authority of said committee or any subcommittee thereof, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any questions pertinent to the matter herein authorized, shall be held to the penalties provided by section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended (U. S. C., 1934 edition, title 2, sec. 192).

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Woodrum will proceed with the questioning. Mr. WOODRUM. Colonel, we wanted to ask you a few questions today.

NEED SURVEY

(See p. 14)

In the first place, the committee would like to know the status of your reports on your survey.

Colonel HARRINGTON. The need survey?

Mr. WOODRUM. Yes.

Colonel HARRINGTON. May I ask Mr. Rauch to give you that? He is handling that for me.

Mr. RAUCH. In acordance with the requirements of Public Resolution No. 1 providing that this review of need be made, the instructions as shown on page 10 of the House hearings of March 15, 1939, were sent out. At that time Colonel Harrington testified that the reports under the resolution of the investigation of need were not as yet available, but that in his opinion the number not found in need would be less than 3 percent. Official reports which are now available show that 1.3 percent of relief employees on W. P. A. projects were found to be not in need by this investigation, and were dropped from the program for that reason.

A total of 2,931,922 cases were reviewed, and the number found not in need canceled for that reason was 37,523.

After consulting with all of the members of the regional staffs that had to do with the review, and in addition a large majority of the social workers employed by the Works Progress Administration in the States, it is the carefully considered opinion that that review of need was well done and that it accomplished the purpose of validating the eligibility for employment of persons now employed on W. P. A.

Mr. WOODRUM. And you tell us now that the relief rolls as presently constituted contain practically no persons to be found not in need.

Mr. RAUCH. Of persons employed under relief status on W. P. A. there are, with some few exceptions of course, practically no persons who are not in need of relief.

Mr. WOODRUM. That applies to all sections of the country, and to all cities and municipalities.

Mr. RAUCH. To the best of our knowledge.

Mr. WOODRUM. So, in proceeding with this inquiry, can it be understood that the relief rolls as they now stand have the approval of the Works Progress Administration, insofar as the relief needs are concerned?

Mr. RAUCH. We believe they are valid.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell us how this investigation was made.

Mr. RAUCH. It was made in various ways. It was made first by submitting a form to each person.

The CHAIRMAN. A questionnaire?

Mr. RAUCH. A questionnaire; yes, sir.

Mr. LUDLOW. That is form 605?

Mr. RAUCH. Yes.

Mr. TABER. Will you leave a copy of that form with the reporter? Mr. RAUCH. Yes; I will be glad to do that, but copies of all those forms are already in the record of the previous hearing.

Mr. TABER. Very well.

Mr. O'NEAL. What is your definition of a person in need, so as to be eligible for relief employment?

Mr. RAUCH. A person in need, to be definitely eligible for employment on the Works Program must be employable and if there were not a Federal work-relief program in operation would be forced to depend on relief from local relief agencies where there is any. Mr. O'NEAL. Is that implying that they have no social income what

soever.

Mr. RAUCH. No, sir; that means he has a very limited source of income.

Mr. SNYDER. He may have?

Mr. RAUCH. He may have a limited source of income.

Mr. O'NEAL. What would be the amount of income and what would the amount be limited by to qualify him as eligible for W. P. A. relief?

Mr. RAUCH. It varies.

Mr. O'NEAL. Take a family, say, with a man and wife and two children, or one child, or three or four children.

Mr. RAUCH. I do not quite understand your question.

Mr. O'NEAL. What would be your requirements for an income for a man with a wife and no children, or with 1 child, 2 children, 3 or 4 children? What is your basis for that?

Mr. RAUCH. The basis is established by the local relief agencies, as these persons are all certified as being eligible by the local relief agencies, if they determine

Mr. O'NEAL (interposing). I know; but you made the investigation as to those who are entitled to relief under W. P. A., and the point at which I am trying to arrive is what is the basis for that, where there is some income?

Mr. RAUCH. Obviously, if their income is in excess of the monthly earnings, that they would get from W. P. A., they would not be eligible.

Mr. O'NEAL. If it were $5 less they would still be eligible for work, or for relief?

Mr. RAUCH. Not necessarily.

Mr. O'NEAL. What is your basis; that is what I want to know. Mr. RAUCH. The local relief agencies of the States set the standards.

Mr. O'NEAL, You have made the investigation; and what I am trying to get at is your basis for determining eligibility, and your statement that there is a negligible number of people not in need. What was your yardstick?

Mr. RAUCH. The yardstick in each instance was the standards set by the local relief agencies.

Mr. O'NEAL. Do you know what those standards were?

Mr. RAUCH. They vary in the different States.

Mr. O'NEAL. Some were higher and some were lower?

Mr. RAUCH. Yes; some are higher and some are lower.

Mr. O'NEAL. Then the yardstick they set was your basis for your statement?

Mr. RAUCH. We checked the yardstick to see that it is reasonable. Mr. O'NEAL. What is a reasonable yardstick?

