« PreviousContinue »
of dtles, CAA's other nonprofit organizations, and occasionally states, but
barely a mention of counties.
At the present time, approximately 1100 counties administer public
assistance programs and social services' programs for poor people. It is
estimated that almost 70 percent of this nation's public assistance caseloads
are locally adninistered. Only a handful of cities share this responsibility. in my own county alone (Los Angeles County, California) we have budgeted $1.4 billion during this Ascal year for public assistance programs. If welfare refom legislation providing for federal administration of income maintenance
programs 1s enacted, we expect that counties will still have a major role in
providing expanded social and human services.
In fact, the number of counties
ministering social services probably will increase in the years to come.
Counties also are very heavily involved in health care (mostly for poor
people) and enviromental health.
Our responsibilities in many states include
sharing in the cost of providing medicaid assistance.
In Los Angeles County,
he administer 15 hospitals containing 6,808 beds and we are about to open
another 394 bed hospital (Martin Luther King, Jr. General Hospital) costing
$31 million. My associates also can cite figures illustrating their counties'
heavy involvement in health care.
In addition, counties are responsible for a wide range of other human
services such as Juvenile delinquency services and facilities, correctional and rehabilitation programs, day-care programs, narcotics and drug abuse
and nutritional programs including food stamps (counties in California
pay the arministrative costs).
Like cities, our direct involvement in administering federally-assisted
manpower and training programs has only been going for a few years in most of
As this Subcommittee is fully aware, most of the federally-assisted
manpower and training programs have been administered by CAA's and other
private, nonprofit organizations. However, we want to point out that 360
counties were named as program agents under the Emergency Employment Act
(compared to only 240 cities).
While detailed evaluations of the PEP program
have yet to appear, the preliminary evaluations from Department of Labor officials
indicate considerable satisfaction with the performance of county program agents.
In a back-handed compliment, William Mirengoff, Administrator of PEP,
said in Sacramento, California last week that, "counties have performed at least
as well as states and cities." Despite misgivings of some Washington wags,
there has been no wholesale corruption, nor have there been floundering delays.
Acting under an almost unbelievable timetable imposed by the Department of Labor,
the program was implemented rapidly.
In addition to our traditional responsibilities for administering human
service's programs complimentary to manpower programs, we believe Congress should
look closely at several other facts.
Elected county policy makers are elected from the entire county and are
representative of all the citizens in the county, including its municipalities.
Elected county officials have to be just as responsive to municipal problems
within their county as mayors and city councilors.
The broad geographical base of counties often provides a natural labor
It should be noted that 110 of the Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Areas are single county SMSA'S.
Even in many multi-county metropolitan areas,
the county provides the only realistic political means for matching manpower
training programs with suburban job opportunities.
Counties have an areawide tax base to finance public services.
may decide same day that manpower programs, like other hunan services programs,
should not be financed almost entirely from federal runds. Many cities with
their declining tax bases would not be in a position to continue many of these
It would seem prudent policy to start now to encourage the entire
area, and especially the suburbs, to share in these responsibilities and costs.
We believe all of this makes a strong case for giving county governments a
strong and visible role in planning, coordinating and administering manpower and
public service jobs programs.
MANPOWER SPECIAL REVENUE SHARING
last year, the National Association of Counties adopted a policy supporting
the Administration's proposed Manpower Special Revenue Sharing proposal with
certain amendments. The following position was adopted by NACO and is still the
organization's official policy:
The National Association of Counties strongly supports the
Our major concern with the special manpower revenue sharing proposal is
in the distribution of funds.
The formula distribution of funds to cities,
counties and the balance of states would be determined according to each unit's
proportional share of the nation's work force, unemployment and adult poverty,
equally weighted, subject to a limitation on the amount of increase any
eligible jurisdiction could receive over the level of runding obligated during the three previous fiscal years (1969, 1970, and 1971). The limitation on the
amount of increase would be no more than double the average increase for all
units combined under the FY 1969–71 base.
Since the average increase would be
about 25 percent, a limitation of 50 percent over the base would be applied to
We believe there is a fallacy in determining the base for ellgible cities.
The bill seems to assume that the funds expended during FY 1969-71 within
cities under the MDTA and EOA Acts are administered by city governments.
city gets credit for all the funds expended by private, nonprofit agencies
located within the city.
As you will know, neither the city nor the county
directly administered most of these manpower programs.
In the Los Angeles area, the Economic and Youth Opportunities Agency
(CAA) subcontracted part of its manpower funds to both the City of Los Angeles
and the County of Los Angeles. While Los Angeles County subcontracted for almost
six times as much as the city, the special manpower revenue sharing formula
would credit the entire amount to the City of Los Angeles.
let the facts of the three previous years of funding are as follows:
Under the formula distribution, Los Angeles County would receive $12.5
dllion whereas the City of Los Angeles would receive $40.9 million. Comparing populations, 1 million people live in the City limits while 6 million people
live outside the City in Los Angeles County.