Mr. O'HARA. What would you say as to the average grant of $44. That is not a sustaining grant in itself, but it means that the individual has to have that amount of help in order to sustain himself or herself!

Mr. CLAPP. Yes. Of course, when you are speaking of averages, you are using a misleading statement, as you very well know. Mr. O'HARA. That is right.

Mr. CLAPP. But the average individual has a certain amount of cash income.

We have this break-down of the one-person cases: 272 of the 960 receiving general public assistance in January 1947 received at least $40 and less than $50.

One hundred and ninety-three received between $30 and $40.
Eighty-eight received between $20 and $30.

Fifty-four between $10 and $20, and six less than $10, between five

and ten.

That is the total, then, of about 350 who received less than $40, and a total of about 350 who received more than $50.

The bulk of them were in the $50 to $60 group; that is, 218.

Is that the type of information you wanted?

Mr. O'HARA. Yes.

Mr. CLAPP. The curve is a fairly smooth curve.

Mr. HUFF. Mr. Chairman, we might file this little detailed state

ment.

Mr. O'HARA. I think that would be very helpful.

Mr. HUFF. It gives the maximum given and the distribution. (The table referred to is as follows:)

Distribution of public assistance payments, by categories, January 1947

Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per- Num- Per ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent ber cent

Mr. HUFF. May I proceed, then, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BATES. Yes. You are pretty well along, are you, Mr. Huff! We have most of the essential information?

Mr. HUFF. I have a few other things.

Mr. BATES. All right.

Mr. HUFF. I am giving our child care, and my earlier figure referred to the cost of personal service, and I will now give the man

years.

The man-years available in 1937 were 36, against a projected 85 for 1948.

The average salary in 1937 was $1,833, as against a projected salary for 1948 of $2,882.

All other costs, the total of the children in foster care, in 1937, was $1,796, against a projected figure for 1948 of $1,900.

Now, then, to the group of protective institutions. Those institutions are treated here collectively.

The total cost in 1937 is $700,127. The cost projected in 1948 is $1,817,000, an increase of 160 percent.

The average number of inmates in 1937 was 1,837, against a lesser number projected for 1948 of 1,664.

The cost per inmate per year in 1937 was $381, against a projected cost of 1948 of $1,092.

The cost of personal services in 1937 was $277,927, as against a projected cost in 1948 for personal services of $1,124,090.

The number of man-years in 1937 was 249, as against a projected number for 1948 of 505.

The average salary in 1937 was $1,116, as against a projected average salary for 1948 of $2,226, or an increase of 99 percent.

I have given a general base of the major groupings as they distribute themselves under the language as shown in the 1948 presentation.

I have a table which I think I might file for the record, giving the detail under the "Protective institutions," in which we call attention to two institutions in which the trend is contrariwise to the other.

Those two are the National Training School for Boys and the Home for the Aged.

I think I might file that statement rather than read it off in the record. Then I would simply amplify and give the detail of the general figures which I have just presented.

(The table referred to is as follows:)

Board of Public Welfare protective institutions, population and per capita cost, 1937-48

Popu- Per Popu- Per Popu- Per Popu- Per Popu- Per lation capita lation capita lation capita lation capita lation capita

National Training School for
Girls.

Total.....

1,664 $1,092 1,669 $1,046 1,608 $793 1,738 $489 1,837 $381

1, 186

1077

50 1,472

395

2, 115

596

820

225

171

365

401

National Training School for
Boys...

Receiving Home for Children.
Home for Aged and Infirm..
Municipal Lodging House..
District Training School.
Temporary Home for Soldiers
and Sailors..

Mr. HUFF. I would like to refer, then, to the Office of the Director, in which, since 1937, there has been a decided change, and this decided change is accounted for in two parts.

The first has to do with the increased duties following legislation, the additional duties following legislation, which are the license bill, or the so-called baby broker bill, under which we undertake the supervision of child-placing agencies, determination of regulations, and the like.

That is represented, however, by only one person.

Since 1937, we had an increase to the Office of the Director in compliance with the statute of the research consultant, called the Director of Research Office.

Further, since 1937, there was also added to the Office of Director a principal assistant for the general work of the Board, and in addition, the large group now assigned, come in through the business office, and I have referred to the business office. I point up at this point the sizable increase which comes into the unit of the Budget projected into 1948. All or most of the items, shown now in 1948 were included in the year in the President's bill in 1947. But due to the action of the Hébert bill in the removal of the present group, it so affected the transfer of money within the account that it was impractical to proceed with the complete organization of the office. Thus, for the purpose of furthering the organization departmentally, it is a step to give for the Department the business controls for the expenditure of money in terms and purposes for which the money was granted. Hitherto that work has been done decentrally, and we have not had the benefit of a single departmental control of those expenditures.

