Appendix — Philbrook v. Glodgett

Supreme Court brief1975

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DATE

FILINGS—PROCEEDINGS

1974

Mar. 1

Mar. 15

Apr. 9

Apr. 19

Filed Plaintiffs’ memorandum of law in opposition

to Defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the

judgment.

In open Court, hearing on Defendants’ motion to

stay. Richard Kohn, Esq. for Plaintiffs; David L.

Kalib, Esq. for State; William Gray, Esq. for Gov-

ernment.

Statements made to Court by Mr. Kalib, followed

by Mr. Gray who joins in motion to stay.

Statements made by Mr. Kohn.

Ordered: Motion denied as to individual plaintiffs;

motion granted as to class plaintiffs.—Parties to

submit written Order for Court’s approval by

March 6, 1974.

Filed Stay of Judgment. Copy mailed to attorneys.

Filed Deft. Philbrook’s Notice of Appeal to Supreme

Court of the U.S. Mailed copy to Richard S. Kohn,

Richard A. Axelrod, Esq. & Nancy F. Kaufman,

Esq.; Kathleen M. Mitchell, Esq.; David L. Kalib,

Esq.; U.S. Attorney; Court Reporter; Judge

Oakes, Holden & Coffrin; and Clerk, Supreme

Court, Washington, D.C.

Filed Government’s (for Caspar W. Weinberger

etc.) Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court of the

U.S. Mailed copy to Richard S. Kohn, Esq.; Rich-

ard A. Axelrod, Esq.; & Nancy E. Kaufman, Esq.;

Kathleen M. Mitchell, Esq.; David L. Kalib, Esq.;

U.S. Atty.; Court Reporter; Judge Oakes, Holden

& Coffrin; and Clerk, Supreme Court, Washing-

ton, D.C.

June 17 Mailed Record on Appeal to Clerk, Supreme Court

of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Notified attys.

gare RANE Bitar mneneney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

Civil Action No. 6550

[Filed March 6, 1972]

JEAN GLODGETT and DEANNA GLODGETT, individually

and on behalf of their minor child, TINA GLODGETT

ROGER PERCY, SR. and ROSAMOND PERCY, individually

and on behalf of their minor children, SHARON, SHEILA,

ROGER, MARY, MATTHEW and CHARON PERCY, and all

others similarly situated

vs.

JOSEPH BETIT, individually and as Commissioner of the

Vermont Department of Social Welfare; ELLIOTT

RICHARDSON, individually and as Secretary of the De-

partment of Health, Education and Welfare, DE-

FENDANTS

I. COMPLAINT

This is a suit for a declaratory judgment that 42 U.S.C.

§ 607 and Vermont Welfare Regulation 2331.31(3) vio-

late the due process and equal protection clauses of the

fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States

Constitution insofar as they render children of unem-

ployed fathers ineligible to receive ANFC benefits during

any week that the father is receiving unemployment com-

pensation under state unemployment compensation law.

The action against the Commissioner of Social Welfare

is based on 42 U.SC. § 1983. Plaintiffs also seek damages

and injunctive reNef against the Commissioner of the

Vermont Department of Social Welfare and relief in the

nature of mandamus as against the Secretary of the

Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

II. JURISDICTION

A. Jurisdiction against the Commissioner of the Ver-

mont Department of Social Welfare is invoked pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 13843(3)-(4) because it is brought to re-

dress the deprivation under color of state law of a right

secured by the fourteenth amendment, and by 28 U.S.C.

§ 1831 because it arises under the Constitution and the

amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

B. Jurisdiction against the defendant Secretary of the

Department of Health, Education and Welfare is im-

parted by 28 U.S.C. § 1861 and 28 U.S.C. § 1881 be-

cause plaintiffs request relief in the nature of mandamus

and the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs ho, Glodgett and Deanne Glodgett are

citizens of the United States and the State of Vermont

and residents of Orleans, Vermont. Plaintiff Tina Glod-

gett sues by her parents and next friends.

B. Plaintiffs Roger and Rosamond Percy are citizens

of the United States and the State of Vermont and resi-

dents of Orleans, Vermont. Plaintiffs Sheila, Sharon,

Roger, Mary, Matthew and Charon Percy are minor

children and sue by their parents and next friends.

C. Defendant Richardson is the Secretary of the United

States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 602(b), he is authorized to

approve state plans for the implementation of ANFC.

D. Defendant Betit is Commissioner of the Vermont

Department of Social Welfare. Pursuant to 33 V.S.A.

§ 2505, he is the chief administrator and executive officer.

Through his agents, the plaintiffs and the class they

represent have been denied ANFC benefits.

E. On December 16, 1971, Mr. Glodgett applied for

ANFC and was accepted. On December 20, 1971, the

family received its first check in the amount of $93.00.

Thereafter, they began receiving the full monthly benefit

of $239.00. On January 10, 1972, Mr. Glodgett began

receiving unemployment compensation from New Hamp-

shire in the amount of $14.00 per week. He has been"

notified by letter dated January 12, 1972, by the Vermont

Department of Social Welfare that his ANFC benefits

will be terminated beginning February 16, 1972 because

he is receiving unemployment compensation.

F. Plaintiff Roger Percy was employed as a trucker

by Orlando Construction Company until December 4,

1971, when he was laid off. He applied for ANFC-UF

on December 6, 1971. On December 10, 1971, he began

drawing unemployment compensation in the amount of

$43.00 per week. His ANFC application was denied on

December 20, 1971 for the sole reason that he was re-

ceiving unemployment compensation. If he was eligible

for ANFC he would draw $410 per month for his family.

His monthly unemployment is approximately $172.00.

To help him meet expenses, he has had to rely on Gen-

eral Assistance.

IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. $§ 606 and 607)

’ provides for assistance to needy families with dependent

children if the children have been deprived of parental

support or care due to death, abandonment, physical or

mental incapacity or unemployment of a parent.

2. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the Social Security

Act provides that assistance under the aid to families

with dependent children program for unemployed parents

cannot be granted if the father is eligible for or receiv-

ing unemployment compensation. Aid must be denied for

any week in which the father receives unemployment

compensation regardless of the amount and of the unmet

need of the family. Section 2331.31(3) of the Vermont

Welfare Manual implements this requirement for Ver-

mont.

‘ The needs of the plaintiffs for a minimum subsistence

compatible with health and decency are computed by the

Department of Social Welfare and appear in the Vermont

Welfare Manual at Section 2211.2. The amount received

by the plaintiffs under the unemployment compensation

program is considerably less than the amounts the De-

partment has adopted as the minimum necessary for a

decent and healthful subsistence.

42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) and Vermont Welfare

Regulation 2331.31(3) violate the due process and equal

protection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments

for the following reasons:

A. Section 607 creates two classes of children whose

fathers are unemployed, those who are eligible for state

unemployment compensation and those wha are not.

Needy children are excluded solely because their fathers

receive or are eligible to receive unemployment com-

pensation benefits even though such benefits may be far

below what would otherwise be received under public

assistance. Plaintiffs would be eligible for assistance

if they were receiving amounts equal to their unemploy-

ment benefits in any other form of income or benefits.

Having eligibility turn on the source of the income

rather than the amount constitutes an invidious dis-

crimination against the former group of children.

B. 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) is unconstitutional

because it only disqualifies those children whose fathers

are eligible for unemployment. If both parents are in

the home and the mother is receiving unemployment,

the family is eligible for ANFC-UF. This is an arbitrary

distinction conditioned solely on which parent is receiv-

ing unemployment.

C. 42 U.S.C. § 606 peoviiiee ANFC eligibility for

children who are deprived of parental support or care

due to continued absence of one parent from the home.

Eligibility under section 606 does not depend upon whether

the parent in the home is receiving unemployment or

not. Thus, the same children who are ineligible under

section 607 because the father is receiving unemploy-

ment would be eligible for ANFC under section 606 if

either parent deserted the family. The statutory scheme

which penalizes children because their parents are not

separated is arbitrary and invalid under the fifth and

fourteenth amendments.

Subparagraphs A, B and C above are equally applicable

_ to Vermont Welfare Regulation 2331.31(3).

V. CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs represent the class of those families residing

in the State of Vermont who are eligible for the ANFC-

UF program but for their fathers’ receipt of or eligibility

- for unemployment compensation and as a result of this

exclusion from ANFC are receiving assistance insufficient

to meet their needs. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of them-

selves and all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule

28, F.R.C.P.:

(a) The members of this class are so numerous that

joinder of them all is impracticable.

(b) There are questions of law and fact common to

all members of the class, and the common ‘questions of

law and fact predominate over any questions effecting

only individual members of the class.

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

(d) Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds

generally applicable to the class.

(e) An adjudication of the rights of the named rep-

resentatives of the class would, as a practical matter, be

dispositive of the interests of all other members.

VI. THREE JUDGE COURT

The Plaintiffs request that this action be heard by a

three judge district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281

and 2282 because plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction

against the enforcement of an act of Congress and the

regulations of statewide applicability on the ground that

they are repugnant to the Constitution.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully pray that:

1. This court assume jurisdiction of this cause and

convene a three judge court pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C.

§§ 2281, 2282 and 2284;

2. This court issue an order declaring that this is

an appropriate class action and granting plaintiffs leave

to proceed with this action as a class action;

8. The court declare 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) in

violation of the due process clause of the fifth amend-

ment and enjoin its enforcement as to plaintiffs and the

class they represent;

4. The court declare Vermont Welfare Regulation

2331.31(3) in violation of the equal protection clause of

the fourteenth amendment and enjoin its enforcement as

to the plaintiffs and the class they represent;

5. That the Vermont Commissioner of Social Welfare

be enjoined to pay retroactive benefits to the plaintiffs

and the class they represent in the same amount that

they would have been paid under 42 U.S.C. § 606 or as

if the mother, instead of the father, had been receiving

unemployment compensation;

6. That a writ in the nature of mandamus issue

against the secretary of the Department of Health, Edu-

cation and Welfare ordering him to approved the Ver-

mont ANFC-UF plan without requiring it to contain a

provision based on 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (ce) (ii) ;

7. Grant such further relief as the court may deed

just and appropriate.

JEAN GLODGETT, DEANNA GLODGETT &

TINA GLODGETT

ROGER PERCY, SR., ROSAMOND PERCY,

SHARON, SHEILA, ROGER, MARY,

MATTHEW & CHARON PERCY

By /s/ Richard S. Kohn

Richard S. Kohn

Douglas L. Molde

Richard A. Axelrod

Vermont Legal Aid, Ine.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed April 17, 1972]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT BETIT

The defendant Betit answers the complaint of the

plaintiffs as follows:

1) Defendant Betit denies all of the allegations under

the subjects of JURISDICTION and THREE-JUDGE

COURT.

2) With regard to parts A and B under the subject

of PARTIES, defendant Betit admits that the named

plaintiffs are citizens of the United States and of the

State of Vermont, but is without knowledge and in-

formation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this

allegation with regard to any alleged parties other than

the named plaintiffs, and, therefore, denies the allegation

to the extent that it may seek to encompass unnamed

parties.

8) With regard to parts C and D under the subject

; PARTIES, the defendant Betit admits the allegations

thereunder, but specifically alleges that any denial of

ANFC benefits by him was consistent with State and

Federal law as set forth in § 2331.31(3) of the Verinont

Welfare Assistance Manual and 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2)

(ii), respectively.

4) With regard to parts E and F under the subject

of PARTIES, defendant Betit admits that the named

plaintiffs have been receiving unemployment compensa-

tions from the State of New Hampshire in the case of

plaintiffs Glodgett and from the State of Vermont in

the case of plaintiffs Percy during a period of time

herein, but does not admit that they have received un-

employment compensation for any specific period of time

that the complaint might consider. The defendant Betit

alleges that he is without knowledge and information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of this allega-

tion with regard to any alleged parties other than the

named plaintiffs, and, therefore, denies the allegation

to this extent.

Defendant Betit further admits that plaintiffs Glodgett

were notified by letter that their ANFC benefits were to

be terminated on February 16, 1972 due to the fact that

said plaintiffs were receiving unemployment compensa-

tion, and that plaintiffs Percy were denied their ap-

plication for ANFC benefits on or about December 20,

1971, for the reason that said plaintiffs were then re-

ceiving unemployment~compensation. Defendant Betit al-

leges, however, that said denials by him were consistent

with State and Federal laws as set forth in § 2331.31

(3) of the Vermont Welfare Assistance Manual and 42

U.S.C. § 607 (b) (2) (ii), respectively.

5) Under the subject STATEMENT OF CLAIM, the

defendant Betit answers as follows:

a) Admits the allegations of Part I.

b) As to Part 2, defendant Betit admits that § 607

(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the Social Security Act provides that

ANFC payments may not be made to an otherwise eligible

family if the father is eligible for or receiving unemploy-

ment compensation, and that § 2331.31(3) of the Ver-

mont Welfare Assistance Manual implements the said

Federal section. Defendant Betit further admits that

§ 2211.2 of the Vermont Welfare Assistance Manual

sets forth the basic living requirements for persons eligi-

ble for assistance in the ANFC Program, but denies that

this would apply to the named plaintiffs, since they do

not meet the eligibility requirements for this program.

The defendant Betit alleges that he is without sufficient

knowledge and information to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegation that plaintiffs (named or un-

named) receive “considerably less” from unemployment

compensation than the amounts reflected in the aforesaid

standards.

¢) The defendant Betit denies all the remaining al-

legations under STATEMENT OF CLAIM.

6) Defendant Betit denies all of the allegations under

the subject of “Class action.”

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim for

which relief can be granted.

Ill

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The Court lacks jurisdiction over the defendants and

the subject matter. -

iv, —

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

That the plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law

and that they have failed to exhaust their administrative

remedies and their right of judicial review in State

Courts.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The regulations of the Vermont Department of Social

Welfare and the purported acts of which plaintiffs com-

plain are based upon Section 407(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the

Social Security Act and the requirements imposed by the

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare and

there is no liability or responsibility on the defendant

Betit, individually or as the Commissioner of the Ver-

mont Department of Social Welfare.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

That in view of the Fourth: Affirmative Défense, that

the defendant Betit should be dropped as a party de-

fendant.

WHEREFORE the defendarit Betit, prays that the

plaintiff take nothing by this complaint and this action

be dismissed with prejudice.

Dated this 17th day of April, 1972. _

Respectfully submitted, —

JAMES N. JEFFORDS

Attorney General

State of Vermont

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

By: /s/ David E. Wilson

Davip E. WILSON, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General

c/o Department of Social Welfare

8 East State Street

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

WLAN 8 Mi ABLE eed in ei .

> - 17,

_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ©

DISTRICT OF VERMONT —

[Filed June 15, 1972]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT

ELLIOT RICHARDSON

Now comes the United States of America (Elliot

Richardson, individually and as Secretary of the De- |

partment of Health, Education and Welfare), by its

attorney, George W. F. Cook, United States Attorney —

for the District of Vermont, and submits the following

for its answer to this complaint:

I. This paragraph sets forth conclusions of law and

not allegations of fact, but insofar as an answer may

be required, defendant respectfully denies each and every

allegation of fact and conclusion of law that may be.

contained therein.

II. This paragraph sets forth conclusions of law and

not allegations of fact, but insofar as an answer may

‘be required defendant respectfully denies each and every

allegation of fact and conclusion of law that may be

contained therein. :

III.

A. and B. Defendant Richardson ‘does not presently

possess sufficient information and knowledge to deter-

mine the truth of the allegations contained in these

paragraphs.

C. The allegations of this paragraph are’ admitted.

D. Defendant Richardson does not presently possess

sufficient information and knowledge to determine the

truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph,

‘EXCEPT that he admits the allegations contained in

the first two sentences of this paragraph.

E. and F. Defendant Richardson does not presently

possess sufficient information, to determine the truth of

the allegations contained in these paragraphs.

| 18

IV, V and VI. These paragraphs contain conclusions

of law and not allegations of fact, but insofar as an

answer may be required defendant respectfully. denies

each and every allegation of fact or conclusion of law

contained therein.

VII. All allegations not expressly hereinbefore ad-

mitted, denied or modified are denied.

| VII. Defendant respectfully submits the following by

way of affirmative defense: vot

1, This Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over

the subject matter of this action.

2. The complaint fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.

8. This suit, should be dismissed for lack of proper

” venue.

Dated at Rutland, District of Vermont, this 15th day

of June,'1972._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

' George W. F. Cook

' United States Attorney

' By /s/ Norman Cohen

NORMAN COHEN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed August 16, 1972]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTIONS OF SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE

I. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS |

Defendant Elliot Richardson, Secretary of the Depart-

ment of Health, Education and Welfare, by and through

his attorney, George W. F'. Cook, United States Attorney

for the District of Vermont, pursuant to Rule 12(c),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully moves this

Honorable Court to grant to said defendant a judgment

on the pleadings, as Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully requests this

Honorable Court grant this Motion for Judgment on the

Pleadings. ;

Dated at Rutland, District of Vermont, this 11th day

of August, 1972.

GEORGE W. F. Cook

United States Attorney

By /s/ Norman Cohen

NORMAN COHEN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

II. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Health,

Education and Welfare, by and through his attorney,

George W. F. Cook, United States Attorney for the

District of Vermont, pursuant to Rule 56(b), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully moves this Honor-

able Court to grant to this defendant a Summary Judg-

ment, as there is no dispute as to any material fact and

defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays this Hon-

orable Court grant this Motion for a Summary Judgment.

Dated at Rutland, District of Vermont, this 11th day

of August, 1972. .

GEORGE W. F. Cook

United States Attorney

By /s/ Norman Cohen

NORMAN COHEN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

III. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

LACK OF JUDGMENT

Defendant Elliot Richardson, Secretary of Health,

Education and Welfare, by and through his attorney,

George W. F. Cook, United States Attorney for the Dis-

trict of Vermont, pursuant to Rule 12(b) (2), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully moves this Honor-

able Court to dismiss this Complaint and for cause states:

1. This Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction as the

Complaint fails to show that jurisdiction exists

under 28 U.S.C. 1831, 28 U.S.C. 1861, or ‘28

U.S.C. 2201.

WHEREFORE, defendant respectfully prays this Hon-

orable Court grant this Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Judgment.

Dated at Rutland, District of Vermont, this 11th day of

August, 1972.

