Dependents’ Allowances Under State Unemployment Insurance Laws by OLGA S. HALSEY*

The additional responsibilities of workers with have Nevada restrict payments to children been recognized in the unemployment insurance laws of 11 under 16; and Wyoming extends pay- States, which supplement with special allowances the benefits ments to children under age 19. paid unemployed workers who have dependents. All these Michigan, in addition, pays an allow- States provide allowances for dependent children under a speci- ance for a dependent under age fied age, and four also provide allowances for dependent adults. 21 who, because of physical or mental infirmity, is unable to engage in any The following article analyzes these provisions and discusses the remunerative occupation. Alaska, the assistance given by dependents’ allowances and the practical District of Columbia, and Nevada also elphct of some of the di@erences in State laws. pay a dependent’s allowance for any child or stepchild, regardless of age, who is unable to work because of dis- ability and who is wholly or mainly LEXEN State unemployment in- average basic weekly benefit2 of $22.90 supported by the -claimant. surance laws now provide a (table 4). Individual States deviated “Dependent” child-d child must E weekly allowance for dependent substantially from these averages. not only be under the specified age relatives of claimants eligible to re- if the parent is to receive a depend- ceive unemployment benefits1 These Statutory Provisions ent’s allowance; he must also be a “de- 11 laws have one feature in common: A review of the provisions that gov- pendent,” as defined in the State law all provide a weekly allowance for de- and as interpreted by the State em- pendent children. From this common ern the granting of dependents’ al- ployment security agency. These defl- starting point, differences emerge; lowances is an essential preliminary nitions differ. there are variations in the definition to any discussion of the significant differences in State experience. The most usual definition, found in of “children ,” in the deilnition of a the laws of seven States? requires, “dependent” child, and in the max- Definition of Dependents substantially, that the child must be imum age of dependent children for wholly or mainly supported by the whom allowances are payable. Four Children.-Ten of the 11 States parent who claims him as a depend- laws provide allowances not only for recognize stepchildren as dependents. Massachusetts, while it excludes step- ent. Under this definition, in house- dependent children but also for de- holds in which both are em- pendent adult relatives. State laws children, includes adopted children in its definition, as do six other States.3 ployed, the children will be considered also differ in the amount payable for the dependents of the father if his each dependent, its maximum, and its Michigan considers dependent a child for whose support money is paid by earnings exceed those of the mother, method of limitation. so that he supports the child “wholly In April-June 1950, almost 65,000 the claimant under an order or de- cree of a court. or mainly.” The Michigan law pro- beneficiaries were eligible for a de- vides specifically that only the father pendent’s allowance, or 19.4 percent The maximum age of children for may claim a child as a dependent un- of all beneficiaries in these 11 States whom an allowance is payable prob- during the quarter. This percentage ably has greater significance-in less the mother provides the sole or was higher among men beneficiaries- terms of the number of dependent principal support of the child. The 30.1 percent-and substantially lower children benefited-than the relation- Michigan Unemployment Compensa- among women-only 4.6 percent ship of the children to the claimant. tion Commission has defmed “princi- (table 11. Among the beneficiaries re- Six States limit the payment of an pal support” to mean that the parent ceiving a dependent’s allowance in the allowance for children to those under claiming dependent children has regu- quarter, allowances added, on the 18 years of age 4; Connecticut, the Dis- larly contributed during his base pe- average, $4.06 or 17.7 percent to the trict of Columbia, Maryland, and riod more than half the cost of their support. 2 Throughout the article the term “basic * Department of Labor, Bureau of Em- weekly benefit” refers to the weekly bene- Arizona and North Dakota require ployment Security, Unemployment Insur- fit for total unemployment for which as evidence of dependency that the ance Service, Division of Program claimants without dependents may be child be living with or receiving regu- Standards. eligible. lar support from the parent-claimant. 1 Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, the 3 Arizona, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, District of Columbia, Maryland, Massa- North Dakota, and Wyoming. 5 Alaska, Connecticut, the District of chusetts, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, 4 Alaska, Arizona, Massachusetts, Michi- Columbia, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Wyoming. gan, North Dakota, and Ohio. and Ohio.

