that they can be utilized to maximum effectiveness.

One of the most fruit ful possibilities in this respect lies in bringing about a closer working relationship between public assistance and child welfare. While these two programs are usually administered by a single agency at both the State and local levels, there are inherent

differences in their purpose and approach which make difficult their close integration.

An important difference is that as a rule public assistance workers have large caseloads; they have little or no professional training; and even when they have the competence they do not have enough time to spend on services beyond the determination of financial eligibility. Child welfare workers usually have smaller caseloads (though often still too large); they usually have some professional training; and the central focus of their activities is on service. This bill would require States to coordinate the services of the child welfare program and those provided through aid to dependent children. Increased emphasis on services in ADC increases the feasibility of such coordination, and can be expected to improve the overall level of both programs.

As a logical corollary to improved coordination the bill proposes a long-term plan for strengthening and improving child welfare services. The grant to States for this program under title V of the Social Security Act have been relatively small in comparison with those provided for under other titles of the act, but they have been of inestimable value in stimulating and supporting the development of public child welfare services throughout the country.

Without question, these funds have been a major factor in building up the supply (small though it is) of professionally qualified personnel in the public welfare field today.

One of the special virtues of these grants is the latitude permitted to the States in experimentation, demonstration, and program development. In order to keep pace with the growing demands for service and the expanding child population, however, a marked increase in these funds is required. Child welfare services have always been so limited in their coverage that they have of necessity devoted too much of their efforts to crisis situations without doing enough in early treatment and prevention. Your committee has periodically voted to increase the amount authorized for these grants, and increased appropriations have followed. In the last fiscal year, however, Federal grants to States for child welfare services constituted only about 6 percent of State and local expenditures for the same purpose.

In view of the special value of these grants, and of the many urgent needs, we strongly recommend the continued support of your committee for the further expansion of this program. The schedule for progressive increases in the authorization for these funds is a desirable feature in that it would enable States to plan an orderly expansion of the services which are dependent upon these funds.

The proposal for an immediate increase in the child welfare funds for the specific purpose of providing day-care services for children would encourage States to give greater attention to the development of these much-needed facilities. Working mothers have taken their place as a prominent and indispensable part of the social and economic scene of this country. When the children of working mothers can be properly cared for during the working day the likelihood of harmful effects from the mother being out of the home are greatly reduced. In most communities, however, the existing facilities for the day care of children are inadequate in capacity and, too often, below desirable standards. This shortage places a double burden on those par

ents who are unable to pay the costs of such facilities as are available and whose only option may be to work and neglect their children or to stay at home and receive support from ADC.

In accordance with the rehabilitation concept of ADC, adequate day-care facilities, especially for low-income families, are therefore a necessary resource in carrying forward a program for the preservation of family life and the prevention of dependency. It should be emphasized, however, that the development of day-care facilities should not be promoted as a means for exerting pressure on ADC mothers to take employment, but rather to facilitate employment when it is in the best interest of the family.

Consistent also with the purpose of further strengthening the aid to dependent children category as an instrument for keeping families together is the proposal for making permanent the extension of assistance to families in need because of the unemployment of a parent. This provision, which was enacted, on a temporary basis last year, has, to date, been put into effect by only 15 States, with some 222,000 needy people benefiting from this provision in December of last year. This is due in part to the fact that some State legislatures have not had an opportunity to take necessary action to participate since the amendment was enacted last year. Other States have hesitated because of the short-term nature of the extension. It is fair to assume that the number of participating States will be substantially increased if the measure is made permanent.

The present outlook is that, especially among the unskilled and the undereducated, the rate of long-term unemployment will persist at a level which will place a substantial number of families in need of assistance. These families are no less in need than those eligible because the father is absent or disabled. Moreover, simply from the view of sound public policy, it does not seem desirable to set up a provision in Federal law which authorizes assistance to those families in which the father deserts, and denies assistance when the father remains with his wife and children and faces his responsibilities as best he can.

A widespread public impression has arisen that a great many recipients of public assistance are able-bodied, employable persons who should reasonably be expected to perform useful work in return. Recommendations have, therefore, been forthcoming from various sources that these persons be required to work for the assistance they receive, and that Federal funds be made available for matching the cost of their wages.

Such a proposal is embodied in the bill now before you. While no objection can be raised to the principle that employable persons should work to earn their support, certain practical difficulties stand in the way of the large-scale adoption of such a plan in public assistance. In the first place, the number of employables receiving public assistance is considerably less than is popularly supposed. After all, most of the recipients are too old to work, they are too disabled to work, or they are children.

Secondly, the overall costs, including administration and supervision, the cost of materials and equipment, the preponderance of unskilled labor, and the high rate of work force turnover, would increase the costs of assistance for a minimal return in civic benefits. And, finally, a basic question can be raised as to how far the proper func