ments that are here. The personnel who are available to us will look upon us in terms-in part, at least-of a classification position that we have; so that another factor in our increase of personnel costs is reclassification, and we have had reclassified positions in certain of our children's institutions. Certain of our professional groupings, including nurses, have been reclassified.

Mr. O'HARA. Did I understand you to say that the 40-hour week increases your employee cost about 30 percent; is that correct?

Mr. HUFF. No, sir; I used an example of one institution which was using 30 percent time in addition to the time which he was authorized

to use.

Mr. O'HARA. Could you give us the estimate of what that is?

Mr. HUFF. I will attempt to do so, but you note I said the base in the different institutions differs; this is the institution which had the biggest percentage, so it was very noticeable.

The 40-hour week has been estimated by the board to require 110 new positions at a total annual salary of $230,000 in the institutions and agencies now under the board. Most of these positions are included in the 1947 appropriations and 1948 estimate.

Certain other conditions existed in 1937 which should be in the record as a basis for interpreting the difference in the figures. The operations before 1938, up to about 1932, but specifically 1935, covered an interval of time in which public aid and public assistance were not the general thing.

The passing of the social security legislation in 1935 I think clearly marks the assumption by the public of that responsibility. Previous to that time, of course, the private activity was dominant. Since that time the public has been in the field of public assistance.

Coincident with the development of assistance from 1937, leading up to the fiscal year 1944, we had also other things which developedthe ERA, the WPA, and also Surplus Commodities. So included in certain of the units are estimates to supply assistance, and there was also to be considered the fact that a certain amount of surplus commodities was available and was given out.

In a sense, it was a gift in kind as distinguished from a money grant.

That situation persisted until about 1944, when it fades out of the picture. There also fades out of the picture in that year the use of the device of ceilings on the grants, which was a legislative ceiling put as a top figure above which payment could not go.

While ceilings were in existence, surplus commodities were in existence, and certain supplementation was permitted, all of which do hot now exist, and are not a part of the base in 1948.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Huff, will you tell us what the expenditure for public assistance, separate and distinct from "Mothers' aid, dependent children" the expenses which are provided for food and lodging for people in the District-was in 1937? What it was in 1940? What it was in 1945, and bring us up to date? Give us your figures for 4 or 5 years.

(The following was later furnished for the record :)

Board of Public Welfare-Public assistance: Cost of aid to dependent children.

Mr. HUFF. May I give you the total? I do have the total and I would like to present that, if I may.

Mr. BATES. Total for what?

Mr. HUFF. Assistance moneys given and the cost per unit. It does not give the categories. I would like to come back to the categories later.

For cost in terms of public assistance, beginning in 1937, I will give you three figures. The first figure is a total cost and the second is the amount of Federal money, which is a reimbursable sum given to the District based on what amount the District spends, and the third is the appropriated figure which is in the District appropriation.

Mr. BATES. No; the expenditures. The other is for the reimbursement and then the other is the appropriation. I am interested in the actual expenditures.

Mr. HUFF. When we pay in accordance with the State plan approved by the Social Security Board, we become entitled to certain reimbursement. Based on the amount we pay, we are then reimbursed a certain sum. The total of what we are appropriated plus what we are reimbursed will show the total amount expended. Mr. BATES. I see.

Mr. HUFF. The total amount expended in 1937 was $2,489.946, of which the local funds or the appropriated money was $2,026,802. And by comparison in 1948, the estimated figure is for a total of $3,401,565, and the local funds are $2,258,994.

At the end of the last fiscal year, by way of interpolation, an amendment to the Social Security Act was passed by which the amount granted by the Federal Government was liberalized over what existed before.

Now, you would be interested in the number of cases that are related to those appropriation figures.

The average number of cases in 1937 was 6,208 and the estimate for 1948 is the figure 4,340. Those are cases.

The number of persons involved in such cases in 1947 was 14,186, as against an estimated figure for 1948 of 7,595.

Now, the cost per case per month in 1937 was $28.75 against a projected cost for 1948 per case of $58.41.

The cost per person per month in 1937 was $15.10, against a projected cost for 1948 for each person of $33.37.

Mr. O'HARA. That is all different kinds, Mr. Huff; various kinds. of aid?

Mr. HUFF. That is all there: "Aid to the aged," "Aid to the blind," "Aid to dependent children," and "General public assistance," for which there is no Federal reimbursement. But they are all grouped there together.

Mr. BATES. How many cases have you on the roll, say, in the last report-a week ago or a month ago-receiving public assistance in those categories? That does not include dependent children or mothers' aid; does it?

Mr. HUFF. They are included. They are not separated.

Mr. BATES. What we are particularly after is the public assistance to those that do not come within the category of public assistance or mothers' aid. As a matter of fact, under the law, I think you must maintain a separate division in your Welfare Department to administer it.

Mr. HUFF. For accounting?

Mr. BATES. Just in the accounting system?
Mr. HUFF. Only for reimbursement.

Mr. BATES. I thought the law, if I recall it right-and some years ago I had something to do with it-I thought that they had a set-up within your public welfare organization of a separate division altogether for dependent children and mothers' aid, so that they could not be considered as paupers.

Mr. HUFF. Can you answer that, Mr. Clapp?

Mr. CLAPP. There was such a law called the home care law, but that was changed. That was amended some years ago and a new act entitled "Aid to Dependent Children" was established.

Under that act, the assistance may be given to certain families, under what is called aid to dependent children. But as far as administration is concerned, that is primarily a bookkeeping item. The same agency, the same workers, investigate the applications for aid to dependent children as investigate applications for aid to the aged and general public assistance.

