to deal only with the severe crisis cases, investigating new referrals, thus leaving unattended the supervision of on-going cases. The Juvenile Judges have been critical as well as concerned for our inability to properly supervise children in their own homes. Also, this lack of time to work with families further hampers our ability to return children to homes from foster care or to proceed with termination of parental rights so that children can be placed in permanent homes.

To provide meaningful preventive and protective services requires other supportive child welfare services such as caretakers, homemakers, counseling, emergency foster homes, emergency shelter for adolescents and, in urban communities, for families. It requires close coordination between DHS, Juvenile Court, Law Enforcement and other agencies. It requires an ability to respond to crisis situations on a 24-hour basis. Working with other agencies, DHS has been able to develop many of these resources through contracts. We have concentrated on developing a planned, coordinated effort to the problem in those communities wheer we have the highest incidence of abuse/neglect. However, from November 1976 through February 1977, a four-month period, 6,393 new neglect/abuse referrals have been received. For the past year there has been a net gain of 400 new cases per month. The number of children in Foster Care is increasing proportionately. With the concern over the problem of child abuse, a study committee on which 10 legislators served, made recommendations to reduce protective services and foster care caseloads to 35 per worker. Legislation was introduced to this effect and the legislature was in the "frame of mind" to appropriate the necessary state match for Title XX funds for these positions. The day before this legislation was to be considered in the Senate Finance Ways and Means Committee a front page article appeared in the newspaper alleging cut-backs in Title XX contract services to provide protective services positions. The article totally distorted the true picture but it so concerned the legislators who were being pressured by some of the special interest groups-that they failed to act on the legislation as presented. Because of the pressures of the past few months, coupled with increased caseloads, child welfare services staff are emotionally drained, many have been frightened and have resigned or asked for transfer within the department. Relief must come from somewhere. We cannot legislate abuse away—we cannot mandate children out of foster care and into adoptive homes-we can have strong legislation to allow DHS to deal with the problem, we can have judicial review of children in foster care-but without adequate trained staff and manageable caseloads, we will never achieve meaningful change in the lives of these children and their families.

What then can we do? There are a number of effective ways to tackle the problems. One such method has been developed in Tennessee. It is not the total answer but it has shown positive results where implemented.

In 1971 Tennessee developed a system of providing services to children and families now known as Comprehensive Emergency Services (CES). This model program was developed as a demonstration program with the assistance of funds from Children's Bureau, HEW, and was designed to be both preventive and protective. CES operated on a demonstration basis in Metro-Nashville for three years, 1971-1974. During that time we turned the old system around and headed in a new direction. By providing 24-hour response to neglect/abuse referrals and providing supportive services such as caretakers, homemakers. outreach, emergency foster homes and emergency shelter for adolescents and families, we saw some dramatic changes. During the three years the program oprated as a demonstration project, the following results were achieved: Referrals increased from 770 to 2,156.

Number of neglect/abuse petitions filed decreased by 56%-from 609–266. Further, only 134 were filed during 1976.

Children removed from their homes decreased by 51%-353 to 179.

These changes occurred because DHS was able to provide services to children in their own homes, preventing precipitous removal of children and locking them into foster care.

Since 1975 efforts in four urban and three semi-urban counties, have resulted in the establishment of the basic components of the Comprehensive Emergency Services System. Community involvement in developing a coordinated effort has been great. The Systems are not complete but they are well underway. DHS is working toward a modification of this system in our smaller counties.

While all the support services are not available, DHS staff are on call to respond on a 24-hour basis in child protective services situations.

We can develop this system throughout Tennessee with the cooperation of other agencies and willingness of communities to work together. It is a means of providing preventive services, as well as a positive approach to helping families when abuse/neglect has already occurred. Any protective services system developed hinges on the ability of DHS to carry out its legal responsibility. No protective services system can work unless the DHS staff at the county level can do its basic job. However, further improvement in child welfare services in Tennessee will not occur unless there are additional funds made available.

It is time we decided in America what we believe in. Do we believe in strong family life? Do we believe children have a right to grow up in a family where they can be loved, cared for and can reach their full potential? If we truly believe this then we must provide preventive and remedial services to these children and their families-for only as we are able to help the family will we also help the child. When the child cannot remain with his own family we must make every effort to find for him a permanent family.

