Concurrent Receipt of Public Assistance and Old-Age And

Concurrent Receipt of Public Assistance and Old-Age and Survivors Insurance by SUE OSSMAN* The increasing attention focused in recent years on both our For several reasons, the recipient aged population and our children has brought with it recogni- rate for old-age assistance has not tion of the importance of the refationship between the income- dropped as sharply as the benefi- maintenance programs established under the Social Security ciary rate for old-age and survivors Act for these two groups. Accordingly, the Bureau of Public insurance has risen. Many persons Assistance summarizes in the Bulletin each year State reports on currently receiving old-age assistance concurrent receipt of old-age and survivors insurance benefits do not, have and are likely never to and public assistance payments. The article that follows is have an opportunity to obtain in- based on reports for early 1956. sured status under the insurance pro- HE rapidly growing importance the relationship between them is of gram. Many of them are widows who of old-age and survivors insur- continuing interest. To measure the have not worked in recent, years and T ance as a source of income for extent, to which aged persons and whose husbands died before having aged persons has contributed to the families with dependent children are had the opportunity to be covered by gradual decline in the number of receiving payments under the two old-age and survivors insurance. persons receiving old-age assistance. programs, once each year all the They may therefore be in need of as- The Social Security Act amendments States submit, reports based on a sistance for the remainder of their of 1950, 1952, and 1954 have made it sample of assistance recipients. These lives. Another group is made up of possible for the insurance program reports show the number of aged and individuals who, when they reach re- increasingly to assume the major child beneficiaries of old-age and sur- tirement age, have not had sufilcient role in providing basic economic se- vivors insurance who also receive insurance coverage to provide them curity to retired men and women and public assistance and the amounts with benefits that are large enough their dependents, as well as to the of the benefit and the assistance pay- to meet their basic needs. They may survivors of deceased wage earners. ment, received. The following article have to apply for supplementary as- In 1948 the Advisory Council to the is based on this year’s reports. Data sistance, and many of them, too, may Senate Finance Committee found concerning aged recipients were col- need such help for the rest of their that about 75 percent more aged per- lected for the month of February, lives. Finally, the old-age and sur- sons were receiving old-age assistance and most, of the States chose either vivors insurance program was not, de- than were receiving benefits under February or March for the informa- signed to provide complete protection the insurance program. Today there tion on recipients of aid to depend- for persons who have special needs, are more than two and one-half times ent, children1 especially medical care needs. Public as many aged beneficiaries as recipi- assistance will continue to be a nec- ents of old-age assistance-6.5 mil- Aged Persons Receiving OASI essary supplement for such persons. lion compared with 2.5 million. This and OAA Although the old-age assistance shift has had several significant ef- During the period from September recipient rate is declining, the num- fects on the old-age assistance pro- 1950 to February 1956 the proportion ber of aged recipients who also get gram. It has (1) reduced the num- of the aged population receiving old- benefits under the insurance program ber of recipients by removing from age and survivors insurance benefits has risen gradually. Almost twice as the rolls some who have become eli- rose 156 percent-from 177 per 1,000 many persons were getting both types gible for insurance benefits through persons aged 65 and over to 453 per of payment in February 1956 as in the extended coverage of the 1950 1,000 (chart 1). This increase has September 1950 - 516,300 compared and 1954 amendments, (2) reduced brought the insurance program to a with 276,200 (table 1). With