Jackson v. Georgia Appendix

    IN  THE

Supreme Court of %  luttrfc ^tatro
October Term, 1969

No. 540

JU LIA ROSADO, L Y D IA  H ERN AN DEZ, M AJO RIE M ILEY, SO PH IA  
ABROM , R U B Y  GATH ERS, LOU ISE LO W M A N , E U LA  M AE KING, 
C A T H R Y N  FOLK, A N N IE  LOU PH ILLIPS, and M AJORIE DUFFY, 
individually, on behalf of their minor children, and on behalf o f all other 
persons similarly situated,

Petitioners,
against

GEORGE K. W Y M A N , individually and in his capacity as Commissioner of 
Social Services for the State of New York, and the D E P A R T M E N T  OF 
SOCIAL SERVICES FO R T H E  S T A T E  O F N E W  YORK,

________________  Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE FOR THE CATHOLIC 
CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW 
YORK, CATHOLIC CHARITIES, DIOCESE OF 
BROOKLYN, COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY 
OF NEW YORK, FEDERATION OF JEWISH 
PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK, FEDERA­
TION OF PROTESTANT WELFARE AGENCIES

SH IR LE Y  M ITGAN G 
Of Counsel

K A R L  D. ZU K ERM AN  
Community Service Society of New York 

105 East 22nd Street 
New York, New York 10010

D O R O T H Y  COYLE 
The Catholic Charities of the 

Archdiocese of N ew  York 
122 East 22nd Street 

New York, New York 10010

M ILDR ED  SH A N LE Y  
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Brooklyn 

191 Joralemon Street 
Brooklyn, New York 11201

P H IL IP  SOKOL 
Federation of Jewish Philanthropies 

of N ew  York 
130 East 59th Street 

New York, New York 10022

LOU IS AG IN
Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies 

281 Park Avenue South 
New York, New York 10010

Attorneys for A m id



T A B L E  OF C O N T E N T S

page

I nterest of  the  Amici ........................................................... 2

S ummary of  the  A rgument ................................................ 4

P oint I—Aware of the well-documented body of em­
pirical and theoretical evidence that a real con­
nection exists between poverty and individual, 
familial and societal pathology, Congress initi­
ated the Aid to Dependent Children (now known 
as Aid to Families with Dependent Children) 
program in 1935 and amended it in 1967 to render
it more effective ...................................................... 6
A. Relationship of Poverty to Pathology ........  6

1. Physical Health ......................................... 7
2. Mental Health ..........................................  9
3. Child Development ..................................... 15
4. Family Life ................................................  18
5. Social Alienation ....................................... 22

B. Congressional Purpose and Intent ................  23
C. Congressional Knowledge of Relationship

Between Poverty and Social Ills .................. 27
P oint II—The passage of Section 131-a of the New 

York Social Services Law rendered the New York 
state plan for AFDC non-compliant with Sec­
tion 602(a) (23) of Title 42 of the United States 
Code, part of the Social Security Act

P oint III—Levels of AFDC grants had been grossly 
insufficient to meet the needs of the recipients and 
the effects of the reductions caused by Section 
131-a of the New York Social Services Law have 
incalculably worsened the plight of the recipients

Conclusion ...................................................

30

32
39



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Statutes:
PAGE

P.L. 89-239 .......................................................................  37
P.L. 89-749 .......................................................................  37
42 U.S.C. 601 ...................................................................  24
42 U.S.C. 602(a) (23) ...................................................passim
42 U.S.C. 1314 .................................................................  32
N.Y. S ess. L aws 1969, ('ll. 184, §1 ...............................  30
N.Y. Soc. S erv. L aw  §131-a ......................................passim
N.Y. Soc. Serv. L aw  §358 ...................................................  24

Other Authorities:

Address by Herbert Bienstock, Conference on the Di­
mensions of Poverty, American Statistical Asso­
ciation, New York Chapter, March 11, 1965 ......  17

Address by William Glazier, New York State Welfare
Conference, November 1968 ................................... 37

Address by Jack R. Goldberg, “ Witness for Sur­
vival”  Meeting, Sept. 11, 1969 .............................  31

Address by Lawrence Goodman, American Associa­
tion on Mental Deficiency Conference, May 16,
1969 ........................................................................................ 10

Address by Eunice L. Minton, National Conference
on Social Welfare, May 11-16, 1958 ..............14,21,22

Address by George K. Wyman, New York State Wel­
fare Conference, Nov. 1968 ..................................... 23

A dvisory C ouncil, on P ublic W elfare, “ H aving th e
P ower, W e H ave the D u t y ”  (1966) .....................  33

A. P h ilip  R andolph I nstitute, A F reedom B udget
for A ll  A mericans (1966) .........................................  28

Bronfenbrenner, Socialization and Social Class 
Through Time and Space, in R e ad in g s  i n  Social 
P sychology (3d ed. Maccoby, Newcomb and Hart­
ley eds. 1958) ............................................................ 19



I l l

Brown, Organ Weight in Malnutrition with Special 
Reference to Brain Weight, 8 D evelop. M ed. 
Child  Neubol. 512 (1966) ...........................................  11

Caplovitz, T he H igh  C ost op P ovebty (1963) ............  28
Ch ilm an , C rowing U p P oob (1966) ......................... 13 ,16 ,20
Claiborne, “ Even a Food Expert Can Stretch a Wel­

fare Budget Only So Far’ ’, New York Times,
July 31, 1969, p. 30 ......................................................... 38

Cohen and Sullivan, Poverty in the United States, 
Health, Education and Welfare Indicators, Feb.
1964 ........................................................................................ 28

Coll, Deprivation in Childhood: Its Relation to the
Cycle of Poverty, Welfare in Review, Mar. 1965.. 9 ,17  

Com m unity  Council op Gbeateb New  Y ork , B udget 
S tandabd Sebvice, A  F am ily  B udget S tandabd
(1963) ...................................................................................  33

Com m unity  Council of Gbeateb New  Y obk, B udget 
S tandabd Sebvice, A nnual P bice S ubvey— F am ­
ily  B udget Costs, O ctobeb 1967 (1969) ................  33

Com m unity  S ebvice S ociety op New  Y obk, W hat
M akes fob S tbong F am ily  L ife (1958) ..............  19

Downs, Who Are the Urban Poor?, Committee for 
Economic Development Supplementary Paper 
No. 26 (Oct. 1968) ........................................................... 29

Epstein, Some Effects of Low Income on Children 
and Their Families, 24 S ocial S ecubity B ulletin  
12 (Feb. 1961) .................................................................... 18

F eldman , T he F am ily  in  a M oney W obld (1957) .... 21
Fernandez, et ah, Nutritional Status of People in Iso­

lated Areas of Puerto Rico, 12 A mebican J. Cl in ­
ic a l  N u t k it io n  305 (1965) .....................................  11

PAGE



1 V

Goode, Economic Factors and, Marital Stability, 16
A merican S ociological R eview  802 (Dec. 1951) 18

H arrington, T he O ther A m erica : P overty in  the
U nited S tates (1962) ............................................ 11,22

“ Harvest of Shame’ ’, CBS Reports, CBS News, Nov.
1960 ...........................................................................  29

Hearings on H.R. 12080 before the Senate Commit­
tee on Finance, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) ......  26

H erzog, A bout the  P oor— S ome F acts and S ome F ic­
tions (Children’s Bureau Pub. No. 451, 1967) .... 15

Hillman and Smith, Hemoglobin in Low-Income Fam­
ilies, 83 P ublic H ealth  R eports 61 (1967) ......  9

H qllingshead & R edlich, S ocial Class and M ental
I llness (1958) .......................................................... 12

Irelan, Health Practices of the Poor, Welfare in Re­
view, October 1965 ..................................................  8

Keyserling, et al., Poverty and Deprivation in the 
United States, The Plight of Two-Fifths of a 
Nation, Conference O n  E conomic P rogress
(1962) .......................................................................  28

Kohn, Social Class and the Exercise of Parental Au­
thority, 24 A merican S ociological R eview  352 
(June 1959) .............................................................. 19

Lampman, The Low Income Population and Economic 
Growth, Study Paper No. 12. Joint Economic
Committee, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) ............. 28

Lerner, The Level of Physical Health of the Poverty 
Population: A Conceptual Reappraisal of Struc­
tural Factors, 6 M edical Care 355 (1969) ............  7

Lewis, The Culture of Poverty, National Conference
on Social Work (1961) ........................................... 28

Lutz, Marital Incompatibility, S ocial W ork and S o­
cial P roblems (Cohen ed. 1964) ....................18, 21, 22

