Williams v. Department of Human Services

remand, order of fully we are satisfied that the trial court’s finding that defendant’s confession involuntarily was coerced is supported by substantial credible evidence. We are further engender satisfied that such evidence is sufficient a reason- given. able doubt that the voluntarily confession was Accord- ingly, judgment we reverse the Division and reinstate the suppressing order the Law Division defendant’s confession. The matter is remanded to the Law Division for proceedings further opinion. consistent with this CLIFFORD, For reversal and remandment —Justices HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN—6.

For affirmance —None. WILLIAMS, DAVIS, FLOYD DAWSON, BUELAH CATHERINE DOE, HARRIS, JANE MAYES, ELLA RODNEY WALTER BUGG, DOE, ELLINGTON, GENDER, JOHN LESTER GEORGE GONZALEZ, JENKINS, HECTOR DONALD LEE MIRIAM JONES, RANKINS, STEPHENS, CHERYL ANDRE AND ANGE- WILLIS, RESPONDENTS, LA v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, APPELLANT. JIMPERSON, STINSON, EVANS, SAM ALLEN MARY ROSE WIL- DIMICK, TATE, COLLIER, LIAM ANN VERONICA LUCILLE COLONTONE, ANTONIO, BURRUS, LOUIS KENNETH FLOYD YANCEY, MCCLELLAN, JACK ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES SITUATED, AND ALL RESPONDENTS, OTHERS SIMILARLY SERVICES, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN AP- PELLANT.

Argued May 9, August 1989 Decided 1989. Conklin, Deputy Dennis J. General, Attorney argued the (Peter Perretti, Jr., Attorney N. appellant cause for General of Harla, Jersey, attorney, William New Attorney Assistant Gen eral, counsel). of Brandman,

Shirley Advocate, Deputy Assistant Public ar- gued respondents Floyd the cause Williams, for et al. {Alfred Slocum, A. Advocate, Public attorney).

Joseph Harris David argued respondents the cause for Sam (Melville Jr., Miller, Jimperson, et D. President, al. Legal Inc., Jersey, Services of New attorney). opinion

The Court was delivered O’HERN, J. case, v. This Jersey Department Franklin New like Hu of Services,

man 111 N.J. 1 (1988), concerns validity of a regulation agency of the defendant that sets a five-month expiration period emergency for a certain form of assistance

105 public recipients threatened with homelessness. assistance involving aptly the action as The Division described destitute, citizens to “the of sick and disabled homeless efforts State, Department of compel through Human Services them, (DHS), grant plight, in their continued assistance (1988). obtaining adequate N.J.Super. shelter.” previously assistance Our Court has addressed State-funded Jersey Department to the homeless Franklin v. New Services, supra, 111 dealt an Emer- N.J. which Human (EA) program program up under the gency Assistance set (AFDC). The form of Dependent Aid Families with Children program up the State’s before us is an set under benefits (GA), to 44:8- Public Assistance Law 44:8-107 General N.J.S.A. programmatic 157. The difference AFDC need, pro- only children in while the GA serves families with single gram, part, “the familiar urban dwel- at least in serves the street is lers seek or train stations when who shelter bus Legal supra, 111 at 4.1 Services inhospitable.” its clients thus: Jersey of New characterizes not families. do not have the are recipients They sympathetic appeal branches of not the same attention from other children, do receive forgotten government are homeless. and the media. Indeed almost they need declarato- down out. sick, disabled, Yet are needy, They they elderly, bring rights, and to relief from this court declare their necessity ry government plight does If branch of resolution of their to the forefront. go rights plight ignored; their will be lost. not will react, petitioner’s time its plight their at the Appellate Division described majority $210 of the claimants received decision. The rents at monthly grant under GA. With urban maximum allowance, of shelter is monthly their lack usually double their provides temporary benefits program The EA understandable. funding be discussed in that will 1There is difference in philosophies joint greater program federal and state detail. The AFDC somewhat involving program and non-federal consist money, 50% of federal 50% money ing 601, 42 U.S.C. and 15% money county money. New of 35% State Jersey through 603(a)(5). program sources and non-federal The GA is funded entirely 44:8-110, N.J.S.A. 44:8-129. State and 25% municipal. is funded 75% currently grant monthly emergent addition to meet shelter claimants, At needs. least some of the the time of at Appellate disposition, “living Division were ‘on the streets’ solely 228 N.J.Su- because of loss these benefits.” per. at 531. For WB suffers from seizures and became homeless after he lost example, job. his As a result the termination of his EA he benefits now sleeps other homeless on a concrete floor at the Path Station in people Jersey City. longer WD him became homeless when his wife left and he could no live in job he was from laid off his and lived in a apartment. Eventually vacant garage. He suffers from severe him which causes to black out and epilepsy receiving was able to reside at a motel while he was EA. only (a name) Jane Doe fictitious after became homeless she was evicted from her Orange overcrowding. East due to She apartment used share this shelter with her aunt and 20 other She then lived in various shelters people. and through motels the utilization of EA funds. She now suffers from Acquired (AIDS). Immune Syndrome, Deficiency The AIDS makes me Sometimes for I entire can’t paralyzed. days, walk, sometimes the is so bad that I can’t eat. I suffer also from heart pain gall high troubles, stones, blood chest ulcers, and breast pressure, pains discomfort. There are areas in breast. my lumpy her she illness, has continued to spite however, look suitable afforda- housing ble but to no avail. been CR has left homeless a result as of her financial destitution and is now “walking visiting night during at streets with friends the day.”

