UNIFORM STATEWIDE STANDARDS

On January 1, 1952, the Federal Security Agency, now the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), put into effect the requirement of uniform statewide standards of assistance referred to in the preceding section IV. The temporary State commission to study federally aided welfare programs (known as the Kelley Commission) was established by the legislature in 1951 to resist this. (See commission's reports-legislative documents Nos. 30, 28, and 7, of 1952, 1953, and 1954, respectively.) The Commission, largely due to the work of the counsel to the State department of social welfare, clearly demonstrated that this Federal imposition was without any legal sanction since Congress had refused to authorize it. However, the Federal agency usurped the authority, safe in the knowledge that the States would yield in order to avoid losing Federal funds pending protracted litigation. The Kelley Commission was successful in gaining a few concessions but lost the major points. From the imposition of these uniform standards, little known to the general public, stem many of the much publicized welfare abuses. It is only natural that some people who know their "rights" will take advantage of policies and standards designed for uniform mass application. In addition, such standards, even though some variances are permitted (thanks to the Kelley Commission's work), also serve to impede rehabilitation. This is so because the extra help and guidance required by those who have the drive to benefit thereby places too heavy an administrative burden on already overworked and understaffed local welfare departments and their field workers.

The imposition of uniform standards is an outstanding example of the administrative weakness resulting from Federal Government participation in public welfare programs. As has been pointed out, before such participation by Washington, there are far more local discretion in providing grants on the basis of individual need and condition-far more effective direct aid on a personal basis which looked toward rehabilitation.

Long and serious thought should be given by leaders of the State government to this question. Broadly speaking, that question is: Are the people of this State as a whole benefiting from taking Federal dollars under the conditions imposed?

NEGOTIATION OF FEDERAL-STATE DIFFERENCES

Pending any other changes in the present Federal-State welfare relationship, it is considered urgent by this subcommittee that immediate action be taken toward lessening Federal controls. Accordingly, negotiations should be sought and carried on with the encouragement, guidance, and leadership of the State's chief executive, in keeping with New York's acknowledged leadership in the public welfare field, for the purpose of gaining relaxation of Federal requirements where they seriously impinge on the traditional social welfare pattern of this State.

This is no mere formal suggestion. The Permanent Senate Subcommittee on Investigations (McClellan Committee) is currently conducting an investigation of HEW procedures. Other industrial States, with a tradition of sound public welfare systems, also are not satisfied with Federal-State relations. New York, with her traditional leadership, could exert heavy influence with the Federal Department (HEW).

As the Kelley Commission repeatedly recommended (leg. doc. No. 30 of 1952 at p. 21, leg. doc. No. 28 of 1953 at p. 16, and leg. doc. No. 7 of 1954 at p. 10) there should be a method by which a State may test in court its rights to receive Federal grants-in-aid, under the federally aided assistance programs, before the Federal Department can cut off funds from a State.

Such a method would render State administrators less helpless before threats of loss of Federal aid, threats often based on administrative decisions of doubtful legality. To gain this end alone would be worth staking the leadership of New York in conjunction with other States.

It is emphasized that this is not a partisan approach. The same doctrinaire, professional, overscientific thinking which leaves little room for on-the-spot local judgment prevails in Federal public assistance policies today as when they were first initiated. The same sort of thinking, furthermore, is all too prevalent among professionals in the State administration. It is for this reason that policy determination and followthrough by the nonprofessional board of social welfare, with the close and continuing encouragement and

cooperation of the State leadership, is vitally necessary. Otherwise, we can only sit supinely by and become no more than an agent of the Federal Government in the whole field of public welfare. This would be in opposition to the view held by many-including ourselves-that public assistance, as distinguished from social security, is not a proper area for Federal activity.

The Report of the Advisory Council on Public Assistance to Congress (Leg. Doc. No. 93, 86th Cong.), dated December 31, 1959, contained a significant viewpoint by two members of the Council. It is proposed to resolve the confusion of joint Federal-State participation in social welfare programs in the following way. The Federal Government would wholly take over old-age assistance and other social security type categories. The Federal Government would withdraw entirely from strictly public assistance programs such as ADC. At the time proposed, this would have left the actual allocation of Federal funds among the States about as it was. Many of the complexities, irritations, and problems of joint responsibility would have been eliminated. The States then would have been free to administer public assistance programs on the basis of need, as determined by those in a position to appraise it at firsthand, free of the sliderule approach now found in the administration of "categories."

