This also stimulated over 100 new career positions within the YMCA for at least 100 youth. This grant, I believe, was for a little over $100,000, and the majority of the cost went to train the young people and very little to personnel within the YMCA except for that personnel needed to train the others. Senator MAGNUSON. Well, you have grants, subsidies, and contributions, $8 million out of the $10 million in your record, and you have travel and transportation, $20,000; and is that for your local office here? It must be. Mr. GEMIGNANI. This money is for travel and related expenses of consultants as authorized in section 409 (h) of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968. Senator MAGNUSON. Put in the record what you mean by "subsidies" and "contributions," what is the difference between the grant and subsidy and contribution. Mr. GEMIGNANI. We will do that. Senator MAGNUSON. Is there any difference? Mr. TWINAME. I don't know, but I will find out. Senator MAGNUSON. Thank you very much. (The information follows:) EXPLANATION OF "GRANTS, SUBSIDIES, AND CONTRIBUTIONS" The "Grants, subsidies, and contributions" category included in the presentation of the Youth Development and Delinquency Prevention budget is one of the uniform classifications prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget for presenting the Federal budget to the Congress. Other classifications include travel, supplies, equipment, and other services. The grants category in the case of the Juvenile Delinquency account refers to how much of the total funds will be used for grant-in-aid to States and localities. The subsidies and contributions do not apply here but would apply to other kinds of accounts involved in activities such as contributions fixed by treaty and readjustments and other benefits for veterans. The purpose of these classifications is to present the budget by object of expense as well as by program activities to provide further information on how the funds would be spent. RESEARCH AND TRAINING Senator MAGNUSON. Next is the subject of "Research and training," and you may continue your statement, Mr. Twiname. Mr. TWINAME. All research functions of the Social and Rehabilitation Service have been consolidated within the Office of Research and Demonstrations in the Office of Planning, Research and Training to improve our capability of administering the total research strategy and to improve utilization of research findings of the Social and Rehabilitation Service. We are proposing research and demonstration programs to further advance our knowledge and improve the delivery of services to those who are disabled, including the rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug addicts; to improve the administration of social services to the poor; to improve child welfare services, especially in the areas of providing effective alternatives to institutional care; and to develop better ways to deliver and finance health care services to those with low incomes. INCOME MAINTENANCE STUDIES We will continue the Seattle, Denver, and Gary, Ind., income maintenance studies in order to insure the availability of research-based information necessary to the development, implementation, and analysis of welfare reform measures. Research findings from these experiments will play an important role in determining the direction of the future income maintenance legislation. Senator MAGNUSON. You can't get away from that; can you? Senator MAGNUSON. Yes. Mr. TWINAME. No; it keeps coming up. Senator MAGNUSON. Let us talk about that when it is enacted. Mr. TWINAME. We are talking about future beyond the one in front of the Congress now. We want to be able to have something to do 2 or 3 years from now. OFFICE OF MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING An office of Manpower Development and Training has been created within the Office of Planning, Research, and Training to coordinate the development of policy and guidelines for all training programs in the Social and Rehabilitation Service. In 1972 the requested funds for training, together with 1971 funds of $5.4 million shifted from research and demonstrations, will be used primarily for support of long term educational programs to meet a major need of increasing the manpower pool in particularly scarce skills. During the past year, we have been engaged in the examination of all the training grant programs, and we are developing new criteria and policies for administering them. INCOME MAINTENANCE EXPERIMENTS Senator MAGNUSON. For the last several years we have been appropriating money for income maintenance experiments. This year you want $2 million more for a total of $11 million. How long are these experiments planned to last? Mr. LONGMIRE. The operational phase of the experiments will last for 3 years. At the end of that period, a special evaluation phase of about 6 months' duration will take place and complete the projects. There are several important reasons for continuing the operational phase over a 3-year period. First, since most social and economic processes are rather slow to adjust, the experimental period must be rather long. Second, allowance must also be made for distortions in the behavior of the experimental population produced during the startup phase of the experiment by the newness of it and during the last period by anticipation of its termination. Hence, the experiments must be in operation for at least several years before it can be said with any degree of certainty that the observed results are simply not distortions due to the newness of the project. Third, since the objective of the experiments is to measure the longrun responses of famílies to an income maintenance program, the families must be able to regard the experimental payments as being secure for a reasonable length of time. For all of these reasons, it is estimated that a minimum of 3 years of actual operations are needed. It should be noted that as a further safeguard in testing the validity of the experimental results, a small portion of the sample (approximately 20 percent) from the Seattle-Denver experiment will continue on the program for 2 additional years. This extension will serve to verify that the experimental results from the total Seattle-Denver sample as well as the other three experiments are not unduly biased by the effects of a transitory change in income. Senator MAGNUSON. If this concept is still in the experimental stage, why are you pushing so hard for operational legislation? Do these experiments mean anything? Are they working? Mr. LONGMIRE. Although the experiments have already provided some limited data supportive of the welfare reform concept, they are not sufficient to flesh out details required under the basic welfare