PAGE



V

M acD onald, Our Invisible P oor, The New Y orker,
Jan. 19, 1963 ..........................................................    28

M cCabe, Re: Forty Forgotten Families, 24 P ublic
W elfare 159 (1966) .......................................................14,17

M eier, Child Neglect, S ocial W ork and S ocial P rob­
lems (Cohen ed. 1964) ...................................................  16

M iller, R ich  Max . P oor Max (1964) .............................. 29
Moles, Training Children in Low-Income Families

for School, W elfare  in R eview  June, 1965 ............  17
M organ et al., I ncome and W elfare in  the U nited

S tates (1962) .................................................................... 28

N ational Tuberculosis and R esp ira tory  Disease A s ­
soc., Poverty and Health, P arts 1 and 2, Jan. and
Feb. 1969 ............................................................................... 29

New Y ork  Tim es, June 12, 1966, §1, p. 56 ................... 39

Orshansky, Recounting the Poor—A Five-Year Re­
view, 29 S ocial Security B ulletin  20 (A p ril
1966) .....................................................................................  18

Orshansky, The Shape of Poverty in 1966, 31 S ocial
S ecurity B ulletin  3 (1968) ....................................  34

Perlm an, Unmarried Mothers, S ocial W ork and S o­
cial P roblems (Cohen ed. 1964) .............................. 14

P resident ’ s Commission on L aw  E nforcement and 
A dministration of J ustice, the Challenge of
Crime in  a F ree S ociety (1967) ................................  28

P resident J ohnson ’s S tate of the U nion M essage
(1964) ...................................................................................  28

R eport of the F irst Conference on M ental R etar­
dation, M ild M ental R etardation in  I nfancy
and E arly C hildhood (Sim m ons ed. 1966) .......... 11

R eport of the National A dvisory Commission on
C ivil D isorders (1968) .................................................. 28

PAGE



V I

R eport of the P resident ’s A ppalachian  R egional
Commission, A ppalachia (1964) ..............................  28

R eport of the P resident ’s C ommittee on M ental 
R etardation, MR-68 —  T he  E dge of Change
(1968) ...................................................................................  10

R eport of the P resident ’s P anel on M ental R etar­
dation, a P roposed P rogram for National A ction 
to Combat M ental R etardation (1962) .............. 10,11

S chorr, Slum s and S ocial I nsecurity (1963) ............  8
S tate of New  Y ork, E xecutive B udget for the F is­

cal Y ear A pril 1, 1969 to M arch 31, 1970 ............  30

T owle, Common H um an  Needs (rev. ed. 1965) ..........
15 ,16 ,17 , 20

U nited S tates B ureau of the Census, E xtent  of 
P overty in  the U nited S tates : 1959-1966 (Se­
ries P-20, No. 54, 1968) ................................................ 28

U nited S tates D epartment of A griculture, P overty 
in  R ural A reas of the U nited S tates, Agricul­
tural Economic Rep. No. 63 (1964) .................... 28

U nited S tates D epartment of L abor, B ureau of L a­
bor S tatistics, Consumer Price Index ................... 32

U nited S tates D epartment of L abor, B ureau of L a­
bor S tatistics, T hree S tandards of L iving for 
an  U rban F am ily  of F our P ersons— S pring 1967 33

U nited S tates D epartment of H ealth , E ducation 
and W elfare, D elivery of H ealth  Services for
the P oor (1967) .............................................................  8 ,37

U nited S tates D epartment of H ealth , E ducation 
and W elfare, F am ily  I ncome and R elated Char­
acteristics A mong L ow- I ncome Counties and 
S tates (1964) .................................................................... 28

Warkany and Wilson, Prenatal Effects of Nutrition 
on the Development of the Nervous System, Ge­
netics and the  I nheritance of I ntegrated Neu­
rological and P sychiatric P roblems (Hooker 
and Have eds. 1954) ......................................................  H

PAGE



IN' THE

Qlmtrt of tin? Staffs
October Term, 1989

No. 540

J ulia R osado, L ydia H ebnandez, M ajobie M idey, S ophia 
A bbom, R uby Gathebs, L ouise L owman , E ula M ae K ing , 
Catheyn  F olk , A nnie  L ou P hillips , and M ajobie D uffy , 
individually, on behalf o f  their m inor children, and on 
behalf o f  all other persons sim ilarly situated,

against
Petitioners,

Geobge K. W ym an , individually and in his capacity as Com­
missioner of Social Services for the State of New York, 
and the D epabtment of S ocial S ebvices fob the S tate of 
N ew Y obk,

Respondents.

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit

BRIEF AMICI CURIAE FOR THE CATHOLIC 
CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW 
YORK, CATHOLIC CHARITIES, DIOCESE OF 
BROOKLYN, COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY 
OF NEW YORK, FEDERATION OF JEWISH 
PHILANTHROPIES OF NEW YORK, FEDERA­
TION OF PROTESTANT WELFARE AGENCIES



2

Interest of the Amici

The Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York 
was incorporated in 1917 as a charitable federation for 
the broad purpose of serving the poor and aiding and 
coordinating the varied health and welfare programs of 
the Archdiocese which had their beginnings as early as 
1817. This federation, together with its 203 affiliated 
agencies expended in 1968 over $180,000,000 in services for 
needy families, children and youth, the sick, aged and 
handicapped. It operates a comprehensive range of health 
and welfare programs including personal and family coun­
selling, homemaker and community services, general and 
special hospitals, nursing homes and homes for the aged, 
institutional, foster home and adoption programs for 
children, special services for the handicapped, residences, 
day care centers, children’s camps and programs for citi­
zenship training and character development of youth.

Catholic Charities, Diocese of Brooklyn was incorpo­
rated in 1931, but its predecessor agency dates from 1889. 
It, and its 31 member agencies spent about $54 million in 
1968 serving the poor, blind, deaf, retarded, handicapped, 
aged, troubled, and sick. These services were provided 
through counseling centers, child care agencies, hospitals, 
homes for the aged, etc.

Community Service Society of New York is the product 
of a merger in 1939 of the Association for Improving the 
Conditions of The Poor and the Charity Organization 
Society, both of which organizations were created in the 
1840’s. Spending almost $5 million annually, its 500 em­
ployees provide casework services, group therapy, home­



3

maker services, a residence for older persons, research in 
family life and social action in the fields of family and 
child welfare, housing and urban development, health, 
aging, youth and correction and family life education.

The Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York 
was organized in 1917 and is the coordinating agency in 
New York City for Jewish social work. Together with its 
more than 130 affiliated agencies, more than $250,000,000 is 
spent annually in providing a complete range of health 
and welfare services through institutions such as general 
hospitals, an orthopedic hospital, a hospital for the men­
tally ill, a hospital for the physically handicapped children, 
family service agencies, vocational rehabilitation agencies, 
child care agencies, foster homes and treatment facilities 
for dependent, emotionally disturbed and mentally retarded 
children, homes for the aged, community centers, camps, 
etc.

Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies was or­
ganized in 1921 and now has 235 member agencies. To­
gether, they spend more than $100,000,000 each year for 
child welfare agencies, nursery schools, day care centers, 
camps, treatment centers for disturbed children and for 
delinquents, neighborhood youth centers, vocational guid­
ance, mental health clinics, narcotics treatment facilities, 
maternity shelters, homemaker services, family counsel­
ing, neighborhood, social recreational and social activities, 
homes for the aged, etc.

Amici and their affiliates combined, serve more than 
three million New Yorkers each year. They have had a 
long-standing concern for and familiarity with the prob­



4

lems for the poor in New York City and State, especially 
those in receipt of Aid to Families with Dependent Chil­
dren. The citizen members and professional staffs include 
physicians, psychiatrists, nurses, psychologists, social work­
ers, clergy, attorneys, and others familiar with the prob­
lems of the poor. As the representatives of the major 
portion of the voluntary health and welfare groups in the 
City of New York, amici respectfully present their views 
on behalf of the AFDC recipients upon the case before 
the Court.

Amici have limited their argument to a documentation 
of the conditions of which Congress was aware in passing 
42 U.S.C. §602(a) (23) and the nature of the damage result­
ing from New York’s non-compliance therewith. They are 
however, in complete agreement with and subscribe to the 
other points raised by petitioners in their brief.

The parties have consented to the filing of this amicus 
curiae brief and copies of their letters of consent will be 
submitted to the Clerk with the brief.

Summary of the Argument

Congress’ enactment in 1935 of what is now known as 
the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program and 
42 U.S.C. 602(a) (23), a 1968 amendment to that program, 
were both intended to minimize or eliminate what the Con­
gress knew to be the incalculable and permanent conse­
quences of long-term poverty on children, families and 
society in general.

