We continue with some pearls from the Hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. Eighteenth Congress. First session on the Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Bill for 1947. On 7 March 1947, Ray L. Huff, director of the Board of Public Welfare for the District of Columbia, and Raymond Clapp, principal assistant director, appeared before the subcommittee to explain why they needed a further $184,200 for public assistance. I doubt the two gentlemen were prepared for what awaited them. Because they were pitted against Walt Horan – himself a businessman, which shows in the hearing – as acting Chairman, and he certainly read them the riot act. Man, I wish they’d had video back then. These days, it would have gone „viral“, as the kids say.
Mr Huff began with a general statement of what the supplemental grants would be used for. And then things escalated quickly.
Mr. HORAN. In detail, what is this money for?
Mr. HUFF. It is for money to be made available for assistance grants to applicants for public assistance.
Mr. HORAN. In what category?
Mr. HUFF. For all categories generally. The detailed numbers we will give in our detailed description.
Mr. HORAN. Will you list those categories?
Mr. CLAPP. The categories are old-age assistance, aid to dependent children, aid to the blind, and general public assistance. The major increases in numbers are, in general, public assistance and aid to dependent children.
Mr. HORAN. Will you state the specific amounts for each of those categories?
Mr. CLAPP. That make up the $184,200?
Mr. HORAN. Yes.
Mr. CLAPP. That will take a little calculation.
Mr. HORAN. It is absolutely necessary to have it.
Mr. CLAPP. May I state that the appropriation for the 1947 fiscal year was a lump-sum appropriation. That appropriation was allocated to the several categories by the Board of Public Welfare and the basis of that allocation, the additional amount now estimated to be needed in local funds for old-age assistance, is $17,152. That is the difference between our current estimate of $513,952 and the estimate made in August 1946 for that category of $496,800. For aid to dependent children , our estimate as of August 1946 was $609,270 and our current estimate is $607,259, so that there is no deficiency.
Mr. HORAN. That is for aid to dependent children?
Mr. CLAPP. That is right.
Mr. HORAN. What about aid to the blind?
Mr. CLAPP. Our current estimate is $53,027. Our earlier allocation was $48,000, an increase of $5,027. For general public assistance we have that divided into two groups:
(1) The single-persons case, for which our earlier estimate was $403,200 and our current estimate $505,166. That is an increase of $101,966.
For the general public assistance families the increase is $79,200 to $141,266 or $62,066. If my arithmetic is correct, it should add up to $184,200.
Mr. HORAN. How do you arrive at these totals? Apparently you had better get some of these single people on relief married, because the married people do not seem to need so much relief.
Ouch!
Mr. HUFF. There are fewer family cases receiving assistance. The average grant to the general public assistance family case is about $66. The average grant to the single case is $42, and according to our August estimate, the current figure is $65 for the family case and $44.30 for the single-person case for public assistance.
Mr. HORAN. How high a grant is it possible for a single individual to receive?
Mr. HUFF. Unless there is some unusual circumstance –
Mr. HORAN. I asked how high a grant.
You can sense Messrs Huff and Clapp beginning to sweat.
Mr. CLAPP. I cannot answer that, Mr. Chairman, because it depends upon the situation. If it is an ill person, such as a tuberculosis case, recently discharged from a tuberculosis hospital, and the doctor orders a special diet, the cost of that special diet is provided. If, because of illness, they must live in housing where the rent is in excess of the standard maximum, we are permitted upon notification of the Board of Public Welfare, to grant extra rent. If a family must move, we may include some item for the moving expenses, so that there are those contingent items which determine the amount in the individual case. […]
Mr. HORAN. What is the extent of control that you have over these people on relief? Does it exist?
Mr. CLAPP. In the general public assistance –
Mr. HORAN. Does it exist at all?
Mr. HUFF. You mean the control over the expenditure of the money?
Mr. HORAN. You said something about excessive rent, and that you had no control over that person paying excessive rent.
Mr. CLAPP. We do not grant excessive rent –
Mr. HORAN. You made the statement that the grant would vary according to the amount of rent that was being paid and the diet that was required. Evidently you have to take these cases upon the grounds and under the circumstances that you find them, is that correct?
Mr. CLAPP. That is correct.
Mr. HORAN. Do you have any control over those conditions?
Mr. CLAPP. I should have made the qualifying statement first, excepting as the social worker has investigated the need for the extra rent, it is not granted. The Superintendent of Public Assistance must act upon each case where the rent is above the standard established in the Budget Guide. And we do have control of the amount of rent which is allowed in the grant, and that control is exercised, and the numbers and amounts of such cases are reported monthly to the Board of Public Welfare and reviewed by the Board’s Agency Committee. That is the type of control that exists on the amount of the grant.
