SOCIAL welfare is, by its very nature, a dynamic concept, depending
entirely on evolving ideas of the responsibility of community and
State in affirmatively promoting the well-being of its members.
As the sense of community responsibility develops, the concept of
social welfare must inevitably change. Not so long ago, our concept
of social welfare included almost exclusively relief and service
to the underprivileged and the disadvantaged. The needs of the specific
individual--rather than the social institutions whose presence or
absence affects the needs of individuals--were the focus of attention.
Social welfare was thought of largely in terms of adjusting the
individual to his environment rather than in terms of bringing environmental
forces into play to assist the individual.
What Social Welfare Means
A new concept of social welfare has been developing under which
welfare programs consist not only of counseling and assisting the
individual and family in making the necessary adjustments to environment
but, more importantly, of marshaling community resources to promote
the well-being of individuals and of families generally. In other
words, we no longer think in terms of a few underprivileged and
disadvantaged persons but in terms of all individuals and families.
In this country, under this newer concept, social work would include
both constructive welfare services and measures designed to promote
economic security--that is, both public assistance and the social
insurances. In other countries it would include measures that fall
under neither heading--for example, children's allowances, family
allowances, and similar payments based on the status of the individual
rather than upon present need or past contributions of the individual.
In other words, social security would be part of social welfare
in its present-day meaning.
In a democracy based on a system of free enterprise, the well-being
of individuals must be promoted in such a way that democracy and
the system of free enterprise will be strengthened. Many people
have sincerely felt that social action to help individuals weakens
the fabric of democracy and free enterprise because, they fear,
it weakens individual initiative. If social welfare continues to
recognize that the basic purpose of social action is to enable individuals
to achieve their maximum potentialities, such fears are groundless.
More than 100 years ago that arch-advocate of laissez-faire, John
Stuart Mill, in his essay, On Liberty, said that "energy and self-dependence
are as likely to be impaired by the absence of help as by its excess."
Some persons will immediately disagree and point to the fact that
today the United States has about 5 l/2 million individuals dependent
on government for public assistance to meet their daily needs. They
will point out that public assistance is costing the Federal, State,
and local governments almost $2 1/2 billion a year--and this in
a period of unprecedented prosperity and full employment. It is
unhappily true that these millions of persons do need public assistance.
The fact, however, that public assistance is available means that
we have a better America today than we had a quarter of a century
ago and that these individuals are leading far happier and more
useful lives as members of their community than they would otherwise
have led. If this country during the last quarter of a century had
had a system of contributory social insurance covering the inevitable
major economic hazards of life, these millions of persons would
be receiving insurance benefits rather than public assistance.
Issues in Public Assistance
It has been asserted many times in the public press that the Nation
is spending more for public aid--for "relief"--today than in 1940,
when probably 8 million persons were unemployed. As a matter of
fact, we are spending considerably less in actual dollars even though
these dollars buy far less. Persons who contend that expenditures
for public aid have increased since 1940 fail to take into account
that in 1940 the Work Projects Administration, the National Youth
Administration, and the Civilian Conservation Corps--all of which
provided assistance on the basis of need--were still operating.
Another serious mistake that is made by such critics stems from
failure to take into account the fact that the population has increased,
particularly in the groups under age 18 and over age 65, where need
is the greatest. Thus, while the number of persons receiving old-age
assistance has increased greatly since 1940, the number of old-age
assistance recipients per thousand aged persons in this country
has decreased.
If we consider all forms of public aid in existence in 1940 and
in existence today, we find that 3.8 percent of the population is
dependent on some form of public aid today as compared with 11.5
percent in 1940. The proportion of our national income spent for
public aid has also dropped sharply--from 3 4/10 cents out of every
dollar in 1940 and to 1 1/10 cents today.
Probably the worst mistake that is made in comparing expenditures
for public aid in 1940, when there was widespread unemployment,
with such expenditures today, when there is full employment, is
the failure to take into account the characteristics of the persons
receiving aid. Under the various public assistance titles of the
Social Security Act only the very young, the very old, the blind,
and now the permanently and totally disabled are eligible for public
assistance. For the most part, obviously, these groups cannot (and
in the case of children should not) engage in gainful employment.
In other words, as the number of such persons in the population
increases, it is obvious that the potential public assistance load
will increase, regardless of improved employment conditions.