the ex- substantially the number of aged in- position where, as a source of income tension in insurance coverage pro- dividuals who otherwise would be ap- for the aged, it overshadows in im- vided by the amendments to the So- Plying for assistance, and (3) grad- portance the old-age assistance pro- cial Security Act th,e group poten- ually increased the number of recipi- gram; in that program, over the same tially eligible for old-age assistance ents who are also insurance bene- period, the recipient. rates receded may be expected to include more in- Aciaries. from 226 per 1,000 aged persons to surance beneficiaries. Since both old-age and survivors 178 per 1,000. After the 1950 amendments there insurance and public assistance are was a sharp rise in the number of income-maintenance programs for 1 For aid to dependent children, Febru- aged recipients who also received in- ary 1956 data for 29 States, March data for surance benefits. The minimum bene- the aged and for paternal orphans, New York (except New York City, which reported January data) and 19 other States, fit then payable to retired workers was l Division Of Program Statistics and Anal- November 1955 for 1 State. and May 1956 for $20; with many of the newly eligible ysis, Bureau of Public A&stance. 1 State. beneficiaries receiving beneAts near

Bulletin, October 1956 11 Chart 1 .-Number of aged persons receiving OAA, OASI, or both per 1,000 with benefits has gradually gone UP. persons aged 65 and over, selected months, September 1950-February 1956 By February 1956, 1 out of every 5 recipients of old-age assistance was NUMI .R PER THOUSAND also receiving benefits, compared with 800 1 out of every 10 on the rolls in SeP- tember 1950. State Changes, February 19&T- February 1956 The proportion of recipients who 600 also had insurance benefits was larger in February 1956 than it had been a year earlier in all but four of the 500 51 States that reported.2 In two States, Virginia and West Virginia, the proportion was the same as in the 400 preceding year. New Mexico and Hawaii were the only States reporting decreases. In 300 New Mexico the percentage of recipients also getting insurance beneflts dropped from 11.6 in February 1955 to 8.1 in February 1956. This decline 200 was attributed by the State to several factors-reduction from 100 percent to 65 percent in the amount of need 100 met by the agency in early 1955, tighter eligibility requirements relat- ing to property ownership, and sev- 0 eral other restrictive changes in SEPT. AUG. FEB. FEB. FEB. FEB. FEB. agency policy. As a consequence, 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 many of the “less needy” cases that were closed included recipients who the minimum, a considerable num- 1951, and February 1952 the pro- had also received beneflts a year ber of old-age assistance recipients portion had been approximately 12 earlier. Although the cut in assist- who were getting benefits for the percent. ance payments was restored by the first time continued to need public As the number of aged assistance end of the year, it is believed that aid. In addition, applicants for old- recipients with insurance benefits has increased and the total number of 2 Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, age assistance during the 12 months which reported no cases receiving both after September 1950 included a recipients of old-age assistance has asslstance payments and insurance bene- number of beneficiaries who needed declined, the proportion of recipients fits, are excluded from the analysis. assistance to supplement their bese- fits. As a result the number of :jer- Table 1 .-Aged persons and families with children receiving both OASZ benejits sons receiving both types of pay- and assistance payments, 1948-56 ments was more than 100,000 greater - in August 1951 than in September Aged mrsons receiving both Families with children receiving OASI and OAA both OASI and ADC 1950. Except in one year, the an- I _ nual increases since August 1951 - have been somewhat more gradual, Percent Of- I Percent of- Month and year amounting to between 20,000 and OASI 30,000. Number Aged Number bene- OASI OAA ficiary ADC Although the number of aged bene- bene- recipients families families ficiaries with ficiaries who also receive assistance children has risen, the proportion that such L beneficiaries comprise of all aged June1948 ._.._._...... -. 