tioning of public welfare extends to the solving of the problem of unemployment and the sponsorship and administration of public works.

At the same time it is wholly appropriate that the States and localities be given the option (with such safeguards as to family protection, working conditions, and wage rates, as are prescribed in the bill) to establish community work programs for employable public assistance recipients.

The practical advantages of occupational training and of maintaining work habits, if aggressively implemented, have been amply demonstrated and should be given special emphasis when programs of this kind are undertaken. Carefully planned and supervised work programs of this kind might be expected to prove most successful in communities having a high rate of long-term unemployment.

Much has been written on the subject of restrictive residence laws as they apply to public welfare assistance and the arguments have long been well developed. Almost every published report is to the effect that these restrictions should be abolished or sharply reduced. However, a deep reluctance persists on the parts of States and localities to take such action, mainly because of the fear that an unfair burden might fall upon some jurisdictions.

The fact remains that a very small proportion of assistance applicants are recent arrivals, and restrictive laws are not as great a protection against assuming responsibility for those in need as they might seem. In addition to their inhumane aspects, the primary effect to these laws is to complicate and increase the costs of public welfare administration, since as long as any restrictions whatever remain, the residence status of every applicant must be fully investigated and established.

The elimination of restrictive residence laws would free the agency staffs to spend their time to more productive purposes. It appears unlikely, however, that very many States, acting unilaterally, will be able to abolish or drastically reduce these restrictions. This was clearly recognized by the Governors' conference in 1959 in the adoption of a resolution calling for Federal legislation to prohibit States to impose residence requirements in excess of 1 year as a condition for eligibility for public assistance. The conference at the same time. recommended further that States join in a voluntary compact to eliminate these restrictions completely.

The proposals in the bill now before your committee would have the essential effect of carrying out these recommendations. States which abolish these restrictions altogether would gain the added advantage of an incentive bonus in the Federal share of assistance costs and at the same time they would eliminate completely the administrative expense of verifying the residence of every assistance applicant. One of the shortcomings of the ADC program, in the view of our association, has been the limitation of Federal matching funds to cover the costs of assistance for only 1 parent or adult relative in the home. Prior to the addition of unemployment as a condition of eligibility this limitation affected only those families receiving assistance because of the disability of the breadwinner, but in those cases it has constituted an anomalous departure from the stated purpose of the program, with children paying the penalty, and we are glad there is a provision in the new bill to correct this.

If unemployment is to be continued as a condition of eligibility in ADC it becomes that much more important to provide Federal matching for the assistance needs of both parents. To do otherwise would be to weaken the potentialities of the program for keeping families together.

It is common knowledge that some parents receiving assistance through ADC are unable to manage their funds to carry out the intended benefit for their children. While these instances are relatively few in number, when they exist they seriously jeopardize the wellbeing of the children involved, and they bring forth adverse criticism against the program.

Various possible solutions to this problem have been considered among administrators and specialist in public welfare, without any clear consensus emerging. There is general agreement, however, that the unrestricted money payment principle should be preserved for the mass of public assistance recipients.

Th proposal in the bill for protective payments, with the careful safeguards which are prescribed, appears to satisfy the major objec tions that arise in this connection. Some difficulty may be experienced in finding persons to assume the responsibilities of voluntary protector, but an urgent problem does exist in a small number of cases and this approach is worthy of a fair trial. Here, again, the emphasis on rehabilitation is consistent with the central purpose of the bill. For employable persons receiving assistance, who are not needed at home to care for their children, the best possible rehabilitation is to find a job. The public welfare agencies should, therefore, do everything possible to conduct their assistance and service programs to promote that objective. One of the important means for accomplishing this is to adjust the assistance budget to enable persons to meet the added expenses necessary to holding a job and provide some incentive to earning at least part of their support. The proposal in the bill which would permit and encourage States to take this factor into account is consistent with the rehabilitation objective.

As in the 1961 ADC amendment to extend assistance to unemployed parents, the temporary amendment to pay for the support of children in foster care has not been widely adopted up to this time. Some of the same reasons apply in both instances the need for State legislation, and the short-term character of the provisions.