Bulletin, February 1951 3 Arizona has further refined these two Table l.-Number and percentage distribution of bene&iaries entitled to tests. It defines “living with” the par- dependents’ allowances, by sex of beneficiary, 11 States, April-June 1950 ent as living in the same household Total number of Percent entitled to with the parent-claimant, except for beneficiaries I dependents alIowanoes temporary absences. “Regular sup- state I port” is interpreted as meaning the Total Female Total Male Female supplying of the necessities of life for .- ~____ Total. ______.__..___.__ 333,784 192,808 140,976 19.4 30.1 4.6 the dependent, or making periodic - ___~ payments for that purpose; such sup- With allowances for children only: port must be expected to continue, North Dakota ..______...... __ 986 785 201 34.3 38.1 19.4 Michigan-_-.----.--..-...---- 31,580 22,399 9,181 32.7 43.3 6.8 except in temporary emergencies. Wvomine. _. . ..-__- _.___.____ 1,870 1,498 372 32.0 38.0 7.8 Under the first half of this definition, O~o....~..----l.-.------51,454 32,589 18,865 27.7 39.2 7.8 Connecticut.. ___.______27,577 14,521 13,056 18.4 30.4 5.0 an unemployed mother could claim Maryland.. __.__.______31,951 18,555 17.1 23.3 6.4 the children as her dependents more Massachusetts..- ______... 80,862 76,833 13.6 24.5 2.2 frequently than under the more usual With allowances for children and adults: definition, which requires that the Arizona. _-. ______3,688 2,500 1,188 57.0 67.1 35.9 Nevada.. _ .____.______._ 1,587 1,098 489 28.0 37.3 parent claiming dependent children District of Columbia.. .____ 3,614 2,234 1,330 23.8 28.4 1::: support them “wholly or mainly.” Alaska.-.....-_------3,227 2,371 856 15.6 15.1 17.1 Massachusetts requires that a de- - pendent child must not be “self-sup- pendency status and the number of tives for whom allowances may be porting.” The children are not nor- dependents at the time the claimant granted and in the definition of de- mally considered the dependents of files his first claim in his benefit year? pendency. the mother unless the father is dead. Under this procedure, a dependent Each of these laws provides an al- If a mother claims dependent children child who was just under the specified lowance for a “dependent” . In under other conditions, individual maximum age at the beginning of his Alaska, it is sufficient that a woman consideration is given to each case. parent’s benefit year remains a “de- is the wife of the claimant and resides Wyoming requires that the parent- pendent child” throughout the year. in Alaska, regardless of whether she claimant be responsible for and sup- Conversely, a child born after the is supported by her husband who port the child claimed as a dependent. beginning of the benefit year is not claims benefits. In Arizona the wife These definitions of dependency are included in the count of dependents must be living with the husband- supplemented by a variety of other during that year. In Michigan a de- claimant or receiving regular support requirements that a child must also termination that one parent supports from him; she cannot be regularly satisfy before his parent is eligible for dependent children remains fixed for rendering services for remuneration an allowance on his behalf. Alaska the benefit year and cannot be trans- or profit. Nevada grants an allowance stipulates that a dependent must re- ferred to the other parent during this for a wife who is not gainfully em- side in Alaska. Both Alaska and Ne- period. In Arizona, dependents who ployed and is wholly or mainly sup- vada require that a dependent child have been claimed by one parent may ported by her husband-claimant. The must not be gainfully employed, de- not be claimed by the other during the District of Columbia, however, re- fined in Nevada as meaning employ- benefit year. If there are more than stricts allowances for a wife to one ment for compensation contributing three children in the , however, who is unable to work because of age substantially and with reasonable one parent can claim the first three or physical disability and is wholly regularity to his own support. Thus, children and the other, the remainder or mainly supported by her husband- in that State the inconsequential up to three. claimant. earnings of a dependent will not be a Nine State laws have been alert to These laws also authorize an allow- bar to an allowance on his behalf. the possibility that both parents might ance to a wife on behalf of a depend- North Dakota stipulates that an al- be unemployed simultaneously and ent husband. In Alaska, the District lowance is not payable on behalf of both might claim dependents’ allow- of Columbia, and Nevada the depend- an otherwise dependent child who re- ances for the same week. The laws of ent husband must be physically un- ceives more than 55 in remuneration eight States’ provide that, under these able to work and wholly or mainly during a claim week, while Arizona conditions, only one parent may re- supported by his wife. Arizona, how- specifies that an allowance is not pay- ceive an allowance, while Nevada de- ever, provides an allowance for a de- able for any dependent for any week nies it to both. pendent husband under conditions in which he receives unemployment Adults.