Since 1940 the number of children receiving aid to dependent children
has increased both absolutely and in relation to the population
under age 18, although at the same time an increasing number of
children have been receiving survivor benefits under the old-age
and survivors insurance program. If it were not for the insurance
program, many of the 800,000 beneficiary children who are orphans
or partial orphans would undoubtedly have been eligible for aid
to dependent children. Because this group is taken care of through
insurance, only about a fifth of the children now receiving aid
to dependent children are in families with the father dead; the
others are in need because of the incapacity or absence from the
home of a living parent. In about half the cases the need of the
child has arisen from the fact that the father has deserted the
mother or is not married to the mother or is absent from the home
for other reasons. Undoubtedly it is this circumstance that has
given rise to the charge that aid to dependent children has encouraged
desertion and illegitimacy.
Desertion and illegitimacy have been with us for a long time and
unfortunately may be on the increase. But all the evidence indicates
that aid to dependent children represents not the cause but the
effect of desertion and illegitimacy.
Though the caseload for aid to dependent children has been declining
steadily during the past year, hundreds of thousands of children
will continue to need this form of assistance; many will be in broken
homes. A great responsibility rests not only on the public officials
who administer aid to dependent children but on all social agencies,
public and private, to aid these children so that they may not be
disadvantaged because of circumstances beyond their control.
It is encouraging to note that for the last year and a half there
has been a steady decline in the total number of public assistance
recipients and a generally downward trend in assistance expenditures.
Much of the decline in old-age assistance has been due to the 1950
legislative improvements in the Federal old-age and survivors insurance
system, but continued high employment, which provides more job opportunities
for persons receiving assistance and increases the ability of relatives
to assist, is probably the chief factor.
Even though there is a valid explanation of why, in spite of the
decline in public assistance, we still have about 5 1/2 million
persons receiving this type of aid, the fact remains that nobody
is happy about the situation. The taxpayers of the country express
their dissatisfaction in the public press and in legislative bodies.
Not so much is heard about the unhappiness of the recipients of
assistance. Those of us charged with the responsibility of administering
public assistance are acutely aware, however, that no one relishes
being a recipient of public aid.
There has been much talk about chiselers on relief rolls. Much
of this criticism does not distinguish between legal and illegal
payments. That is, in some States the criticism has been directed
at the failure of relatives to help when, under the laws of these
States, they have no legal obligation to do so. In some States there
has been criticism that persons owning a home or having some other
small assets are receiving public assistance when under the laws
and regulations such ownership is permitted. At the same time, because
persons with some small assets seem to be no better off than those
who have none, there is criticism that public assistance penalizes
thrift.
Whether or not there are many persons on the assistance rolls illegally,
the feeling that the caseloads are too high has led to demand that
the rolls be made public. The contention seems to be that publicity
will scare off the persons receiving assistance illegally and will
shame the relatives of those who are legally receiving public assistance
into meeting their moral responsibilities. This contention rests
for its validity on whether many persons actually are receiving
public assistance illegally and on whether relatives can be shamed
into helping.
The substantial decline in the State and local programs of general
assistance has been advanced as proof of the argument's soundness.
That is, it has been contended that Federal financial participation
and the Federal statutory requirement that the public assistance
rolls be kept confidential have led to the alleged increase in the
categories financed in part by the Federal Government, as contrasted
with the decline in the general assistance category, where there
is no Federal financial participation or Federal requirement as
to confidentiality. This argument overlooks the basic reason for
the decline in general assistance since 1940--the fact that the
general assistance category had a far greater proportion of employable
persons in it than the categories of aged persons, young children,
the blind, and the permanently disabled. It also overlooks the fact
that, under the Social Security Act Amendments of 1950, many persons
were transferred from general assistance to the new category of
the permanently and totally disabled.
As a matter of fact, most of the local alleged scandals about "chiselling"
have occurred in general assistance. The highest proportion of persons
shown by any State-wide study to be illegally receiving public assistance
under categories financed in part by the Federal Government has
been less than 3 percent.
Experience seems to indicate that publicity is of doubtful value
in reducing the number of chiselers and shaming relatives. The welfare
directors of several States have declared that such publicity in
connection with general assistance has had no effect on the chiselers
but may have deterred eligible persons in real need from accepting
assistance.
