{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027545909849749584, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.7740112994350286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Beyond the categories: human service managers view the new federal aid.

Social agency chief executives in six program areas--welfare, health, mental health, community action, model cities, and community mental health centers--were surveyed to determine their reaction to the recent revenue sharing/block grant efforts to decentralize the federal aid system. Despite their strong belief that social initiatives and values were advanced principally by federal action, and that excessive reliance on state and local officials could severely jeopardize social programs with weak constituencies, agency executives also recognized major weaknesses in traditional categorical grant policy and, to varying degrees, supported revenue sharing and block grant alternatives. Those agencies largely dependent on federal support for their survival--model cities, community action programs, and community mental health centers--tended to support the new aid efforts only reluctantly. Those agencies more fully integrated into the regular policy-making arrangements of local government--health, welfare, and mental health agencies--were considerably more positive in their endorsement of greater decentralization.