146, Ooo 10. 0 6.1 21,600 6. 7 September 1950...... 276.200 12. 6 9.8 32,309 8.3 ::“B beneficiaries has declined. Of the 6.5 August 1951.-m- ...... _._. 376,500 11.9 13.8 30,700 6.7 February 195L __.._....._. 406,000 12.0 15.1 30, ooa 6. 1 2: million persons aged 65 and over get- February 1553. . .._ ._.._._ 426,504 10. 7 16.3 30,600 5.7 5.3 February 1954 1.. .._._.... 463, ow 9. 7 18.0 31,900 5. 4 5.9 ting old-age and survivors insurance February 1955-m.---m __.... 488, fml 8. 7 19.2 32,100 4.9 5.2 benefits in February 1956, only 8 per- February 1956 2. .____..... 516,300 8.0 20. 4 32,600 4.6 5.3 cent received supplementary assist- - / 1 November 1953 data for ADC families. ance. In September 1950, August 2 Data for ADC families for month other than February for 22 States. See table 4, footnote 1. 12 Social Security relatively few of these less needy The largest increase in the num- to supplement their benefits. Other cases had been reinstated by Feb- ber of aged recipients with both types liberalizations, such as the repeal of ruary 1956. of payments (577 percent) occurred the relatives’ responsibility law, in- In Hawaii, also, the proportion of in Alabama, where the number rose creases in amounts provided under recipients with insurance benefits was from 1,500 in February 1955 to more the State’s assistance standards, and smaller in February of this year- than 10,000 in February 1956. Under increases in the amounts of property 14.9 percent compared with 15.7 per- a policy adopted in Alabama in early recipients may own, also contributed cent in February 1955. Here the re- 1955, minimum payments were re- to the large increase in Alabama. duction was largely the result of reduced from $10 to $1 and individuals moving from the list of basic require- with budget deficits of less than $10 State Diflerences ments five items previously recognized thus became eligible for assistance. In February 1956 the proportion of by the agency. This change had the This policy tends to increase the aged assistance recipients with in- effect of disqualifying for assistance number of insurance beneficiaries on surance benefits ranged from 4.9 Per- a number of recipients who were get- the assistance rolls, since many of cent in West Virginia to 43.2 percent ting small assistance payments. them need relatively small payments in Nevada (table 2). Small State percentages reflect one or both of two Table 2.-Number of aged OASZ beneficiaries per 1,000 population aged 65 and circumstances: (1) a relatively small over and percent of OAA recipients with OASZ benefits, February 1956 - proportion of aged persons receiving OASI ben- benefits, and (2) assistance payments eficiaries Percent of OAA recipients with OASI benefits that are low because State funds are State 1 and beneflciary- per 1 ,M)o rate group population small in relation to the number of aged 65 and over Les;;han 1 lo-14 1 15-19 1 20-24 / 25ormore needy persons and relatively few I I I \ aged beneficiaries are eligible for as- Total, 53 States .__._____ ..~~.....~~...~~.~...~~.~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~.2O.4.-----~~~..-.--. sistance. These conditions are mOSt likely to be found in States whose Less than 300: I I I I North Dakota ______.____ 227 _.____-.-..- 12.6 __.__.._____ ._____. -__.- ___._._._._ economies are largely agricultural.3 Mississippi __.. -_- _.___ -_- 252 6.9 _._.. .__.._ ___. .___.__ .- . .._ ___.. __.._.___._. In nine States fewer than 10 per- South Dakota _._.____.____ 291 _ _ _ 14.0 _._.______.- . .._ .._. _____._._.__ South Carolina---...---. 299 5.9 __..__..____ _.__._____-- _____...... _.___. _.._ cent of the aged assistance recipients 300-349: Qeorgia ______312 9.1 .-_-__- _____ ._..______. ..______..._. also received benefits. The aged bene- New Mexico.---..----.--. 317 8.1 . . ..--.-.._. -_-.- _____- ___...----.. __- .__..___. ficiary rate in eight of these nine Oklahoma-- ______---_-_ 320 ___-.-.__-__ __--_- ._._._ 16.4 ___._...... _ . ..______._ Texas..-.-.-..----.-----.. 322 .__--.._-___ 13.3 _.______. _____.._._.. .._.__....__ States was substantially less than the Louisiana -.._ -_--_.- ____-. 322 __-.-.---.__ _._. _.__ -_. ._.______. 20.3 . ..___._._ -_ Arkansaq---.-- ____--_.