(The documents referred to follow:) To: Hon. WAYNE MORSE, chairman, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, Washington 25, D.C., February 12, 1960. Subcommittee on Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety From: I. M. Labovitz, senior specialist in social welfare. Subject: Review of S. 2363, a bill relating to public assistance in the District of Columbia. The accompanying materials are supplied in response to your request for review of S. 2363 and a report setting forth the degree to which the proposal is in accordance with policies and principles being advocated by scholars, students, and professional associations in the field; suggestions for strengthening the bill; and data on proposals in other jurisdictions. The report consists of a summary memorandum covering specified aspects of the proposed legislation. This is followed by an extended supporting statement for each of seven major topics. A detailed table of contents is included to facilitate reference. Our work on this inquiry has been discussed with Mr. Charles Lee of the committee_staff, to whom we recently forwarded a copy of the Report of the Advisory Council on Public Assistance, which was issued in January 1960, in compliance with section 704 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1958. As an additional item of interest to the subcommittee, we enclose copy of the report of the Governors' Conference Special Committee on Residence Requirements for Public Assistance, issued in August 1959, by the Council of State Governments. PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A review of S. 2363—86th Congress, prepared at the request of the Subcommittee on Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety, Senate Committee on the District of Columbia by I. M. Labovitz, senior specialist in social welfare GENERAL STATEMENT S. 2363, introduced July 13, 1959, by Senator Bible (by request) is designed 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. In most of its provisions, S.2363 follows the bill, S. 1849–85th Congress, which was approved by the Senate August 23, 1957. Differences are in section 3, the functions of the Commissioners; subsection 4(b) relating to children less than a year old; section 9 concerning recipients who are incapacitated; subsection 17(a) pertaining to fraud in obtaining assistance; and section 26 referring to the reorganization plan for the District Government. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSAL One of the primary purposes of S. 2363 is to consolidate into one act, and at the same time to modify substantively, the present statutes governing public assistance in the District. It would provide explicit continuing statutory authority for two categories of public assistance (aid to the permanently and totally disabled and general assistance), which have operated on the basis of general language in the annual appropriation acts. Another important objective is to broaden, clarify, and revise the statutes relating to the responsibilities of certain relatives for the support of needy persons, and to improve the legal processes for enforcing that support. The bill would also shorten the time elapsing between the time a needy person applies for public assistance and the time when he may receive it. It would establish uniform residence requirements for all categories of public assistance. It would require the District to make its assistance payments cover in full the estimated "minimum need" as determined for each recipient by applying the "budget standard" promulgated by the District. It would revise and extend to all categories of public assistance the laws relating to recoveries of public assistance payments through liens upon property, claims against estates, and other pro cedures. It would give the Commissioners of the District discretion to permit public access to the assistance rolls within safeguards specified in the bill. Likewise it would give the Commissioners the authority and responsibility to decide certain other policies and procedures to be applied in the administration of public assistance within the District. CONTENTS OF MEMORANDUM This memorandum presents a brief review of each of the foregoing proposals, indicating the change from present law and characterizing professional opinions on the subject. Each of seven major topics is covered more extensively in a supporting statement. These detailed statements conform, insofar as it is applicable, to a standard outline comprising (a) the proposed provision in S. 2363; (b) present law in the District of Columbia; (c) the policy or limitaions in the Federal Social Security Act; (d) past or present practice in the District of Columbia; (e) recommendations or comments in the report released in January, 1960, by the Advisory Council on Public Assistance, established under section 704 of the Social Security Act Amendments of 1958; and (f) any other pertinent reports and comments, including those of professional associations and scholars in this field. 