THE character and number of the regulations issued by the
F. E. R. A. indicate that the federal agency believed it neces-
sary to take a strong hand in shaping state and local relief
policies and administration. The federal relief officials were
not satisfied with attempting to establish safeguards for the
honest expenditure of federal moneys by the states; a further
objective was to channel state and local spending in such a
manner as to carry out definite social policies. ¹

In justification of the regulations, it may be observed that
the F. E. R. A. rightly assumed it could not limit itself to
merely supplying funds to the states for relief to be spent at
will. The agency operated on the assumption that when the
federal government was called upon to supply funds for relief,
it had the right to set up sufficient safeguards to ensure the
proper use of federal moneys. The principle that federal con-
ditions should accompany federal grants has been an integral
part of all but a few federal subventions. True, the F. E. R. A.
attempted to assume a higher degree of control over state
administrations than had prior grant agencies. The constant
stream of regulations which flowed from the Washington office
to the state organizations far exceeded the number issued by
the "old line" grant agencies. There were many reasons for
this development. Emergency relief was a new function of gov-
ernment. State and local relief administrations had had little
or no experience in dealing with emergency relief. The F. E.
R. A. was not created to make advances to long-established
state agencies with years of practical experience. The state
emergency relief agencies had suddenly sprung up in a period
of crisis. They had no fixed routine and were literally over-
whelmed with the problem facing them. Under these circum-

-150-