-._ 323 6.5 _._.._._..__ __-______._. _____.._..._ _.-.._._._.. national rate of 453 per 1,000 persons TeMtrSS~e---_-~-...-~-~~~ 324 7.6 . . . ..______-_- _.__.___. __.._.._..__ _.-_-_- .__.. North Carolin...~.~.... 329 8.1 ..----.----- _--_-_____-- _____...... - _._.-..___.. aged 65 and over. West Virginia’s Nebraska.----.- .___ -_-___ 336 .____.____.. _-__.-__-___ 17.1 ___...... _ _....._..___ beneficiary rate was somewhat higher Alabama.- __...______349 --- ____.___. 10.4 ______... .__-_---..._ _..._....___ 350-399: than the national average, but lim- Kansas------.-...---- 356 ______. __ _ _. _. _. _._. _. 17.2 __._.______.____. Iowa . .._.______-- _.__ -___ 359 __ __. -. - ______. _- 18.4 _- .._..____. . .._...___ -_ ited assistance funds permitted pay- Kentucky_----- _____-_-_. 360 ____...... _ 10.3 _..._._.___- ___._. .___...... ____. ments to only the neediest aged per- Montana---..---- ______367 _.___.__..._ .___..______- __.. -.-__ 23.5 -.- . . ..____. Distrfct of Columbia.-.-.. 370 ___._.....-- .____.____.. __..__-..___ 22.1 _...... ____. sons. Average assistance payments Wyoming ____...___.______386 .___..._..._ _.__..__.._. .__.___...__ .- _.___ 27.1 Minnesota...... ----.----. y; _. __. __. 5.3 ______19.1 ..__.._._..- _...... __ for February 1956 in these nine States Virginia _._..______. ..-...-..-- .__._..___ -- ____.____... .._-_- . ..___ Missouri-.. _.__.______397 __.-.---.-.- ______. -_.. _._-- ._.._._ 23.7 ._.. _.__.__ ranged from $27.85 to $47.17, consid- 400-449: erably less than the national average Colorado ______._ 407 _- ______._. .._- ____. -.. ______. -._. _._...... _ 29. 5 Idaho~.-~-~~--~~.--~~- ___. 423 __------__._._..__-- ____-...-_-_ 24.1 ._..__.__.__ of $54.08. Utah ______434 -- ______.. __- ..__. -_._ 19.5 ______..______.______450-499: States with relatively more old-age Nevada----..------.----- 450 ______...--- .-.- __....-- .-__- ____._. ______._ 43.2 and survivors insurance beneficiaries Illinois __._.______._ -___-_ 459 ______...--- ______..__ .______..__ 20.5 _-_----._-.- Wisconsin-- ______------__ 466 __..._..____ -_- ______... _....______. 23.2 ___- ..___. -_ among their aged populations were Indiana..----.-.-.-----.-- 473 _.__------______._. 18.8 .._-.-...-.. ____..______Maryland-.----.----- ___. 475 ..--- ______.______.. 13.9 -.__---...-- __-- _... -___ more likely to have also a larger pro- Ohio- ______-.__-___-__ 481 .._...------__.- ______._ __.______. 22.2 ______-..- 481 __._------^ _..______- ______.._ -__ 34.3 portion of beneficiaries in their old- :g --.---_.-- -- ..-.- _____.. ______23.8 .-_- ___.. -__ age assistance caseloads. In 13 of the 4.9 ._- ._____.______._.. -_.-._- _..__ ..__.._.____ 435 ______. - - 14.9 ______..._ .______._._.__ 25 States with 450 or more benefici- 4% .------__.._____. -- __..______.__ ---___ 28.2 499 ------___.____-. -- ______. ..__ -- ..__ 39.3 aries per 1,000 aged persons, benefici- 502 ___-____..-- .- ..____ --_- ..____...._. 24.6 __..______aries made up at least one-fourth of 505 ------..__....-. -- ______.______31.9 the old-age assistance caseloads, with 507 _.______.--- __..__. ___. 16.0 ____.___._._ ..__..______525 ______-.____--.___ -_.--._._.-______.. 26.7 the proportions ranging from 25.1 535 ___._____.-- .-..__-_.-__ 17.4 ______.____. ______541 _____.___.-- _-_..-- __.-- -.- _.._ ---__ __._..__.__ 30.9 percent to 43.2 percent. Three of the 554 ___._____--- __-._-__._.- -.--__.._-__ __.___.-___. ___. 564 __.-__.-_.-- ._.__ -- . ..-- .______.______.. -_- “,i:i sit is expected that the 1954 amend- 567 ____..____-- ..- .____ -.-. ._____....__ 23.7 . .._._ -_-_- 571 _.______.-- _.______.--- -___.-______. ..--.-..___ 34. 7 ments, which extended old-age and sur- Maine- ______-_--__-_ 575 _.__..___.-- __.______-- __-.__-- ____ -..- 28.0 vivors insurance coverage to farmers and Florida--~~~~..~-~-~-~-~~- 579 ..___.....-- ______..__-- __..______..- .._._._ 25.1 additional agricultural workers. will in- Rhode Island _._.______._. 606 _._____...-- ___- __..._.. ______._ _.-- ___.____ 34.7 crease the number of beneflclaries in these 1 Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are not shown because they did not report any cases receiving both States after sufficient time has elapsed assistance payments and insurance benefits. for those covered to be eligible for bene5ts.