Now, that has to do with money. The same thing has to do with inventories of goods, and the same thing has to do with personnel. Of course, we will give considerable detailed testimony on that when speaking to the Appropriations. I mention it here because it is in furtherance of the statutory duties in every respect. A change from decentralization to centralization is in harmony with the policy of departmentalization.

Mr. BATES. Mr. Huff, I have cited some figures from the Department of the Census. I think I also ought to cite them in respect to your own department.

From reading these figures, it seems that your expenditures from a comparative standpoint, both from the percent of the tax dollar spent and the per capita expenditure, is way below what the average is for the other 13 cities.

As an illustrated percent of the tax dollar going for public welfare in the District, it is 5.9. The average for these 13 other cities is 13.9.

The per capita, based on 100 percent for the District, is the average of 279 per capita in the other 13 cities.

The recipients per 10,000 population, based on the figures of the Social Security in December of 1945, the persons receiving old-age assistance on the basis of 10,000 population was 28.4, and the average was 130.2 in the other 13 cities.

In families receiving aid to dependent children, on the basis of 10,000 population, it was 8.3 in the District and 16.8 average of the other 13 cities.

The cases receiving general relief is the thing that we have been quite interested in and in relation to the 10,000 population, it is 9.0 as against 29.4, so that in all of those categories, the District, from the standpoint of the ratio of cost and per capita cost, is substantially below, with two exceptions, any one of those 13 cities that were cited. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Chairman, is that a compliment to the Welfare Board in its administration?

Mr. BATES. That is a question, of course, that can only be determined after an examination of the facts. Whether they are adequately taking care of the people here is a question, but it indicates that the relief cost in the District, as compared with the 13 other cities, is way below the other cities.

Mr. HUFF. May I make an observation?

Mr. BATES. Yes, Mr. Huff.

Mr. HUFF. I think there are two factors which need to be considered in connection with it. The first is Washington, itself, with its relatively stable employment situation, and so many other things that are favorable in the city of Washington.

But I would like to make the point that it also suggests that we are under-invested in some of our operations, and I would like to refer specifically to our child services. We are under-invested, thinking of the use of Public Welfare money as a public investment.

I will give you an illustration: 2 years ago, in connection with our protective-services work which comes under our child-welfare section, we deliberately assigned certain case workers to work with children. who were chosen in cooperation with public-school groups, who showed signs of potential delinquency. The act had not occurred.

They had not been separated from their family. This action occurred before the disaster.

We were able to keep them only 6 months, but in that period, some 168 cases were handled, which, incidentally, was at the ratio of 22 children per worker.

Significantly, within that time, the rate of turn-over of those children was 75 percent. That is turn-over, and with the exception of 35 of those 168 children, satisfactory adjustment, at least to the removal of the acute situation, occured.

Now we do not do that, and we are not equipped to do that as a regular proposition.

We have some substantive legislation under consideration which may broaden our base in the approach to the genuine preventive work in the field. I think we should consider public funds as an investment proposition and as resources, giving the means for recording, and if we are given the means for effective use of our resources, I believe we could demonstrate that it is a sound public investment over and above the good morale and other considerations which are accepted on the face of it.

Mr. SMITH. That experience of prevention, is that an experiment? Mr. HUFF. You might call it that.

Mr. SMITH. It was just carried on for a short time?

Mr. HUFF. You might call it an experiment, although we approached it with the firm conviction of the results.

Mr. SMITH. You did not have the funds, is that the reason you dropped it?

Mr. HUFF. That is true, and the reason for that is the pressure of other children coming in absorbed our case load.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Huff, I would like to say, personally, I think, undoubtedly, you have a rather good investigation of your welfare work. I realize that the evils can be overinvestigated, and that probably sufficient moneys are not paid to particularly aid dependent-children cases, but the figures which have been given and the comparison with those cited by the chairman, Mr. Bates, indicate to me that you have had a rather good record of investigation.

Now, maybe I feel unduly kind, but I do not mean to be, but I think it is just about so that you have had some rather good investigatory services down there in your department.

Mr. BATES. Either that, or the case load, because of the economic conditions in the District, is not so heavy as it is in these other industrialized areas. You have more steady employment. Of course, the principal industry here is the Government, and I do not know what percent of your residents work for the Government, but I imagine a large percentage. Surely, in the last five or six years, the Government employment has been pretty well stabilized here. I think that must be considered also.

I do not know whether your case load per visitor is too heavy or not. When you get above 15 reports a day or 10 reports a day, you are going far afield from what I consider to be proper investigation of new cases. On old established cases, they will be there until they are either pensioned or perhaps pass into the great beyond. They do not need that constant attention, but certainly new cases should be thoroughly investigated and followed up.