-The four States-Alaska, identical with those for a dependent benefits in his own right. In Arizona, Arizona, the District of Columbia, and Massachusetts, and North Dakota the wife, as outlined above. Nevada-that provide allowances for All four laws grant an allowance for child must be unmarried. Maryland dependent adults differ as to the rela- requires a birth certificate, or a cer- a dependent parent or stepparent; tified copy, before an allowance is s Arizona, Connecticut, Maryland, Arizona includes parents-in-law, and payable. Michigan, Ohio, and WyonIing. Alaska, the District of Columbia, and 7 Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Mary- Nevada include brothers and sisters. As a matter of administrative con- land, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, and venience, six States determine the de- Wyoming. Arizona provides allowances on behalf

4 Social Security of such relatives when they are wholly land, $2.00 per dependent up to $8.00 fit plus the allowance may not exceed or mainly supported by the claimant, for four or more; and Ohio, $2.50 for $20 a week. Under this formula, no regardless of their ability to work; the each dependent up to $5.00 for two claimant who qualiiles for a basic other three States, only when such or more. benefit of $20-the maximum-is elig- relatives are physically unable to work The second method, used by five ible for an allowance, regardless of and are wholly or mainly supported States, grades the maximum allow- the number of dependents; only those by the claimant. ance with reference to the basic who qualify for a basic benefit of $17 weekly benefit for which the claimant a week or less are eligible for an al- Amount of Allowance qualifies.g The precise methods used lowance of $3 a week for three or more . The amount of the weekly allow- and their practical significance vary. dependents. ance payable for each dependent, its Connecticut, for example, pays a Nevada and Wyoming have devel- maximum weekly amount, and the weekly allowance of $3 for each de- oped a third method of limiting the method of determining the weekly pendent up to a maximum of $12, maximum allowance - a limitation maximum vary from State to State. subject, however, to the limitation based on high-quarter earnings. Al- In each State, however, the depend- that the allowance may not exceed 50 though both States authorize a max- ent’s allowance is added to the basic percent of the basic weekly benefit, imum weekly allowance of $3 for the weekly benefit for which a claimant rounded downward to the next lower first dependent-up to maximums of without dependents normally quali- dollar. Under the method used in $12 for four or more dependents in fies on the basis of prior earnings. Alaska, all beneficiaries who have up Nevada and of $6 for two or more de- Allowances per dependent.-Eight to three dependents receive an allow- pendents in Wyoming-in neither States provide, nominally at least, a ance for each, which approximates a State may the sum of the basic weekly uniform allowance for each depend- uniform percentage of the basic benefit and allowance exceed a spe- ent up to a specified maximum weekly benefit. cified percentage of earnings during amount. The allowance per depend- Michigan and North Dakota have the high quarter. In Nevada, this ceil- ent is $3.00 in Connecticut, Nevada, approached this problem through a ing is 6 percent; in Wyoming, 8 per- and Wyoming; $2.50 in Ohio; $2.00 in schedule of dependents’ allowances in cent. The Nevada formula severely Arizona, Maryland, and Massachu- which the maximum allowance varies reduces the allowance payable to those setts: and $1.00 in the District of Co- not only with the basic weekly benefit who qualify for the lower basic weekly lumbia. Michigan* and North Dakota but also with the number of depend- benefit amounts. Claimants qualifying pay an allowance of $2.00 for the first ents. In Michigan a $2 weekly allow- for the minimum basic weekly benefit dependent but vary the amount pay- ance for the first dependent is pay- of $8, for example, may be ineligible able for two or more dependents with able to all claimants who qualify for for any allowance or for one varying the amount of the basic weekly bene- more than the minimum basic weekly from $1 to $4 for one or more depend- fit, increasing the maximum allow- benefit of $6; those who qualify for a ents, depending on the amount of their ance as the basic weekly benefit in- $7 basic weekly benefit may receive high-quarter earnings. Only those creases. In Alaska the allowance is not more than $2 a week in allow- claimants who have earned $567 or 20 percent of the basic weekly benefit