In enacting §131-a of the New York Social Services Law, 
the New York State Legislature ignored, in fact violated



5

the requirement of said 42 U.S.C. 602(a) (23) to increase 
grants to AFDC recipients to reflect fully increases in the 
cost-of-living to July 1, 1969. As a result, the hardships, 
suffering and injury which Congress sought to forestall 
have been compounded in New York State.

The higher mortality and morbidity rates of the poor, 
the greater frequency of illness, disability, chronic condi­
tions and malnutrition among them, attest to the close 
relationship between poverty and physical health. The 
larger presence among the poor of mental retardation and 
serious emotional disorders speaks to the consequences of 
poverty for mental health. The absence of conditions con­
ducive to sound child development among the poor results 
in significantly lower levels of educational achievement and 
significantly higher numbers of persons unable to function 
productively as adults. The pressures of severe economic 
deprivation on all family members reduces appreciably the 
chances of sound family life and relationships. And the 
gap between the poor and the highly-visible rest of society 
serves to perpetuate the cycle of poverty by deepening the 
despair and hopelessness felt by the poor. All these cir­
cumstances not only have a visible effect upon the poor, 
but also on the well-being of the entire society.

Desiring to help AFDC recipients to catch up to the 
increased cost-of-living by increasing their grants accord­
ingly, the Congress, as of early 1968, enacted 42 U.S.C. 602 
(a) (23). It sought, by this device, to minimize the effects 
of severe deprivation on present and future generations, 
at least until major revisions in public income maintenance 
programs were undertaken.



6

The evidence is clear that the intent of the New York 
State Legislature in enacting §131-a was anything but con­
sistent with that of the Congress. They sought merely to 
reduce welfare costs without considering the consequences 
of such reductions upon the poor.

The effect of these cutbacks is demonstrated over and 
over again in the files and records of amici and their affil­
iated agencies. That already inadequate AFDC grants 
have been further reduced, with the predictable, but none­
theless deplorable, results is also apparent. That other 
public programs upon which the poor depend are inade­
quate to fill the vacuum further intensifies the hardships.

P O I N T  I

Aware of the well-documented body of empirical 
and theoretical evidence that a real connection exists 
between poverty and individual, familial and societal 
pathology, Congress initiated the Aid to Dependent 
Children (now known as Aid to Families with Depend­
ent Children) program in 1935 and amended it in 1967 
to render it more effective.

A . Relationship of Poverty to Pathology

Poverty, especially persistent poverty, affects every 
aspect of a person’s life: his physical and mental health, 
his development as a child, his family relationships and his 
relationship to the society around him. And the conse­
quences of poverty in turn intensify each other so that once 
the chain reaction has begun it is extremely difficult to 
avoid the irremedial harm which follows and the incal­
culable toll it takes in human life and suffering.



7

1. Physical Health

The symbiotic relationship between poverty and ill 
health clearly exists in the slums of large cities in the 
United States.

Mortality rates, especially during infancy, childhood, 
and even the younger adult ages, are higher here 
than for the rest of the population again, and this most 
important, especially mortality rates from the com­
municable diseases.1

* * * the prevalence of morbidity, impairments, and 
disability is probably highest * * * among the poverty 
population for the relatively severe conditions, partic­
ularly chronic conditions causing activity restriction 
for long periods of time. This follows from the higher 
prevalence of severe communicable diseases as causes 
of death in the poverty population. However, unlike 
the situation as regards mortality, where poverty pop­
ulation death rates are higher during the younger 
years, the prevalence of morbidity, impairment, and 
disability is likely to be higher for the poverty popula­
tion especially during the later years of mid-life and 
old age.2

Twenty-nine percent of persons with family incomes 
less than $2,000 have chronic conditions which limit their 
activity as compared to about 7.5 percent in families with 
incomes above $7,000. Even in the age 17-44 group, the 
poor are affected at twice the rate of the non-poor; in the 
age 45-64 year old males, the lower income group has three 
and one-half times as many disability days. A higher per­

1. Lerner, The Level of Physical Health of the Poverty Popula­
tion: A Conceptual Reappraisal of Structural Factors, 6 M edical 
Care 361 (1968).

2. Id. at 363.



8

cent of persons in poor families have “ multiple hospital 
episodes”  and they stay in the hospital longer (10.2 days 
as compared to 7.3 days). They are more often hospital­
ized for non-surgical conditions than the non-poor, though 
they are much less likely to have hospital insurance. Poor 
children under 15 visit physicians twice a year as compared 
to 4.4 times for the non-poor; 22 percent have never seen 
a dentist as compared to 7.2 percent in families with in­
comes over $10,000.3

Many of the illnesses which the urban poor sutler relate 
directly to their living conditions. Acute respiratory in­
fections (colds, bronchitis, grippe), infectious diseases of 
childhood (measles, chicken-pox, whooping cough), minor 
digestive diseases and enteritis (typhoid, dysentery, diar­
rhea), injuries from home accidents, skin diseases, lead 
poisoning in children from eating scaling paint, pneumonia 
and tuberculosis are typical of the physical illness of the 
poor.4

Furthermore, other diseases and disabilities not appar­
ently related to the physical environment are more common 
among the poor: degenerative diseases, particularly cardio­
vascular disorders, chronic diseases such as heart disease 
and diabetus mellitus, cancer, premature births.5

* # * the more easily recognizable and more serious 
types of chronic illness, including paralysis and ortho­

3. U nited  States D epartm en t  of H e a l t h , E ducation  and  
W elfare, D elivery of H ealth  Services for th e  P oor at 3-4 
(1967).

4. S chorr, S lum s and  S ocial I nsecurity  13-14 (1963).

5. Irelan, Health Practices of the Poor, Welfare in Review, Oct. 
1965, p. 3.



9

pedic impairments, accounted for 13.8 percent of re­
ported chronic conditions for the lowest income group 
as compared with 9.7 for those at the top of the income 
scale. Even more striking are the differences between 
the poor and the rich when it comes to visual and hear­
ing impairments. Such handicaps accounted for 12.4 
percent of the chronic conditions reported for the 
$2,000 group, but only 6.4 percent of such conditions 
in the group with an income of $7,000 and over.6

The role of nutrition in the health of the poor is well 
understood. Low hemoglobin levels and anemia occur with 
greater frequency among the poor.7 Caloric (quantitative) 
or nutritive (qualitative) deficiencies or both can cause 
malnutrition. Carbohydrates can, relatively cheaply and 
quickly, provide calories and energy, but they cannot pro­
vide the proteins necessary for proper nutrition.8 Obesity 
is a more frequent condition among the poor than among 
the non-poor.

2. Mental Health

There is a striking correlation between poverty and 
mental retardation.

The majority of the mentally retarded are the chil­
dren of the more disadvantaged classes of our society. 
This extraordinarily heavy prevalence in certain de­
prived population groups suggests a major causative 
role, in some way not yet fully delineated, for adverse 
social, economic and cultural factors. These conditions

6. Coll, Deprivation in Childhood: Its Relation to the Cycle of 
Poverty, Welfare in Review, Mar. 1965, p. 4.

7. Hillman & Smith, Hemoglobin Patterns in Low-Income Fam­
ilies, 83 P ublic H ealth  R eports 65 (1967).

8. Id. at 3.



10

may not only mean absence of the physical necessities 
of life, but the lack of opportunity and motivation. A 
number of experiments with the education of pre­
sumably retarded children from slum neighborhoods 
strongly suggest that a predominant cause of mental 
retardation may be the lack of learning opportunities 
or absence of “ intellectual vitamins”  under these ad­
verse environmental conditions. Deprivation in child­
hood of opportunities for learning intellectual skills, 
childhood emotional disorders which interfere with 
learning, or obscure motivational factors appear some­
how to stunt young people intellectually during their 
developmental period. Whether the causes of retarda,- 
tion in a specific individual may turn out to be bio­
medical or environmental in character, there is highly 
suggestive evidence that the root causes of a great 
part of the problem of mental retardation are to be 
found in bad social and economic conditions as they 
affect individuals and families * * #.9

A variety of circumstances, all typical of the lives of 
the poor have been found to lead to mental retardation. 
There is a close relationship between inadequate prenatal 
care, typical for the poor, premature births, likewise typ­
ical,10 and consequent mental retardation.11

In both whites and Negroes, the incidence of pre­
maturity became extremely high the lower the socio­
economic class * * * this [the higher rates for Negroes]

9. R eport of t h e  P resident ' s P a n e l  on  M en tal  R etarda­
tio n , A  P roposed P rogram for N a tio n al  A ction  to Combat 
M e n ta l  R etardation , at 8-9 (1 9 6 2 ) ; see R eport of th e  P resi­
dent ' s Co m m ittee  on M en tal  R etardation , MR-68— t h e  E dge 
of C h ang e , at 19 (1968).

