In New York City in 1960 only 6 percent of a public assistance caseload (15,000) were employable. Almost half of these (6,400) were employed and earning as much as they could on the labor market. Since this was not enough to support them and their families, they received supplementary public assistance. Of the remaining 9,000, 49 percent were 40 years of age and over, and 14 percent were under 21; youngsters who had left high school before graduation constituted 89 percent of the total group and almost one-half (47 percent) had not graduated from grammar school; 36 percent of the group were illiterate. Over 50 percent had at least five limitations on their securing employment, limitations such as no special skills, lack of education, physical or mental limitations, prison records, narcotics or alcohol addiction, history of mental illness, and poor work habits and attitudes. Only 2 percent of those not employed were to some degree employable. It has been the regular rule and practice all along that relief shall not be given to those who are able to work and for whom there is work available. The case for made-work relief is a dubious one unless it is in the nature of work training which is rehabilitative, not punitive. In times of prosperity and low unemployment, the desirable social policy is to return the unemployed to the labor market as rapidly as possible, perhaps through vigorous employment services and through training programs for marketable skills. In times of depression the course for Government may be a public works program and concentration on business recovery. But to establish a made-work program is to establish a program of activity that is degrading to those subjected to it. In the end it becomes a demoralizing bad joke. Hasten recruitment of social investigators by reducing qualifications.—Any plant manager knows how wasteful it is to use unqualified personnel where trained staff is necessary. A number of times it has been proposed to reduce requirements to high school graduation in order that social investigators might be recruited in greater numbers to cover caseloads more adequately. At present there are high vacancy and high turnover rates in public welfare and in many other municipal services. The public assistance caseload contains within it some of the most difficult cases known to social work. Far more effort must be turned to obtaining professionally trained staff rather than less qualified persons. It has been proposed constructively that studies be undertaken to determine what might be the appropriate background qualifications for the various responsibilities within a public welfare program. For some case situations professional skills and intensive work are necessary; for other situations less skill and less time are called for. These distinctions among cases must be recognized early and require trained judgment. Such fine diagnostic decisions would make possible the beneficial use of persons with different levels of training and with diverse talents. Certainly more than a high school education is necessary for any of the rehabilitative services. THE DIRECTION OF PROMISE However ineffective the above "panaceas" appear to be, it cannot be denied that certain improvements could be, and should be, made in our public assistance program. The accumulated evidence of professional practice in Community Service Society and in so many other agencies over many years compels the conclusion that much can be accomplished where professionally qualified or even partially trained persons are given the opportunity to apply their skills, under professional supervision to the personal problems of individuals and to the disorders of families. The situation is not hopeless, for many of those caught up in webs of troubles can be helped. Trained skill in dealing with acute need often can prevent chronic dependence. And even chronic dependence may give way to a newfound self-reliance when skilled hands grasp the problem. The significant 1956 amendment to the Social Security Act, allowing Federal reimbursement for professional services within the public welfare program, laid the foundation in law of a newly conceived public welfare service. Government continues to bear responsibility for providing the necessities for living for certain groups of destitute persons and families, and now also is authorized to bear responsibility for programs in aid of rehabilitation and restoration to free and independent living, and for prevention of chronic dependence. Rehabilitation is a comprehensive term that "* ** means more than vocational and physical restoration. It means helping families to identify and re solve their problems so that they may become independent of financial assist ance or have the extent of the need reduced. It means helping families resolve their health or emotional or relationship problems, so that they may live more normal lives, even though some may not become self-supporting ***. It means helping to strengthen family life by helping parents give better care and understanding to their children so that they, in turn may have a more normal life, develop their capacities to the maximum, and achieve personal and economic independence." ("Facts, Fallacies, and Future: A Study of the Aid to Dependent Children Program of Cook County, Ill.," conducted by Greenleigh Associates Inc., 1960, New York.) This new rehabilitative conception of public welfare is the course of hope, the direction of promise. All reasonable steps must be taken to advance the realization of this new definition of public welfare, in order that those who may be helped to a better life receive that help, and those who must remain dependent on support, for reasons of age or disability, not be bruised and broken by the fitful operations of poor organizational machinery. Need for help is not a crime, and public welfare is not a penal institution. Abatement of need must not be coupled with abasement of spirit. This all of us owe equally to those in need and to our own humanity. Endorsement of a new conception of public welfare is not cricism of those responsible for the present program. We affirm our trust in the administration of public welfare, a trust born of day-by-day experience with the program, and urge that all who seek strength and competence in public services support efforts to strengthen the public welfare program. Despite overwhelming odds public welfare leadership and administration in New York City is slowly moving toward a new day in public welfare. Their efforts command respect and deserve support by all. Part II In the light of the foregoing, we strongly support almost all the major