GEORGE W. F. Cook

United States Attorney

By /s/ Norman Cohen

NORMAN COHEN

Assistant U.S. Attorney

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed August 16, 1972]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

APPENDIX A TO MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN

SUPPORT OF MOTIONS OF DEFENDANT

RICHARDSON

The average weekly and monthly unemployment com-

pensation figures used herein are derived from statistics

found in the Monthly Labor Review, December 1971,

Vol. 94, No. 12, published by the United States Depart-

ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, at page 100:

ee me em or ee we

1824 Sry po SurvurToq Oy ye 204 20m peorpes © Aq poy s syyOUDg 10) VonSHIdde VY 4,

“swe sBord 01815 ym Avro! epew sjvewhed pus Swie;> ve EIEP S9pM 273 o

“Spuels) viB0,A Oy) SOPN>u; ,

“swe 801d see Ym hjuiol epew SyuewAed pus Sune]? WO EIEp SOpN}273 »

“persed yvow-2] @ ui uawhoydwa posers

OBE Ae Oy) JO 92100 © Se pessesdre PoOho}dwoun posNs.s' jo LEQuINs OY $1 8)E) OY) ,

“BIO 4IOM SUTIICTNS WEDIY BIIDNG Jy

wWes801d Oy) JOPUN EYE OPAIU! JuswWAO}GWOUA POINSY! djCIS PUR Sue? eNNIY) »

“Weushojdweun jo yOOM | SEO] Je JO UONE;GwWOD Oy) BuNs0das Sse yI0m JO LOQUMY »

“OPRPCAS Ow BpEp Syer~pEr SeysED °21ON

“Pitog Jowssney peosjey SN Ou

1 paseCord 8! yam SouEINsU! juOWAGOwWOUN PeOse) Jd9IT9 Suse}! 1/© bY) swejsig

VOrjew 160) JUOWOZEUELY PUS [eIQUEYLY J CDC ‘20qG0) fv JuOWIEGEG '$'N :JIUNOS

“hrcernyesd me

S¥e] OIEIS 18jNBas Jo SuOMsIAOIA (G3) BOEING Pepuelx; LOPUR Pery SwE;> SOpNpE)

Dy PVENSU) 1OWAOIOU:dUN PEOIIEY Ou) PUL SUEsIOID 249 Pue VowerAIES-23

"Bi0XS 84) OPUN puewAC;GweUn pesNsUI jo JUNE? payer;dnpUA ve Syuesesdey 4,

‘SudWAECIOPUN JO JueWd/])95 PuE SywoUACdIDA0 40 A19A020) 10) POIEAlpY 9;

BwawAedse pun jo wows) 08 10 sjwowhedsene yo A190020)

20) Parsnipe jou ‘spors9d eyqetuedwod jje 20) ORer2A8 VE $1 JunOwE OBesene O41 os

“Bpos|d wonessites Aep-p| wi juewAojdusun 10; O18 SwewAEY 7

‘seek Owes Og) ui speted

WENDSQNS 105 posIAdes £1 wOrED1éde Ow ‘280K YOURE & U1 WrowAe;dwoun Jo poLlEd

“swesBo1d 8101S JapUA SuNE;> VOYSUTN Sopnisx} Wuawhojdwoun

J Speed Buqueys ose Aq) eye21pu 0) s18420m Aq payy S22qWCU O28 Sue] ;eHIUL ¢

“Spue|s) UID, 24) pws WERD SEPAou) ¢

Way OPIAY 10) EIEP sapnjru} ,

va a as fara sb |

CO a ee (swnyoa

Apyoom eBeseae) wowhojdweun pense;

yt AAT? suoijenddy

“Us "92S [LoL GIS |9ee ‘LIS jove'sis [oon '

Se ee pelrepeen,

*92SS/S9n‘19vSi090 ‘Z9ES/Z1z ‘HOES al Bee ees pred syyousg ye701

vel

$< ee zS$ lev 25S |pz 25S |SP ISS |p9 OSS [~~~

“on ye my yo—owe youeg {tyson obeseay

‘6 jc99'6 |tec's | 1zs"9 ‘9 : vere

“SPUE!S| UDA Dy) 104 SWEID BYEISIOWW SOPAFIU] » —

[speetnow & 020 sywows syyoueg Serene pieome Swen iy]

1 SuopQessdo exes yuswojdwe pus soueunsy; quewhojdweun “OT

1261 Y3@W3I930 ‘M3IAIN YOEVI ATHLNON

od AdOO Hood

ZONVUNSN! ININAOTANANN oot ;

ee .

APPENDIX B TO MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN

SUPPORT OF MOTIONS OF DEFENDANT

RICHARDSON

The average monthly AFDC payment rate per family

is derived from Table 2, Public Assistance Statistics,

September 1971, DHEW Publication No. (SRS) 72-03100,

NCSS Report A-2 (9/71), which is published by the

National Center for Social Statistics, Social Rehabilita-

tion Services, United States Department of Health, Edu-

cation and Welfare.

Tevle 2.--Amount of public essis.ance paymeris in the United ciates, by auth, Septemver 1770-Septemver 7.

Morey payoente to recipacrts 7/ liad Medical eesiasterce 2/

‘ Pay -one

oa PFedernily aided programs | Baergency ieeesiaae

‘ . 1 escistance care

vate Trak Aié to the Aid to General Federally Genera} J . fectiitie

seme Teral permncently | fenilies assistance Toval aides ascirtonce nae

. Tetal Olé-age Aid te : 7 -

. cnt totelly with pro;ren t/

‘ , assistance the blind direbled deperdent

: culldren

- ° Aarrsnt of assistance (Ja thoucents)

imo

Septenver Z/.| $1,296,311 167,07 9H.398 $196,638 - $4,279 $27,456 $463, 95 251,899 $b65 425 sath 08 Aun $1,029 $41,ch9

Cetever 8/... ’ 755,408 699,246 157,193 8,321 87 > bbl, ,202 6, i82 e972 479,61 8,741 1,2 42, 7%

_ Bovenber...0. 1 oTeT 762 ,105 74,0 355, 8,272 »702 6=3,%53 57,087 439,67 «Se 022 1,129 42,24

coenber 7/.. 1,383,138 608, 1 1,2 6, bb 01, 325 ’ 61,071 $29.05 $71,435 $,310 , «bh &3,3%

isnt

Sameary soos 1,95," 607 955 Te? O75 160, fi 6,409 91,5398 692% 62,9% $0°,5™ $07,191 7,%9 1,3 &7,233

Fowrmry. 1,378,608 | . 618,57 791,23 VC,223 2,2 2,452 Wor oad 6,16 $02 "41 692,542 9.04 1,197 “2,177

Marek T/--oe- eG? , 102 1,525 775 ,683 140, te) 86.5 Me 87% S11, S42 6 Pos VEO $¢-), 461 a,409 1,33 “72%

ABTA. -cccrce 1, Ae By, 03 TT0,670 Yo, 6,466 6 Fe > 0 64% 733 AS .335 550.609 6.6% 1,137 oo = 9

MG. .ccecee 1, 77,293 833,040 TTO,450 M1, & 6, ee? H thr $02,476 ay 5? 20 $°?, Le 1,740 cA,T Le

June Yocccee 1, b6e,059 631,700 171,088 155,362 8.93 od $7,731 shl2 $75,795 $57,216 8,71¢ 1,230 $3,215

Julg.ccccccee 1,695,673 637,23 TTS ,€27 155,053 6,47 03,450 912,°57 62 ,<@ =H ,.°R 584 169 10,%s 1,%7 $<+,771

See 1,”76,731 09,017 785.559 194 SAT 6,e12 101 ,€22 $29,°79 63,459 69,72 1,249 So 2.94 $4.25

. 1, ets, 6 059,318 7% 2% 152,879 8,263 101,510 533,°"-4 63,773 589,297 bd 6,515- 1,fe1 SA coe

Poree:.tag: change from proce ting north

1970 .

Septouver.... °3.7 °2.7 *3.0 *1.0 °.1 me ob .2 -.9 +49 on? he 3.3 °9.4

Oetever...... *e. +1.6 o1.2 oh #1.0 (a/ *1.8 of.9 oe *5.0 -7.0 *T1.% *1.9

Reveuber..... °. *1.0 °.9 “1.9 -.6 *.2 1.8 *1.6 om rd 1.7 4.7 °.4

Deceuber..... 6.2 4.2 4.1 3.8 *2.1 oh. +s.8 °7.0 +4.2 4.2 4.7 o%.5§ 1.8

1971

Jermaty .cccce -8 *.7 of -.5 ook of. *.7 4.6 -3.9 -3.7 “13.6 77.1 os.

Pewrwary..e.- 6 o1.3 1.2 -.4 “2.1 *.7 o1.7 °3.5 rat | “1.7 °27.5 6,4 o37F

Mare. ccccces 4.5 °2.6 °2.2 rn) +1? *7.3 2.7 -.4 ol. °127.8 1.7 °3$.9 o.f%

AOTLL.wccccee °.2 *.1 <3 ay) o.6 °k. *.2 2.6 22 (s/' -3.$ 237.% 64

Mays cccecces 1.3 -.2 (9/ 4 2.2 hel 2° es 2.6 +43 06 13.9 344 +9,

JOMBeccccccce -1.5 -1.1 -9 -3.7 1.1 °.$ °.3 -3.2 7.6 “2.4 11.9 13.5 oe.

Suly...ccccee +2.8 °1.7 *1.6 °.? 2, #1.0 *2.2 +2.8 3.5 *%.1 o28.6 63.2 onset

17 BMA. cccees “1.0 *1.3 1.3 -.2 °.5 42.2 o3.8 +1,0 obok ee | °27.4 ove. 7.8

i, rpteuber.... 21.2 ook *.§5 2.0 oe | 1.3 -.6 °3.6 -3.6 ob “3.6 | 363

Percentage chyecgc from same wouth of preceding year

397 .

September.... °%.8 *1$.0 o1s.h -2.7 °0.7 +164.0 220.5 °22.3 °18.9 -38.8 29.2 2.9 °33.6

Incledec nonmetiesl vender prye-ntes other than these for instituticas] services in intermeAiate core facilities.

haowts represent priserily bills paid te mien] verdorséuring the morth and therefore are sub.cct to fluctustions unrelated te provision of mctical services.

Detea include both money payments to fanilics and medic:l vender payernts. ‘uch emergency assistance to nee ty, families with children authorized under title IV-A. Dees ast include Sew Yoru City.

Duta represent payments to verdors of institutional services in interacciate care fecilit.es. Federal financial perticipetaus. in such payarnts is ifaited to these is. benetf of ir.tivicusis ene

qualify for OAA, AB, or AITS urter progrwms operatec under ciate pirnt approved umer t:ties I, X, XIV, or Xvi.

/ Partly estiaated. Deec not include Idaho, Intiaca, “entucay, Nebrasna, Nevada, New Mexico, Puerto Rico, end Verment; no propram or Ate mot evailehie.

Total amounts and 0:4 to frmilies with dependent children noney peyments include grante fcr speci. nesds in Macsnchusetts os fqllows: September 1°79, fer Octeter-Deeseter 1°79 euarter, 14,58 ,000;

December 1970, for Jeauary-March 1971 quarter, $6,422,000; March 1971, for April-June 2971 querter, $7,%18,000; Juse 197:, for July-September 1971 quarter, $7,500,000; ens Septenver 107i, fer

Oetover-Decesber 1971 quarter, $6,965,500. Perwentage changes based on Cote excluding these amounts.

Q/ Terai amounts ond aid to fenilies with dependent eAilérer money paypents inelute $8%4,300 represesting grente for clothing edjustaent in Rhode Island for ficeal yeor i971. Percentage chonges based

2 - @@ deta encluding this sacuct. . .

Beereanse of less than 0.05 percent.

Iacrease of less thea 0.05 pervert. od

¥ All data cubject te revision. ‘

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed August 30, 1972]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

INTERROGATORIES

To: Bert Smith, ANFC Director, Vermont Department

of Social Welfare.

1. State your name and professional qualifications.

2. How long have you been connected with the De-

partment of Social Welfare?

8. What is your present position with the Depart-

ment of Social Welfare?

3. How long have you held that position?

5. Describe your present duties.

6. Are you familiar with the provisions of 42 U.S.C.

§ 607 (b) (2) (c) (ii) and F.S.P.M. 2331.81 (8) ?

7. Do these provisions operate to exclude families from

ANFC where the father is receiving unemployment com-

pensation?

8. If a family is denied ANFC-UF due to 2331,31(3)

is the family eligible for general assistance?

9. If the answer to #8 is affirmative, are the total

benefits from Unemployment Compensation and General

Assistance likely to be as high as ANFC benefits? .

10. If the answer to #9 is negative, explain why not.

11. Do you have an opinion as to whether 42 U.S.C.

§ 607 and F.S.P.M. 2331.31(3) discriminates against cer-

tain families on the basis of sex?

12. If the answer to #11 is affirmative, please explain

the basis for your opinion, giving examples.

13. Do you have an opinion as to whether the exclu-

sion provided by section 607 and 2831.31(3) is arbitrary

and irrational.

14. If the answer to #18 is affirmative, please explain

the basis for your opinion.

80 ”

15. Can you speak for the Department of Social Wel-

fare on policy matters relating to the ANFC program?

16. If the answer to #15 is affirmative would the

Department of Social Welfare like to see § 607(b) (2) (c)

_ (ii) deleted so that otherwise eligible families could

Supplement unemployment compensation with AN FC up

to the State needs standard?

17.. Do you have a personal, opinion on the question

asked in #167

18. If the answer to #117 is affirmative, please state

your opinion giving reasons. |

19. Do you have an opinion as to whether 607 (b) (2)

employment Compensation to desert their families so that

the family wiil be eligible for ANFC?

20. If the’ answer to #19 is lar icereatite please state

your opinion.

Af: Richard S, Kohn

RICHARD S. KOHN

Vermont Legal Aid, Ine.

56 Railroad Street

St. Johnsbury, Vermont

Attorney for Plaintiffs

August 28, 1972

oN a ence a cai re as enna eR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed November 15, 1972]

{Title Omitted in Printing]

MEMORANDUM CONCERNING AVERAGE

MONTHLY PAYMENTS UNDER ADFC-UF AND

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

This memorandum deals with certain statistics pre-

sented in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Mo--

tions of Defendant Richardson in a case (Civil No. 6550)

brought before the United States District Court, District

of Vermont. On page 12 of the above mentioned memo-

randum it is stated that:

On a nationwide basis, the level of AFDC pay-

ments is lower than the average unemployment com-

pensation payment. Statistics for the period October

1970—September 1971 show that the average weekly

benefit under unemployment compensation was $54.09

or about $234.39 monthly. (See Appendix A.) Dur-

ing the same period, however, the average AFDC

family received $186.58 per month. (See Appendix

B.)

Upon examining these figures and the statistical sources

from which they were derived several points became

clear. First, since the controversy at hand only involves

the Unemployed Father segment of the AFDC population

in those states participating in the AFDC-UF program,

the most relevant AFDC data were not employed. In

the same Public Assistance Statistics series, cited in Ap-

pendix B of the above mentioned memorandum and the

source of the crude nationwide AFDC average quoted

above, there are statistics by state, on average family

payments under the AFDC-UF program. This latter set

of figures ,provides the relevant basis of comparison

with average State Unemployment, Insurance payments.

32 :

The second observation was that comparing these two :

programs on the basis of nationwide averages was very ;

misleading. Since the levels of payment in both programs :

are determined in, and vary considerably among, the

different states, a nationwide average obviates meaning-

ful comparison. Instead, average AFDC-UF payments

should have been compared with average UI payments

in those States participating in the AFDC-UF program.

The remainder of this memorandum presents more

recent data on AFDC-UF and UI payments for Fiscal

Year 1972 (July 1971-June 1972) which provide a more

relevant comparison of average payments under the

two programs.

Table 1, on the following page, presents figures on

average payment under the two programs in FY’72 for

the 25 States participating in the AFDC-UF program

during that year. Data on UI payments were pro-

vided by the U.S. Department of Labor (see Appendix

A) and data on AFDC-UF payments were compiled from

12 monthly issues of U.S. Department HEW Public

Assistance Statistics (see Appendix B). By comparing

the two columns in Table I we can see that average

AFDC-UF payments were greater thafi average UI pay-

ments in 16 of 25 States in FY’72. Average UI pay-

ments were higher in the remaining 9 States. In ad-

dition, average payment figures for the 25 States to-

gether were: AFDC-UF, $261.19; UI, $237.44—although

it must again be stressed that these averages conceal :

meaningful differences which exist among the 25 States.

(The difference in State average payments can be seen

graphically in Chart 1 which orders the States on the

basis of their average AFDC-UF payments. )

In 16 States the amounts by which average monthly

_AFDC-UF payments exceed average monthly UI pay- |

ments range from $1.35 to $101.04. In the remaining ‘

9 states where average UI payments are higher, the range |

is from $17.20 to $90.28. These differences are pre- '

sented graphically in Chart 2 which also indicates that

81 per cent of families receiving AFDC-UF lived in the

16 States where average AFDC-UF payments were higher

intima a ee

than average UI payments in FY’72. Only 19 per cent

of AFDC-UF families lived in the remaining 9 States

where average UI payments were higher.

TABLE 1

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MONTHLY UNEMPLOY-

MENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS WITH AVERAGE

AFDC-UF MONTHLY FAMILY PAYMENTS, BY

STATES WITH AFDC-UF PROGRAMS IN

‘ FISCAL YEAR 1972

4 (July ’71- June ’72)

Average Average

Monthly Unemployment Monthly AFDC-UF

State ° Compensation Payment* Family Payment?

1. California $251.17 $236.71

2. Colorado 253.54 272.57

3. Delaware 186.48 229.70

4. District of Columbia 189.60 279.88

5. Hawaii 367.14 283.49

6. Illinois 281.45 243.07

7. Kansas ; 251.28 222.31

8. Maine 220.46 211.64

9. Maryland 203.71 260.69

10. Massachusetts 303.21 252.19

11. Michigan 309.56 254.43

12. Minnesota 333.11 232.07

18. Missouri ¢ 175.30 217.40

14. Nebraska _ 208.91 207.56

15. New York 327.65 258.64

16. Ohio 205.07 231.59

17. Oklahoma 199.90 192.98

18. Oregon 222.73 205.11

TABLE 1 ( Continued)

_ Average Average

Monthly Unemployment Monthly AFDC-UF

State ° Compensation Payment * Family Payment »

19. Pennsylvania 265.96 261.18

20. Rhode Island 234.99 252.19

21. Utah 236.57 229.74

22. Vermont 308.00 255.50

23. Washington 242.09 261.31

24. West Virginia 141.20 175.95

25. Wisconsin ° 357.54 270.98

U.S. Average t 261.19 237.44

*Compiled from monthly Public Assistance Statistics, Na-

tional Center for Social Statistics Report Series A-2, U.S.

Dept. of HEW.

* Unpublished data supplied by State Employment Security

Agencies to U.S. Dept. of Labor, Manpower Administration.

*Only those states with AFDC-UF programs have been

included. :

* AFDC-UF data for six months, July-Dec. ’71.

* AFDC-UF data for seven months, Dec. 71 - June ’72,

‘U.S. Average for AFDC-UF is for all States with AFDC-

UF programs. U.S. Average for Unemployment Compensa-

SALT LA ACARI Di Ses Re sa —

"ef 8 * s23esnysessoy °f

Li tii ti ae Tt OMA “Gg

wey NE ee ee ae pee ve6iy21W .

Pare ee 420, HOH *G

Bee PE ee eS eossuuiW “€

ee Re REE eR Ge ee ulsuorsim °Z

Lo ee LA en ‘yemey “tf

ot og? Onz 002s aes

(820@; 409 Uj) auomAeg abesany 40 JUNOMy

TL. BWAF = 12, ANC) 2Z61 BVIA WwISI3 *LNIWAVd JN-20S¥ 40 LNNOWY AG G3VI0VO SILVAS AG ‘SINIWAVE

AVIWVS ATHLNOW JN-I03V JOVUZAV HLIA SANIWAVd JINVUNSNI LN3IWADTAWINN ATHLWOW JOVUZAV. 30 NOSI VEO)

1 L¥VHd

8 ‘4 9190, 3824N0S

cores omy Wsem ‘SZ

ees. 8 wre, © 1anossiW "nz

“a rt tt tt tasemeyag “Ez

* *@yqunyod yO 32449810 “22

fe 0 LA OOD OR OO EES

Sore, : otsfet settee Sake, PS dn ph is

. . . . . . . . . "0140 "61

+ * *eysesqan “gi

oe 8 © © & auliew "Lt

* * *y060s0 “91

SER SS: a | *n

(7) sn-204v

"+ * *puerst epoyw “St

oeere syean “wl

‘ "u076u;ysen *€l

+ 9.7% sequsogr ied “Zt

ee * sesuey “ul

:* + VeyueajAsuueg 6

+ * ga3esnysessey °/

. . . . WUuCM SA “9

ee *uebsy2iW *s

oo eee 4104 MON

* * + * @ejosauuin “€

+ + * upsuorsim °2

aa e pees

J ’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ’ ;

| a 7 | | rr oz: 08 | om 0 aieis

(8301400 4) quomAeg abesary 4O JUNOCMY

(22, anne © 12, AINE) 2261 WV3A TWIS!4 “INaWAVE JN-20d¥ 40 LNNOWY AG GI¥IGVO SILVIS AG *SLNIMAVE

ATIWVd ATHANOM 31-204 29VU3AV HLIM SANBHAVE JONVUNSNI LN3HADTGHINN AIHLNOW 2OVUIAW. 40 NOSINVEWO?

