Mr. TWINAME. Yes, sir, previously. Mr. PATTEN. Do you find fault with that decision under our law? You are not saying the Supreme Court didn't properly interpret the law? Mr. TWINAME. No, sir; as a matter of fact most of the welfare recipients were not people who came and waited for 1 year and then got on assistance. Most people on assistance have been residents for a longer period. I think the average residency of the person on assistance was well over 3 years. Mr. COSTA. Five years. Mr. TWINAME. Five years before a resident went on assistance. Mr. FLOOD. Will you supply for the record the date the Supreme Court handed down that decision? Mr. TWINAME. Yes, sir. Mr. FLOOD. With the date that the Court handed down that decision, submit a brief synopsis of the gist of the decision. (The information follows:) SUPREME COURT DECISION ON RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), April 21, 1969: Under the equal protection clause, a requirement of durational residence in a State is not an acceptable eligibility condition for public assistance. Summary of Decision.-Held (6-3), that durational residence requirements of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, under which residents of those jursidictions were denied AFDC or APTD because they had not resided within the jurisdiction for at least 1 year immediately preceding the applications for such assistance, violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, the due process clause of the fifth amendment, and the constitutionally secured right to travel. The majority opinion stated that section 402(b) of the Social Security Act does not approve the imposition of a 1-year waiting period requirement so that the constitutionality of that section was not in issue; moreover, if section 402(b) did approve a 1-year residence requirement, that section would be unconstitutional. Related case.-In Wyman v. Bowens, 39 U.S. 49 (February 24, 1970), five justices of the Court, without hearing argument, affirmed on the basis of Shapiro v. Thompson a district court decision which struck down a New York law denying AFDC to families who apply within 1 year of coming into the State unless they show that they did not come for the purpose of obtaining assistance. EXTENSION OF AFDC TO CHILDREN OF UNEMPLOYED FATHERS Mr. TWINAME. The extension of the program of aid to families with dependent children to cover children of unemployed fathers, also has contributed to the raise in the number of recipients. Unemployment rates are considerably higher among minority groups, especially MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE AVERAGE MONTHLY PAYMENT TO MAINTENANCE ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS (Money Payments) COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED BY LAW Chart D shows the average payments as they have risen, the average monthly payment to a recipient. And annually this simply means that the AFDC payment to a family went up 10 percent between 1966 and 1967, and from 1967 to 1968 there was a 9 percent increase in the average payment to AFDC recipients. This increase in the budget is a function of more recipients, and for each recipient a higher payment. The reason for this particular payment here, which is the largest factor in this year (1970-71), is related to the fact that we are cleaning up the requirement that there be a cost-of-living adjustment in the maximum payments made to these families. Mr. FLOOD. What does that mean? Mr. TWINAME. The Congress, in its 1967 amendment, said that each State should at least one time Mr. FLOOD. Should or shall? Mr. FLOOD. Does the law say "shall"? Mr. FLOOD. A very important word. Mr. TWINAME. Yes, it was mandated on the States that they shall by July 1, 1969, make a cost-of-living adjustment in their maximum, in their ceiling, and their standard of need. Most of them unfortunately did not get that done, until sometime in 1970 and even 1971, and we had quite a time to wrestle with the States to get that accomplished. VARIATIONS AMONG STATES IN COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENTS Mr. MICHEL. Are there any figures available as to how that adjustment varied throughout the country? Mr. TWINAME. Yes, we could make that. The tricky thing about that was that the States were mandated by the Congress to make these adjustments in the standard of need, but the States could, if they wished, then make a rateable deduction, and give everybody a smaller percent of the need. All States don't pay 100 percent of the need. They pay 50 percent, 70 percent, or whatever. Instead of paying say 80 percent of the need, the State might pay 75 percent of the need. But I am happy to say that in most cases, instead of, in effect, taxing the welfare recipient, most States, well over 35, I think, actually gave the recipients more money. Some States had not made a cost-of-living adjustment for 5 years. People were still receiving the same amount, so I think that this is what the Congress had in mind, but it did not tell a State it had to pay more money. Mr. COSTA. We could submit, for the record, the individual variations in the States. Mr. FLOOD. A good idea. MONTHLY STANDARDS AND PAYMENTS FOR AN A.F.D.C. FAMILY OF 4 (1 ADULT PLUS 3 CHILDREN) AS OF MAY Mr. TWINAME. I might submit for the record an appendix of the reasons a little more definitively, why more people are on the public assistance rolls. Mr. FLOOD. Not only for the record but send a copy to each member of the subcommittee. (The information follows:) Of the total increase of 1,876,480 in the average monthly number of recipients between 1971 and 1972, almost 90 percent is accounted for by the increase in AFDC. The average monthly number of recipients of AFDC in 1972 will be about 21⁄2 times the number in 1966 as shown in chart C of the opening statement on maintenance assistance. The reasons for the increase in the number of recipients |