has no durational residence requirements which prevent aged or disabled persons from receiving prompt public assistance. The testing of new methods of administering public welfare programs, the consolidation of present programs, and the use of periodic advisory councils to review these programs are also provided for.

It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that the suggested Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 will provide important improvements in this country's general social welfare program. We have a distinct responsibility to our fellow citizens who are less fortunate than ourselves, and our ultimate strength as a people lies in our realization of our obligations and our determination to do something about them. In this effort, we must not allow our emotions to compel us to provide assistance in an irresponsible manner. Actual need must determine the amount and frequency of help. The President's recommendations, forwarded by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, provide a sensible answer to the problem of equitably strengthening the public welfare services of this Nation.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hillenbrand, will you identify yourself for the record by giving us your name, address, and capacity in which you appear?

STATEMENT OF BERNARD F. HILLENBRAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR; ACCOMPANIED BY C. D. WARD, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS

Mr. HILLENBRAND. My name is Bernard F. Hillenbrand. I am executive director of the National Association of County Officials. I would like to submit a statement on behalf of Mr. MacDougall, who is ill and cannot be here today and on behalf of our commissioner, Ben Haigh, from North Carolina, whose wife is ill, and neither of them can be here.

The CHAIRMAN. We appreciate the fact that you can be here and you are recognized.

Mr. HILLENBRAND. I am accompanied by Mr. C. D. Ward, who is our general counsel of the National Association of County Officials. The CHAIRMAN. You gentlemen may have seats.

Mr. HILLENBRAND. Mr. Chairman, we have a rather lengthy statement which we would rather summarize and with your permission we would like it incorporated in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it will be inserted in the record. (The statement referred to above follows:)

STATEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS, WASHINGTON, D.C. ON H.R. 10032, PUBLIC WELFARE AMENDMENTS of 1962

(By Ben Haigh, Chairman of the Welfare Committee of the National Association of County Officials and county commissioner, Wake County, N.C.)

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Ben Haigh and I am a county commissioner of Wake County, N.C., and chairman of the Welfare Committee of the National Association of County Officials. On behalf of that association I should like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you to testify on behalf of H.R. 10032, titled Public Welfare Amendments of 1962.

Today there are few problems facing county government more pressing than welfare. County officials as well as Congressmen are extremely sensitive to concern expressed by our mutual constituents. This is certainly so when the concern relates to programs commanding such a high percentage our budgets. In 1957 county government spent $1.1 billion on welfare programs which amounted to 19 percent of our entire budgets. In most States our county welfare programs are so interrelated with Federal programs, we are required to abide by much federal direction, guidance, and supervision. Understandably, we are very anxious to express our thoughts on this pending legislation.

Although the entire proposed bill is of the utmost importnace to us, I feel it would be more helpful if I would limit my remarks to specific items that we feel are in the greatest need of change.

FOSTER CARE

We would give a high priority to Federal participation to aid needy children in foster homes. Secretary Ribicoff stated on the opening day of this hearing that Congress in enacting and amending our Social Security Act had repeatedly demonstrated its deep concern that no child, wherever he may live, shall go without food, clothing, shelter or other essential needs. I should like to point out one glaring exception. Until last year, children in foster homes could truly be classified as American "forgotten children" with respect to Federal programs. Children in foster homes were not eligible for Federal participation under the ADC program. In some States children were being retained in unsuitable homes to qualify for Federal participation rather than being placed in a healthier atmosphere of a foster family because the local authorities were aware that there was not sufficient funds available to place the child in a foster home. We are pleased that H.R. 10032 would make permanent the change of last year which provided for Federal participation for ADC payments to children in foster homes who had been placed there by a court order and were receiving ADC aid at the time they were moved to a foster home. We further endorsed the provision of this year which expands the program to include care in child-care institutions as well as private foster homes.

In our opinion a needy child in a foster home is equally as deserving and needy as one of an unemployed parent or one who has a parent or relative to reside with, thereby making him eligible for ADC aid.

We would strongly urge that this provision be further enlarged to include children placed in a foster home as a result of an approved State administrative procedure as well as by a court order. There are often circumstances where a child is placed in a foster home other than by a court order. You could take Secretary Ribicoff's own example wherein he described a deserted mother with six children, who was so emotionally disturbed that there was strong possibility she would need treatment in a mental institution. As he related, she and her children were placed under ADC and began receiving a very deserving $240 check each month. However, under the existing and proposed law, had the mother been sent to a mental hospital and her children placed in a foster home without a court order, they could not have been eligible for Federal help. Furthermore, had they been placed in a foster home prior to receipt of any ADC care, they would not have been eligible for Federal help. This we feel is an unrealistic and unfair criteria. We would repeat, a child placed in a foster home as a result of the approved State administrative procedure should be equally eligible for aid as one placed there by court order and who was receiving ADC aid at the time the court action was taken.