ances, regardless of the number of more during their quarter of highest for each dependent up to a maximum dependents: those eligible for a $10 earnings and who qualify for a basic of 60 percent for three or more de- basic weekly benefit may receive $2 a benefit of $23 or more are eligible for pendents. week for the first dependent and a the maximum of $12 for four depend- Some of the restrictions that the maximum of $4 a week for two or ents. The effect of the Wyoming re- States place on the maximum allow- more ; and those qualifying for a striction is similar but less drastic. ance payable may reduce the allow- weekly benefit of $17 or more, $2 a Massachusetts has still a fourth type ance payable per dependent for those week for each dependent up to four. of limitation. An allowance of $2 a in the lower benefit brackets. The ef- The effect of the North Dakota re- week is paid for each dependent child, fect of these restrictions is considered striction is similar, except .that the subject only to the limitation that the below. maximum is $6 a week for three or basic weekly benefit plus the depend- Restrictions on the maximum al- more dependents. ents’ allowance may not exceed aver- lowance payable.-All States restrict The general effect of the limitations age weekly wages, rounded to the next the maximum allowance payable based on the basic weekly benefit is to higher dollar. Under the Massachu- (table 4). These limitations take four provide a larger allowance for depend- setts law, basic weekly benefits are ap- major forms. The simplest, found in ents of claimants in the upper benefit proximately l/20 of high-quarter three State laws, provides a uniform brackets: the effect of the restriction earnings. If a claimant has worked in allowance for each dependent up to in the District of Columbia is just the only 1 calendar quarter, his “weekly a specified number. Arizona, for ex- reverse. There the law provides a wage” is obtained by dividing totaX ample, pays $2.00 for each dependent weekly allowance of $1 per dependent earnings for this quarter by 13. If, up to $6.00 for three or more; Mary- up to a maximum of $3 for three or however, he has worked in 2 or more more dependents, but subject to the quarters, the earnings in the 2 highest s Except that, for claimants qualifying for the minimum basic benefit of $6, a limitation that the basic weekly bene- quarters are divided by 26 to obtain dependent’s allowance is $1 for all de- 9 Alaska, Connecticut, District of Co- his “weekly wage.” pendents. lumbia, Michigan, and North Dakota. The general effect of these limita-

Bulletin, February 1951 5 tions, except those that vary the al- Table 2.-Number of beneficiaries entitled to dependents’ allowances and lowances only with the number of de- percent entitled to allowances for specified types of dependents, by sex of pendents, is to restrict, for claimants beneficiary, four States,’ April-June 1950 qualifying for the lower basic weekly [Corrected to Sept. 16,1950] beneflt amounts, the number of de- Percent entitled to dependents’ allowances for- pendents for whom allowances are T-- - payable. Their practical significance, - N%ber Dependent children under Dependent however, depends on the proportion State and sex beneficiaries *ge limit SPO’WZ I entitled to - - - - 1. , of claimants who qualify for the max- dependents’ and no Other BllOWaIlCB With Without children cdependents imum basic weekly benefit and for the r under age rotal cleoendent (dependent lower weekly benefits affected by the SPOUSe limit restrictions. .- - .- _- _- -- Total . . .._ -____ 3,912 72.1 32.3 39.9 22.1 7.1 0.5 .- -- Miscellaneous Provisions Alasks ._____-_.-__. 72.8 31.3 41.5 26.0 1.0 .2 AriZOTJS.-______-. 2,% 70.6 40.7 23.0 (9 Most State laws provide that de- DistrictofColumbia 860 82.0 3.6 fi:: 8.5 2: 2.1 pendents’ allowances are payable in Nevada. ______445 59.8 48.8 11.0 40.2 . _. Men. __- ___-_-__. 3ag 69.6 39.9 29.6 7.2 addition to the basic weekly benefit Al2lSka.______. 41.9 22.9 Zt:; :3” and that they have no effect in deter- Arizona. ______1,677 zi 49.8 18.0 26.6 ::t DistrictofColumbia 82:8 4.7 is. 1 10.9 13.4 (1) 2.8 mining the total amount of benefit, as Nevada. ______zi 59.8 52.2 7.6 40.2 - __ _ _ _ - __ -. .-___------expressed in dollars, for which a Women. -______. 