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 Before Federal funds due any State can be withdrawn provisions should be made in Federal law for a chance to be heard either in courts or by an independent commission.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 direc tion, 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

tary social welfare field and for many governmental interests what the National Manufacturers Association is to industry and business or the AFL-CIO is to labor.

It is made up of 71 national organizations, 54 of them voluntary organizations I will name some of them for your information shortly-and of 14 Federal Government agencies or departments that work cooperatively with us.

Not only is there this national aspect of our organization, but locally, also, 400 communities in the country today, the larger communities of the country and a good many smaller ones, participate in the assembly through their local community chests, and united funds, and community welfare councils. That means we have within this organization a representation of both national and local interests, of both governmental and voluntary interests, and of both lay, that is citizen, and professional interests. We therefore find ourselves in a unique position to tap the interest of the people of the country through this big field of social welfare and these important questions that are before your committee in H.R. 10032.

From the very beginning of the assembly we have taken a deep interest in public welfare matters. We feel that public welfare is a basic responsibility of government, that voluntary effort must be in partnership with it in many, many ways, providing many of the skilled and specialized services in a community that then become available to those in departments of public welfare who wish to draw upon them for the benefit of the people who come for assistance and guidance.

About 7 years ago, we pointed up our interest in these public social policy matters and in public welfare by the creation of an important committee on social issues and policies. That committee has 85 members. There are 50 of these national voluntary organizations that participate in it, and I should like just to read you the names of several of them so that you may understand the group that has an interest and which has been participating in the development of this material that I am presenting and certain other material that I will ask later, Mr. Chairman, be filed in the record.

Among the participating organizations, among the 50, are the AFLCIO Community Services Activities, the Child Welfare League of America, the Council of Jewish Federations and Welfare Funds, the Council on Social Work Education, the Family Service Association of America, the National Association of Social Workers, National Council of Protestant Churches, Episcopal Church, and other denominational bodies, including the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States, the National Conference of Catholic Charities, National Jewish Welfare Board, National Council of Jewjsh Women, National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, National Travelers' Aid Association, National Urban League, Salvation Army, and the Volunteers of America.

The United Community Funds and Councils, which is the national body representative of those great citizen movements, and community chest and United Fund organizations, and community welfare council organizations, and YWCA, that gives you an idea of the breadth of participation and scope.

A number of these organizations, Mr. Chairman, are appearing before you to testify. I come, after discussion in this important Committee on Social Issues and Policies, to give what seems to be the consensus and overall point of view of these organizations.

It was just recently after a period of considerable study that my organization developed what we called a position statement on public welfare. I am asking, Mr. Chairman, that in connection with my testimony that short statement be filed with the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you want it in the record?

Mr. BONDY. In the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it will be included in the record. Mr. BONDY. I make a point of this, Mr. Chairman, and will refer to it with some quotations from it as I proceed because the basic principles that are set forth there, which we believe is, one might say, a statement of "This I Believe" in these broad matters of public welfare, are very closely related to and underlie the important provisions that this bill contains that is before this committee.

There was a clear consensus as we went into discussion of the provisions of this bill that it would represent a substantial advance toward the objectives that were spelled out in this position statement on public welfare, a statement which had the active participation in its evolvement of scores of people, many organizations, and a good many years of experience; not only on the part of these voluntary organizations, but experience that we drew upon from the public welfare field, itself.

Alongside of this there is a second statement which I think is very pertinent, Mr. Chairman, and which will be referred to by another one of your witnesses this morning, on mobility and progress.

There has been reference this morning to residence requirements. Our study of this question in connection with many active in the business community and the industrial community very strongly bears out the point that we are in this country in our industrial and business life in a changing economy. We are in a more mobile economy in our business and industrial life. That part of our economy requires a mobile labor force.

Plants move from city to suburb and from State to State. There is a mobility in industry itself that is very striking, and if industry is to properly equip itself with the human resources to do the job that it must do, it must also have a mobile force that it can draw from, and it is for that reason, among many others, that we very heartily join in the proposals in the House resolution on this subject of residence.

May I turn to this position statement on public welfare now, the first sentence of which says:

This statement of support for public welfare has been adopted by the National Social Welfare Assembly in the belief that no social welfare agency, whatever its immediate responsibility, can do its own job well unless it does so within the framework of a sound governmental welfare policy.

The first part of our statement on social welfare, public and voluntary, discusses the basic role of social welfare in our society, and it states in part:

The purposes of democracy are best served when social welfare programs function under both voluntary and government auspices. Only government

the statement says

can meet widespread social welfare needs which require programs based on a rule of law, tax-based financing, or principles of universal availability. There are, in addition, particular circumstances in which a social service can be better or more acceptably provided by government than by a voluntary welfare agency or where the public interest will be best served by providing the individual or community with a choice of auspices.

The one is necessary to the other, which is true in many other phases of our American life.

The second section of this statement describes the specific functions and programs in public welfare which I will not take your time to go into here.

The third section discusses the necessary limitations which hold public welfare to an underpinning or supplementary role. It states in part:

Public welfare helps support a healthy society by assisting individuals in times of hardship, readjustment, and social difficulty, but there are limits to what it can do. It cannot take the place of an economy which provides the means of livelihood to all. It cannot substitute for the broad social measures that reduce or prevent need.

Too often public welfare is blamed for the very social ills it seeks to mitigate for individuals. It cannot do its own job effectively if it is regarded as a panacea for all social problems or a general scapegoat for their existence. An effective public welfare policy must, therefore, be built upon a foundation of broad economic and social measures that contribute to general prosperity and minimize economic hardship and social handicap for individuals.

Our statement then goes on to enumerate the various social measures with which this committee is familiar-vocational training and job placement, health measures, and others which could help reduce the size and cost of the public assistance case load.

While we desire to see an adequate and effective public welfare program, we also strongly favor all measures which will serve to prevent the needs and thus reduce the number of persons obliged to turn to public welfare for help.

My opening remark, Mr. Chairman, was on that very point, that the central significance of this important bill before your committee is that it seeks to bring into the forefront preventive and rehabilitative measures alongside of those indispensable measures of material assistance that we refer to as public assistance.

In the fourth section of our statement we enumerate the kind of changes we believe would help public welfare agencies meet the needs which actually exist in a more effective and constructive way, and I quote here briefly:

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.

That, of course, is an underlying concept in the social security program of today.

We, therefore, urge the Congress and the several State legislatures to examine and revise their welfare laws and supporting appropriations—

with three goals in mind.

We refer here to that important matter of eligibility, who is entitled to public assistance; secondly, to the program itself, the services and content; and third to the means to this end.