10. R eport of P resident ’s Co m m ittee , supra note 9.

11. Address by Lawrence Goodman, American Association on 
Mental Deficiency Conference, May 16, 1969.



11

was not a function so much of the Negro as a somewhat 
racially distinct group, but was more the heritage of 
prolonged disadvantage in the areas of general health, 
medical care, education, and nutrition.12

Various studies point to the relationship between nutri­
tion and brain growth,13 maternal malnutrition and toxe­
mia and prematurity,14 and to the functional integrity of 
the offspring’s nervous system.15

Given the environmental causes of much mental retar­
dation, one final fact bears noting:

Unlike other major afflictions, such as cancer or heart 
disease, which often come relatively late in life, men­
tal retardation typically appears in childhood and 
always before adulthood. And once incurred, it is 
essentially a permanent handicap, at least at the 
present stage of biomedical knowledge.16

But mental retardation is not the only mental health 
consequence of poverty.

# * emotional upset is one of the main forms of the
vicious circle of impoverishment. The structure of the

12. R eport of th e  F irst Conference on  M e n ta l  R etarda­
tion , M ild M en tal  R etardation  in  I n f a n c y  an d  E arly  C h ild ­
hood, at 28 (Sim m ons ed. 1966).

13. Fernandez, et al., Nutritional Status of People in Isolated 
Areas of Puerto Rico, 12 A m erican  J. Cl in ic a l  N utrition  (1965) ; 
Brown, Organ Weight in Malnutrition With Special Reference to 
Brain Weight, 8 D evelop. M ed. C h ild  N eurol. (1 9 6 6 ).

14. R eport of th e  F irst Conference on  M en tal  R etarda­
tio n , supra note 12, at 30.

15. Warkany & Wilson, Prenatal Effects of Nutrition on the 
Development of the Nervous System, in Genetics a n d  th e  I n h e r ­
itan ce  of I ntegrated N eurological an d  P sych iatric  P roblems 
(H ooker & Have eds. 1954).

16. R eport of th e  P resident ’ s P a n e l , supra note 9, at 10.



12

society is hostile to these people * * * the poor tend 
to become pessimistic and depressed; they seek imme­
diate gratification instead of saving; they act out.17

The classic study Social Class and Mental Illness by 
Hollingshead and Redlich18 discloses that the poor’s rate 
of “ treated psychiatric illness”  is about three times as 
high as the average for the other social classes. Further­
more, of those who had received some psychiatric treat­
ment, 65 percent in the top four classes (out of five) had 
been treated for neurotic problems, the rest for psychotic 
disturbances. Among the poor, 90 percent of those treated 
had psychotic problems.

W hat happens to the psyche o f  the im poverished indi­
vidual that accounts fo r  the large am ount o f  em otional 
disturbance that appears to exist?

It is hypothesized that emotional depression may 
be the prevalent life style of many lower-lower-class 
members and that this depression (if such it is) has 
its origins in overwhelming anxiety associated with 
the almost constant powerful frustrations and threats 
which surround the slum-dweller from infancy to old 
age. While both research and theory point to the 
positive contribution of mild frustration and asso­
ciated mild anxiety to achievement and to ego-strength, 
constant and overpowering frustrations make achieve­
ment an untenable goal and seriously weaken the ego—• 
or self-esteem * * *

With generally less ego strength (lower self- 
esteem), the very poor individual is apt to have

17. H arrin gton , T h e  O th er  A m e r ic a : P overty in  t h e  
U n ited  States 138 (19 62 ).

18. (19 58 ).



.13

greater need than his middle-class counterpart for 
security-giving psychological defenses. But defenses 
such as sublimation, rationalization, identification with 
the larger community and its leaders, compensation, 
idealization, and substitution of generally accepted 
gratifications are not so readily available to him in 
his impoverished, constricted environment and with 
his own lack of economic and intellectual resources. 
* * * for instance, the lower-class adolescent tends to 
use defense mechanisms in handling aggressive drives 
and failure fears which require little previous expe­
rience, involve maximum distortion, and create social 
difficulties, whereas middle-class children are more apt 
to use defense mechanisms which require many skills 
involve a minimum of distortion and are socially 
acceptable. * * *

Since the pressures on the lower-lower-class male 
for unobtainable, occupational success are greater than 
on the female, it is hypothesized that depressive reac­
tions, confusion over identity, and recourse to the 
various mechanisms for self-expressive escape would 
probably occur in a higher proportion of men and to 
a more pervasive degree. The higher rates among 
males (especially in the lower-lower-class) of mental 
illness, alcoholism, drug addiction, crime and delin­
quency are, perhaps, associated, at least in part, with 
factors such as these.19

For the most part, in AFDC families the mother is the 
only parent in the home. Even if she had been legally 
married to the father a severe burden falls upon her. She 
must fulfill both parental roles with their heavy demands.

These demands are overcast and suffered by the emo­
tional impact of the loss or absence of the father 
on the mother and children. Shifting of roles com­

19. Chilman, Growing U p Poor 31-33 (1966).



34

bined with the immediacy of inadequate income can 
play into dependency needs and can be used to feed 
neurotic tendencies in mothers and their children.20

These difficulties are further intensified when the parent 
is an unmarried mother. The public image of such AFDC 
mothers, manifested by periodic attacks in the press, as 
irresponsible and immoral, has its effects psychologically:

an apathy or resignation, which is the end product 
of hopelessness, a lowered sense of self-esteem and 
worth, the product of being held in small account by 
others, and a heightened sense of being an outsider 
to the larger society. Sometimes the outcast manages 
her feelings by indifference, clowning, self-deprecia­
tion. Sometimes she strikes out blindly against those 
who, to her, represent the “ ins” . * * *

Other social and psychological stresses accompany 
economic stress. The unmarried mother who keeps her 
baby finds few avenues of self-expression and pleasure 
open to her. She is homebound with the care of her 
baby or she is neglectful of him. She has no husband 
to whom to express her aggravation or boredom. The 
baby more often than not pauses her to lose a man who 
might have been a husband someday, if her pregnancy 
and its consequences had not scared him off, or to 
lose a man who gave her some sense that she was 
wanted. So the baby often represents the fruit of 
her badness or foolishness as well as the betrayal by 
the man who got her into trouble. Mothering rarely 
flows warmly and dependably toward the baby thus 
ruefully or angrily borne.21

20. Address by Eunice L. Minton, National Conference on So­
cial Welfare, May 11-16, 1958.

21. Perlman, Unmarried Mothers, in S ocial W ork and  Social 
P roblems 275-276 (Cohen ed. 1964) ; see McCabe, Re: Forty For­
gotten Families, 24 P ublic  W elfare 161-163 (1966).



15

3. Child Development

It is in children that some of the most damaging con­
sequences of poverty can be found. Whether it be from 
malnutrition, other disease, marital tensions, emotional 
upset in the home or any other of the common occurrences 
in the poverty-stricken home, the children of that home 
suffer deeply.

The infant * * * has three sources of security that 
enable him to feel safe and, therefore, to experience 
a satisfying relationship with others: (1) consistent 
physical care and conditions conducive to good health 
requisite to a feeling of well-being, (2) uninterrupted 
opportunity to learn and reassuring encouragement to 
persist in learning through sympathetic attention to 
his hurts when his first learning efforts endanger his 
safety, (3) relationships in which he is loved.22

But the malnourished infant is restless, irritable, hyper­
active or apathetic. His crying and whining provokes his 
mother to show her annoyance by a scolding or a slap, 
“ thus reinforcing the infant’s feeling of being unloved.” 23 
The attention he thus receives prompts him to persist and, 
unless his mother changes her reaction, the child may 
become an aggressive, demanding person.

Economic security is important also from the stand­
point that the mother, if anxious and harrassed, trans­
mits her disturbed feelings to the infant, perhaps to 
an even greater extent than when the child is older.24

22. T ow le , Com m on  H u m a n  N eeds 50 (rev. ed. 1965).
23. Id. at 6.

24. Id. at 54; see H erzog, A bout t h e  P oor— Some F acts and  
S ome F ictions 15 (Children’s Bureau Pub. N o. 451, 1967).