833 81.9 78.0 6.6 Alaska. ______92.5 E 87.0 ii claimant is potentially eligible during Arizona. ._ _._____._ :z 81.2 4: 7 76.5 a: 7 his beneAt year. Alaska and Maryland, DistrictofColumbia 2% 79.6 79.2 however, are two exceptions. Nevada. ______35 60.0 iii 51.4 1:: - - - - - Alaska includes sums received as ’ The only States that allow benefits for depend- * Not applicable. dependents’ allowances in the max- ents other than children. imum potential amount of benefits a claimant may receive in a year. This ferences in State experience in the in the State unemployment insurance provision, in effect, reduces the max- proportion of beneficiaries who qualify laws. The following discussion, there- imum number of weeks during which for allowances, in the number of de- fore, is based on the percentage of a beneficiary may receive his basic pendents for whom allowances are men beneficiaries eligible for an al- benefit, supplemented by an allow- payable, and in the extent to which lowance. ance. And, of course, the greater the allowances increase the basic weekly The proportion of men beneficiaries allowance, the greater the reduction benefit. eligible for a dependent’s allowance in the potential weeks of benefit. varied from a low of 15.1 percent in In Maryland the potential duration Entitled Beneficiaries Alaska to a high of 67.1 percent in of benefits for persons receiving an Nineteen percent of the total num- Arizona in April-June 1950 (table 1). allowance is affected by the formula ber of beneficiaries (333,800) in these These variations do not appear to be for determining maximum potential 11 States were entitled to dependents’ explained by the type of dependents duration. This formula provides that allowances during April-June 1950. for whom allowances are payable in the total amount of benefits that bene- This proportion varied markedly the different States. The percentage ficiaries may receive in a year is among the States, ranging from a high of male beneficiaries who were eligible the lesser of: (1) 26 times the basic of 57.0 percent in Arizona to a low of for a dependent’s allowance in April- weekly benefit, supplemented by al- 13.6 percent in Massachusetts (table June 1950 was not consistently higher lowances: or (2) one-fourth of earn- 1). The proportion of the men bene- in the four States that provide allow- ings from insured work during the ficiaries entitled to an allowance is ances for both children and adults, l-year base period. Under the second more useful than the total figure for for example, than among the seven half of this formula, a claimant who comparative purposes and is a better States that limit allowances to de- has earned $2,600 in the l-year base guide to the operation of these provi- pendent children. Among these seven period and who qualifies for a $25 sions because of two factors. First, States the proportion of male benefi- basic beneflt is eligible to receive this women members of the labor force, ciaries who were entitled to an allow- benefit for a maximum of 26 weeks. who generally have fewer “depend- ance during this quarter did not vary If this same claimant, however, is ents” than the men, account for vary- directly with the requirement con- eligible for an $8 allowance for four ing proportions of the beneficiaries, cerning the maximum age of the chil- dependent children, his maximum du- ranging in the quarter from a high of dren for whom an allowance was pay- ration is reduced to between 19 and 49 percent in Massachusetts to a low able. In Connecticut, for example, 20 weeks. of 20 percent in North Dakota and which limits allowances to children Wyoming. Secondly, when both hus- under 16 years of age, 30.4 percent of State Experience band and wife are insured, the chil- the men beneficiaries were eligible for dren are the dependents of the father an allowance, as contrasted with 24.5 The variations in statutory provi- more frequently than of the mother, percent in Massachusetts, which pays sions obviously contribute to the dif- under the definitions of dependency allowances for children under age 18.

6 Social Security In Michigan, which has the same age under age 16 and 18, respectively. In is even more striking. Among the seven limit as Massachusetts, the corre- the District of Columbia, the $20 limi- States that provide an allowance for sponding percentage was 43.3 percent. tation on the maximum amount pay- dependent children only, North Da- It has been suggested that these able excluded from all possibility of kota reported the largest proportion differences in the proportion of men an allowance 48.2 percent of the new of women beneficiaries qualifying for beneficiaries who were eligible for an insured claimants who qualified for a an allowance-19.4 percent--a figure allowance reflect differences among basic benefit of $20 during April-June more than twice the corresponding the States in the average number of 1950. This limitation, in effect, re- proportion for any other State in the children under age 18 per male labor- stricts allowances to claimants who group. Similarly, the 35.9 percent of force member. Thus, in Michigan, qualify for the lower weekly beneflts the women beneficiaries who qualifled male members of the labor force were and who generally are the lower paid for an allowance in Arizona was more estimated to have had in 1940 an and younger workers. Though many than twice the proportion in any of average of 0.7 children under 18; in of these workers may be unmarried the other three States in the group Massachusetts and Connecticut, an and without a dependent wife or child, that pays an allowance for adult