If need be, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare could supply the number of children in foster homes; however, it is my understanding that they are in excess of 100,000. Yet in November of last year only 633 qualified for ADC. Why should only these children who have been so placed after May 1, 1961, be chosen to qualify? The amendment providing ADC care to needy children of unemployed parents certainly placed far more children on the ADC rolls than would an inclusion of all children in foster homes.

We therefore urge that this program be expanded to include Federal participation to all children placed in foster homes by virtue of a court order or an approved State plan, regardless of whether they were receiving ADC care at the time of their placement and regardless of the time they were placed in the foster home.

There is no reason to believe the availability of Federal funds will result in children being indiscriminately placed in foster homes. Many children living in foster homes or institutions need special attention and care and oftentimes the same holds true for the child's parent or prospective adopted parent. It is our feeling that a lack of a sufficiently trained specialist should not be a reason for withholding Federal assistance. The children are already in these foster homes receiving as much special care as the State and local government can now provide. Federal participation will certainly contribute and make possible the attainment of desired higher standards and vastly improve the foster care program.

SURVEY

The National Association of County Officials is presently in the process of conducting a modest and unscientific survey of our memberships regarding their opinion on certain aspects of this legislation. Unfortunately, we have not completed this undertaking; however, a portion has been done and perhaps the results will be of some assistance to you.

COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAM

Of those persons polled, 54 percent stated they would favor Federal participation in a community work program, while 33 percent were opposed and 13 percent had no opinion. The greatest difficulty that was foreseen in such a local program was excessive Federal control. In fact, this seems to be the dominant objection expressed by our members when they speak of their difficulties in trying to alleviate local welfare problems. Local situations and on-the-spot knowledge make it desirable for a greater degree of flexibility than is many times permitted if local programs are to take advantage of Federal participation.

PROTECTIVE PAYMENT

An example of this excessive Federal control has been the inability to make ADC payments other than by direct cash payment. Our official policy statement (the American county platform) has long requested more local authority in this situation:

SECTION 5-7. SUPERVISION OF AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN GRANTS

"Public welfare officials charged with the administration of the program of aid to dependent children should be able to make certain that grant funds are used to feed, clothe, and shelter the children included in the grant who are the real beneficiaries of the program. In recent years attempts have been made to deny or circumscribe local control and administration, particularly in the aid to dependent children program, and some State welfare agencies have attempted to assert that their administration of the program is above judicial review. This development is strongly opposed by the National Association of County Officials and we favor retention of local decisionmaking power and we favor appropriate judicial review of State welfare agency actions."

We thereby vigorously endorse that section of the bill providing for protective cash payment. Our survey revealed that approximately 95 percent approved some type of protective payment and indicated it would aid in reducing abuses of the program.

However, returning to the problem of local control, we would oppose limiting such payments to one-half of 1 percent of the total recipients of such ADC aid. This may well suffice; however, in certain cases it may not. Such a limitation to a certain degree impugns the judgment of local authorities on such matters. We therefore ask that no limitation be placed, or at least something more than limiting it to one-half of 1 percent.

RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT

Our official policy statement recommends retention of the Federal law provisions which permit States to impose limited residence requirement for eligibility of public assistance. By providing a bonus for those States without the residence requirement, you are in effect placing economic sanctions against those States with residence requirements. We would therefore oppose legislation providing a bonus to States without residence requirements.

SINGLE CATEGORY

Our survey indicated that 79 percent of our membership would favor the change that would permit the States the option of creating a single unified plan instead of the present four separate plans for its aged, blind, disabled welfare recipients, and medical assistance to the aged.

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

The proposal of the Federal Government to increase its share of certain costs of administration of the public assistance programs from a 50-50 basis to three-fourths was also presented in our survey. It was our interpretation that this change would be designed to encourage local welfare programs to hire additional welfare workers, thereby lessening their caseload as well as raising the salary of workers. The latter is apparently designed to attract a higher caliber person as well as to retain those persons already in the program. Our survey indicated that 63 percent of the county officials would recommend hiring additional welfare workers or raising the salary of the present workers if such a change was initiated by the Federal Government. The remaining 37 percent stated they would do neither of these things; however, most of them indicated they would use the savings for some other aspect of the program.

