cation, or inadequate technical skills for employment, ignorance, and inadequate or destructive living conditions.

There is no intention by anyone speaking in favor of this measure to give assurances that we are working toward a day when a public welfare program will be totally unnecessary. We know we will never reach that point. But it is vital that we exert our best efforts to reduce the problem to the greatest extent possible.

A feature of prime importance in the proposal now before us is, I believe, the program to train additional welfare personnel. It was a disheartening revelation to me that in public assistance agencies only one welfare worker in eight has had any professional training, and only a fraction of that number has completed the required 2 years of schooling or social work experience to be considered a trained worker. Plans to prevent or reduce dependency are admirable, but it is futile to institute programs which are certain of failure unless an adequate supply of trained personnel is available to provide the necessary services. The Department's proposals wisely include provisions designed to give great impetus to training of welfare workers. With the availability of a greater number of workers with specialized skills, agencies responsible for administration of public welfare programs will be permitted wider latitude in experimentation and demonstration of new methods seeking to combat the serious social problems which now face so many thousands of our citizens.

It is not my intention to quote statistics: I am sure Secretary Ribicoff has already provided you with a wealth of material designed to prove the genuine need for the legislation which has been proposed. Nor is it necessary or advisable for me to include in this statement estimates of what each of the proposals will cost-this year, next year, or projected to 1970.

I know you will agree that it is unfortunate, but all too true, that the general public is inclined to hold the uncharitable attitude that welfare recipients are merely parasites who intend to live on publie moneys as long as possible. In actual fact, however, special independent studies reveal that the proportion of ineligible persons who receive public assistance is not more than 1.5 percent-and those who do receive assistance as a result of willful misrepresentation are only a small part of that percentage. Though minute in number, these are the people who give the entire program a "black eye."

It is important to note, therefore, that this bill will permit more effective steps for constant vigilance by Federal and State agencies to prevent fraud and to deal effectively with it when it occurs.

While the public image will be slow to improve, it is vital for me to stress the importance of the ultimate result of the programs proposed-results which will no doubt take years to measure, but we must start now. Training for prevention and rehabilitation will lead to independence, and to the restoration of human dignity too long denied. Let us begin by supporting H.R. 10032.

The CHAIRMAN. We are pleased to have with us today the Honorable Fernand J. St. Germain from the State of Rhode Island. Thank you for coming before the committee to give us your views.

STATEMENT OF HON. FERNAND J. ST. GERMAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Mr. ST. GERMAIN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am happy to have this opportunity to present my views on the proposed "Public Welfare Amendments of 1962" to your committee.

In his state of the Union message to the Congress in January, President Kennedy called for a welfare program which would stress "services instead of support, rehabilitation instead of relief, and training for useful work instead of prolonged dependency." This very desirable objective is realized in the suggested bill which has been sent to this committee by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. I am confident that you will give the provisions of this proposed legislation most careful attention, since they provide concrete and positive solutions to many of our present welfare problems. The main purpose of welfare assistance is to help people to help themselves. Therefore, the theory motivating welfare programs must be oriented toward the return of welfare recipients to the highest possible degree of self-sufficiency. In order to bring this about, the suggested bill calls for aid to the States in providing the increased services required, and it directs the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to specify the minimum standards a State must maintain in order to receive such aid.

Another important feature of the administration proposal is the broadening of child welfare services to include all areas of the country. This feature, along with increased Federal participation in day care for children of working parents, is a significant advancement. No welfare program is any better than the persons responsible for its direction. For this reason, the plan to increase the Federal Government's share in helping the States to train personnel for welfare work is a farsighted one. With better trained social workers and other welfare specialists, assistance to the needy can be made more effective and meaningful.

The provisions in the suggested bill for Federal participation in making payments to persons involved in community work and training programs, for giving maximum training opportunities to public assistance recipients, and for the utilization of training and retraining programs, are all vital links in a well integrated, realistic, welfare program.

Since some parents are unable to handle money wisely and would endanger the welfare of dependent children, the proposed measure wisely makes provision for payments to be made on behalf of such children to other persons interested in their welfare when this is necessary.

The granting of assistance to children of unemployed parents, the making of payments for children in foster homes and nonprofit, private, child-care institutions, and a permanent increase in Federal sharing in payments to the aged, disabled, and blind are other important features of the measure.

Financial help to States in order to encourage them to eliminate residence requirements which might prevent aged, blind, or disabled persons from receiving benefits is offered in the Secretary's draft. I am happy to note that Rhode Island is one of the few States which

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.