Page images
PDF
EPUB

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

programs,

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

our counties.

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

market.

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.

Congress

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

programs.

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
proposed special revenue plan for manpower. This proposal
would eliminate most of the current tangle of unnecessary
federal "strings," pull together the fragmented efforts of
federally-funded public and private agencies at the local
level, and give large counties and municipalities (or
consortia of local governments) a leadership role in
coordinating manpower programs with other related local
services.

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

all units.

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.

The

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:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

2,048,632

488,804

Pollok

216,519

216,519

[ocr errors]

through

1,580,263 5,726,735
(estimate)

1,091,515
(estimate)

5,680,468 1,143,118

(estimate)

6,823,287

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.

« PreviousContinue »