[Id. at 532.] short, Division “In concluded: the record in catalog illness, suffering, case describes a of human dis ease, degradation, despair humiliation and which shakes moral, foundations of compassionate, just a common belief in a Ibid, Gibson, society.” Rodgers v. (quoting and decent N.J.Super. (App.Div.1987)).

The EA provided only had their surcease from such misery. program, Under the GA/EA paying DHS was motels directly hotels to shelter All agree these individuals. the welfare hotel is not the answer. DHS Commissioner Alt- man has been in his resolute determination end waste- such payments encourage ful to welfare hotels and to other suitable housing time, time, accommodations. That takes and until that question, days as is not whether 150 is a

107 expiration benefits, reasonable date for the EA but rather Legislature whether intends that there shall no be other program in place to recipients’ address the GA need when the analyzing benefits run out. In question, that we must do more than regulation isolation; look at this one EA in we must regulation, Appellate did, view as we believe the Division the context of statutory the overall Jersey scheme of New public provide assistance to relief for the homeless.

I addressing case, particulars Before of the we shall ad- argument by dress the threshold judi- asserted DHS that the ciary play addressing should no role in the needs of the home- regulatory arrangement. less under this agency The claims that significant in a Division, extension of its has authority, impermis- legislatively delegated intruded into the affairs of the sibly constitutionally Pulling enjoining Executive branch. free of the traditional restraints the courts disturbing agencies of this State from the reasoned choices made executive by in the of their the court below its own choices performance duties, imposed invalidating regulatory a rational and vital scheme Commissioner of directing Human Services and him to restructure a State welfare virtually

program. respect We that courts play have but a limited role to reviewing government. the actions of other branches of reviewing action, agency the fundamental consideration that may judgment expertise a court not substitute its for the of an agency long statutorily “so as that action is authorized and not arbitrary otherwise defective because or unreasonable.” Servs., Dougherty Department v. 91 12 Human N.J. (1982). (1976), Vagott,

In Pascucci v. then-Chief Justice Hughes argument faced the almost identical the context of validity regulation distinguished “employ of a between “unemployable” needy. argued on the able” State Commissioner, powers delegated by basis of the statute to the justify challenged regulation, emphasizing the State “would respect its need in of the finite nature of welfare resources * * Although available at 49. recognized Id. the Court grant that there is authority implicit indeed a broad in such a framework, statutory it nonetheless concluded that a conflict legislative the between standards of the act and agency’s the regulation justify judicial would intervention. See id. at 50.

Moreover, pointed prior that Court out that to the Constitu- 1947, “persons aggrieved tion of by action or inaction of state agencies or local by applying administrative could seek review prerogative for one of the writs.” Id. at 51. Those writs granted every right citizen the to test in a court whether a government agency has or has not acted accordance with superseded law. id. at 52. These See writs were in our 1947, provided thereof, Constitution of which “in lieu ‘ * * * Superior review was to be had in the Court on terms and provided in the Supreme manner the rules of the Court * * ” Ibid, Const, (quoting 1947, VI, 5, *.’ para. art. N.J. § 4).

Courts then can only act in those rare circumstances agency when it is clear that the action is inconsistent with its legislative light mandate. of “the executive function of * * * agencies, judicial capacity administrative the to review County administrative actions is limited.” Gloucester Welfare Comm’n, 384, Bd. v. State N.J. Civil Serv. 93 N.J. 390 (1983). Though phrased sometimes in terms of a search for “arbitrary, capricious action, Campbell or unreasonable” v. Department Serv., (1963), judicial Civil (1) inquiries: agency’s role is restricted to three whether the enabling express action violated the implied legislative act’s or (2) policies, whether there was insubstantial evidence support findings record to agency on which the based its actions, (3) applying legislative policies whether facts, agency clearly by reaching erred a conclusion reasonably weighing that could not have been made after relative factors. i.e., only

We address in case inquiries, the first of those whether enabling express the action violates the implied act’s or legislative policies. We realize that we cannot administer nor, indeed, vast agency, social-service job. tell it how to do its only Our mission is to examine legislative delegation statutory responsibility and measure the agency whether has acted in accordance with that mandate.