I do not believe we will achieve the above until we are willing to earmark funds for child welfare services. Child welfare services simply cannot compete with special interest groups who have so much impact on the political system. For Tennessee Title IV-B funds are greatly needed. Unless the matching rate is attractive to the state legislature, the funds may not be utilized. Therefore, I urge you to fully fund Title IV-B and make these monies available at 100% federal funding or at least no more than a 90%-10% match.

Finally, we need to remember that the neglected/abused child, the foster child of today is the parent of tomorrow. If we do not provide needed services to remedy their plight, what kind of world will it be for their chilidren?

Mr. SAUCIER. We would be glad to respond to any other questions about social services issues now or whatever you wish.

Mr. CORMAN. Let the panel conclude and then we will question.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN V. LOURIE

Mr. LOURIE. I am Norman Lourie, chairman of the SSI Liaison Committee, a committee that works between the National Council of State Administrators and the Social Security Administration.

I would like to ask if this material could be put in the record and I will just comment on it.

Mr. CORMAN. Without objection, the full statement will appear in the record at this point.

We will be pleased to hear your summary. [Mr. Lourie's statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORMAN V. LOURIE, EXECUTIVE DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR FEDERAL POLICIES AND PROGRAMS, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE, AND CHAIRMAN, SSI LIAISON COMMITTEE, AMERICAN PUBLIC WELFARE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and present the views of the National Council of State Public Welfare Administrators on various legislative proposals impacting on the Supplemental Security Income program. With me today is Mr. Irving Engelman, Contract Administrator, SSI Program Information Services, American Public Welfare Association, who has worked with the states and the Social Security Administration over the past several years to improve the operation of this important program.

In October of 1975 the National Council of State Public Welfare Administrators took action to approve extension of SSI benefits to Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands as proposed in H.R. 8911. This action was reinforced by another general resolution passed by the Council in March of 1977 opposing

any discriminatory treatment of Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands with respect to federal support for welfare payments and services.

We also appear today in order to be recorded in favor of most of the sections in H.R. 6123 having to do with making improvements in the present SSI legislation. Specifically, the Council voted in October 1975 its approval of: Section 2: Attribution of Parents' Income and Resources to Children; Section 3: Directing the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to Establish an "Outreach Program"; Section 4: Modification of Requirement for Third-Party Payee"; Section 5: Continuation of Benefits for Individuals Hospitalized Outside the United States in Certain Cases; Section 6: Exclusion of Certain Gifts and Inheritances from Income; Section 7: Increased Poyments for Presumptively Eligible Individuals; Section 9: Termination of Mandatory Minimum State Supplementation in Certain Cases; Section 10: Monthly Computation Period for Determination of Supplemental Security Income Benefits; Section 11: Eligibility of Individuals in Certain Medical Institutions; Section 12: Exclusion from Income of Certain Assistance Based on Need; and Section 13: Exclusion of Certain Assistance Payments from Income. In regard to Section 8 of H.R. 6124 having to do with Emergency Replacement of Benefit Payments, the Council approved this recommendation but only as an imediate and temporary alleviation of the problem being addressed. The Council emphasized its conviction that the problem of prompt replacement of lost, stolen and undelivered SSI benefit payments, in instances where replacement is warranted, is an inherent aspect of the federalized benefit program and should be resolved by and within the federal administrative structures and procedures.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to report that we have as yet no formal position on H.R. 4138 and H.R. 4139 which attempt to prohibit SSI payments to aliens or, if provided, only after a predetermined period of residence. Nevertheless, I have looked into this matter as it will affect Pennsylvania. It is my opinion the states by and large will oppose this legislation because if aliens are prohibited from participating in the SSI program, states will be forced to assist needly aliens through state funded general assistance or general relief programs.

Thank you.

Mr. LOURE. I have with me Mr. Irving Engelman, who is the contract administrator for the SSI program information services at the APWA, which works with the Social Security Administration to improve the program, and he will be available for any technical questions I might be unable to answer.

First, I would like to point out that most of the issues in 6124 are matters which were passed by this committee and passed by the House in 8911, and some of the provisions of 8911, of course, were put into law.

We are just speaking in behalf of those items in 6124 which we think should be passed in this session.

First: We repeat our support of approving these benefits to Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. I am not going to give all of our arguments.

They have been made before. They are quite obvious. We oppose any discriminatory treatment of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands with respect to Federal support for any social welfare. payments and services.

Very briefly, I would like to list those items which we think should be part of both bills: First: The attribution of parents' income and resources to children.