As previously indicated, the administration of public assistance by "categories" is a cause of continuous criticism because of the added burden imposed on local officials. It is an artificial way of handling public assistance but will probably have to continue as long as joint Federal-State participation continues. Turning over some programs in toto to the Federal Government and others to the States, however, should be pursued as the start of serious effort to work out more practical Federal-State relations.

If such efforts are not undertaken, Federal control will become even more dominant. In this case, consideration should be given to abandoning our thin remnant of local responsibility under State supervision. Under the traditional concept of local self-government, this used to work reasonably well, since at that time there was local responsibility and authority in fact. If it is to be diluted further, then it might be simpler, less complex, and less expensive if the State department of social welfare, as the Federal agent, simply took over the work of issuing public assistance checks by completely standardized mass methods.

STRUCTURE OF BOARD AND DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE

The Governor appoints the 15 members of the State board of social welfare. It is the legal head of the department of social welfare. Its function is that of a policymaking and supervisory body. Its chief administrative officer is the commissioner of social welfare, whose duty is to execute the board's policies and rules.

In theory, the board and the department are limited to guiding and supervising administration by the local public welfare departments. However, as pointed out, Federal requirements and the tendency toward standardization have led the State department more and more into detailed control of local departments. The board itself serves an important function as a balance wheel. It affords a forum to private groups and local officials for expression of their views—often in opposition to the specialized, standardized approach of professional personnel in the department. Private agencies have a definite and important function in welfare, in which they should be protected and encouraged. They are subject to certain rules of the board, and their work brings them into constant contact with public welfare administration. The board, oriented to private as well as public welfare activities, is in a better position to settle differences between private agencies and professional public administrators than the department, which is oriented to the public approach. Furthermore, strong local officials, who exert some responsibility independent of the State department, also need a tribunal capable of detached judgment.

One may ask why should the State department of social welfare be headed by a board any more than any other State department. The reason is because the State does not have the responsibility and authority actually to administer welfare programs, such as public assistance, which is a local function.

The shortcomings of administration and leadership in the board and the department as pointed up by the Cresap report and emphasized in section III of this discussion should not be attributed to the board-department structure. It is true that the board has remained somewhat aloof and withdrawn over the years. It is also true that, over the years, the consultation and guidance which must come from the executive and legislative branches has been sporadic. Per

sonnel problems exist. No public relations approach has been found to bring the whole welfare picture into graphic focus, to bring its complexities and problems home to the public. Yet, sweeping changes are regarded as neither practicable nor desirable.

Before proceeding with any drastic changes in the board-department relationship, it should be encouraged and helped to function properly. Drastic changes could lead to more problems than would be solved.

This subcommittee, therefore, offers the following summary of its findings concerning the structure of the board and department of social welfare, together with a plan it recommends to strengthen weaknesses.

I. Present organization

Over the years, there have been only sporadic liaison and exchange of views between the board of social welfare and the executive and legislative branches. The 15-member board is the legal head of the department of social welfare which carries out policy made by the board. The members are unsalaried.

All members of the board are appointed by the Governor for staggered terms; 1 member is from each of the 10 judicial districts and the remaining 5 at large. One member is designated by the Governor to serve at his pleasure as chair

man.

This organizational pattern-Governor to board to department and on down to the local welfare districts-has raised questions as to whether a more streamlined chain of command should be established.

It is believed that the chief weaknesses are not so much the structure as (1) lack of close and continuing liaison with the legislative and executive branches of government; (2) weak public relations; (3) unwieldy size of the board; (4) need for more vigorous and determined leadership among personnel of both board and department; and (5) providing the board with some tools it needs to function properly.

It is believed that this can be attained without complicating the situation by further dividing or fragmenting responsibility.

