USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Somerville > Report of the city of Somerville 1956 > Part 11
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27
It is a remarkable fact that we hear virtually no criticism of these programs or adverse comments on the billions of dollars which they cost during the past several years. In fact, up until recently, our outlays for Foreign Aid, grouped under such euphalistic titles as "Mutual Security" and "International Co- operation," have escaped wide-spread public advertance, as in the case of spending for National Defense, expenditures for Foreign Aid conduce to the advantage especially of the larger corporations and consequently it is deemed heretical to sug- gest that extravagant squandering may be characteristic of such projects. Moreover, national entities which benefit from Foreign Aid, the corporate interests, which are enriched by munitions developments and the somewhat obscure benefici- aries of our subsidy programs are quite impersonal objectives when compared with our individual neighbors who receive monthly Public Assistance payments. Upon analysis of the stark facts, however, the degree of distortion which our per- spective has suffered becomes transparently obvious.
Let us now consider the implications of these facts in rela- tion to taxation. Back in 1952, the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce published a little study which was dedicated with the fetching title: "To Unscramble the Prodigious Omelette of Federal-State Governmental Relations." This interesting bro- chure was released after a fascinating survey of the tax structure.
Among other data, it revealed that in 1941, the total taxes collected in this country by Federal, State and local Govern- ments equalled $15,200,000,000.00. This sum was divided as follows: 4.7 Billion Dollars by local Governments; 3.6 Billion
170
ANNUAL REPORTS
Dollars by the State Government; and 6.9 Billion Dollars by the Federal Government. By 1952, however, the total tax revenue of the three levels of Government had spiraled more than 400% over the 1941 figure which was eleven years earlier. In 1952, total revenue collections; 78.9 Billion Dollars; were divided as follows: 9.4 Billion Dollars by local Governments; 9.8 Billion Dollars by State Governments; and 59.7 Billion Dol- lars by the Federal Government. Since 1952, the Federal Government alone collected over Seventy-two and one half Bil- lion Dollars; in 1954, it collected over Seventy-three Billion Dollars; and, in 1955, the figure was $69,450,195,640.00.
One paramount fact emerges in dramatic fashion from the welter of statistics. It becomes perfectly clear that along with the centralization and concentration of power in Washington, the Federal Government has preempted virtually all the more productive sources of taxation. For some reasons not imme- diately apparent, this supreme fact seems to become obscured when discussions are held on the questions pertaining to State and local tax problems. The idea, that Federal grants to the States are gratuitous gifts, has become the assumption in many minds which should know better. In this connection, we com- mend the series of articles in the December, 1956 and January, 1957 issues of the Readers' Digest, written by former Governor Driscoll of New Jersey and captioned: "The Greatest Con Game in Politics." Governor Driscoll highlights a basic fact which we also mentioned in the Chamber of Commerce study, name- ly, that so wide-spread has become the financial participation of the Federal Government in the programs of the State Gov- ernments, that at the present time, some 75% of all activities on the State level, are infiltrated by this influence.
At the same time, it should be known that the total Federal Grants constitute but a very infinitesimal percentage of Federal tax revenue collections. In 1952, for example, total Federal Grants to States were but 3.64% of all Federal Internal Reve- nue collections. In that year, the Federal Government provided Massachusetts with slightly over Seventy Million Dollars in all types of grants and this figure represented but 3.68% of the Federal Internal Revenue Collections in Massachusetts. No one, of course, would suggest that the only or the principal function of the Federal Government is to disburse monies to the States. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that the States and municipalities, struggling under immense diffi- culties to raise sufficient revenues for operating costs are be- ing denied the sources of taxation preempted by the Federal Government.
171
WELFARE DEPARTMENT
We refer to this matter somewhat in detail because there are those who would like to turn the clock back and who think. that the business of providing Public Assistance is primarily a function of the States and local municipalities. Several other issues of considerable moment have likewise induced move- ments to reaffirm the sovereign character of the States; but upon analysis, it becomes cogently evident that any such re- distribution of power and authority must, to be effective, be accompanied by a reallocation of tax sources.
