THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
3 WASHINGTON

 

Dear John:

I appreciate your letter of September 26, 1961, regarding the
situation of public assistance programs in the country today,
which was acknowledged during my absence. As early as my
appearance before the Senate Finance Committee at the hearing
on my confirmation, I indicated my determination to review
thoroughly all of the welfare programs in the Department and
to bring them into line with present day conditions. I have
frequently expressed my determination in this regard and
events since last January confirm, in my judgment, the need
for significant changes in these programs.

Last spring I solicited the aid of a mumber of outstanding
persons in the field of welfare who, after working most of
the summer, submitted their report to me. I also requested
and received a report from George. Wyman, who has hed
extensive experience in public and voluntary posts in local.,
State, and Federal welfare operations. I am enclosing
herewith a copy of each of these reports.

I have also held conferences with a number of other groups
on welfare issues. The recommendations that have been
received have been carefully studied within the Department
and, on the basis of all of this information, I hope to
make constructive recommendations for legislative changes
to the next session of this Congress.

Meanwhile, I have come to the conclusion that a number of
changes are necessary in our welfare progrems which can be
taken by administrative action. I will send you in the next
few days a copy of the ten actions I em going to take in this
aPreé.e

Actually there seems to be relatively little public concern
about programs other than aid to dependent children. ‘The
proportion of the aged population receiving old age assistance
has declined in the past decade from cover 22 percent to
slightly ever 13 pereent. The growth im the program of aid
2

to the permanently and totally disebled has not appeared
excessive for a comparatively new program that was established
by the 1950 smendments. The program of aid to the blind

has remained remarkably constant in the number of persons
receiving aid through the years.

 

In your letter you note the very substantial increase in Federal
funds for the public assistance programs. An analysis prepared
by our staff indicates that of an increase of $1,256,099,000

in Federal funds for public assistance between 1949 and 1961,

46 percent is attributable to new programs or program
extensions made under Federal. legislation enacted during the
l2-year period. These include the new program of aid to the
permenently end totally disabled (1950 amendments), the new
program of medical assistance for the aged (1960 smendments),
the addition of the needy adult caretaker in aid to dependent
children, additional State plans received (lergely the
Pennsylvania and Missouri aid to the blind plans submitted
under special 1950 legislation), provision of vendor medical
payments (under legislation in 1950, 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1960),
and the extension of aid to dependent children to children of
unemployed parents (1961).

Another 48 percent of the totel was found to be due to increases
in the Federal share of the average monthly payment per recipient.
This has been liberelized by Congress in 1952, 1956, and 1958.

Thus of the total, a net of only $64 million, or 6 percent is
attributable to an increase in the mimber of recipients
reflecting primarily growth in the child population since 1949.

The foregoing analysis in no way minimizes the need for us to take
proper steps to see that public assistance programs; and
particularly the aid to dependent children program, are not
exploited. None of us, I am sure, wishes to see harsh or
precipitate restrictions imposed by States and localities which
result in suffering for those who need assistance most.

Certainly in many aspects of the aid to dependent children
program there is a tendency for society to make the program &
whipping-boy for much more wide-spread behavior of which
communities do not approve.
3

We have to face frankly the fact that there are many answers
we do not know. Some of these answers are going to have to
come from research; research in depth as you propose. I believe
that you have received a listing of the various grants that
have been made under the cooperative research program which
supports projects in the field of social security and social
welfare. Early this year, the Commissioner of Soclel Security
appointed an advisory group to review the entire research
program of the Social Security Administration. Their report
urges that we accept responsibility for carrying out and
stimulating the support of long-range research in the broad
field of human resources and social welfare. It mentions
specifically a number of the areas needing research to which
you refer in your letter. We are giving careful ecnsideration
to the recommendations of this group with the view of adopting
as many of them as possible.

I believe, however, that we must provide for an expansion of
services to children if we are to prevent dependency and
rehabilitate families, and restore persons to independences
‘I sm déeply disappointed that the Appropriation Act for 1962
failed to include funds for the training of public welfare
personnel which would have started us on the way to meeting
part of this need. As you know, the President recommended
funds for this purpose, but the Conference Committee cut out
this important program.

 

You may be sure of my deep concern about the matters raised
by your letter and of my determination to éevelop and propose
satisfactory solutions as rapidly as possible.

Sincerely,

 

Secretary
Hon. John E. Fogarty

House of Representatives
Washington 25, De Ce

Enclosures 3