16

Because the children receiving AFDC are most often 
in one-parent homes where the full burden of child-rearing 
falls on the mother usually, and where the father’s absence 
is itself a loss to the child, the children are “ exposed to a 
greater hazard of having less than average opportunities 
for development,25 26 The consequences of this deprivation 
may be either destructive activities or clinging to infantile 
behavior. Either course prevents the child from learning 
how to master his environment, so necessary to his stability 
in adult life.20

The parental patterns more characteristic of the 
very poor, in reference to educational achievement, 
seem to be oriented towards an anticipation of failure, 
and a distrust of middle-class institutions, such as the 
schools. Constriction in experience, reliance on a 
physical rather than a verbal style, a rigid rather than 
flexible approach, preference for concrete rather than 
abstract thinking, reliance on personal attributes rath­
er than training or skills, a tendency toward magical 
rather than scientific thinking: these values and atti­
tudes provide poor preparation and support for many 
of the children of the very poor as they struggle to 
meet the demands of the middle-class oriented school.27

This theory is borne out by the evidence. Although 
AFDC children start out on the same level as others, they 
fall behind so that at about 15 years of age they are a 
semester or more behind. At each age, a greater propor­
tion of such children were “ overage”  for their grade, 
having failed a semester or more. Children who have failed

25. Meier, Child Neglect, in Social W ork  an d  Social P rob­
lem s , supra note 21, at 192.

26. T ow le , supra note 22, at 55-56.

27. C h il m a n , supra note 19, at 45.



17

are more likely to drop out.28 That this has implications 
for their future independence as adults can be seen by the 
low level of educational achievement of AFDC mothers,29 
and the reduced chances for children’s achievement if their 
parents’ education level was low.30

The adolescents in economically precarious families are 
subject to stresses in addition to those normally faced. At 
a time when they are experiencing a tension between their 
past dependency and their wish to be independent, the finan­
cial uncertainty of the family may cause them to

cling more tenaciously to the parents,, or, in the inter­
ests of survival, be compelled to escape the uncertain­
ties of their family life through an abrupt and prema­
ture “ cutting off.”  They may needfully assert their 
right to keep their own earnings and out of a tragic 
necessity pursue their own paths unhampered by the 
burden of the past.31

While having to confront the harsh realities of the adult 
world is not per se a destructive experience, having to do 
so all at once without adequate past preparation can be 
quite damaging.32

Of crucial importance is the way in which the at­
tenuation of values, confusion of identity, and depre­

28. Moles, Training Children in Low-Income Families for School, 
Welfare in Review, June 1965, pp. 1-2; see McCabe, supra note 21, 
at 166-167.

29. Coll, supra note 6, at 6-7.

30. Address by Herbert Bienstock, Conference on the Dimensions 
of Poverty, American Statistical Association, New York Chapter, 
March 11, 1965.

31. T ow le , supra note 22, at 63.

32. Id. at 67-68.



18

ciation of self-esteem are transmitted from one genera­
tion to another. The sense of anonymity, of being the 
helpless instrument of irresistible and inaccessible 
social and economic forces, of injustice and anger, of 
apathy, of despair that conformity to any value system 
will make life more rewarding, all may have been 
experienced reactively by adults, as the cultural, polit­
ical, economic, and social causes began to exert their 
influence. As these adults become parents, however, 
their helplessness, blurred sense of identity, and norm- 
lessness are presented to their children as models for 
identification. As the children identify with these 
aspects of the parents, confusion and normlessness are 
built into the personality structure of the children. 
The resulting damage will continue from generation 
to generation unless changes in the external society 
and culture intervene to break the cycle and afford new 
generations more effective models of identification.33

4. Family Life

There is considerable evidence that the family structure 
and life of the poor is different from that of the non-poor. 
Separation, desertion and divorce appear to vary in fre­
quency in inverse proportion to income; the same seems to 
be true for family size.34 Further, families headed by 
women are far more frequent among the poor, as are out- 
of-wedlock births. Differences appear in child rearing

33. Lutz, Marital Incompatibility, in S ocial W ork a n d  S ocial 
P roblems, supra note 21, at 104.

34. Epstein, Some Effects of Low Income on Children and Their 
Families, 24 Social Security  B u lletin  (Feb. 1961); Goode, Eco­
nomic Factors and Marital Stability, 16 A m erican  S ociological 
R eview  (Dec. 1951); Orshansky, Recounting The Poor—A Five- 
Year Review, 29 S ocial Security  B u lle tin  (April 1966).



19

practices, with physical punishment and ridicule used more 
often by the poor.35

To start with, we must keep in mind that above all 
else, people have minimum basic material needs—suf­
ficient food and clothing, adequate living accommoda­
tions and medical care. These must be met. If people 
are in serious danger of losing the fight for survival 
they will be unable to use their energy and intellect 
for the things that enhance life, make it human and 
rich in heart, mind and spirit. With its basic material 
needs met, a family can devote its strength to efforts 
aimed at making itself as sound as possible.36

The past and present circumstances of poor persons 
work against their chances for successful marital and fam­
ily relationships.

Husbands and wives on the lowest socioeconomic level 
tend to have a poorer start in marriage than other 
couples and the same is true for their children. Many 
are high school dropouts (over half or more). One 
result of this is that they are likely to be forced into 
adult roles earlier than other adolescents. A young 
person out of school is not given the sanctions for 
adolescent behavior and the security of protection that 
students are given. This may be one reason that more 
of the very poor drift into marriage in their middle 
or late teens, often following a premarital pregnancy. 
Added to their youth, lack of education and poor 
preparation for marriage and parenthood, there is the

35. Bronfenbrenner, Socialisation and Social Class Through Time 
and Space, in R eadings in  Social P sychology (3d ed. Maccoby, 
Newcomb and Hartley eds. 1958) ; Kohn, Social Class and the Exer­
cise of Parental Authority, 24 A m erican  S ociological R eview  
(June 1959).

36. Co m m u n it y  Service S ociety of N ew  Y ork , W h a t  M akes 
for Strong F a m il y  L ife (1958).



20

likelihood that the young husband will find either a 
very inadequate job or no job at all. The life experi­
ences that such young couples have had growing up 
in their own homes and in the poverty environment 
offer seriously reduced opportunities for a satisfying, 
stable marriage and family life of their own.37

What happens, psycho-socially, to families with inade­
quate funds has been considered by many experts in the 
field. There is general agreement that while inadequate 
funds will not alone destroy family life, it will tend to 
enlarge family difficulties. From the psychological per­
spective,

One may expect more regressive responses on the 
part of parents in families where there is economic 
strain. When regression occurs in the adult, it is not 
as normal an aspect of the growth process as it is in 
the adolescent. Because the demands of adult life are 
likely to be more consistently inescapable than those 
in adolescence and because the personality is more 
rigidly formed, retreats to more satisfying life periods 
of the past may bring a more lasting fixation.38

Desertion is a not uncommon phenomenon in the families 
of the poor. While financial hardship may not be the most 
important cause of family breakdown, it is an effective 
fertilizer for the seeds of disruption.

If the partners are incompatible and do not have 
the same ideals and goals, the tension between them 
is likely to mount when they live in a cold or over­
crowded home and when they do not have enough to 
eat or to wear. Worry about the future for themselves

37. C h il m a n , supra note 19, at 71.

38. T ow le , supra note 22, at 85.



21

and their children adds to the strain. Desertion, 
therefore, may represent a desperate attempt on the 
part of the father to escape responsibilities he cannot 
meet and to find a means of personal survival.39

For the families receiving public assistance, financial 
hardship is not significantly alleviated.

The grants support life and physical health if the 
recipient families manage them well. Indigent families 
are required to manage their funds more efficiently 
than everyone else in the population. The oppor­
tunity for some margin, some cushion, in the use of 
money is a powerful antidote to strain in inter­
personal relations and intrapersonal conflict. The 
starkness and monotony of poverty contribute to de­
spair and help to break down whatever abilities mar­
ried people possess to perform the various functions of 
marriage, including the rendering of reciprocal emo­
tional support and recognition.40

The large amounts of extreme disability — of all kinds 
— in the public assistance caseload further complicate the 
family life of the recipients. Even though the effect is 
significant enough if it is a child who is disabled, the 
situation is even worse when it is a parent. Considering 
the inadequacy of the grant normally, having to balance 
the regular needs of the family and the special needs of 
the disabled person heightens the difficulty. “ It is small 
wonder that frustration, hopelessness and family discord 
often accompany prolonged disability.’ ’41

39. F e ldm an , T he  F a m il y  in  a  M oney  W orld 67 (1957). 
Desertion among A FD C  families is also caused by many States’ , 
though not New Y ork ’s, refusal to provide such aid where the father 
is in the home.

