of Governor Herbert R. O'Conor 195

and as such called for an united approach. I do not believe that during this period
we lost our fundamental adherence to State administration of public
assistance, we have throughout this Country a system which can best be de-
scribed as one of state administration (or local administration—state super-
vised). Added to this basic system has been Federal activity limited to financial
participation, plus the setting of minimum standards of administration and
the introduction of a positive Federal leadership which is different from
specific Federal Control.

I do not wish to spend a disproportionate amount of time upon the past,
but it appears to me to be important to review the background out of which our
present administration grows. You will recall that after the few months of the
CWA program in the winter of 1933 and 1934, the Country returned to a pro-
gram of work relief and direct relief which continued until 1935, when the
President announced his plan for, and the Congress enacted, two major pieces
of Federal legislation; the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, creat-
ing the Works Progress Administration, and the Social Security Act. By the
end of 1936, therefore, we had established, by Congressional enactment, a four-
sided foundation for our program of security and relief, namely:

1. A program of social insurance—against unemployment and old age.

2. A program of public assistance for the aged, the blind, and dependent
children.

3. A program of progressive public services in the fields of public health,
maternal and child welfare, and vocational rehabilitation.

4. A program of work for a portion of the needy unemployed which pro-
gram included the National Youth Administration and the CCC.
Provision for those in the" general relief population was left out of this coverage.
States rapidly followed with legislation enabling them to take advantage of
the Federal offer of participation, until today all 48 states, the District of
Columbia, Alaska and Hawaii are now granting old age assistance, 42 jurisdic-
tions grant aid to dependent children; and 43, public assistance to the needy
blind. The history of this period can be read in the many changes in the names
of already existing state welfare departments, in the creation of new depart-
ments, in the items which began to appear in state budgets for the first time.

So much for the events leading up to the present day administration of
relief and public assistance. I have organized the content of what I have to
say around two major topics: first, an evaluation of administration as well as
Federal-State, and State-local, relationships; and secondly, a discussion of what
I regard to be unmet needs and directions for the future.

In examining the Federal legislation under which we operate the first
primary observation that can be made is that there are but two distinct types
of administration provided. One is that of direct Federal administration—the
WPA, the NYA, the CCC, Old Age Insurance, Farm Security, are of this nature.
While the WPA calls for some local sponsorship and financial contribution, it
is nonetheless a Federally administered program. The other is a system of
Federal-State cooperative programs, namely, unemployment compensation, old
age assistance, aid to dependent children, and mothers' and children's health
services.

There is a third type of program which has almost disappeared, but which
is still mentioned here as a possibility. I refer to the occasional advocacy of