1. Unified public assistance law The bill, S. 2363, would consolidate into one law the various existing laws relating to public assistance in the District of Columbia. It would provide explicit authority in substantive law for aid to the permanently and totally disabled and for general assistance, now provided under general language in the annual appropriation acts for the District of Columbia. The Social Security Act-under which the District is treated as a "State"-does not preclude adoption of unified State legislation or State plans for public assistance, although it would require that in the administration of assistance the categories be identified for purposes of obtaining Federal grants-in-aid. A proposal to eliminate the requirement of separate categories has been introduced in the Congress, and Secretary Flemming has urged serious consideration of the elimination of the categorical approach. The Advisory Council on Public Assistance, in its recent report, urged that the States be given freedom of choice in determining whether to administer public assistance in a single program or in separate categorical programs. The National Association of Social Workers and the American Public Welfare Association have recommended legislation to permit comprehensive noncategorical programs. A unified law for the District would permit prompt administrative adjustment to any changes in the Federal law defining or affecting the categories. 2. Term-of-resistence requirement The bill would provide uniformly that, to qualify for public assistance, any needy person shall have resided in the District for at least 1 year immediately preceding the date of application. It would clarify some details relating to children under 1 year of age. Also, it would authorize reciprocal agreements with States relative to public assistance for residents and nonresidents. The bureau of Public Assistance in the Social Security Administration has long recommended that the States eliminate from their plans all eligibility requirements that relate to length of residence in the State, and the present Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare has said that he favors the elimination of residence requirements in the use of Federal funds for public assistance. The Advisory Council on Public Assistance in its recent report favored removal of any residence requirement "that debars any needy person *** from help to which he would otherwise be entitled." An earlier Advisory Council on Social Security, reporting in 1948, took a similar position, except that it favored permitting States to require 1 year of residence for old-age assistance. A special committee of the Governors' conference, reporting in 1959, recommended a uniform 1-year ceiling on residence requirements. The report identifies several States that have no durational residence requirements for various public assistance categories. Among professional organizations, the American Public Welfare Association and the National Association of Social Workers have proposed elimination of residence as a condition or eligibility for public assistance. 3. Full provision for "minimum needs" The bill specifies that the amount of public assistance in each case shall be no less than the full amount determined as necessary on the basis of the minimum needs of the recipient as established in accordance with administrative regulations; and that no ceiling shall be administratively imposed with respect to the amount of public assistance to be paid any person or class of persons. This provision is directed toward circumstances, frequent in the recent experience of the District, in which reductions of one-sixth or more have been made in the individual assistance payments as an expedient to prorate available appropriation balances among all eligible recipients. The problem of shortages on appropriations, necessitating assistance payments of less that the calculated "minimum needs," apparently arises frequently in many of the States. The National Association of Social Workers and the American Public Welfare Association have both urged that the amounts provided by legislative bodies be adequate to cover fully all the recognized minimum budgetary needs of the persons on public assistance. In the consideration of the predecessor bill, S. 1849, 85th Congress, it was pointed out that unless there is provision for meeting minimum needs in full, many of the objectives of the public assistance legislation would not be realized. The requirement for full payment of minimum needs and the prohibition on administratively imposed ceilings were added to the bill following that discussion. Some uncertainty persists as to how these provisions in subsection 5(b) will be reconciled with congressional appropriation procedures. Further exploration of the probable budgetary and administrative impacts of these provisions might be illuminating. 4. Public access to assistance rolls In its provisions relating to public assistance records and their care, the bill includes an authorization for the District Commissioners, in their discretion, to adopt regulations permitting public access to records of disbursement or payment of public assistance. Persons obtaining information under any such regulations would be forbidden to use it for commercial or political purposes. Such a provision has been permissible since 1951 under the Social Security Act and related Federal legislation. The subject of public inspection of public assistance lists has long been a center of controversy. When the Federal legislation prohibited public access to the rolls, as it did until 1951, the Governors' conference contended that the States should have discretion in the matter. Proponents of public inspection of the records have contended that confidentiality encourages "a large class of professional paupers.' Opponents have asserted that public scrutiny of the rolls is "a cruel device" that "deters the most deserving from applying for relief". In 1957, some 31 States had legislation either expressly permitting some public inspection of public assistance lists or delegating discretion to local authorities to permit it. The Director of the Bureau of Public Assistance observed that "while there has been no nationwide study *** States report that this provision appears to have had little effect on caseloads or expenditures under the public assistance programs." Professional groups in this field generally urge that the confidential character of the records relating to individuals, applicants or recipients, should be preserved by law and administrative practice. 