40. Lutz, supra note 33, at 83-84.

41. Minton, supra note 20.



22

In sum, then

Marital incompatibility may be exacerbated * # * 
when grants are kept so low that they impair the 
health of the marital partners or precipitate disagree­
ments between them over the ways in which the inade­
quate funds should be used * * *42

5. Social Alienation

Because the poor have very little or no money they 
are placed at the bottom of society’s classification scheme. 
Since the society tends to measure a person’s worth and 
status by his money, the shortage of money implies a 
lower value-level for the poor. And since they do not have 
the content of living of most, the poor tend to be set apart; 
but they remain affected by the standards of living set 
by society.

It is an ironical socio-economic fact that the higher 
our standards of living go, the more the groups with 
low and fairly static income status becomes disad­
vantaged and isolated. The effects, therefore, are 
often a greater sense of personal inadequacy and 
failure.43

For example, the poor do not participate in the social, 
charitable and fraternal organizations of the American 
society. And because we consider our society to be a 
classless one, few organizations are created along class 
lines. The result is that the poor person, feeling less able 
to participate, stays away.44

42. Lutz, supra note 33, at 101.

43. Minton, supra note 20.

44. H arrin gton , supra note 17, at 133-134.



23

The poor have the least voice in government. They 
lack the vocabulary, the clothes, the carfare, the knowl­
edge, the self-confidence to move institutions to get 
things done. They lack the skills of knowing how to 
telephone the authorities, write letters, get up peti­
tions, address public hearings, of whom to call or 
whom to ask for improvement in their services: better 
garbage collection, building code enforcement, police 
protection. * * *

The point is, the economically deprived are so far 
removed from the American standard of life that they 
no longer feel part of the larger society — they feel 
excluded, isolated, and alienated. The poor believe 
that they are unable to take advantage of the better 
things in life, some costing money, but others, like 
education, free. The best they can foresee is imperma­
nent jobs, bad housing, inferior schools, and few of 
the conventional pleasures they continually see on 
television. Forced to live with others like themselves, 
they learn to accept standard services from police, 
clinics, schools, sanitation departments, landlords and 
merchants.45

B. Congressional Purpose and Intent

Congress, in its initial passage of Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children legislation (Title 42 U.S.C. §§601-610), 
and later, in its amendment §602(a) (23) expressed a clear 
purpose. In its initiation of a program of comprehensive 
Federal grants to states who, in setting up state-wide pro­
grams of aid to dependent children complied with the 
requirements laid down in Title 42 of the United States 
Code §§601-610, Congress explicitly reveals its concern and 
intent.

45. Address by George K. Wyman, New York State Welfare 
Conference, Nov. 1968.



24

For the purpose of encouraging the care of depend­
ent children in their own homes or in the homes of 
relatives by enabling each State to furnish financial 
assistance and rehabilitation and other services, as far 
as practicable under the conditions in such State, to 
needy dependent children and the parents or relatives 
with whom they are living to help maintain and 
strengthen family life and to help such parents or rela­
tives to attain or retain capability for the maximum 
self-support and personal independence consistent with 
the maintenance of continuing parental care and pro­
tection, there is authorized to be appropriated for each 
fiscal year a sum sufficient to carry out the purposes 
of this subchapter. The sums made available under 
this section shall be used for making payments to 
States which have submitted, and had approved by the 
Secretary, State plans for aid and services to needy 
families with children. 42 U.S.C. 601.

It entered into this program with full recognition that 
while programs of public assistance were, in the first in­
stance a state responsibility, the magnitude of the problems 
and their national impact required a federally-based scheme 
supported by federal monies. So that from 1935 on, and 
with regular and careful reviews up to 1968, Congress has 
been deeply involved and concerned with a program of aid 
for dependent children.

The State of New York instituted a program of aid to 
dependent children in 1937, expressing at all times an ex­
plicit purpose to comply with the Federal requirements. 
According to the New York State Social Services Law,

§358 Federal aid to dependent children.
The department shall submit the plan for aid to 

dependent children to the federal security agency or



25

other federal agency established by or for the purpose 
of administering the federal social security act for ap­
proval pursuant to the provisions of such federal act. 
The department shall act for the state in any negotia­
tions relative to the submission and approval of such 
plan and make any arrangement which may be neces­
sary to obtain and retain such approval and to secure 
for the state the benefits of the provisions of such fed­
eral act relating to aid to dependent children. The 
board shall make such rules not inconsistent with law 
as may be necessary to make such plan conform to the 
provisions of such federal act and any rules and regula­
tions adopted pursuant thereto. The department shall 
make reports to such federal agency in the form and 
nature required by it and in all respects comply with 
any request or direction of such federal agency which 
may be necessary to assure the correctness and verifi­
cation of such reports. * * *

And an examination of the development of the New York 
State laws setting up a program for dependent children 
and the history of their amendments reveals a consistent 
and systematic course of changes following on the heels of 
Federal statutory or administrative changes. The New 
York State Legislature has passed a body of legislation 
designed for tandem action and conformity with Federal 
law in this area.

In 1968, mindful as always of the economic changes con­
tinuing to sweep the country and the continuing and ever- 
pressing needs of those desperately dependent for their 
well-being on government money, Congress set about to 
review what changes, if any, were to be made in the Social 
Security Act. As a result of extensive hearings and tes­
timony, Congress passed, inter alia, subdivision (23) of 
42 U.S.C. §602(a) effective January 2, 1968 as an amend-



26

ment to Title IV of the Social Security Act (Grants to 
States for Aid and Services to Needy Families with Chil­
dren) as follows:

§602; State plans for aid and services to needy families 
with children; contents; approval by Secretary

(a) A State plan for aid and services to needy 
families with children must * * *

(23) provide that by July 1, 1969, the amounts used 
by the State to determine the needs of individuals will 
have been adjusted to reflect fully changes in living 
costs since such amounts were established, and any 
maximums that the State imposes on the amount of aid 
paid to families will have been proportionately ad­
justed.

Testimony given at hearings before the Congressional 
Committees drafting this amendment concentrated on the 
need for improvement of methods calculated to bring pay­
ments made to those eligible under the program closer to 
the cost of the basic needs sought to be covered.46 There

46. Under Secretary of U. S. Dep’t of Health, Education and 
Welfare Wilbur Cohen testified, in part, as follows:

But, it is not enough only to require the States to meet need 
standards. They must assure that these standards reflect current 
prices. There is no requirement in present Federal law that 
State standards be kept up to date. In Colorado, the standards 
for aid to the permanently and totally disabled have not changed 
since 1956. Those for the blind have not been changed in Mas­
sachusetts since 1956. Wisconsin standards used today for all 
assistance programs were set in 1958, and Ohio’s were set in 
1959. Only 25 States have standards that have been brought up 
to date in terms of recent pricing within the last 2 years.

W e propose that States be required to update on July 1, 1968, 
the assistance standards they are now using. From that date on 
they would have to review these standards annually and modify 
them with significant changes occurring in the cost of living. 
Hearings on H.R. 12080 before the Senate Committee on Fi­
nance, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. 259 (1967).



27

was extensive evidence that the rapid and significant rise, 
nationwide, in the cost of living raised serious question of 
the adequacy of grants being made to the needy families.

Apart from consideration of the knotty problem of basic 
and sweeping revision of the delivery of welfare aid to the 
poor in general, it was quickly apparent that in the interim, 
at least, the states should he required to raise the level of 
their grants, i.e. monies actually paid out, by a proportion 
fully reflecting the rise in living costs since the schedules 
were last established.

There is no doubt, in view of the discussions which took 
place at the time, that it was the clear intent of Congress, 
fully mindful of the complexity of the welfare crisis then 
confronting the states, to effect, at the very least, a real 
raise in the dollar amount each eligible family would begin 
to receive. Any state legislative change which followed 
was not intended by Congress, under any circumstances, 
to result in a downward revision of dollars actually paid out 
to any family eligible for such aid.

