able standard of living to those who-because of age, disability, family responsibilities or temporary economic dislocations-are not able to work.

The cost and volume of public welfare services can best be minimized by the development of conditions and measures that prevent the needs that bring people to public welfare agencies. In this way the public welfare agencies can be freed to perform their own essential function of individualized aid and service to meet particular needs. To this end we support (1) contributory social insurance programs to meet predictable needs on an adequate level; (2) provision for the training, placement, relocation, and assisted migration (if needed) of occupationally displaced or handicapped workers as well as for young people and others entering the labor market; (3) provision of employment at prevailing wage rates through public works programs for persons, including young people, for whom other jobs are not available; (4) publicly financed preventive and remedial health services for the protection, treatment, and rehabilitation of persons of all ages affected or threatened by physical or emotional illness; (5) provisions to support fair labor standards; (6) provisions to assure equal treatment and op portunity to all groups in the population; (7) provisions to assure decent housing and community conditions; and (8) provisions for research, including social research, and demonstration programs related to the causes of economic need and social maladjustment.

IV. NEEDED CHANGES IN PUBLIC WELFARE

We know from our firsthand experience and observation that many individuals and groups do not today receive from public welfare agencies the help that they desperately need. There is a vast gulf between present reality and our goal: a public welfare program which first provides a floor of economic and social protection on the basis of actual need to all individuals and families who fall below an acceptable minimum standard and, second, does so in a way which supports their self-respect and helps, wherever possible, to remove the cause of their distress. We, therefore, urge the States to examine their laws, resources, and policies with a view to making their public welfare programs more adequately serve the needs of all of those within their boundaries and to do so in terms of statewide standards that assure minimum protection in all their subdivisions. But because ours is one Nation, based on one economy and serving one people, we also look to the Federal Government to use its leadership and broader based financial resources to help the States develop policies and programs that assure adequate protection to all Americans wherever they may live. We, therefore, urge the Congress and the several State legislatures to examine and revise their welfare laws and supporting appropriations with the following goals in mind.

1. Eligibility. It is to the general public interest that public welfare benefits and services should be promptly available to all those who need them. Eligibility should be based on actual and individually determined need for such aid and/or services without arbitrary restrictions related to residence, categorical definitions, social status or formulas for the sharing of costs among the several levels of government. Social services should not be restricted to persons in economic need. This is especially important when prompt help will serve to prevent or minimize such long-term problems as family breakdown, chronic dependency or invalidism. Child welfare services should move toward a plan of Federal-State cooperation which emphasizes statewide applicability and a broadened definition of their scope to include preventive, protective, and supportive services to all children who need them.

2. Program. Individualized aid and service is the essence of the public welfare program. It is, therefore, essential that the financial and other program resources of the public welfare agency be sufficient in amount and variety to meet actual needs in the most constructive way. For many people whose need is unusual and continuing (for example, the very old who need nursing home care) the principal need is for more adequate financial assistance in order to provide a life of dignity and a better standard of care. For others there is need for a more intensive investment in social service in order to help them find the means to self-support or a more satisfactory way of life. For others the primary need is for a wider variety of direct services such as physical rehabilitation; vocational retraining, experience, and relocation; day care and other child-caring services; homemaker service; protected living arrangements; specialized institutional care, etc. Fitting the service to the need will in the long run prove the best economy in public welfare expenditure and the best investment in better individual and family functioning.

3. Means to these ends.-To acheive these ends four kinds of change are paramount. First, there is need for better financing from all levels of government, given under conditions which assure an adequate level of help to people wherever they may live. Second, there is a compelling need for more professional social work and related personnel and the resources of all levels of government should be committed to an intensive investment in the training and employment of such personnel for public welfare functions. Third, there is a need for streamlining public welfare agency structure, policies, and administrative procedures to better serve these ends. Fourth, there is need for a better interpretation of the job of public welfare so that policymakers and the public may be fully informed regarding its functions and its problems.

On December 13, 1961, the assembly annual meeting adopted the above position statement and, on motion from the floor, added the following statement with respect to the public assistance responsibility of public welfare agencies:

"In adopting this position statement on public welfare, we, the members of the National Social Welfare Assembly in annual meeting on December 13, 1961, wish to reaffirm our belief in public welfare as a vital responsibility of a democracy which recognizes the dignity and rights of human beings.