In addition to that, in certain cases where the individual has demonstrated that he is unable to handle money, we may, as in the case of an alcoholic, pay the rent directly to the landlady and make another check to a restaurant for meal tickets which are held by the restaurant owner by agreement with us and the meals punched on those tickets. That type of control is possible only in general public assistance. It is not possible under the social security categories, because the Social Security Act prevents the type of control which undertakes to control the way in which money in spent. The Board, through its Public Assistance Division, has adequate control as to the amount granted in any individual case.
It all feels depressingly modern. Too bad we don’t have a Walt Horan around this time to take these wafflers to task.
Mr. HORAN. When a person applies for assistance, how long does it take to consummate the transaction, until the time he actually receives a check or other remuneration?
Mr. CLAPP. At the present time, when a person applies for assistance, because of the large numbers who have been requesting assistance in recent months, they are given an appointment 5 weeks ahead. If the case is extremely urgent, they may wait in the waiting room on the possibility that someone who has an appointment for that day does not show up. Now when we receive the people whose appointments were made a month or so ago, a certain percentage of them do not appear for their appointments and we have been able to take care of the most urgent of the cases in that way, by filling them in, in the time appointed for someone else who did not show up. But excepting for that, the person must wait 5 weeks and I believe 5 weeks and 3 days at the present time. It is possible, because when we give the person a statement in advance of the information necessary to determine his eligibility and amount of need, that a check might be given on the same day on which he is interviewed.
Mr. HORAN. What is the average, however?
Mr. CLAPP. The average, however, would be around 2 weeks.
Mr. HORAN. 2 weeks?
Mr. CLAPP. Yes. That is from the time of the application interview rather than from the –
Mr. HORAN. No; I said when the person first applies for assistance.
Mr. CLAPP. At the present time, as I say, it is 5 weeks before he is seen and then another 2 weeks on the average.
Mr. HORAN. Then it is just a little less than 2 months from the time a needy person applies for assistance until he gets it?
Mr. CLAPP. Yes; and if and when we catch up it will be less than a month. […]
Mr. HORAN. What is the cost of the initial investigation per case?
Mr. CLAPP. Per case investigated or per case that is granted?
Mr. HORAN. Per case investigated, first.
Mr. CLAPP. I will have to get that and give it to you.
Mr. HUFF. We do not have the cost accounting to provide that.
Mr. HORAN. Give me a blanket estimate. Surely you fellows know what it costs. If you do not, you have no business up here.
Ouch!
Mr. CLAPP. We know what it costs, but we do not calculate that particular figure. But I can give it to you in a very few minutes. It is about $30.
„Don’t hurt me, sir!“
Mr. HORAN. If a recipient can wait over a month, if he can wait 7 weeks, in fact, for assistance, it does not appear that his needs are urgent. Why does he appeal for relief, anyhow?
Mr. CLAPP. The recipient who has to wait that long may get some emergency help from private social agencies which do a good deal of that. They may get help from neighbors. I know one case Mr. Gray was telling me about, that was forced to dispose of needed clothing, to see him through. We have here Mrs. Meenes who is the chief of our Intake Section and who sees many of these people and can probably give you certain other illustrations.
Mr. HORAN. I do not think we need to go into too much detail on that. Are your justificaitons a clear reflection of the maximum grants that you pay?
Mr. HUFF. I do not understand you, sir. […]
Mr. HORAN. You based your argument for this supplemental request upon the budget guide of the Social Security Board, but it is indicated that some of your grants would represent a pretty liberal interpretation of that standard.
Mr. HUFF. Oh, yes; I understand. Our representation is in terms of an average grant. It is not in terms of a maximum grant. The average grant is the result of all the grants given. Some of our payments are less than that average figure, but some are more. We have averaged them out in order to get that figure. The reference to the budget guide is a reference to our own budget guide which is not Social Security’s budget guide, but is a budget guide –
Mr. HORAN. That is your own budget guide.
Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir.
Mr. HORAN. And it is coordinated with the Social Security standard, is it?
Mr. HUFF. It is consistent with Social Security’s standard regulations and the instructions which they provide to us from time to time. It is something more than that I might say. In the development of need, it has been interpreted in terms of food, clothing, shelter, and other essentials. In developing each of those things, we have had the advice of the Department of Agriculture and local persons who are experienced and experts in the field. Each of those items has been broken down and an item entered from time to time and the money figure which goes along with that item is modified and amended to keep track of the times. Each one of those budget guides in terms of money as of about 18 months ago has been tested by our local parent-teachers association, and we have used other means to secure the opinion of the citizenry locally, as to whether or not these are consistent with living costs and living needs. So that this guide which we have is not the social – security guide, but it is a guide which has been developed in the manner which I have indicated. […]
Mr. HORAN. If a person on strike applied for assistance, would it be granted?
