Table I.-Estimated progress of old-age and survivors insurance trust fund, This is an important reason for con- 2.4 percent interest sidering costs relative to payroll [In millionsl rather than in dollars. - The cost estimates have not taken Benefit Administra- Interest Fund at Calendar year C:ontributions 1 payments tive expenses on fund end of year into account the possibility of a rise -- in earnings levels, although such Actual data (excluding effect of railroad coverage) rises have characterized the past history of this country. If such an 1953______. assumption were used in the cost 1954-----.----.--.-.---- estimates, along with the unlikely 1955------.....------assumption that the benefit formula Actual data (including effect of railroad coverase) nevertheless would not be changed, the cost relative to payroll would, of course, be lower. If benefits are adjusted continuously and without any time-lag to keep pace with rising earnings trends, the year-by-year costs as a percentage of payroll would be unaffected. However, such an ad- justment would raise the level-pre- mium cost, since under these circum- stances the relative value of the Hlghcost estimate interest earnings on the trust fund would diminish with the passage of time.

IntermediaWeost estimate State and Local Govern- ment Employment Under .- ._ OASI, 1956* ,- ._ .- At the beginning of April 1956, - coverage of State and local govern- f Combined employer employee, and self-em- f Prelimlnsry; partially estimated. ment employees under old-age and ployed contributions. he combined employar- a Includes intarest transfer from railroad retire- survivors insurance through vohm- employee rate is 4 percent for 1955-59, 5 psreent for ment account to OASI trust fund ($11.6 million In 1969-64,6 percentfor P&35-69,7 percent for 1979-74 1954 and $7.4 million in 1966). tary agreements had reached 1.7 and 8 rcent for 1976 and after. The self-employed Note: The estimated figures 1x1this table are based pay 74 of these rates. on high-employment assumptions. million. This total is more than a quarter of a million higher than the insurance system of this expected 6.55 to 8.74 percent of payroll, de- coverage at the beginning of the change in the number of aged per- pending upon the combination of year, a considerably larger increase sons will be even greater than may assumptions selected. Table 3 shows than during the preceding 3-month at first appear, because 50 years the estimated contributions, beneflt period. hence a much larger proportion of payments, administrative expenses, The April estimate indicates that aged persons is expected to be eligible interest accumulations, and assets of 1 in every 3 State and local em- to receive benefits under the program the trust fund through the year 2000, ployees (other than those for whom than at present. The future financial under alternative combinations of as- coverage is compulsory) is now cov- soundness of this system, with its sumptions with respect to beneilt rising rate of disbursements, is of costs and levels of employment. * Prepared by Dorothy McCamman, Dlvi- the utmost importance to the mil- The estimates are based on level sion of Research and Statistics. Of&e of lions of persons who are already earnings assumptions (slightly below the Commissioner, from estimates devel- within its scope and to the Nation the present levels). If in the future oped in the Division of Program Analysis, as a whole. earnings levels should be considerably Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance. For similar data as of and a The estimated cost of benefits as above that which now prevails, and summary of the 1954 provisions, see the a percentage of payroll through the if at the same time the benefits for Bulletin for . pages 15-17. More year 2050 and also the level-premium those on the roll are adjusted up- detslled data by State and type of govern- cost of the program-that is, the ward so that annual costs in relation ment appear in a quarterly statlstlcal re- level percentage of payroll which, in to payroll remain the same, then the port, State and Local Gevemment Employment Covered bg OASI Under Section 218 of the perpetuity, would be sufilcient to meet resulting increased dollar outgo will Social Securitu Act (Dlvlslon of Program the cost of the beneflts-ranges from offset the increased dollar income. Analysis 1.