Looked at from the opposite viewpoint, namely that of local taxation, the problem of financing Public Welfare has also conjured up some rather fantastic misapprehensions. The fact is that as far as local real estate property taxation is con- cerned, the impact of Public Welfare expenditures is relatively insignificant. For example, in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1956, Massachusetts, that is the state itself and all of its 351 political subdivisions, expended a total of $125,643,946.00 for Public Assistance. Of the aggregate amount, the Federal Gov- ernment contributed $46,921,738.00 or 38.9% and the Cities and Towns provided $30,389,747,000.00 or 24.2%.
Focusing our attention on Somerville, specifically, we may point out that, in the calendar year 1956, the total expenditures of the Public Welfare Department grossed $3,006,616.51. On the face of it, this figure would seem to indicate that the Pub- lic Relief disbursements constitute almost a quarter of the annual municipal budget. The fact is, however, that only $659,271.43 of the over Three Million Dollars represented local funds because of the income of the Department. Hence, the net cost of Public Welfare in Somerville in 1956 repre- sented less than Five Dollars on the $69.90 tax rate (per thou- sand dollars of valuation).
All the foregoing fiscal and statistical data are available in the series of tabular charts which are appended.
"But are there not many 'chiselers' on Public Welfare rolls?" This is a typical leading question, the challenging im- plications of which require an objective answer.
In the first place, speaking from a quarter of a century of experience, I do not think that there are many 'chiselers' on Relief rolls at the present time. But there are probably some 'chiselers', assuming that by this description is meant liars, fakers, cheats, etc. Recipients of Public Assistance represent a cross-section of our general population. Hence, it would be
172
ANNUAL REPORTS
absurd to hold that they do not include deceivers, but Public Welfare Administrators use every possible precaution to pre- clude such reprehensible characters. Even after aid is initially granted, exhaustive investigations continue. For example, banks are asked to provide information concerning accounts, and the statutes oblige them to provide us with accurate an- swers. So likewise are insurance companies, former and pos- sible employers and similar potential sources of income or assets. That a few succeed in escaping detection, there can be little doubt, but if they do, this is despite our vigilance and diligent inquiries. Occasionally, we do find that some em- ployers are very reluctant to supply us with proper information and unfortunately too, our experience indicates that some banks process our inquiries very casually.
Since our clientele represent a cross-section of the com- munity, it should be remarked that the percentage of so-called 'chiselers' does not exceed, as far as quantities go, the number of 'chiselers' in any other social segment. For example, human nature being what it is, we know that if we take a cross-section of even our most respectable professional groups, such as Physicians, Lawyers, Undertakers, Social Workers, Educators, or the like, we will find among the same, a certain number of liars, hypocrites, charletons and out-right impostors.
In considering the number of cheats on Public Welfare, it should be remembered that applicants are carefully screened and the ordinary human being does not relish being subjected to searching interrogations and continuing surveillance. More- over, confessing that one is dependent and putting this on a public record is repugnant to normal persons. Furthermore, since our major Public Assistance programs receive money from the Federal and State Government, most practitioners of fraud do not desire to tangle with "Uncle Sam" or with the State Police. As a matter of fact, and we regret to record the fact, it is our considered opinion that there are more cheats and frauds among the Vendors, that is the suppliers of goods and services with whom we do business, than there are among the recipients of aid. It is perhaps impolitic to educe such a conviction, but nevertheless, this is our conclusion.
We are frequently confronted by questions pertaining to the relative rule of the private incorporated charitable agencies. This is an extremely delicate subject and can scarcely be dis- cussed objectively without incurring the risk of wounding the exquisite sensibilities of some truly dedicated people. It is advisable to postulate a premise to which we are fully com-
173
WELFARE DEPARTMENT
mitted. Namely, that we are strongly in favor of voluntary agencies and we shudder at the thought of ever visualizing the day when we will be without them. Nevertheless, there would seem to be an urgent need to clarify, in the public mind, the circumscribed function now fulfilled by the private social agencies.