Mr. HUFF. There was such a case where a person was employed. It was an aid-to-dependent-children case. The mother was working for a salary. The strike did occur, and this woman was off from work with the others. The assistance to her under aid to dependent children was continued.
Mr. HORAN. Do you grant it to those who are on strike?
Mr. HUFF. Not for that reason, sir.
Mr. HORAN. The answer to the question is you do grant it to those who are on strike.
That is the answer. By this point, I was laughing extremely hard. Walt Horan was my kind of guy.
Continues Mr Horan:
How close do you follow up on employable people receiving assistance?
Mr. CLAPP. We follow some of them weekly and others monthly.
Mr. HORAN. How do you do it? Do you divide the District into sections?
Mr. CLAPP. The employables are usually handled by our intake section, which is not divided by geographical sections of the town. The number of employables given assistance is very small, and those who do receive assistance receive it usually for relatively short periods of time. If the assistance is granted to a family in which there is an employable person, it may be pending the receipt of unemployment compensation. There have been a few of those cases where they were so close to the edge financially they had to have some help during the waiting period. In those cases the amount granted is only sufficient to last until the waiting period is over. We know the date that the waiting period is over, and we get in touch with them at that time. If others have some prospect of employment, we learn about that.
Mr. HORAN. Are you allowed to investigate as to whether the applicants have any other source of income?
Mr. CLAPP. Yes. That is a considerable part of our investigation.
Uh-oh. Wrong answer.
Mr. HORAN. Are you familiar with a case that came to light last week?
Mr. HUFF. I do not know it by that designation.
Mr. HORAN. I understand that two sisters died some time ago and their attorney called up the District government last week and informed the District government that they were the owners of property that was income producing. Will you explain that?
Mr. HUFF. I have been informed of that case. I understand that it dates back to 1944. There was real estate or other property of value owned by these persons. For a period of time they had been receiving assistance and that extra source of income was not known and had not been determined. It had not been discovered by the investigation that we had made. The inquiry was made after the fact of death, I am informed by the attorney who was in charge of the case. In that way it was brought to our attention.
Mr. HORAN. Do you know where the tax assessor’s office is?
Mr. HUFF. Yes.
Mr. HORAN. Do any of your men ever go to it?
Mr. HUFF. In this case they did not, or they would have caught the case.
One word: LOL!
Mr. HORAN. The property was worth $35,000, and I understand that it was income producing. The District has been out several thousand dollars because of the laxity of somebody in your department, which is now seeking a supplemental appropriation from the District government through the Federal budget.
The guy is relentless.
Because of the increased number of applicants, have you taken any real steps to realine your staff and methods so that needy people can receive immediate assistance?
Mr. HUFF. There have been steps taken. Mr. Clapp can give the details.
Mr. CLAPP. The first step was in November, when we borrowed 11 people from the field division. We have two divisions in public assistance. One handles the intake and the other handles the cases whose eligibility has been determined, and keeps in touch with them. The field is divided geographically. We borrowed 11 staff members from the field to handle appointments which had been made for the month of November, and the regular intake staff undertook to review each new applicant as he arrived. That occupied pretty much of 6 weeks‘ time for these 11 people.
Mr. HORAN. What percentage of these applicants are denied relief?
Mr. CLAPP. We figure out of 100 people who request assistance approximately 40 will be granted assistance and 60 will not.
Mr. HORAN. What do your records show for the last fiscal year? I would like to have some check on this. I am not asking you to do the impossible.
It’s not going to get better, gentlemen…
Mr. CLAPP. During the 12 weeks from November 1 to January 24, 1947, we made a study. There were 1,528 requests received. There were 692 approvals, and of the 1,528 requests –
Mr. HORAN. Why should you have so many requests from folks obviously not in need of assistance?
Mr. GRAY. My answer to that would be that the standards of assistance, the eligibility requirements, are not sufficiently known among the population as a whole, and that many individuals come into contact with other agencies and institutions in the District of Columbia, both public and private, and someone in those agencies and institutions, with an insufficient knowledge of the individual’s personal situation, may believe that the individual is in need and should receive assistance and refer that individual to the office. With that added impetus, you might say, they come down and after investigation it is determined they are ineligible. I do not mean that everyone who makes a request at our office does so at someone else’s initiation. Many of the ones who do not have enough to get along on come in on their own.
Mr. HORAN. You admit that it is a bad situation?
Mr. GRAY. In what way, sir?