These Where

"We wish also to express our confidence in the integrity of the vast majority of those who have been obliged to turn to public assistance in time of need. are people like the rest of us who would prefer to remain self-supporting. dishonesty occurs, it represents the same small percentage as may be found in other walks of American life. We do not condone cheating or low moral standards, whether it takes the form of income tax evasion or the hiding of resources by a public assistance applicant. But neither do we think it just to condemn an entire group or program because of the misdeeds of a small minority— a small minority whose infractions can be dealt with by the regular processes of law.

"The purpose of public assistance is to provide a living for those without other means of support. Obviously, in a money economy individuals must have money to survive. Public assistance rolls are made up primarily of those who are in need because they are unable to work: the old, the young, the disabled, and those for whom no employment is available. These are factors for which the individual cannot be held responsible.

"No society will deny help to those in need, particularly to needy children. For their best development children should be cared for in their own homes whenever possible, rather than in institutions or foster homes, for children's right to parental care and affection must be preserved. Too, care at home costs less in dollars.

"We reaffirm our belief that for long term gains, prevention and rehabilitation are essential parts of public welfare services, for public welfare must be an instrument for restoring and maintaining people in lives of usefulness. To do the job well, there is no substitute for well-qualified staff and adequate financing."

Mr. BONDY. Mr. Chairman, may I request, in addition to what I have filed, that there be put in the record the brief statement of the National Council of Jewish Women, which I hold?

The CHAIRMAN. At the conclusion of your remarks and responses to questions it may be added: that is, Mrs. Charles Hymes' statement. Without objection that will be included in the record at that point.

Mr. Bondy, as one far more informed in this field than I am, can it be said that the enactment of this proposal, H.R. 10032, will provide the opportunity for better administration of our welfare programs and in that respect tend to move in the direction of minimizing or eliminating abuses that are alleged to exist within the operation of the program?

Secondly, will it offer more than a mere possibility, but a probability, that in the years ahead there may be reductions in the cost of operating these welfare programs from the point of view of Federal and State governments?

Mr. BONDY. Mr. Chairman, on your first point, as you know, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has taken steps now within authority that he holds under law to tighten up certain ad

ministrative provisions that, it is hoped, would reduce and tend to eliminate abuses. We believe that within the provisions of this resolution there will be a strengthening of administrative lines and procedures by reason of having more adequate and more competent staffing, people who are in a better position to catch the person, and nobody can say it does not exist, who intends to take advantage of something for his own benefit when he does not have a right to it.

We believe that is a very important problem of today and we believe that the provisions of this bill, particularly in the strengthening of administrative and service staff, will tend very strongly to further elimination of those abuses.

On your second point, I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that the experience in a good many communities, some of which the Secretary cited to you the other day, where adequate staff has been put on on a controlled small experimental basis, so to speak, there has been the double results; first, of aiding many clients to go off the relief rolls and to find themselves in a self-supporting independent position; and, secondly, as a result of an end saving in the total public assistance expenditure.

If those experiences can be duplicated with more adequate staffing generally, it is our judgment that there is good reason to believe that there would be a significant reduction in costs.

The CHAIRMAN. In addition to the personnel that you mention, is it not your thought that making permanent the payments to those who may be in foster homes, the establishment of the protective payments, can also lead to some possible elimination of some alleged abuses within the welfare operation?

Mr. BONDY. I think that is true. That is certainly true where the person is, one might say, incompetent, not necessarily mentally incompetent in the proper use of the word, but certainly incompetent in the handling of funds.

I think that it is exceedingly important in viewing this provision, however, to pay great mind and make provision for safeguards; because there is a very wide and general acceptance, I think, now in our country of the principle of cash payments.

This exceptional procedure should be regarded as exceptional in our judgment and should have important safeguards thrown around it. The CHAIRMAN. What is your position with respect to the limitation referred to by the previous witness in the protective payment? Mr. BONDY. I would say at the outset, as the resolution suggests, there should be a more limited tryout of this lifting of the present cash payment provision in exceptional cases. I would think that it should not be thrown wide open, that there should be a limitation. It is a matter in which there could very well be some period of experience to see how well it operates and whether abuses enter in. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions?

Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mason.

Mr. MASON. I want to ask one question, sir. Is this mobility of labor that you talk about one of the reasons for the trend to a strong centralized government and the trend away from States rights and State control?

Mr. BONDY. Well, I do not, Mr. Congressman, see cause-and-effect relationship there. The point I was trying to make was that our American economy is in a new mobile changing form. The geography of American industry is changing. The Government did not bring that about. The geography of American industry is changing because of other factors, economic factors.