II attempting question, Before general answer some background respect is in order. obligation government Relief of the has been considered an of since the poor

organization regarded charge of our State. Such relief has been as a direct on standing the for its own and body politic preservation much in protection, very * * * the same as the law and order. Before position statehood preservation Legislature was the of the achieved, measures for relief of the colony adopted Kervick, (1964).] v. 42 [Roe 191, 212-13 poor. times.” See Those ancient reflected the laws “mores of id. at 213. Today’s laws today’s may reflect mores. We draw Vagott, v. supra, Pascucci again opinion on the Court’s in program which describes the nature of the 1976. That program pre-colonial laws, is the descendant of lineal our and is program many needy of “last resort” for citizens. is General which sometimes referred to assistance, as “municipal welfare,” program a administered assistance avail- state-supervised, municipally public able to not otherwise for under state that is needy laws, to persons provided say “categorical” age qualifying not as old for welfare aid such

persons assistance, aid to the aid to families with children or blind, assistance, disability dependent working aid to families of the poor. program General a assistance is considered “residual” or last resort under given single which aid is and married between 18 and needy persons couples age 65 no minor children. statute who have Under the State years cited, regulates for which state approximately municipalities accept financial assistance. general grants Before 1971 assistance were the extent of need as based on budget calculated for cases. A was to correlate an individual prepared appli- clothing, cant’s actual and household needs and costs, shelter, personal to his In 1971, scheduled sums for income and resources. all food, however, including categorical general programs state and welfare assistance assistance grant” eliminated such and instituted “flat individualized computations sys- (citation omitted).] N.J. at 44-45 tem. [71 1988, 20,000 As of approximately general there were assistance recipients by program. As covered we adverted to in supra, replacement 111 N.J. at it is this grant grant” system individualized assistance with the “flat problem. that is one of the obvious causes of the homeless We say system, only this without criticism the note that what good may working seemed to be idea not be out too objection grants well. The in 1971 was that flat would drive cheap housing, perpetuating clients into slum thus slum-housing existence of thing conditions. There is no such as cheap housing today. The words of DHS Commissioner Alt- man, report Legislature program, his on the AFDC are apt here: shortage housing A has created a crisis for affordable New many Jerseyans. housing shortage, housing skyrocketing gentrification, This fueled costs, and increased commercial and residential in urban it centers, has made development increasingly difficult for low-income remain families to housed. adequately sharing Increased home with relatives and friends and movement to smaller living and more distant are the means of accommodation quarters primary among increasingly low-income face individuals families in the of an housing unfavorable market. housing gives It is this structural of too little affordable rise to problem emergency

most homelessness that creates the need for assistance in the program. state’s AFDC homelessness Any alleviate short of efforts to attempt systemic expand housing difficult affordable effort at supply expensive best —will —an housing programs, fall short. In the absence of an our increased supply, including emergency marginal mitigate, must be solutions that assistance, but do not To more from eliminate, homelessness. the tools problems expect including emergency at is and to hand, assistance, unrealistic to turn attempt these limited tools into solutions is Altman, broad Commission- [D. impossible. Legislature (Mar. er of of Human Department Services, Report 1988) (hereinafter Legislature).] Report granted through Assistance program, the GA as defined regulations thereunder, promulgated the statute and the N.J.A. -11.2, these, C. 10:85-1.1 to takes three forms. distinct Two of assistance, immediate and continuing assistance are derived express 44:8-120, from the terms of the Act. N.J.S.A. 44:8- third, emergency assistance, deal, 124. The which we with was by regulation. created N.J.A.C. 10:85-4.6.

Ill public granted is is to an “Immediate assistance” that which pending relief apparently qualified applicant as interim full investigation eligibility. 44:8-120 to 44:8-123. The N.J.S.A. facially- only purpose provisions of these is to ensure that a qualified applicant immediately, receive some aid rather than be deprived unnecessarily of needed assistance while an individu- being investigated. qualifications fully for are al’s provided in the Act is The second form of assistance for assistance,” is, granted assistance that is on an “continued investigation eligibility agency’s has ongoing basis once Regulations completed. 44:8-124. of the Com- been N.J.S.A. uniform amounts based provide for cash assistance of missioner This published at 10:85-9.4. assist- on the schedule N.J.A.C. qualified. long recipient for as as the remains ance continues long qualified so as he or she is Normally, an individual remains exception: pursuant financially in There is one notable need. refuses, recipient fails or “without 44:8-114 a who to N.J.S.A. require- cause,” comply statutory certain work good ineligible public for assistance thereupon become ments “shall other need. period days” irrespective of financial or for a of 90 type provided of assistance the third We are concerned with flat- is an add-on to the basic program, the EA which under program, emergency-benefits grant system. Like the AFDC temporary supplementary benefits to program provides the GA regu- emergency grant emergent housing needs. The GA meet 10:85-4.6, coun- lation, nearly identical to its AFDC N.J.A.C. draw on terpart We DHS’s brief to considered Franklin. regulation, an individual regulation. Under that describe tempo- can receive entitled to receive GA is otherwise who in addition to recipient is furnished assistance rarily. An EA temporary pay cost of regular monthly grant to full lose or has lost recipient is about to shelter whether specified regulation in the as an housing any of the reasons 10:85-4.6(a). “emergency.” C. N.J.A.