The relatively small number of children receiving assistance through this provision is accounted for by other factors as well. One is that the number of children who might be expected to require this type of assistance, under the terms of the law, is not large. Another factor is that only those children may be assisted who have been removed from their homes since the time the amendment was enacted. The effect is therefore cumulative. It started from zero and may be expected to build up gradually over several years.

Federal participation in these payments would help assure that children who are removed from their family homes would have available to them the care and services they need.

In a program affecting large numbers of people, as public assistance does, it is necessary to require that assistance be available on the same terms to needy persons in all parts of a State.

One consequence of this safeguard, however, is that it tends to inhibit innovation and experimentation. This bill would permit States, under prescribed and limited conditions, to obtain Federal matching funds for the support of research and demonstrations and pilot projects designed to promote the objectives of the program without the usual restrictions in this general area.

Projects of this kind should be encouraged. The proposal in the bill seems feasible and desirable and holds promise of contributing to the improvement of public assistance administration.

The proposed option to States to combine the three adult public assistance categories into a single category is a step in the direction of integration and unification in a situation where the tendency has more often been in the other direction. Perhaps the ultimate consequence of this option cannot be foreseen in detail, but there is every good reason why States should be permitted to follow this organization if they prefer.

Among the obvious advantages would be the need to prepare only one State plan, and the consolidation of all reporting for these several categories. This option would also provide for the equalization of Federal matching for medical care by extending the OAA formula to include the other two categories.

The American Public Welfare Association is deeply interested in the efforts of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam to improve the opportunities for their people. The removal of the annual dollar limitations on Federal participation for these jurisdictions would contribute materially to those efforts.

We, therefore, commend this as a measure worthy of your approval. This would not result in any great increase in costs, and it would enable at least one of these jurisdictions to come closer to meeting the assistance needs of its public assistance recipients.

Every effort must be made to insure that the public welfare programs are responsive to the needs of the people they are designed to serve, and that at the same time they stand accountable to the general public.

The hearings conducted by your committee, Mr. Chairman, are fundamental in carrying out this purpose. Other studies and reports of advisory groups are available to the Department and to your committee. We believe it would also be desirable, however, for a broadly representative citizens' group, such as the proposed Advisory Council on Public Welfare, to be appointed periodically to conduct a careful review of the major purposes and directions of the public welfare programs. The Advisory Councils on Public Assistance and Child Welfare authorized by Congress in 1958 amply demonstrated by their studies and by their reports the values that can be derived from such advisory groups.

Mr. Chairman, the American Public Welfare Association has long urged the adoption of most of the measures contained in the bill now before your committee. The objectives of the association have consistently stressed the need for developing services and resources for the prevention of dependency and for the rehabilitation of those who become dependent.

On the basis of our officially held positions, therefore, we are pleased to support the principles and objectives and general means embodied

in H.R. 10032. We also recognize that the attainment of these objectives is a long-term undertaking, in which further experience will be gained as to the best way to proceed.

We commend these proposals for the favorable consideration of your committee and pledge to you our best efforts in carrying out their

purpose.

(The Federal legislative objectives of the association, referred to in the foregoing statement, follows:)

FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVES, 1962

(American Public Welfare Association-Prepared by committee on public welfare policy-Approved by the Board of Directors, November 27, 1961) The American Public Welfare Association believes that the States and their political subdivisions have the primary responsibility for developing and administering effective public welfare services in the United States. The Federal Government has the obligation to develop nationwide goals and guides for program content and to use its constitutional taxing power to equalize the financing of public welfare so that public welfare services may be available on an equitable basis throughout the country. The States, their political subdivisions, and the Federal Government, in cooperation, must provide the leadership and the professional and technical personnel to carry out these obligations. The association's legislative objectives are based on these premises and on the recognition of the important role of public welfare in preserving and strengthening family life, encouraging self-responsibility, and assuring humanitarian concern for all individuals and families.

To accomplish these purposes the association believes in the following basic principles:

(a) A democracy has the special obligation to assure to all persons in the Nation full and equitable opportunity for family life, healthful living, and maximum utilization of their potentialities.

(b) Contributory social insurance is a preferable governmental method of protecting individuals and their families against loss of income due to unemployment, sickness, disability, death of the family breadwinner, and retirement in old age; and against health cost of OASDI beneficiaries.