C. Congressional Knowledge of Relationship 
Between Poverty and Social Ills

Congress, which has been actively legislating in the 
field of social legislation for more than thirty years, is 
probably the best-educated institution existent in the nation 
with respect to the connection between poverty and those 
community conditions undesirable and detrimental to life 
in the United States. As the chief appropriating arm of 
the government, it also is acutely aware of the changes in 
cost of living which are, of course, intimately bound up



28

with the effectiveness of any program aimed at helping 
people sustain themselves. The governmental agencies 
charged with administering programs relevant to welfare 
aid turn out for their own and Congressional use highly 
developed and detailed information and studies. These are 
designed to keep Congress accurately informed of the na­
ture of the problems and the effectiveness of programs, in­
cluding proposals for reform.47

Professional writers, sociologists, social workers have 
also written books and articles which make up an extensive 
and widely publicized literature on the subject.48

47. In addition to those official reports cited elsewhere in this 
brief, such studies, statements and reports include: P resident Jo h n ­
son ' s S tate  of t h e  U n io n  M essage (1 9 6 4 ); Annual Economic 
Reports to the Congress by the President’s Council of Economic A d­
visors of which the Congress’ Joint Economic Committee makes con­
tinuing studies; Lampman, The Low Income Population and Eco­
nomic Growth, Study Paper No. 12, Joint Economic Committee, 
86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) ;. U . S. D e par tm e n t  of A griculture, 
P overty in  R u ral  A reas of t h e  U n ited  States, Agricultural 
Economics Rep'. No. 63 (1 9 6 4 ) ; R eport of t h e  P resident ’ s A p ­
p a l a c h ia n  R egional  Co m m issio n , A p p a l a c h ia  (1 9 6 4 ); U. S. 
B ureau  of th e  Census, E xt e n t  of P overty in  t h e  U nited  
S tates : 1959-1966 (Series P-20, No. 54, 1968 ) ; U . S. D epartm en t  
of H e a l t h , E ducation  a n d  W elfare, F a m il y  I ncome  an d  R e­
lated  C haracteristics A mong  L o w - I ncome  Counties  and  
States (1 9 6 4 ) ; P resident ’s Co m m ission  on L a w  E nforcem ent 
a n d  A d m in istra tio n  of Justice , t h e  C h allenge  of Cr im e  in  
a  F ree S ociety (1967) ; R eport of t h e  N a tio n al  A dvisory Co m ­
m issio n  on  C iv il  D isorders (1 9 6 8 ); Cohen & Sullivan, Poverty 
in the United States, Health, Education and Welfare Indicators, Feb. 
1964.

48. In addition to those books and articles cited elsewhere in this 
brief are: Lewis, The Citlticre of Poverty, National Conference on 
Social Welfare (1961) ; C aplovitz, T he  H igh  Cost of P overty 
(1963) ; MacDonald, Our Invisible Poor, The New Yorker, Jan. 19, 
1963 ; M organ et ah, I ncome  and  W elfare  in  t h e  U nited  States 
(1962) ; Keyserling et ah, Poverty and Deprivation in the United 
States, The Plight of Two-Fifths of a Nation, Conference on  E co­
n om ic  P rogress (1962); A . P h il ip  R andolph  I n stitu te , a F ree­



29

In addition, the newspapers and other news media, ful­
filling their public requirements have given wide and 
graphic publicity to social and economic conditions in the 
poverty-stricken part of our national community.49

Finally, the Poor Peoples’ March literally took the poor 
and their problems to the steps of Congress.

All this is cited to emphasize what it perhaps all too 
obvious, namely, that Congress in legislating a requirement 
for adjustment in the level of payments to reflect the change 
in cost of living had as its sole and overriding purpose 
ameliorating the desperate need of people who could not 
wait for deeper and more far-reaching reform. It was the 
intention of Congress that any adjustment which a state 
made to satisfy the Federal requirement of §602(a)(23) 
would result in a net dollar increase in the amount paid to 
each eligible family on its AFDC rolls.

dom B udget for A ll A m ericans  (1966 ); National Tuberculosis 
and Respiratory Disease Assoc., Poverty and Health, Parts 1 and 2, 
Jan. and Feb. 1969; M iller, R ic h  M a n , P oor M a n  (1964 ); 
Downs, Who Are the Urban Poor?, Committee for Economic De­
velopment Supplementary Paper No. 26 (Oct. 1968).

49. E.g., “ Harvest of Shame” , CBS Reports, CBS News, Nov. 
1960.



30

P O I N T  II

The passage of Section 131-a of the New York So­
cial Services Law rendered the New York state-plan 
for AFDC non-compliant with Section 602(a) (23) of 
Title 42 of the United States Code, part of the Social 
Security Act.

Section 131-a of the Social Services Law purports to be 
merely an administrative streamlining of the state’s wel­
fare system to counteract “ the spiraling rise of public as­
sistance rolls and the expenditures therefore.”  N.Y. Sess. 
Laws 1969, Ch. 184, §1. In fact, it has been proven to be 
a systematic reduction of AFDC grants.

While Respondent Commissioner’s original proposals 
to the Governor regarding welfare reform spelled out a 
system of flat grants, the bases and schedules upon which 
the standards of assistance were to be determined were 
higher than those now called for by § 131-a and included 
items theretofore included as special grants. The Governor, 
however, “ to keep expenditures within available income” 50 
recommended a reduction by approximately 5% across-the- 
board. While the Legislature modified the Governor’s pro­
posed budget by granting greater aid than requested for 
some items, it reduced public assistance categories, Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children among them, even fur­
ther.

This legislative history is recited here to bear out Pe­
titioners’ contention that passage of §131-a had as its prime

50. State  of N ew  Y ork , E xecutive  B udget for t h e  F iscal 
Y ear A pril  1, 1969 to M arch  31, 1970, at p. 739.



31

motivation a trimming of costs, with, the AFDC program to 
bear a greater portion of the cost-saving than other state 
programs.

This is further evidenced by subsequent action of Re­
spondent Commissioner, when on September 24, 1969, he 
authorized a statewide “ special necessity grant”  for re­
cipients of aid in the adult categories (Aid to the Aged, 
Blind and Disabled) in response to severe hardships suf­
fered by them in the welfare cutbacks of that spring. But 
nothing for children and their parents.

The greatest proportion of the public assistance case­
load in New York State is the AFDC roll—approximately 
75%. Most beneficiaries of the AFDC program in the 
State of New York live in New York City: 657,000 out of a 
statewide total of 887,000 was the 1968 monthly average.

The Commissioner of the New York City Department 
of Social Services of the City of New York stated unequiv­
ocally and publicly, that claims that more than 50% of 
welfare recipients were receiving more money under the 
new State schedule of payments were false. He said, “ At 
least 75% of the persons in the City of New York are, in 
fact, receiving less money now than they were before the 
new grant system went into effect. ’ ’51

So that in the State of New York, a cut-back affecting 
AFDC payments rather than other forms of aid, results in 
the greatest possible budgetary gain. It was this fact 
rather than any other which motivated the designers of the

51. Address by Jack R. Goldberg, “ Witness for Survival”  Meet­
ing, Sept. 11, 1969.



32

new system of granting AFDC in New York in the Legis­
lature 1968-1969.

It was common knowledge that since the last re-pricing 
of the assistance grants as of May 1968, the cost-of-living 
had increased. From that time until July 1, 1969 the Con­
sumer Price Index in New York City for all items increased 
7.08%.52

Clearly then, the effect of §131-a was directly contrary 
to the effects intended by the Congress in its enactment of 
42 U.S.C. 602(a) (23). Even if what was intended by the 
Congress was a single adjustment made before July 1, 1969 
and current only to the date of the adjustment, New York’s 
single adjustment in May 1968 has more than been wiped 
out by the provisions of §131-a. The fact is that most re­
cipients in New York City (75%)—and therefore in the 
State—are receiving grants appreciably lower than those 
they received under the May 1968 adjustment.

P O I N T  I I I
Levels of AFDC grants had been grossly insuffi­

cient to meet the needs of the recipents and the effects 
of the reductions caused by Section 131-a of the New 
York Social Services Law have incalculably worsened 
the plight of the recipients.

According to the Advisory Council on Public Welfare 
(appointed by the Secretary of Health, Education and Wel­
fare pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1314),

Public assistance payments to needy families and
individuals fall seriously below what this Nation has
proclaimed to be the “ poverty level.”  Federal par-

52. U n ited  States D epar tm e n t  of L abor, B ureau  of L abor 
Statistics , Consumer Price Index.



33

ticipation in a nationwide program of public assistance 
payments that are grossly inadequate and widely vari­
able not only perpetuates destitution and intensities 
poverty-related problems but also contradicts the Na­
tion’s commitments to its poor. * * #

The national average provides little more than half 
the amount admittedly required by a family for sub­
sistence; in some low-income States, it is less than a 
quarter of that amount. The low public assistance pay­
ments contribute to the perpetuation of poverty and 
deprivation that extends to future generations.53

This was descriptive of the situation in New York before 
the enactment of §131-a. Patently, therefore, that section 
reduced grants already at subsistence to levels of desper­
ation.

A comparison54 of the current grants under AFDC in 
New York City with other relevant standards is revealing 
in this respect. Using the family of four as a basis for 
comparison and accounting for increases in the consumer

53. T h e  A dvisory Cou n cil  on  P ublic  W elfare , “ H avin g  
t h e  P ower, W e H ave t h e  D u t y ”  15-16 (1966).