During the days of the Depression, when circumstances compelled the entrance of the Federal Government into the field of Public Welfare, and when conditions prospered, the wide-spread mushrooming of all types of relief agencies, public and private, have emerged movements aimed at the consolida- tion of these agencies into gigantic fund-raising cooperatives. The individual agency, like the smaller units of Government, were no longer able to raise monies comparable with the budg- etary needs. Hence, it appeared wise to collaborate insofar as fund-raising was concerned. Along with the collaboration, in this respect, there naturally developed a necessity for defining responsibilities and formulating eligibility requirements and otherwise confining the functions to be carried on by the vari- ous agencies desirous of qualifying for admission to the fund- raising organization. One of these first tenets states that the Governmental agencies should be responsible for financing the basic needs of individuals and families while the voluntary agencies should concentrate on services, especially case-work services, child placement work, and so-called "referral serv- ices." In simple terms, "referral services", in actual practice, usually reduce themselves to shunting off the applicants to Governmental agencies, into whose program it is hoped that the applicant will fit.
No one is supposed to question this practice or the pre- supposition upon which it rests. It so happens, however, that some of us do; and, I, for one, am firmly devoted to the prin- ciple which may be defined as that of subsidiarity. This prin- ciple simply means that if I am in need, I should first exhaust my personal resources before asking anyone else for assistance. If I cannot cope with the problem adequately, I should first turn to the members of my immediate family or to close rela- tives. If those who are related to me by consanguinity or affinity are unable to aid me sufficiently, I should then turn to my neighbors or the immediate community. In our day, the neighborhood or immediate community is presumably repre- sented by the voluntary charitable agency. Only in the last resort, should I request aid from the State or Government. Such is the traditional philosophy which now has been reversed and made unpopular.
174
ANNUAL REPORTS
In this respect, it is worth calling attention to the fact that the 1956 Amendments to the Social Security Act provide for the participation of the Federal Government in the costs of services as well as in money payments to needy persons. This represents a far-reaching change in the thinking which has obviously predominated on the Federal level. Moreover, it will undoubtedly influence to a tremendous degree the future de- velopment of both public and voluntary agency programs. The voluntary charitable agencies, which have succumbed to the centralized authority of 'United Fund' organizations, have, for the most part, narrowed their programs to activities designated as services. With the public agencies entering into this re- siduary area of endeavor, and with the Federal Government about to provide appreciable funds for education, and for re- search and demonstration projects, the field of action remain- ing to voluntary agencies becomes alarmingly small.
It is also deserving of observation here that the child plac- ing functions and subsidizing of child care perennially assumed in the past by private agencies has now been taken over to a very great extent by Governmental Departments. Relevantly, here in Massachusetts, the number of children in the custody of the Division of Child Guardianship of the State Welfare De- partment in 1956 totalled approximately 5200. The cost of ad- ministering this particular program was some $5,016,906.00, not included in the figures quoted above.
We cannot repress our desire to add here a few additional observations concerning the voluntary social agencies and their 'United Funds.' Since we personally have been active in the affairs of the Community Council, have assumed roles of leadership in "campaign" drives, and have been employed professionally by voluntary organizations, we have enjoyed an opportunity to study the budgets as well as the policies and procedures of such bodies.
It has been our experience over the years to find that the voluntary agencies, for the most part, are a little apprehensive about sharing the details of their operating budgets with the general public, whose financial contributions maintain them. Most of their leaders become quite churlish and not a little embarrassed when questions are asked about the proportion of their budgets which goes to overhead, chiefly salaries. If they are convinced that they are fulfilling the professional functions expected of them by the community, it is difficult to under- stand this extreme sensitivity.