Moreover, regulation, regula like the AFDC/EA the GA/EA tion substantially lengthy rule-making was amended pro after ceedings that response were undertaken in to Rodgers v. Gib son, supra, N.J.Super. Rodgers 452. In interpretation Division invalidated DHS’s of the so-called eligibility, “fault” limitation on and remanded the matter DHS with the instruction that it rule-making proceed conduct concerning ings program’s “time” limitation. Id. at 458-61. Consequently, regulation’s eligibility requirements, benefits, scope period of of time for were assistance greatly liberalized.

In regulation expands its current form the the eligibility criteria, expanding thus potential recipients. of number scope Also was emergen- liberalized benefits available as cy program grants assistance. New to the GA are to cover delinquent mortgage payments rent or prevent order to instance, grants homelessness in the first to pay expenses necessary home, establishment a new such as advance rent, utility deposits, storage, moving expenses, furniture purchase appliances. of furniture and The critical feature appeal is a assistance, time limitation set emergency for normally ninety 10:85-4.6(b), days, N.J.A.C. but with extensions up 10:85-4.6(b)l(v). to two additional months. N.J.A.C. effectively, Thus like program, emergency the AFDC/EA as- may provided up sistance be months. five case, as regulation What drives this it did the AFDC anomaly is the open-ended nature of the EA program. Whereas grants beneficiaries receive flat they if are deemed employable $140 each or if deemed $210 open-ended. unemployable, EA pays It whatever the ho- requires. tel/motel Critically, See N.J.A.C. 10:85-4.6. from viewpoint split administration, of a may there matching required municipality be no share from the for emer- contrast, gency required assistance. contribution is 25% municipalities grants. from the for the flat The Governor’s FY budget recipients 1989-90 states that costs for GA/EA are and county; shared State we are uncertain of this 75% 25% express opinion Kean, no on this formula. Gov. Thomas H. Jersey Budget: New Fiscal Year Budget Message 1989-1990 (1989) (Detail Taxpayers’ Appropriations). Guide 107 against background It Department was that the coun- first, tered the attack by arguing, on the durational restriction require Department provide that the GA law did not all; second, program expanded at that “the 5-month limitation emergency on assistance is a rational exercise of the Commis- discretionary authority to sioner’s allocate limited State funds assistance”; third, appropriated general for that “the New Jersey provide right emergency Constitution did not a shelter beyond (The provided by 10:85-4.6.” decision N.J.A.C. any arguments, below did not address constitutional and there- we, limiting points fore neither do ourselves to the first two Division.) presented Department’s argument plain wording The was that “[t]he obligation provide the Act creates neither an nor an entitle any beyond ment to aid immediate initial assistance and receive provided through the ‘continued assistance’ which is the recur Hence, ring monthly grant’ provided by regulation.” ‘flat Department’s provide minimally election to more than what is required grants could create no entitlement that such add-on be Secondarily, Department argued that since “the continued. emergency discretionary act to creation of assistance was a with, rationally serving begin any limitation on such assistance governmental easily pass muster legitimate a interest would See, traditionally employed. e.g., under the standards of review (1987).” Services, Dept. v. Human 107 N.J. 355 Barone on argument, its “choice of a five-month limitation Under aid, funding, clearly a given homeless the limits on State rational one.” question is not

But as we noted in whether expiration of EA benefits is valid. period five-month for the legal emergency question it is to terminate is “whether * * * aid to the homeless after five months” if there are no programs place reasonably “in to make certain that the [individ previously housed motels will find shelter and eventual uals] ly housing elsewhere.” 111 at 20. administered, currently may

As be self-de- feating. sheltering one privately- Costs individual $2,000 high per can reach as owned motel as month for inade- quate It Depart- accommodations. consumes too much of the money, might ment’s be devoted to more which fundamental problems. Focusing solutions to these individuals’ on EA di- is, underlying question, agen- verts attention from the that the cy’s statutory charge administration of its to furnish “a ‘residu- program” needy. Pascucci, supra, al’ or last resort for the municipalities at 45. the are the N.J. While front-line for delivery program, “power guiding of this the the adminis- programs delegated tration of the assistance is to the Commis- sioner.” Id. at 48. Department argues pro