de- average of 0.5.1°The State differences some may have dependent parents or pendents. Since more than four-fifths in the average number of children brothers or sisters. of the allowances for which women under age 18 per male labor-force Variations in the State definition of beneficiaries in Arizona qualified were member are relatively slight, however, dependency may affect the number of payable for children (table 2), it and do not appear adequate to explain “dependent” relatives and also the seems probable that the Arizona defl- the much greater variations in the proportion of beneficiaries who qualify nition of dependent children makes it proportion of male beneficiaries who for an allowance. Arizona and North easier for working mothers to claim were eligible for an allowance on be- Dakota illustrate some of the effects half of children under the specified of these differences. Under the deflni- their children as dependents than in age. In Connecticut and Massachu- tions of dependent children adopted other States. setts, for example, the average num- by these two States, it is probable that The effect of a restrictive definition ber of children under age 18 per male some children under 18 years of age of a dependent is illustrated by Alaska, worker was identical. Despite this might meet the test of living in the which lays down the simple require- agreement and despite the fact that household of the parent-claimant yet ment that a “dependent” must reside in Massachusetts an allowance is pay- could not satisfy the more usual re- in Alaska. It is probable that this re- able for dependent children under age quirement that they were wholly or quirement, under conditions prevail- 18, whereas Connecticut restricts such mainly supported by him. In North ing in Alaska, precludes payment of payments to those under age 16, a Dakota the proportion of men bene- allowances on behalf of some persons larger proportion of the men benefi- ficiaries who qualified for an allow- for whom they would be payable in ciaries were eligible for an allowance ance is relatively high-38.1 percent- other jurisdictions. in Connecticut than in Massachusetts. and that in Arizona-67.1 percent-- The Dependents In comparison with this factor. is the highest in the country (table 1). the various limitations on the max- The exceptionally high percentage of Relationship to the claimant.-Al- imum allowance payable and the women beneficiaries in these two lowances were paid exclusively for different definitions of dependency States who qualified for an allowance children in seven States. In the four probably a greater part in the States that provide allowances for both dependent children and adults disparity among the States in the Table 3.-Number of beneficiaries en- proportion of beneficiaries eligible for titled to dependents’ allowances (table 2), 72.1 percent of the 3,900 an allowance and in the number of and percentage distribution by beneficiaries receiving an allowance number of dependents, 11 States, in April-June 1950 received it on be- dependents for whom allowances are April-June 1950 payable. - half of children (whether or not an The District of Columbia’s experi- Percent@? distribution by allowance for a dependent spouse w&s ence illustrates the effect of the first 0specified number of dependents also included). Thus, regardless of type of statutory provision. Only 28.4 %?‘ statutory differences, allowances were state of payable predominantly for children. percent of the male beneficiaries were bene- entitled to an allowance for either a ficiarie 1 2 3 4 ,“r Number of dependents for whom IllOX allowances were payable.-Among the dependent adult or a child during -- ---__ April-June 1950. Only three other 64,600 men and women beneficiaries Total.. 64,615 43.4 36.4 12.2 6.6 1.4 States had lower proportions-Alaska, -- ____- who qualified for an allowance during Alaska..-. 504 39.9 22.6 37.5 .___.. __.__ April-June 1950, 43.4 percent were which also provides allowances for Ariz ______2,103 38.9 24.4 3G.9 ______both adult and child dependents, and y$lli _. . 5,073 46.5 32.5 13.6 7.4 _____ eligible for an allowance for one de- Maryland and Massachusetts, which CCL-.. 860 51.6 27.9 20.5 -._ _.._____ pendent only; 36.4 percent for two Md- _.____ 8,614 40.7 28.8 15.9 14.7 __-._ dependents; 12.2 percent for three de- grant allowances only for children Mass ______21,514 46.3 30.0 13.8 5.9 4.1 40.3 32.4 14.6 12.8 __.__ pendents; and 8.0 percent for four or loMarvin Bloom, “The Dependents of 46.1 25.4 18.0 10.6 _____ 34.6 26.3 39.1 ______more (table 3) . Workers: Selected Data on Numbers and 42.8 57.2 _-____.______The proportion of beneficiaries who Types,” Social Security Bulletin, Janu- 33.4 66.6 ary 1949. were eligible for an allowance but