(c) Public welfare programs should be family centered and should provide effective services to all who require them including financial assistance and preventive, protective, and rehabilitative services, and these services should be available to all persons without regard to residence, settlement, citizenship requirements, or circumstances of birth.

(d) The benefits of modern medical science should be available to all; and to the extent that individuals cannot secure them for themselves governmental or other social measures should assure their availability. These general principles are amplified in other policy statements approved by the board of directors of the association. The committee on public welfare policy of the association has reviewed all of these statements in the light of current needs and has developed specific legislative objectives for 1962. While the following list does not include all of the association's policy positions, it presents in condensed form those immediate and longer range legislative objectives which are most likely to be of current significance in improving public welfare services.

Scope of program

PUBLIC WELFARE PROGRAMS

1. The comprehensive nature of public welfare responsibility should be recog nized through Federal grants-in-aid which will enable the States to provide not only financial assistance, including medical care, and other services for the aged, the blind, the disabled, and dependent children, but also general assistance and services for all other needy persons.

2. Federal financial aid should be available to assist States in carrying out public welfare responsibility for preventive, protective, and rehabilitative services to all who require them, irrespective of financial need.

The Federal Government should participate financially in State and local projects which would encourage, extend or establish programs for self-support,

self-care or the rehabilitation of persons receiving or likely to need public assistance.

To carry out these objectives State and local public welfare services should be strengthened by provision for reduced and specialized caseloads, homemakers and other specialized personnel.

3. The Federal Government should participate financially only in those assistance and other welfare programs which are available to all persons within the State who are otherwise elegible without regard to residence, settlement, or citizenship requirements.

4. Federal financial participation for medical assistance should be available to all needy individuals on the same basis.

5. The Federal Government should continue to participate financially in assistance to needy dependent children only if such assistance is available to all needy children living in the home of a relative. The circumstances of a child's birth or the suitability of the family environment should not be factors in determining eligibility for assistance, but should be dealt with through appropriate social services and judicial processes.

6. Federal financial participation in assistance and other services for needy children should be extended on a permanent basis to include both parents when in need and living in the home.

7. Provision for Federal financial participation in the maintenance of children in foster care should be continued and strengthened.

8. Child welfare services should be broadened in scope and should specifically include services for the delinquent child and provisions for day care. Federal funds authorized and appropriated should be increased sufficiently to extend, improve, and support adequate child welfare programs.

Federal financial assistance to the States to stimulate and support programs for the prevention and control of juvenile delinquency should be provided. This should include research and the training of personnel.

9. Federal financial participation should be available to the States for assistance to needy disabled persons without regard to any age requirement or any requirement that a disability be permanent and total.

10. Specific provision should be made for Federal financial assistance to States to stimulate and support services and facilities to promote the health and welfare of aged persons irrespective of their financial need.

11. The Federal Government should participate financially in the costs of any State and local civil defense welfare services.

12. Federal legislation should continue to provide funds for American nationals who are repatriated from abroad and in need of assistance and other services.

13. The Federal Government, in cooperation with the States, should study: (a) the costs and policy implications of and the alternatives to removing the restrictions on Federal financial participation in assistance payments to, or in behalf of individuals living in mental hospitals, tuberculosis hospitals, and public nonmedical institutions; and (b) the costs and policy implications of exemption of income earned by public assistance recipients.

Methods of financing programs

14. The continuation of the Federal open-end appropriation is essential to a sound State-Federal fiscal partnership in all aspects of public assistance. Since it is not possible to predict accurately the incidence and areas of need, flexibility and comprehensiveness are necessary in financing public assistance programs. 15. Federal financial participation should be on an equalization grant basis provided by law and applicable to financial assistance, including medical care, for all needy persons; welfare services, including child welfare; and administration.

16. Any maximums on Federal participation in public assistance, including medical care, should continue to be related to the average payment per recipient and should be increased sufficiently to assure for all needy individuals reasonable standards of maintenance, comprehensive medical care of high quality and appropriate quantity, and the preservation and strengthening of family life.

17. Federal participation with respect to dependent children should be increased to a level which will assure treatment of such children equitably with that accorded other public assistance recipients.

Provisions should be made so that children with earnings from employment may be allowed to retain all or part of such earnings.