Bulletin, 21 ered through the voluntary agree- State, is subject to a number of employment for October 1955 and on ment provisions. This approximate qualifications, including the major covered employment estimates for a percentage, shown in table 1 for each one of being based on data on total different time period. (Data from the Bureau of the Census on employ- Table 1 .-Rough estimates of State and local government ems tloyment covered under old-age and survivors insurance through voluntary agpeements and of ment by type of government are, col- dun1-__-_ cnuerafle.--.-.- _-, hv-_r -_-_-,-_State. as of______-___And 1956 lected only for October of each year and are not published until the fol- ‘~wtinental,““’ United States] lowing spring.) Covered by old-age In this as in the preceding quarter, and survivors I Number with dual coverage 3 insurance the increase in coverage was pri- marily attributable to the results of Approxi- referendums among employees of Inate per- NO etiremcnt state Previous system State governments and among teach- cent Of system previous nembers all state system ers under retirement systems in all Number 1 and local Total d$;;lTd (added covered gl,“ernmenl t under three types of government. In these employ- xinstat,cd ferendum ment 2 lrovisions first 3 months of the year the ap- proximate proportion of State gov- Total ______--. 4 1,655,700 _- 33 799,400 347,640 30,070 421,690 ernment employees covered rose from Ak3SCGIk3__...._.______.____ 71,900 39,790 150 6 6 39,630 34 percent to 42 percent, in contrast Arizona....---...--..------28,400 15.920 58,920 6i.ooo Arkansas __...___._____.______24.600 3,480 3,380 to an addition, for county employees Cal!fornia . .._ ._._.___ __.___._. _ 24,800 4,120 42: 3, fioo and for other local government em- Colorado...... --.-.~.--~-~-~. 16,500 960 Connecticut-...... _... --.-.-._ 7,300 El fl ployees, of only a few percentage Deln~are--.-.-.--.---.-----.--- 6,ZJN ‘06,500 ii District of Columbia i-.. _._._ -_ _ ___. !.!? _. -- _.__..._.. ______.... points that brought their coverage Florida-_-.-..---..------12.300 0 Georgin...... _._.... -.-.. 15,400 I,:“, 0 proportions up to 49 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Idaho .._..._._.______._._._.. ._ 15,700 0 0 Illinois ..__._._.______._ ._ 110 9i 0 During the quarter the number of Indiana....-.-...-----.-.---.-.- 5!lz 25, oin 625,ooO IOWa...... -.-.-.-..----...--..- Ri: Ooo 79,090 56 78,93i States in which fewer than one-fifth Kansas-----...-.~~.~.~.~~~.~-.- 60,400 24,750 6,590 6 17,9: of all government employees were Kentucky.... ______.__.__ 39,2w 300 Louisiana _.______23,6Cil 11,830 1,4Oi 4,Ei covered by old-age and survivors in- Maine.. .___ .___.___ __.______-__ 0 2l3l Maryland.. ______% :z surance dropped from 19 to 14. The Massachusetts -.------.----- ___ ‘2w 0 i following tabulation shows the num- Michigan ._._ -.- .._. -.--...-._-. 71,400 35,620 5 35,430 ber of States distributed by the pro- Minnesote...---.-..----.-.-.--. 2, loo 960 Mississippi . ..______._. -.. 49, m 40,iEl 0 portion of employment covered in Missouri.. _..._._.______- 65,600 600 n Montana-.-..w-.- ______._ 9,7w 8,606 April. Nebraska-....-....-.-.~...~-.-~ 49,800 2$Z 625,770 Nevada....~.~...... ~~~~~~~. New Hampshire- . .._ -.._- _____. 4,3G 30: 3: NewJersey-.~~--.-.--.~~~.~~~~- 129,500 120,700 648.200 New Mexico-...... _._._____ 1,6oc 1,130 1,130 Number of States Approximate I__ New York----_---.-.-...------percent of North Carolina ______65,OOi i ~665,d emplo~ent Type of government North Dakota--.---.--.-_-_---- 0 c 0 covered Total Ohio 9. . ..______- ______-___ .__._____-_ Oklshoma__----.-_--_-----.-.-- 4,870 1C 4,860 State Count3 LO& “I~~“II...--n..“..?.- ______-___-___ 43,150 6’44,cnx 4,150 Pennsylvania .______2,520 1,M 0 I- Rhode Island ______2,630 2,630 Total ______48 48 147 48 South Carolina ______--_- ___. 53,110 E 6 0 53,110 -- South Dakota- ______390 c 390 None or Tennessee _____. ______22,loc 1: Texas __.______.______101,sM: 48,07Z E 648,07: 15 Utah _____.____..______29, lcu 11,900 611,77c 130 Vermont ______. _- ______1,410 6 1,400 i Virginia ______. ______93E 51,290 ( 650,54E Washington ______28: 1oC 17,840 C 17,z 5 West Virginia ______20,3oc 4 Wisconsin------_-_------41, ax 35,d 6'0 35,d 11: Wyoming ___..______12,m 8, WQ 6’8,OlX ” * Rhode Island has no county governments.

