OCTOBER 5, 1959.

Mr. GERARD M. SHEA,

Director, Department of Public Welfare,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SHEA: In preparation for hearings upon S. 2363, the "unified public assistance bill," it occurred to me that your department might wish to assemble data in the following areas which might be of assistance to the subcommittee: (a) The value, if any, of the residency requirement for public assistance including:

(1) the administrative cost of ascertaining residence for each category of assistance as a total figure and per application;

(2) the number of cases in each category within a 6-month period rejected on grounds of lack of residence under present law;

(3) an estimate of the number of cases, so rejected, who reapply after the waiting period necessary to qualify under current residency requirements, which are then approved;

(4) an indication, derived from caseworker interview reports, of the source from which subsistence was derived during the waiting period for individuals under (3) above; and

(5) the additional cost, after taking into consideration savings, if residence requirements were to be eliminated.

(b). With respect to old-age assistance clients, the number who are in receipt of old-age and survivorship benefits, the average amount of such benefit, and the proportion of the budget of the client that is provided by OASI payments.

(c). Budget standards:

(1) the date of computation of presently used standards;

(2) the program for reascertaining current costs of food, shelter, clothing, medical care (if drugs, etc. are contained in grant), recreation and incidental items. (Is this done upon an annual basis, biannual, or other?);

(3) with respect to the standard applied for housing or rent costs, justification for fixed ceilings in view of the rental costs in the District, the proportion and number of cases in each category of public assistance in which clients are actually paying higher rent than allowed by the ceiling. (From what source of funds are the excess rent amounts derived, i.e., what other budgetary items are curtailed in order that rents may be paid? With respect to public housing, are rents in the median category of all public housing rents, or above or below the median and if so by what proportion?).

Other items of information may be requested at a later date, but it was felt that the foregoing points, requiring research, should be brought to your attention as early as possible.

Your cooperation in obtaining the desired data is appreciated.

Sincerely,

WAYNE MORSE.

OCTOBER 7, 1959.

MR. GERARD SHEA,

Director Department of Public Welfare,

District of Columbia Government,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SHEA: As you may know, it is planned to conduct hearings upon S. 2363, the unified public assistance bill, at an early date in the next session of the Congress.

In preparation of your testimony upon this measure, it is my thought that you may wish to comment upon the effect enactment of the legislation would have upon the processing of applications for the various categories of public assistance. It is noted from the August issue of the Monthly Statistical Report issued by your office that while 905 applications were received, only 897 were disposed of, and that there are currently some 1,185 applications pending before the Department. Since I am sure that it is the intent of the Department to process all applications as expeditiously as possible, in simple justice to those who have come to the end of their resources, it is quite possible that practices under current law may prevent the Department from attaining the desired objective.

In this connection, it would be helpful if a statistical breakdown of the pending application load could be made, in order that information could be given to the subcommittee which would show among other points that you might wish to bring to their attention, the following for each category of public assistance:

(a) Time elapsed between application and disposition-percentage completed within 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 5 weeks, 6 weeks, 7 weeks, 8 weeks, and over 2 months;

(b) a flow chart indicating the desks across which each application must pass between the intake worker and the issuance of the check for the grant or the notification to the client of rejection of his application showing the average time each step takes and whether there is a significant preceding time difference between the accepted and the rejected categories.

(c) a listing of the major factors occasioning delay in processing in order of their importance.

Your cooperation in providing the information is appreciated.

Sincerely,

WAYNE MORSE.

OCTOBER 5, 1959.

Mr. L. QUINCY MUMFORD,

Librarian of Congress,

The Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. MUMFORD: Attached is a copy of S. 2363, a bill to provide for more effective administration of public assistance in the District of Columbia; to make certain relatives responsible for support of needy persons, and for other purposes, now pending before the Public Health, Education, Welfare and Safety Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia.

It would be most helpful to the subcommittee in the consideration of the proposed legislation if senior specialists of the Library of Congress would review the bill and supply to the subcommittee a memorandum upon it setting forth the degree to which the proposal is in accordance with the policies and principles being advocated by scholars, students, and professional associations in the field. The subcommittee would welcome any suggestions that might be offered with a view to strengthening the bill through amendment.

The subcommittee is expecially interested in obtaining data upon proposals in other jurisdictions which may have been advocated or adopted, therefore if the memorandum could include information upon this point, it should prove most helpful.

I wish to assure you that members of the committee staff will be most happy to work with the members of your organization assigned to this project.

The cooperation of the Library in providing this service will be appreciated by the subcommittee.

Sincerely,

WAYNE MORSE.

DECEMBER 14, 1959.

Hon. WAYNE MORSE,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MORSE: In response to your inquiries of October 5 and October 7, 1959, which we acknowledged on October 16, we have developed the enclosed material for your use in connection with the forthcoming hearings on S. 2363, the unified public assistance bill for the District of Columbia.

Much of the material was not readily available and had to be obtained from case records, actual interviews, or evaluation or related statistical data. We hope that this information will be useful to you, and we shall be glad to furnish whatever additional interpretative statements you may require.

For greater ease in using the material in connection with various phases of the forthcoming hearings, we have prepared our replies in the form of separate appendixes, each one relating to a specific question in your letters, beginning with the letter of October 5.

Sincerely yours,

GERARD M. SHEA, Director of Public Welfare.

APPENDIX A

THE VALUE, IF ANY, OF THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE The value of the residence requirement in public assistance is rather conjectural since the estimated total cost of roughly $20,000 per year, and the administrative inconvenience caused by this requirement, has to be balanced against the possibility of increased assistance costs if the requirement were eliminated, and of the rather serious public relations implications, since even now the program is under constant attack from civic groups and others because residence bars are not higher. In this respect the problem of assistance to nonresidents has much in common with the problem of public assistance support of illegitimate children, since in both instances public sentiment appears divided between the unwillingness to see needy people and dependent children suffer, as against the unwillingness to support people who have not contributed their share in tax money to the community, or children who are the product of parental misconduct.