Bulletin, February 1951 7 who were entitled on the basis of only Table 4.-Selected data on dependents’ allowances, 11 States, April-June 1950 one dependent varied from 33.4 per- cent in Wyoming to 51.6 percent in Average basic .ncrmse resulting from veekly benefil lependents’ allowances the District of Columbia. The reasons Minimum and maximum for - for these differences are not always stetc dependents’ allowance beneficiaries receiving A-wage 1Percentage clear. It seems probable that Nevada’s dependents’ weekly increase high percentage (46.1 percent) is due / sllowances amount in some measure to the fact that 40.2 Al States.------_____-__....._____-.----.----.------.-.. $22.90 $4.06 17.7 percent of the men eligible for an al- Alaska _____._.______ZO-GO percent of basic benefit ($2-$15). 24.15 9.18 I- 38.0 lowance were entitled on behalf of a Arizona. __.__.______$2-$6..---. ______..__-.-..-..-...-...... 1%71 3.99 21.3 Connecticut---.~.--. S-$12, but not more than 50 percent of 21.01 6.09 29.0 dependent wife with no dependent basic weekly benefit. children. In Nevada, a wife is consid- District of Columbia. $I-$3, but sum of allowonce and basic 14.80 1.56 10.5 ered a dependent when she is not Maryland- ______$2~~~~~EmaynoEex~eed.$20_-- __ _. --. -. -. 21.33 4.04 18.9 Massachusetts.. .____ $2 for each dependent, but sum of allow- 23.87 3.w 15.2 gainfully employed and is wholly or ance and basic benefit may not exceed “weekly wage.” mainly supported by her husband- Michigan~...... $243 (schedule) 1. __.._ -_.-.__-- -... 23.49 4. OF 17.3 claimant. Nevada- -...-._. G-$12, but sum of allowance and basic 23.53 5.79 24.6 benefit may not exceedG percent of bigh- The District of Columbia recorded quarter wages. North Dakota ._.____ $2-$6(schedule) ______.___--..... 18.56 4.12 22.2 the largest proportion of beneficiaries Ohio~...... -.---- $2.50-$5.00-.-.-.--.----.-----.-.-----...__~.. 22.80 3.95 17.3 eligible for an allowance who were Wyoming .______-.- O-S, but sum of allowence and basic 24.42 4.93 20.2 benefit mw not exceed8 nercent of hiah- entitled for only one dependent (51.6 quarterwvages. percent). In contrast to the situation in Nevada, only 10.9 percent of the 1 $2 minimum for all basic benefit amounts above the $6 minimum basic benefit. for which $1 is payable, regardless of the number of dependents. men qualified on the basis of a de- pendent wife, and 16.2 percent quali- ems, the proportion of beneficiaries definition of child dependents. In fied on the basis of other adult de- eligible for an allowance on the basis addition, North Dakota pays an allow- pendents. Only 4.7 percent qualified of three or more dependents varied ance to all claimants who have three for an allowance based on a depend- as shown in the following tabulation. dependents and who are eligible for ent wife and children, as compared a basic benefit of $11 or over. Alaska with 52.2 percent in Nevada. The small and Arizona, which provide allow- proportion of men beneficiaries in the in behalf of- ances for both dependent children District of Columbia who were eligible FlllOWtIlCeS qualifying oh Depend- and adults, had the next highest pro- for an allowance on behalf of a de- basis of three ent Depend- portions (37.5 percent and 36.9 per- pendent wife is probably due to the or more de- children ent pcndents, undrr adult cent, respectively). The extension of fact that a wife is considered a de- April-June1g50 / wcj;pd relative allowances to adult dependents, com- pendent only when she is physically bined with the very liberal definition unable to work and is wholly or mainly Alaska .__ --... 37.5 18 of some dependents, probably con- supported by her husband-claimant. Arizona.. .-.. 36.9 Connecticut.-.. 21.0 :: tributed to this result. An additional Thus, a male beneficiary who supports District of Co- factor is that, under both laws, an a nongainfully employed wife and one lumbia. ______20.5 Maryland----.. 30.6 allowance is payable for three de- dependent child generally would be Massachusetts 23.8 Michigan...... 27.4 :: pendents without any restriction be- eligible for an allowance only on Nevada.. ___. 28.G ing imposed. North Dakota. 39.1 behalf of the dependent child; the The District of Columbia had the L proportion eligible for an allowance lowest proportion (20.5 percent) of on behalf of only one dependent is These proportions, significantly, did not vary with the scope of the provi- beneficiaries receiving allowances on thus increased. The effect of the den- behalf of three or more dependents, nition of a dependent wife in increas- sions governing the type of dependents for whom allowances are payable. The which may reflect its strict definition ing the proportion of beneficiaries of a dependent wife. Under this defi- who qualify for an allowance on the proportion was highest in North Da- nition, only a small proportion of men basis of only one dependent is sharp- kota, which provides allowances only ened by the $20 ceiling for basic bene- for dependent children under age 18, beneficiaries, eligible for an allowance, fit plus allowance. and lowest in the District of Columbia, qualified for an allowance for a de- In Ohio