Mr. BATES. Well, I think there is something strange about that because I had to develop in my Public Welfare Department a division. which was set up entirely separate and distinct within the Welfare Department, but a division for the administration of mothers' aid to mothers or dependent children. And I think it was in the Federal statute and it had to be done that way so that those who were the recipients of mothers' aid or aid to dependent children were given relief, and could not be considered in any way paupers under the law. Mr. HUFF. Yes.

Mr. BATES. Even then they did not want the title of paupers being given to them. I may be wrong, but I know that I had to do it. do not remember whether it was a State regulation or a Federal regulation, and I think we should have done it.

Mr. HUFF. We can give you the detail on the figures, however, of those on the rolls for these different groups.

Mr. BATES. Yes. I just want public assistance alone. That is public assistance for relief cases separate and distinct from mothers' aid or dependent children.

Mr. HUFF. I will exclude, then, the dependent children, and will exclude the old age and the blind and give only what we call general public assistance.

Mr. BATES. That is right.

Mr. HUFF. General public assistance, family cases, for the month of January 1947 was 154 and general public assistance cases of January of one person were 959.

Mr. BATES. There was a total of 1,113 in those categories, families, being represented by one individual who can or cannot work, and then 959 single individuals. Is that what you say?

Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir.

Mr. CLAPP. One hundred and fifty-four families and 959 single individuals.

Mr. BATES. Would you say that of those 1,000 people there are not scme that are able to work?

Mr. HUFF. We have a list of 50 who are registered with the United States Employment Service. That is our best information at the

moment.

I am corrected here, that our 50 is out of our total-whether that be aged, or whether they be children, in aid to dependent children, or any other person.

So, the figure of 50 is larger than the number in general assistance alone.

I will try to get that specific figure.

Mr. BATES. On the 50, let me ask you this question: Of the 50 that you say are able to work and you have listed, that number or a smaller number, with the unemployment compensation, a number of them are suited to work at Gallinger Hospital?

Mr. HUFF. To the best of our knowledge. May I say a word at that point?

Mr. BATTES. Yes. Go ahead.

Mr. HUFF. I realize that it is a point of interest.

The case workers, that is the social workers engaged on the particular case, they are charged with the duty of discovering whatever resources a. person has, and work is one of them. Employability is considered to be a resource, and the judgment and discretion of that case worker is to determine what the employability factor of that person is.

Suppose that she is in doubt? Such a person about whom she is in doubt, with a reported infirmity, is one which, in the normal course of events, would be referred to the Vocational Rehabilitation Service, another agency in town, which does provide assistance of that character and type.

So that the test and the protection is found in the skill and ability of the case worker on the job.

Mr. BATES. What is your case load, for instance, per visitor? What do you expect them to be able to take care of in a day?

Mr. HUFF. We average them. The average is 120.

When I say "we average them," the ratio for our intake service, where new cases are coming on, is 1 to 20, which is subject, of course, to variations. The number of cases carried is a higher figure, an average of 120.

Mr. BATES. Are they able to take care of those? That is to say, they have 20 cases assigned to each worker; is that it?

Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir, for the intake,

Mr. BATES. New cases?

Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir. For the people coming in.

Mr. BATES. And then those on the permanent roll, what are they? Mr. CLAPP. One to 70 families; or 140 one-person cases are assigned to a single worker. If she has only one-person cases, she has 140. If she has only family cases, she has 70.

I believe the latest figures are 71 and a fraction. If she has some one-person cases, and some family cases she is assigned somewhere between 70 and 140.

Mr. BATES. The best, from your experience, that an investigator can do a good job on, is probably at the most 10 or 12 or 15 cases a day? Mr. CLAPP. It depends on the case.

Mr. BATES. And on the locality?

Mr. CLAPP. Correct.

Mr. HUFF. May I give the figures that help illustrate the problem? Mr. BATES. Fine.

Mr. HUFF. Take an average case load of 120, and give a man-year of 1,760 hours, there is available then through the year 14 hours per case, with a mandatory review in certain cases at least once a year, and a mandatory review for aged and blind at the present time twice

a year.

Mr. BATES. Fourteen hours a year?

Mr. HUFF. Yes, sir.

Mr. BATES. Well, every case should be investigated at least every 2 weeks, should it not?

Mr. HUFF. Theoretically, no, sir; I would say no. A new case should be investigated frequently, especially at the beginning, but not after time passes.

Mr. BATES. When the case becomes more settled, then once a month is all right?

Mr. HUFF. But we do not do it once a month.

Mr. BATES. Is that because you have not got the staff, or because you do not think you need the staff?

Mr. HUFF. There are two reasons. First, we think cases can be treated selectively. Given a knowledge of the case, certain cases might have an infrequent investigation. That would be the long-time cases that we know well. Other cases would be investigated or visited frequently.

Mr. BATES. What do you consider those?

Mr. HUFF. In a given case, it might be as frequently as once a week under certain acute situations.

May I proceed with the general figures?

Mr. BATES. Go ahead, Mr. Huff.

Mr. HUFF. Comparisons again, between 1937 and 1948:

May I interpolate what I have on this paper, which I will submit, in addition, the years 1942, 1946, and 1947. I am skipping those years for the sake of brevity.

The cost of personal services in 1937 was a figure of $289,303, and a similar figure for 1948 projected is $315,336.

The number of man-years available and paid for in 1937 is 184.
The number of man-years projected in 1948 is 120.

The figure for the average salary in 1937 is $1,572 against a projected average salary in 1948 of $2,628.

All other costs are given in 1937 as $59,085 against all other costs projected for 1948, of $44,469.

May I move to the child care section to give those figures?