The that it has no mandate to needy. points language vide shelter for the It out the that grants N.J.S.A. 44:8-122 that local be fashioned “to the end cold, person may unnecessarily, that such not suffer from sickness, hunger, deprived pending or be of shelter further applies only consideration of the case” to the interim orders of “temporary assistance.” Does it follow from this that Legislature persons intended that such should be caused unnecessarily deprived suffer from cold or be of shelter after investigated? their That make sense of cases were would no Rather, “continuing provisions the statute. assistance” “may provided” in the act state that assistance be the form of any “may “cash assistance” or other authorized method as be protect well-being person persons necessary or of[ ] granted provision is to such as the whom assistance be * * fuel, food, milk, shelter, clothing or medical care N.J. added.) Yes, (emphasis the extent of S.A. 44:8-124 individual grants shall determined in “accordance with the standards be commissioner,” 44:8- budgets by N.J.S.A. authorized 124, safely Legislature did not may we assume that but suffering bring very that those standards to about intend the Act remedy, namely, was intended to the loss of shelter. changed years language of the act has over Although the “temporary charge appears explicitly in the assistance” and the Court, rubric, satisfied, as was the Pascucci we are “[t]he * * * person[s] may not suffer end that law exists ‘to the sickness, cold, hunger, deprived or unnecessarily, from be * * 44:8-122). (quoting at 48 N.J.S.A. shelter that led the plain legislative purpose It was this Division to conclude reading the conclusion that entire law leads one to inescapably [a] continuing long exists, as as that need assistance to needy persons

it mandates allocated. N.J.S.A. restraints of the fiscal albeit within the appropriations (footnote omitted).] at 538-39 127. [228 N.J.Super. 44:8-120, 124, panel explained: saying that which we have already expressed we are [w]hat simply Terminating Rodgers reasons. and for same shelter Maticka very individuals who resource available to help without some other residual benefits the stated the GA is so inconsistent with purpose continue to need shelter method unreasonable law as to amount to an arbitrary, capricious dealing at [Id. with the 540.] problem. Appel- purposes, the significantly for our Finally, and most late Division said: long term to plan have advised of no note that we been comprehensive [W]e agencies in governments assist which would local aid to private

provide 111 N.J. at long solving term homeless. the of the problems Cf. [Ibid.] 15-16. although initial- Indeed, argued, DHS Advocate as the Public needs of home- post-AFDC/EA shelter ly responded had virtually these agency had “abandoned” families, less of provide “package a failed to needy men and women. DHS who [municipalities] placing in initiatives to assist [individuals] Franklin, supra, motels.” temporarily housed in welfare are in funds allocating one million dollars Despite at 13. N.J. families, program to aid Grant County Homelessness analogous grant. an recipients with has not furnished GA DHS paid DHS a non-profit organizations While finders fee to housing families, locate for AFDC did provide DHS not the GA recipients Although with a converting similar service. State housing families, facilities into transitional for homeless DHS made no recipients prevent available such shelters to GA short, their homelessness. appeared it from the record that simply there were no other shelter resources available for the EA recipients. Appellate thus safety Division found no as net such we

had in found Franklin that would “make reasonably certain previously in housed motels will find [individuals] eventually housing shelter and elsewhere.” 111 at 20. Accordingly, the Appellate regulation Division invalidated the agency develop remitted matter to the statutory with its granted mandate. We DHS’s consistent petition for judgment. certification review that 114 N.J. 514 (1989).

Before us the case has taken on a new dimension. After decision, Division had reached its DHS’s Director outlined, of February 14, the Division of Welfare Public 1989, memorandum, post- recommended measures to enhance availability among population shelter the GA if the five- limitation proposals month were reinstated. Because these funds, expenditure entail the implementation propos pending als was deferred resolution the issue validity. time-limitation’s outset,

At the DHS noted the of a “fully operation- existence program emergency al approximately shelter with services” 1,540 these, eighty were on shelter beds. DHS said vacant Of 28, 1988, only thirty-seven recipients November in the system had exhausted their But who five-month benefit. recipient get homeless advocates ask how a is to to a shelter state, part another and whether this is the answer ill, chronically overnight in and out of an to be moved congregate shelter.

Next, Comprehensive existence of the Emer- DHS noted the 30, (CEAS), it gency System Assistance L. c. which long-term primary comprehensive, describes as “the vehicle again, planning throughout the State.” But homeless services ask, exactly does this mean the homeless? one must what present themselves in need of they go Do to a CEAS office and indicated housing? gather not. An affidavit on file We (FY) ’89, $584,- year in million increase for CEAS fiscal a $1.2 federal funds for the mental-health used to draw down was homeless, $616,000 targeted to meet was to be needs of CEAS, housing. And will goals family shelter how providers, assist largely funds to urban which distributes rural homeless? short, questions are some be answered