54. Based on the following memorandum prepared by Miss Edith 
Taittonen, Director of Home Economics Service of Community Serv­
ice Society of New Y ork :

Com parative  D a t a  on  Cost of L iving—-Ju ly  1969

I. Three Standards of Living for cm Urban Family of Four Per­
sons, Spring 1967, U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics.

Family of four— man, 38, employed, woman, housewife, 
boy 13, girl 8

Lower cost standard, metropolitan New York, annual cost 
of goods and services (excluding tax)

Spring 1967 $4,919
July 1969 5,488*

II. A Family Budget Standard, 1963 and Annual Price Survey—  
Family Budget Costs— October 1968, Community Council of 
Greater New York.



34

prices index until July 1, 1969 the following figures are 
disclosed:

Family of four— man, 38, employed, woman, housewife, 
boy 13, girl 8.

Annual cost of goods and services (excluding tax)

October 1968 $6,629.48
July 1969 6,922.50*

Family of four— woman, 34, housewife, boy 12, girl 9, 
girl 6.

Annual cost of goods and services

October 1968 $5,473.00
July 1969 5,714.91*

Family of four— woman, 34, housewife, children 5, 3 
and 1.

Annual cost of goods and services

October 1968 $4,635.80
July 1969 4,840.70*

III. “ The Shape of Poverty in 1966” , Social Security Bulletin, 
March 1968, p. 4.

Family of four— criteria used by the Federal government
as a measure of poverty

March 1967 $3,335.00
July 1969 3,717.52**

IV. Department of Social Services, New York City.
Family of four, one adult, three children, projecting semi­
monthly grants and monthly rent of $93 into annual income.

Oldest child:
Grants effective*** Grant effective 

prior to July 1,1969 from July 1, 1969
16 to 21 4180. )
14 and 15 4060. )
12 and 13 3940. )
10 and 11 3820. )
8 and 9 3652. )
6 and 7 3508. )

under 5 3340. )

3612.00

* Consumer Price Index (base 1957-59), New York, New York, used 
to estimate the increase in the cost.

** Consumer Price Index (base 1957-59), U. S. City Average, used 
to estimate the increase in cost.

*** Includes cyclical grant of $100 per person, per year for clothing and 
house furnishings.



35

AFDC grant
(including rent of $93 per month) $3,612.00

Social Security Administration Index
(poverty level) 3,717.50

Bureau of Labor Statistics
(New York-Northeastern New Jersey area, 
lower standard, exclusive of taxes) 5,488.00

Community Council of Greater New York 
(Family Budget Standard,
exclusive of taxes) 6,922.50

It is apparent that the AFDC grant specified by §131-a 
of the Social Services Law falls below what is generally 
thought to be a minimum acceptable standard of living. A 
more refined comparison55 confirms this contention. Using 
two typical AFDC families—a mother with three children 
under five, and a mother with three children of 6, 9, and 12 
—and using July 1969, New York City prices for the goods 
and services required by such families the following annual 
figures are obtained:

AFDC grant (including rent) $3,612.00
AFDC need (mother, three children

of 5, 3, and 1) 4,840.70
AFDC need (mother, three children 

of 6, 9, and 12) 5,714.91

Families receiving AFDC are also dependent on other 
publicly-supported, though non-public assistance, programs 
such as day-care, health services, and supplementary food 
programs. There is general agreement that these pro­
grams do not provide adequately for AFDC families, or 
other poor persons for that matter.

55. Ibid.



36

According to a survey of the day care population by the 
Division of Day Care of the New York City Department of 
Social Services as of May 1969, only 22% of the families 
and 30% of the children who were receiving day care serv­
ices were also receiving public assistance. The problem is 
further compounded by the shortage of facilities for both 
group day care and family day care.

Programs had been developed in which AFDC mothers 
were employed to care for several children of other AFDC 
mothers while the latter were working or being trained. 
This necessitated the presence of a telephone, and, as will 
be discussed below, p. 38, there are no funds now per­
mitted welfare recipients for telephones.

Supplementary food programs, such as the Federal sur­
plus food program, are similarly inadequate. The limited 
variety of foods available and the distances which recipients 
must travel to collect them present serious problems for 
such families. For example, before the enactment of §131-a 
of the Social Services Law, the most prudent course of ac­
tion for a recipient was to obtain as large a quantity of 
surplus foods as possible at one time in order to conserve 
his meager carfare resources. Such a quantity, however, 
made the use of public mass transportation facilities quite 
difficult. The problem is currently compounded by the ab­
sence in the maximum grants under §131-a of any funds for 
carfare—even for public transportation.

The problem of health services for the poor is well 
known.

* * * the poor are less able to afford health services and 
certainly receive less health care than do non-poor in



37

spite of a variety of programs (albeit piecemeal) for 
the financing and delivery of health services to the 
poor. Maldistribution of health care personnel and 
facilities and their inefficient organization in relation to 
health needs is in large part responsible for the prob­
lem. * * * Secondly, people from low-socio-economic 
environments have a significantly higher incidence of 
health problems than the general population. Sub­
groups of poor people tend to share similar attitudes 
and characteristics concerning health which set them 
apart from the rest of the population—consumer hab­
its, geographic location, abilities to cope with the 
health institutions and procedures, and so on.56

This description of a nationwide problem is particularly 
true in the City of New York, despite the fact that “ New 
York City has historically devoted a larger percentage of 
its income to health services than has any other big city in 
our country.” 57 There has been, in the City of New York, 
little implementation of federal programs such as Com­
prehensive Health Care Planning, P.L. 89-749, and Regional 
Medical Programs—Heart, Cancer and Stroke, P.L. 89-239. 
The absence of funds for capital construction has had a 
retarding effect on the implementation of Federal maternity 
and child-care programs.

The reductions in AFDC grants, pursuant to §131-a, 
coupled with the inadequacies of supplementary programs 
have had a devastating impact on AFDC families. The 
files of amici and their affiliated agencies are replete with 
examples.

56. U nited  States D epartm en t  of H e a l t h , E ducation  an d  
W elfare , D elivery of H ealth  S ervices for th e  P oor at 1 
(19 67 ).

57. Address by William Glazier, New York State Welfare Con­
ference, November 1968.



38

— Parents unable to visit children in institutions 
out of New York City ; parents unable to take them­
selves or their children to clinics or hospitals for 
needed treatment; mothers unable to visit the employ­
ment office every two weeks as required in many cases 
or to get to schools in which they are enrolled; there 
is no transportation allowance in the fixed grant under 
§131-a.

— Children unable to attend school because they 
don’t have adequate clothing; the student nurse need­
ing shoes and uniforms. Not only has the special grant 
for clothing, which had heretofore supplemented the 
recurring family need for children’s clothing, been 
abolished, but the amount included for clothing in the 
present §131-a computation is grossly inadequate.

— Families having a decent low-rent apartment 
but no furniture, or having to use their old vermin- 
infested furniture: there is no furniture or fumigation 
allowance in the fixed grant under §131-a.58

— Mothers with jobs, but no funds for babysitters 
or for their own lunch; seriously ill persons with no 
funds for special diets or telephones to get prompt 
medical attention: there are no allowances for such 
items in the fixed grant under §131-a.

Many families known to amici and their affiliates try to 
find the funds within the fixed grant. The only conceivably 
flexible item is food—but how flexible is 66 cents per day per 
person! “ Even a Food Expert Can Stretch a Welfare 
Budget Only So Far”  was the headline of an article in the 
New York Times59 by Craig Claiborne. The flexibility is

58. This often results in families having to remain in hotel or 
other furnished accommodations at additional public expense, and 
provides them with no equity in any property.

59. July 31, 1969, p. 30.



39

further limited by the poor being unable to buy in volume, 
resulting in their having to pay high prices for food.60 And 
if the food money is used for some of the other necessary 
items, malnutrition becomes a real possibility.

Conclusion

The State of New York, in enacting §131-a of the 
Social Services Law, did not comply with the require­
ments of 42 U.S.C. 602(a) (23) that States adjust the 
amounts used to determine the needs of individuals 
“ to reflect fully changes in living costs since such 
amounts were established.” The decision of the court 
below should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted,

K A R L  D. ZU K ERM AN  
Community Service Society of New York

D O R O TH Y  COYLE
The Catholic Charities of the
Archdiocese of N ew  York

M ILDRED SH AN LEY 
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Brooklyn

P H IL IP  SOKOL
Federation of Jewish Philanthropies 

of New York

LOUIS AGIN
Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies 

Attorneys for  Amici

SH IR LE Y  M ITGANG 
Of Counsel

Dated: October 27,1969

60. New York Times, June 12, 1966, §1, p. 56.



printed at CSS