175
WELFARE DEPARTMENT
Secondly, during the seasonal drive for funds, the extrava- gant claims made in publicity are actually fantastic. Appeals surcharged with emotion are so dramatized that gullible minds may gain the impression that our private social agencies are caring adequately for all of the Aged, the Disabled, the Or- phaned and the myriads of other stricken humans. The Public Relations Directors, during such campaigns, refrain quite re- markably from making known the percentage of the monies raised which will be absorbed by administrative charges and they likewise discreetly abstain from publishing any figures accounting for cash disbursements to the indigent. Americans are well-known to glorify as sacred such absolute shibboleths as "Science," "Education," "Recreation," "Health," "Wel- fare," "Humanity" and the like. Hence, it is supposedly down- right indecent as well as madly unconventional to suggest that the advertised claims of 'fund agencies' should be documented by factual details.
We have already indicated that during the calendar year 1956, the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions ex- pended over $128,000,000.00 for Public Assistance. Almost half of that amount was distributed in the Greater Boston dis- trict. During the recent "United Fund" campaign, however, would you have suspected that, during 1956, the Public Wel- fare agencies throughout the state were providing for approx- imately eighty-six thousand Old Age Assistance recipients, at a cost of over Eighty-five and one half Million Dollars or that over 12,500 Aid to Dependent Children families were receiving more than Twenty Million Dollars per year or that almost 11,000 permanently and totally disabled individuals were being provided for at the cost of over Thirteen and one half Million Dollars or that approximately 11,500 cases in acute distress were being subsidized to the tune of approximately Ten Mil- lion Dollars annually?
The multiplicity of 'fund raising' campaigns has now be- come a matter of common anxiety to Business and Labor leaders as well as to professional Social Workers. The 'United Fund' campaigns were launched upon the platform that they would eliminate the growing multiplication of annual cam- paigns of individual agencies. Instead of diminishing the number of drives, their success has resulted in a tremendous and unjustifiable succession of campaigns so that there is scarcely a week in the year which is not dedicated to one or another of these heroic efforts to rescue mankind from the enumerable horrors to health, safety and well-being which pre- sumably surround us on every side. Virtually every major
176
ANNUAL REPORTS
disease known to Medical Science now has a spectacular 'fund raising' campaign designed to eliminate it. No responsible citizen, of course, should make any polite inquiries regarding the overlapping endeavors, the multiplication of 'overhead', the amounts allocated to professional 'fund-raisers' or similar questions. Unless you personally give 'tithes' of all you possess to each one of these life-saving enterprises, it becomes emi- nently clear that you are not only an enemy of Science and a despicable scoundrel without a semblance of Charity, but you are clearly a positive protagonist of malignant maladies.
Moreover, you should be admonished, that despite the plethora of ever-expanding agencies which now flourish, if some valiant vanguard of Social Saviors should within the com- ing months decide to project a new "National Foundation for the Suppression of Dandruff," under an appropriately elaborate letterhead, and you, skeptical soul, should exhibit a strain of reluctance in responding to its crusade, be mindful in advance that you are foredoomed to oblivion as an insensitive person, notoriously devoid of sympathy for the victims of this dreadful blight upon scintillating scalps!
Before we pass on to another side of this subject, we would like to allude to a published criticism of ours made some time ago in which we referred to the fact that a number of our pri- vate Family Service Agencies as well as other voluntary social agencies have accumulated considerable treasuries of capital funds which are rarely, if ever, tapped. We suggested at the time that the extent of such assets should be made known and also the terms of their availability. We realize that this rec- ommendation has proven unpalatable in some official quarters but we find no reason for retreating from our position. If resources in an appreciable amount are accessible, we think that it becomes increasingly difficult to justify plaintive plead- ings to the Public for additional monies under such circum- stances. This is not to say that we do not concede that sizable reserves may be necessary for unpredictable contingencies re- quiring capital outlays, we are referring rather to the continual amassing of funds by shunting off into them unstipulated gifts and other income which should in all honesty be channeled into current operating accounts. Every responsible official, who is acquainted with the 'deficit financing' principle of the 'United Funds,' is familiar with the fact that devious subter- fuges are resorted to in order that all incoming revenue may not be balanced against actual budgetary needs.