In there need charge here and plain language of the streets: who is in the solved? problem is the to be how proposals in certain concrete specifics, In DHS made terms 14, 1989, “high aid that would February memorandum regards as “the municipalities” dealing with what it impact the five recipients needs exceed of EA whose small number grants plans expend transitional proposal limit.” The month $145,833 high-impact $437,500 from twelve matched to be municipalities. recipients those municipalities to assist sum, $583,000 committed in new funds would be over continued grants support “These would serve problem. management and the transportation, case placements, shelter * * emergency services shelter delivery of other program of this grasp the full details difficult for us to It is Presumably, this presented. the outline that has been subsidies, depos- rent features as include such program would feature The second its, fees, like. and the finder’s an hotline. This would be provides for a shelter departments network, alerting municipal welfare informational private availability of The shelters. next feature of the program transportation be would to furnish to these shelters. (It transportation is unknown municipali- whether from the ty to the includes or daily multiple trips.) shelter The fourth designed program feature is as an informational the GA clientele responsible agency explain under which the to would applicants benefits, other as Security available such Social disability help This benefits. would to homeless take ad- vantage already-existing programs. of proposal The fifth steps take of placements would to increase number into Obviously, residential health-care many facilities. of the GA as in homeless are much need health care as other services. And proposal provide special the sixth would assistance for the mentally terminally proposal ill and the ill. This refers ato grant, million mental-health block which aid in $2.3 would DHS providing mentally short, programs services to the ill. In promising. difficulty are The we here have is that the de- programs paper, scribed are still on as near as we can out, Yet, make have not been instituted. the record continues change. approach problem How then should the legal we that faces nothing? a agency’s argu- us? Should court do The central program essentially discretionary ment is that the EA is that, therefore, program it does not lie in the Court’s province tell the Commissioner how exercise his discretion. difficulty argument applies The with this is it as well with respect program. of the Legis- the entire structure lature, indeed, specified grant has not that there shall abe flat rather, left, does, program; frequently it has it so as enormous agency government discretion in the to administer. noted, specifically provides As Public Assistance Law grants extent of individual shall be determined “[t]he budgets accordance with the standards and authorized N.J.S.A. 44:8-124. delegation commissioner.” But of the management of program does not insulate the administration Depart In Texter v. any judicial of the from review. Services, (1982),we reviewed 88 ment Human program. of a eligibility medical-assistance validity of standard an confronting the Commis difficult decisions recognized “the We costs, increasing trying, a time Legislature and the sioner constant, or even services with human essential to continue measure believed that Id. at But we “[o]ne 389. reduced funds.” validity regulation an it is administrative whether expressed enabling policy of and consistent with the the statute Id. at 387. We thus remanded the matter legislation.” related proceed for eligibility of to the Commissioner administrative ings It context opinion. consistent with our was within this expi the the five-month that Division concluded that goals Legisla in of of ration date not furtherance the the was 228 N.J. to the ture and remanded matter Commissioner. Super. at 538-41. sum,

In a situation from that we are faced with different Franklin. we In the Commissioner which faced supervising a expressed had an intent to exercise before us funding respect identifying and coordinat- responsibility with to problem families. He ing housing to the of homeless solutions before the Court. had not children abandoned firmly in case, however, programs more In that were recently appropri- Legislature two bills place. The had enacted ating Specifically, there was programs. for the new funds million was authorized $1 million in new funds of which $3.65 million Divi- agencies and to the county-level for service $2.65 Franklin, supra, EA families. of to assist sion Public Welfare case, proposed 111 N.J. at 14. In this the Commissioner has $467,500 uphold the expend we five-month conditionally to if regulation. EA The stated appears manageable. DHS problem

The GA to be 20,000 who September the more individuals than 6.6%, EA benefits, 1,326, receiving or were receiving GA were monthly grants. September As of in addition their benefits forty only recipients EA were in their final month Except persons, for benefits. nine or of the General 0.7% others, population, claimed, all post- Assistance DHS had arrangements. EA shelter counterpoint, DHS observed: According to an estimate Division of Public by Welfare, 900 prepared received General EA in individuals Assistance 1988. That month’s April aver- age grant was $450, total the month expenditures were $405,000, representing Assuming an annual rate of expenditure $4,860,000. the 5-month gradual projects limitation the Division a rise in remains, costs such that by representing

June costs will be an monthly $469,581, annual rate of projection A based on an of EA $5,684,000. which not time-limit- assumption ed increase over same attributable in predicts period, sharp part lowered client incentive increased attractiveness of EA as an such option, projected representing June 1989 EA costs would amount to $887,706, an annual rate of $10,652,400. expenditure program, then, represent This one would almost of the GA 15% budget. See at 122. This a case of the would be tail infra Moreover, wagging dog. would it not be unfair many grant stuck on the flat that some receive $210 both grant housing? Again, quote $210 we the Commissioner: of homelessness ais stark amidst problem example poverty plenty. generation Allowing grow children welfare hotels as here, a up [or, generation of adults to in welfare is not the needy live solution hotels] Trying program emergency contort a problem. assistance —that was de- — signed for an into a solution to the entirely different low-income purpose housing losing struggling is a All of America is the problem proposition. tragedy through of we it homelessness; cannot address a limited, inappropriate Legislature, supra.] program. welfare [Report It regulation seems to us unwise then invalidate the on the Division, basis of the namely, record before the that programs place there not “reasonably were in to make certain” shelter, that the inviting claimants would find and thus another litigation round of after the Commissioner has set the new programs Williams in place. in complex issue raised is a problem myriad social by municipal handled a of state agencies. is by process proce- This case “better resolved a or encourages dure ongoing dialogue by that an rather than an * * Handler, Dilemmas, decision inflexible *.” “Social Judicial