A rider attached to the Revenue Act of 1951 has the effect of permitting
States to allow public access to records of the disbursement of
public assistance funds. This legislation permits access only to
records of disbursements, such as the names of recipients and the
amounts and dates of the payments; it does not permit public access
to other information in case records. The Federal lands requires
moreover, that if a State does enact legislation prescribing any
conditions under which public access may be had to records of disbursements
such legislation must prohibit the use of any lists or names obtained
from such access for commercial or political purposes.
Unfortunately the Federal statutory requirement concerning confidentiality
of public assistance records that was in effect before the 1951
rider has not been generally understood. The requirement has never
been interpreted as surrounding these records with an iron curtain
of secrecy that would prevent the taxpayers from having the requisite
assurance that ineligible persons were not receiving public assistance.
It has never prevented the furnishing of information to Federal,
State, and local legislative Committees and administrative bodies
charged with investigating and appraising the operations of public
assistance, as well as to auditors, law enforcement officers, and
grand juries for use in the discharge of any duties they may have
that relate to the administration of public assistance. Nor has
this requirement prevented the publication of material on the operations
of public assistance agencies designed to inform the public regarding
such matters as the size of expenditures, classification of the
causes of dependency, the range in payments made, the standards
for appraising need, and the procedures followed for determining
need in the individual case.
It is perhaps well to recall that the Federal requirement was placed
in the Social Security Act in 1939 because there had been widespread
political misuse of the names of recipients of old-age assistance
in the 1938 elections. It remains to be seen whether legislation
permitting public access but prohibiting the use of information
obtained through such access for commercial or political purposes
will actually prevent the abuses that occurred before 1939.
The effect that opening the assistance rolls to the public will
have in reducing the rolls is also still a matter of debate. But
one thing is certain. We shall never be able to measure statistically
how much needless humiliation results from indiscriminate public
access. More than 100 years ago Disraeli opened his first successful
campaign for election as a member of the House of Commons by attacking
the new Poor Law because, as he said "it went on the principle
that relief to the poor is a charity. I maintain that it is a right
. . . I consider that this Act has disgraced the country more than
any other upon record. Both a moral crime and a political blunder,
it announces to the world that in England poverty is a crime."
One of our own homespun philosophers, who used to write under the
pen name of Abe Martin, once said, before the advent of the Social
Security Act, "Poverty ain't a crime in America but it might as
well be." We are not going to return to those days. As some evidence
that we will not, it should be noted that in two States where the
assistance rolls have been opened to the public, very few persons
have actually sought the information.
Another thing is certain; there is no substitute for good administration--
administration that both protects the taxpayer through careful examination
of the facts bearing on eligibility and provides needed assistance
to the recipient in such a manner as to encourage his self-respect,
sense of responsibility, and effective participation in the life
of the community. Ironically enough, many times the same individuals
who complain about ineligible persons receiving public assistance
also object to providing funds to employ enough social workers to
make the necessary investigations.
Perhaps the best comment on this whole question of relief chiseling
appeared in a small newspaper in the Middle West:
We've had many families among us needing public
assistance for a long time. And no matter what decision comes down
from the court, they'll still be with us.
They are not an isolated people, those who
receive monthly checks representing aid to the blind and aid to
dependent children. They are of us-- of our neighborhoods, of our
churches of our schools.
They are not statistics on a state welfare
department report or the financial records, red or black, of Monroe
county. They are people.
It is well, as we wade into the attached problems,
or run away from them, to remember that. They are people--just as
good, just as bad, just as weak, just as strong, just as honest
and just as dishonest as people are at every economic, political
and social level.
It can be conceded that some families receiving
public assistance, in cash or in kind, cheat. They cheat just like
some rich people who chisel on their income tax returns or exploit
their employees or give too little to the churches in which they
pray.
The problem of weeding them out is one calling
for capable administration of the welfare procedures, as well as
one calling for an acceptance of responsibility and duty by the
average citizen.
For example, the welfare departments of our
counties find no shortage of complaints about mothers or fathers--
or both--slopping up ADC checks in beer houses. But they find a
shortage of complaining witnesses to act when action is essential.
