Discretion in Social Welfare: The Uneasy Position in the Rule of Law

Prior to the routinization and bureaucratization of public welfare, the system could be loosely described as discretionary, professional, and decentralized. In general, eligibility was not clear-cut; budgets were individually determined. But even in those days, there were rules. Professionalization was the ideal, but most workers were in fact not professionals. And there were efforts at centralization at both the federal and state levels. Certainly as compared to the present, however, the public assistance programs had far more play. What was that system like? Then, as now, there was great variety, but some generalizations can be made. Wisconsin was a benign, liberal system. Basic grants were relatively generous, there was an elaborate system of special grants to meet both emergency and rehabilitative goals, and there was a considerable degree of professionalism. In practice, however, the system was quite routinized. The special needs program was not utilized in any significant amount; it depended, for the most part, on client initiative and clients lacked information or were hesitant to ask. The caseworkers, a shifting sea of people who used their public assistance jobs as way stations, were not particularly interested in spending more agency resources or engaging in more paperwork. At that time, home visits were mandatory, but, for the overwhelming majority of recipients, the visit was pleasant and attitudes toward the caseworker were positive. For the most part, these were friendly, non-threatening social calls. But in the rare situation in which caseworkers did have control over something that the clients wanted, then negative feelings arose-feelings of dependency and coercion. The next example comes from Professor Mashaw's empirical work in Virginia, but is a story that has been found many times over in many parts of the country. These are the depressing tales of refusals to take