™ { LuvHd

UF es

families receiving AFOC-

These states contained 817, of

of April, 1972.

These states contalned

19/ of familles receive

tng AFOC-UF us of

April, 1972

. .

—

"OU ON AM Fw

CHART 2

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE AFOC-UF AND U.1. PAYMENTS, BY STATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 1972 (JULY ‘7! - JUNE ‘72)

Amount That Average AFDC-UF Payment Exceeds Average

U.1, Payment (In Dollars)

Amount That Average U.!. Payment Exceeds Average

AFDC-UF Payment (in Doi lars)

3982

Bp 9-190

asase 5 a ST CO

Minnesota . . 101.041 -

Wisconsin®.

Vermont .... 2. se eo

Massachusetts .....-.

Qllinois. . 2... 2 ew we te ee

Kensas . 2. 2. 2 2 es we we wee

Oregon . 2... ee ee ee

Maine... 2 2 ee ee

Utah. . 2. 2. 2 ee ee °

Pennsylvania... ..-

Webraska. . 2... 2. e-

Rhode Island. . ....--

Colorado. . . 2. - 2 ew eee

West Virginia . 6 1 ew ee eee ee te es a eee ee

Missouri® o.8 #6 « Pe a er ae

Celaware. .. - «+ + see

Maryland. . 2... 6 ee °

District of Columbia. . . ..

Source: Table !.

Niscondin AFOC-UF figures are averaged for seven months, December !971 to June 1972.

Ouissouri AFDC-UF figures are averaged for six months, July 1971 to December 1971.

Finally one must consider what these averages for the

two programs mean and examine, if possible, the dis-

tribution of recipients both above and below the averages.

It must be first emphasized that since we are dealing

with average figures there are certainly a large num-

ber of families receiving higher AFDC-UF benefits even

in States where average Ul is higher than average AFDC-

UF. Secondly we must remember that the two programs

are designed to benefit two different populations: AFDC-

UF, as other public assistance programs, is exclusively

for the “poverty” population while UI is to provide

temporary benefits to all unemployed who fall under its

coverage, be they rich or poor and regardless of other

sources of nonincome wealth. This fact is important when

considering the meaning of the average UI payments.

Sources in the Labor Department indicate (and informa-

tion on the various State plans back this up) that most

UI eligibility requirements, being largely dependent on

level of salary, are such that most covered workers who

are employed full time in jobs with salaries over the

‘poverty level” would be eligible to receive benefits at

the State-set maximum. They further indicate that a

large part of those workers who receive UI payments

substantially below the maximum are those employed

full-time in jobs with extremely low wages or employed

on a part-time or seasonal basis. From the growing

literature on poverty as well as from personal observa-

tion most would agree that among the poorer part of the

population (with few if any other sources of income or

wealth) employment is more likely to be in extremely low-

paying full-time work or in part-time or seasonal work.

This means that these “marginally-employed” workers,

the very people who might otherwise qualify for AFDC-

UF, are more likely to be those who receive UI benefits

which are substantially below the State averages. (Ap-

pendix C presents’.a listing of the percentages of UI

recipients in each State who are eligible for maximum

payments. )

In contrast to UI payments, which vary largely accord-

ing to the worker’s previous salary, AFDC payments

vary according to the presence of other income but pri-

marily according to family size. Thus, the level of benefits

for the poorest AFDC recipients is determined almost

exclusively by family size. It is generally recognized, and a

substantiated by the figures shown in Table 2 below, that

poor families, particularly nonwhite poor families, tend

to be larger. This, in turn, implies that the same families, j

who would be more likely to receive the UI payments

under the State averages because of the previous mar-

ginal employment status of the father, would otherwise -

be eligible for higher AFDC-UF benefits because of larger

family size.

TABLE 2

MEAN FAMILY SIZE ABOVE AND BELOW THE

POVERTY LEVEL, BY RACE, 1970

Families

. Spanish-

Total White Black American

Above Poverty Line 3.52 3.48 8.88 4.16

Below Poverty Line 3.88 3.57 4.66 4.80

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population:

1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics

(Final Report PC(1)-C1, United States Summary),

Table 95 p. 400. :

This is further substantiated when, as of June 1972,

we note that in every State except two (D.C. and Rhode

_Asland)- participating in the AFDC-UF program, average |

'.AFDC-UF family payments are higher than average

' non-UF, AFDC family payments by substantial amounts.

In Vermont, for example non-UF AFDC payments aver-

aged $225.81 per family while AFDC-UF payments aver-

aged $331.08 per family. (For differences in other States,

see Appendix D.) Thus, in sum, we can see that even

State averaging tends to hide the fact that families

eligible for AFDC-UF payments are more likely to re-

ceive payments at or above average AFDC payments and

Ny Ct ap

also more likely to receive UI payments below the various

State averages,

A final important point to note concerns maximum

payments allowable under the two programs, All States

set legal maximums on IU payments while only a small

number do for AFDC payments. Table 3, on the follow-

ing page, compares these maximums (either legal or

administrative) and we can see that in only one State

(West Virginia), out of 25 with AFDC-UF programs,

is the legal maximum for UI payments higher than it is

for AFDC. In the other 24 States the AFDC maximum

is higher than that for UI payments or there simply is no

legal or administrative maximum placed on AFDC pay-

ments. °

a Richard S. Kohn

. RICHARD S. KOHN ,

Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

56 Railroad Street

St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819

November 13, 1972

Davip WILCOCK Pee

Research Analyst, Legal Action

Support Project:

Bureau of Social Science Research

1990 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.CA20036

ee 10, 19

*203Y wNwixXew Spo02%e If] WNW) xew BI04M 07028 AL UD,

*UvspPL_tY2 Yuspusdsp YyyIA

SJOYIOM PVAO; dwouUNn 10) $11;9U0q 397096 OplAosd Yd!1YM $O32e3S BS04} Uy UdA!IG OYE swhw)xcw Ont,

*UOS1FeduO> 4Oy Swnwyxew Ap YyQuOw 396 03 E*H Aq poridii( ow Swnwixew A} yo9K,

"pre lyons yO o6es0A0e (eyo) 3eU

*SOry ywey vossed 6 403 pareynd;e2 Sunw}xey, - “

; *(€-@ r20d0y $$3H) TIE

JO Sout] [Ulaods oq) JO Slustd! doy OF StUUANY A KoUOW Baryywy] JO Spogryoy 3-jo RTT ET |

DIOS "FISH WEIS 1e1905 or 42 .0a) “Oren “Sus ‘manasn pure (1/61 ‘OS °On 14Odoy d2ueysISssy

2119) TOE ATVAIOT YET IT Ogi ST BUC Lg DUCTSTSSY D1] qhg JIVuS JO SIs! io}IGIUYD ‘BIJAJOS

VOHIOIILIGIUDY PUES (OPPOS “NZ “IDIWDL*S*N FIdIY JOY Swowine.: aArzeszsS:Usumpe pue je6e; UO

e3eqg “UO eAISsUIuPy JonodueW ‘40gGe7) JO “3d3qg *S'H BY Aq POP Avsd Surwixew 93825 IM VO eIeg iaoDuNE¢g

-- oy elt q* ; UlsuorsIA “ST

9 (0S ‘Ont -) 05 22z¢ (1) zeus @yUsGs1A 1804 “Hz

-- oy See wnw 1 xem ON vo Gurysem * €Z

-- oie’ wnw | xeur ON WuOwseA *ZZ

02°19 O€ gue (1) ots yen “1z

- pod “Szhn~0d "6EE wnw sxe ON puels| epoyy ‘OZ

-- p06 G6E-CS “S9E wnwyxew ON @yueajAsuuey * 6}

-- 09°992 wnw | xew ON uo06es0 “gt

00°29 00°9S2 (v) oze$ ewoye;4O Zt

-- pot "Ly €-01 “SHz ww 1 xu ON 2140 “9

-- 0S “zz¢ wnw 1 xe@w ON 440A MON *SI

00'Stt 00°8Sz e(1) 96€$ exSCIG2N “ht

> 9S 06'0LZ e(v) zze$ 1anossiw = Et

-- ty aT & 4 wnw1xew ON @yesouuiH “2

-- p09 S6E-08 "One unui) xew ON vebiyrin “tl

oo pol’ "SS- 06° 9S¢ = wnuy}xew ON Swasnyoessew ‘O}

-- OW SEE wnw!xew ON puctAsew 6

OL szt 06°04 e(1) 66€$ ourew *g

=. 02 °S2z wows xew ON sesuey “f

-- pol 2ih-o€ Giz ww! xu ON srourtit ."9

-- 00 '/g¢ _ wins x@uL ON . premen =6°S

-- . 05 tS wnwixew ON eyquniO) gO y2!4IsSIq =“ y

~ QS $28 0S 612 e(1) $ss$ osemejaqg *¢

: -- 0 69€ wnw)xew ON Opesoyo) °Z

os‘ent$ 05° 2z€$ “e() tdns ; eyusosyye> *t

S€L/t/t-20 72/01) (v) $32efo1d Aovow vo

enw} xew IN speerx9

wnwxeH I0sy IUNowy

SyusidAeg D2ueINSL|

WRwWAOLCUIUH JO4

Sunuixey (e607 932035

Swnwsx@w 9A1 3023S ;UIWPY

so (1) Sumurxew yuowhey

ees

At yweyg (e697 Jgsy 92025

wZ-1261 ‘suvwd0ud JONVUNSNE AN3WAOTdWINN ONY

30J¥ IHL YIONN SLNIWAVE- NO SHOW IXWH JALAWULS IN IWQV wo/anNyY 1v937 3ivLsS 40 nos 1wvawo2

€ Hevi :

. 2 “Be -

*uo1 3843S 1UIwpY Jomoduew ‘Joge}] jO *3daqg *S*N *e24NOS

€S°€€ O21y OJ49Nd Ht 1S Buworm

in" L€ iddississiw o£°1S sesuey

€L°6€ eu!1;0se) Y4240N 18°15 oyep |

26° On e1ui6s1A 359M 98°25 exsely

SS ° ot 2307eq9 YINOS ZH" €S oseme| oq

Z1° 4 eu1joiey YyINOS €n°€S ye3n

nl eh epl4ol4 98° £S ©0140

zl°€h eue}UuOW L6°€S eOsouU IW

SL°€h sesuexsy g0°SS @1Us105 112)

Ol th eossouusl

Lh* th e161099 72°SS WLOL “S‘N

88° 4h ewoye {40

$6° th sexo] €5°9S srourttt

62°Sh eweqe|y $8°9S emo |

. 01°95 epeaon

96°St VNV ION I $9°8S pue;s} spoyy

‘ $9°85 SiJesSNYy>IeSSeW

0°9h O21X9W MON 41°6S ue6b1y2!W

£o°lh e1ui6sin 74°65 quOws 3A

6L°Lh u06910 $1°09 44OA MON

Lz°ah e4SCI GON 69°09 pue Asey |

72 °6h oulew 4L°09 e;uea, Asuued

1S°6h Axon quay LL°09 uo burysem

49°64 eue;s1no7 z0° £9 U1suors!m

96° 6h euoz1sy 6£° £9 opesojo)

95°0S 14noss iW 60°S9 e1qun,o) sO 33143510

€3°0S 220424 424ON 0L°S9 3n2}}20UUu07

€z°15$ 94 14ysdwey MON €6°S9$ 1yemey

2 ORES A SOR LETT EL RNR IE MB OA LG CLO IE EOD

tly Ad ‘SLI4ZINIG JOINVYNSNI LNIWAOTAWINN 3LVLS J9VURAV

Junowy 3140U9g A, 490m BBesony Ag poxuey $0303

aera

V XION3ddV

APPENDIX B

The following twelve pages present the relevant data

for AFDC-UF payments by state, FY ’72. DHEW, NCSS

Report A-2 (7-7) thru 6/72) Public Assistance Statistics.

Tate B.--k1d to f-milies with depenient —, uncaplayed~porent sepzent: Recipients of soney payzents and emount of saynents,

by State, July 1971 1/

Erevrtes vendcr otyee:r.ts for institutional services in intermediate care facilities and

for gedical cere and cases receiving only euch Pryzents/

Sumter of recipicnts Pay-.cnts. to recloients ; Percentage change fro-7--

Sunter

State of Sinks Averaze per-- June 3971 in-- Juiy 2970 in--

Sams Lies Toral 2/° Children neh

—" Fami.y Kecipient Muster ef Amount marer of Amount

- <4 recipierts phair recirients :

Zorel....] 334.259 652,529 We Oy $32,578,471 $265.40 $$i.ks 217.9 213.7 °22.2 *3¢.6

Calis sccscce 8, "8 2740973 165.912 23,213,248 ‘7 297.59 48.39 *7.3 #09 *21.2 °%.2

COG ks onccdee 2,573 Se $743 S¥-, 13 ¢ 287.63 © $3.93 -2.9 ae | e64.'s 2A1.9

Beh iss ccsacies 17%, us «$9 2 ,F20 7185.49 %.$0 2.2 *6,6 “a 1h

BO, Gesccccnces Sth 2, 1% 1,7 . 109,748 AY. 46.41 #1.4 *2.7 3 .

Bei vanesrnees 2 2 16 71 (ay (&/) (&/) (s/) --- ore

PawetS..rcccce T's 7 1,5 25,25 1354.49 77.61 °6.4 °5.7 °145.8 *193.5

Bidiskicrsende 416,55 T?, $27 &7 71s & LIM, th g?r2.8l $2.08 -.5 -3.0 “ *1€4.7 *144.0

Kans. GJaccere wn 467% 2,648 2he We. vifS.Sh $4.48 *2.1 +46 e124 .2 *154.7

abe sss snk Ts. 3,%~ 2.57% a7 202 (211.66 39.93 “14.3 “13.8 °177.5 *215.8

Mikes eciseces 47 3.22 1,966 128,375 A109 * &3.00 o3,4 *£.0 $8.8 - 0106.7

i ee ee 7 443 ar 3,269 #42, 321 v271.i) 51.34 e324 °19.7 aah 065.1

iehe cS 9,fF 3 “7,35 29,073 2,5%5,793 y 2.77 61.19 ¢ 02,3 ‘ 23.4 .. *163.5 $293.9

tiie cdsKi nes 1,9 ‘s.S08 2,3 33? 613 313.79 67.72 3.2 *2.2 (3/) (7/)

YOeecccce-cvce fre 3.571 2.242 Lls,277 7172.93 R.¥ °7.5 7.6 #292.9 7215.4

ere 6s ne 3 oun 61,717 0752.63 2. ¥, “4.9 “6.0 7.9 #155.8

Cee eee ae 34. 008 91 16% 49,8 ¥. 6.2% 955 £729.43 62-42 -15.8 -2.3) °29.3 “2? 2

CEtGresitscinn ty, SON «2,9¢9 3.5 7 1, RF AND e712.02 42,09 ae © | whet +15F.5 °147.5

Lo eee eee 2,9 i.e} &,518 $29 495 9209.69 69,22 -72.5 *21.2 7.0 °27.2

Wisi oe is 2, So ogee 0,232 Bis ORS vi't.i? £0.42 -2.8 -.% “6.9 48.5

SEs isecanss ay 2,614 2.7*3 197, 3 etn £@.3: 1.0, -2.¢ 176.3 2147.6

ee 7 174 Aims & 255 teF ins rg Fe W7 Gig a ee °2F..7 222.9 - 6.4

Wroereess obens “Ss Paget Lad erry | Pug Th as 63.27 °7.3 *..2 *353.1 °222.8

@-.553 EES ye ota 3%, 243 33,°?i 1, On 97% eseres > $3.55 -3.0 Ale o€2.7 748.9

a Whe ccs Bee 3,¢62 13,4 12,557 ©32.2% glf0. 31 25.29 -4.7 *7.3 7.5 “7.3

VU 2402 for "Ai. ceament OF the orozrum, show sezcerately here, are included in dara for the total progras.

fest) al wetcsr peyzen.s other than e'ese for ancuitctiorel services in inzermediate care facilitics.

af scel ses wt recipient. tne children ane . or tota parents os 1 caretaker relutive otter tna: 8 yArent iz

CST .Or.% et PS SH Cetermi.eng the azdunt of assistance.

A Feoeran so..ttatec Aug ist 3770.

FV Tenn fa, TNS ROL computed on base of fever than 50 resipients; percentage change on fever than i090 recipients.

y Prelixinary sate.

All cata sidject to revision. Teta include non-

families in which the regutresents of such adults

Table 8.--Aid to families with dependert children, uner>loyed-parent segment: Recipients of money payzents

and azount of paynents, by State, August 197i rT ;

[Excludes vendor payments for institutional services in intermediate care facilities and

for medical care and cases /ecelving only such paynents/ . .

Bunter of recipients Paynents to recipients Percentage chas.ce fror.--

Surber cas ae * ~~

State pe was ai aioe Average per - July 1971 in Asguct 1970 in

ferilies = laren amount Muxber of Murer of

Fanily Recipient . | recipients Amount recipients Amount

Total.... 132,573 633,248 3&4, 723 $32,904,065 $250.27 $51.9 \<3.0 2.1 16.8 427.6

Calif. 3/..... 55.293 5 257,%O | 357,146 12,973,036 7234.20 $0.29 “5.5 -1.8 #17.5 *30.7

GO cccexces 2,14 10,4, 5,796 ; 50,301 °254.14 53.69 *1.6 41.1 47.7 +47 .%

Meccan 184 933 570, | eS Ba ee 25 58 ie eee See ee 4.6 +135.0 #170.9

dD. Cc. eeeccesee * : €33 2,6 wet “ a 122 ,632 bag "5 = 4 411.7 Ep

DUB. oon cesar 2 20 2 - 5 ( (8/) (8/)

Mawes cw ccccce - elf 3,08 2, coh 303, 4% sucs2g a2) {3/2 AF} a} ast}

WES c icbvceces 15,42 79,020 48,42 4,350,284 7283.72 55.4 #2.2 6.7 *153.9 7163.1

Sh, ccackesss <1 463 2,623 242,915 7263.75 54.43 -.& = +s. +103.9

ee oe 753 4 ,C27 2,38 B60 ,315 2i2. eo 1.8 *1.5 +137.0 #141.7

Vd. ccececccese ie 3,467 2, FUS1,018 | “197.93 3.31 18.6 9.4 *22.5 +99.3

WEEE cise cccuee 2,04 10,537 €,cL6 : 5%,130 9292.65 56.57 -18.3 -10.0 +5L,5 453.1

SiS s caccsns 16,132 by 937 30,236 3,035,959 | + 300.73 61.c2 outs +42 01 $3 +133.7

Wi accccusss 1,201 * §,26 5,230 377,370 0314.22 67.53 +12.9 +13.5 #324 .6 #267.3

Disc dcsnscnnes Th? 3,992 2,497 127,677 4170.9 32.99 711.2 11.9 *218.0 9233.5

Nebr. eeeeeeses 2C7 1,cs 030 46,938 lw ey | 33.18 “1.4 -1.9 +73.0 +92 .9

Be: Bewsncsesse 1s ,C.9 70 16% 43,435 4,217,074 4300.17 59.59 -22.8 -17.4 +2. *3.3

CESGs cine tose Su 3 43,497 25,999 2,279,350 4211.93 43.21 +2.2 +2.9 #149.2 #156.6

oo ee eae $33 3,757 2.05% 66,772 24.51 33.90 5.5 4.5 +0.2 107.6

O8OR ave eves. S425 11,°ce €,6,9 $30,613 218.81 47.84 -.5 “1.5 -22.8 “29.2

BOnd ale ccsanee 3,343 16,12 9,*33 £36,937 2%7. 32 52.92 +1.3 -13.3 -1.0 “16.4

et Pes As ate 6 2, 449° 1977,%7 226.43 49.17 +2.8 6.2 #137. 4175.0

eee ae BN ry, 9,23 $,¢33 BS7 P95 222.25 45.35 +hs 9 #37.2 #25.6 #23.6

1 eS eae 373 1°” 1,150 115,427 305.35 60.73 “7.2 6.4 1.9 4103.6

Wash....e.eee 606 20,235 10,335 1,363,529 231.5% 54.53 4.4 5.5 60.5 +52.5

Wa Phe ce ctecss 3,205 16,741 L.,190 414,743 132.72 24.77 “11.3 2.2 “25.7 . -32.8

Tere for thas Sevctint of the pro:ran, showm seperctely here, ere included in deta for the total Precram. All date subject to revisicn. Data incluze ron-

me ifcal vetier it >. .ts sther tren those for {netituticnal services in inserceciate care facilities.

imcleis a= reci; ents the children and i or both parents or 1 carctaker reletive other than a pare=t ic faniiies in which the requirerents of such adults

Were consiercd in Jetersining the amount of assistance.