It can be conceded that for some families the
ADC checks destroy initiative. Even though they merit the checks,
they show little inclination to accept opportunities which might
eventually move them off the welfare rolls. This is a problem calling
for rehabilitation along with routine administration-- and again
it goes to the door of the school, the church and the average citizen
as well as to the door of the welfare office in the Monroe county
court house or to the one in the state house ....
By and large, however, the public assistance
handed out in Monroe county is put to essential uses--it goes to
children who have lost fathers by death or desertion, it goes to
children whose fathers are physically disabled, it goes to children
who are far better off having their mothers at home than they would
be--or society would be-- if their mothers couldn't maintain homes.
Who will be first to abandon them ?
That this problem of providing assistance to the needy was also
a problem confronting our colonial forefathers is made clear in
an interesting little pamphlet issued by the Virginia League of
Local Welfare Executives. This League was enterprising enough to
look into The Vestry Book of Kingston Parish, covering
the period 1679-1796. The Vestry met once a year and made appropriations
in pounds of tobacco--the usual medium of exchange--to provide for
the needs of the parish. The Vestry records show that most of the
items listed each year were for the assistance of individuals in
need of help. To quote from the pamphlet:
A number of examples are given in each category
to show the variety of situations which the Vestry had to consider.
Each has its present day counter. It appears that there were a number
of bastards under care in foster homes at all times . . . It was
noted that awards were made year after year to the same persons
in many instances. For example an award was made for the care of
Oner Powers every year for 33 years and the final award was for
his care and burial. Evidently both temporary and permanent care
were available to the destitute widows, orphans, fatherless, lame,
halt, etc.
The League reaches this conclusion on the cost of public welfare
today as compared with colonial times:
Thus in the hundred years preceding the Revolution,
the number of taxable persons had increased 12 times, total expenditures
had increased 23 times and the tax per person had increased about
100 percent. And of all things!! the expenditure per capita for
relief was approximately the same as it was in Virginia for the
year 1949-50 when the Federal government was paying one-third of
the bill.
Social Insurance
In colonial days the problem of want was quite different from what
it is today. We now have a highly competitive, urbanized, and industrialized
economic system that has enabled us, as a Nation, to increase our
output of goods and services beyond the wildest dreams of our forefathers.
But paradoxically enough, it has also given rise to greater economic
insecurity on the part of millions of individuals. A way must be
found to prevent the destitution of millions of persons rather than
to alleviate it after it has occurred. Fortunately there is a way
to prevent destitution arising from economic causes. That is the
device of contributory social insurance--a device that has been
used for threequarters of a century in various parts of the world.
That outstanding conservative, Winston Churchill, was one of the
chief architects of the plan that went into effect in Great Britain
in 1909 and was also instrumental in putting into effect the famous
Beveridge plan that greatly expanded the British social insurance
system. He made the point that economic hazards that cannot be met
effectively by the individual can be met through a system of contributory
social insurance. Under such a system, all individuals exposed to
these hazards are insured against loss of income, with benefits
payable from a fund to which they and their employers have contributed.
This country has had a form of contributory social insurance since
1911, when the first workmen's compensation laws were passed. Since
1935 we have had social insurance covering unemployment and old
age. In 1939 the Federal old-age system was expanded to include
survivor benefits in the case of the death of the insured worker.
Unfortunately these various forms of social insurance did not cover
all gainfully employed persons, and the benefits provided were inadequate,
especially as living costs went up. In 1950, Congress considerably
extended the coverage of the Federal old-age and survivors insurance
system and increased the benefits. The only large groups still unprotected
are farm operators and casual farm and domestic workers. Today about
90 percent of the gainfully occupied persons in this country are
insured--under this Federal program or under other Federal, State,
and local government retirement systems--against loss of income
due to old age or death of the family breadwinner.
Coverage under old-age and survivors insurance is not compulsory
for employment in nonprofit organizations, but it can be elected
if the employer and two-thirds of the employees wish to be insured.
The great appeal that a system of contributory social insurance
has--as w ell as the good business judgment of nonprofit organizations
and their employees--is evident from the number of employees (about
750,000) in such organizations who are now covered.