Bulletin, October 1956 13 13 States-Fiorida, Maine, and Ver- the number of recipients per 1,000 In the 12 States with old-age as- monkhad average assistance PaY- persons aged 65 and over was less sistance recipient rates of loo-149 ments less than the national average. than 100, fewer than 5 percent of the per 1,000 aged persons, less than 10 Colorado and Wyoming (with bene- aged beneficiaries received supple- percent of the insurance beneficiaries ficiary rates of less than 450 per 1,000 mentary assistance. Many of these received assistance. In two of these aged persons) also had as many as States with low recipient rates are States, fewer than 5 percent of the one-fourth of their recipients getting highly industrialized, with greater beneficiaries received assistance. both types of payments, but these two old-age and survivors insurance cov- Of the seven other States with re- States had an average assistance erage and relatively more insurance cipient rates less than the national payment higher than that for the beneficiaries than the States with average of 178 per 1,000 aged, two re- country as a whole. Most of the high recipient rates. In addition, ported that more than 10 percent of States with at least one-fourth of benefit payments are generally higher their beneficiaries were receiving sup- their recipients getting both assist- in these States because wage levels plementary assistance. ance payments and benefits under are usually higher in industrial than The 21 States with recipient rates the insurance program have a rela- in nonindustrial employment. exceeding the national average, how- tively high degree of industrialization and are located either in the North- Table 3.-Number of OAA recipients per 1,000population aged 65 and over and east or the West. percent of aged OASZ beneficiaries receiving OAA, February 1956 In 27 States, lo-24 percent of the OAA assistance recipients also had insur- recipients Percent of aged OASI beneflciariea receivLng OAA ance benefits. Most of these States State ’ and reciplent- Per 1,* rate group populstlon had beneficiary rates that were 1eSS aged 65 than the national average, although and over L4k?stlml5 E-9 lo-19 20 a* more in four -Delaware, Michigan, New Total, 53 States ______-__-_. _._ Jersey, and Pennsylvania-the bene- Aciary rate was more than 500 per Less than 100: New Jersey....-.-..-.--.-.-----. 1.8 _____-______- _-_--______-__ _------1,000 aged in the population. Aver- District of Columbia-.. __._. --_. 2.8 ._.___.______- ______-____--em Delaware-.. _.______---__ 1.7 .______.______-_------age assistance payments in these four Pennsylvania . ..___.___._ __.. -_- 1.7 ______-_-_----- States varied widely, but none was Maryland-...-.-....--..------. 2.2 __- _____-_-______-__ _------New York...-...----...------.-- 3.4 .______.______.____ -______-- _----- among the groups of States with the Hawaii....~....~--.~..---.~.--~. 2.1 __._____.______.______------VirginIs .__._...... _.. .__ _ __.._. .9 .__.______.______-___----- highest or the lowest average pay- Connecticut..-.--~--.-.~-~..-.-~ 4.9 ______--- ment per recipient. Indiana-~~--..-.-~..--.~-~-.-..~ 3.5 ______._.______..______------New Hampshire..----..-..------4.6 ___ __ ..______.______- As the number of aged insurance 100-149: Rhode Island . ..___....._.__.___. 5.8 ______----__ ------beneficiaries increases the proportion Illlnois~ _. _.___._-_....._ __..._ .- 4.1 _.______.______- __------receiving old-age assistance usually WisC0llSi~...... ~.~. . ..__ .______. 5.9 ______--- - Nebraska _.__.______.______- 6.0 ______declines. Only Alabama, Alaska, Oregon---.~..~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~. 6.8 ______-______- Ohio-----..~.~~~~~..~~~~~~~~~~~~ 5.7 ______------_-_------Rhode Island, and Vermont were ex- Maine ______.--- _____._._ _-______._.-- 6.2 ______---- Michigan _... -- _____-_.-._- _____. _-______,.. 6.4 ______-- ceptions to the general rule and Iows---..~--...... ~.-~.-.~~.~~~. __-____-_____. 6.9 ______- showed a higher percentage of bene- Montana-..... ____. -__-_- ___.._. ____.______.. 9.2 ______.______-- North Dakota.~~~~.~.-.-.--~-~.- 8.0 ______- Aciaries on the assistance rolls in West Virginia_---.- ___. -__. 1.5 ______-- 150-199: February 1956 than in the preceding Kansas--.-.------.--..-----... ______-- 7.6 ______-- February. The proportion of bene- South Dakota-.... _.__ ---______-- 7.8 ______----______-- Minnesota.....-..-----.....-.-.. ______.- 8.1 ______-- flciaries receiving assistance to sup- Massachusetts...... ---.-....-.-. ______-____ 11.2 ______--_----- Vermont---.---....-.---.------. ______9.8 ______-- plement their other income varied Wyoming-..---.-.------______12.0 _------Idaho--~--..~.~.