In a special guest editorial appearing in the March 1969 issue of Parents' magazine, the president of the Child Welfare League of America has called for equal rights for all American children, and emphasized the following present inequities:

An estimated 10 million youngsters are dependent, neglected, or homeless; yet only a small fraction of their number are getting child welfare services:

Child welfare service encompasses preventive work with children living with their own families; daycare; adoption; foster care; protective and other services. Yet it is the only area of human need for which the Federal Government does not provide funds on a matching basis with the States:

Over 11 million children under the age of 12 have mothers who are employed: yet throughout the country there are daycare centers for only 500,000 children-and this despite recent mandatory provisions in the Social Security amendments that require AFDČ mothers to seek employment through job training: (Yet, for this job-training program (WIN), the April budget has cut $35 million from the January budget request, $10 million of which applies to child care services and $25 million for work-training.)

Because of the extreme shortage of child welfare services, many children spend their early years waiting to be adopted; many suffer physical abuse, despite enactment of Child Abuse Laws by all the States; other children are shifted from one foster home to another without any chance to develop family ties.

Under the Social Security laws, by July 1975, child welfare services must be available to all parts of each state. Yet it is difficult to see how this can be accomplished if, year after year, appropriations for child welfare fall so far below authorizations. The social cost to our Nation in the neglect of children is, of course, inestimable. This is the "social dynamite" that brings staggering costs in later years for rehabilitation of alienated youths and adult criminals. In the recent report of the President's Commission on Violence, it was established that over half the crimes in our cities are committed by juveniles, and that 70 percent of adult criminals have juvenile delinquency records. Preventive measures are always less costly than social repairwork. The Joint Commission on the Mental Health of Children, in its report this month after a 3-year study, has emphasized treating the total needs of the child before the age of 5, adding "If we fail to provide the resources in the community, we will pile up another generation of children destined to the juvenile courts, reformatories, jails, welfare institutions and our wards of State hospitals." The effective interrelation of child health, adequate nutrition, education and welfare services, must be high on our national priority list if we value our Nation's future.

(Attachment to statement follows:)

PARTICIPANTS' POSITION STATEMENT

SYMPOSIUM ON YOUTH IN CRISIS

February 27, 1969, Washington, D.C.

To the President of the United States and Members of the 91st Congress: We, the undersigned, have joined in this symposium with the shared conviction that in the unimpaired minds and bodies of our Nation's children and youth rests the future of our country, in its finest aspirations.

To this end, we rededicate our individual and collective forces to protect the future so embodied. We also call upon the executive and legislative branches of our Government to share with us this sense of priority, either by enacting and approving new legislation or by strengthening existing legislation to the extent already authorized, to meet the needs of those American children whose future is imperiled either physically or mentally, by the neglect or indifference of their families, their State, or their country. For The American Parents Committee, Barbara D. McGarry, executive director; Big Brothers of America, William H. Bruce, research director; International Juvenile Officer's Association, Hugh Carpenter, executive director, and Lt. William H. Conner, board of directors; Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children, Reginald S. Lourie, president; National Association for Retarded Children, Dr. Philip Roos, executive director; National Association of Social Workers, Rudolph T. Danstedt, Washington representative; National Council of Juvenile Court Judges. John F. X. Irving, executive director; National Council of Jewish Women, Mrs. Leonard H. Weiner, president; National Conference of Superintendents of Training Schools and Reformatories, Roy L. McLaughlin, president; National Education Association, John M. Lumley, assistant executive secretary for Federal relations; Washington Pastoral Counseling Service, Rev. S. Lewis Morgan,

Jr.

Mr. HECHT. Thank you very much.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Hecht, we want to thank you and Mrs. McGarry for your appearance before our committee at this time.

FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1969.

PROGRAMS OF THE REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT OF THE HANDICAPPED

WITNESS

MR. E. B. WHITTEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL REHABILITATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. NATCHER. Our next witness is Mr. E. B. Whitten, the executive director of the National Rehabilitation Association.