Mr. MASON. However, because of that the Government then must assume the responsibility?

Mr. BONDY. Well, part of the need of American industry and business today is a mobility, and that means a mobile labor force. We will not have a mobile labor force to the extent that business and industry require if there are penalties and limitations imposed upon the workingman and his freedom to move about.

Mr. MASON. I have been a Member of Congress for quite a while and during that time I have seen the Federal Government take over more than half of what the States used to be responsible for, and I do not like that trend away from local government and State control to the Federal Government. The reason for it has always been given that better administration would be the result of centralized control. We had testimony this morning from one of the outstanding States in the Union on this problem, Colorado, and they are fearful if this bill goes through that a great deal of the responsibility that they feel now rests upon them in Colorado will be taken away from them and the net result will be a poorer administration in Colorado and a loss of care for the needy in Colorado.

Mr. BONDY. Perhaps there is a mistaken concept on the provisions of the bill because there is no purpose, as I understand it, to change the basic concept of Federal, State, and local responsibility for public welfare. The administration of public welfare is a State and local responsibility.

Ás Congressman Alger stated a bit ago, when the Federal Government makes grants to States it sets down provisions and standards under which the States and localities will operate; and that in the social security program has been thought to be a very reasonable arrangement.

I would see the States, rather than having lessened responsibility placed upon them, having a big new opportunity for strengthening their whole position under the provisions of this resolution, particularly in the purposes that it has for prevention and rehabilitation. Mr. MASON. According to that, then, the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Rogers, is unduly exercised as to the results that this bill will bring about in Colorado?

Mr. BONDY. I am afraid I could not speak to that.

Mr. MASON. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Alger.

Mr. ALGER. Mr. Bondy, you have made your position very plain and I had the opportunity to read through this as well as to listen to you. Are your views related, or would they change relative to a surplus position in our Federal financing as against a deficit?

Mr. BONDY. Do you mind expanding your question?

Mr. ALGER. No. Would your views change at all in the request you make for better financing and more Federal contribution if we are operating at a deficit as a Federal Government as compared with being in the black and having a surplus position?

In other words, if we are deficit-financing as a Federal Government with tremendous drains on our economy for military and other reasons that we agree must be paid, does that in any way alter your view as you have presented it to us today?

Mr. BONDY. Mr. Congressman, my view is that the Government holds a basic responsibility for the well-being of its people. There has been an expanding role of Government.

Mr. ALGER. I do not question that.

Mr. BONDY. As one of your colleagues stated, and whether the times be those of expansion or contraction from a national budget standpoint, or an inflation-deflation standpoint, there is no divesting of-I am trying to direct myself to your question, sir-responsibility that basically rests in government because there happens to be an up or down turn in the economy itself. It is faced with different situations. Mr. ALGER. Let me rephrase my question. Quoting you: "Basic to this objective"-speaking of all the welfare needs, on page 2 in the position statement-"is the existence of a healthy adaptive

My question is, if our economy is not healthy because we are operating in the red at a time when we are locked in mortal struggle with the enemy, who is determined to spend us into bankruptcy, does that change at all your position in asking us for more Federal money?

I am just asking you to step into our shoes here regardless of politics or anything else. Where are we going to get the money if we are operating in the red? That is the decision this committee has to make, and if we do not raise the money for it we have deficit financing.

I am not arguing with you, Mr. Bondy, on the merits of your bill, though I would at another time. I was simply asking where will the money come from and I was hoping you would help us on that.

My second question relates to something else you said which leaves me absolutely at sea and I would like the committee to go into that when we have more time. You say, on page 3 of your position statement: "Social services should not be restricted to persons in economic need."

I had thought-Mr. Chairman, maybe I am just at sea on this bill— that we were talking about economic need. If that is not the yardstick, then, Mr. Bondy, I would like you to make an additional statement or call my attention in your statement to where you indicate what the appropriate yardsticks are if they are not economic need; because I thought that was the requirement in this bill, to help those that really need the help economically. What are your yardsticks? Mr. BONDY. Let me say that the concept has long been established that public welfare is directed to people in economic need. That was the basis of the social security legislation and insurance, to put a floor under a public assistance program, to meet at least minimum need. We are in an evolving and changing world and we find in this country that we define the needs of people as being not only economic need, but social need as well. The reason that it is important to address attention to those who have these other types of need is that