5. Relatives' responsibility The bill would broaden provisions relating to the responsibility of certain relatives to provide support for persons in need. It specifies that each of these relatives shall, "according to his ability to pay," be responsible for the support of the needy person. The right to sue the designated relatives would be given to the needy individual as well as to the District government, and the suit may seek a contribution in lieu of part or all of the public assistance that otherwise would be necessary. Under the present old-age assistance and aid-to-the-blind laws for the District, only the District can sue and it may sue only to recover assistance already paid out. An applicant for old-age assistance is ineligible for public aid if he has a legally responsible relative able to support him and if the "expected contribution" (determined under a prescribed formula) would ecual or exceed the applicant's budgeted need for assistance. In other cases, assistance may be given for the aged and the blind on the basis of the contribution actually received from a rela 52361-60- -2 The District, like a majority of the States, uses a formula for measuring the ability of legally responsible relatives to contribute to the support of a needy person. This involves in each case a comparison of the responsible relative's net income with an "exempt amount" based largely on components and costs of a city worker's budget and other similar data. A substantial number of States have no legislative requirements for adult children to support their needy parents. Other States have a variety of provisions. Thus, the broad subject of parent-child relationships and relatives' responsibility for support is not only a complex of legal, social, and economic issues but is also marked by diversity of policy and practice in the various States. The effect of relatives' responsibility requirements on the policies, operation, and costs of public assistance is a matter of extensive controversy, with some groups contending that such laws are archaic in a mobile society and others that their termination would to tend weaken further the institution of the family. Even the financial data derived from a study of old-age assistance in early 1953 have been differently interpreted. One report observes that the proportion of children contributing was small and that this suggests that relatives' contributions do not greatly reduce public assistance costs. An evaluation of the same data by staff of the Bureau of Public Assistance indicated that without support given by children the number of old-age assistance recipients in early 1950 would have been about 20 percent greater and the old-age assistance payments from public funds would have been some 17 to 23 percent more than they actually were. These numbers and amounts are substantial. The data do not show, however, to what extent these contributions were made by children who were "legally responsible" or were within the limits of "expected contributions,' as measured by officials standards. On the other hand, they ignore contributions from other relatives. Whether children's contributions are of the same proportionate effect in the District of Columbia is, of course, uncertain. Strongest opposition is expressed professionally to requirements, such as in the present District of Columbia law, which make an assistance applicant ineligible for aid if there is a "legally responsible" relative who is considered financially able to help, whether or not the relative actually is making a contribution. S. 2363 would permit the District of Columbia to continue or extend its practice of requiring contributions from relatives. At the same time, the legislation would not compel the local government to deny assistance to needy individuals whose "legally responsible" relatives either failed or were adjudged unable to make the expected contributions. 6. Liens and recoveries The bill provides for the recovery of part or all of the public assistance payments made in certain cases, either by (1) a claim filed against the estate of the assistance recipient, or (2) a lien against real property. Under present law, recovery provisions refer only to old-age assistance and aid to the blind and provide for a preferred claim against the estate of the assisted person (or of the last survivor of a married couple). Also, under present law, the District of Columbia may require an assistance recipient to assign or transfer property to the District at any time. The Bureau of Public Assistance has consistently recommended against transfer of the control of the property of an assistance recipient during his lifetime, and it has urged that the administrative agencies should have authority to compromise their claims and should not foreclose liens during the lifetime of the recipient or the surviving spouse. It has pointed out that this recommendation does not preclude the taking of liens on the property and the recovery of assistance from the recipients' estates. The Advisory Council on Public Assistance, in its recent report, argues that the diversity of State standards in these matters "goes beyond a reasonable latitude." Factual data in its report indicate that for old-age assistance a