Mr. CORMAN. The subcommittee will resume its hearings.

We are pleased to call as our next witness Patricia Yates, National Association of Social Workers.

You may proceed. If you have a written statement, we would like to have it made a part of the record, and you may summarize as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA YATES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, INC., WASHINGTON, D.C.; ACCOMPANIED BY AL GONZALEZ

Ms. YATES. We would like to have our statement a part of the record, and I would like to summarize because it is late in the day and most of the important things we would like to say have been said today.

Mr. CORMAN. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record. Ms. YATES. With me is Al Gonzalez, who is on the staff of the National Association of Social Workers.

I am a social worker representing the National Association of Social Workers, which is a professional organization of 73,000 social workers.

My very brief testimony and recommendations today reflect the experience of NASW's membership in serving families and children nationally. There are views which I also share as Chief of Foster Home Findings for the D.C. Department of Human Resources, but I must add I speak today for myself and not the D.C. Department of Human Resources.

Today we have heard a great deal of talk about title XX and the importance of shoring-up, expanding and improving these titles of the Social Security Act.

I want to reemphasize that this is a very important thing for this committee to consider because I believe doing so will provide the means to stop doing something that we have been doing too much of in this country for too many years, and that is removing children from their own homes unnecessarily and placing them in foster care.

Right now, when a social worker or frontline case worker enters the home of a family and discovers an array of problems that could cause the children harm, she is very likely to think of placement of the children as a temporary solution to the problem.

Why? Because in her community, there are probably none of these services: emergency caretaker programs to substitute for a missing parent until another plan can be worked out; or, emergency 24-hour homemaker service to help a sick mother take care of her children; or a temporary family shelter to use after an eviction or burnout of the home; or, an easy, simple way to obtain petty cash to help the family over during an emergency. Getting even $30 may require paperwork, verification and the stamina to maneuver a maze of bureaucratic channels and then a wait of several days.

The result, placement is the easiest solution at the time because. there is always money available for foster care but seldom enough for services to prevent placement and disruption of families.

Still there are bound to be times when children become homeless no matter how good the preventive services are. Thus, we would like to state that a selected goal of the title XX and title IV-B services must be that we find ways to ensure that placements that have to be made do, in fact, meet the needs of children.

We must be sure that the agency which assumes care of the child is fixed with the responsibility of being sure that the child is not lost in the foster care system, which so often happens now.

Today then, we emphasize the importance of maintaining, shoring-up, and improving those three parts of the Social Security Act, title IV-A, section 408, title IV-B, and title XX to achieve the two goals of preventing unnecessary placements and making sure placements are adequate when they do have to be made.

The recommendations we would have made had we testified earlier today are those you have already heard. We recommend that title IV-B be made an entitlement program. We recommend the full $266 million appropriation for title IV-B. We recommend periodic cost of living increases for title XX, and so forth.

So, I won't go over all the points made in the written testimony since you have heard them already in previous testimony. I do want to say, please, that it is so important to use these programs wisely and well to prevent placement of children that, when we do look to title IV-B, as an entitlement with more money, we must be sure that States use the new money to create new programs that will prevent placement rather than just pouring the money into already-existing foster care programs.

We think there will be gradually over a period of time-and if this approach is used-a decrease in the amount of money that States have to spend on foster care board payments, and that some of this money can then go into subsidized adoptions and good preventive services and start the ball rolling that way instead of removing children from their homes.

Mr. CORMAN. Do you find many situations where there is a reasonable family income, but also child neglect or abuse for one reason or another?

Ms. YATES. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I do believe that, since more and more States are passing mandatory child abuse reporting acts, we are more likely to see more of this as time goes on.

Previously, welfare department served mostly poor people, those were the clients of need who turned to welfare departments for placement of children.

Now, I think middle-income people are beginning to be recognized as people who have problems taking care of their children, too.

Mr. CORMAN. I am concerned about child abuse and neglect, and it is absolutely essential that services be available for them. Ms. YATES. Quite.

