The Social Security Act provides that any person whose claim for as• sistance is denied shall have an oppor• tunity for a fair hearing before the State agency. The extent to which this right is recognized in practice is, of course, not indicated by statistical information alone. Many types of qualitative information are also needed for evaluating hearing proce• dures. Although the right to a fair hear• Hearings in Public ing is one of the most important safe• Assistance, January 1945- guards of the individual's right to an December 1947 equitable determination of his eli• gibility for assistance and the amount Since the latter part of 1944, State of his payment, hearings cannot sub• assistance agencies have been report• stitute for sound administration. ing to the Bureau of Public Assistance, The statistical data provide no ready on a voluntary basis, statistical data answer to the question of how many on hearings in the programs for the hearing requests may reasonably be three special types of public assist• expected in a well-administered as• ance. The data include the kind of sistance program. The receipt of agency action questioned by the relatively few requests may reflect claimant who requests a hearing, the successful efforts to meet actual and method of disposing of the request (by potential dissatisfaction of claimants hearing decision or otherwise), the re• by other methods. Yet the fact that sult of the request for the claimant, an agency receives few hearing re• the time lapse from receipt of the re• quests may also indicate that all quest by the State agency to its dis• claimants are not aware of their right position, and the principal issue in• to a hearing or that the agency does volved in the request. not completely accept the existence Most State agencies participated in of that right or the operation of both this project during all or part of the factors. In general a relatively large period January 1945-December 1947.1 number of requests presumably shows A total of 54 agencies in 45 jurisdic• that the agency has recognized the tions (including Alaska and the Dis• right to a hearing by making sure trict of Columbia) have submitted re• that claimants are notified of the ports for one or more semiannual right and of the means by which they periods, and data are available for the may exercise it. But the agency may entire 3 years for 44 agencies in 41 sometimes be using the hearing proc• States.2 As of January 1948, statis• ess to meet dissatisfaction that would tical reports on hearings will be re• not arise if agency policies were more quired from all State agencies. clearly defined, equitably applied, and A very wide range exists among the satisfactorily explained to the claim• States in the relative numbers of ants. hearing requests. This range reflects During the 3 calendar years 1945- differences not only in State policy 47 the number of hearing requests and practice directly related to hear• filed in the 38 States for which com• ings but also in many other aspects of plete reports are available for all pro• public assistance administration. grams3 ranged from fewer than five in three States to more than 7,000 in 1 Additional data based on State reports are published in Hearings in Public Assist• one State. The agencies in each of ance, semiannual release of the Bureau of 10 States received more than 500 hear• Public Assistance. For a general discus• ing requests within the 3 years. All sion of the role of hearings in the public the others received fewer than 300, assistance program, see Bernard W. Scholz, "Hearings in Public Assistance," Social and agencies in 18 States received Security Bulletin, July 1948, pp. 14-18. fewer than 100. Substantial differ- 2 Data are not available for the entire 3 Except the Massachusetts aid to the period for one or more programs in each blind program, for which data are not of four of the 41 States. available for one 6-month period. ences among these States in size of question other types of agency action the old-age assistance payment and the programs by no means account for or, more commonly, delay in action in the method of applying the $40 the much greater variations in num• on applications or on requests for maximum resulted in the filing of 149 ber of hearing requests. changes in payment. Rates for two hearing requests in July-December important issues have been computed 1947; the largest number reported in any previous 6-month period was Number of Num• by relating the number of requests hearing requests ber of States arising from the rejection of appli• seven. Less apparent are any trends received, 1945-47 States cations to the total number of appli• directly related to hearing procedures cations rejected, and the number of as such. There is some indication, Less than 5 3 Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota. requests resulting from discontinu• however, that improvement in meth• 5-24 4 Alabama, Montana, South Carolina, Utah. ance of assistance to the total num• ods of notifying claimants of their 25-49 4 Arizona, Florida, Pennsyl• ber of cases closed. Rates of requests right to a hearing and simplification vania, Rhode Island. 