~.~~~~.~~~~~~~-. ______9.7 ______-____- ______-- widely from State to State. In 14 Utah--...-.--....--.------8.3 -_- ______-- States less than 5 percent of the aged Nevada... ______._.______18.3 ______-- North Carolina _____.______4.8 .______- beneficiaries received supplementary 200-299: Kentucky ______-______6.1 ______- assistance; the proportion was low- Florida.. .______.______9.6 ______---______-- est-0.9 percentin Virginia (table New Mexico-.---...---- ______._ 5.7 ______-______-- Washington-. ___.._. -- ___. -.--______-___-- 14.6 ______3). On the other hand, four States Tennessee _..__.._._.______...-- ______5.7 ______--______-- California~~~..~.. .______-_- __-- ______- 19.5 ______-- reported that more than one-fifth of Arizona-___-..~.....-~-~~~~-~~-- ______-- 12.8 ______-_------MiSOlUi ______. ______-- 17.6 .______.____-- the beneficiaries were receiving as- 30&399: sistance, and in Louisiana the pro- South Carolina....--m.- .__. _.__ Alaska--~~-~....-.--.-.~~.--~-~~ Portion was almost two-fifths. Arkansas.. __...... ___ _...__ Texas.....-----.-..-----.---.---- _-__-._-______...____-- 15.1 ______---- - The proportion of insurance bene- Colorado-. ___. ___.______.__.__..-- __--.._.____-- ______._ 26.6 flciaries receiving assistance was low Georgls .._._.. .______._____-- _-______-_-___ ----__.-..__-- 11.6 ______-- 400 or more: in States with relatively low recipi- Mississippi ___.______-- 12.1 __------Oklahoma ______. ______-- ____------22.9 ent rates and was generally high in Alsbsrns~-~~.~~.~.~~.~~~~~~~~~-- ______.--______-.-- 13.2 ______------States where the old-age assistance Louhiana--- ______-- ______._.______-- --_------38.6 recipient rate was relatively high, 1 Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are not shown because they did not report any CBsesreceiving both For example, in the 11 States where assistance Payments and insurance benefits. 14 Social Security ever, presented a mixed situation. In Table 4.-Concurrent receipt of OASZ benefits and assistance payments by OAA North Carolina less than 5 percent of recrprents and ADC cases, February 19561 the aged insurance beneficiaries re- - +mons receiving OAA and OASI ceived assistance, while four States Bs Perc!ent Of- Chses receiving ADC and OASI- had more than 20 percent on the State: rolls. The proportion of beneilciar- Families 89 Children as )AA reciPients OA81 percent Of ies getting assistance payments fell beneficiaries percent of’ OABI child in the 5-9 percent range in seven ADC families benefleiaries s States and in the lo-19 percent range Total, 5.3 Btates __.______-__ in the other nine. 20.4 8.0 5.3 7.0 Alabama.--. ____..___.___. _.__.. 10.4 13.2 4.4 7.7 Alsska...--.-..----..------.----. 9.2 27. 1 Families With Children Ari20IK. .-. ._.._--__.. _.- .__. .___ ti:i % 6.7 Receiving OASI and ADC Arkansas...... -....-..-.-..--.. 6.5 6: 6 E:f 7.3 Califomis.. __. .__. .__..__ _..___. 39.3 19. 5 5. 5 7.8 Colorado _...____..._ ..______._ 29.5 2;; 4.0 As a result of the growth of old- Connecticut... __..__.__ --- ______34.7 6.5 11:: age and survivors insurance and the Deleware-.....~-._~..~.--~~..~~.~ 16.0 1:7 3.6 4.9 District of Columbia __..__..__. -_ 22. 1 2.8 4.2 6.7 sharp decline in recent years in the Florida....--....--.------.---.-- 25.1 9.6 6.9 12.6 total number of orphans, only a small Ck0rgia.. _.__- ._ -..__ .___ -- ___.__ 9.1 Hawali ._.___....___ .______.___ 14.9 “i.! ii? part of the program of aid to depend- Idaho_..----...-..--..--.---.---. 24.1 9.7 6.3 Illinois..~~~.~....~-.~~~.--~~.-~~. 20.5 4.7 5.0 ent children today is concerned with Indiana--.---..-.--.------..--. meeting need because of the death of Iowa.....--.~-..-.-.~~-.~~~~..-~~ E i:: z:t Kansas..-..--..--.-.-.--.--.----. 17.2 7.6 6.1 a parentthe major risk for which Kentucky ..__.__._.__..___.______10.3 17.2 old-age and survivors insurance Louisisna.-...--..-.....----..--. 20.3 9.1 Maine .__.__._. -..---__- .__._. --__ 28.0 14.8 makes provision in relation to chil- Maryland.. __.______-_ _._.______18.9 2.2 3. a dren. Of the families receiving aid Massachusetts. _ --_ __.. _____.__ 37.3 11.2 7.2 ::“g Michigan-_-- ______..__..___. -._ 24. E 6.4 7. 7 7.6 to dependent children, the proportion Minnesota._-...--.----.-----.--. 19.1 8.1 10.4 currently on the rolls because of the MlssissiDDi- ..__..______. .__.. 6. E 12.1 :: 10.0 Missouri: .______.. .___. .____._ 23.7 17. f 6: f 10.3 death of a father is about 13 percent, Montana ___. -_-- ______-. 23. f 7.2 6.9 Nebraska .____.____ .____. ______. 17.1 it: 5.3 or only half as large as it was in 1948. Nevada _____._._ ---.__- _.____. -__ 1s: z K 4.6 With 9 out of every 10 families in the New Hampshire.-- __...______;:I 4. f 10: ? 