October 25, 1979
Page 29520
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, it is clear that title XX has not become the primary channel for Federal social services funding as was anticipated when it was enacted in 1974.
For instance, services to the elderly under the title XX program and social service programs—
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is sorry to interrupt the Senator from Oklahoma, but the Chair would courteously request, once again, that there be order in the Senate. If Senators wish to speak, it is appropriate to seek recognition from the Chair. The Chair has not recognized any of the several Senators engaged in conversations that have been going on in the Chamber. Once again, the Senate will please be in order.
My apologies to the Senator from Oklahoma. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. BELLMON. I thank the Chair. As I was saying, Mr. President, the services to the elderly under the title XX program and social services programs for senior citizens funded under the Older Americans Act are very similar. Funding for the Older Americans Act services programs has increased by 169 percent since title XX was enacted in 1974.
Major increases have also occurred in vocational rehabilitation and other categorical service programs, although the same services can be provided under title XX.
In short, neither the executive branch nor the Congress has made a real commitment to channeling growth in Federal funding for social services into title XX. Instead, they have increased funding through specific service programs which have sprouted alongside the title XX program. Now, a permanent increase in the title XX ceiling is proposed but there is no indication that we will see any change in the growth pattern for other categorical service programs.
I do not think we can blindly increase funding for all programs. Where is the strategy that indicates where we should be going in social services funding? What has the Finance Committee done to get together with the Labor and Human Resources Committee on the relationships among those programs? What has the administration done to develop a social service strategy for the Federal Government?
I am afraid the answer to these questions is that little or nothing has been done in either the Congress or the executive branch to develop a coherent approach to these questions. And so we continue the old pattern of making ad hoc decisions which have little if any strategic thinking behind them. When we adopted title XX, we ostensibly chose the block grant approach to funding but we did not even slow down the growth in categorical programs.
My second problem with the future-year funding increases for title XX concerns the failure of HEW to deliver to Congress a major evaluation study which was mandated when title XX was enacted. When Congress enacted title XX in 1974, it was concerned about the uncertainties which surrounded the new approaches being taken in Federal-State-local relationships. To enable it to make an early review of the initial period of title XX implementation, the legislation required the Secretary of HEW to submit a major evaluation report on the program not later than July 1, 1977.
Mr. President, nearly 21/2 years have gone by since the deadline for that report and it has still not been submitted to the Congress. This fact was called to Senator MUSKIE's and my attention last spring, when the Budget Committee was working on the first budget resolution. We sent a joint letter to Secretary Califano inquiring about the status of this report and we received back a reply which indicated that the report would be submitted to Congress by mid-June. As of today there is still no evaluation report from HEW. I ask unanimous consent that the exchange of letters with HEW be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.,
March 7, 1979.
Hon. JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, Jr.,
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Legislation passed last year temporarily increased by $200 million the ceiling on funding for State Grants under Title XX of the Social Security Act. The President's Budget proposes to make that increase permanent; and we understand that the House Ways and Means Committee is recommending an additional $200 million increase.
The Social Services Amendments of 1974 required an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program established by Title XX. PL 93-647 (Section 4) directed your Department to report to Congress by July 1, 1977 on your evaluation, together with any recommendations for improvements in that program.
In checking with the Finance Committee, and with representatives of your Department, we understand that a contract was let and other activities were undertaken in response to the legislative requirement, and that considerable information has been collected; but that the evaluation report to Congress has not been completed.
We would appreciate it, if you could furnish us a copy of the report on the evaluation and your findings (even in preliminary form) by April 30, 1979. This will enable the Budget Committee to use the information as it considers the question of a permanent increase in the Title XX ceiling as a part of the conference on the First Concurrent Resolution.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman.
HENRY BELLMON,
Ranking Minority Member.
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C.,
May 11, 1979.
Hon. HENRY BELLMON,
Committee on the Budget,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR HENRY: This is in response to your inquiry regarding HEW's progress on the report of the effectiveness of the Title XX social services program.
When this Administration took office, HEW viewed the effectiveness report as a good opportunity to assess the impact Title XX has made on the administration and delivery of social services. As you know, Title XX legislatively shifted much of the responsibility for program content to the States, who should be attuned to local needs. Thus, in evaluating the effectiveness of the Title XX social services program, we have reviewed the effect of the legislation in improving the delivery of services to poor people; in encouraging active public involvement in the planning process; and in developing administrative flexibility for State agencies. The complexity of the evaluation and the need to incorporate the views of State administrators, the National Governors Association, service provider groups such as the United Way, service recipient groups, and interested individuals, have unfortunately meant that more time was required to prepare the report than was originally anticipated.
The Administration for Public Services (APS) has informed me that the final draft of the report will be ready for our internal review process within the next month. I willdo all I can to ensure that you receive the report by mid-June.
Recognizing the importance of this report to the Budget Committee as it considers a permanent increase in the Title XX ceiling, we submitted to Budget Committee staff two reports on the overall effectiveness of Title XX prepared by the Urban Institute and the National Governors Association. The Urban Institute report, entitled "Social Services: Federal Expectations Versus State Implementation," contains working papers prepared under contract with APS. The National Governors Association report is an evalua tion of the overall effectiveness of Title XX. The analyses, findings, and recommendations of both studies have been taken into account in the development of our report.
I am now enclosing another Urban Institute report, based on the National Title XX Policy Symposium, held in October 1978. I hope it will also be helpful to you in your deliberations. However, this report and the ones already provided to your staff should not be considered as reflecting the Department's final position or policy on Title XX.
Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
HALE CHAMPION