Mr. HORAN. By your own admission here, you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 or 800 cases which cost something to investigate. It strikes me that during this period you had an unusually heavy load on the District government merely in the matter of investigating these applicants. Certainly it is in the field of sound fiscal policy to take steps to correct it. I think this subcommittee will assist you in that , but we are not going to do it without proper supervision. We cannot have everybody here taking up the time of the Welfare Board, people not qualified for this relief, and who ought to know it when they make application. There is something loose somewhere. It is our job to correct that. You understand that earlier this week this Congress up here broke the budget. There was not a department that was not watching the Congress the afternoon that we passed a bill for $10,000,000 to get farm labor of the knee and stoop type just because unemployment does not exist in this country. We must still import labor from outside our national boundaries. It is in the interest of the national welfare. Such a condition calls for the closest scrutiny of those who are trying to take advantage of a generous and sound and still solvent government.
Amen to that. Man, this does feel extremely modern.
Mr. CLAPP. May I give you some additional figures?
Mr. HORAN. I would like to have a complete record on this.
Mr. CLAPP. I have the figures from May 1946 through January 1947: 4,354 different requests were received; of those, only 2,522 got so far as to sign an application. That meant that some 1,800 were taken care of between the time they requested help and the time we began an investigation. Of the 2,522 who signed applications, in which we undertook investigation, we approved as needing help 1,630, so in general it means about one-third of the requests are weeded out before a complete application is undertaken, and then the complete application weeds out another one-third. […]
Mr. HORAN. This initial investigation which you estimate costs $30 would apply to those?
Mr. CLAPP. That would apply to the 2,522.
Mr. HORAN. How much does it cost to handle the rest of them?
Mr. CLAPP. The cost there is relatively minor.
Mr. HORAN. I am not asking you for adjectives; I want figures. We are not appropriating the dictionary; we are appropriating numerals in this budget that we have before us.
I’m dying! 🙂
Mr. CLAPP. That will require some calculation.
Mr. HORAN. You people know that. You work with it every day. If I did, I would make it my business to know. I would be telling, if I were you, what the work load is and the things that you want to cut out so that you can look good in the public eye. You might as well give it to me now because I am going to get it.
Mr. CLAPP. The chances are that $1 to $2 would cover it.
Mr. HORAN. Will you supply that for the record?
Mr. CLAPP. Yes.
Meep!
Mr. HORAN. We will have that investigated because I want to know exactly. I want to say for the benefit of you gentlemen that America is always going to take care of those who are down and out, but we are not going to make it a way of life if we can help it. I am not sure but what a lax administration can make relief a way of life, and you fellows know that better than I. It does not make the administrators look good when it becomes a way of life or a philosophy, and apparently there were 800 in that period affected who were afflicted with that philosophy. It may not have been the applicants themselves; it may have been those who advised them, but we are going to help you fellows correct that situation.
Preach, Congressman Horan!
Mr. CLAPP. A substantial number of the 800 whose applications were denied needed relief, but because of limitations upon us we were not able to grant assistance.
Mr. HORAN. That is an opinion, and we will accept it as such for the record. I imagine that there are a lot of people that if it were not for the need to work they probably would not work. I think that we are getting pretty deep into a sea of philosophy when we start debating that question.
Mr. CLAPP. May I suggest that some time in the afternoon I hope we may call your attention to the fact that the number of people receiving assistance in the District of Columbia in proportion to the total population is less than almost any other city in the Nation?
Mr. HORAN. It should be so. This city is a lot different from any other city in the United States.
Mr. CLAPP. In 3 years, after an intensive investigation by the Social Security Administration of cases assisted by the Board, they have not found any in which assistance was granted where the assistance was not justified. […]
Mr. HORAN. Along that line, how many persons now receive grants who are physically able to perform some kind of labor to supplement the amounts they receive?
Mr. CLAPP. That, sir, we cannot tell you. I would need to ask two questions, at least. First, we are authorized and expected to give oldage assistance to persons 65 years of age and over who have found themselves unable to earn sufficient money to maintain themselves. We believe almost all of them are physically unuable. That is the great bulk of our case load. Of the blind individuals, I think there are very few physically able to support themselves.
Mr. HORAN. Do you encourage those receiving benefits to seek such employment as they are able to perform?
Mr. CLAPP. We do.
Mr. HORAN. How many have you rehabilitated in that field?
Mr. CLAPP. May I refer first to the aid to dependent children case load? When a mother has young children who need her care, we understand that even those who may be physically able to work, it is in accordance with the intent of the Social Security Act, and of our own laws and regulations, that aid to dependent children be granted to her to permit her to stay home and take care of her children when they need it; so in the aid to dependent children load there are likely to be mothers who are physically able to work but who are needed at home. If we may omit the old age recipients, the aid to dependent children, and the blind recipients, we come down to the general public assistance case load, which is the case load in which we are most likely to find people physically able to work.
Mr. HORAN. What proportion of those are today registered with the United States Employment Service?
Mr. CLAPP. All who are physically able to work.
Mr. HORAN. I would like to have for the record the total out of that number that are registered with the United States Employment Service. I would like that because recent newspaper reports indicate that the employment norm is tremendously on the upswing here even in the District, which is not an industrial city.
