The Federal Social Security Act of 1935 established uniform standards of residence qualifications for old age assistance, mothers' allowances, and aid to the blind, but left unaffected the disparity between States on residence qualifications for gen eral assistance.
Increasing pressure on relief funds led to tightening of residence qualifications, especially among States with a year residence requisite ; California raising it to three years in 1933 and Colorado in 1939.
The original States on the Atlantic coast have longer periods necessary to qualify for relief than the later States, as for exam ple Massachusetts which requires five years, whereas most States in the Mississippi river basin require but one, or none as in Ken tucky.
The Committee on Uniform Laws of the American Bar Associa tion, and a Special Committee of the American Public Welfare Association have drawn up a uniform settlement law covering general relief which they are urging states to adopt, so as to in sure that a person may not lose residence in going from one state to another. The Social Security Act, in the provisions for old age assistance is also providing uniform residence qualifications for assistance to the aged.
If the determination of residence is complicated, it is a simple matter compared with determination of need. What the English call the "means test" is an attempt to prove a negative, and every administrator of the social services knows it is the most puzzling and unsatisfactory aspect in the field of social work. Some data throwing light upon need are demonstrable : death of wage earner, illness, imprisonment, unemployment. But absence of resources can never be proven. Out of this dilemma spring most of the pub lic misunderstanding as well as the dissatisfaction of the bene ficiaries.
The general conclusion on this aspect of eligibility for relief is that the word of the applicant must be taken. This statement is then subjected to such verification by circumstantial evidence as is available; standard of living of family, previous income, judgment of relatives and presence or absence of debts. When all is done, however, a clever applicant can hide resources. It is the judgment of administrators of relief that if the applicant is given a half decent chance to tell the truth, he is at least as likely to be accurate in the statement of his financial resources as the average person, probably more so than the income tax payer.
The amount of relief given is roughly based upon the difference between the income of the family—or of the individual—and the amount required to maintain a minimum standard of living. This principle is as old as the administration of the Elizabethan Poor Law, which was a guarantee that none would starve or be naked or without shelter. The ideals of what constitute a stand ard of living might be very low, as they undoubtedly were at many times and places, but so have been the actual living standards.
Actual practice lags behind this ideal especially in relief to the unemployed. A minimum budget at the present time compares very favourably with the standard which the income of a steadily employed unskilled labourer can secure, including besides food, rent, fuel and clothing, provision for medical and hygienic serv ices, recreation and education. It is rare, however, that an ad ministration has the money to give relief on such a basis. In the days before the depression the better established relief agen cies, mostly private but some public, were able to do so, and had reached the conviction that adequate relief should be paid in cash, instead of in goods. But since the depression, and espe cially in unemployment relief the amount available does not make any such adequacy possible, so that the needs for food are usually met, rent only occasionally met, clothing almost never, except in emergencies and by second hand clothing, while all other needs are neglected. On the other hand, the practice of granting relief in cash has more than held its own. As the number on gen eral relief continues to be high over considerable periods of time, there is a tendency to exclude arbitrarily certain groups such as unattached individuals, able-bodied men and women, even though they have families, and those who have been on relief continuously for a year or more, quite apart from any need they present.