City of New York v. Richardson Complaint
Public Court Documents
February 24, 1971

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. City of New York v. Richardson Complaint, 1971. 1b5cd970-bf9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/a670a4b1-fa6f-4dcf-a35b-b569c1445093/city-of-new-york-v-richardson-complaint. Accessed August 01, 2025.
Copied!
(40075) Intteft Sistrtrt (Emtrl Southern District of New Y ork T he City of New Y ork, John V. L indsay, as Mayor of the City of New York, Jule Sugarman, as Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, and Ola Bryant, —ay ains t— Plaintiffs, E lliott L. Richardson, as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare of the United States, John B. Connally, as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Bernice B ernstein, as Regional Director, United States Depart ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Region 2, E lmer Smith, as Regional Commissioner, Social and Rehabilita tion Service, United States Department of Health, Educa tion and Welfare, Region 2, and George W yman, as Com missioner of Social Services of the State of New York, Defendants. COMPLAINT J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Office & P.O. Address: Municipal Building, New York, N. Y. 10007. Tel. 566-4515 Norman Redlich, E dmund B. Hennefeld, Mary P. Bass, of Counsel. llntteii Sistrirt (Emtrl Southern District of N ew Y ork The City of New Y ork, John V. L indsay, as Mayor of the City of New York, Jule Sugarman, as Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, and Ola Bryant, —against— Plaintiffs, E lliott L. Richardson, as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare of the United States, John B. Connally, as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, B ernice Bernstein, as Regional Director, United States Depart ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Region 2, E lmer Smith, as Regional Commissioner, Social and Rehabilita tion Service, United States Department of Health, Educa tion and Welfare, Region 2, and George W yman, as Com missioner of Social Services of the State of New York, Defendants. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, complaining of the defendants, show to the Court and allege as follows: Jurisdiction 1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court under 28 U.S.C. §1331 by the existence of a Federal question and the amount in controversy. (a) The action arises under the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (General Wei- 4 ,4s and For a First Cause of Action in Favor of the Above- Named Plaintiffs Against the Defendants Elliott L. Richardson, Bernice Bernstein and Elmer Smith, as Secretary, Regional Director and Regional Commis sioner respectively of HEW, John R. Connally, as Secretary of the Treasury, and George Wyman, as Commissioner of Social Services of the State of New York. 9. The problem of rendering public assistance to per sons in need of such assistance, including but not limited to the categories of aid to families with dependent children, old-age assistance, medical assistance, aid to the blind and aid to the disabled, in recent years but more especially so in current times, has become one of national magnitude, constituting in that regard a distinctively, if not exclusively national problem: (a) The number of persons in the United States, in January 1970, receiving federally-aided public assistance only, exclusive of medicaid, was 10,436,197, which was 5.1% of the entire civilian resident population of 203,796,700. Since that date, the total has increased. Approximately fifteen million different people received medicaid benefits during 1970. A table showing the figures first above-cited is attached to, and made part of this complaint as Exhibit 1.* * All tables, graphs and schedules hereinafter referred to are identified by Exhibit Number, with the source indicated on the face of the Exhibit. (b) Nor is the problem a temporary or transient one. In the twenty years from 1950 through 1969, the number of recipients of money payments under public assistance has increased each year to its present peak, as appears from the following tabulation (Exhibit 2 ): 5 Number of Public Year Assistance Recipients 1950 .......................................... 6,051,000 1951 .......................................... 5,627,000 1952 .......................................... 5,472,000 1953 .......................................... 5,433,000 1954 .......................................... 5,930,000 1955 .......................................... 5,818,000 1956 .......................................... 5,873,000 1957 .......................................... 6,282,000 1958 .......................................... 6,605,000 1959 .......................................... 6,877,000 1960 .......................................... 7,098,000 1961 .......................................... 7,356,000 1962 .......................................... 7,399,000 1963 .......................................... 