Estractcée ty Sccte.

Increase of sore <=a7 1,000 percent.

AveTece paysent ns: computed on base of fewer than 50 recipients; percentage change on fewer thar 100 recipients.

Procraa initiated Arril 1971. :

rete wy tt

Tadle 8.--Ald to families with dependent children, unemployed-parent segment: Recipients of money payments and amount of payments,

° by State, September 19/1 1/

Eixeletes vendor payments for institutional services in intermediate care facilities and

e for sedical care and enone goontving only such paysents/]

Warder of recipients Payscats to recipients : Percentage charge froa--

Buzber Average per-- August 1971 in-- ~ Septenber 1970 in--

ites ute 4 oe 2/ Caildres Sete

‘ani :

. amount Burber of [) Kurbder of

Paenily Recipient recipients Azount recipients Azount

Total..... 129,042 615,155 372,896 | 3/$32,3238,571] 3/ $243.51 | 3/ $52.13 2.9 3/ 2-5 49.2 3/ 222.4

Calif. DP icsses - 53,769 245 C68 148 ,953 22,277,972 / 228.35 50.10 -5.0 -5.5 9.1 +2223

COLO. ssc eeenees 2,15 9,857 5,662 536,257 254.50 54.61 2.1 -4 +%6.0 937.5

Oihi.k ckcaacnede 14175 870 525 Sh 664 312.37 62 .83 4.8 260.1 2103.7 227.6

De Socscceccses es —_ : -_ ~ ‘ sar, “a “) 33 ery mei

GUBBccccccccses ‘

Revaii.......-- bao 3,865 2,181 329,315 391.12 85.20 7.4 #3 axes 4199.8

Bidessaccceesceo 16,17% 62,075 50,277 4,511,053 218.56 ae 4 +3. 43.0 #158.2 0165.2

Kans. V/ occcees <2 § 463 2,623 242,924 263.75 . 54. 3 eee eee ece o-oo

Maire. eeeeeeecee 9 3,727 2,393 147 2850 214 ,Ol 39.67 -7.7 $8.0 #112 2 4118.8

Wh. cccccccccecs 716 3,437 2,034. 148,020 126.73 43.07 ~1.4 2.0 478.7 5

VESE ow ccccccece 2,023 10,408 6,535 3/ 776,530 3/255.23 3/ 49.61 -1.2 '-13.4 +60.0 433.9

Miche ccccccccce 11/115 $8,759 33,166 3,323,155 2593.0 60.50 49.7 v . 4152.6 V2 y

MER. cccccccces 1,275 $,918 3,426 399,€52 313.45 67.53 5.9 5 9 4233.2 4268.3

MO. ccccccscecse z Fes “4,136 2,606 151,524 272.15 31.€2. 3.6 +2.0 21.6 2209.1

Nebr... awe eeosee ft 167 27 55 37,352 2c2 .42 39.14 -7.5 -7.5 4.7 478.8

Bz. Tyecoscocede ld 56,125 pi 34,500 3,566,822 7312.53 62.48 =20.7 -16.8 -20.5 -9.9

BLOdstoccccece 9,330 45,323 27,072 1,%9,S2 211.26 43.27 4.7 on. 150.1 #158.0

One cccccecccce za 1,799 1,126 67,535 yi%.32 37.54 42.4 *1.1 91.6 +107.8

GROR cc ccccocene 2,715 12,703 7,500 * 629,609 231.90 49.56 #14 .5 218.7 -30.3 23.5

Doc cseccveccoce 3,428 16 ,262 9,527 Bh2 7% 246.56 $1.76 *1.0 +.7 +.2 -.

R.. Becececevece &33 &,300 2,606 220,621 238.60 49.00 4.8 45.4 4122.0 162.3

TM scsccsesec | * a4,%l 9,5 5,763 452,573 230.23 47.1% -1.7 42.2 24.8 425.8

We cccvcccccece 3S 2,735 2,167 220,327 311.% 62.41 *1.9 4.7 67.6 o8h 2

Base odbc veccee 4,532 19,272 10,456 1,0F1 ,té2 261.58 56.61 ‘4.8 -.6 349.7 46.7

BW. Mccccovces 2,726 14 618 9,954 378,067 4133.69 25.52 “11.5 8.8 -%.0 36.9

/ Data for this co--:rt cf the procram, shew separately here, are included in data for the total program. All data subject to revision. Date include non-

metical verdes 2 vreits other thn those for fastitutional services in interncdiate care facilities.

2/ Incletes as recinients the childrca end 2 or beth perents or 1 caretaker relative cther than « parent in families in vhich the requirezents of such aiults .

were conci-feret ir. duterminize the eanount of assistance. °

7 foeunt facl.tes [250,200 representing grants for special needs for the quarter October-Decerber 1971. The average payzect and percentaze charges exclude this

phe tath tise this anount the avercge payments, per family ani per recipient, would be, respectively: U. &. total, $250.53 and $52.55; acd Mascachusetts,

243.85 asd $7.22.

4 Ectizated by Steve. :

Average payzect =0% cocputed on base of fewer than 50 recipients: percentage change on fewer than 100 recipients.

Progran initiate. April 1972.

Represents data for August; Septenber data not available.

Table 8.--aid to fantlies with dependent childres, unexp

by State, October 1971 1/

loyed-parent segment: Recipients of soncy paynente end amouat of

[Buclotes: vendor paywents for iastitutioaal services in intermediate car facilities and

for wedical care and

—_ recetviag caly such paynent

Mueber of recipients

Payments to recipients

Percentege cheage trow--

Average per--

September 1971 fa--

Tecel 2/ Children Coes

oe . emia l * Buaber of

. Festly Rectpignt recipients daour.t

Tetel.... 601,669 363,080 $32,168,691 $255.65 $53.47 -2.2 40.4

GcBOhiccndvene “237,123 143,035 12,316,346 | 9239.37 $1.93 -3.2 +.3

Caldccoccccsae 9,796 5,654 $20,947 253.75 $3.18 -.6 -3.2

Oe scissate 634 355 24,537 171.59 33.46 -26.7 -$5.1

fh. Bisusocecas 3,065 2,063 146,385 7209.67 47.58 6.4 -1.0

Citi cscccuae 7 s 261 fer) G/) f) )

Weveti........ 3,969 2,233 326,162 7371.51 81.77 43.2 71.0

hk eatin 61,817 $0,120 4,619,559 236.47 56.46 -.3 42.4

aE 4.3% 2,602 200,451 222.48 45.60 4.4 4.4

Metae.....--<. 3,355 2,168 132,831 213.55 39.59 9.7 -9.9

S8...26 aiaake 3,206 1,391 138,099 | 216.11 43.10 6.8 6.7

WING cccsccvese 10,230 6,419 592,263 (297.32 57.89 -1.7 416.7

ee oe $5,393 33,498 3,354,205 - 297.57 60.55 41.2 41.2

Wttinidiinsane 6,383 3,678 428,922 311.72 67.20 47.9 +7.3

DWiscccccns Sai 4,000 2,526 127,439 173.39 31.86 -3.2' 3.1

WN iiccndsee ‘ 1,026 640 39,905 265.70 38.29 6.1 +5.4

Be Bickcodenik SC,416 39,946 3,276,357 325.21 65.00 -19.2 4.6

Dias cteaein 47,259 23,681 1,998, i143 v2CS.61 42.29 23.8 41.6

i 1,775 1,126 66,714 197.96 37.59 -1.3 -1.2

ES ESE EA 13,676 8,0:9 684,553 239.41 50.06 ‘47.7 48.7

Wii ccsccasuneé 16,359 9,342 967,853 | 260.37 59.16 +.$ +16.8

8. I. eceereese 4,325 2,615 210,230 233.21 48.62 +.6 -.2

Chilis ssedsees 8,93 5,429 - 425,071 735.63 47.53 6.6 «3.9

Dcassienuan 1,939 1,160 122,690 312.19 63.27 +2 41.6

Sed cis ison z 188% 10,059 1,108,512 9241.77 / $8.66 -1.9 41,2

GG: Mts nee 13,692 9,181 343,189 135,70 25.07 -7.6 9.2

1/ Data for this sezzent of the progres, shown seperately here, sre included in date for the total program. All data eubject to revistcs. Dets

medical vendor pa;=<nts other thea those for instituztonsl services in iaterzediste care facilities. ;

2/ Includes es rec

&/ Progras initiated April 1971.

totents che children aad 1 or boch parents or 1 caretaker relative ether then « parent in

were considered ‘= cetersining the ezount of assistance.

3/ Averaze paycent nat coaputed om bese of fever than 50 recipients;

‘

Orcober 1970 ia--

families in which the requirenents of such

“6 /

percentage change on fever thes 100 recipients.

Table 8.014 to femilies with dependent children, unczployed-parent segment: Rect

by State, Movember 1971 1/

[Rxcludes vendor peynents for institutional services in intermediate care facilities end

for medical care and es receiving only such paywencs/

pients of money payments end amount of paynents,

medical vendor rajests other ‘than those for institutions

2/ Includes ae recipients the thildren and 1 or both p

were consicered in Geterzining che acount of assistance.

3/ Progran in operstion; no payments wade during Novezber.

4S/ Average payzent not computed on base of fewer than 50 fenilies.

1 services in intercediate care facilities.

arents or 1 caretaker relative other chan « parent in

Wumber of recipients Payments to recipients Percentege change from--

s —— ts Average per-- - October 1971 in-- Bovezber 1970 in--

faatiies © Total 2/ Children Peat ened in ane 19

a3 Fenily Recipient recipients Aeount recipients Amount

J 127,723 609,550 367,063 $33,384,457 $261.36 $54.77 41.3 +3.8 -13.7 +.1

Calif.....0.-- $9,071 , 231,827 139,744 12,486,913 7249.38 53.86 2.2 71.4 -10.3 410.2

Oi Gcacccsenecaa? 2,232 9,374 5,471 $11,413 254.18 33.98 3.3 -1.8 4146.6 413.7

Sebeccccceccce 1$1 634 $29 32,941 215.14 44.05 +32.6 +58.7 #11.2 +50.3

BD. Cocccccdoce I. 799 3,464 ' 2,363 162,787 7203.74 46.99 413.8 +12,4 4475.4 4381.8

GUSBe ccccvcece G/) q3/) ¢ 4) G4) ae aes tad “oe eee crtatia eee

Mewalt.......- 925 4,205: 2,355 326,419 352.88 77.62 45.4 +.1 4123.2 158.1

BER ccccccescs 16,912 85,394 $2,140 4,880,140 288.56 57.15 +4.4 +5.6 4135.1 7152.2

Kans... ccceees F 823 4,012 2,380 182,238 221.43 45.42 8.7 9.1 +37.3 +20.9

Maine.......0- 167 970 674 37,705 225.78 38.87 -71.1 “71.6 -55.2 55.8

MB cccccccccce 738 3,486 2,061 150,804 v206.34 43.26 +6.8 +9.2 462.2 +72.8

MeSSccccccecce 1,973 10,145 6,385 . 651,760 “330.34 64.24 -.8 410.0 422.6 +34.0

MER wcccccvcce 11,¢36 $4,273 32,798 3,395,686 7306.30 62.57 =2.0 41.2 44.5 -10.8

tS er ae 1,475 6,763 3,812 462,627 7314.30 68.93 +5.0 +7.7 4165.6 +185.9

Wiicdtcéewanse 702 3,842 2,458 128,114 7182.50 33.17 -3.5 +,.5 4143.2 +163.0

Bede... .cceees 183 975 6i1 37,560 7205.25 38.52 -5.0 -5.9 +49.8 463.6

B. Vsccccovese 9,558 47,715 29,220 3,163,731 331.00 66.30 -5.4 3.5 41.9 34.6

DLO. ceegeces 10,647 48,951 29,634 2,045,576 9293.30 41.81 +3.6 42.4 4123.46 4123.2

Cab Occcccseces 329. 1,204 2,238 63,126 ¥ 260.90 37.75 +1.6 42.1 +62.6 +89.1

OFOZcccccccces - 3,532 16,442 9,402 783,537 9218.19 47.54 +20.5 4#14.5 -25.9 21.6

Peccccccccccee 4,%e , 23,269 13,465 1,395,636 4267.11 60.55 440.9 444.2 +4.8 +53.3

Bs Besteresice ac 4,238 2,604 213,470 4 261.21 49.67 -.6 +1.5 +€8.8 460.2

UEARaccccsoces 2,957 9,767 $,377 479,972- $233.70 49.05 4.2 12.7 +19.7 +47.7

DGiccsccoonces 330 1,873 1,117 14,313 311.35 _ 63.17 3.4 -3.6 449.0 +54.8

eee ee $,651 22,273 12,95 1,284,065 235.55 57.65 +17.9 +15.8 #31.9 431.5

We Vb. cccccece 2,529 13,556 9,633 374,320 1148.56 27.62 -1.0 4.1 -35.7 -28.0

ik PS aeirpy 22 144 65 5,133 (4/) 47.53 o-- oso oon foaled

1/ Data for this sec-ent of the prozran, shown separately here, are included in data for the totel program. All dats subject to revision. Date include son-

families in which the requirecents of such sdults

Tedle 8.--Aid to fanilies with dependent children, unezploycd-parent scgment:

by State, Decenber 1971 1/

[Excludes vendor peyments for task itueional services in intermeciate care facilities end

for a care\and cases * peri only such paywents/

Recipients of money payments and enount of paycents,

Number of recipients Payaents to recipicnts ‘ Percentage change from--

State of . ‘ — Average per-- Novecber 1971 in-- December 1970 in--

ildren s i

— a, a : ak Fanily Recipient Ruxber of Amount Kusder of anouat

So. EER rec-picnts recipients

“ Tetel.... 135,731 648 634 391,145 3/$34,895,411 [3/ $255.13 3/ $53.39 76.4 3/ 43.7 -18.6 3/ 65.0

Casif...ccceee $0,868 236 ,634 142,325 11,977,886 ¥235.47 $0.62 +2.1 -4.1 -19.2 -14.2

Cole@iec...-e-- 2,179 10,24 $,940 $30,576 253.72 $3.64 +8.3 7.7 +11.4 +9.9

Debecccrececece 169 75S 487 27,444 171.52 34.39 -9.7 29.5 +1.9 4.4

BD. Crcerccccee $50 4,233 2,941 192,431 { 202.56 45.46 422.2 +18. +503.9 +380.2

Cuan. eerece eee @/) (4/) G/) (6/) Pe << cee coe : eco eon

Mavati.......- 977 4,436 2,484 366,443 ¥375.07 82.61 +5.5 412.3 +108.7 +1512

Whe wccescesece 18,619 93,668 $7,074 5,409,486 290.54 $7.75 “49.7 710.8 #117.5 4121.0

WanG. os scvcce ‘ 741 3,667 2,194 170,933 230.68 46.61 -8.6 -6.2 +5.6 -4.1

Maine.......0. 144 858. 609 33,115 229.97 38.60 11.5 212.2 -66.3 66.9

WE ccccccsecce 825 3,98 2,32 169,503 7205.35 43.04 +13.3 412.2 41.1 (43.7

NSBS.ccccrcecce 2,047 10,641 6,720" 3/ 786,743 3/"255. <0 3/ 48.94 +%4.9 3/ -20.1 #23.0 3/ 419.5

WEG. cceccece 12,766 $7, S82 %,769 3,592,793 305.35 62.39 +6.1 +5.8 -438.5 +1.9

Mian. ....- ccc 1,626 7,440 4,235 $65,549 348.43 76.15 +11.0 +22.6 171.7 — 2216.6

hs cavnanceocts 728 3,$81 2,525 131,@28 181.08 33.11 3.1 gy. +2.9 7134.6 151.3

TS ePrrery et 198 1,053 661 41,0€8 207.52 39.62 +8.0 79.4 +35.3 +43.0

i ae se 9,289 46,216 28,505 3,165,283 320.74 66.33 -1.9 -1.8 59.9 -40.9

ee ey ee 10,529 2 $8? 33,203 2,209,643 4202.85 21.85 77.4 +7.5 +106.5 4110.9

te os nn 332 2,076 1,326 77,229 202.30 37.26 +15.0 #13.5 +70.3 +78.6

See Te 4,+26 > 20,535 2.9% 984,005 217.95 47.02 725.5 23.1 -25.4 °24.2

ere ecccces $,335 24, €5¢ i~, 338 1,359, 1:5 7254.76 $4.61 +8.0 2.6 “9.7 41.5

Ba Bo ccccsucse 839 4,326 2,614. 209,828 236.C3 48.53 +.6 -1.7 +38.7 472.46

WEAR. a. cece cee 1,956 9,728 $3,869 663,53 33.37 47.59 -.4 23.4 +16.5 +37.5

eRe eee 36? 3,825 1,096 112,407 357.35 61.81 -2.6 -4.7 431.9 +33.7

Week. 6.00 esse 6,--% 27,615 15,379 1,522,533 237.55 $5.12 +24.0 718.5 223.0 419.3

ee es Sones 2,694 14,266 9,458 405,165 156.0 28.49 +5.2 78.2 232.7 -26.0

Wis... 6as6 3,352 4,79? 3,87 £58, 30! Qi. ca? $5.54 (3/) Gi) — «ce

iV Dsea for. this s..c-nt ef the prosran, shown separately here, are included in data for the tcta!l progran.

eclical vend r Fa, "2008 other: tt.as those for institutional services in intermediate care facilities.

2/ Inctstes as recipicuts the children and 2 or both parents or 1 cereteker relative ocher chan a parenc in families in which the requirements of such edults

All data sudject to revision. Data include non-

were consicered in ccteruining the amount of assistance.

3/ Amount tncluces $224,000 represencing grants for special needs for che quarter Jacuary-March 1972.