Mr. CLAPP. At least 90 percent of those receiving general public assistance are physically unable to work. The number of able-bodied people receiving general public assistance is relatively small. All of them are registered, or are expected to be registered, but because many of them are ill with more or less temporary illnesses, that situation changes from day to day. […]
Mr. HORAN. How many alcoholics do you have?
Mr. HUFF. We have no records that will specify the number. […] I would like to make a general statement with respect to these questions that you have been asking. We appreciate the value and the necessity for knowing all of these details, and more detail than you have yet asked for, detail that goes into collateral income whether it be real money, employability in terms of mental and physical factors and in terms of accessibility of availability of employment, the detail of reasons why persons are removed from the relief rolls, or whatever condition it may be. All of those items are items to which we have reference in referring to the establishment of the machine type calculation of the records, because at the moment all of our statistical work is done by hand. Such hand work is slow and consumes a lot of time. The practical way for us to handle the volume of detail that we should know is through machines. An appropriation was made in part last year to allow that work to be done. Plans are in process at the moment for a complete analysis of the case records we now have in the cards, and we hope to have that completed in the current year. We hope that will be the base and the beginning of our detail which can then be kept permanently for administrative controls and purposes.
Mr. HORAN. Well, of course, the underlying philosophy that obtains in any institution is the thing that determines its direction in the end. Machines to speed up and expedite the facilities in that institution can only make it worse unless the right attitude is held by you fellows in administrative positions.
OUCH!
Mr. HUFF. Yes.
Mr. HORAN. If you are merely trying to build up your case load to make your own job more secure based on the number receiving relief, then the machines merely add to your security. That is the reason why I am going to ask for an investigation of this matter here to determine just what is going on down there. Then if it is indicated that you need machines in order to clean up the place we will do it. We will give you those machines. I am not satisfied in my own mind that you people are doing your job right. I was shocked to find out about these sisters that were property owners of considerable moment, who had been collecting relief from the Government for hundreds of dollars. Perhaps it is all right to blame that on obsolete and inadequate methods in your department, and perhaps it is not. We want to find out about those things, Mr. Huff. I am not trying to embarrass anybody, but the Congress has been embarrassed many times by listening to justifications up here and finding out in the end somebody has been fluently reckless with English, and then we find a case like these two sisters.
„Fluently reckless with English.“ I’m going to steal that phrase.
We know that there is a need for revamping of some kind because such obvious reports reach us. We want to find out the truth about the people on relief being so drunk that they cannot get their relief checks cashed. I am not going to sit placidly by and see the administrators of relief not have some control over the way relief money is actually
spent. We, up here, must be able to demand action of you fellows at given times. […] Where there are children over 16 and under 18 not attending school, do you insist that they obtain employment?
Mr. HUFF. The ADC cases above 16 can go to school, and the effort would not be to take a child who was progressing in school out of school work.
Mr. HORAN. Your aid-to-dependent-children statute permits granting of relief to children up to 18, whether they are going to school or not?
Mr. HUFF. Yes.
Mr. HORAN. There is need for some correction there, is there not?
Mr. HUFF. There may be.
Mr. HORAN. I am astounded at any hesitation in answering that. Anybody between 16 and 18 who is getting relief money and not going to school is at least a fertile field for delinquency. I am not a welfare worker, but I would not have any trouble answering that one.
Mr. CLAPP. I would say it is our policy —
Mr. HORAN. Certainly it is your responsibility. […] Does the agency give assistance to employable individuals?
Mr. HUFF. Yes; it has done so.
Mr. HORAN. Are you doing it now?
Mr. HUFF. There may be cases at the moment which show on the record as being employable. Such cases show up and we knew of numbers in January where lack of employment was temporary.
Mr. HORAN. I would like to have a better answer than that, Mr. Huff. I do not say this with any rancor in my heart. […] Do you check with the District jail and the workhouse the records of the recipients?
Mr. CLAPP. We do not check the records of the jail and the workhouse. We check the recipients through a central social – service exchange where there is recorded the assistance given, or any agencies that have given assistance to that family, but we do not check the records at the jail.
Mrs. MEENES. Occasionally we check with the jail.
Mr. HORAN. I think that you should do it regularly. I think that you should check the records of the jail and the workhouse. It is not my money that we are working with; it is not yours; it belongs to the people of the District, and in part the people of the Nation. If there is a misuse of those funds, that should be revealed by a check. One way to do it is to find out if some of these recipients are entitled to the money. Perhaps it is something besides relief that they need. I am surprised that you have not gone into that.
Mr. CLAPP. The jail population changes daily.
Before Walt Horan can get sarcastic with that, Mr Huff quickly chimes in.
