Because of slow action on the part of the agency and strict regulations, welfare has not fulfilled all of its intended purposes. Lack of communication between the New York State Department of Social Services and the people in need have escalated a sense of helplessness amongst the low-income working- class people who are already dealing with job insecurity and landlord-tenant relations.
One example of the problem is that clients were required to inform the department if they were going to move. If they were to move, an officer had to inspect it. In this example, a woman had a large hole in her kitchen floor and claimed that rats were climbing through. She had found a new place to live, but because the department did not send an inspector in a timely fashion, her family was forced to live in dangerous conditions for more than a week.
Welfare recipients had to comply with these harsh rules, such as reporting changes in situations. If they did not, they would be penalized and charged with fraud or lose some of their welfare. Later, cases showed that complying with regulations did not necessarily mean that the people would receive the necessary aid. For example, when one woman abided to the regulations, she ended up forfeiting benefits she was qualified for. It was especially difficult for men to apply for assistance because the officers would accuse them of lying about previous circumstances or held their history against them, thereby preventing them from changing their lifestyle.
Job insecurity also caused major problems for welfare recipients. Because of the temporary nature of the jobs these people obtained, reporting that a member had found a job and then trying to reopen their case a few weeks later was tedious and troublesome. Sometimes families had to resort to “illegal” action by claiming assistance when they were not eligible by department standards.
During the 1960s, recipients turned to fair hearing as a method to try to get welfare. Most did not initiate these hearings but did so on the urging of community organizers or social workers. In some cases, applicants were rejected based on previous history, even though it was further evidence that they required assistance. Other cases also showed that the department intimidated recipients, because they continually harassed the recipients despite not having evidence to back up accusations and charges and disregard evidence presented by recipients that proved that they were accused wrongly.