5.3 country protected by old-age and sur- New Jersey_-.....---...-----.... 23. ; 6. f 3.1 New Mexico- _..______._____..... 8. I 4.4 11.7 vivors insurance, few of the paternal NewYork.-- _.______..__. ___. 26. i 2. i 4.1 North Carolina ______.____ .___ 8.1 7.0 orphans in the future will be without North Dakota.-.---.--.-.--.---- 12. f ;:I 12.5 an insurance benefit. Aid to depend- Ohio-~...... ~~.....~~~....~~~~. 22. : 9. ( 6.3 Oklahoma...~~~.-.-.~~~~~~~~~--. 16. < 5. i 12.4 ent children is thus becoming more Oregon..--....~.--~~~~.- _____. -.. 30. < Pennsylvania- ._____...,_ ___..._ 17.5 :“o and more a program meeting need Rhode Island _...___._..______._ 34. i 5: 4 created by the absence of a parent South Camllna- ______.______.._ 5. I 6. I 3.1 3.4 from the home or by a parent’s dis- South Dakota ..____ -- ..____. -_._ 14. ( 7.8 6. : 13.0 Tennessee-.-...---.----.---.---- 5. : 6. I 10. 5 ability. TVL% ___. -- .____. ____-.- ._.____, 1;: f 15.1 Utah .__...___ _. ..___.._...___._. 19.: 8. : ii:“0 In February 1956, 32,600 families Vermont--.--...-.-.--.---.-.... 28.: 9. I 11.7 received payments under both the Virginia...... __._.____._____ -_. 5. I 3.9 Washington...... __ -- _._._. 31.! 14: i 6.5 program of aid to dependent children West Virginia _____-.__-.-.- ___._ 4.s 5.2 Wisconsin ..___...______._.______23. : ii:; 8.0 and the insurance program. About Wyorning.~..~.-~~-...---~~~~~.- 27. I 12. ( 5.2 80 percent of these families were receiving insurance benefits based on 1 March data for ADC for Arizona, California, May data for Illinois; November 1955 data for Ohio. Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Mas- 2 Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are not shown the wage record of a father who had sachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New because they did not report any cases receiving both Hampshire New Jersey, New Mexico, New York assistance payments and insurance benefits. died, and for 17 percent eligibility for (except for kew York City, which reported January 3 Data given in terms of children because OABI beneflts was on the basis of an aged data), North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Is- $$;;spn beneficiary families are not available by land, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin; retired father’s wage record. Three percent were receiving benefits on the basis of the wage record of a deceased fits rose slightly from September 1950 with children were receiving assist- mother. to February 1954, from 4.9 percent to ance in February 1956, the children As the insurance program has ex- 5.9 percent. After dropping to 5.2 in these families represented 7 per- panded, the proportion of beneficiary percent in February 1955, there was cent of all child beneficiaries (table families receiving aid to dependent again a slight increase, to 5.3 percent, 4). Because of the overall maximum children has declined. About 8.3 per- in February 1956. on family benefits written into the cent of the beneficiary families re- The families receiving both types Social Security Act, large families are ceived aid to dependent children in of payments were generally larger more likely to need supplementation September 1950; in early 1956 the than other families receiving only of the old-age and survivors insur- proportion was down to 4.6 percent. survivor beneAts or only assistance ance benefits than are those with The proportion of assistance families payments. Although fewer than 5 fewer children. who were receiving insurance bene- percent of the beneficiary families The causes that underlie State var- Bulletin, October 1956 15 iations in the proportion of old-age alone. In February 1956 the average ficiary families than for nonbene- assistance recipients getting old-age old-age assistance payment for re- ficiary families-$2.27 compared with and survivors insurance benefits- cipients with both types of payments $3.58. the extent of insurance coverage and was $44.74, compared with $56.39 for The average beneAt paid to bene- differences in assistance Policies-oP- those not getting insurance beneflts. ficiary families receiving assistance erate also in the program of aid These amounts represented an av- was $63.43 in February 1956 or $1.00 to dependent children. Variations erage increase from the preceding less than it had been a year earlier. among the States in the proportion of February of $3.82 for beneficiary-re- For all survivor families consisting of families receiving this type of aid be- cipients and $2.19 for other recipi- widows and children the average old- cause the father is dead also affect ents. Approximately one-sixth of all age and survivors insurance benefit the proportion of beneficiary