not as serious there because people want disease taken care of so that they themselves won't catch it. But when you get into relief, you have a different situation. A community does not want to take care of transients, and imposes as many restrictions as possible in order to avoid doing so.

CATEGORY NEEDED TO COVER RELIEF GROUP

Now, in the Social Security Act and in the public-assistance title also, we have dealt with the same difficulty, to a certain extent, with the residence provisions, but they are so broad that they are not a factor affecting the migrant problem at all. You take care of the aged, the children, and the blind, but the general relief picture is left largely to a standard which varies from State to State. Whatever is done about relief is done in that particular locality, and it seems to me that it is essential, if you are to have a coordinated program that gives substantial relief to people all over the country, that you have a category and a means of covering the relief group regardless of whether the individuals concerned be old, or children, or disabled. If that is done and put on a national basis, there would be a possibility of coordination among the States which would result in the elimination of these extensive residential requirements.

You have gone far to meet the minimum subsistence necessity. There is no doubt that there is great good to be derived from a procedural program that has been talked about this morning, a certification program. We all know that these certification programs are handled in a different manner in practically every State. In general they are handled through the welfare departments; and there are variations in the method of those certifications, depending in many instances on the various standards of granting relief. In one instance you might get certification for a worthy case; and in another, some minor restriction-local-would make it impossible to obtain certification there. But under a national certification program, the same benefits and the same regulations would apply in all States.

Mr. THOMAS. The variation in these standards seems to be rather widespread, does it not?

Mr. TATE. That is inevitable, as long as you have no Federal standards applying to the handling of relief problems.

Mr. THOMAS. Have you any questions you would like to ask, Dr. Lamb?

Dr. LAMB. I have some that I would like brought out in the general discussion later on.

Mr. THOMAS. I was going to suggest that we take a few minutes'

recess.

Dr. LAMB. I would also like to suggest that we set a dead-line, after which those interested could carry on the discussion if they like, and those who would be inconvenienced by remaining may go. We shall take a five-minute intermission and plan to close at 12:30. After we come back from our recess we can have a general discussion. Mr. THOMAS. We will recess for 5 minutes.

(Following a short recess, the hearing was resumed.)

ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION, PARTICIPATED IN BY ROBERT BLINN, LEGISLATIVE ADVISER, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD, FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D. C.; AND DR. HAYES, MRS. BEYER, MESSRS. BILLINGTON, BURNS, GIBBONEY, MAGUIRE, MCKINNEY, AND TATE

Dr. LAMB. To start the ball rolling. I would like to ask Mr. Tate if he does not agree that the way in which the Social Security Act has operated in some places has encouraged the categorizing of people in one of the three existing categories if it is humanly possible to do so. That is to say, those families have been so categorized in order that they may be provided with assistance, whereas if there were an adequate general relief program in the States, no special effort to get people assistance on these categories would be necessary.

We had testimony to that effect at our Oklahoma City hearing in connection with programs for general relief in the surrounding States, which certainly were not adequate. Would you agree, Mr. Tate, that that is an ever-present possibility, and in some places an actuality?

Mr. TATE. Very definitely. As the pressure becomes very strong, the tendency has been to draw other members of the family into the category of the aged, the blind, or the children, in any way possible, in order to get assistance for people who otherwise would not receive it through these programs.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CATEGORIES

Now, there is a certain justification for the categories, in that there are certain groups that need special services. I think we would all agree that the old people need to be treated differently, need certain services, and that children do not need precisely the same services that the aged need. But I take it that we would agree equally that if persons were starving they ought to get relief whether they were over 18 or under 65; and the tendency on the part of the States has been to try to get an extension of these categories. I think it is desirable. that they be extended.

Dr. LAMB. Do you consider it possible that if such a thing as a general relief category were added to the three now in existence, the sums necessary under those three might be curtailed-not on a Nation-wide basis, perhaps, but in many States where general relief could be provided in a general category?

Mr. TATE. That would be true in some States, but in many States there are long waiting lists for the categorical problems. Dr. LAMB. That is why I made that distinction.

VARIABLE-FUND FORMULA FOR RELIEF

Mr. TATE. And, of course, that brings up the other problem with which we have been considerably concerned, and in which I think the group here might have an interest, and that is the variable-fund formula that we have been trying to work out, so that in some States that have not the resources to meet even their present problems under the categories, special Federal funds could go in.

Dr. LAMB. I think Mr. Tate's proposal of a central agency raises questions that fall into two main divisions, one having to do with what the effect of the introduction of a fourth category, for general relief, would be upon the operations of a good many other agencies here represented, and the other having to do with the type of legislative enactment that should accompany the establishment of a fourth category and remove the major problems with which other programs are concerned, particularly during the first years of its existence. These problems were brought out in the investigation conducted by the Select Committee to Investigate the Interstate Migration of Destitute Citizens. Now, should we seek an amendment of the Social Security Act with respect to settlement and residence requirements, might not such amendment go a long way toward preventing the destitute group of interstate migrants, broadly defined, from being a problem in the Federal sense of the word? What would happen to the W. P. A., for example, under such an assumption as a fourth category for general relief, and what would happen to the surplus marketing stamp plan operations, or to the C. C. C., or to certain. others?

But perhaps we ought to tackle the second question, of residence, first, and see whether we come back to the other questions, which may be embarrassing to some of those present, although I know we have all considered them at some time or other. For example, ever since the beginning of the Federal relief program, the question of work relief versus non-work relief has been a subject for discussion among legislators and others. It is by no means settled, and there are many partisans on both sides; and I know, in fact, that one phase of that question has held up further action in some quarters, for example, in the interdepartmental committees.