121 Hence, Rutgers (1987). we shall L.Rev. (Irresolutions,” if, regulation that be deemed valid with judgment issue a the hereafter, place in by noted DHS have set the conditions shall 1, 1989, procedures, through proper administrative December reasonably that will certain programs the it believes make new housed in motels find previously that individuals will shelter the housing We leave to the discretion eventually elsewhere. agency procedures the form that will do agency of the this, change by change directive or by a either that in the regulations also shall assume the themselves. We Franklin, Commissioner, will interim, as he did in issue the emergent more of to handle situa- one-time or extensions tions.

IV addressed in this that should be One of issues agency has the process is clarification of which administrative provide shelter of last resort. As we responsibility to ultimate concerning supra, confusion exists which stated in Affairs, DHS, or Department Community agency, state responsible provide county government, ultimately or local at 19. In resort homeless. shelter last to the GA AFDC, Legislature on Commissioner Report to the his 1988 Altman stated: have been services for the homeless historically county New Jersey, changes emergency assistance Prior in state local to last year’s responsibility. majority not even AFDC families did qualify homeless policy, more families do emergency as we have Now, seen, many assistance benefits. sharing between constitutes a of responsibility But this expansion qualify. responsibility to the state. not a shift [Report state, counties and supra (emphasis added).] Legislature, the burden State intends

Does mean by county govern- or local borne sheltering the GA homeless be so, government? example, For ment, and, by if which unit follow that legislation, does it virtue of CEAS responsibility to furnish shel- assigned counties have been “primary as the described CEAS resort? DHS ter last * * * planning vehicle for throughout homeless services State.” Recall traditionally municipalities that been have re- garded primary agents general-assistance as the delivery for Obviously, municipalities welfare. resources have been beyond breaking point. strained Second, questions concerning some remain what new programs entail, i.e., is rent subsidy “method” available to the municipalities “county so, under a program, assistance” and if how much money purpose? available for that Jersey City Municipal Department Welfare although informs us that it subsidies, wished to furnish rent it was by forbidden to do so DHS, and was told that would doing it not be reimbursed for municipal so. departments report Other welfare that DHS has never communicated with them about how to handle cases expire. after the benefits

Third, appear it “supervising should what responsibility,” supra, 111 respect N.J. at DHS will exercise with program. Recently, the GA supplemental we have received indicating diversity among regarding material the counties one-year administration of the transitional AFDC rent-subsidy program. example, For are county we told that one initiated self-limiting policy requiring recipients demonstrate the ability to meet the full on one-year rent their own after the subsidy period is over. policy Should there be a uniform for municipal departments welfare and would the State shelters provided been have for families be recipi- available to GA ents?

Fourth, we should know whether Human Com- Services recently-instituted missioner’s Emergency Assistance Reform Initiative, a family-shelter strategy described the Governor's Message, homeless, 1989 Annual so, includes the GA if Reportedly, how. million in already $2.4 funds allocated aid joint Department homeless under a DHS and of Commu- nity Family Affairs Strategy program initiative Shelter spent. DHS, account, has published not been in a recent details spend by September funds obligate counties to plans its to Leusner, slowly 30, million homeless aid wends 1989. “$2.4 near as Essex awaits through system: Spending deadlines way 1989, 22, col. 2. $642,000.” Star-Ledger, at The Jun. determine so extension of time will better The four-month or Society process no interest in a programs work. has how these of agency agency to search shuffles the claimant from that charged responsibil- finally with official who bureaucratic of Homelessness ity fulfill the commitment in the Prevention to 52:27D-287, that is the (1984), 52:27D-280 to Act N.J.S.A. “[i]t suffer policy person of this that no should longstanding State hunger, deprived or of shelter.” unnecessarily from cold or be 52:27D-281(a). N.J.S.A. impossible government that cannot achieve

We realize efforts, slip people will indeed despite the some and that best has it not be because there been through the net. But should misunderstanding respective roles about the administrative an they government programs and the agencies of depersonaliza- danger we face with administer. manuals, people, and not government is that tion of do no more. government can will decide when they can legislative decide that branches If the executive statutory suspend a more, province their it is within do no 133, 149, Byrne, 82 N.J. City Camden v. mandate. See (“There in the courts (1980) can be no redress 153-55 refusal to take Legislature’s action or either the overcome appropria- power over state constitutional pursuant to its action have the two branches tions.”). not sense that But we do the means disagreement about point despite their reached that Legislature requested (In Budget, the FY ’89 the end. to reach of need” for both establishing a “standard adopt rules DHS later language that the Governor programs, the GA and AFDC 47.) 1988, c. deleted. L. rights these claimants declaration of