Mr. CORMAN. When parents have the economic capacity to do so, it seems to me that they ought to be charged something for the services that are available to them. Otherwise, we may be put in the position of neglecting to serve the children of truly poor families.

At present, the abused or neglected child becomes the responsibility of the government, no matter how wealthy the parents may

be. We don't want to place any limits on protective services for such a child. On the other hand, if we are going to spend a substantial amount of money for social services, then the family who can pay, should do so. Is that feasible?

Ms. YATES. Well, I think the way it was dealt with under title XX was quite good. You know, of course, that title XX has no income means test for children who need protective services because they may be abused or neglected. The families of those children. and the children may receive any of a wide range of services without charge.

I think that is a sensible way to do it because very often families who are not caring for their children, even though they may be medium-income families, don't exactly know how to get themselves together and don't have the wish to purchase services that they don't see as necessary.

I know that you don't like us giving away the taxpayers' money and selling ourselves, but sometimes that is what we have to do, we have to sell our services.

Mr. CORMAN. That is right. After all, we provide policemen and firemen. I don't quarrel about the availability of many kinds of social services for everybody. But, to assure that the very poor receive the services they need, a charge of some amount from those families whose income would permit it does not seem unreasonable to me.

Ms. YATES. I think when in doubt it is best to err in favor of the child.

Mr. CORMAN. Oh, yes, I would never make a child meet the means test; it would be a retrospective type of thing.

Ms. YATES. I am not sure I can tell you how to do that. It would be directed to the child at risk and to the families which are so fragile, so likely to fall apart, without the services.

Mr. CORMAN. I expect you are right.

Are there other questions?

If not, thank you very much for being so patient today.
Ms. YATES. Thank you.

Mr. CORMAN. I trust you have learned as much from all this to

day as I have.

Ms. YATES. Yes, I have. Thank you.

[The prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA YATES ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS ON CHILD WELFARE LEGISLATION

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Patricia Yates, representing the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the professional association of 73,000 social workers.

My testimony and recommendations today reflect the experience of NASW's membership in serving families and children nationally. There are views which I also share as Chief of Foster Home Finding for the Department of Human Resources of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman my comments will be brief and to the point: As we consider ways to change or amend Titles IV and XX we must focus on a major goalthat of finding a way to stop removing children from their own homes unless absolutely necessary.

Right now, when a front line worker enters a home on a family visit and discovers an array of problems that may cause the children harm, she is very

likely to think of placement of the children as a temporary solution to the problem. Why? Because in her community, there is probably: No emergency care-taker program to substitute for a missing parent until another plan can be worked out; or, no emergency 24 hour homemaker service to help a sick mother take care of her children; or, no temporary family shelter to use after an eviction or burn out of a home; or, no easy way to obtain petty cash to tide the family over during emergency-getting even $30 may require paperwork, verification and the stamina to maneuver a maze of bureaucratic channels and, then, a wait of several days.

The result: Placement is the easy solution because there is always money available for foster care but seldom for services to prevent placement.

Still, there are bound to be times when children become homeless no matter how good the preventive services. Thus, as a second collateral goal we must find ways to assure that placements meet the needs of the children. We must be sure that the agency which assumes care of the child is fixed with the responsibility of being sure that the child is not lost in the foster care system. Today, we emphasize the importance of maintaining, sharing and improving parts of the Social Security Act-Title IV-A, Section 408, Title IV-B and Title XX-to achieve these two goals.

Therefore, NASW urges this committee to approve: For Title XX, an annual cost of living increase in the ceiling for federal funding; for Title IV-B, increased appropriation to the authorized level of $266 million in a converted entitlement program; and, use Title IV-B funds to commence a national program of subsidized adoptions.

With respect to Title XX, in order to ensure that it continues to meet current service needs, we recommend,

1. For fiscal year 1978 and thereafter, raise the Title XX ceiling from its present $2.5 billion to $2.7 billion on a permanent basis.