@a-cu:.

$386. 7:

s Pro-- ~_

af Treira

The average pay=ents and perceatase — excluce this

Inclucin., this azount che averace payments, per famiiy ae per recipient, would be, respectively: U. $. total, $257.C9 end $53.80; and Massachusetts,

re $73.95.

* Operation; no payments asde in December.

“,ttates October 71.

Table 8.--Aid to families wien dependent chiidren, unempioyed-parent segment:

Recipients of money payrents and amount of payrents,

by Stace, January 1972 1/

fExcludes vendor payments for mefical care an¢ cases receiving only such paynents/

Neeber of recipterctea

Payzcnts to recizients

Percenatase change from--

ene — . Average per-- December 1971 in-- Jenuary 1971 in--

oF ; Tocal

fentites Toral 2/ Children ones Kumber of Murder of

_ Family Recipient recipients Amount recipients Amount

Totel.... 138 “$7 } 656,059 393,727 $35,824,811 $259.49 $54.61 +0.9 42.6 -16.2 -3.2

Bare G cscs $0,777 233,149 139,997 12,004,233 236041 51.49 “1.5 +.2 -26.3 -16.2

Cale. cccccccee 20335 10,973 6,363 $28,837 254.36 $3.63 +7.0 +6.9 +5.8 +4.0

DT a oak chee 122 896 $42 29,6€3 162.98 zs By | +12.3 +8.1 _ *34.5 +32.4

“ig” aR ee 1,055 6,478 3,074 201,187 190.70 65.44 +:.6 +4.6 4433.7 4328.3

pene 1,635 4,762 2,688 3€8 ,237 355.78 77.33 +7.3 +.5 491.4 +106.1

SiR ibsaviesss 18,746 94, S76 57,681 3,338,042 284.35 56.44 1.0 21,3 +89.0 +78.3

NS aa 738 3,755 2,253 177,934 234.76 67.39 +2.4 +4,1 WA a i

A RR 214 661 473 25,502 223.69 38.58 -23.0 -23.0 -79.8 80.4

aS 991 #609 2,733 197,351 199.65 42.93 +16.7 +16.4 425.7 +29.?

Wile sissies 2,53? 10,756 6,734 651,549 7311.45 60.58 +1.1 17.2 +21.7 +23.1

eee a mre 1?,aC0 62,142 37,373 4,051,529 316.53 65.18 +8.0 +12.8 463.2 +83.9

A ERE, 1,821 &,322 4,725 628,302 345.03 75.50 +11.9 419.9 +144.5 *184.1

Nebrececcccces <01 1,081 €82 42,09 209.20 38.90 +2.7 +2.3 +11.3 +21.6

Pale Rega 9,<38 46,€54 26,362 3,221,354 341.32 69.05 -.3 43.7 -33.3 44.1

a CREM “4,..3: $8,197 32,677 2,399,479 _ 242.06 41.846 +5.0 +2.5 $204.2 4106.3

gos ~ wogreeninas meena S 325 rea y a 24,922 [293.18 37.35 412.2 412.5 +76.3 +75.1

2S 4,92 22,427 13,971 t,i¢3,5€3 225.32 49.43 * +9.3 414.9 -30.2 -21.7

iain aR a &.222 “19,26 t,340 1,136,042 276.27 $9.03 222.7 -16.4 +9.6 413.4

Nag tea aerate 2? 4,459 2,435 21€,8% 236.50 43.74 42.9 $3.4 423.7 +34.3

SS Sela Fe 2,166 10,487 6,798 42€ , $66 229.39 47.38 #7.8 +7.3 +15.8 +42.9

Oe a 413 1.9 1,209 128,672 307.35 62.98 +11.8 +13.9 *13.1 718.0

rs TS 7,235 2918 53 26,635 1,799, 206 241.61 56.69 +8.6 +11,? 421.7 +16.9

ae es. RS 2.425 12,673 8,4. 371,849 152.¢9 29.34 -11,2 -8.2 “61.7 -31.9

Std... nincudscs 1,762 3/ 10,423 3/ 6,418 742,695 398.87 71.26 +56.9 +58.1 (4/) (/)

1s Ga.e for thie sezzest of the progras, shown separately here, are included in data for the tctel progrea. All data subject to revisioa.

.7) Inclutes as recipic.tse the children and 1 or both parents or 1 — sierra other than a parent ia families fa which the requiremeats of such adults

were coasi¢ered in ¢etereining the azount of assistacce.

3M Partly eatiasted dy State.

a! Program tattiated Octoder 1971.

Table &.--Aad to fawilies with dependent children, unemployed-pareut sezment: Recipients of money payments and amount cf payments,

: by State, Fedruary 1972 1/

{Excludes vencor payments for medical care and cases receiving only such peyeen:s/

Sumber of recipients Payments to recipience Percentage change [fron--

Surber Average per-- "January 1972 tn-- ___—}—___ Fedruary 1971 tn--

Stete of ewer Terel

Fam ites ans ps amount Sant! Nuvber of Nuxbex of

. wae detail recipierts casas recipients ee &

Senet... 723,422 * a?¥, 350 408,186 $39,002,783 $271.96 $57.41 43.6 48.9 217.6 \ 2.3)

QUBEEs convisse $3,156 265,116 166,861 16,611,729 276.9% 39.86 6.7 421.7 26.9 \ “1.

ES ean 2,446 11,551 6,652 ; 620,651 232.71 $3.73 45.2 +5.4 42.0 <2

eee SR 168 120 636 25,499 372.29 33.42 219.6 16.0 211.8 <9.

i Bisscesices 135 @, 242 3,298 o 215,840 190.1? 65.52 47.2 +7.3 $355.2 4265.5

Mawail.....eee 1,041 6,923 2,801 391,562 368.99 79.33 +3.4 +6.3 *79.3 4193.0

iiaicnias 19,068 96,313 $8,774 $.332,069 279.68 $3.36 1.8 a 465.2 1.1

SO vctaannsan 773 3,825 2,305 175,653 227.24 65.68 $2.4 o1.3 21.0 -32.6

M2ine...cccece 106 €046 431 23.596 222.60 39.07 8.6 -7.3 -85.5 865.8

Media ccesccccece 1,010 4,782 2,778 204,77 202.75 43.55 * 42.0 +3.5 o9.4 o12.7

Dele is nkincee 2,153 10,976 6,871 66~, 719 308.74 60.56 42.0 - 42.0 412.6 11.5

Wiehe iinccsass 13,419 64,299 38,920 4,293,200 319.93 66.15 +4.4 +6.0 41.7 +79.2

Mihiiecccecas 2,871 8.4.22 4,996 657,648 351.60 76.30 +3.6 4.7 4118.2 4145.8

ND sccavaees 155 2,005 636 39,513 213.58 39.32 -7.0 -6.0 19.3 oi2

Be Vovsesecese 9.346 46,144 28,142 3,008 673 323.93 65.20 -1.1 -6.6 35.6 49.6

Drie. .... eases 12,124 $3,275 34,499 2,446,492 2¢1.79 41.938 45.6 *3.9 058.2 +67.9

Ola. ccccccces | “4% 2,412 1,531 90, E74 20: .05 37.68 43.6 44.5 +59.9 54.0

OPeR.cccorccccce 3,10? 23,118 13,525 1,103,918 216.16 47.75 73.1 -.4 227.4 22.7

pt OOS %,uai 19,0%6 10,939 1,655,730 . 2765.80 36.95 -1.0 6.5 o.3 sks

“Se eT. 923 4.463 2,675 216,15 234.19 63.43 +.3 me *16.1 +18.7

BiMaiivesctacc 4S 2,08 10,038 6,527 <97,873 238.90 4.50 -6.1 +.2 47.2 +31.6

; "

Miscsemisaand ! 407 2.033 1.425 i$6,179 396.95 b4.19 419.3 $21.6 +10.5 16.7

a eee eT <7 7,551 32,u' 17,363 1,%97,2>6 259.20 69.99 47.0 15.1 425.1 +29.0

e Miatices 2,423 12,53. 8,107 324.749 136.82 26.65 +2.7 “11.6 ra 43.2

WER. on ooiceee ey ' 2,368 149% 7,2-3 £53,293 364.26 71.34 #21.9 +14.5 Q/) Q/)

{

U/ tata for th.s sopment of the proxram, shown separatcly here, ere included in daca for the totel program. All date subject to revision.

P/ Includes a2 sacipients the ehiléren and 1 or beth parents or | caretaker eetacive other than a parent in families in which the requirements of such adults

are cons:Zered in detertiniag the emount of assistance.

B/ Procras initiaied October 1971.

Table 8.--Aid to families with dependent children, unemployed-parent serment: Recipients of money paynents and amount of paynents,

by Stace, March 1972 1/

Lixcludes vendor payments for medical os end cases receiving on*y such paysents]

Mumber of recipients Payments to recipients Percentage change from--

pe Hurbes ; Average per-- . February 1972 in-- March 1971 in--

ete ft . re

. Toral 2/ Caildrea Tocal

fexilies = amount Number of Number of

Pemily Recipient recipients Amount reciplents Amount

Total.... 165,216 685 ,522 { $12,018 3/ $42,092,270 3/ $289.86 3/ $61.40 "40.9 3/ +7.9 °21.1 3/ 41.1

Colts. .rcccvce 34,781 250, 203 280,512 "17,683, 295 319.15 69.88 42.5 419.7 : 27.0 417.6

Cole... .cccoce 2,452 11,556 6,674 - 623,089 254.11 $3.92 (4/) +.4 +1.0 o>

Bal... csvccverce 177 853 S10% 29,957 164.16 34.06 +18.5 416.0 +.9 -3.5

DB. Ciscccssces 1,214 $,110 3,576 228,911 188.56 44.80 +7.8 +6.1 301.7 4221.1

Maveti........ 1,088 $5,041 2,265 395,697 - 363.69 78.50 42.4 +1.1 +76.8 480.2

BEE .ccsccdvcce 19,246 97,638 $9,162 $,432,721 282.28 $3.99 +.8 +1.9 +38.8 +35.3

ROARS. ccvcesere 714 3,625 2,273 165,166 231.32 45.56 °5.7 -6.0 321.9 . -42.0

MatNe.ccccecses 92 $31 383 20,528 223.24 38.68 12.1 -13.0 88.7 -39.1

Th vakeckgueece 998 4,651 2,743 200, 608 201.01 43.13 -1.1 -2.0 411.3 412.5

WNSE. csccvece. 2.265 121,204 6,984 3/ 846,844] 3/ 373.8% 3/ 75.58 #2.1 3/ 427.4 +$.0 2/ +8.3

WEN, Ssotes eco 13,390 64,991 38,932 4,242,463 316.84 65.28 +1 -1.2 +43.8 +55.3

MEGR cic ccone 1,958 8,916 $,060 665,431 339.&5S 74.63 43.4 41.2 292.9 113.5

Bebe. cccccccece 169 $87 549 34,892 205.56 39.24 11.7 211.7 -24.6 16.2

B. Viccccccvce 9,039 44,320 26,901 3,008 , 399 333.16 67.88 -4.0 (S/) -$9.0 -$1.3

GRIO. cccccccce 32,¢%6 60,719 33,799 2,561,036 202.20 42.18 4.2 +-..7 +70.7 ' 71.46

Sete, scccossce 45 2,419 1,523 $2,730 202.91 38 33 +3 +2.2 423.8 +28.2

Gree 2. 662s pe 4,553 22,672 13,302 1,126,216; | 227.38 43.67 -1.9 +2.0 -22.5 11.6

PO. ccccccccccs 4,C10 18,664 10,679 1,065,708 260.75 $6.21 22.3 -3.6 42.3 -$.2

Be Bevcivecucs 5 4,978 2,638 196, 31€ 2239.34 48.14 -8.6 -9.2 +1.1 6.7

DUG. ccecces 2,161 1C 416 6,22? $98,054 235.19 48.78 +3.5 +2.0 #15.4 +45.4

eee ey ry $$3 27,858 1,679 180,614 305.58 63.42 417.1 +15.6 714.7 +19.7

Wests icss Taece 6,°°3 29, 58S 16,425 1,734,689 249.59 $8.84 “8.9 -11.3 417.6 221.2

We Saki ces se 2,271 8, eee 7,750 : 298 O36 131.24 25. =\ 4.7 -9.3 -43.2 -48.7

6 isi ais 2,727 13,573 8,162 969,732 356,91 7.43 | 413.5 +13.4 ($/) (6/)

1/ face fer this sen-ent of the program, shown ecparately here, are included in data for the tocal program. All data subdjece to revision.

2/ _— as z.ctzients the children and 1 or doth parents or 1 caretaker relative other chan « parent in families in which the requirezents of euch adults vere

“sideres {2 c.termining the amoune of assiscance.

xv pu At inelv2es $260,500 representing graats for special necds for the quarter April-June 1972. The average payments and percentage changes are affected

aceording:y. :

4/ Increese cf tess chen 0.05 percent.

/ Decrease of less thea 0.05 percent.

/ Progras initiated October 1972.

Table 8.--Aid to families with dependent seagrass unemployed-father segment: Recipients of money payments and amounc of payments,

by Scate, April 1972 1/ ‘

[Bxcivdes dor pay 3 for wedical > end cases receiving oaly such paynents]

‘ Muaher of rectpiencs Paywents to recipients Percentage change froa--

Munber -

State * ae Total Averaze per-- March 1972 in-- © April 1971 ta--

fenities Total 2/ Crildren is ace pore as

Feaily Recipient recipients Amount recipicate Amount

Tetal..... 139,380 659,926 | 350,104 $36,933,190 $264.98 $55.97 °3.7 212.3 -23.46 -9.9

Caltf......... $2,931 — 263,072 146,564 13,717,628 259.16 $6.43 -2.9 °21.5 -26.4 -3.9

Cole... scoce 2,347 10,960 6,343 $97,389 234.53 $4.51 °3.2 24.1 4.3 -3.4

Del. ...cccce-e 166 799 474 26,270 170.30 35.38 -6.3 -2.7 -6.4 -16.4

B. Crccccccce. 1,284 $,358 3,769 238,69) 186.05 44,59 © +4.9 +4.4 4269.3 4226.1

> Mawait........ 1,142 - $3,311 3,027 397,952 348.56 76.94 +5.4 +.6 +77.7 +77.8

it errr 18,619 — 9,063 - $7,417 $,199,759 279.27 33.29 ee Fe | 4.3 +24.9 419.2

Kans. ... esses 616— 3,143 1,881 174,164 282.73 $5.41 -13.3 +5.4 -35.8 -34.7

Maine.......06 “= 346 394 21,128 224.97 38.70 42.8 +259 88.6 88.9

NE. Se cccccccece 8o8 4,113 2,413 178,814 206.01 43.48 -11.6 -10.9 421.2 #23.7.

Mas®....ce.see 2,411— 11,864 - 7,391 689,544 286.00 $8.12 +5.9 -18.6 +7.5 +6.1

MEER. .coccccce 12,154 ~ $9,378 235,262 3,821,148 314.39 64.57 -8.9 -9.9 423.1 35.1

o MEAG. cc ccccce 1,8%% -- 8,635 4,928 659,626 347.95 76.32 s32 -1.0 +73.8 487.46

Lo) ee 138 782 $04 29,527 216.86 38.27 21.8 .— | -¥6.2 -36.3 -36.6

"BR. Voccecccces 8,482 41,661 35,262 2,910,735 343.16 69.87 -6.0 -3.2 -69.2 -51.0

Obteo.......... 12,793 61,251 36,081 2 {$90,512 202.49 . 42.29 +.9 o.1 .. +55.9 +54.8

Cale... .cccce. £06 — 2,126 2 33 , 80,707 199.77 37.% 212.1 -13.0 -.2 +3.3

Lo See ee an". 19,240 Ae: 952,625 218.74 48.02 -12.5 -15.4 -22.6 -14.9

ee a en 3,944 — 18,336 . $ 970,958 266.19 $2.95 -1.4 -7.1 +6.9 +.5

Ril iceccaccs e590 3,458 2,307 183,633 235.79 49.15 -5.9 -3.9 -4.3 "42.0

DES. - cecct.cas 2,062~ 9,801 $,856 1 $69,534 259.53 $1.99 -5.9 , +.3 +4.2 +16.0

4, ere oseneue 628— 3,012 1,765 - 192,288 306.19 63.84 eee 46.5 +29.3 +34.9

Ws deiaees 6,260 27,066 15,011 1,585,666 251.30 $8.49 -8.3 -9.0 410.4 419.2

W. Va.......-. 2,154 31,223 7,428 306,213 161.23 27.41 4.5 42.1 -49.8 -46.8

oO. piesdecves 2,826 - 13,968 $,374 898,870 318.30 64.35 22.9 -7.3 G/) GQ)

l/ Cate for this seysecn: of the prozrea, shown scparately here, are included in data for the totel prograz. All data subject to revision.

3 Includes as recipients the chileren end 1 os both parents or 1 caretcker relative ocher than « paceat in farilies in which the requirenents cf such adults were

considere! in ¢stermining the amount of assistance.

3/ Progranm initiated October 1971. °

”

Tadle 8.--Aid to families with dependent children, unemployed-father segzent: Recipients of money payments end amount of payments,

by State, may 1972 }/

xeiutes vendor payments for medical care ard cases receiving only such poyrentay !

Sumber of recipients Payments to recipients } ’ Percentage change, fron-- ; /

State or : Total Average per-- April 1972 1n-- may 1972 in-~

feailies Total 2/ Cailéren paseo cebee-ab eihee of ;

. ‘ Feaily Recipient ‘| recipients Azount recipients Amount

Total.--.- 133,750 636,652 373,235 $34,926,600 $221.15 $55-40 4.5 5-5 -23-6 oLl-b

4 !

Califecccccsees 0,479 2.9/9 138,05 12,505,256 247-73 Ss. : -5-4 658 . -26.6 “9-6

COLO. cereecseee 2,261 10,535 ‘6,297 574,03 253-8) 5h. 39 3° ae -2.8

Del.ccccccceses 441 659 Ss 23,03 163.32 3h .ge M “17-5 @, 5 15.8 ! -20.0

Deo Cocccccecece 1,296 5,38 3,809 237 .zT9 183.37 44.08 5 oT 255-3 7206.1

BMawalice-cececs 1,151 5.3 3,072 S23.yll 38.30 79-12 79 x 6.5 +¢8.0 978.9

Uleccccccccccs 16,201 r 92,320 5 $6,030 5,060,299 275.46 55-20 2.4 -2-5 / @@r.6 ; 17-3)

Uiditieceeosnsens 953 2,005 1,728 1yy,178 237.6% 55-58 6.8 | -8.6 #36.3 -33.7

WALNO oe ccsccces ge $32 363 22,491 (222-73 3.59 ‘2.7 #30 83.7 -69.0

Wd ccoccvesceses 216 3,676 2,262 166,240 203-73 42.69 -$.8 #7.0 24.0 78.0

MeSOcoscececsess 2,343 1,551 7,16 655,567 292.6 59-35 a 2.6 -6 1.2 72.2

Wichessecrccoes 11, 3& 55,324 33,104 3,601,326 316.92 65.02 | 6.4 | 5.8 ‘$16.7 , 25.0

Micmeceseccseces 1,646 6,416 461% 641, 647 347.8 76.2% 2.6 2.7 o7%.7 7101.6

Bec reecceccsces ° i131 747 482 ° 28,279 215.87 37.84 #45 f -5.5 =37-5 4d .2

we Yococccccece 7,024 xz. 3 23,643 2,030, 67% 332.32 €7 .73 ~E.8 -9.6 61.1 / 752-8

CrilGesccccecees 2,70 €2 203 35, 2 ;$82,273 222.50 : 42.36 ; , ok “3 #4318 67.5

Caracoccocccess wT3 1,929 1,222 72,049 193.0% 38.29 3-3 3.5 “7.3 o4.1

Crefcosccevcecs 3,ff . 16,81& 9,072 @2) »*15 224.78 ay kS “15.3 12.7 21-2 #21.3 /

GB ovcccececcece 340 17.7 10.2% 1,052,254 2¢9.75 $3.10 2.3 7.2 9.3 15.2

| Pe Cee TFL \\) 3,42 2,215 182,776 23" .28 49.59 -3.9 -3.0 6.7 o4.4

WLAN ooccerecces 2,00 } 9.733 3,837 §$20.221 247.59 $1.38 °.7 -2.8 *11-5$ 54.4

Weciscdccevece E45 3.121 2,642 bees ts | 3 26 62.50 43.6 34 +33.8 40.9

Wach.o..--- cone $,e™’ Py 13.258 Lut. ~3e esF.3% £9.22 3.6 2 11.3 21.3

Ms Mhieds ee ene ‘Lp 10.553 926 ey S25 0h 25-93 9 o29.3 oS 2 “3.4

Wie. Weeweeees 2, lew 15,355 9,263 1,009,226 3.7.30 67. 9 +12.2 (3/) W/)

: /

be]

tute for t=:s se.cornt Of the nrogrua, shown separately bere, are incluied in Gata for the total program. All data eubdiect to revision.