The agency therefore feels that the danger of popular disapproval of the program has to be weighed against the moral obligation of meeting need wherever it is found to exist.

APPENDIX B

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST OF ASCERTAINING RESIDENCE FOR EACH CATEGORY OF ASSISTANCE AS A TOTAL FIGURE, AND PER APPLICATION

The following steps were followed in arriving at an estimate of cost of determining residence, as is shown in the attached tabulation.

A. Interviews, Intake Division, by program.-Tabulation was made of the interviews with applicants recorded by Intake social workers during the 3-month period, July-September 1959. Total interviews were 4,574, with the following percentages by category:

B. Costs for quarter. Costs of Intake Division for quarter include salaries of Intake personnel plus an estimated figure for other costs, such as supplies, telephones, etc., and clerical and supervisory services provided by other units of the Department. These figures were estimated at 10 percent of total such costs for the quarter, on the basis that Intake personnel constitutes 10 percent of total public assistance positions. These costs amounted to $45,643 and were distributed among assistance programs according to the percentages shown in item A. C. Proportion of Intake social workers' time that is spent on determination of residence. The Intake Division conducted a time study for 1 week during which all social workers recorded the time, in minutes, spent on determination of residence. This amounted to 11.2 percent of their time.

D. Estimated cost by program of determining residence at Intake. When the 11.2 percent is applied to total costs by program as shown in item B, the resulting figure is $5,112 a quarter, or roughly $20,000 a year for determining residence. E. Number of applications processed at Intake during quarter.—This total, 2,354, consists of applications approved at Intake, 380; denied at Intake, 1,175; and those sent on to fieldworkers for a final determination of eligibility, 799.

F. Estimated cost per application, by program, of determining residence. When the costs by program in item D are divided by number of applications processed, shown in item E, the estimated cost per application is as follows: all applications, $2.17; OAA, $2.00; ADC, $2.32; AB, $2.09; APTD, $1.47; GPA, $2.11.

Conclusion. We believe the cost as shown to be a minimal cost, as some applications sent on by Intake Division to field units may still require work in a final determination of residence as well as other factors of eligibility.

52361-60- -4

Analysis of costs intake service, public assistance division estimate of cost of determining residence July-September 1959

THE NUMBER OF CASES IN EACH CATEGORY REJECTED WITHIN A 6-MONTH PERIOD ON GROUNDS OF LACK OF RESIDENCE UNDER PRESENT LAW

The 6-month period chosen for this study was the time between March 1 and August 31, 1958, since this would make it possible even for people who arrived in the city on August 31, 1958, and immediately applied for assistance, to have gained residence and to have had their applications processed since then.

The number of such cases totalled 216, which were distributed among the categories as follows:

AN ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF CASES, SO REJECTED, WHO REAPPLY AFTER THE WAITING PERIOD NECESSARY TO QUALIFY UNDER CURRENT RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE THEN APPROVED

Applicants denied assistance because of lack of residence. A study was made of applications denied during the 6-month period, March through August 1958, because the applicant lacked residence in the District of Columbia, to determine if applicant reapplied at a later date and was approved for assistance. This period was selected in order to give a little more than a year for the applicants to attain residence and to reapply. Statistical reports show that 216 applications were denied during that period because of lack of residence, an average of 36 per month. These denials were cleared through Registration and Files Unit to determine their subsequent status through October 1959.

Table I shows, by category, what happened to these applications in subsequent months.

Summary of findings.

(1) Of the 216 applications denied because of lack of residence, 28 percent reapplied (60) and 72 percent (156) did not reapply.

(2) Of the 60 reapplications, 24 were approved for assistance, 34 were denied again, and 2 were pending at end of October 1959.

(3) Of the 216 applications denied, therefore, only 11 percent (24) were subsequently approved for assistance.

Applicants who did not reapply. Since almost three-fourths of applicants denied assistance because they lacked residence did not reapply within a period sufficient to attain residence, examination was made of their stated reasons for their original application. These reasons are shown in detail in table II.

Main stated reasons

Almost half, 22, gave

1. The greatest number had applied for GPA; 73 of 156. were "Ill; no income,' 30; "Unemployed; no income," 20. 2. The next largest number had applied for ADC, 46. as reason for applying the failure for various reasons of husbands to support, or pregnancy with no income for 5.

3. In OAA, 34 had applied.

Main stated reasons were old-age and survivors and disability insurance insufficient, 10; funds exhausted, 10; and relatives no longer able to support, 6.

4. For 17, the original request was for temporary assistance with shelter, transportation, etc.; and for 10 no reason for applying was recorded.

TABLE I.-Applications denied because of lack of residence, for the 6-month period March-August 1958; number of reapplications in this group and disposition, by category, through October 1959

TABLE II.-Reasons for applying, of applicants who were denied assistance because of lack of residence, and who had made no reapplication through October 1959

AN INDICATION, DERIVED FROM CASEWORKER INTERVIEW REPORTS, OF THE SOURCE FROM WHICH SUBSISTENCE WAS DERIVED DURING THE WAITING PERIOD FOR INDIVIDUALS IN APPENDIX D

While column 3 in table I of appendix D shows that a total of 24 cases were approved for assistance, the figure shown below is only 21 because in some instances husband and wife, each receiving assistance in their own right, were counted in appendix D as separate cases, while in appendix E they are treated as a family unit.