Mr. Whitten, it is a pleasure to have you appear at this time and we will be glad to hear from you.

Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, my name is E. B. Whitten. I am director of the National Rehabilitation Association, an organization whose membership consists of 35,000 individuals and organizations, all of whom are concerned for the rehabilitation of handicapped and otherwise disadvantaged individuals. Approximately one-half of its members are individuals who work in some kind of rehabilitation program, the remainder being individuals with no professional stake in rehabilitation, but who are interested as laymen in the rehabilitation of handicapped people and joined the National Rehabilitation Association to indicate this interest and concern. The organization was formed in 1925 and has been in continuous existence since that time. It has been active in legislative hearings relative to rehabilitation for handicapped individuals, and has appeared numerous times before appropriations committees and committees of substance dealing with problems of handicapped individuals.

Today, I appear in support of appropriations for programs administered by the Rehabilitation Services Administration. In the following paragraphs, I shall enumerate the requests that the National Rehabilitation Association is making of this committee, giving brief explanations of the reasons for our request. Then, we shall speak in greater detail of at least two of the programs.

(1) Section 2.-We request that the appropriation authority for section 2 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act remain at $600 million for 1970, as provided in the law and recommended by the preceding administration. To support this authority, we request that a total of $528 million be appropriated, this being the amount that estimates made in March 1969 indicate will be needed to match the State monies available to support the program.

(2) Section 12.-We request that $10 million be appropriated for rehabilitation facilities and the staffing of facilities under section 12 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. It will be noted that the appropriation authority for this section for 1970 is $20 million. The preceding administration recommended $1,850,000 for this program, which is the identical amount appropriated for the preceding year. The present administration recommended reducing the $1,850,000 to $550,000 and confining the use of this sum to the staffing of facilities. The justification of these low sums is stated as being that 10 percent of the appropriations under section 2 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act can be used for construction, the inference being that this makes unnecessary a substantial program of vocational rehabilitation facilities under section 12. The National Rehabilitation Association supported the idea of permitting construction under section 2, but it has never taken the position that a construction program under section 2 can take the place of the kind of construction program visualized under section 12. The fact is that some States will not be able to use any of their section 2 appropriations for facilities without reducing the level of case services, which no State would want to do. It is also true that certain types of rehabilitation facilities, particularly those involving participation of two or more States in one project, cannot very conveniently be built under section 2. We believe, accordingly, that there should remain a substantial program for the construction and staffing of vocational rehabilitation facilities under section 12. The recent studies of the facility programs in the States have indicated a need for approximately $200 million for such construction. It is felt that $20 million for 1970 will make it possible to get under way a substantial program. We would like to testify, in addition, that a network of appropriate rehabilitation facilities is absolutely necessary for the development and conducting of a good State-Federal vocational rehabilitation program.

(3) Section 15.-We request that $50 million be appropriated to initiate the vocational evaluation and work adjustment program authorized in the 1968 legislation-section 15. The preceding administration recommended $10 million to initiate this program, while the present administration recommended no funding of this program for 1970. We shall speak further of this program a little later.

(4) Training. We request that $4 million be added to the proposal of the current administration for training of rehabilitation personnel. Although the budget estimates combine training of rehabilitation per

sonnel with certain other training, it is our understanding that the justification calls for a $4 million reduction in that part of training which is for rehabilitation personnel. We have seen no justification for this reduction other than that it saves money. Rehabilitation programs, as well as other programs, are no better than the people who work in these programs, and the efficiency of their efforts depends upon the kind of training they can get. We think it is bad practice to try to reduce such appropriations. Additional funds for inservice training of vocational rehabilitation staffs are particularly needed.

(5) Mental retardation State facilities.-We request an appropriation of $20 million for mental retardation hospital-facility-improvement grants. As members of this committee know, this is a fund that can be used an a very flexible basis to upgrade programs of State-operated mental retardation facilities throughout the country. Both the preceding and present administration are recommending $8,972,000 for this program, which we are informed actually represents a decrease in the program level for 1970.

