Therefore, the proposed increases in Title XX funds is urgently supported by my department and county. The proposed IV-B entitlement program is also strongly supported by Los Angeles County. If additional Title XX cost of living funds are not made available, then the proposed IV-B funds will necessarily be used to offset the inflationary reduction of child welfare service and staff and will merely hold operations at their present level. If, however, a Title XX cost of living is secured and the proposed increases in Title IV-B are made available to states, Los Angeles could then provide some critically needed child welfare services which are presently not available anywhere for any child in the county. For example, many young children each month in Los Angeles are the victims of sexual abuse-yet there is not one specialized program service in the entire county for children who are the victims, or parents who have committed the abuse. Other examples of critically needed but non-existent child welfare services in our county are comprehensive 24-hour crisis services for abused children, specialized treatment units to expedite return of children from foster care to their own homes, in-home care services for battered children and their parents. In summary then, social services programs have been reduced to a hardcore minimal level due to years of closed-ended funding. The modest cost of living increases proposed for Title XX and the proposed $266 million IV-B entitlement program will assist our county to preserve present services, and possibly develop a few critically needed programs for abused children. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. RANGEL [presiding]. Thank you. On behalf of the Chairman, I think you for your enlightened testimony. I have one question: Under the laws of California, is it not required that a battered child's parents and foster parents be referred to the court? Ms. KLOPFLEISCH. It depends on the extent of the abuse. You have to report all cases of child abuse, but the action the police may take may be nothing more than receiving the report. As to the referral to the court, again, if you don't have clear evidence, and that is frequently the case in child abuse cases, the social worker may be convinced that this is an abused child. You may not have any substantiating evidence, however, so, again, you may not get a case that is clearly defined. Mr. RANGEL. Let me strike out "abused child" and use your term "battered children". Ms. KLOPFLEISCH. The battered children we almost routinely refer to the court. Mr. RANGEL. Do you believe qualified caseworkers can be of some assistance to the family by allowing the battered child to remain with its parents? Ms. KLOPFLEISCH. I believe a battered child, after the parents have been carefully assessed and carefully screened, can in some instances remain safely in the home. If there is very intense supervision of that home, and also depending on the age of the child. In Colorado there has been a successful experience with Dr. Kemp, who, literally, hired home care child carers. He helped to intervene and stop the pattern of the abuse. It was an expensive but very successful program. I think battered children, after being out of placement, can return home successfully. Again, though, they need a lot of support, and that family needs intensive services, or the pattern will just repeat. Mr. RANGEL. They say a dog is entitled to one bite, but it looks like a parent that batters a child gets an opportunity to be rehabilitated, and you have seen successes in this field? Ms. KLOPFLEISCH. I have seen successes with intensive social services, and sometimes with extensive psychiatric services. Some members of Parents Anonymous are good examples of this. Some of them have beaten their own children and have been to jail, and are now successful parents after a long struggle. It is not easy. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Gradison? Mr. HAWLEY. No questions. Mr. RANGEL. Again, let me ask you for your testimony. As the chairman pointed out, he will be reading your testimony and if we have additional questions, we will feel free to call upon you. Ms. KLOPFLEISCH. Thank you. Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. The subcommittee stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. [Whereupon, at 4:32 p.m., the subcommitee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 3, 1977.] PUBLIC ASSISTANCE LEGISLATIVE TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1977 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice in the committee hearing room, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James C. Corman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. CORMAN. The Subcommittee on Public Assistance and Unemployment Compensation of the House Ways and Means Committee will come to order. Our first witness this morning is Jerald L. Stevens, secretary, Massachusetts Executive Office of Human Services. Mr. Stevens? STATEMENT OF JERALD L. STEVENS, SECRETARY, MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE OF HUMAN SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE Mr. STEVENS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CORMAN. We are pleased to welcome you to the subcommittee. If you have a prepared statement, you may want to summarize it for us and have the entire statement made part of the record. You are welcome to proceed as you wish. Mr. STEVENS. I think, Mr. Chairman, you do have copies of my statement. Mr. CORMAN. Yes. If you intend to summarize it, then we will make the full statement, with attachments, part of the record. Mr. STEVENS. Should I consider that a hint, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, my name is Jerald Stevens, and I am secretary of human services for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I am pleased to represent Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis and to speak to you on behalf of the National Governors' Conference on a subject of great importance to the States. I am encouraged that you are devoting 4 days to these hearings on issues surrounding the funding and delivery of social services in this country. The testimony being given this week concerns small increases of money relative to the overall multibilliondollar welfare burden. But they are increases that are vital to the success of our Nation's response to the needs of its most vulnerable citizens-children, the elderly, the disabled, and the impoverished. As the individuals in each State with the ultimate responsibility for the administration of both title XX: Social Services and title IV-B: Child Welfare Services, the Governors have had, and continue to have, a major interest and involvement in the development and implementation of Federal, State and local social services structures and their funding. For some time now, the National Governors' Conference has been on report in support of both an increase in the title XX spending ceiling and full funding of title IV-B. The Governors applaud the actions taken by this subcommittee in its successful effort to include both of these provisions in the Ways and Means March 15 budget report recommendations. In addition, the Committee on Human Resources of the National Governors' Conference has advocated the enactment this year of two pieces of legislation which not only expand the funding for each program but also alter the programs themselves. Following the recommendation of the Public Assistance/Unemployment Compensation Subcommittee, the first of these bills would raise the $2.5 billion ceiling on Federal funding by $200 million in fiscal year 1978. While this increase will ease the strain on present resources, the Governors must be able to plan for more than 1 year. They, therefore, call for the enactment of an annual cost-of-living increase in the Federal spending limit in each year after 1978, based on similar increases provided for recipients of social security payments. There has been no increase in the Federal title XX spending ceiling in 5 years. Although some States have not used their full allotment each year, title XX allows for no reallotment of unused funds, and many States have been bumping hard against that ceiling for 5 years of particularly intense inflationary pressures. States, providers, and recipients must have assurance that inflation will not be allowed to diminish social services programs in the future. The Governors also urge that a number of temporary provisions contained in Public Law 94-401 be made permanent, including: Waivers of staffing standards in day care facilities with only a small percentage of title XX funded children; changes in determining the number of children in a family day care home where the care giver has older children of her own at home part of the day; and provisions which allow States to make grants to pay salaries of new workers in day care facilities who had been recipients of public assistance. While relatively minor, these revisions will enable States to provide day care even in low-populated areas with few centers or homes and will also help people to move out of the welfare system while making it easier for day care facilities to meet staffing requirements. The Committee on Human Resources strongly supports the full funding of title IV-B. It endorses changes in the program that will insure that the additional $209 million are directed toward services that will prevent the need for foster care. Our experience shows that wherever possible children are better served in their own families. Foster care should be used only as a last resort. Too often, however, States have been unable to fund an adequate level of preventive programs. When the crisis erupts, crisis intervention programs are not available and foster care becomes the first line of defense. |