Mr. HUFF. The jail does clear some cases through the social service exchange. Insofar as the records from the jail to the social security exchange are concerned, we do receive that information on our own clearance to the social service exchange.
Mr. HORAN. Do all applications absolutely conform to the legal status of an application?
Mr. HUFF. I believe they do.
Mr. CLAPP. Applications to be legal must be signed and on a blank prepared for that purpose. I believe they all are, are they not, Mrs. Meenes?
Mrs. MEENES. Yes.
Mr. CLAPP. Until such a blank is filled in and signed by the applicant, it is not counted as an application.
Mr. HORAN. This is rather important and I do not feel that it has been fully answered. You are dealing with a fringe of society that can be either absolutely in need, or there can be various degrees of dishonesty, and therefore it becomes necessary in order to protect those who are actually in need and the kind that society wants to help from the others who would abuse that privilege. You have to have strict rules and strict regulations based on legal foundations, at least, if not by statute, whereby they are screened and granted or disallowed. My question was, Are all of those on the relief rolls coming under a legal and bona fide and genuine foolproof screening?
Mr. CLAPP. We believe that, to the extent it is humanly possible, that is true.
Mr. HUFF. Now and again we do find a case where there has been some legal error, such as the case to which you refer. When they do occur it is an error and not a willful omission. We do have such errors.
Mr. HORAN. It would seem to me, Mr. Huff, that by a cursory investigation and comparison with the assessor’s office, with the USES, with the District jail and workhouse, and other institutions who deal with this type of person in the District, that we could have almost an automatic check-up and it wouldn’t require any expensive machinery, it is merely a matter of intelligent observation on the part of trained personnel who, presumably, are familiar with this sort of thing and know exactly how to proceed and how to expedite the work.
Mr. HUFF. That is true.
Mr. HORAN. Now, you work is carried out in conjunction with the Federal Security Administration, is it not?
Mr. HUFF. Yes, it is. […]
Mr. HORAN. What sort of restrictions do they place upon the funds which they grant to you?
Mr. HUFF. The grants made by the Federal Security Board are outright grants.
Mr. HORAN. Are there any strings on the manner in which they are to be used?
Mr. HUFF. There are no strings that the Social Security Board places on them; no, sir.
Mr. HORAN. Can you take those funds and check into the way they are expended by the recipients?
Mr. HUFF. Well, there would be no relation between that and my answer to your last question.
Mr. HORAN. You are too clever for me.
Mr. HUFF. No, sir; I don’t mean to say that.
Meep!!
Mr. HORAN. Well, I can’t help saying it. Do you know how they earn this?
Mr. HUFF. How the District government earns the money?
Mr. HORAN. No, the recipients.
Mr. HUFF. No, sir. I understood your question to refer to the money paid to the District by the Social Security Board and whether or not the Social Security Board put any strings on that money as to whether we used it to support grants or administrative costs, or other things.
Mr. HORAN. No. You are not on trial.
„How kind of you to point that out, sir.“
We have a social responsibility here.
Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir.
Mr. HORAN. My greatest hope is that the blind will be taught how to be useful. I know many of them. I happen to belong to a service club that specializes in assisting and rehabilitating the blind wherever possible. We know that it gives the blind man a tremendous lift when he feels that he is no longer a burden on society and some of them have been able, because of assistance and by special vocational training, to become pretty good taxpayers. They are the exception, we know, but the effort to lift the man exists.
Mr. HUFF. Yes.
Mr. HORAN. Naturally we can’t do that unless we have some ability to direct the payments that are given out for relief. What I want to know is, do you have control of the funds that you give out to a recipient as to how he expends them?
Mr. HUFF. No, sir. Once the grant is made it becomes an outright grant.
Mr. HORAN. What is the foundation of that in law?
Mr. HUFF. It comes through the Social Security Board to us. […]
Mr. HORAN. Board or Congress?
Mr. HUFF. Through the Social Security Board.
Mr. CLAPP. I believe the Social Security Act states these grants must be money payments. The Social Security Administration interprets the Social Security Act to mean that when the money is paid to the recipient the recipient is free to use the money and the agency must not check as to that use, or investigate as to the use which the recipient has made of it.
Mr. HUFF. That is right.
Mr. HORAN. That is the most shameful statement I have heard in public life when viewed in the face of what we know to be the facts in the case of some individuals who need guidance. Many of them should never have left their parents. How in the world can a board of welfare continue to act as a board of general welfare and not have some control and guidance over the poor, misguided souls that do need assistance. Why haven’t you suggested legislation to the proper committee upon the Hill? Why haven’t you protested over the heads of the Social Security Board to somebody? You could have done it privately. This subcommittee is going to take action, there is no question about that. We are not going to have you fellows facing the ignominious consequences that can come of your acts, because you are contributing to the delinquency of these people. Did you ever think of that?
Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir; the question has arisen.
Mr. HORAN. What have you done about it?
Mr. HUFF. We have conformed to the statutes and the interpretations as they have been given and we have also considered ways and means by which we can still carry out the intent of the giving of the money. The provision as it is interpreted to us rests on the assumption that the person who receives such money is competent, competent to exercise the expenditure.
Mr. HORAN. Has history recorded that that was a good assumption?
Mr. HUFF. In many cases, perhaps in most cases, that would be a fair assumption.
Mr. HORAN. Let’s take a categorical example. If he buys liquor instead of paying his rent could you help him out?
Mr. HUFF. There would be no means of recovery.
Mr. HORAN. What happens if he is evicted?
Mr. HUFF. For nonpayment of rent?
Mr. HORAN. Yes.
Mr. HUFF. He would still be eligible under the interpretation.
Mr. HORAN. What about new quarters for him?
Mr. HUFF. Helping him to locate new quarters?
Mr. HORAN. Yes.
Mr. HUFF. Such help would be given to him.
Mr. HORAN. It is a duty that is imposed upon you, is it not?
Mr. HUFF. That would be done, yes, sir; assist him to find another place. And it frequently is done.
Mr. HORAN. If he needs a furnished flat do you have to help him to furnish the one to which he moves – in case it is not furnished?
Mr. HUFF. That would fall within the assistance that would be provided.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Horan –
Mr. HORAN. Yes.
Mr. GRAY. The Board has a regulation whereby, under „General assistance,“ which has no relationship to the Social Security Administration, if the agency finds that an individual is incapable of managing his money, we make the grant to someone else in his stead. That may be a legal guardian, or it may be a nonlegal guardian, but someone whom we believe to be more responsible. We have such cases at the present time. It will be paid directly to the landlord for the rent or to a restaurant for the food which he secures there.
Mr. HORAN. Well, I appreciate that. I can understand the embarrassment that you gentlemen must be under, in having rules laid down by someone that, in my opinion, doesn’t know human nature. […] Did it ever strike you that a courageous public official might possibly go against an administrative interpretation of a granting-aid?
Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir.
Mr. HORAN. Did it ever strike you that perhaps, as I have already said, and it is in the record, that you fellows are virtually, in abiding by, not a law of this Congress, but an administrative interpretation from the Federal Security Administration, that you cannot question these people, that you are contributing to the delinquency of some of those people, whose names will appear on the rolls of the District jail and the workhouse? You are absolutely contributing to their delinquency. Did it ever occur to you that since there are no strings placed on this that you might adjust what comes from the Federal Security Administration to your applications in case we deny this? […]
Mr. CLAPP. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Huff –
Mr. HUFF. Mr. Chairman, this seems to be a proper time for me to revert to your question as to whether or not we have ever made any statement with respect to this situation. May I refer to the House hearings of last year, page 18, on which the following statement is included, in my general statement. [Reading:]
In its administration of assistance, the Board has been criticized for the restrictiveness of its application for rules of eligibility for assistance, as well as for the inadequacy of its assistance standards. The Board has also been criticized for giving assistance in individual cases where hidden resources are suspected or money unwisely spent by the recipient, or a person seemingly employable is either unable or unwilling to get or to hold employment, or is violating the laws or the morals of the community. Board administration of assistance must be in conformity with the requirements of the Social Security Board, to accord with the statutory direction, and if the District is to receive the Federal reimbursement for assistance provided in the Social Security Act. For this reason I asked Mr. Altmeyer, Chairman, Social Security Board, to inform me officially of the Board’s position in such situations by letter and his reply is attached. From this correspondence it will be seen that, in the administration of the Social Security categories the Board is not in a position to withhold assistance where need and eligibility exists, for the purpose of controlling the conduct of an individual, or for incompetence or law violation in the absence of judicial determination of such incompetence or violation. Nor will the Social Security Board approve the practice of withholding assistance on suspicion of resources which may or may not exist. In fact, we cannot inquire into the expenditure of the money given from assistance to determine whether or not it is used for the purpose of securing health and decency as our local act requires. Substantive legislation is needed to strengthen the operation of the local assistance work to simplify and make uniform the provisions for the different categories of need, and to establish authority for administrative correction of errors.
Mr. HORAN. I like that statement, but your testimony this afternoon doesn’t indicate that you have lived up to that. We are going to help you do it, but the record doesn’t show that you have lived up to it. How much of this $518,000 is the contribution from the Federal Security Administration?
Mr. CLAPP. None.
Mr. HORAN. The Federal Security’s contribution will be in addition to this?
Mr. CLAPP. True.
Mr. HORAN. What will the total then be between now and the end of the fiscal year? While they are getting that, Mr. Huff, I want to say that I agree fully with that statement. It shows that you have got it in your heart and we are going to help you.
