Relief

The future of relief is to be predicted in part from the pres ent practice of relief to others than the unemployed, which is likely to become even more niggardly, and to place more reliance upon the recipient to manage his own economic affairs, and in part from the probable development of social insurance for the unem ployed. But in spite of the best unemployment insurance may do, there will remain a vast bulk of need presented by the unemployed after they have exhausted their insurance benefits which may only be met by relief.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.-Edward

A. Williams, Federal Aid for Relief (New York, 1939) ; Report of the Unemployment Assistance Board (Lon don, 1938) ; Edward T. Devine, The Principles of Relief (New York, 1914) ; Carl A. Heisterman, "Removal of Non-Resident State-Poor by State and Local Authorities," Social Service Review, Vol. VIII, no. 2. (Chicago, ; Robert Kelso, The Science of Public Welfare (New York, 1927) ; Gilbert Slater, Poverty and the State (London, 193o) ; Frank D. Watson, The Charity Organization Movement in the United States (New York, 1922). (F. J. B.) Federal Relief U.S.A.—There was no system of Federal relief in existence when the depression began in the United States with the financial crash of 1929. Public relief was provided under State "poor laws," and was usually limited to almshouse care, medical care, burial, and small amounts of outdoor relief, financed by towns and counties. In structure, social theory, and method of ad ministration, this system of local public relief had remained prac tically unchanged from the 17th century days of Elizabethan Eng land. This kind of public relief was supplemented by private charity, which in many cases had a quasi-public character.

For three years after 1929, notwithstanding the rapid growth of unemployment (which rose according to reliable estimates from 2,000,000 to 5,000,000) the Federal Government under the Ad ministration of President Hoover held that the relief of unemploy ment was a local problem, to be handled by State and local governmental resources supplemented by private charity. Two successive committees were set up by President Hoover to co ordinate private and local governmental relief efforts—the Presi dent's Emergency Committee for Employment, and the Presi dent's Organization on Unemployment Relief.

The assistant director of the latter, in a radio address in Jan.

1932, characterized the agitation for Federal relief as a "popular business fallacy," and said that "England, as we are doing today in the United States, developed a sloppy sentimentalism that the Government should care for its people." He deplored "the idiotic idea that it was the duty of the Government to find its citizens work." The breakdown of existing relief methods forced a moderniza tion of relief machinery in several of the more progressive States, but even this proved inadequate. Appeals for Federal relief became more and more insistent. The Reconstruction Finance Corpora tion, a new Federal agency which was making loans to distressed banks, railroads, and businesses, was authorized by Congress in July 1932 to make loans for relief purposes to States and munici palities. Because of the various restrictions imposed on such relief loans, only $8o,000,000 was disbursed by Jan. 1, 1933.

The Federal Emergency Relief Administration, 1933-35. —With the inauguration of President Roosevelt in March the principle of Federal participation in relief was immediately clarified and broadened. Instead of a financial agency making loans to States and municipalities in distress, a new social agency, the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, was created in May 1933 to undertake a program of Federal grants-in-aid to States. While the grants were made to the State Governments, the actual administration of relief was primarily in the hands of the local communities to which the State Government sub-granted the avail able Federal funds together with State appropriations where such had been made. The FERA assumed a large part—in most cases the major share—of the cost, the rest being borne by States and local communities.

The FERA attempted to set up minimum standards for relief administration, under penalty of withholding the Federal grants. It also had authority, which it exercised only in exceptional cir cumstances, of directly administering Federal relief in those States where it met with no co-operation. In addition, the FERA earmarked a portion of the grants to the States for a number of special programs, for classes of persons whose needs could not be met effectively by the general relief program. These included transient relief, education, college student aid, and rural re habilitation.