Progress in dealing with the whole subject of migration was certainly not hastened in the preparation of a report, by the differences between those groups. I think they were finally resolved on the question of whether we should have work relief plus general relief or simply general relief.

Well, I would like to have you go on.

FOURTH CATEGORY AS THE FILLING OF A VOID

Mr. TATE. I think the main necessity for this relief category is to take care of a situation that is not otherwise being taken care of. Dr. LAMB. Yes. That is why I feel that it should not be embarrassing to discuss it, especially inasmuch as we all admit at the present time that many of the States are meeting none of these needs, in spite of all the Federal assistance which is represented by the people present here today.

Mr. TATE. I would not conceive of the solution as a statute, or another program, but rather as the filling of a void.

Dr. LAMB. Yes.

Mr. TATE. As Mr. Maguire indicated in answering the question awhile ago, his program, of necessity, is a supplemental program, and a fourth category might lead to some expansion in his activity, in that he is not likely now to get any certifications in a number of States where there is either a very meager relief program or none

whatever. There might well be a demand on his agency, brought about through the enactment of provision for this fourth category. I would point out that there would still be a necessity for a work program, whether the fourth category were limited to unemployables

or not.

Dr. LAMB. I think we could profitably discuss that second question from the point of view that you have indicated, namely, that most of the programs here discussed would find their respective operations clarified and perhaps simplified, and that they would work more directly towards the ends for which they were intended if this whole question of general relief were put on its own base instead of encroaching on the other categories, whether they are within the Social Security Act or one of the other programs represented.

EFFECT OF AMENDING SETTLEMENT REQUIREMENTS

A discussion of the effect not only of a fourth category, but also of some amendment to the settlement requirements of the Social Security Act accompanying the introduction of a fourth category, might be in order.

Mr. TATE. Well, whether you did it by amending all categories or merely by enactment of a fourth category without restricted residence requirements, I think you would accomplish the same result. Of course, I would prefer some amendment of residence requirements in all categories; but if you did not meet these requirements as applied to the aged, or children, or blind categories, those aged, children, and blind who met the requirements of the fourth category would be in that group rather than in the others.

I think it would be much better to retain categories covering those aged, blind, and children and add that fourth category as simply a catch-all, rather than a real category. You might accomplish the same purpose by abolishing categories and setting forth the standard of services to be rendered in a single category. But it really seems to me that it is more desirable at this time to have a fourth category for relief problems which are clearly not being met, and which are acute, not only from the national point of view, but from a State point of view as well. The residence provision, I suppose, would eliminate entirely this "5-years-out-of-the-9-last-years.' Then the only test would be whether the person was really a member of the community, whether he lived there and did not intend to leave.

EMPHASIS ON QUESTION OF RESIDENCE

Dr. LAMB. As far as the general relief category is concerned, is it logical to attempt to sidestep the question of settlement by placing the emphasis on the question of residence-residence to be interpreted in terms of the person residing there at the moment of the application?

Mr. TATE. I would merely have a provision that a person be a resident.

Dr. LAMB. Yes.

Mr. TATE. With no time element modifying the term. And I take it that it would mean that the person lived in the community where

he was applying, and had no present intention of departing from the community.

Dr. LAMB. Letting the intent be the determining factor?

Mr. MCKINNEY. What assistance would this fourth category receive from the Social Security Board?

Mr. TATE. Under the present pattern it would be 50 percent of the grants-in-aid given to the applicant. If we had a variable grant, it would depend upon whatever formula was adopted-presumably somewhere between 50 and 75 percent.

Dr. LAMB. The minimum amount would be determined in the course of enactment of the legislation, rather than in any determination at this time. I think Mr. Tate would prefer not to state any figure, because that would, of course, depend entirely on the course the legislation took.

LIMITS OF INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. TATE. I could say that an assistance title in the act now should be based on the individual's need up to some fixed maximum, so that if a man needed a couple of dollars for a particular purpose-say, to go to a doctor-he would get that, although if, on the other hand, he needed total living expenses, he would get those only up to a certain reasonable amount.

Dr. LAMB. Would you make allowance for variation in the size of families and the urgency of family situations?

Mr. TATE. Yes.

Mr. BURNS. I would like to observe that while I think it would be wise to have a uniform standard of eligibility and the elimination of the residence clause, merely the passage of a law to provide for uniform standards would not, in my opinion, achieve that purpose as long as the funds available for this fourth category and for the other programs were insufficient to meet the needs in the community; because, no matter how reasonable the standards may be, or how carefully the law defined them, local people-local officials, who necessarily do administer these laws-will find subtle ways of discriminating against a nonresident.

It is so now, to a large extent, and it is mostly a matter of money. In the present rather chaotic state of residence requirements, interpretation of the eligibility for assistance becomes rather strained when funds are insufficient in amount to care for residents and nonresidents. The same provisions are sometimes rather harshly interpreted even when the funds are sufficient to care for residents and nonresidents; but when the funds are not sufficient, then the resident comes first and the nonresident will get nothing.

REQUIREMENTS RELAX AS FUNDS INCREASE

Mr. TATE. Yes; of course that is true, and we have found that the more funds there are available the easier are the residence require

ments.

We found, under the Social Security Act, that a State accustomed to long residence requirements drops back to shorter ones without a hitch when required to under Social Security. We also found that a good many States have even dropped below the prescribed maximum. When you get down to the group with very short residence

60396-41-pt. 17-24