1 Current estimate of employment for which cover- wage reports.) SIxne retirement systems, particu- age has been approved, regardless of effective dates. larly the smaller ones, may not be included because Dual coverage.-The great majority Includes, in addition to employment shown in wage States are not required to re port information of this reports,r&&b on e~p~lqm~~ I-” .“II”yy..,r~c.an+l” M.ILl?duy.u.u.u hilt--” --”nnt tvna“.,rY. of employees brought under coverage yet represented in tabu lated wage reports. 4 Includes 600 employees of interstate instrumen- in the 3 months already had retire- 1 ~pproxunate percent ofell Stateand local govem- talities not distributed by State. ment employm?nt (other than that under pmpul- “~~C!U@!s state employees. ment protection through special State sory old-age and survivors insurance coverage) that is ~Lncludes puoli‘-c school teachers. actually covered. Based on data from the Bureau of :Not included~~~~.~~ JIi statutory definition of State for and local retirement systems. Of the the Census for total State and local government em- purposesof agreement. ployment as of October 1955 (latest available). ”’ LewT --- than 0.5 percent. additional quarter of a million em- 3 Based on estimates furnished by the State or made ONoa greement. ployees covered, more than 188,000 L.-I.oy me aureau-~ .~--*-.> “I “la-Age . ancl3” aur”lv”rs ~. Tinsurance IV.” specialm- Federal legislation made dissolution of at the time the moups were brought under old-we Previous SYstem unneeessars. were members of existing retirement and survivors intiratice rather than on wage repor&. Source’ %stimates by D&on of Program Analy- (Employees with dual coverage are not identified in sis, Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance. (Continued on page 31) 22 Social Security Table 11 .-Aid to dependent children: Recipients and payments to recipients, by State, April 1956 1 iIncludes vendor payments for medical care and eases receiving only such payments] - Number of recipients Payments to recipients Percentage change from- T - Average per- in- in- state N”i’iber - families Total 1 Children Total amount Number Nuzber Family Of Amount Amount families families

Total ______615,985 2.253.73s 1.708.484 $55,239,20!2 $89.68 $24.51 +0.4 +0.8 -1.6 +1.8 Alabama ______..__.-.. 19,660 76,181 58,613 810,706 41.24 10.64 +lO. 6 +5.3 Aiaska.-.w.-.-.--.- .______1,422 4,931 129,275 90.91 26.22 +17.s Arizona- ___ __- __. ______4,761 18,403 l?E 431,887 90.71 23.47 $2:; Arkansas . . . . --.-.-.---_- _._____ 8.469 32,279 25’073 478,024 56.44 14.81 +3.7 -10.1 $-;$I California.....~....~.~~~~~~~~~~ 53,299 182,646 140’338 6,694,233 125.60 36.65 -6.2 -6.2 Colorado ._.__.._____.__ __..____ 5,913 22,445 17: 291 654,021 110.61 29.14 i:; -2.1 +.2 Connecticut... ___.....__. _.__ __ 5,399 17,463 12,985 734,168 135.98 42.04 +3.7 Delaware...... --..-.-.--.-.--. 1,207 4,669 3,579 102,686 85.08 21.99 Gil District of Columbia-... .- ._.__ 2,143 9,170 7,157 235,988 110.12 25.73 I::: -5:3 2;:; Florida ._.______. _ __ 21,324 75,403 58,025 1,173,085 55.01 15.56 +.1 +1.1 +2.0 Qeorgia..-.-.-----.------.--- 15,036 55,212 42,200 1,139, 703 75.80 -l-.1 +.1 +.6 Hawaii.....--..--...------....- 3,123 11,843 9,401 260,144 83.30 Z:E -1.9 -1.9 -14.8 Idaho...--...-..-.~.-.~-..~...- 1,823 6,598 4,855 237,259 35.96 -1.1 -1.4 -3.4 Illinois~.- . ..__. ____-_- _... -_-_ 24,183 94,275 71,404 3,302,949 :z ii 35.04 +6.5 Indiana-.---..-.-...... -.-.--.- 8,674 30,703 22,821 795,518 91: 71 25.91 (9 T: i ‘:T:i Iowa-..-..--...-.-.-~-.-.-.~-.~ 6,879 24,819 18,M)2 765,088 111.22 30.83 +.8 fl. 0 -1.1 KaE%- .._.______._ .____ 4,662 17,109 13,181 531,448 31.06 +6.1 Kentucky ._____.._.___._.___ 18,720 67,695 50,762 1,193,102 ‘ii: ti 17.62 $2 ;:i +.5 Louisiana __._.______. 19,515 76,422 58,318 1,429,119 73.23 18.70 +20.7 Maine.----.-....-.------. 4,511 15,635 11,312 380,910 84.44 24.36 +:i? 7:: +3.7 Maryland ._..___._ ._.___.__... 