Mr. HUFF. I appreciate that. May I add one other sentence: Substantial legislation is needed to strengthen the operation of local assistance work, to simplify and make uniform the provisions, and to establish an authority for the administration. On that point I would like to say that we have been concerned not only this year, but heretofore, that there is not culminated legislation directed to that end.
Mr. HORAN. Well, you understand that I am disturbed about some of our legislation. It doesn’t have a beginning, a middle, or an end. It leads no place, seemingly, but down the toboggan. Much of the legislation that Congress passed in the Seventy-ninth Congress dealing with Federal personnel is plaguing us no end in the appropriations this year. This subcommittee, committed to the exercise of this responsibility, are going to look at this legislation, we are going to recommend legislation where we think it will help your work and will achieve the ends for which legislation in organized society is needed. We are going to see if we cannot make our own suggestions. At least we have the prerogative of pointing out what our feelings are and will oppose legislation which we do not feel will achieve the end that the preface states, and which, we think, perhaps will cost unnecessary money. I am going to ask for your assistance in a check-up on the total operation of the Welfare Department.
Mr. HUFF. We are at your service.
Mr. HORAN. I want to know what is wrong. I want to know it legislatively and administratively. I want your justification. I don’t want them in a lump-sum category. I want them broken down. I want to know exactly what they are. I want them in such shape as to be capable of being fully dissected up here.
Mr. HUFF. Yes.
Mr. HORAN. There will be no reflection on you, because the subcommittee and I have to assume with you a concurrent responsibility for the use of these funds. We have to report annually to the taxpayers of the District and to the Federal budget. We are not going to do that blindly. Mr. Andrews, do you have any questions?
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, you have covered the subject so thoroughly that I do not have any questions.
Mr. HORAN. I want to assure you that we have a good subcommittee. Mr. Andrews of Alabama is the ranking minority member. We have worked together. We are proud of this Federal city of ours. We want it to have the best government in the world. But we understand that certain appropriations achieve no good end unless, as in the case of Welfare, they rehabilitate. You cannot do that without some control even after the expenditure. You just cannot do it.
Mr. HUFF. Yes.
Mr. HORAN. The people of the District are looking forward to major highways and improvements of an antiquated traffic pattern here, and most of that they are going to have to pay for themselves. Those are capital investments, which we are presently frowning upon because of high costs, and yet, even frowning upon capital investments, our Federal budget for this year is ninety-some-odd million dollars. Our income doesn’t come within 20 million of that. We should look forward to the time when we may really have relief, because, certainly, if we have this burden on our society at a time when unemployment is almost nonexistent, at a time when there is no capital investment going on, or at least it is limited, what is going to come about when we get to the place where deficit spending may be definitely indicated? We will dip still further into the Federal Treasury, which is now down 260 feet into a morass of bad fiscal policy, and will dip still further and further, and then we will have more adjustments by way of per diem pay, and all that sort of thing. The time is here when we have to balance it some place, and today doesn’t call for the relief load that we had in 1941 or even 1940; yet, even in good times, relief becomes one of our major items of appropriation.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question.
Mr. HORAN. Yes. […]
Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to ask you, Mr. Huff, if you know of any jobs being available at the Employment Office?
Mr. HUFF. Yes; there are some available. I say that generally. I can’t give you details. […]
Mr. ANDREWS. Suppose you have a bricklayer – to take a hypothetical situation – on the relief rolls, and there is a job available for a carpenter. Would you make that bricklayer take the carpenter job or some other job that the bricklayer could do?
Mr. HUFF. Could we make him?
Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.
Mr. HUFF. No.
Mr. ANDREWS. I know you couldn’t make him. I mean, could you insist that he take that job or drop him from your rolls?
Mr. HORAN. It is a good question.
Mr. ANDREWS. I know you can’t make a man work.
Mr. HUFF. No.
Mr. CLAPP. We have adopted a policy –
Mr. HUFF. The way we look upon that is ability to work. We look upon ability to work as a resource that has to be used. He then would have to use that resource. But you asked the question whether we can make him take the job.
Mr. ANDREWS. I know you can’t make him do anything. Perhaps you can make him wish he had.
Now I ask you: Were Mr Horan and Mr Andrews wrong in anything they said? Because I don’t think so. We need more Horans and Andrews‘ in this world. To imagine that in 1947 going above the budget was a really big deal for a government! That somebody in government was shocked about welfare abuse and lack of controls! Today, money that isn’t there is given away to all and sundry, without checks, without accountability, without any kind of requirement, really, and nobody blinks an eye. It sickens me. So yes, Walt Horan was harsh. Today, the usual suspects would be screaming about how cruel he was, and demand he resign. But harshness is what we need in order to get out of the mess we’re in.
Clarissa Schnabel 