This has to do with making children between 18 and 21 who are in school stand on their own so their parents' income is not deemed as it is for younger children.

There is a section directing the Secretary of the Department of HEW to establish an outreach program.

We would like to say we believe the Social Security Administration has been doing a good job in outreach. There is a good deal going on, people are being notified. We feel it would be useful to have it in the law.

Third: The modification of the requirement for third-party payees. This would make it unnecessary to have the third-party payee for all drug and alcohol cases.

We think that all of them do not need a third-party payee.

Fourth: The continuation of benefits for certain hospitalized individuals outside the United States. This has to do primarily with individuals who live in border States and use hospitals across the line.

We think they should be covered.

Next is the exclusion of certain gifts and inheritances from income. We think these should be looked on as resources but if they are not-some of these gifts can be turned into cash and we do not think they should be counted as income.

Next is the increased payments for presumptively eligible individuals, right now we have a one-time payment for such individuals of $100.

We think it is unreal, presumptive eligibility is for 3 months and we think it would simplify a good many procedures on the part of the States and the SSA if these payments were made for 3 months on the full level.

The termination of mandatory minimum State supplementation in certain cases, some of these were already taken care of—I am sorry, they were not. That is an error on my part.

I think there are three or four situations in which termination of mandatory State supplementations are to be made if an individual no longer lives in the State that was originally obligated, or receiving an SSI benefit equal to or greater than the mandatory supplementation level he becomes ineligible for SSI if he is an inmate of a public institution other than a hospital, or nursing home, or if he becomes ineligible for SSI because of resources, we think that the mandatory State supplementation should be terminated. The monthly computation periods for determination of supplemental security income benefits-at the moment, it is based on a quarter for a lot of obvious reasons that are mentioned in the previous testimony and in the provision, the Social Security Administration also feels that doing this on a monthly basis would be very much saving in administrative costs and a lot easier to deal with.

Certain eligibilities of individuals and in certain medical nstitutons, at the moment we make somebody eligible for SSI only for the first month in an institution.

That is kind of unreal. Many people go into an institution for 2 or 3 months and then go home. While they are in the institution they still have rent and so on to pay and we think that ought to be taken care of.

Next is exclusion for income for certain assistance based on need. The biggest piece of this was taken care of in the Keys amendments,

but we think that there is still some income, some items, and we think these ought to be excluded.

Finally, we think, with regard to section 8 of H.R. 6124 having to do with emergency replacement of benefit payments, the council approved this recommendation but only as an immediate and temporary alleviation of the problem being addressed.

We think that the problem of prompt replacement of lost, stolen, undelivered SSI benefits where replacement is warranted is really a necessity that ought to be dealt with.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with two items, one which is not in any of the provisions of 4138 or 4139, but one which indicates many that are on my desk.

As you know, couples do separate and there are divorces even among old people. You have a situation where a couple has a $200 social security income of the husband and let's say a $30 SSI supplementation. They split. The man takes his $200 social security payment with him. The woman then has roughly a $30, in some States, SSI supplement for a period of 6 months before she becomes eligible. We think this is obviously unfair and the law ought to be changed to deal with this.

I am putting this on the record as an experience in our own State and I think other States are having the same experience.

Finally, I want to talk about two bills, H.R. 4138 and H.R. 4139, which attempt to prohibit SSI payments to aliens, that is for people, aliens who are coming legally into the country, but limits which would have to do with predetermined periods of residence and so on.

Now, the Council of State Administrators has not taken a position on this but I have looked into it with respect to experience in our own State where we have a statewide State-administered, Statefinanced general assistance system.

We have been ordered by Federal court to pay general assistance to aliens. We think that if SSI were unlimited that it would not reduce the States' obligation to pay general assistance to these individuals, and while I am not an attorney and I am not going to deal with legal opinions, I think that this committee ought to look very carefully at this.

If we have admitted aliens legally to the United States, it seems to me we have an obligation. If there is an obligation on the persons who represented the guarantors of legally admitted alients, it seems to me that is a matter for immigration authorities and the Social Security Administration to deal with.

If the SSI eligibility is being questioned we ought to look at who has guaranteed that alien's admission to the United States on a financial basis. It seems to me that is where we ought to look to the solution rather than to forbid the SSI.

Thank you very much.

Mr. CORMAN. Does that conclude the statements of the panel? Mr. Rangel?

Mr. RANGEL. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Ketchum?

Mr. KETCHUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.