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.

As 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

economy.

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

we thereby get at the preventive side of things and make it possible. for people to meet their problems themselves and therefore find it unnecessary to come for material assistance to the Government itself.

In other words, it is a stitch-in-time kind of thing. This is particularly pertinent in connection with child welfare services, where there are family situations, sometimes called protective services.

Mr. ALGER. Is the need as recognizable though in the stitch-in-time sense, and I am trying to follow your logic. Economic need is readily recognizable, when people say they are short of food, clothing, housing, whatever the need, but how do you detect need without economic need? Are you going to dig into the families, or are you going to wait until it is dropped on your doorstep, because if you do not use economic need, how are you going to detect, until it is abloslutely thrown in the court, when the mother turns away from the children and the neighbors hear the children crying, that sort of thing?

If you do not use economic need, I am wondering how you can use other guidelines to detect the care that is needed by the community? Mr. BONDY. I think one example is the one you cited, sir; that is, in family situations where in the schools there will come to light an incompatibility in the home where the children are not under the kind of guidance and help that we all hope to see children have. The school will find that this results in truancy from the school, leading to delinquent action.

You get a cause-and-effect relationship, and there is thereby at that point such as the schools, in child welfare services also, in the context of community organizations, an ability to determine that need exists which does not solely require, or may be very little require, material assistance; but if allowed to go on and snowball up could constitute a big problem for the community when you add those situations all together.

Mr. ALGER. Then the question is, at this point, whether we need the Federal Governmnet to enter the picture in a larger degree than we have had in the past?

Mr. BONDY. I think, Mr. Congressman, only in the sense that the Federal, State, and local system of public welfare is the system that we all seem to have accepted as the proper one.

Mr. ALGER. Yes; but there are great encroachments on the present State system now, residence requirement and others, as you know, in this bill so I think that is what we have to think of.

Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions of Mr. Bondy? If not, Mr. Bondy, we thank you, sir.

Mr. BONDY. Thank you.

(The statement by the National Council of Jewish Women, referred to in Mr. Bondy's testimony, follows:)

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC., NEW YORK N.Y.

The National Council of Jewish Women, a voluntary organization with membership of 123,000 in 329 affiliated local units, has a long history of support and assistance for the less fortunate members of the community. It is our experience and our conviction that provision of services to prevent dependency and get to the root of its causes are essential to any program concerned with human welfare and human dignity. We commend the general approach of H.R. 10032 for attempting to provide such services and to rehabilitate those whose dependency has too often been taken for granted.

At these hearings, a number of voluntary organizations are appearing to state their views. Their spokesmen represent, primarily, the views of the professional social agency supported by voluntary contributions. We are here representing the women who contribute their time and funds to provide needed services in their own communities. Such voluntary groups can, we believe, meet a tremendous need by helping to find new and additional ways of coping with complicated social and individual problems. We believe that President Kennedy's reference to the need to be imaginative in dealing with these problems, "to encourage experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects that *** make our welfare programs more flexible and adaptable to local needs," applies to voluntary agencies and it applies to Government agencies too. Because we believe deeply in joint citizen-governmental action we count upon the Federal Government to give leadership and direction in utilizing every approcah which has been tried with any success.

I wish to comment more specifically only on the provisions to strengthen child welfare services and to authorize the inclusion of day-care grants; because council women have some direct experience working with such programs. The first day-care center sponsored by a council section was started in 1944. In taking a sample of council sponsored day-care centers, we find that in 5 communities studied we are able to serve a total of 405 children. We know in each of these places how vital this small service is and how much additional facilities are needed. The day-care center for children is one of the most important single factors in reestablishing self-sufficiency in families and preventing dependency.

In the services to children which the National Council of Jewish Women provides in the community—whether day-care centers, rehabilitation centers, or special services to the handicapped-we make no distinction between those whose families are on public welfare and those who are not. We believe that the further extension of this principle, already embodied in the provision for child welfare services, is important to the future welfare of our children.

Mrs. CHARLES HYMES,
National President.

FEBRUARY 8, 1962.

The CHAIRMAN. Miss Colborn?

Miss Colborn, will you please identify yourself for this record. We recall your other appearances before the committee.

STATEMENT OF MISS FERN M. COLBORN, SECRETARY FOR SOCIAL EDUCATION AND ACTION OF THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SETTLEMENTS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, NEW YORK CITY Miss COLBORN. I am Fern M. Colborn, Secretary for Social Education and Action of the National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers, 226 West 47th Street, New York City.

The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized, Miss Colborn.

Miss COLBORN. The National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers is made up of 308 member agencies and branches located in 88 cities of 31 States.

I am here to testify in favor of the new public welfare amendments as embodied in H.R. 10032. The authority of organization to present this testimony is based upon official action taken at our annual meeting held in Boston, June 1960, and upon legislative goals adopted by our board of directors, meeting at Hull House, Chicago, January 27, 1962. The public welfare program of the United States as embodied in laws passed by the Congress, going back to the days of the great depression, and repeatedly amended since: and the laws of the various States and localities provide for the collective responsibility of society to meet individual needs. This program is one of the major achievements of our way of life today. Our organization has been a friend

of this program since the beginning, and we come here today as a friendly critic and, hopefully, to win your support toward moving this great program on to further gains. New needs call for new approaches.

We are now faced with certain problems that have developed as a result of two or three generations within the same family having received their full sustenance from a public assistance program. The mobility of our population, for whatever reason, continues to be at a very high rate. Further, this mobility has now been going on for more than 10 years. It is mainly from our rural areas to urban centers. The tempo has stepped up since World War II, between the States and between the possessions of the United States to the mainland. It is not unlike many of the situations existing in the underdeveloped countries today. We have a stepped-up birthrate. As a country, we benefit from the great strides in automation but suffer from the attendant problems: an oversupply of unskilled workers, and workers who have skills for jobs that are now nonexistent.

Public welfare and human need: This testimony is directed toward the vital problem of alleviating human need, rather than the technical side of these amendments. We consider the latter important, but we will leave such testimony to others.

Special needs this legislation can meet: Our experience in working with today's problems leads us to believe that dependency can be reduced, particularly in relation to some of the newer problems which we now face. We see these, generally, as follows:

There is the so-called hard-core unemployed. Almost always these families are the victims of dependency which may be caused by lack of education, or because their jobs have disappeared due to scientific improvements of our time. A health or accident problem may have impaired their ability to work. The wage earners in these families can be helped, either through a training program, a retraining program, or a counseling program, so that they may find their place in society. These families that are now unproductive can become productive. Jobs must also be made available with local communities. However, if this is to happen, then, too, we have a whole group of disorganized families for whom life has become too complex, so that they tend to become spectators rather than participants. They need the kind of friendly hand that will help them to find their places in their own communities and help them to learn the very elementary steps that have to be taken so that responsibility can be assumed for one's own future. This is particularly true of many of our younger people.

With the two or three generations of families whose sole income has been from relief, which is an entirely new phenomenon in our society, may I say, we find this group of families associating with each other; the daughters marry the weaker, dependent men of other dependent families, and each generation producing a weaker family. We believe that this cycle must be stopped and know from results already achieved in this area that it can be stopped.

Migration has meant that families are cut off from the ties with near reltaives, and the wider family upon which previous generations could depend is not present in the new community. These families need the social worker as a friend and counselor at many critical times