recommendations of the report rendered January 1961 by the firm of Cresap, McCormick & Paget to the subcommittee on public welfare of the temporary State commission on coordination of State activities. This firm of management consultants was engaged by the legislative body to study the State department of social welfare. In an excellent report, this firm of consultants points out that the program of the department is now oriented basically toward "determining eligibility and making payments," and takes a limited view of its leadership role in developing and testing remedial measures to rehabilitate welfare recipients. They propose that the department give major attention to the development of improved administration at a local level and to development of services directed toward the prevention of dependence and toward rehabilitation. To achieve this, the report proposes: (1) Alteration of the State governmental setting for welfare administration, which would make it directly responsible to the Governor, place the commissioner on the same level as other cabinet officers, reduce the powers of the State board from rulemaking to advisory, thus placing the commissioner in a better position to provide leadership and to be held responsible for the direction of the State welfare program and its coordination with other State programs and services. This is the Cresap firm's plan I. (2) Institution of adequate research projects to develop techniques for use by intake staffs in the early identification of those applicants with the potential for rehabilitation. (3) Broadening and intensification of rehabilitative work already done with multiproblem families in various parts of the State, resulting in caseload reductions of 20 to 30 percent. (4) Undertaking by the State department of a study of the characteristics of ADC recipients, the causes of their dependence, factors that impede their rehabilitation and those that motivate them toward self-support. (5) Alteration and reorganization of specific administrative policies and procedures which would make possible a major focus on rehabilitation. With but a few exceptions, we have endorsed the specifically proposed recommendations of the Cresap report. We prefer the Cresap plan I proposal with respect to the alteration of the State governmental setting for welfare administration because we consider it a greater protection to the program changes that need to be made; however, our basic interest is in seeing the necessary program changes effected promptly and expeditiously. The report is seriously weakened by a lack of full comprehension of rehabilitation and by an inadequate grasp of the social work training and skills necessary to a program of rehabilitation. Rehabilitation includes vocational and physical rehabilitation, but in full meaning is broader and deeper. Despite these reservations, and others of lesser importance, the report is a major contribution to the reorganization of the State social welfare program for better services to New York State. Recently the Governor appointed a Moreland Act commission of 11 members under the chairmanship of S. Hazard Gillespie to investigate the State's public welfare organization and program. We confidently look to this commission for clear guidance in the development of our State's public welfare program, and gladly offer our services. We also commend to their attention and favorable action the penetrating study and enlightened recommendations by the Cresap firm. STATEMENT OF ILLINOIS STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN RESPECT TO H.R. 10032. PUBLIC WELFARE AMENDMENTS OF 1962, INTRODUCED BY MR. MILLS AND REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS The Illinois State Chamber of Commerce is a statewide organization with a membership of over 18,000 businessmen representing companies in 418 towns and cities in every part of the State of Illinois. These members are engaged in virtually every type of business, ranging from some of the Nation's largest corporations to many smaller corporations and the self-employed. This statement is based upon recommendations prepared in the first instance by the Illinois State Chamber's Public Assistance and Welfare Committee of 65 members having competence in the field of public assistance, and representative of the chamber's membership. Reflected herein is the considered judgment of our committee members and also the Illinois State chamber's 70-man board of directors, which has endorsed the recommendations of the public assistance and welfare committee. Viewpoints expressed herein broadly represent those of Illinois businessmen concerning two sections of H.R. 10032 on public assistance programs. SECTION 131. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN PROGRAM TO CHILDREN OF UNEMPLOYED PARENTS Recommendation.-Provisions of Public Law 87-31 making aid to dependent children available to dependent children of unemployed parents should not be extended beyond June 30, 1962. Explanation.-Prior to last May the aid to dependent children program covered only families with children deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent. Congress changed this longstanding concept by temporarily including children of unemployed parents in the ADC program to ease the financial burden on the States of high unemployment during the recent recession. Traditionally, during the last quarter century, assistance to unemployed families had been provided by the States and/or local governments through their general assistance programs. We believe that providing aid to unemployed families with children should be the responsibility of the States and/or local governments within each State under their general assistance programs. Illinois spent $9,769,768 on the ADC-unemployed program from May through January 1962, receiving $4,566,908 or 46.75 percent of this amount from the Federal Government to provide aid to a matchable load that had increased from 7,156 persons last May to 35,383 persons in January. Thirteen States, including Illinois, had this program in operation by November 1961, and the combined cost to the States and Federal Government was $33,252,725 for the first 7 months. Our tax department estimates that the taxpayers of Illinois, individual and corporate, pay approximately 7 percent of taxes required to meet Federal budget expenditures. Assuming that the Federal Government matched 48.05 percent of the cost through November, Federal costs of this program were approximately $15,977,934. Of this, $1,118,455 would have been paid by Illinois taxpayers. Actually, however, Illinois received $3,168,664 in Federal matching funds during this