50-99 7 Colorado, Connecticut, protesting the determination of the of hearing procedures have led some District of Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, Mississippi, assistance payment cannot be accu• States to handle dissatisfaction rela• North Dakota. rately computed, because no data are tively more frequently through the 100-199 6 Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, available on the number of changes hearing process than through other West Virginia. adjustment procedures. In general, 200-299 4 Arkansas, Kentucky, Min• in assistance payments or requests for nesota, Virginia. changes that are not granted or not however, except when new legislation 300-499 0 500-999 5 California, Georgia, Louisi• acted upon. A comparison of the or revision of agency policy has made ana, Ohio, Oklahoma. for widespread changes in assistance 1,000-1,499 4 Indiana, Missouri, Texas, number of hearing requests based on Washington. the determination of the assistance payments or the closing of many More than 7,000 1 Massachusetts. payment with the total number of cases, the number of hearing requests cases receiving assistance provides a handled in any given State has shown measure of the volume of requests in only relatively small shifts from one Since hearing requests result from relation to case load. This compari• reporting period to another. various types of agency action (and son results, of course, in a consider• inaction or delay in action) in all pub• able understatement of the actual Disposition of Hearing Requests lic assistance programs, the relative rate of such requests in relation to numbers of hearing requests arising the number of agency actions. over certain issues and among the dif• Of more than 18,000 hearing re• ferent programs vary not only from In the State with by far the greatest quests disposed of by all agencies re• State to State but also within States. volume of hearing requests, claimants porting for all or part of the period Rates of hearing requests, in the coun• questioning determination of the old- 1945-47, almost six-tenths (57 per• try as a whole and in most States, have age assistance payments totaled fewer cent) were disposed of by hearing. been consistently much lower in aid to than 12 for every 1,000 cases receiving For the others, either the State or dependent children than in either old- assistance in the 3-year period. In local agency made an adjustment sat• age assistance or aid to the blind. all reporting States combined, the isfactory to the claimant or the claim• This difference obviously raises a seri• rate of such requests was less than 1 ant withdrew his request for some ous question whether claimants for per 1,000. Rates of requests arising other reason or, less frequently, the aid to dependent children are as well from rejection of applications for old- agency dismissed the request without informed as others about the right to age assistance have not exceeded 14 holding a hearing. a hearing or feel as free to exercise per 1,000 applications rejected in all The claimant may withdraw his re• that right. Community and recipient reporting States, and rates of requests quest for a hearing when he is satis- attitudes toward the assistance pro• resulting from discontinuance of old- fied with an adjustment made in his grams are among the many factors age assistance have not exceeded 12 favor or when he becomes convinced that make for differences in rates of per 1,000 cases closed for reasons that agency policy has been correctly hearing requests. other than the death of the recipient. interpreted and applied in his case Most requests result from dissatis• Among the States, rates from these and that no purpose will be served by faction with the determination of the two types of agency action have a hearing. He may, on the other assistance payments. Such requests ranged from 0 to 99 per 1,000. The hand, continue his request for a hear• may specifically question the amounts highest rates within any given report• ing if he remains dissatisfied, even allowed for requirements or the values ing period have often reflected sig• when some adjustment has been made. assigned to resources, or they may nificant changes in agency policy. He may also want a hearing in order to enter a protest against agency make a general claim that the amount Very sharp shifts in numbers and of assistance is too low or protest a policy despite his agreement that it rates of hearing requests from one has been correctly applied. specific method of determining the 6-month reporting period to another payment. Next in importance, nu• usually have been clearly related to Some agencies dismiss any hearing merically, are the hearing requests agency policies not directly concerned request not filed within a specified resulting from the rejection of appli• with hearing procedures. For ex• time after the agency has taken the cations and from the discontinuance ample, recent changes in one State in action which is questioned. A request of assistance payments. Other re• the number of requirements that may also be dismissed because the quests—relatively few in number- might be considered in determining claimant died or because he failed to appear at the scheduled hearing or Despite shifts in the proportion of pending reconsideration of interpre• hearings. Some agencies schedule a requests disposed of by hearing that tation of policy or pending court de• hearing only once and dismiss the may reflect the relative ease or diffi• cisions that will determine agency de• hearing request if the claimant, with• culty with which particular issues are cisions on other cases. out good cause, fails to appear. Others resolved, there are some fairly con• When the number of hearing re• reschedule the hearing. If the claim• sistent interstate differences in the quests is unusually large, they may be ant does