ADVISORY BOARD ON PUBLIC WELFARE

Last, but certainly not least, we recommend the enactment of that provision of the bill which would provide for the establishment from time to time of an Advisory Council on Public Welfare. We would urge that Congress provide that county government be represented on such an advisory council. We are very sympathetic to a statement made by Representative Curtis on the opening day of this hearing when he commented on the ad hoc committee on public welfare report. It was my understanding that he was equally as interested in the material that went to make up the report as he was in the conclusions that were submitted in the report. Too often county officials feel they are presented with the conclusions as far as welfare action is concerned without being previously consulted. Although in most of our States we have a direct responsibility for these welfare programs, we are many times left out in the formulation and revisions of the programs at the State and Federal level. is my understanding that there was not one elected official represented on the ad hoc committee on public welfare. In our opinion, it would have been wise and helpful to procure the advice and thoughts of an elected official. We are in day-to-day contact with these problems and must answer to the elective for the abuses and mistakes that are inevitable in such undertakings as welfare. We think it would be most desirable to have local representation on the proposed advisory council.

It

On behalf of the National Association of County Officials, we should like to commend the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for their efforts in reappraising the entire field of welfare; we should especially like to commend Assistant Secretary Wilbur Cohen, thanking him for his cooperation over the past year and his efforts in cooperating with our association which is so vitally concerned with this field.

In conclusion, I should like to reiterate our endorsement of the community work program, the optional single category provision, and Federal participation of three-fourths of the cost of certain administrative expense.

Thank you very much.

Mr. HILLENBRAND. In the first place we would like to say that we are very delighted to be invited to testify here today because we at the county government level have a very deep interest in the public welfare program.

As a matter of fact, statistically we spend $1.1 billion a year, or 19 percent of our total budget at the county level is spent for welfare, and to carry on the testimony just previously given you by Mr. Baldwin, we would like to say that we strongly endorse the idea of expanding the Federal participation in the foster care program.

80118-62- -22

The National Association of County Officials was one of the first groups working with Congressman King and many other members of this committee that urged that the Federal Government participate in the foster care program. We were delighted that this committee added the foster care amendment last year and we would testify now strongly in favor of making that a permanent Federal participation. We would strongly favor Mr. Ribicoff's idea of expanding the foster care not only to foster homes, but to institutions, and we would strongly endorse what Mr. Baldwin has just said and would like this commitment to foster care with Federal participation to include children committed by any procedure that is common within that State: in other words, allow the State to decide through their State plan how they are going to commit these children into foster care.

We would also like to see this expanded to include all children in foster care and not just those that were admitted after a certain date. I would like to say, too, Mr. Chairman, that we had an opportunity to carry on a very modest and a very unscientific, I guess, survey of public opinion among our county officials with respect to some of the other provisions of this bill before

you.

We have had three field meetings, one in New Orleans, one in Pheonix, Ariz., and we are about to conduct the third one this week up in Atlantic City, and we had a chance to question some of our county officials on how they feel about some of the other proposals of the legislation before you.

On the question of the community work program, of all the people we polled at the county level 54 percent stated that they would favor Federal participation in the community work program, while 33 percent were opposed, and only 13 percent had no opinion.

Our local officials foresee that the greatest difficulty is going to be in the question of how much Federal control to have over the administration of this. In fact, this seems to be the dominant objection that is expressed or concern that is expressed by our members on this whole question of how to solve this local welfare problem.

Our local people feel that they are on the spot, have firsthand knowledge of what the problems are and what the local situations are, and, in general, are very anxious to have as much flexibility as possible at the local level.

For that reason, we very much applaud what seems to us to be the general trend of what Mr. Ribicoff is trying to do. He is trying to allow for flexibility, more power on the part of the States, to adopt their local welfare program to their own local needs.

On the question of protective payments, we got an overwhelming response on that. Our survey revealed that approximately 95 percent of our people approve of some type of protective payment, and indicated that it would help solve some of the abuses locally of the welfare program.

However, again, on this general question of how much control should be left at the State and the local level. Our people feel that a limitation one-half of 1 percent might be inadequate. They would favor leaving this more to local discretion. It may very well be that in many cases and in many communities a limitation of one-half of 1 percent would be fine; but in some places it would not.