6,383 26,092 20,285 620,006 97.13 23.76 -1.1 -1.6 -. 6 Massachusetts ______.... 12,795 42,708 31,643 1,686,781 131.83 39.50 +1.3 -1.9 Michigan.-----.-.---.-..-.-.-- ‘f ;g 65,384 47,766 2,182,839 115.71 f.4 -8.6 -4:: Minnesota-- ______.______. 27,617 21,242 1,641,266 128.08 “j ;i +2.1 +n. 1 Mississippi ..______.___.__ 11: 714 43,368 33,668 323,305 27. E&l 7.45 +::i -19.3 -9. 4 Missouri.....--.-.------.-- 20,533 73,414 54,752 1,424,612 69.38 19.41 -7.0 -4.5 Montana ______.______1,994 7,053 5,362 214,326 107.49 30.39 $-i:! -7.7 -6. 1 Nebrasks-.~...... ~~~~~~~.~~ 2,717 9,986 7,506 268,034 98.65 26.84 -.l f5.1 +9.6 Nevada-. _- ___...___.______421 1,477 1,115 38,053 !a39 25.76 +s.7 (5) (9 New Hampshire---...... --.--- 1,015 3,783 2,848 137,268 135.24 36.29 +2.2 -4.2 -.8 New Jersey_-_-----.--.------6,518 21.790 16,491 790,829 121.33 36.29 +I.6 New Mexico _____..______. 6,009 22,377 17,094 ,505,838 84.18 22.61 +7.0 5:::; $3:: New York _____ -- _____.______. 54,470 199,904 147,556 7,741,832 142.13 38.73 +2.9 North Carolina _...______.__ 26,127 77,595 59,455 1,264,605 62.83 ::t $2 +2.0 North Dakota- .____.______1,627 5,978 4,567 204.377 125.62 2 E +5.9 +15.1 Ohio._-.-_-....---.------..- 17,017 65,010 49,223 61,556,113 91.44 23.94 $2 +9. 9 Oklahoma...-..------... 15,732 52,649 40,095 1,277,241 81.19 24.31 +:“:: Oregon ..___.______.. 3,606 12,870 9,730 440,878 122.26 34.26 $2 -9.6 2;:: Pennsylvania-. _._ ____._.__.._. 29,338 112,670 85,400 3,169,395 108.03 28.13 +.5 -4.0 -1.6 Puerto Rico _.______. 41,288 145,320 111,299 434,641 10.53 2.99 +.2 -2.3 --.3 Rhode Island. ._____.....__._.. 3,476 12,038 8.883 398,953 114.77 33.14 +1.2 +.3 +4.7 South Carolina ._____-_- .._._.. 8,233 31,814 24,817 390,144 47.39 12.26 (9 -2.5 -3.0 South Dakota .._.__ --.- _... -_.- 2,770 9,264 7,053 228,183 82.38 24.63 -3.0 -1.8 Tennessee...... -.---.....-... 19,641 70,891 52,951 1,187,117 60.44 16.75 ?:1” -9. 5 -8.6 Teras-..---.-...-.-.---.-.-.--. 21.601 87,542 66,268 1,400,843 64.85 16.M) +1.4 -9.1 (9 Utah .._. ___._ ._ ._._ ._._._.__. 2,934 10,318 7,669 332,682 113.39 32.24 -.2 -7.7 -7.1 Vermont.-..-....-....-.-.----. 1,105 3,842 2,878 89,283 80.80 23.24 +1.0 +3.9 Virgin Islands .___...... _...__. 219 816 668 7,769 35.47 9.52 +-G +15.5 Virginia ___._._.. ---.-_- -... 9.108 35,725 2i.715 610,656 67.05 17.09 7;: G f5.3 Washington __._. -- . . .._ -...--_. 9,265 31,926 23,486 1,106,046 119.38 34.64 I:; --.2 7+13.2 West Virginia ______._.______-_ _ 17,754 67,460 52,466 1,397,487 78.71 20.72 +4.5 -6.5 Wisconsin.-.. ______. _ _ _ _.___ 8,231 29,017 21.487 1,219,689 148.18 42.03 -1.4 Wyoming.-.--.------.----.---- 626 2,239 1,708 68,798 109.90 30.73 ‘+E! +6.3 -I 1 For definition of terms see the B&tin, , p. 16. All data subject 4 Decrease of less than 0.05 percent. to revision. 5 Not computed; Urst month of operation under approved plan. 1 Includes as recipients the children and 1 parent or other adult relative in 6 In addition, supplemental payments of $173,930 were made from general families in which the requirements of at least 1 such adult were considered in assistance funds to 4,676 families. determining the amount of assistance. 7 Based on data excluding vendor payments for medical care for April 1955. * Increase of less than 0.05 percent.

OASI COVERAGE mated 799,400 persons were covered Among the States with significant (Continued from page 22) under both old-age and survivors in- increases in dual coverage-affecting systems whose old-age and survivors surance and a State or local retire- markedly the proportion of total insurance coverage was achieved ment system (table 1). The group employment covered as well as the through the referendum provisions with dual coverage represented al- number with dual coverage-were of the 1954 amendments. most half the total with old-age and Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, By the beginning of April, an esti- survivors insurance coverage. North Carolina, and Washington.

Bulletin, July 1956 31