not appear on the second date extent to which requests are disposed disposed of less promptly than nor• set, the case may be reviewed and the of by hearing. During the period mally. But two of the agencies that request disposed of without a hearing 1945-47, agencies in seven of the 21 have handled relatively large num• on the basis of the record, or, if the States that disposed of 100 or more bers of requests have maintained a claimant can show a good reason for hearing requests held hearings on fairly consistent record of disposing of his failure to attend, the hearing may three-fourths or more of all requests. most requests within 2 months. One be scheduled for a third time. Agencies in 10 additional States dis• of these agencies assigned field rep• One or two agencies, on the basis of posed of more than half of all requests resentatives to help the regular staff of prehearing investigations, have dis• through hearings. At the other ex• referees dispose of the unprecedented• missed requests they considered un• treme, one State agency disposed of ly large number of requests received justifiable, unless the claimant speci• more than four-fifths of all requests in one period. fically insisted on a hearing before the without holding hearings. Agencies in four of the 21 States State agency. Such practice is being that disposed of 100 or more hearing discontinued, however, as the agencies requests in 1945-47 disposed of more Per• Per• come to recognize that, once a hear• cent cent than four-fifths of all requests within ing request has been filed, only the of re• of re• quests quests 2 months. Only one of these agencies claimant has the right to terminate State dis• State dis• had any requests pending as long as posed posed it. of by of by 6 months. Agencies in eight addi• hear• hear• Variations in the proportion of re• ing ing tional States disposed of more than quests disposed of by hearing may re• half of all requests within 2 months. flect not only differences in emphasis Michigan 89 Georgia 63 On the other hand, three States dis• Kansas 87 Kentucky 62 on hearings as distinct from prehear• Texas 87 California 60 posed of only about a fourth or fewer ing adjustments but also differences Ohio 85 Nebraska 54 of all requests within that time, and Minnesota 82 Wisconsin 53 in the particular types of issues in• West Virginia 82 Massachusetts 52 in one of these States almost two- volved in the requests. Issues difficult Illinois 79 Maine 39 Arkansas 74 Virginia 38 fifths of the requests remained pend• to resolve, especially those not clearly Louisiana 73 Washington 37 ing for 6 months or longer before final covered-by existing agency policy, are Missouri 68 Indiana 17 disposition. most likely to be carried through to Oklahoma 65 a hearing decision. If an adjustment Percent of re• in the claimant's favor can readily be Time Lapse in Disposing of Hearing quests disposed made because of revision or reinter- of— Requests pretation of agency policy, a change State in the claimant's circumstances, or Within Within Data on the time required for dis• 2 4 discovery of an error on the part of posing of hearing requests show months months the agency, the request is likely to be clearly the effects of certain policies disposed of without a hearing. States disposing of 1,000 or more and practices in hearing procedures. requests, 1945-47: Some agencies have established time Massachusetts 86 99 For example, in July-December Texas 84 99 1947, one agency received an unusually standards, either total time that may Washington 69 88 Indiana 19 53 large number of hearing requests be• elapse from receipt of the hearing re• Missouri 7 40 quest by the State agency to final dis• cause a revised method of prorating States disposing of 500-999 re• shelter costs resulted in cuts in pay• position or a series of time standards quests: Ohio 69 93 ments for many recipients. This pol• for various steps in the hearing proc• Oklahoma 56 93 ess, and many of these agencies have Louisiana 29 73 icy was rescinded and the agency dis• Georgia 27 61 posed of about 70 percent of all disposed of the bulk of their hearing California 20 73 requests without hearings, although it requests within the specified time States disposing of 200-299 re• usually holds hearings on the majority limits. Various circumstances may, quests: Minnesota 51 88 of requests. Another agency during of course, prevent an agency's meet• Kentucky 43 99 Arkansas 36 71 one reporting period disposed of a ing its time standards. Hearings Virginia 27 73 relatively large number of hearing re• may be postponed at the request of States disposing of 100-199 re• quests on the same issue—a question the claimant. Final disposition may quests: Maine 88 96 of agency interpretation of new legis• be delayed because the hearing is re• Michigan 87 99 lation—by holding a hearing on one scheduled when the claimant is un• Nebraska 72 94 Kansas 64 93 request and applying that hearing de• able to come at the time first set. Oc• Wisconsin 59 94 West Virginia 55 92 cision, by prior agreement with the casionally, State agencies have post- Illinois 49 75 claimants, to the other requests. poned decisions on hearing requests Promptness in taking final action on hearing requests, essential in all States, is of greatest importance in those States that make no provision for retroactive payments. Obviously the value of a hearing is limited if the claimant must wait for months to learn whether he is eligible for as• sistance or what the amount of his payment will be.