Mr. RAUCH. It varies from community to community.

Mr. O'NEAL. Can you give us any information on the subject, taking one typical community here and another typical community there?

Mr. RAUCH. The average relief-I have the figures here in a few States, per family.

For instance, in Iowa it is $17.62 a month.

Mr. O'NEAL. What is that $17.62 a month?

Mr. RAUCH. That is the sum an average family received from the State or local government for general relief.

Mr. O'NEAL. That is direct relief?

Mr. RAUCH. That is direct relief; yes, sir.

In Maine it is $23.40. In Nevada it is $13.08 per month. In New York City it is $37.61 per month; in North Dakota it is $16.01 per month, and in Vermont it is $22.58 per month.

Mr. O'NEAL. What is the statement from which you are reading? Mr. RAUCH. This is some information I have.

Mr. O'NEAL. Can you put that statement in the record?

Mr. RAUCH. I can submit that information. These are simply my

notes.

(Table referred to follows:)

Direct relief costs under State and local programs depend primarily on the amount of benefits a given State is able to provide, or is willing to provide, for families in need.

There is a complete lack of uniformity in relief standards as between States, and in most States direct relief benefits are admittedly inadequate. In some States there is virtually no State or local direct relief, and persons in need receive only commodities provided by the Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation. On the other hand, some States have established more adequate standards on the basis of minimum amounts required to maintain a family at a bare subsistence level.

The following table shows basic direct relief budgets for an average-size family in several large cities for which data are available. It will be noted that most of these basic relief budgets do not include certain necessities, which are not budgeted but are supplied as needed. Obviously, not all of these communities are able to meet the basic budgets established. On the other hand, in some instances, individual relief cases need and receive amounts in excess of the basic budget.

Table shows the number of cases receiving relief, including supplementary cases, and the amount of obligations incurred for relief extended to cases, as reported by the Social Security Board for the month of December 1938.

It will be noted that the figures in many instances are estimated, and none of the figures include administrative, nonrelief expense, or the cost of special programs or services, such as Federal surplus commodities, medical service, hospital service, etc.

Because of variations in relief standards. and in the amounts of State and local funds available for relief, it is not possible to derive comparative cost data from these figures. Variations in the State figures reflect differences in the adequacy of the relief programs rather than differences in the extent of need.

Number of cases receiving general relief and amount of relief extended, States, December 1938

Mr. O'NEAL. I still have not got an answer to what I am trying to get at, that is, the yardstick you used to determine when a man was eligible for W. P. A. relief.

You made a statement that only a small percentage are ineligible throughout the country. What is the yardstick, not merely a statement that they are certified by local agencies, but you must have some other yardstick that you apply in order to make that statement?

Colonel HARRINGTON. May I ask the Deputy Administrator, Mr. Hunter, who has been in the field for a good many months and who is familiar with the situation in the Middle Western States, including Kentucky, to answer on this particular point?

Mr. SNYDER. Permit me to make this statement. In other words, the welfare boards or the public assistance boards in the several States are the ones who certify these people for work relief?

Mr. RAUCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. SNYDER. The W. P. A. does not have anything to do with that.

Mr. RAUCH. No, sir; except in a few instances.

Mr. WOODRUM. Is that all done by the State relief organizations or agencies?

Take the State of Virginia, for instance. Did the W. P. A. actually check those Virginia rolls, or did you ask the State of Virginia to check the rolls? How was that handled? What is the mechanics of it?

Mr. RAUCH. First, each person was required to fill out form 605. Mr. WOODRUM. Each person involved?

Mr. RAUCH. Each certified person employed by the Works Progress Administration on a project.

Mr. WOODRUM. That is the form, or this questionnaire, in reference to their relief needs?

Mr. RAUCH. That is right.

Mr. WOODRUM. That was sent in to the county headquarters or the city headquarters in Virginia, and then they, in turn, transmitted it to the State headquarters.

Mr. RAUCH. Yes, sir.

Mr. WOODRUM. Was any check made to determine the accuracy of the statements in those questionnaires? What effort was made to see whether the person sending in a questionnaire made an accurate, full disclosure.

Mr. RAUCH. They were checked very carefully.

Mr. WOODRUM. By the State people?

Mr. RAUCH. No; by the W. P. A. administrative employees.

Mr. WOODRUM. So, as the matter stands now, you can state to this committee that you put your O. K. on the rolls as they stand of this date?

Mr. RAUCH. I will say that, to the best of my knowledge, the rolls now reflect only needy people.

Mr. WOODRUM. In reference to the yardstick which Congressman O'Neal asked you about, as I understand it, the question of whether a person meets the rule of eligibility depends on the eligibility rules in a particular State.

Mr. RAUCH. On the standards of relief in that community.

Mr. WOODRUM. When they have been found to be eligible for any relief, you mean they are eligible according to the relief standards that have been established in each locality.