At this point, too, we would like to mention the matter of institutional care. Many of our private Homes for the Aged
177
WELFARE DEPARTMENT
and voluntary hospitals now receive a greater portion of their incomes from payments made to Public Assistance recipients. Some Homes for the Aged continue to operate on a contractual basis but they are rapidly diminishing in number because the contractual system has proven demonstrably impractical in the face of extended life expectancy and the impact of universal inflation. The point that we would like to make here and which is often obscured is that the line of demarcation between private charities and Public Relief has become increasingly more tenuous within the past several years. Many of the vol- untary agencies (like the Visiting Nursing Association) and a great number of the private institutions have become more or less indirectly dependent upon the public exchequer.
Incidentally, it is interesting to observe that institutional care for indigence has become the exception rather than the rule. The influence of professional Social Work and the effects of the Social Security Act are certainly apparent in this respect. A comparatively minor fraction of our Aged are in public in- stitutions and the number of children residing in orphanages becomes less and less. As we indicated above, the incidence of orphanhood has declined with the increasing longevity of parents and the availability of Social Security Survivors' Bene- fits, and benefits for the dependents of Veterans have enabled affected people to maintain dependent children in their own homes. Oddly enough, a recent reversal in the trend of prog- ress seems to have been precipitated by the growing number of chronically ill Aged, who require nursing care. Since the passage of the Social Security Act, commercial nursing homes have mushroomed all over the nation and the inadequacy of their facilities and programs have conduced to the activation of a movement for the establishment of more satisfactory pub- lic medical institutions.
Nothing is so constant in the field of Public Welfare or Social Work as change, and the shifts in public thinking in regard to institutional living are characteristic. Traditionally, we have all been inculcated with the assumption that it is the State's responsibility to provide for the Mentally-ill and the Tubercular. These categories of needy individuals have long been cared for by the State Departments of Mental Health, and the State and County Hospitals for Tuberculosis patients re- spectively.
There has never been any clamor that such programs should be liquidated or reduced; in fact, just the contrary is the truth. Only recently, it has become obvious that Tuber-
178
ANNUAL REPORTS
culosis has declined to the point where some sanitoria might either be closed or put to some other purpose.
The accepted thinking has been when a so-called "incur- able" long-term disease occurred, it is only proper that Public authorities should be charged with the responsibility of care. Now that Medical Science has brought communicable diseases under control, and, in several instances, almost eliminated them, the incidence of chronic disease, especially among those enjoying extended life expectancy, has become paramount. It is generally not recognized that an increasingly large share of our Public Assistance expenditures are consumed by purchas- ing care for chronically ill individuals. The plight of the desti- tute elderly, who suffer from open-lesion cancer, is assuredly as pathetic as that of those who have fallen prey to the once rampant "White Plague." Hence, it seems quite illogical to asseverate that the care of the Tubercular is obviously a func- tion of the State and simultaneously to assert that the victims of other chronic diseases should somehow or other be self- sustaining. It is the overwhelming presence of this inescapable problem which has led to the conversion of many City and County Infirmaries into public care institutions within the past few years.
Oddly enough, public reaction to expenditures made by Departments of Public Health and Departments of Mental Health is quite at variance with the "prevailing" attitude in regard to disbursements for Public Assistance. An analysis of the realities makes manifest the shallowness of popular think- ing in this regard. As we mentioned above, more than Thirty- five Million Dollars of the One Hundred Twenty-eight Million Dollars spent in Massachusetts during the calendar year 1956 for Public Assistance, went for medical care. Better than 70% of this outlay was absorbed by hospital and nursing home costs. In other words, a considerable chunk of Public Assistance ex- penses is attributable to health care. The question has there- fore arisen: "Should medical care for the needy be provided by the State Department of Public Health rather than by the Pub- lic Welfare Department?" If this burden was assumed by the State Department of Public Health, it is obvious that problems involving duplications of records, standardization of policies, personnel staffing and the like would present themselves. On the other hand, the requisite expenditures which now consti- tute such a great burden for Public Welfare Departments would be shouldered probably without any adverse public notice by the tax-supported Health agencies. The same holds true, to an extent, in regard to the mentally-ill. Our proprietary Nursing
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.