For example, with a caseload of 200 people, the limitation of onehalf of 1 percent allows you to make a protective payment to only one person, so while on general statistics or overall national average this might be very sound, and probably is, in individual local conditions it would not and we would urge at a minimum that the restriction be raised to a higher percentage than one-half of 1 percent.

With respect to the residency requirement, our official policy statement recommends retention of the Federal law which permits States to impose limited residence requirements for eligibility for public assistance. By providing a bonus for those States without the residence requirement we 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. Again, it is the same part of the overall philosophy at the local and State level that we should be allowed more discretion in trying to meet the problems that are peculiar to our respective States and localities.

On the question of having a single category, our survey indicates 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.

With respect to the other problem about administrative costs, and the proposal of the Federal Government to increase its share of certain costs of administration of the public assistance program from a 5050 percent basis to a three-quarters percent basis, we presented this question to our people and our survey indicates that 63 percent of the county officials, if this law became in effect, indicated that they would recommend hiring additional welfare workers or raising the salary of the present workers if such a change were instituted by the Federal Government. The remaining 37 percent said that they would do neither of these things, but, however, most of them indicated that they would use the savings that would be afforded to them locally in other aspects of their local welfare program.

Finally, with respect to the Advisory Board on Public Welfare, our county officials are strongly in favor of this provision of the bill, these advisory councils, but we would urge very strongly that the county officials, being the local administrative officials, be represented on these advisory councils.

This is our formal statement, Mr. Chairman, I must confess that neither Mr. Ward nor I are experts on this welfare program and we are sorry our two experts could not be here today. Mr. King can tell you that Mr. MacDougall is an expert par excellence, and we are terribly sorry that he cannot be here today.

The CHAIRMAN. We are sorry that Mr. MacDougall could not be here today, but we again express our appreciation that you were able to substitute for him.

With respect to the suggestion or recommendation of protective payment item, in the bill and in the recommendation of the Secretary of HEW, it is suggested, as you know, that the limit of the amount of money used for this purpose, that is, I assume paying guardians within a county or within a State, be limited to one-half of 1 percent of the total returns for ADC.

You suggest that that figure is too low and I think frankly it is. What figure do you have in mind?

Mr. HILLENBRAND. Ideally, I think if the local officials had their way, they would like to, at least experimentally, not have any limit at all, allow them local discretion within individual jurisdictions, and I do not know that we would be prepared to say what should be the upper limit; but only allowing 1 case out of 200 to have protective payment seems to us to be low.

The CHAIRMAN. What you are suggesting is that rather than have a higher limitation, perhaps it would be best, in the initial phases at least of this program, that we have no limit.

Mrs. HILLENBRAND. Right, and do it experimentally. We feel pretty confident at the local level that you would not have a problem of abuses in this.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes?

Mr. ALGER. I simply would like to comment and commend you for your statement on page 6 in which you point out that you believe the State should retain its residence requirement and your general attitude against Federal coercion, which is one I share, but let me ask you this: If the matching is 50-50 now, but it becomes 25-75, would you not concede that we at the Federal level will have 75 percent interest, which is a greater control over you than you now enjoy at 50-50?

If you take more of our money you must necessarily take more of our control, so you are in a rather weakened position.

Mr. HILLENBRAND. We are constantly faced with this situation. Our basic difficulty is that we do not have the money locally and if to prevent people from suffering we have to raise local money for welfare, we are going to cut it down in schools.

Mr. ALGER. You understand, we have to take it from you too, bring it to Washington, and let you have some back. If we do that, since we must be responsible in this committee, we have to lay down the guidelines and the rules, so if you take the taxpayers' money from the Federal Government, you are going to also have to take the law which we lay down and the coercion which you and I agree we do not

want.