II. The following plan is recommended

(a) By statute, reduce the membership of the board to nine by eliminating the requirement of appointing one member from each judicial district.

(b) This could be effected by terminating the terms of the presently serving 15 members at once. (This is legally permissible.) Or the reduction could be made gradually, as current terms expire.

(c) A person of outstanding executive talent and drive, preferably with public relations experience, should fill the position of chairman of the board.

(d) Although the board chairmanship should not necessarily be a full-time job, we recommend that this position be reasonably compensated, considering the time required and qualifications needed.

Such a plan, it is felt, would be a means of tightening up social welfare legislative-executive relations, putting drive into the board and department and improving public relations. In this way, these objectives could be achieved by strengthening the board and protecting its important function as a balance wheel between private welfare, the State department, and the local districts. The board also should serve as a deterrent to certain types of doctrinaire thinking among career personnel.

This plan underscores the major findings of this subcommittee that vigorous, determined leadership is vital if anything is to be done as a start toward meeting the problems of public welfare today. At best, reorientation and visible results will take considerable time. Without strong and systematic leadership, together with cooperation at all levels, they will not happen at all.

ILLINOIS PUBLIC AID COMMISSION,
Chicago, Ill., February 13, 1962.

Mr. LEO H. IRWIN,

Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means,
New House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. IRWIN: In accordance with the invitation extended by Chairman Mills in his February 1 press release, announcing public hearings on H.R. 10032, "The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962,” I am submitting herewith, for consideration of the committee and incorporation in the printed record of its hear

ings, a statement setting out the position of the Illinois Public Aid Commission on this bill and its recommendations for certain changes which we feel are necessary if the bill is to accomplish its declared objectives.

The minimum number of three copies is being furnished with this letter. However, we do desire distribution to the press and the interested public. For that purpose, the additional 60 copies you require will be mimeographed and forwarded to you tomorrow.

Will you express to Chairman Mills and the members of the committee our very great appreciation of the opportunity given us to file this statement in lieu of a personal appearance.

Most sincerely,

PETER W. CAHILL, Executive Secretary.

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING H.R. 10032, THE PUBLIC WELFARE AMENDMENTS OF 1962, SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 13, 1962, BY PETER W. CAHILL, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ILLINOIS PUBLIC AID COMMISSION

Your committee is to be commended for its promptness in calling public hearings on H.R. 10032, the Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 and for urging the submittal of written testimony by persons and organizations unable to appear personally before you.

This statement is submitted for your consideration, and for incorporation in the printed record of your hearings, in accordance with that invitation.

Nearly one-half million people of the State of Illinois will be directly affected by the results of your deliberations on the bill before you. Countless others will be indirectly affected. We are therefore most grateful for the opportunity you have given us to register with you our position on this bill and to offer our suggestions for changes which we believe are necessary if the bill is to achieve fully the purposes declared in its preamble.

The Illinois Public Aid Commission, which I represent, has responsibility for providing in Illinois all of the public aid and social welfare services which would be affected by this bill, with the exception of those services for children which are covered in title V of the Federal act. In Illinois, the latter services are currently discharged by the State department of mental health, this State being one of two atypical States which has not consolidated title V services in the State agency which discharges all other public social welfare functions.

The commission is composed of seven representative citizens who are appointed by the Governor and who serve without pay, plus three State officers, serving ex officio-the State treasurer, the auditor of public accounts, and the State director of finance. The commission has responsibility under Illinois law for determining standards and the overall policies under which the Illinois public aid and social welfare programs are carried out in this State by a staff which the writer heads as executive secretary for the commission.

Currently the commission is composed of Chairman C. Virgil Martin, Western Springs, president and director of Carson Pirie Scott & Co.; James M. Cleary, Winnetka, lawyer and former advertising executive of the Chicago Tribune: Mrs. Ivan A. Elliott, Sr., Carmi, civil leader; Samuel A. Gilpin, Ottawa, president, Illinois Office Supply Co.; Samuel A. Goldsmith, Chicago, executive vice president, the Jewish Federation of Chicago; Jefferson G. Ish, Jr., vice chairman, board of directors, Supreme Life Insurance Co. of America; William L. Rutherford, Peoria, lawyer; Michael J. Howlett, Chicago, auditor of public accounts; Francis S. Lorenz, Chicago, State treasurer; and James A. Ronan, Chicago, State director of finance.