majority of the States have recovery provisions (including claims against estates, liens, or other types of legal security); and that for each of the other three federally aided categories a majority of the States do not have recovery provisions. Among those jurisdictions that provide for recoveries, the District of Columbia is reported to be unique in charging the recipient's estate with interest on the assistance given. The interest requirement, now applicable to both old-age assistance and aid to the blind, is omitted from S. 2363. Most specialists favor the procedure of recouping assistance payments-particularly old-age assistance through claims against estates. At the same time, they oppose requirements for the surrender of property or other methods of collecting directly from recipients while they are still on the assistance rolls, on the grounds that these other procedures are administratively expensive, may impose hardship on survivors, and often humiliate the applicants. Some of these writers have emphasized the usefulness of property liens and claims against estates as a sanction helping to give substance to the concept of relatives' responsibility. It has been suggested also that such procedures help to clarify the nature and role of public assistance and that, in fact, in some instances the absence of lien provisions and support laws contributes to a confusion of old-age assistance with old-age pensions. 7. Emergency assistance before investigation The District of Columbia has reported giving emergency assistance to applicants as soon as their general eligibility has been established. The present laws, however, specify that assistance shall begin only after completion of the required investigation into each case. S. 2363 would authorize the Commissioners to grant emergency public assistance for a period of not more than 60 days in any one case, pending completion of investigation, when eligibility has been established in accordance with the termof-residence requirement and the categories established by the Commissioners. The emergency payments could be made in cash, as well as in the usual form of a check. This provision is expected to remove a charge of about $200,000 a year from the local voluntary agencies. It is endorsed by professional spokesmen, one of whom characterized the emergency payment provision as "one of the most important provisions" of the bill. 8. Other administrative policies and procedures As indicated in the summary of objectives of S. 2363, the legislation would give the District Commissioners authority and responsibility to decide within specified limits certain policies and procedures to be observed in the administration of public assistance in the District. These include several matters in which professional organizations and groups interested in public assistance have recommended improvement of existing programs. For example, section 3 of the bill would direct the Commissioners to provide for maximum cooperation with other agencies rendering services to maintain and strengthen family life and to help public assistance applicants and recipients to attain self-support or self-care. It would permit the Commissioners to provide such services directly under the Public Assistance Act to the extent that they are not available in programs administered by the District under other laws. Section 22 would authorize the Commissioners to delegate and subdelegate to District agencies, officers, or employees any of the functions vested in them by the act. Section 23 would authorize them to accept voluntary services in administering the act. Taken together, these provisions presumably would enable the Commissioners, if they consider it advisable and funds are available, to undertake either with their own staff or with the cooperation of voluntary agencies a selective application of intensive casework aimed at reducing or eliminating the need for public assistance. Intensive efforts of this kind are widely advocated by the social welfare profession. Various experimental projects are cited as having demonstrated that systematic efforts would yield significant net savings in outlays for public assistance. In this connection, specialists in the welfare field emphasize the need for more adequate professional training and staffing, coupled with modifications in public assistance standards, in order that the full capacity of needy persons for self-care, self-support, and strengthened family life can be realized. Despite the broad authority that would be given the Commissioners in S. 2363, however, it is not clear that they would be empowered to underwrite special staff training if this appeared desirable as a step toward more effective administration of public assistance. Another matter on which the Commissioners would be given full discretion by the bill is the reconsideration of each individual assistance grant and the frequency of reinvestigations. This also is an area in which professional opinion points to the possibilities for compound benefits in terms of significant savings in expenditures, the promotion of self-reliance among recipients, and the preservation of community standards. These gains also depend on frequent selective reexaminations of those assistance cases in which circumstances are most apt to change. Under the bill, the policies of the District in this respect would be limited not by the basic law but by the availability of staff and the number of cases to be handled. Within these limits, which are determined by economic conditions and by appropriations, the Commissioners would have full authority and responsibility. |