families old-age assistance payments, or some- was $121.60, or almost twice that re- receiving assistance. what more than $23 million, was paid ceived by those who were also receiv- to aged beneficiaries as a supplement ing aid to dependent children. Effect of OASI on Assistance to their insurance payment. costs In February 1956 the average in- Future Trends The old-age and survivors insur- surance benefit received by aged per- The full impact on public assistance program has reduced caseloads sons getting both assistance pay- ance of the old-age and survivors in- and costs in assistance by providing ments and insurance benefits was surance program will become more income to large numbers of aged per- $38.70 or about 70 percent of the av- apparent in the future. With the in- sons and to a substantial proportion erage benefit to all aged beneficiaries. surance program extended to prac- of the Nation’s paternal orphans. This amount was virtually the same tically all gainfully employed persons, In February 1956, 25 percent of all as that a year earlier. including farmers and farm workers, aged persons in the population who Payments of aid to dependent chil- the old-age assistance program will were not insurance beneficiaries re- dren for February 1956 to families become predominantly a Program ceived old-age assistance payments including one or more insurance supplying necessary supplementary but only 8 percent of the aged bene- beneficiaries amounted to $2.2 mil- cash payments to old-age and sur- ficiaries of old-age and survivors in- lion or 4.1 percent of the total vivors insurance beneficiaries whose surance received old-age assistance amount paid to families under the as- benefits do not meet all their needs to supplement their incomes. These sistance program. Because the num- and financial aid to persons who percentages clearly indicate that a ber of families with insurance bene- have high medical care costs or other significantly larger number of aged fits is increasing, relatively fewer special needs. The growth of the old- persons would be in need of public families in which the father has died age and survivors insurance pro- assistance if they were not receiving need assistance, and relatively less gram, accelerated by the 1954 and insurance benefits. assistance goes to families receiving 1956 amendments, will, however, de- Because all income and resources benefits than to other families. The crease the need for public assistance of the recipient are taken into ac- average assistance payment to fam- for many persons. It may be said count in determining the amount of ilies receiving both types of payments that in the not too distant future, aid his need, assistance payments to per- was $68.98, compared with $90.75 for to dependent children will be almost sons receiving old-age and survivors families not receiving insurance wholly confined to meeting need aris- insurance benefits are, on the aver- benefits. The average increase in as- ing from causes other than death- age, 20 percent lower than payments sistance payments from the preced- from the disability or absence of the to recipients of old-age assistance ing February was smaller for bene- father from the home.

20.4 percent of all old-age assistance recipients and, conversely, 8.1 per- Notes and Brief Reports cent * of all aged beneficiaries of old- Age and Sex of Persons receiving old-age and survivors in- age and survivors insurance. Study Concurrently Receiving surance benefits, and similar data are of these ratios for recent years indi- collected for the program of aid to cates a slightly downward trend for OASI and OAA * dependent children.’ the proportion of aged insurance Once a year the States make a Among the population aged 65 and beneficiaries receiving old-age assist- sample study of public assistance over, the latest available data-for ance and a marked upward trend in recipients to determine the effect of February 1956-indicate tlnat the the ratio of assistance recipients re- the old-age and survivors insurance number receiving both old-age and ceiving old-age and survivors insur- program on public assistance. Data survivors insurance benefits and old- ance. It is likely that these trends are obtained on the number of old- age assistance payments represents age assistance recipients who are also 2 Because certain adjustments were poasl- 1 See Sue Ossman. “Concurrent Receipt of ble only in the national data. used here, * Prepared by Robert J. Myers. Chief Ac- Public Assistance and Old-Age and Survl- the percentage is slightly higher than that tuary. Social Security Administration. vors Insurance,” pages 11-16 of this issue. shown In the article cited. 16 Social Security