University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

The Crisis In American Welfare

By Stephen L. Pevar

— Ed.

The welfare system in this
country needs reform. Few disagree
with this; the question is in what
form should it come. I would like
to comment on some of the issues
involved, and to indicate,
particularly with reference to
actions recently taken by the State
of Nevada, how urgent it is that
something be done on the federal
level to eliminate needless death
and deprivation of the poor in this
country.

25 Million Poor

Today in the United States there
are at least 25 million abject poor.
Two-thirds of these are deficient in
health-either physical, mental, or
both. All are at the subsistence
level, or below the subsistence level,
or below the subsistence level of
income ($2500. annum for a family
of 4.) Only half of those persons
clearly in "need" (below
subsistence level) presently qualify
for assistance under the existing
restrictive welfare laws (the Nixon
proposal would increase the
number of persons qualified for
welfare to an estimated 24 million.)

Of the 12.5 million persons
presently receiving public assistance
in some form, a third are over 65,
blind, or permanently and totally
disabled; the remainder are
members of families having
dependent children (AFDC.)

Majority White

Concerning the families on
AFDC: 61.4 are white; 67.9% have
at least one member who worked
the entire or part of a year, with
35% in the former category; 48.1%
have at the head of the household a
person who has 9-12 years of
education, with 42.8% having 1-8
years of education; 70% of the
families have four or more
members, with 22.9% of these
having 7 or more members.

Thus, the average person
receiving welfare, besides those who
are blind, aged, and crippled, is a
member of a large white family,
with the family having at its head a
person who works full or part time.

As presently constituted, the
welfare system is funded by federal,
state and local contributions (about
55% federal, 38% state, 7%
local-but this varies.) The states are
allowed to administer the program
in accordance with broad federal
guidelines, and are also allowed to
decide what level of "need" they
will pay (Mississippi, for example,
has decided to pay only 40% of
what they themselves have
established as need.)

The state and local levels thus
have a direct financial interest in
keeping the welfare rolls small, and
this has led to numerous instances
of arbitrariness in handling cases.
(Within the last 6 months, two suits
were filed in the federal district
court against the Virginia State
Welfare Department: one resulted
in a permanent injunction against
the state, the other is still pending
and is claiming a total of $800,000
in damages-both resulting from
arbitrary local action.)

Fiscal Difficulties

The expanding welfare rolls,
partly due to the present period of
economic recession, have caused
fiscal difficulties for many states.
At least one state, Nevada, has
responded to these difficulties in
the most inhumane way-simply
cutting people off welfare. Last
month, the Nevada Department of
Welfare, alleging widespread
"fraud", summarily terminated
public assistance grants to 890
families (22% of the AFDC cases in
the state), and reduced payments to
an additional 1,133 families (28%.)

Procedurally, alone, the State's
action flies in the face of
established law: last year the US
Supreme Court ruled that it is a
denial of a person's constitutional
right to due process of law if his
welfare grant is terminated or
reduced without an opportunity for
a prior hearing on any issue of fact.
Substantively, as well, the Nevada
action is highly questionable, based
as it is upon the finding that 50% of
the AFDC cases had lied on their
applications, and local caseworkers
had failed to realize this.

According to a National Welfare
Rights Organization (NWRO)
investigating team of lawyers, the
Nevada action is "repressive and
illegal" and the team reports back
"incredible stories of no prior
hearings given before termination,
and inaccurate or incomplete
information used as the basis for
terminations." (NWRO press
release, Jan. 27 1971.)

Stop Nevada

Nevada must at least be stopped
immediately from cutting off
welfare grants without hearings;
and, if the allegations of illegal
action prove true, the persons
responsible for such action should
be subject to both civil and criminal
sanctions. ((A GROUP OF LAW
STUDENTS FROM UVA'S LAW
SCHOOL'S WELFARE RIGHTS
PROJECT HAVE VOLUNTEERED
TO LEAVE IMMEDIATELY FOR
NEVADA TO HELP THE NWRD
DO LEGAL RESEARCH AND
WRITING: IF ANY PERSON OR
GROUP IS ABLE TO
CONTRIBUTE TO AN
EMERGENCY FUND SET UP
FOR THIS PURPOSE, PLEASE
CONTACT IMMEDIATELY
Stephen L. Pevar at the law school,
or at home 295-0221.)
Furthermore, the Congress must
now realize that the federal
government must take over the
administration and financing of the
welfare in this country. Even the
Nixon Plan, as deficient as it is in
many other respects (it guarantees
only $1600 for a family of four,
and has very harsh work
requirement provisions), would
place full financial responsibility
with the federal government. I urge
all of you to look into this matter
further; 25 million of our fellow
citizens and fellow humans are
affected. Congress cannot delay
further, and I believe it must move
in the direction of total
administration of this country's
welfare program and an adequate
guaranteed income for all
Americans.