period, representing a net gain of $2,050,209. Notwithstanding this so-called gain, the Illinois State chamber believes that public assistance programs should be financed by the States wherever possible: that the ADC-unemployed parents program should be terminated and returned to State financing and control. This temporary program marked the initial intervention of the Federal Government last May into a portion of the general assistance programs which had always been administered and financed by State and/or local governments since the inception of the aid to dependent children program in 1935. Because the Federal Government established this new temporary program, Illinois is now involved in what we believe to be a serious and harmful sideeffect of that program. The attorney general of Illinois recently ruled that strikers and their families, who qualify under the Illinois Public Aid Commission's definition of need, are entitled to grants from the temporary aid to dependent children-unemployed parents program. This puts the State and Federal Government in the position of taking sides in a labor dispute, financing elements of one party to the dispute with funds derived from all. This the Illinois State chamber believes is contrary to the intent of the public assistance programs and contrary to the impartial role a government should pursue in such disputes. SECTION 137. ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS FOR STATES WITHOUT ANY RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS UNDER PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Recommendation.-Eligibility for grants from public assistance programs should include a residence requirement of at least 1 year. Explanation.-H.R. 10032 provides that the Federal Government will increase the Federal percentage to which a State is entitled during any quarter, if the State removes all residence requirements in public assistance programs which receive support of matching Federal funds. For There is wide variation between the States in the average payment per recipient receiving grants from the various public assistance programs. instance, the average payment per recipient in June 1961 for aid to the blind in the industrial States ranged from $73.33 in Pennsylvania to $126.45 in Massachusetts, compared to $78.77 in Illinois. We believe that residence requirements are a necessary requisite to establishing eligibility for aid under these Federal-State programs, and that the Federal Government should not offer an inducement to the States to remove all these residence requirements. Hon. WILBUR D. MILLS, AMERICAN VOCATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC., U.S. Representative, Second District of Arkansas, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN MILLS: This letter deals with proposed amendments to H.R. 10032 by the American Vocational Association, a national, professional, nonprofit organization, with a membership of more than 30,000 located in every State and political subdivision of the Nation. The amendments to H.R. 10032 proposed in this letter could prevent duplication of effort and possible conflict at State and local levels. There are in existence in every State and virtually every political subdivision in the Nation programs of vocational education which are being administered and operated by well-trained, competent vocational educators. These existing facilities and others that could be provided, if needed, should be utilized to the fullest extent possible for the vocational training of recipients of public assist ance. The proposed amendments set forth herewith would make it necessary for public assistance agencies-if vocational training is desirable-to provide such Vocational training for its clients to the maximum extent possible through the Vocational education agencies already in existence in every State. In light of the above, the American Vocational Association proposes the following amendments: Amendment 1 (a) Page 5 before line 5, (b) Page 8 before line 7, (c) Page 11 before line 3, (d) Page 14 before line 1, and (e) Page 60 before line 24, insert: "Any service referred to in clause (4) (A) and (B), of a kind available under a State program administered by an agency of the State other than the State agency, shall be provided through such other agency of the State except to the extent agreed upon by the State agency and such other agency of the State." Amendment 2 After the word "subject"____ (a) On page 5, line 17, (b) On page 8, line 12, (c) On page 11, line 15, (d) On page 14, line 13, and (e) On page 61, line 11, insert "to the conditions of the preceding sentence and". Amendment 3 Amend the bill by striking out all matter after the word "Secretary"— (a) On page 15 at line 18, through line 22, (b) On page 16 at line 5, through line 10, (d) On page 52 at line 16, through line 21, and in lieu of the matter struck out at each place, in the bill, insert the following: "and provide for entering into cooperative arrangements with other agencies of the State primarily responsible for providing similar or related services, for their maximum utilization in providing services herein authorized." It is our hope that the above proposed amendments to H.R. 10032 will be given due and full consideration by your committee. Respectfully submitted. M. D. MOBLEY, Executive Secretary. Re H.R. 10032. Mr. LEO H. IRWIN, THE JUNIOR LEAGUE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC., Chief Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. IRWIN: I have been asked by our day study group on the public welfare issues underlying the Newburgh controversy to forward their views on H.R. 10032-the public welfare amendments of 1962. The Junior League is a membership organization for young women who share a concern for the community in which they live and a desire to participate through volunteer service, in its health, education, welfare, and culture. Its dual purpose is the training of its membership and service to the community. For the last 3 years a small group of our membership has been studying the crisis in foster care in New York City; the aid to dependent children program of the New York Department of Public Welfare; and currently the broader public welfare issues. Therefore, the administration's request that H.R. 10032 be favorably acted upon has the support of our study group which can speak firsthand on some of the problems which the bill aims to remedy. The study group is in full sympathy with the intent of the President's proposal which stresses services instead of support, rehabilitation instead of relief, and training for useful work instead of prolonged dependency. |