(6) Mental retardation community facilities.-We recommend an appropriation of $30 million for mental retardation community facilities and the staffing of such facilities. Both the preceding and present administration recommended $20 million, which, again, we are informed includes certain funds which are being reappropriated. The $10 million extra we are recommending would be divided approximately equally between construction and staffing. This is a very important program which has made a substantial contribution to the welfare and rehabilitation of mentally retarded children, but it has a long way to go before consideration should be given to holding the line on this program.

(7) President's committee.-We request the committee to increase the amount appropriated for the President's Committee on the Employment of the Handicapped from the $531,000 which is the current level, to $600,000.

The 1968 Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments increased the appropriation authority for this program to $1 million per annum. The amount recommended in the budget presents no increase. It will actually be necessary to curtail the program if an increase in this appropriation is not forthcoming. It should be emphasized that this program is one, all of whose resources go to mobilize volunteer effort in support of rehabilitation and placement of handicapped individuals. It is no overstatement to say that the expenditure of this small sum on the President's Committee results in scores of millions of dollars of voluntary effort directed to rehabilitation and placement activities. 1969 section 2 appropriation

Let me return to the section 2 appropriation. First, a few statements about the 1969 appropriation. The appropriation authority for 1969 is $500 million, and allotments were made to the States on that basis. The Bureau of the Budget recommended an appropriation of $345 million, this being the Bureau's estimate of the amount needed to match State funds within the allotments. The subcommittee recommended and Congress appropriated the amount which had been requested. It turned out the States had more money available than had been anticipated, and the amount appropriated lacked $40 or $50 million being enough to do what Congress had anticipated would be done; that is, match the State money available.

I think it might be interesting to note here that for years this committee, and I think appropriately so, has been urging the States to move faster in this very important program, and progress has stepped up in the States, but this last year it was a little bit faster than the administration had anticipated.

By December it was evident that the appropriation would not be sufficient to meet the commitment the Secretary had made. The Bureau of the Budget indicated that it would not seek a supplemental appropriation, so it was necessary for the Secretary of HEW to inform the States of maximum grants that would be available, and these maximum grants were in all cases less than the State's allotment.

This situation caused quite a shock in the States, which had planned on the basis that all of their State money would be matched within the allotments which they had officially received. There being no certainty of the supplemental appropriation, it was necessary for program curtailments to begin at once. It is quite evident that one cannot wait until the end of the year when threatened by a lack of funds. There is no question but that this action set back the program quite a bit.

A supplemental appropriation of approximately $25 million would still be helpful for the 1969 year. Program curtailments already underway would probably mean that a supplemental of as much as $50 million, which is the amount actually needed for the year, could not be used. We understand that the committee is considering a supplemental appropriation for several HEW programs. This is not included among them so far as official recommendations are concerned. We think it might very well, on its own initiative, consider a supplemental for this program. To us, however, adequate appropriations for 1970 are more important than the supplemental for the remainder of this year, if a choice must be made.

The appropriation authority for 1970 is $600 million. The budget of the preceding administration anticipated this allotment base and recommended an appropriation of $524 million to match the money to be made available in the States. For some time we had thought that this amount was insufficient.

A survey of State needs in March of 1969, however, revealed that the current estimated need is $528 million, which is very close to the amount recommended by the preceding administration. So it appears the estimates are holding up pretty well.

The present administration has recommended lowering the appropriation authority to $500 million, which would have to be done by legislating in the appropriation bill. I understand that such language is being presented to the committee, although I have not seen the wording of such langauge. The current administration then recommends appropriating $471 million to match State funds available within the allotments. If the allotment is to be only $500 million, the $471 million will probably be sufficient, although a great deal of State money will remain unmatched by the Federal Government. The Federal Government will not be meeting its commitment in the legislation.

The position of the National Rehabilitation Association on this particular issue is as follows:

First, the allotment base should be $600 million as provided in the law. Even if the needed $528 million Federal appropriation cannot be