Judged by the data in table 10, it would seem that the systems which ranked highest in 1935 were those of Arizona, Massachusetts, and New York; these were also the leading States in 1934. California, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania ranked high as regards coverage of system and average benefits, but the proportion of pensionable age cared for was relatively low; in the case of California, however, this may have been due to a comparatively high proportion, within the population of pensionable age, of retired persons with means adequate for support, which would in turn reduce the proportion of aged needing public assistance. The system in Rhode Island had been in operation only 3 months, a fact which undoubtedly accounted for the very small percentage of beneficiaries and the extremely large proportion of cases not yet acted upon. States which showed a very great need for improvement were Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Utah. When funds are insufficient to meet adequately the problem of old-age care the pension authorities have a choice of several procedures: (1) They may elect to divide the money on hand among the pensioners already on the roll, either refusing to accept new applications, refusing the pension after receiving the applications, or placing the applicants on the waiting list; (2) they may continue to grant new allowances, reducing the average grant proportionately; or (3) they may make new grants only in the most needy cases. No data are available as to the extent to which officials refused to receive applications. Waiting lists and cases pending at the end of the year, for the States for which information is at hand, were given in table 4. These figures are admittedly unsatisfactory, for, as stated, the number of "cases pending" may be kept down by a policy of refusal by the pension authorities to receive new applications under some circumstances. The last two columns of table 10 are based upon the data in table 4. A large waiting list is of course to be expected in States where the system is just getting under way on a State-wide basis (as in Maryland, Rhode Island, and Washington). In Delaware and Michigan, however, old-age assistance had been in effect for 5 and 2 years, respectively, but in both the waiting list at the end of the year was larger than the pension roll. In Iowa the system went into general operation in July 1935, but more than 8,000 persons were aided between November 1934 and July 1935 under the emergency clause of the act. In Nevada, the State paying the highest average benefits in 1935, the waiting list was nearly as large as the number of pensioners. Development of Old-Age Pension Movement ALASKA was the sole jurisdiction paying old-age benefits from 1915 to 1922. In 1923 Montana entered the field with its county-optional act. In 1925 the Wisconsin law of the same type became effective. At the end of the first 13 years only 2 States and Alaska were paying benefits and in all of these coverage was only partial. Within these jurisdictions, however, both pensioners and expenditures increased each year. Beginning with 1928, the old-age assistance movement expanded more rapidly, until by the end of 1935, 39 of the 48 States, in addition to 2 Territories, had accepted the principle of pensions,10 though only 32 jurisdictions were actually paying benefits. The development of the old-age pension movement since 1923 is shown in table 11. Year Table 11.-Development of Old-Age Pension Movement 1 Does not include in any year acts declared unconstitutional before going into effect. * During the years 1916 to 1922 (not shown in the table) the average allowances paid in Alaska varied from $9.62 (in 1920) to $12.34 (in 1922). 3 Decrease. 4 No data collected for 1929. The greatest expansion in the pension roll occurred in 1930 and 1931, though large gains were also registered in 1934 and 1935. In the years 1930 and 1931 the greatest increases in expenditures for benefits. occurred. In 1931 and 1932 disbursements increased at a faster rate than benefits, but this was reversed in 1933 and 1934. In 1935 disbursements again rose at a faster pace than the number of beneficiaries. Until 1932 (with the exception of 1927, when a slight decrease occurred) the trend in average benefits was upward, although at an extremely irregular rate which reflected mainly the influence of new States with either low or liberal benefits, as the case may have been. A small decrease occurred in 1933. In 1934 several new State-wide systems with unusually low average benefits were included, with the result that the average for all States combined fell 24.5 percent. • Indians and Eskimos are specifically excluded from benefits under the Alaska act. 10 An additional State (Oklahoma) had passed an old-age pension act but it was immediately declared unconstitutional. The development in individual States since their statutes went into effect is shown in table 12. Table 12.-Development of Pension System in Specified States Since Passage of 1 Computed on annual basis even though in some cases payments were made during only part of year. I. e., percent of State population living in counties with system. Each of the 4 judicial districts of Alaska has, for purposes of this study, been considered as a county. 4 City of Washington. Does not include 12 counties which reported no pensions paid. |