Mr. HILLENBRAND. This is an interesting thing that we have observed among our local officials. We rarely find any of our county officials that want no restrictions at all. They want standards and they want guidelines. I think that the thing they are after is more flexibility, as you are getting now with protective payments. We have urged for years and years and pointed out that we do have this tiny percentage of these cases that do abuse these programs and if we had protective payments of some type we could avoid these abuses and stop the whole black name that the whole welfare program gets in some of these communities; so all we have ever tried to do is get more flexibility at the local level. We appreciate you have to have national standards.

Mr. ALGER. Of course the Secretary now is offering you a bonus if you will remove your residence requirement, and let's keep it on a specific, and if you take more of the Federal money you are going

to have to take the regulation, and if the Secretary and the President say, "This is what we want," this is what is going to be imposed on the State.

There, you see, is the danger. I am just calling that to your attention.

Mr. HILLENBRAND. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Again we thank both of you.

Mr. HILLENBRAND. Thank you.

(The National Association of County Officials filed the following material for the record:)

THE AMERICAN COUNTY PLATFORM

"The National Association of County Officials, dedicated as it is to combating centralization in government, does now call upon every county in the United States of America immediately to prepare itself for the assumption of the greater governmental responsibilities which lie just ahead so that local governments across the Nation may justify the faith and confidence which have been reposed in them by the people" (approved Chicago, 1953).

As approved August 15, 1961

OFFICIAL POLICY STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

(Published January 1962)

OFFICIAL NATIONAL POLICY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS AS AMENDED AND IMPLEMENTED

The NACO official national policy is in every sense the product of democracy in action. It is the condensation of policy resolutions approved after careful deliberation and by majority vote of the membership of the National Association of County Officials, but more than that, it is the method for implementing this policy.

Now, for the first time, NACO has a complete plan of action, a direction, as expressed in its policy, and a means of carrying out this program, as carefully formulated by the mid-winter business conference and put into effect through the committees, the affiliated associations, the State associations of county officials and the Western Regional District.

Now the considered opinion of the entire membership is to be aggressively and skillfully put into action by dedicated and capable committees. We now have the means to achieve all that was envisaged by the association when it was founded and incorporated in December 1935 as a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the service of the American counties. By rendering such service to the counties NACO becomes the effective, organized spokesman for the greatest segment of the entire American democracy, the spokesman for the vast majority of all Americans.

NACO can be proud of this policy statement and sure of its effective implementation.

5-1. Grants-in-aid.-Public assistance grants-in-aid by the Federal Government to the States and by the States to local government should be governed only by the minimum conditions and standards with respect to apportionment formulas, eligibility provisions, and administrative and accounting procedures. Rules and regulations promulgated by the Federal administrative agency should

be specific, concise, and only in conformity with Federal legislation governing such grants-in-aid. Before Federal funds due any State can be withdrawn provisions should be made in Federal law for a chance to be heard either in courts or by an independent commission. Administrative control should be kept at a minimum, avoiding detailed supervision in the accompanying expenses except to the extent that will safeguard public funds.

5-2. Local decisionmaking power.-Proper administration of the welfare program is handicapped by lack of power at the local level to make decisions. Many decisions can properly be made only in the light of local facts. Therefore power to make them should not be restricted by Federal regulations.

5-3. Advance notice.-Prior to any changes in Federal Security Administration rules and regulations affecting State and local administration of public assistance, notice thereof with an opportunity to be heard should be given to the National Association of County Officials and to the organizations of public officials whose duties would be affected by the proposed change.

5-4. Child welfare funds.-NACO approves legal provisions authorizing redistribution of child welfare service funds not used by a State in any year so as to make them available to other States. Former fund restrictions contained in the "doctrine of rurality" should not be restored; all allotments should be related to the total child population in each State.