You will observe that this membership provides the State of Illinois with policy guidance and control which is not limited to professional administrative staff or to the philosophical bias of any single profession or vocation.

The Commission is already on record as endorsing in principle, the redirection and reforms in Federal policy for the public social welfare services announced for the Kennedy administration by the Honorable Abraham Ribicoff, Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, prior to the introduction of H.R. 10032. This endorsement, together with our specific proposals for changes in the Federal law, are contained in a letter addressed to Secretary Ribicoff under date of January 19, 1962. A copy is appended as an attachment to this statement for incorporation as a part of that statement in the printed record of your committee's hearings on H.R. 10032.

It will be clear to the committee from this letter to Secretary Ribicoff that Illinois recognizes as essential to our national strength and well-being continuation of the nationwide system of social welfare services which the States have provided for some 30 years in partnership with the Federal Government. By establishing an instrumentality for aiding the personal victims of the many and profound changes occurring in our society and economy, our State-Federal social welfare services have not only met the humanitarian obligations of a people committed to the supreme importance of the human person. These services have also fostered the continued growth of our free enterprise economy and enabled us to contain within manageable bounds those disruptive forces within and without our country that have elsewhere created severe social and political disorder. Illinois, however, believes, as also indicated in the letter to the Secretary, that these services must now be reorganized and redirected to place greater emphasis on prevention and reduction of dependency and social maladjustment, if they are to become effective instruments for meeting today's conditions.

The bill before you makes a substantial beginning toward the reorganization and redirection of these vital public services. We therefore wish to register here our endorsement, in principle, of the bill, in particular the clear emphasis given in the first section of part A to preventive and rehabilitative services by the Federal Department; (2) inclusion in the coverage services which the States may provide to prevent dependency before it occurs and return to dependency of former recipients; and (3) stimulation of development of these preventive and rehabilitative services by elevating the Federal share of administrative costs for such services from 50 to 75 percent, including the training of personnel employed or preparing for employment in the State and its local agencies administering the public social welfare services.

We also welcome and endorse, as a stimulant to imaginative experimentation with new policies and procedures which might improve services and keep them in tune with changing needs and circumstances, the provision made in section 123 of the bill authorizing the waiver of State plan requirements for experimental pilot and demonstration projects where such waiver is likely to promote the objectives of the various programs.

We do, however, question certain provisions of the bill which we believe will impede rather than advance the development of a unified and comprehensive program throughout the country, and certain other provisions which we believe introduce new inflexibilities in the Federal law which will hamstring the States in developing realistic as well as socially sound policies and procedures in the light of their particular needs and conditions.

The provisions which we question are the following:

1. Overemphasis on children's services vis-a-vis services for adults

We recognize the universal appeal of children in need of help if their full potential for development as our future citizens is to be realized, and the particular urgency of this concern in the light of the forces within our society that have led to the increasing incidence of family disorganization (reflected in our ADC program) and children presenting special problems of emotional disturbance or delinquency (reflected in our child welfare program). We believe, however, that the bill before you lays an unfortunate and unjustified foundation for intensifying the development of different philosophies and administrative structures for the children's services instead of fostering the long-overdue consolidation of all the public social services under a single administration at State, Federal, and local levels, thus providing a true family-centered approach embracing the adults as well as the children who may comprise the family grouping, and conserving public funds hitherto wasted on duplicating or overlapping administrative facilities.

This unfortunate base for separatism, instead of consolidation and unification, is laid in the bill by providing for mere coordination instead of consolidation of the services for children in the Nation's largest child welfare program-the ADC program—and the child welfare services provided under title V of the Federal Act. This is then given further stress by the optional plan offered the States in the proposed new title XVI for combining into one program aid and services for the aged, the medically indigent aged, the blind, and the disabled, with Federal aid for the medical needs of the blind and the disabled elevated to the payment levels previously authorized for the indigent aged as an inducement to acceptance of the option.