Pant

Ls.clotes we: retipsents the chiliren anid 1 or bota parexte or + caretaser relative other than @ psrert in ies in which the requirements of such adults vere

ca:.siagered <2. seteraicicg the umount of assistance.

bitinutes ty wtute. j

Progrus i=: insted Octcver 1971. : ,

Table &.--ALé to families with dependent children, wunemployec-father segment: Recipients of money payments and amount of psynents,

by State, June 1972 1/

; [Faclutes vendor payments for medical cere and cases receiving Only euch paynents]

1 ‘

bot : Murber of recipiencs Paysents to recipients Percentage change fron--

Busber

State of Average per-- ; May 1972 in-- June 1971 tn--

fantlies Total 2/ Children ina

; orrs.2 Fantly Reciptenc Humber of pnount Mu-Ser of Amount

: + rectpients recipients

| Tetel.... : 127,194 j $95,650 357,349 b/ $33,029,649 3/$265.97 2/ $56.79 -3.3 B/ -2.9 25.0 3/-13.8

Calif......06 47,013 212,330 128,062 12,332,840 262.33 58.08 “7.7 “1.4 -27.9 “13.1

OE. ccscsece 2,043 9,525 5,559 300,397 264.93 52.54 -9.6 12.8 P -6.7 12.0

Del .cccctodcce 127 5% 49 20,720 163.15 4.77 -9.6 “10.0 734.6 #32.4

DB Curccccccee 1,929 6,156 4,399 261,740 135.69 42.59 414,2 410.3 4165.1 4145.0

Wevett......66: 1,112 / 5,123 2,981 394,140 33% 44 76.06 5 -3.3 -7.0 459.1 +54.8

ULL. wp eeeeeeye 17,308 67,591 _. 53,509 4,710,851 272.18 53.84 4,7 “7.1 412.5 +10.7

BONS... secees 516 2,647 1,579 146,596 283.93 $5.35 -7.6 8.0 39.7 -37,2

Waine..oesecss |) 496 359 19,193 220.61 36,54 6.2 6.3 89.2 “89.5

Diisceckccbdese 767 3,647 ; 2,116 156,595 204.17 i 42.% 5.9 3.6 417.4 419.1

UT eer 2,436 11,894 7,369 V 691,19: | 3/ 365.81 / 74.98 42.9 3/+30.0 «4,7 2 -2.1

WER ccccccece 11,189 *, 7 32,537 3,574,855 319.49 65.69 1.6 «7 417.7 426.4

RRs cccecoce » 3,716 7,774 4,465 $98,527 349,20 76.99 -7.6 -6.7 462.3 466.1

BebOs cccccodes 101 $83 342 22,5% 223.72 38.76 22.0 20.1 47.7 69,1

i Mi céepacves 7,429 / 3o 496 22,170 2,516,325 332.72 6#.95 6.0 4,3 61.7 -31.9

CT 42,342 59,010 %,763 2,504,701 202.96 42.65 -3.3 + «31 440.2 99.1

, Ly eee 317 1,¢61 : 1,067 €2,329 196.62 37.52 13.9 “15.6 #15.4 14.2

GOR, ciccceres 3,246 14,758 . 8,635 721,659 222.32 48.80 “12.0 “13.2 “11.9 +5.7

PO. cesccoccvce 3,779 17,589 10,119 1,006,873 200.4% 57.246 “1.9 -3.3 +7.8 43.8

Re Boccccecece 736 ~C 3,564 2,115 175,073 231.58 49.12 “3.4 -4,3 ee | 9.2

CEO. - ooo rvere , 2,052 9,639 ' $,759 494,516 267.01 $1.31 ae «1,1 78.9 412.4

Wesccocccovos 5% 2,920 / 1,737 185,493 3411.08 63.49 “6.4 6.4 432.53 441.0

Wao... ee eeees 4,474 ane 11,959 1,308,523 239.04 58.61 a” 09.8 -9.8 *5.6 oi7.1

Div isenvena” 1,879 9,979 6,595 263,516 140.26 26.43 -4.6 2.9 #49.% 46.9

te. S//...4.- 3,032 14,953 8,902 9665919 316.93 64.26 *t.1 +3.9 ($/) (3/)

‘

/ Date {rr this sez-exz of the program, shown separatciy here, ere incluced in data for the total program All date sudject to revision.

J Inciaies ae reetztents tne children ent 1 or both parents or 1 caretaker ralative other than « parent in fantiles which requiresents of such adults vere

ecrstcered ta cocernin: rg the enount of aseistance.

ss bs & 5257 ,C72 representing grante for special needs in Massachusetts - the quarter iis pasaaade 1972. The average psynents and pezcentaze

changes are aff{:cted eccordtagiy. ,

4/ Escirated dy State

3/ Program inttiase? Sctobder 1971. ;

i j

‘uo! j}es3Siulwpy Jomoduey ‘soge] yO JUEWIIedG9g “*S*N +e94NOS

} h°Sh eo)

9°19 Buiwohm 1°65 14nOss!W

9°2t ulsuodsi mM 1° £4 iddiss|sSsiw

9°61 Oruihsif 3SOM 4°Ls eJOSoUUIW

L°gs: uozburysem z°zl ueb 14y>!W

- spue;s} uibsia Lh s}JEsNyIesSseyW

€°On e1ruiBsaia t°lh pue; Asew

0°St JUOWID A €°Sh ouyew

6" ht ye3n. z°19 eue}s ino}

g°lh sexo] $°zs Axon Uay

S°LE vessauuel 1°9S . sesuey

0°h9 eyo7eg YINOS z°04 emo |

L°l2 _ Bulposey yznoS oa. eve;pu}

“WNI pue;s| spouyy 6°St syourtil

9°SI OF1y OF49Nd 1°8S oyep |

ae e1uer|Asuuad S°L€ 1;emMeH

~ £75 u063i0 ee wens

he ewoye | 40 ; z°0S é e 161009

S*tl 0140 ‘ L°6h ep14ol4

$°S9 30729 4I40N 9°97 @1qwn,o) JO 33143510

9°21 eu!j;Ose) Y43J4ON Z°HS aseme| 9g

" 6°€h 4JOA MON S°9£ 3ND1329UU0)

og | a 02 1X3yW MON S°0Z opesolo)

2°€h R AKassor MeN S*Ht e1usoy11e9

2°22 asiysdwey MeN 0°€Z sesuexsy

Z°Lh epBAsN “YNI euoziiy

6°49 e%4Se1GaN 0°ls eysely

1°29 eueUuOW S’° fh eureqge|

% 97e35 % 93825

ZL61 °YwWw-"* Ne

“*$1143N3@ ATN33M WNWIXWW OL GFTLILND SLNWWIVID IN 40 1N3) W3d

2 XION3ddV¥

*eBesoae JN-20sy¥ Spee2xe ebes9Ae 903V Jein6boy,

| ounp °S213s13e3

‘9 pue / sotqes ‘22/9 ‘(Z-v 340d0u4 SSIN) 2 '

gest Pie} yeuoi2en ‘A3HOSN

BDUCTSTSSY Diland *$213S13eIS [e!20G Joy 403U9)

:994N0S

68.°9h L6°S92 g0°61Z abesoay 93036 47

1°02 €6°91€ 25 °9hZ UISUOISIM “HZ

. 82°0€ 42° Ot! 96°60! . erus64s1A ISOM, *€Z

91°9€ 0° 6€Z 88 °Z0Z uoyburysem = *7Z

L2°S8 go°ligs 1g°Sz%-——.. }UOWIOA —*{Z

42°99 10° Lz LZ°ogt ye3n ‘OZ

f25°t-) QS 1€Z Ol’ €€Z pue;s} spoyy ‘61

28° HE 4° 997 29° 1€Z eyueajAsuusg *g|

$8°29 ZE°Z22 L4°6St vo6es0 “LI

6°65 29°961 89°9£1 ewoye|40 ‘91

gz°lLh 6° Z0Z 99°SSI o14y0 “SI

€6°48 zZ’gee 62° €SZ 440A MON ‘HI

Sz°SZ Z7L°€2Z £4°@hl exS®JQON “El

€6°911 - 02 6hHE Lz°7EZ e]OSouUIW ‘ZI

(2°88 6H’ 61E Qz°1€Z _ uebYyrIW “It

91°02 19°S9€ £0 SHE S2JesNyresseW ‘Ol

Lg°lh Li*t0Z o€°9SI puetAsew °*6

S8°08 19°022 91°6E1 eurew °g

1z2°2g €6°€9z ZZ°102 sesuey °/

19°St gi °zz LS°€2z syourtt) °9

05°28 ht HSE 46° 1L2 yyemey = °S

e(L°S9-) 69°SE1 91° 102 @1qunjo7 yo 32143814 “Hy

62° th st°€9 98 gil 0 osemeiog “f

92°92 €6°hhZ s9°991 opesoloy = *Z%

nE°LS $ “€E°797$ 66°407$ @yusos11e@) “yf

J04y 4e,nboy

Spoe02x3 s6es9Ay

quewbes Jn JuNOWwy

sjuouAeg A, wey

dN-904y Besoay

SjuowAeg Aj jwe4

‘dN-uou aes0ay

02025

” ZZ61 3NNf ‘SWWU90Nd JN-I03V HLIA

S3LVLS HZ NI 20SV 4N-NON GNV 4N-I0JV YIONN SLNBWAVd ATIWWS ATHLNOW 39VU3AV

@ XION3dd¥

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed December 11, 1972]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION TO INTERVENE

Now come Roger C,. and Arlene M. Derosia, and Larry,

Harold, Arthur, Mary and Brian Derosia, minor children

of Roger and Arlene Derosia, by their attorney, Richard

S. Kohn, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc. pursuant to Rule 24

(b) and (c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to move

this Honorable Court to permit them to intervene in the

above case. In support of their motion herein, said parties

stipulate and certify as follows:

1. That they reside in Swanton, Franklin County in

the State of Vermont.

2. That their claims against the above defendants

present questions of law and/or facts in common with the

original plaintiffs’. main action in that the intervenors

‘are deprived of ANFC-UF because the father is receiv-

ing state" unemployment compensation, which is much

lower than‘the ANFC benefits. (Please see Intervenors’

complaint which is attached hereto.)

8. That their intervention in the above cause will not

unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights

of the original parties.

Dated at St. Johnsbury in. the County of Caledonia and

State of Vermont this 11 day of December, 1972.

/s/ Richard S. Kohn

; RICHARD S. KOHN

Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819

56 Railroad Street

Attorney for Intervenors

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 24, 1973]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

STIPULATION

ft is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the

undersigned attorneys for the respective parties hereto

as follows:

1. Plaintiffs Jean Glodgett and Deanne Glodgett are

citizens of the United States, residents of Orleans in the

State of Vermont, and the parents of plaintiff Tina

Glodgett, their minor child, who resides with them.

2 On December 17, 1971, Mr. Glodgett applied for

ANFC at the Newport District Office of the Department

of Social Welfare and his application was accepted. On

December 20, 1971, the family received its first check

in the amount of $93.00, covering the balance of Decem-__

ber. Thereafter, the family received a monthly benefit

of $239.00.

3 On January 10, 1972, Mr. Glodgett began receiving

unemployment compensation from New Hampshire in the

amount of $14.00 per week. On January 12, 1972, he

was notified by letter that his AN FC benefits would be

terminated beginning February 16, 1972, because he was

receiving unemployment compensation.

4. Mr. Glodgett stopped receiving unemployment com-

pensation in March, 1972. On April 5, 1972, a new ANFC

grant was approved for the family. The family received

a check for $223.00 for the balance of April and $239

beginning May 1. The grant was terminated on July

1 due to the fact that Mr. Glodgett had become employed.

On April 21, 1972, the family again received an ANFC

grant due to incapacity of Mr. Glodgett. The grant was

discontinued on November 16, 1972, when Mr. Glodgett

returned to work.

5. Plaintiffs Roger and Rosamond Percy are citizens

of the United States and residents of Orleans in the

State of Vermont. Plaintiffs Sheila, Charon, Roger, Mary,

Matthew, and Sharon Percy are their minor children

who reside with them.

6. Roger Percy was employed as a trucker by Orlando

Construction Company until December 4, 1972, when he

was laid off. He applied for ANFC-UF on December 6,

1972. On December 10, 1971, he began drawing unem-

ployment compensation in the amount of $43.00 per week.

His ANFC application was denied on December 20, 1971,

for the sole reason that he was receiving unemployment

compensation. If he was eligible for ANFC he would

have drawn $410.00 per month for his family. His monthly

unemployment compensation was approximately $172.00.

On several occasions the family obtained General As-

sistance bénefits to help them buy groceries. As of Oc-

tober 28, 1972, Mr. Percy was no longer eligible for un-

employment compensation. As of November 6, 1972, his

family has been receiving ANFC-UF.

7. Roger C. Derosia and Arlene M. Derosia are citi-

zens of the United States and residents of Swanton in the

State of Vermont. Larry, Harold, Arthur, Mary and -

Brian Derosia are their minor children and reside with

them. Mr. Derosia was employed by O. C. McCuin in

Highgate Center, Vermont, for three years. He ter-

minated his employment on August 25, 1972. On Sep-

tember 8, 1972, he applied for ANFC-UF. The Depart-

ment of Social Weifare put the family on General As-

sistance. On or about October 25, 1972, a decision was

made to grant the family ANFC-UF retroactive to Sep-

tember 24, 1972. The grant was in the amount of $394.00

per month. On November 6, 1972, Mrs. Derosia notified

the Department of Social Welfare that the family was

getting unemployment compensation of $56.00 per week.

For this reason, the ANFC-UF giant was terminated as

of December 1, 1972. Se

—

Dated at St. Johnsburg, Vermont this 11 day of De

cember, 1972.

/s/ Richard S. Kohn

RicHArD S. KOHN, ESQ.

56 Railroad Street

Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this — day of Decem-

ber, 1972.

/s/ D. Eugene Wilson

EUGENE WILSON, ESQ.

Assistant Attorney General

8 State Street

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

Attorney for Defendant Betit

Dated at Rutland, Vermont, this “__ day of December,

1972.

/s/ Carter LaPrade

CARTER LAPRADE, ESQ.

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Federal Building

Rutland, Vermont 05701

Attorney for Defendant Richardson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

eae FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed March 2, 1973]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

ANSWER TO INTERROGATORIES

1. Bert N. Smith, I have a Bachelor of Arts degree

from the University of Vermont in Burlington, a Mas-

ter of Social Work degree from the University of Con-

necticut in Hartford, Connecticut, and am a member of

the Academy of Certified Social Workers.

2. Approximately 15 years.

8. Director of the Aid to Needy Families with Children

Program.

4. Since April 14, 1971.

5. I am directly responsible to the Commissioner of

Social Welfare for all matters pertaining to the ANFC

Program administration to include program planning, le-

gislation, policies, procedure, evaludtion, and budgeting. -

6. Yes. :

7. Yes.

8. No, since the family must first live upon the UCC

benefits available each week in addition to having monthly

income of $1.00 below the payment level under ANFC.

9. Not answered.

10. As indicated in answer #8, General Assistance is

not automatic in such cases. In most instances the level

of UCC benefits is less than the ANFC payment stand-

ards. It is quite likely if UCC benefits are exhausted and

no money is available to meet an essential emergency

need, some General Assistance might become available.

However, even then the combination of both UCC and

GA benefits would still not equal. the level of ——

under ANFC ee

11. Yes.

64 2

12. Sex discrimination is evidenced by the application

of the Federally mandated law since a female may draw

UCC and ANFC benefits concurrently while a man can-

. not.

13. Yes. ,

14, It is my personal opinion that on its face the Fed-

eral law is irrational when viewed from the knowledge

of present day job markets. The only basis I can see for

the law was that men are viewed by Congress and society

as the principal bread winner in a family and thus it

would appear that keeping compensation during a period

of unemployment at a low level would cause them to seek

work more actively and eagerly. This philosophy makes

no sense at all when suitable jobs are not available. Fur-

ther the Federal law mandates that a father be unem-

ployed for 30 days before he be considered to meet the

Federal definition and certainly after this period if he is

not employed but receiving UCC benefits I can see nothing

to be gained by having a family with minor children living

on a standard which may be less than that recognized

by the Welfare agency as necessary to sustain a level

of decency and health.

15. No. Only the Commissioner of Social Welfare is

so empowered. I can recommend*on matters pertaining

to Welfare policy. re

16. Not answered. a

17. Yes. -

18. It is my opinion Congress should change the Fed-

eral law to remove the prohibition of concurrent receipt

of UCC and ANFC benefits when the UCC benefits do

not equal the state ANFC assistance level. My reasons

for this position have been clarified by my answer to

question # 14.

19. Yes. SDT sf

. 20. It is my opinion that there is no evidence to in-

dicate that the Federal law has had the effect of in-.

f 65

creasing the number of families on the ANFC Program

’ because of a deserting father.

/s/ Bert N. Smith

BERT N. SMITH

ANFC Program Director for

the State of Vermont

AFFIDAVIT

I, Bert N. Smith, ANFC Program Director for the

State of Vermont, being duly sworn according to law,

_ depose and state the the answers to the aforesaid In-

terrogatories are correct to the best of my knowledge,

information, and belief.

/s/ Bert N. Smith

BerT N. SMITH

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of

Sept., 1972. i

/s/ Samuel A. McLaughlin

i Notary ‘Public

' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed March 5, 19738]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

COMPLAINT

I. This is a suit for a declaratory judgment that 42

U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) ; 45 C.F.R. §§ 233.100(a) (5)

(ii) and 233.100(c) (v) (b); and Vermont Welfare Reg-

ulation 2831.31(3) violate the due process and equal pro-

tection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments

to the United States Constitution insofar as they render

children of unemployed fathers ineligible to receive ANFC

benefits during any week that the father is receiving

unemployment compensation under state unemployment

compensation law. The action against the Commissioner

of Social Welfare is based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plain-

tiffs also seek damages and injunctive relief against the

Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Social Wel-

fare and relief in the nature of mandamus as against

the Secretary of the Departriient of Health, Education

and Welfare.