No more direct by than our Governor: furnished has been I our state our move that, believe these can toward steps, society goal regardless outlined the Task that “all Force, namely persons, are entitled to the basic human needs for shelter and food and it is the fault, obligation government insure that needs are these met.” [Report of (Oct.1985), Governor’s Task Force on Homeless quoted C Appendix at supra, 19.] any way not intend in to minimize We do the difficult choices allocating government that For FY in must make its resources. finite 1989-90, requested $2,276,897 Governor increase program budget budget. the EA 1990 the FY over decrease, Although recipient population expected the GA is to requested the increase in appropriations by is in- motivated anticipated hospitalization creases costs and This in the increases average monthly grant up $65,916,632program $330. request by program. has increased from FY the 1986 GA 21% not, budget however, The exhibits do break down the homeless AFDC, effort the and nor between indeed the between departments, the overall budget various ing but statement of fund- $62,000,000 for the homeless forecasts for FY 1990. See 1984). (charting A funding Exhibit increases homeless since In message, his annual Governor Thomas H. Kean recalled that he had “asked Human Services Commissioner Drew Alt- phase-out man to make the top welfare hotels as one of his priorities,” asserting that “there is better way a to use tax pockets dollars than to line the aof few hotel fortunate Kean, Gov. H. owners.” Thomas Annual Message to the Quiet Jersey’s (1989). Legislature: New Revolution 106 responded Commissioner has Emergency Assistance Initiative, three-year program designed “phase Reform out quickly possible welfare hotels as replace as them with forms housing various of transitional family shelter.” Recalling Frost, Ibid. Robert the Governor observed that place where, go there, “home is ‘the you when they have to ” you take in.’ surely Ibid. He intends every citizen of Jersey place go has they New where must you take in. As expressed, the Governor this good don’t do because it is “[w]e public right relations. We do it because thing it is to do for families in need.” Ibid. light continuing efforts, of these we do well to hesitate to invalidate a it before has been tried. In his concur- Township Middletown, rence in v. Switz 23 N.J. 607-08 (1957), then-Justice Weintraub us of proper reminded time judicial for deference: ignored. None of us about the happy a constitution or a statute spectacle whipping But is no there neither five million citizens of our appropriate boy, Although State nor assessors who fell heir to this extraordinary problem. give must it is our our citizens a act, we decent yet equally duty ultimately through manifold to seek an solution of the them orderly problems opportunity if should conclude or constitutional amendment they elected representatives and desirable. one to be necessary oppor- representatives afford our elected a similar We should they extraordinary propose test the tunity to problem of the homeless solutions among us. Y Division invalidat- judgment We reverse regula- assistance ing expiration five-month date regulation’s final and the judgment shall become tion. This Department stated the period if within the validity confirmed changes place administrative proposed set in shall have reasonably “to make certain commitments that are financial that in motels will find previously housed EA claimants] [the Franklin, supra, housing eventually elsewhere.” shelter and at 20. APPENDIX A FUNDING FOR HOMELESS PROGRAMS

(in ) millions Budget: [Gov. Thomas H. Budget Message Kean, New Jersey Taxpayers Fiscal Guide Year 1989-1990 (1989).] STEIN, J., concurring. disposition of pragmatic thoughtful and I in the Court’s join my only to record view separately I appeal. write Court should retain jurisdiction of this case in order to deter-

mine whether the action to be taken the Department Human Services meets the standard set forth in the Court’s opinion, at ante 257.

STEIN, J., concurring separate opinion. CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, For reversal —Justices O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN —6. MAURO, WIFE, AND PLAINTIFFS-AP

ROGER MAURO LOIS HIS PELLANTS, INC., INDUSTRIES, v. RAYMARK CELOTEX COR PORATION, CORPORATION, GAF SOUTHERN TEXTILE COR PORATION, PACOR, INC., COMPA OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS NY, COMPANY, INC., GARLOCK, INC., CER H.K. PORTER CORPORATION, TAINTEED PRODUCTS FIBREBOARD COR PORATION, DOE, DEFENDANTS, AND JOHN AND OWENS- CORPORATION, CORNING FIBERGLAS PITTSBURGH CORN CORPORATION, INDUSTRIES, INC., ING EAGLE-PICHER CORPORATION, AND KEENE DEFENDANTS-RESPON DENTS. 1, August 1989. February Argued 1989 Decided

Case Details

Case Name: Williams v. Department of Human Services

Court Name: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date Published: Aug 1, 1989

Citation: 561 A.2d 244

Court Abbreviation: N.J.