5-5. Public welfare staffs.-We urge that Federal funds be made available on a permanent basis to assist States and counties in training public welfare staffs. 5-6. Administrative costs.-The Federal Social Security Act since 1935 has provided Federal financial participation in the administrative costs of public assistance equal to one-half of that spent by States and counties for administrative purposes. It is the firm policy of the National Association of County Officials that consideration of any change in Federal financial participation in public assistance administrative costs should be only by amendment to the Social Security Act itself after notice and hearing, and that any downward change in such participation should be accompanied by a corresponding adjustment of the tax sources. We are opposed to any proposals to change or to undermine these provisions of the Social Security Act which provide equal Federal matching funds for public assistance administrative costs.

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.

5-8. Dependent children in foster homes.-The Federal Security Society Act should be amended to provide Federal financial participation in aid granted to the States and local governments for dependent children, cared for in approved foster homes, boarding houses, and institutions, thus relieving the present inequitable financial burden on the States and local governments which must care for these children without Federal assistance.

The 1961 amendments to the Federal Act, which are a step in the right direction, should be retained, but extended as herein set forth.

5-9. Indian policies and services.—In carrying out changes in Indian policies, Congress and the Federal administrative agencies should consider at all times the important need of minimizing the shock to county government caused by the abrupt cessation of any given type of service to Indians, particularly in the fields of health, welfare and hospitalization.

5-10. Residence requirements for public assistance.-The National Association of County Officials recommends retention of Federal law provisions which permit States to impose limited residence requirements for eligibility of public assist

ance.

5-11. Federal entry into the field of general assistance.-The National Association of County Officials recommends against the entry of the Federal Government into the field of general assistance and affirms its belief in the existing four categories of Federal public assistance; namely, aid to the aged, the blind, the children and the disabled; and further recommends that any extension of Federal

public assistance programs be by the orderly development of the present categories.

5-12. Federal financing of public assistance.-The National Association of County Officials believes that the principle of "variable grants" contained in the Federal Social Security Act (1959) is sufficient to assist the "poorer" States while placing a higher burden upon the "richer" States and that such system should not be changed.

5-13. Relative Federal share of public assistance costs.-Regardless of the desirability or undesirability of Federal entry into financing a portion of general assistance costs, such a new Federal program should stand on its own feet and should not be financed by reductions in existing Federal shares of the costs of aged, blind, child and disabled aid.

5-14. Medical care to the aged. We oppose any plan to finance medical care to the aged which will mandate additional financial responsibilities upon county government.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bondy? Mr. Bondy, for purposes of this record will you identify yourself?

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. BONDY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE ASSEMBLY; ACCOMPANIED BY MISS ELIZABETH WICKENDEN, CONSULTANT ON PUBLIC SOCIAL POLICY TO THE ASSEMBLY

Mr. BONDY. Mr. Chairman, I am Robert E. Bondy, the director of the National Social Welfare Assembly. I am accompanied by Miss. Elizabeth Wickenden, who is consultant on public social policy to the assembly.

The CHAIRMAN. You may have a seat, Mr. Bondy. You are recognized, sir.

Mr. BONDY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may I, at the outset, make two brief statements which seem to me to rather represent the nub of what I have put down in the testimony that has been prepared for you?

The first one I would say is that the Social Security Act, back in the mid-1930's, was a landmark, the opening of a new epoch in making minimum provision for the care of people in need. Likewise, the enactment of H.R. 10032 into law will open another epoch, the epoch of prevention and rehabilitation.

This is a shift in emphasis from public assistance as the center of our American plan for care of people to that of helping people to help themselves to independence and self-sufficiency with public assistance as an indispensable resource to that end.

The second overall statement I would make, Mr. Chairman, is that there is today a widespread and growing interest and participation of voluntary social welfare organizations in public welfare matters. This is very marked. It has been very marked during the past 4 or 5 years. There is a new awareness, we are convinced, that the combined resources and efforts of government and of voluntary organizations are essential if adequate care of people is attained and the processes of prevention and rehabilitation are to be effective.

I make these broad statements, Mr. Chairman, because my organization, the National Social Welfare Assembly, which was organized in its present form at the end of World War II, is the central planning organization for social welfare. It is, one might say, for the volun