_II JURISDICTION

A. Jurisdiction against the Commissioner of the Ver-

mont Department of Social Welfare is invoked pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1843(3)-(4) because it is brought to redress

the deprivation under color of state law of a right se-

cured by the fourteenth amendment; by 28 U.S.C. §

1331 because it arises under the Constitution and the

amount in controversy exceeds $10,000; and by the doc-

trine of ancillary jurisdiction. © —_

B. Jurisdiction against the defendant Secretary of the

Department of Health, Education and Welfare is im-

parted by 28 U.S.C. § 1861, because plaintiffs request re-

lief in the nature of mandamus and 28 U.S.C. § 1331

because it arises under the Constitution and the amount

in controversy exceeds $10,000.

III PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs Roger and Arlene Derosia are citizens

of the United States and the State of Vermont and resi-

dents of Swanton, Vermont. Plaintiffs Larry, Harold,

Arthur, Mary and Brian Derosia are the minor children

= Roger and Arlene Derosia and sue in their own be-

alf.

B. Defendant Richardson is the Secretary of the Unit-

ed States Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §602(b), he is authorized to

approve state plans for the implementation of ANFC.

C. Defendant Betit is Commissioner of the Vermont

Department of Social Welfare. Pursuant to 33 V.S.A.

$ 2505, he is the chief administrator and executive offi-

cer. Through his agents, the plaintiffs and the class they

represent have been denied ANFC benefits.

D. Plaintiff Roger Derosia was employed by the 0O.C.

McCuin Company of Highgate Center, Vermont, for three

years. His employment was terminated on August 25,

1972. On October 25, 1972, an application was made for

ANFC-UF. The application was granted retroactive to

September 24, 1972. The amount of the ANFC-UF grant

was $394.

On November 6, 1972, Mrs. Derosia notified the Wel-

fare Department that they had begun receiving state un-

employment compensation in the amount of $56 per

week. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) and

F.S.P.M. 2331.31 (3), the ANFC-UF grant was terminated

effective December 1, 1972. The difference in income

to the family is $153.20 per month.

IV STATEMENT OF CLAIM

A. The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §§606 and

607) provides for assistance to needy families with de-

pendent children if the children have been deprived of

parental support or care due to death, abandonment, phy-

sical or mental incapacity or unemployment of a parent.

B. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the Social Security

Act provides that assistance under the aid to families

with dependent children program for unemployed parents

cannot be granted if the father is receiving unemploy-

ment compensation. Aid must be denied for any week

in which the father received unemployment compensation

regardless of the amount and of the unmet need of the

family. Section 2831.81(3) of the Vermont Welfare

Manual implements this requirement for Vermont.

The needs of the plaintiffs for a minimum subsistence

compatible with health and-decency are computed by the

Department of Social Welfare and appear in the Vermont

Welfare Manual at Section 2211.2. The amount received

by the plaintiffs under the unemployment compensation

program is considerably less than the amount the Depart-

ment has adopted as the minimum necessary for a decent

and healthful subsistence.

42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (c) (ii), 45 CF.R. §§ 238.100:

(a) (5) (ii) and 288.100(c) (v) (b), and Vermont Welfare

Regulation 2331.81(8). violate the due process and equal

protection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments °

for the following reasons:

1. Section 607 creates two classes of children whose

fathers are unemployed, those whose fathers are receiv-

ing state unemployment compensation and those who are

not. Needy children are excluded solely because their

fathers receive unemployment compensation benefits even

though such benefits may be far below what would other-

wise be received under public assistance. Plaintiffs would

be eligible for assistance if they were receiving amounts

equal to their unemployment benefits in any other form

of income or benefits. Having eligibility turn on the source

of the income rather than the amount constitutes an

invidious discrimination against the former group of

children.

2. 42 U.S.C. § 606 provides ANFC eligibility for chil-

dren who are deprived of parental support or care due to

continued absence of one parent from the home. Eligibility

under section 606 does not depend upon whether the

parent in the home is receiving unemployment or not.

Thus, the same children who are ineligible under section

607 because the father is receiving unemployment would

. 70

be eligible for ANFC under section 606 if either parent

deserted the family. The s‘atutory scheme which penal-

izes children because their parents are not separated is

arbitrary and invalid under the ninth, fifth and four-

teenth amendments.

Subparagraphs 1 and 2 above are equally estate

to 45 C.F.R. §§ 238.100(&) (5) (ii) and 233.100(e) (v)

(b) and to Vermont Welfare Regulation 2331.31(3).

V. CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff’s represent the class of those families resid-

ing in the State of Vermont who are eligible for the

ANFC-UF program hut for their fathers’ receipt of or

eligibility for unemployment compensation and as a re-

sult of this exclusion from ANFC are receiving assist-

ance insufficient to meet their needs. Plaintiffs sue on

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

pursuant to Rule 23, F.R.C.P.:

(a) The members of this class are so numerous that

joinder of them all is impracticabie..

(b) There are questions of law and fact common to

all members of the class, and the common questions of

law and fact predominate over any questions effecting

only individual members of the class.

fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

(d) Defendants have acted or refused to act on

grounds generally applicable to the class.

(e) An adjudication of the rights of the named rep-

resentatives of the class would, as a practical matter, be

dispositive of the interests of all other members.

VI. THREE JUDGE COURT

The plaintiffs request that this action be heard by a

three judge district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281

and 2282 because plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction

against the enforcement of an act of Congress and the

regulations of statewide applicability on the ground that

they are repugnant to the Constitution.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully pray that:

1. This court assume jurisdiction of this cause and

convene a three judge court pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C.

§§ 2281, 2282 and 2284;

2. This court issue an order declaring that this is

an appropriate class action and granting plaintiffs leave

to proceed with this action as a class action;

3. The court declare 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (ce) (ii) and

45 C.F.R. §§ 233.100(a) (5) (ii) and 238.100(c) (v) (b) in

violation of the due process clause of the fifth amend-

ment and enjoin its enforcement as to plaintiffs and the

class they represent;

4, The court declare Vermont Welfaré Regulations

2331.31(3) in violation of the equal protection clause of

the fourteenth amendment and enjoin its enforcement as

to the plaintiffs and the class they represent;

5. That the Vermont Commissioner of Social Welfare

be enjoined to pay retroactive benefits to the plaintiffs

and the class they represent in the same amount that they

would have been paid under 42 U.S.C. § 606;

6. That a writ in the nature of mandamus issue against

the secretary of the Department of Health, Education and

Welfare ordering him to approve the Vermont ANFC-

_ UF plan without requiring it to contain a provision

based on 42 U.S.C. § 607(b) (2) (ce) (ii) ;

7. Grant such further relief as the court may deem

just and appropriate.

ROGER C. DEROSIA; ARLENE M. DEROSIA

LARRY DEROSIA, HAROLD DEROSIA, ARTHUR

DEROSIA, MARY DEROSIA, BRIAN DEROSIA

By /s/ Richard S. Kohn

Richard S, Kohn

Vermont Legal Aid, Ine.

56 Railroad Street

St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Dec. 11, 1972.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND CIRCUIT

CHAMBERS OF

JAMES L. OAKES Ps

. Circuit Judge

Brattleboro, Vermont 03301

March 6, 1973

Richard S. Kohn, Esq.

Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

St. Johnsbury, Vermont 05819 |

Benson Scott, Esq. ;

Assistant Attorney General

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

William Gray, Esq.

Assistant United States Attorney

Rutland, Vermont 05701

Re Glodgett v. Betit, Civil No. 6550

Gentlemen:

In your respective exchange of briefs, would you please

tell us (1) if a husband is working but his earnings are

less than the amount he (and his family) would be en-

titled to under the ANFC or AFDC programs, would

the difference between his wages and the amount of

family need be paid under present welfare statutes and

regulations; and (2) if the answer to the first question

is in the affirmative, how does the Government rationalize ~

such treatment of a family with a working father with

the treatment of a family with an unemployed father

_ who presumably is receiving only half of his weekly

wages as unemployment compensation; and (8) if the

answer to the first question is in the negative, on what

basis is such payment not made?

We assume that Mr. Gray will communicate this re-

quest to Mr. LaPrade, and that Mr. Kohn will similarly

communicate it to Ms. Kaufman.

Very truly yours,

‘

/8/ James L. Oakes

James L. Oakes

US. Circuit Judge

ce Hon. James S. Holden

Hon. Albert W. Coffrin

Hon. Edward J. Trudell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORTHE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed March 16, 1973]

| Title Omitted in Printing}

MOTION FOR LEAVE:TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff moves the court for leave to file an amended

complaint, a copy of which is hereto attached as Exhibit

A on the ground that the issue raised by the amended

pleading may permit the court to avoid decision of a

constitutional question.

/s/ Richard S. Ko

Richard S. Kon

Attorney for Plaintifts

Vermont Legal (Aid, Inc.

56 Railroad Stréet

St. Johnsbury, Vérmont

March 13, 1973

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed April 19, 1973]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

ORDER

Upon consideration of motion to file amended com-

plaint of the above named plaintiff intervenors, filed

March 16, 1973, it is hereby ORDERED:

Motion granted.

Dated this 2nd day of April, 1973.

/8/ James L. Oakes

James L. Oakes

United States Circuit J udge

/8/ James §. Holden

James S. Holden |

Chief United States District J udge

/8/ Albert W. Coffrin

United States District J udge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[ Filed October 3, 1973]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION TO INTERVENE

Now come Robert and Tiana Spicer, and Samantha

and Stephanie. Perry, minor children of Tiana Spicer, by

their attorneys, Kathleen M. Mitchell and Vermont Legal

Aid, Inc., pursuant to Rule 24(b) and (c), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, to move this Honorable Court to per-

mit them to intervene in the above case. In support of.

their motion herein, said parties stipulate and certify as

follows:

1. That they reside in Springfield, Windsor County in

the State of Vermont.

2. That their claims against the above defendants

present questions of law and/or facts in common with the

original plaintiffs’ main action in that the intervenors are

deprived of ANFC-UF because the father is receiving

state unemployment compensation, which is much lower

than the ANFC benefits. (Please see Intervenor’s com-

plaint which is attached hereto.)

3. That their interven in the above cause will not

unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights

of the original parties.

Dated at Springfield in the County of Windsor and

State of Vermont this 28th day of September, 1973.

/8/ Kathleen M. Mitchell

Kathleen M. Mitchell

Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

15 South Street

Springfield, Vermont 05156

Attorney for Intervenors

CTI RI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed November 6, 1973]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION FOR RE HEARING ON DISMISSAL

OF THE CLASS ACTION

Plaintiffs move the court for a re-hearing on the

question of the dismissal of the class aspect of the above

captioned case for the reasons (1) that the court should

not have dismissed _ plaintiffs’ request for designation of

their action as a class suit without a hearing, and (2)

that under F.R.Civ.P. 56(d) the court should have denied

summary judgment on the' question of class relief and

set that issue for trial, Plaintiffs seek a modification of

the court’s opinion to enable-them to present evidence

on the scope of the class and for the purpose of de-

termining what shall constitute notice to the members of

the class pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 23(c).

Dated: November 4, 1973

/s/ Richard §. Kohn

_.. Richard S. Kohn

Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

56 Railroad Street ,

St. Johnsbury, Vt.

Attorney for the plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed December 17, 1973]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

Defendant moves the court to set aside the findings of

fact and conclusions of law entered herein on the twenty-

third day of October, 1973; and to grant defendant a

new trail under F.R. Civ. P. 59(a) on the — that

(1) Ruling that they could not find anything in the

legislative history to prohibit giving an individual

the option of UCC or ANFC-UF;

(2) Affording an individual an option, by the in-

terpretation that 42 USC 605 provides for the-pro-

tection and similar treatment to those individuals

who receive outside income; and

(3) Not allowing counsel the opportunity to “brief

the option position.

Defendant seeks a new trial to enable them to show

how the opinion of the twenty-third day of October, 1973,

will cause irreparable financial harm to the defendant.

18/ David + Kalib

'Davip L. KALIB

Assistant Attorney General

State of Vermont ,

State Office Building

Montpelier, Vermont

Attorney for the Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed January 18, 1974]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION TO INTERVENE AND FOR

TEMPORARY RELIEF

Now come Tina, William and Sean Sarazin, minor

children of Mary and William Sarazin, by their attorneys,

Mary Just Skinner and Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., pursuant

to Rule 24(b) and (c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

to move this Honorable Court to permit them to intervene

in the above case. In support of their motion herein, said

parties stipulate and certify as follows:

1. That they reside in Barre, Washington County in

the State of Vermont.

2. That their claims against the above defendants

present questions of law and/or facts in common with the

original plaintiffs’ main action in that the intervenors _

are deprived of ANFC-UF because the father is receiving

state unemployment compensation, which is much lower

than the ANFC benefits,

3. That their intervention in the above cause will not

unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights

of the original parties,

And now comes Tina, William and Sean Sarazin, minor

children of Mary and William Sarazin, by their attor-

neys, Mary Just Skinner and Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.,

pursuant to Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to

move this Honorable Court to permit them to intervene

in the above case. In support of their motion herein,

said parties stipulate and certify as follows:

1. That they will suffer immediate and irreparable

injury if they are not granted a temporary restraining

order in that they will not have sufficient income to sup-

port themselves and their family. '

2. That they will suffer irreparable injury if they are

not granted a temporary restraining order in that their

monthly income will be approximately half of the standard

of need set by the Vermont Department of Social Wel-

fare to meet a family’s minimum needs.

3. No undue delay or hardship will result to the

defendants in that this Court has already held that an

individual eligible for both state unemployment com-

pensation benefits and an Aid to Families with Needy

Children-Unemployed Father grant, (ANFC-UF) has the

option to choose receipt of benefits from the program that

yields more income.

4. Justice and equity require the granting of this

motion.

5. There is a likelihood that they will prevail on the

merits.

6. Such other grounds as may appear on oral argument.

Dated this 16th day of January, 1974 in Montpelier,

Vermont.

/s/ Mary Just Skinner

Mary Just Skinner, Esq.

Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

26 State Street

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed January 18, 1974]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

AFFIDAVIT

William Sarazin, being duly Sworn, deposes and states:

1. He resides at 9 Bugbee Avenue, Barre, Vermont

with his wife Mary and three minor children, William,

Jr., 11 years, Tina, Ten years, and Sean, 9 months.

2. On December 7, 1973, he was laid off his job as

window cleaner at Stanley E. Leszko, Window Cleaner,

RFD #3, Barre, Vermont. Prior te being laid off, he

earned $67.80 net per week. At that time he had only

himself, his wife and his son Sean to support.

3. On or about December 26, 1973, he applied for an

ANFC-UF grant at the Barre District office of the Ver-

mont Department of Social Welfare. At that time he was

\ told that he was eligible as of January 10, 1974 for

\ ANFC-UF benefits in the amount of $332.00 per month.

District office and was told that he would not receive

ANFC-UF benefits because he had received on that date

a state unemployment compensation check in the amount

of $40.00. r

5. If he continues to receive only $40 per week from

state unemployment compensation benefits his total income

per month will be $160.00 from unemployment compensa-

tion plus approximately $60.00 per month part-time work

from his former employer.

6. At the present time his expenses are approximately

as follows: ;

rent—$65 per month

food—$35 per week ($150 a month)

car payments—$10 per week ($242 owed)

hospital bill—$10 per month

doctor’s bill—$10 per month ($200 owed )

;

eee ee a en eS ee ee ae

itt Tey wae Rr

7. He planned to move to a larger apartment in early

January, 1974 to accommo?ate his family. He has been

forced to move in with lus mother and her grandchild

and to share expenses with her because ,he could not

afford his own apariment. He had already contracted to

take an apartment at Highgate Apartments in Barre,

Vermont but when he found out he would not get an

ANFC-UF grant he could not afford to make the move.

8.' He bought a used car for $250.00 to get to work.

It broke down and had to be towed to a repair shop. He

has to pay $70.00 in repair and towing charges before he

can get the car back. Without this car he has no regular

way to get to his part-time work at various locations.

9. At the present time he is unable to support his

family on $160.00 a month from unemployment compensa-

tion and from his part-time work. He cannot feed his

family and pay his rent and make payments on his debts.

Without his car he may not be able to continue his part

time work.

10. He and his family will suffer irreparable damage

because they don’t have sufficient money to live on. He

would be better able to ineet the needs of himself and his

family on the $332.00 per month ANFC-UF benefits.

Dated this 17th day of January, 1974 in Montpelier,

Vermont.

- /s/ William Sarazin

William Sarazin

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 17th day of

January, 1974

/s/ Anne Cheoldi

Notary Public

PUES Resear Aen Real Vian Lika Nera 4 it pres

at i es ee Re ROPES Te “LAPTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed Janwarvy 23, 1974]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

AMENDED COMPLAINT OF INTERVENTION

I. This is a suit for a declaratory judgment that 42

U.S.C. Section 607(b) (2) (e) (ii); 45 C.F.R\ Sections

223.100(a) (5) (ii) and 238.100(c) (v) (b); and Vermont

Welfare Regulation 2331.31(3) violate the due process

and equal protection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth

amendments to the United States Constitution insofar

as they render children of unemployed fathers ineligible

to receive ANFC benefits during any week that the father

is receiving unemployment compensation under state un-

employment compensation law. The action against the

Commissioner of Social Welfare is based on 42 U.S.C.

Section 1983. Plaintiffs also seek damages and injunctive

relief against the Commissioner of Vermont Department

of Social Welfare and relief in the nature of mandamus

as against the Secretary of the Departmeni of Health,

Education and Welfare.

II. JURISDICTION

A. Jurisdiction against the Commissioner of the Ver-

mont Department of Social Welfare is invoked pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(3)-(4) -because it is brought

to redress the deprivation under color of state law of a

right secured by the fourteenth amendment; by 28 U.S.C.

Section 1331 because it arises under the Constitution and

the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000; and by the

doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction. ,

B. Jurisdiction against the Defendant Secretary of the

Department of Health, Education and Welfare is im-

parted by 28 U.S.C. Section 1861, because plaintiffs re-

quest relief in the nature of mandamus and 28 U.S.C.

Section 1331 because it arises under the Constitution and

the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.

Ill. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs Mary and William Sarazin are citizens

of the United States and the State of Vermont and resi-

dents of Barre, Vermont. Plaintiffs William Jr., Tina and

Sean are the minor children of William and Mary Sarazin

and sue in their own behalf.

B. Defendant Weinberger is the Secretary of the

United States Department of Health, Education and Wel-

fare. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 602(b), he is au-

thorized to, approve state plans for the implementation

of ANFC.

C. Defendant Philbrook is Commissioner of the Ver-

mont Department of Social Welfare. Pursuant to 33

V.S.A. Section 2505, he is the chief administrator and

executive officer. Through his agents, the plaintiffs and

the class they represent have been denied ANFC benefits.

D. Plaintiff William Sarazin became unemployed on

or about December 7, 1973. On or about December 26,

1973, the application was made for ANFC-UF. He was

told that as of January 10, 1974, he would be eligible

for ANFC-UF in the amount of $332.00 per month for

his family of five. .

E. On January 10, 1974, Mr. Sarazin went back to

the welfare office where he was told he was not eligible

for the ANFC-UF program because he had drawn a

state unemployment compensation check in the amount of

$40.00. He never received a written notice that he was

not eligible for ANFC-UF grant. The difference in in-

come to the family is $172.00 per month.

F. Mr. Sarazin. stands ready to forego his state un-

employment compensation check in the amount of $40.00

per week ($160.00) per month) to receive $332.00 per

month from the Welfare Department.

IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

A. The Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 606

and 607) provides for assistance to needy families with

dependent children if the children have been deprived of

parental support or care due to death, abandonment, phy-

sical and mental incapacity or unemployment of parent.

B. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) of the Social Security

Act provides that assistance under the aid to families

with dependent children program for unemployed parents

cannot be granted if the father is receiving unemployment

compensation. Aid must be denied for any week in which

the father receives unemployment compensation regard-

less of the amount and of the unmet need of the family.

Section 2331.31(3) of the Vermont Welfare Manual im-

plements this requirement for Vermont.

The needs of the plaintiffs for a minimum subsistence

compatible with health and decency are computed by the

Department of Social Welfare and appear in the Vermont

Welfare Manual at Section 2211.2. The amount re-

ceived for the plaintiffs under the unemployment com-

pensation program is considerably less than the amounts

the Department has adopted as the minimum necessary

for a decent and healthful subsistence.

42 U.S.C. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii), 45 C.F.R. Section

233.100(a) (5) (ii) and Vermont Welfare Regulations

2331.31(3) violate the due process and equal protection

clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments for the

following reasons:

A. Section. 607 creates two classes of children whose

fathers are unemployed: those whose fathers were re-

ceiving state unemployment compensation and those who

are not. Needy children are excluded solely because their

fathers receive unemployment compensation even though

such benefits may be far below what would otherwise be

received under public assistance. Plaintiffs would be

eligible for assistance if they were receiving amounts equa!

to their unemployment benefits in any other form of in-

come or benefits. Disqualifying families from ANFC-UF

because the father receives unemployment compensation

constitutes an invidious discrimination.

B. 42 U.S.C. Section 607(b) (2) (c) (ii) is unconstitu-

tional because it only disqualifies those children whose

fathers are receiving unemployment compensation. This

is an arbitrary distinction conditioned solely on which

parent is receiving unemployment.

C. 42 U.S.C. Section 606 provides ANFC eligibility for

children who are deprived of parental Support or care

due to continued absence of one parent from the home.

Eligibility under section 606 does not depend upon whether

the parent in the home is receiving unemployment or not.

Thus, the same children who are ineligible under Section

607 because the father is receiving unemployment com-

pensation would be eligible for ANFC under Section 606

if either parent deserted the family. A statutory scheme

which penalizes children because their parents are not

separated is arbitrary and invalid ‘under the ninth, fifth

and fourteenth amendments,

Subparagraphs A, B and C above are equally applicable

to 45 C.F.R. Section 233.100 and Vermont Welfare Regu-

lation, 233.31(3).

D. Vermont Welfare Regulation 2831.31(8), as ap-

plied, violates 42 U.S.C. Section 607 (b) (2) (ce) (ii) and

45 C.F.R. Section 233.100(a) (5) (ii) because it is in-

terpreted to disqualify families in which the father is

eligible to receive unemployment compensation as wel]

as those in which the father is actually receiving unem-

ployment compensation.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully pray that:

1. This Court allow plaintiffs to intervene in this

cause;

2. The Court declare 42 U.S.C. Section 607 (b) (2) (e)

(ii) and 45 C.F.R. Section 223.100(a) (5) (ii) and 233.100

(c)(v)(b) in yiolation of .the due process clause of the

fifth amendment and enjoin its enforcement as to plain-

tiffs;

? ay ; oS DR ey a

3. The Court declare Vermont Welfare Regulation

2331.31(8) in violation of the equal protection clause of

the fourteenth amendment and enjoin its enforcement as

to the plaintiffs;

4. That the Vermont Commissioner of Social Welfare

be enjoined to pay retroactive benefits to the plaintiffs

in the same amount that they would have been paid

under 42 U.S.C. Section 606; :

5. That a writ in the nature of mandamus issue

against the Secretary of the Department of Health,

Education and Welfare ordering him to approve the

Vermont ANFC-UF plan without requiring it to contain

a provision based on 42 U.S.C. Section 607 (b) (2) (e) (ii) ;

6. That the Court interpret 42 U.S.C. Section 607 (b}

(2) (ce) (ii) to disqualify families from ANFC-UF bene-

fits only for any week in which the father is actually

receiving unemployment compensation.

7. Grant such further relief as the court may deem

just and appropriate.

WILLIAM SARAZIN, MARY

SARAZIN

By: /s/ Mary Just Skinner

Mary Just Skinner, Esquire

Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.

26 State Street

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

VERIFICATION

We solemnly swear that We have read the above Com-

plaint and know the contents thereof, and that the same

is true to the best of our knowledge, except the matters

stated on my information and belief, and that as to those

matters We believe them to be true.

/s/ William Sarazin

William Sarazin

/8/ Mary Sarazin

Mary Sarazin

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 16th day of

January, 1974,

/8/ Mary Just Skinner

Notary Public

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed January 25, 1974]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

STIPULATION

Plaintiff-intervenors Mary and William Sarazin, in-

dividually and on behalf of their minor children Tina,

William, Jr, and Sean, by and through their attorney

Mary Just Skinner, Esquire and Vermont Legal Aid, Inc.,

and defendant Paul Philbrook (originally Joseph Betit)

by and through his attorney David Kalib, Esquire, here-

by agree and stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiff-intervenor shall forego receipt of further

state unemployment compensation benefits after J anuary

24, 1974. ‘

2. Defendant shall grant plaintiff ANFC-UF benefits

as of January 28, 1974 until plaintiff ceases to be eligible

for such benefits.

3. Defendant waives the requirement of posting the

bond of fifty dollars ($50) set by the Court on J anuary

23, 1974,

4. Upon the Court’s entry of a final judgment in the

case at bar plaintiff-intervenor shall become a member of

the class covered by this Court’s Orders of October 17,

1973 and December 28, 1973, and shall be subject to any

further order of the Court staying the effect of such

final judgment. In no event shall the merger of plain-

tiff-intervenor into the class covered by the Court’s final

judgment cause any hiatus in the receipt of ANFC-UF

benefits to plaintiff-intervenor so long as he remains

eligible for such benefits.

Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 24th day of Jan-

uary, 1974,

/s/ David Kalib

David Kalib, Esquire

for Defendant Paul Philbrook

/8/ Mary Just Skinner

Mary Just Skinner, Esquire

for plaintiff-intervenors,

William and Mary Sarazin,

individually and on behalf

_of their minor children,

Tina, William, Jr. and

Sean Sarazin

‘91 \s

UNITED STATES ‘DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

. [Filed January 25, 1974]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

ORDER

Plaintiffs having moved this Court pursuant to Rules

24(b) and (c), and 65, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

for a leave to intervene in the case at bar and for a

temporary restraining order restraining Paul Philbrook

(originally Joseph Betit) and Elliot Richardson from re-

fusing to grant Plaintiff Aid to Families with Needy

Children-Unemployed Father benefits (ANCHE) solely

on the ground that he is receiving unemployment com-

pensation benefits from the State of Vermont. This mo-

tion having been considered by this Court: '

Upon the verified complaint, affidavit, and memorandum

submitted on behalf of the parties, upon hearing on

January 24, 1974, upon the finding by this Court that:

1) Plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants present

questions of law and fact in common with the original

plaintiffs main action; |

2) Plaintiffs’ intervention will not unduly delay the

case at bar; |

3) Plaintiffs are now suffering irreparable damage by

being denied ANFC-UF benefits ; and |

4) Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits in the

case at bar, and upon stipulation of the parties that

plaintiff-intervenor William Sarazin shall forego receipt

of further state unemployment compensation benefits after

January 24, 1974, that defendant Vermont Department

of Social Welfare shall grant plaintiffs ANFC-UF bene-

fits as of January 28, 1974 until plaintiffs cease to be

eligible for such benefits; that defendant Department of

Social Welfare waives the requirement of posting the

bond of fifty dollars ($50) set on January 28, 1974,

and that entry of a final judgment order in the case at

bar shall result in plaintiff-intervenors merger into the

class of persons covered by the Orders of October 17,

1973 and December 28, 1973, whereupon plaintiff-in-

tervenors shall be subject to any further order of the

court staying the effect of such final judgment, it is

' ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT:

Plaintiff-intervenors William and Mary Sarazin, in-

dividually and on behalf of their minor- children Tina,

William, Jr. and Sean Sarazin are hereby intervened as

party-plaintiffs in the instant case and defendants, their

successors in office, agents, and employees, and all other

persons in active concert with them, are hereby restrained

. from refusing. to grant Plaintiff ANFC-UF benefits as

of January 28, 1974 for so long as Plaintiff remains

eligible and foregoes receipt of Vermont unemployment

compensation benefits. |

Dated at Rutland, Vermont this 25th day of January,

1974.

Judge James S. Holden

United States District Court

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 26, 1974]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

MOTION TO STAY, INCLUDING SUPERSEDEAS

IN DISTRICT COURT

Defendants move this Court to stay the enforcement of

its judgment in this action pending the disposition of de-

fendants’ appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

/8/ David L. Kalib

Davip L. KALIB

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

Montpelier, Vermont 05602

(802) 828-3445

Attorney for Appellants/Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 26, 1974]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

AFFIDAVIT

ROBERT M. SALIBA, ‘being duly sworn and deposed,

says:

1. For the last 414 years, I have been involved in

systems and programming with the computer operations

for the Vermont Department of Employment _Sacurity,

a position I currently maintain. Prior to that“time,}I have

had programming experience with the Vermont way

Department and I have attended courses of instruction

in programming with the International Business Machine

Corporation. .

2. At the request of the Commissioner for the Depart-

ment of Social Welfare, I have prepared a study on the

average weekly claim load of the Department of Employ-

ment Security. The purpose of this study is to determine

the number of individuals potentially eligible, concur-

rently, for both unemployment insurance and Aid to N eedy

Families—Unemployed Father benefits. .The information

for this study came from Departmental weekly reports

which are submitted by local offices from their claims files.

8. The findings of the study are as. follows:

a. During the calendar year 1948, the total number

of claims filed was 268,270, or an average weekly

total of 5159.

b. In order to determine the number of individuals

potentially eligible concurrently for both ANFC-UF

welfare and unemployment benefits, I had our com-

puter sort into two categories the first 5200 claimants

{rounding 5159—the average number of claimants at

any given period] who have received at least one pay-

ment and who have entered the file subsequent to

June 30, 1978, the date dependency information was

entered on the files. The first category of the 5200 is

made up of those individuals presumably ineligible

for ANFC-UF (i.e. anyone with no dependents, or

one dependent, [who is presumed to be a spouse],

or any female claimant). The second category is

made up of those who are potentially eligible for

ANFC-UF benefits, namely those families headed by

males with two or more dependents.

c. It was found on two Separate computer runs,

(January 25, 1974 and January 81, 1974) that of

the first fifty-two hundred (5200) names, as cal-

culated in a. above, _approximately fifteen hundred

(1500) [In actuality the January 25 run revealed

1496 potentially eligible, while the January 81 run

showed 1480 potential eligibles] would fall into the

potentially eligible group. .

The attached results accurately reflect the content of

our file on January 25 and J anuary 31, 1974.

/8/ Robert M. Saliba

j . ROBERT M. SALIBA

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 15th day of

February, 1974.

/s/ David Kalib

Notary Public

NO.

REQUEST REPORT FOR UI DIRECTOR

CLAIMANT SAMPLE SIZE 5200

OF FEMALES = 1580

OF MALES 0 DEPS = 1409

OF MALES 1 DEPS= 715

OF MALES 2 DEPS = 473

OF MALES 8 DEPS= 428

OF MALES 4 DEPS = 331

OF MALES 5 DEPS= 264

01/25/74

AVE WBA = 72

AVE WBA = 74

REQUEST REPORT FOR UI DIRECTOR

01/31/74

CLAIMANT SAMPLE SIZE 5200

No. of Females = 1584

No. of Males 0 Deps = 1427

No. of Males 1 Deps = 709

. Of Males 2 Deps= 450 Ave WBA = 72

No. of Males 3 Deps= 429 Ave WBA = 74

No. of Males 4 Deps= 324 Ave WBA = 74

No. of Males 5 Deps= 277 Ave WBA = 74

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 26, 1974]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

AFFIDAVIT

LAWRENCE MASTERSON, being duly sworn, de-

poses and says:

1. I am Agency Principal Accountant, responsible for

financial reports and projects of the Department of Social

Welfare. .

2. I, as Principal Accountant, have had the responsi-

bility for preparing and working with the Department

of Social Welfare’s budget since 1969.

3. From time to time, I have been requested, and as

part of my normal responsibilities I have provided, in-

formation to various individuals with respect to the De-

partment’s budget.

4. In the normal course of my employment responsi-

bilities, I have prepared an analysis of the Department’s

budget expenditure and projected expenditures for both

the first half of fiscal year 1974 and the entire fiscal

year 1974, respectively.

5. The results of this analysis are as follows:

a. The Department’s latest projection of expenditures

for FY 74 is $55,185,210. .

b. From July 1, 1973 through December 31, 1973,

it was projected that the Department would spend

$28,440,900 or 51.5% of the total budget. The actual

Ne synthe during this period were $27,920,000.

c. The projected expenditure for the period January

1, 1974 to June 30, 1974 is $27,265,500.

6. The attached graph accurately reflects the expendi-

tures for the first half of the fiscal year and projected

expenditure for the balance of this fiscal year.

/s/ Lawrence Masterson

LAWRENCE MASTERSON

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 14th day of

February, 1974.

/s/ David Kalib

Notary Public

Dept. of Social Welfare - Expected Monthly Expenditure Pattern of FY 74 Gross Budget, Minus GA Hospital,

with Actual Monthly Expenditures thru December and Projected Monthly Expenditures January thru June

Millions

of ‘

ses nyo reeves onan a

Projected

101

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

. DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed February 26, 1974]

[Title Omitted in Printing]

AFFIDAVIT

PAUL R. PHILBROOK, being duly sworn, deposes and

says:

1. I am Commissioner of the Vermont Department of

Social Welfare and am charged by 383 VSA § 2505 with

the full responsibility for operation of the Department.

2. I, as Commissioner, have the duty to administer

laws applicable to the Department and to fix standards

and to promulgate regulations necessary to administer

those laws.

3. I am charged with the responsibility, pursuant to

33 VSA 2501(4), to comply with intent of the legislature

to maintain a reasonable standard of health and decency

based on current cost of living indexes,

4. I am further charged with the responsibility pur-

suant to 33 VSA § 2554 to allocate payments of assistance

when the appropriations are insufficient, .and am not

authorized to incur a deficit.

5. I have adjusted assistance standards during fiscal

year 1974 to reflect the increased cost of living. Be-

cause overall funding in the Department is not sufficient

to fully meet the revised standards, payments are being

made at 90% of the updated standard.

6. Based upon the information supplied to me from

the Department of Employment Security, it is my opinion

that at least one-half (14) or seven hundred and fifty

(750) of the estimated fifteen hundred (1500) families

(with two or more Wependents) that are receiving un-

employment benefits would be eligible and choose to ac-

cept an ANFC-UF welfare grant during FY 75.

_ 1. Based upon the present average grant of $327 per

month per family for ANFC-UF families, I estimate that

102

these 750 families will increase the Department’s ex-

penditures during FY 75 by $245,250 per month, or

$2,943,000 per year, of which $1,018,866 is state funds.

8. With respect to FY 74, if Department expenditures

continue as currently projected, funding would not be

sufficient to continue payments in all programs at present

levels. Before reducing assistance grants, I would seek

additional funding from the Emergency Board of state

government. If such funds were unavailable or not forth-

coming, a reduction in payments under one or more

Department programs would be necessary.

9. With respect to FY 75 (Beginning July 1, 1974),

the projected expenditure levels included in the Depart-

ment budget now being considered by the Vermont General

Assembly do not contemplate this additional caseload.

If a stay is not granted and Department FY 75 expendi-

tures proceed as currently projected, FY 75 appropriations

would not be sufficient to cover the cost of these addi-

tional 750 families. I would be obliged to request a sup-

plemental appropriation of the 1975 Vermont General

Assembly. If that request were not granted, a reduction

in payments under one or more department programs

would be necessary.

10. If a stay is granted, pending a final decision by

the U.S. Supreme Court, I shall be able to plan for an

eventual increase in budget, assuming the lower court

decision is affirmed.

/8/ Paul R. Philbrook

PAUL R. PHILBROOK

Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 14th day of

February, 1974.

/8/ Dorothy E. Puente

Notary Public

103

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF VERMONT

[Filed March 15,1974] _

(Title Omitted in Printing]

STAY OF JUDGMENT

Upon the basis of the memoranda, and the arguments

of counsel on March 1, 1974, it is ordered, adjudged and

decreed that:

1. Except for the above-named plaintiffs, whose judg-

ment is to be satisfied, the judgment order with respect

to all those similarly situated individuals, who would

qualify for the ANFC-UF option, is hereby conditionally

stayed.

‘2. The stay is conditioned as follows:

(a) All those who would be eligible for ANFC-UF

benefits but for the receipt of unemployment compensa-

tion (UC) benefits, shall be permitted to apply for and

receive supplemental financial assistance from the Depart-

ment of Social Welfare (DSW) after they have been

found eligible to receive UC.

(b) The amount of the supplemental assistance shall

be the difference between the UC benefits received (or to —

be received after the mandatory one-week waiting period

prescribed in 21 V.S.A. Sec. 1848(4), together with other

earned or unearned income, and the amount the appli-

cant would be entitled to receive had he been eligible

under the ANFC-UF program.

calculated and paid for the month in which application

for the supplemental assistance is filed.

8. The Department reserves the option of granting

ANFC-UF tga. particular family where the family is

eligible for ANFC-UF but for the receipt of UC, and

where ‘it would be in the financial best interest of the

Department to do so. Such an arrangement can only be

104

made with the consent of the recipient and his willingness

to forego his UC benefits in favor of ANFC-UF. It

. is the intent of this order to provide the same financial

assistance to the applicant irrespective of which program

he so chooses.

4. Those individuals found eligible for benefits under

paragraph (2) above shall also be eligible for medicaid

> Sap as if they were eligible for and receiving ANFC-

5. All recipients under the terms of this conditional

stay shall be afforded the right to notice, hearing and

all other procedural safeguards available to recipients

of ANFC-UF under appropriate state and federal regula-

' tions as concern the granting, modification, continuance or

termination of benefits.

6. This stay order ‘shall continue in force until the

merits are decided on appeal by the United States Su- |

preme Court.or until further order of this court.

DATED at ————— in the District of Vermont, this

15th day of March, 1974. ees

$0 ORDERED.

/s/ James L. Oakes

U.S. Circuit Judge

/s/ James §S. Holden |

US. District Judge

/s8/ Albert W. Coffrin

U.S. District Judge

fe pe

105

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES .

| No. 73-1820

PAUL R,. PHILBROOK, ETC., APPELLANT

JEAN GLODGETT, ET AL,

APPEAL from the United States District Court for

the District of Vermont.

The statement of jurisdiction in this case having been

submitted and considered by the Court, probable juris-

diction is noted. The case is consolidated with No. 74-132

and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

October 29, 1974

106 |

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 74-132

CASPAR W. WEINBERGER, Secretary of Health,

Education and Welfare, APPELLANT

Vv.

JEAN GLODGETT, ET AL.

APPEAL from the United States District Court for

the District of Vermont.

The statement of jurisdiction in this case having been

submitted and considered by the Court, further con-

sideration of the question of jurisdiction is postponed to

a hearing of the case on the merits, The case is con-

Solidated with No. 78-1820 and a total of one hour is

allotted for oral argument.

October 29, 1974

W ov. 8. coveenment paimrine orrics; 1974 Sease2 76

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.