reform proposed. The justification for welfare reform rests upon the breakdown of the existing welfare system and upon an analysis of what caused this breakdown, that is, the incentives in the current program for family breakup, the current work disincentive of excluding aid to the working poor, and the widely divergent benefit levels across the States which produce gross inequities of treatment among equally needy families. No experiment is needed to demonstrate that these program inequities should be minimized. The welfare reform program builds upon analyses of these problems and offers immediate and work able solutions to them. While welfare reform is the appropriate answer to the current welfare crisis, it is inevitable, as time goes on, changes to the basic legislation will be proposed by this or subsequent administrations or by the Congress. Thus the experiments look to the future in the sense that they are designed to provide useful information to the policymakers who will be concerned with such questions as the impact of raising the basic support level, changing the marginal tax rates, expanding program coverage, integration with other in-kind and cash programs, and so forth. The central concern of the experiments, that of work incentives, does not arise in the more modest support level and its work requirement provisions. Welfare reform responds to a set of problems whose immediacy has been well documented. The experiments will be crucial in providing basic information for future changes to legislation. LETTER TO SENATOR PASTORE Senator MAGNUSON. Now, I have two or three questions about rehabilitation training programs but, first, Senator Pastore, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee, has sent to the subcommittee a letter he received from the Rhode Island Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services expressing deep concern about the impact of the training programs cutback. This letter is typical of the many we have received and I shall place the letter to Senator Pastore in the record at this point. (The letter follows:) JOHN JAFFLECK, DIRECTOR STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS FRANK LICHT GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES No doubt you are aware of the cuts which have taken place in the current appropriations for the Vocational Rehabilitation Amendments for 1971, especially in the area of training. Those of us who rely upon such funds to train State personnel and recruit graduates to Programs of Vocational Rehabilitation are most concerned as no doubt training programs at universities as well as at the agency level will either be curtailed or sharply reduced. It is coincidental that recently we had begun to explore with Rhode Island College the prospects of developing a program for the training of Vocational Rehabilitation personnel, but it would appear that with such drastic reduction in training funds that this program will be delayed indefinitely. We would, therefore, appreciate your assistance as a majority member on the Senate Appropriations Committee in seeking to restore the amounts of these cuts and helping us to preserve our Vocational Rehabilitation training programs. Your efforts to aid us at this time will have great impact upon the future of training programs, and we will be most appreciative. REHABILITATION TRAINING Senator MAGNUSON. In the rehabilitation training part of your budget, you are calling for a cut from $27,700,000 to $14,650,000. We have had a lot of mail complaining that this cut will lower the quality of rehabilitation services for years to come. Why are you making such substantial cuts here? Mr. LONGMIRE. Training activities have been supported under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act since 1955. During the past 17 years, training support has been provided in a broad range of professional fields which contribute to the rehabilitation of the physically and mentally disabled in both public and private rehabilitation agency settings. In responding to the budgetary reduction in fiscal year 1972, priority will be placed on those training activities which are most directly related to increasing the manpower supply and improving manpower performance within the public rehabilitation program. The quality of vocational rehabilitation services provided by the State vocational rehabilitation agencies will thereby be maintained at a high level in fiscal year 1972. It is manpower for the private rehabilitation sector that will be most substantially affected by the fiscal year 1972 budget. The rehabilitation training grant program has traditionally maintained an interest and authority which extends beyond the limits of the public rehabilitation program. Rehabilitation training has been a manpower resource over the years not only for the State vocational rehabilitation agencies but also for a variety of private agencies serving the handicapped regardless of the severity of their disabilities and regardless of their possible eligibility under the public rehabilitation program. As priority attention is focused on the public rehabilitaiton agencies, the support available from rehabilitation training for manpower for the private rehabilitation agencies, will be reduced. This rehabilitation manpower is primarily in the medical and allied health rehabilitation fields. Because all commitments for the support of continuing trainees in existing projects will be honored, the quality and quantity of rehabilitation services available from private rehabilitation agencies will not be immediately affected. In the long run, however, if fewer people are attracted to study in the rehabilitation professions because traineeship stipends are not available, a decrease in the number of staff available for services in these programs is possible. It is hoped that other Federal resources can be identified to assist in filling the gap in those fields created by the reduction in the level of support for the rehabilitation training program. There are a number of reasons for the reduced level of support in fiscal year 1972. First, we are currently reviewing all of the SRSsupported training programs in terms of welfare and services reform proposals. Second, the 1972 budget is based upon several new initiatives, including reform of the welfare and social services systems. In order to finance these reforms, we have had to reduce support levels for some other programs; and some of these reductions are in the areas of support of all kinds of graduate and advanced training. Third, the Office of Education is providing increased support for student loan and work-study programs at the undergraduate level in lieu of Federal support for advanced training. Fourth, insofar as State vocational |