2. In subsequent years, provide for an annual cost of living factor based on the consumer price index.

These increases are intended to maintain delivery of services to present recipients and do not allow for the slightest expansion of services. In effect, these recommendations amount to a hold-harmless clause for present service users and providers.

3. Unused funds should be transferred as one time supplemental grants to states and localities with planned needs above the ceiling, such as in the case in the District of Columbia and New York City. We do not believe that such a one time grant will encourage states to permanently raise their spending levels. In subsequent years, states not previously reaching their ceiling would continue to receive their apportioned allotment.

4. The territories of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands should be entitled under a separate authorization for the Title XX social services program. We support the committee recommendation of $16 million-the amounts for which the territories are now eligible.

5. 100% federal funding for staff training (including training of potential foster parents) not to exceed 3% of a states allocation under Title XX and tied to a training plan coordinated with the Title XX services plan. With respect to Title IV-B, we recommend,

1. Provide full funding at $266 million authorization in fiscal year 1978, the absolute minimum level of funding needed to develop new programs which will address the problem of unnecessary foster care placement.

2. Convert to an entitlement program so that states may begin effective long-range planning of services and assure a level of continuity in service delivery.

3. Restrict new federal monies under the entitlement to provision of services designed to prevent placement when possible and move children into permanent homes rather than to sustain children in foster care.

4. Require that states continue their present level of financial participation in all child welfare services—gradually reducing the proportion of current expenditures for foster care maintenance.

5. Continue the state matching rate requirement of Title IV-B funds at a federal-state rate no lower than the current Title XX rate of 75-25%.

6. As a condition to the receipt of Title IV-B funds. require a state plan with mandated service areas directed at prevention of placement, care of children who must be placed, and emergency services to families.

7. Require a review of foster care placement at regular intervals, with a strong look at what is being done to help the child go home. For example, a child may come into placement because the parents are evicted. Too often, the primary-and sometimes sole effort goes into making his placement a satisfactory one. Years later, the child may still be in foster care and the family may have disappeared because there was no strong effort to help it find adequate housing and deal with whatever problems led to the original eviction. Such families are fragile. Our experience is that it is easier to sustain an intact family than it is to pick up the pieces later, and that a wide array of services are needed to help a family reunite.

8. Change Title IV-A, section 408 so that federal reimbursement through the AFDC program is not dependent on a formal court determination. For example, there are situations where a woman under unusual stress must have relief from the constant demands of her children and files for voluntary, temporary placement. In the meantime, the caseworker and she work on a definite plan to bring the children home in a couple of months. There is no reason why this family should be involved in the judicial system.

However, we do recommend judicial review of any placement, voluntary or not, after 3 months. A child has a right to a permanent home. Therefore, we believe in the need for an administrative hearing and probably in most cases. judicial review, at periodic intervals in the child's life to ensure that the child is returned to his parent, freed and placed for adoption, or placed by an approved plan into long-term foster care. This review process is also worthwhile in fixing the responsibility and accountability of the agency, an important pre-condition to effective case management.

Finally, a brief word about subsidized adoption. Some children, for valid reasons, may never be able to return to their own families. We owe these children more than the impermanence of foster care.

The condition of these "children with special needs" can be greatly ameliorated if each state receiving Title IV-B funds is required to develop a subsidized adoption program to include continuation of a child's eligibility status for assistance (e.g., Medicaid) after placement for adoption. The basis of the subsidy should be the need of the child not the income level of the adopting parent. State payments would be eligible for a federal match tied to Title IV-A foster care.

Mr. Chairman, the recommendations basically commit this country to a policy on maintaining and enhancing the integrity of the family unit and protection of children. If this is a truly cherished national value, then it deserves the commitment of national resources. The Congress could take this modest step toward developing a comprehensive national strategy on services to families and children. We hope you do. Thank you.

Mr. CORMAN. Thank you.

The meeting stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 4, 1977.]