The same general factors which operated to restrict the
number of recipients and adequacy of benefits under state laws
for assistance to the aged applied with equal force to the laws
on blind and mothers' aid. Many states passed laws on these
subjects which were optional with counties and consequently
without force in a large number of localities. In the jurisdic-
tions that had accepted these provisions, the restrictive residence
requirements and extremely difficult qualifying rules also served
to exclude applicants. The following quotation from the first
annual report of the Social Security Board refers to categorical
relief at the end, of 1934, but the general analysis holds true
for earlier periods as well.

". . . At that time ( 1934), only thirty of the fifty-one
states and other jurisdictions had legislation for old-age assist-
ance, and, within these, a third of the counties gave no old-age
assistance; in most of the counties where assistance was pro-
vided requirements were highly restrictive, and lack of funds
resulted in long waiting lists. Aid to dependent children was
provided in less than half the local units in the forty-five states
having legislation for this purpose. In the states with laws for
assistance to the blind, only two-thirds of the counties were
participating. . . ." ¹⁵

The relief set-up in 1929, in short, was in no sense adequate
to meet the coming problem of mass destitution arising from
widespread unemployment. The basic form of relief was that
given under the state poor laws which had not been modernized
to meet changed conditions. Categorical relief was expanding
but was likewise inadequate and circumscribed by numerous
conditions. A few persons had suggested the need for unem-
ployment compensation; some proposals had been made urging
the planning of a system of public works for periods of
depression. Generally speaking, relief was still considered to be
a local responsibility and few persons had suggested that fed-

-14-