The great distinguishing characteristic between a system of contributory
social insurance and a system of public assistance is that the insurance
benefits are payable without a means test. The means test is a necessary
device to keep the cost of public assistance within bounds, but
it is a device that probably no one likes. Nor is it generally considered
a constructive way to promote self-reliance and effective participation
in the life of a community. The basic repugnance to the means test
probably arises out of the fact that to the recipient it signifies
his own or his family's failure to make the grade in a highly competitive
economy. Another reason for its unpopularity is that the means test
is often considered as placing a penalty upon thrift, since any
savings must be taken into account in determining need.
Benefits under contributory social insurance are, in contrast,
payable in specified amounts regardless of the actual amount of
property a recipient may possess. Moreover, the benefits vary in
accordance with wage loss. A larger proportion of the wage loss
is payable in the case of low wage earners than in the case of high
wage earners, but the fact that there is a relationship between
wage loss and benefits introduces an element of flexibility that
automatically relates the benefits to the wide wage differentials
existing in this country and that is characteristic of a system
of free enterprise.
Comprehensive Nature of Social Welfare
A contributory social insurance system in effect throughout the
entire Nation and covering all the major economic hazards would
largely solve the problem of destitution in this country. Much destitution
is due, however to non-economic causes. For example it would certainly
not be practical or desirable to have social insurance against loss
of income arising out of broken homes. Neither is it possible for
a social insurance system to cover actual need of all individual
and families under all conceivable circumstances. Accordingly, we
should be deceiving ourselves if we did not recognize that, even
with an extended and improved social insurance program as a first
line of defense against destitution, there would still be need for
a second line of defense in the form of public assistance. Since
this second line of defense would be far less costly and significant
than it is today, we should have far greater opportunity to direct
our attention to providing constructive social services. Neither
contributory social insurance nor public assistance can be depended
upon to solve non-economic problems such as recreational needs,
illegitimacy, broken homes, juvenile delinquency, the problems of
the aging, and the religious needs of people generally. It is for
that reason that private as well as public welfare agencies must
be encouraged to strengthen their services.
International Social Welfare
The amount of international activity that is now going on in the
field of social welfare is far less well-known than international
activity in the field of diplomacy and military preparedness. It
is, nonetheless, an absolute essential in promoting sympathy and
understanding among the peoples of the world, and in promoting constructive
action, on which the welfare of the peoples of the world depends.
In the long run, world peace cannot be achieved unless we make visible
progress in solving the problem of world misery. Solving this problem
depends, in turn, upon improving not only the economic organization
of underdeveloped countries but their social organization as well.
Basically the issues facing social welfare today in America are
the same issues facing democracy throughout the world; the goal
of social welfare and the goal of democracy are identical--equal
opportunity and the good life for every human being regardless of
race, creed, or color. We in America are sometimes inclined to forget
what a revolutionary concept democracy really is and how young it
is. We used to think this idea originated with the ancient Greeks
and Romans, but we now know that their concept of democracy was
essentially an aristocratic one.
But hardly more than 150 years ago the idea of liberty, equality,
and fraternity for everyone captured the imagination of our forefathers.
What is more, they proceeded to act to make that idea a reality.
However, until fairly recently most of the people in the world had
not the slightest awareness that there was such an idea in existence
and certainly had no realization of its significance for them or
their children. There are many isms and ideologies that are sweeping
across the face of the globe. They all have the same professed aim--the
improvement of the lot of the common man. The great distinguishing
characteristic of democracy is that democracy refuses to believe
that man can help himself by enslaving himself.
The universal problem confronting mankind today, so far as his
life on this earth is concerned, is whether he has the patience,
the understanding, the sympathy, and the ability to cooperate with
his fellow man in achieving the goal of democracy. There is no question
that this goal will be achieved eventually whether it takes a hundred
years or a thousand years. The real question is whether the promise
of democracy can be achieved quickly in the face of the great difficulties
confronting the world to prevent countless years of needless human
misery. Fortunately in this country our problem of fully realizing
the promise of democracy--equal opportunity and the good life for
everyone--is not dependent upon the acquisition of greater natural
resources or the achievement of a higher level of technology. It
is dependent solely on our ability as fellow-Americans to cooperate
with each other in making certain that every American citizen really
does have an opportunity to lead a personally satisfying and socially
useful life. In other words, our problem is not one of finding the
economic resources to carry out our social aims, but of finding
ways and means of developing the necessary social organization.
|