and Wyoming the unusually where allowances are payable for de- pendent wife with children (4.7 per- large proportions of the beneficiaries pendent children under age 16 and cent), as compared with proportions eligible for an allowance who were adult dependents. nearly 9 to 11 times greater in other entitled to allowances for two de- The high percentage in North Da- States that have a more liberal defi- pendents (5’7.2 and 66.6 percent, re- kota may be the result not only of the nition (table 3). More important, spectively) reflect the provisions in unusually large average number of however, is the effect of the ceiling these States that restrict allowances children under age 18 per male labor- of $20 for basic benefit plus allow- to a maximum of two dependents. force member, estimated at 0.9 for ances in curtailing the number of Among the nine States that provide 1940,11but also of the very liberal dependents for whom an allowance &llowances for three or more depend- 11 Ibid. is payable. s Social Security Average Amount of Depend- where allowances are payable for a receiving them by an average of 17.7 ents’ Allowances maximum of two dependents. percent in April-June- 1950, the in- Among the four States that pay a crease in the average weekly benefit Dependents’ allowances in these 11 benefit of $2.00 for the first dependent, of all beneficiaries was only 4.6 per- States added $4.06 to the average basic the largest monetary increase ($4.121 cent. This smaller increase in the benefit ($22.90) of beneficiaries re- occurred in North Dakota despite the average weekly benefit of all beneil- ceiving an allowance in April-June fact that allowances in this State are ciaries is due, of course, to the fact 1950 (table 4). payable for a maximum of three de- that only 19.4 percent of the bene- The experience of individual States pendents, as compared with four in ficiaries were entitled to an allowance differed, however, due to variations in Maryland and Michigan and an un- during this quarter. The increase in the amount of the allowance for the limited number in Massachusetts. the weekly benefit of all beneficiaries first dependent, the maximum pay- North Dakota’s greater increase is represents the average increase in able, and the number of dependents probably due to t,he relatively smaller benefit expenditures resulting from on whose behalf allowances were paid. proportions of beneficiaries, eligible the provision of dependents’ allow- In general, the larger the allowance for an allowance, who qualined on the ances. for the flrst dependent, the greater basis of one and two dependents and The increase in benefit expenditures the monetary increase. Among States the unusually high proportion who varied among the States from a mini- with the same allowance for the first qualified on the basis of three depend- mum of 0.9 percent in the District of dependent, the monetary increase va- ents (table 31. In Massachusetts, Columbia to a maximum of 12.1 per- ried with the maximum number of where the increase was least, a rela- cent in Arizona. These differences, of dependents for whom allowances are tively large proportion qualified on course, reflect the disparity in the payable, the effect of special limita- the basis of only one dependent and average allowance, in the percentage tions, and the number of dependents a small proportion were eligible for by which the average allowance in- per beneficiary. allowances on behalf of three or more. creased the average basic benefit, and The largest monetary and percent- In the District of Columbia, the in the proportion of all beneilciaries age increase occurred in Alaska; it is monetary increase was less than in eligible for an allowance. In the Dis- probable that most of the beneficiaries any other State, not only because of trict of Columbia, for example, 23.8 receiving an allowance qualified for the smaller allowance for each de- percent of all beneficiaries were en- the maximum beneflt of $25.00, since pendent but also because it had the titled to an allowance that, on the the average basic beneflt was $24.15. highest proportion of beneficiaries, average, increased the average basic Beneficiaries qualifying for this max- eligible for an allowance, who were benefit of those receiving an allow- imum, therefore, received $5.00 for entitled for only one dependent and ance by $1.56 or 10.5 percent. In Ari- each dependent. the smallest proportion eligible on the zona, by contrast, 57.0 percent of all As a group, the three States that basis of three or more. beneficiaries were eligible for an al- pay an allowance of $3.00 for the first lowance that, on the average, in- dependent had the next largest mone- Cost of Dependents’ Allowances creased the basic benefit of those re- tary increase, varying from $6.09 in Although dependents’ allowances ceiving an allowance by $3.99 or 21.3 Connecticut to $4.93 in Wyoming, increased the weekly beneflt of those percent.

Bulletin, February 1951