7,515,000 1964 .......................................... 7,722,000 1965 .......................................... 7,802,000 1966 .......................................... 8,074,000 1967 .......................................... 8,893,000 1968 .......................................... 9,722,000 1969 .......................................... 11,131,000 (c) The aggregate dollar total of all public assistance payments in the calendar year 1969 was $11,547,482,000 (Exhibit 3). (d) The amount so expended in the year 1969 represents the peak for all twenty years preceding, as appears from the following table (Exhibit 3 ): 6 Tear Total 1950 .................. ............... $ 2,406,288,000 1951 .................. ............... 2,382,791,000 1952 .................. ............ 2,451,080,000 1953 .................. 2,539,879,000 1954 .................. 2,642,635,000 1955 .................. ............. 2,748,135,000 1956 .................. 2,853,070,000 1957 .................. 3,090,304,000 1958 .................. .......... 3,426,459,000 1959 .................. ........... 3,657,712,000 1960 .................. ....... 3,784,995,000 1961 ................. 4,098,867,000 1962 .................. ........... 4,437,107,000 1963 .................. ............ 4,712,572,000 1964 .................. ............... 5,072,577,000 1965 .................. ........... 5,476,025,000 1966 .................. ............... 6,313,134,000 1967 .................. ........... 7,804,377,000 1968 .................. ................ 9,768,276,000 1969 .................. ................ 11,547,482,000 For the year 1971, the corresponding aggregate dollar total of such payments is anticipated to be substantially higher. (e) The problem of poverty and public assistance is not confined to any particular region of the United States but embraces every one of the fifty states of the union and the District of Columbia (Exhibit 1). (f) Under the standard of poverty defined by the Social Security Administration of the Department of HEW, more than 25,000,000 people in the United States are below the poverty level as so defined. The composition of these 7 people so below the poverty level is made up disproportion ately of non-whites, particularly so in the large metropol itan centers. The influx of large numbers of these people, mainly blacks, into the northern cities—a large percentage of them with low levels both of formal education and the type of skills needed for urban labor—has been due in considerable degree to national policies and historical de velopments over which the individual cities have had, and continue to have no control. These have included agri cultural policies which speeded mechanization of Southern farms and drove sharecroppers and farm laborers from the land, a series of wars which attracted workers to the North for high-paying war work without any systematic plan for their post-war employment, laxity in enforcing civil rights against racial oppression in the South leading millions to emigrate to the North as refugees from oppres sion much as former waves came from Europe, and the failure to do adequate national planning to encourage in dustrialization of the South to absorb the surplus farm labor. These waves of migrants have been generally charac terized by low levels of education, caused either by the lack of adequate educational facilities in the home states or by deprivation of the opportunity to enjoy those facil ities by the policies and laws of the home states. But since the job opportunities in the cities to which these migrants have come require skills which can be obtained only through education, the newcomers often remain un employed. The cities, which have gone to great lengths to provide adequate education to all segments of society to prepare them for the available work opportunities, are thus burdened Avith the responsibility of non-self-supporting, incoming adults to whom this education could not have been offered by the cities. 8 (g) Three major aspects of the enormous migration wave which has altered the face of the nation for the reasons stated above are: the general movement from rural to urban areas, the movement to the cities and spe cifically the northern cities of the black population, and the disproportionate movement, again to the northern cities, of the welfare population. The general movement from rural to urban areas has seen the number of urban dwellers increase from 41.9% of the national population in 1900 to 64.4% in 1965 and reached a level of 67% in 1970. This rate of movement is an accelerating one. The movement of blacks north and to the cities has been even more accentuated. While the total black popu lation more than doubled from 1910 to 1966, the number living in cities rose five-fold (from 2.6 million to 14 mil lion) and the number outside the South rose eleven-fold (from 880,000 to 9,700,000). In the last decade, according to the 1970 census, the central cities as a whole went from 18% of black population to 23%. The suburbs re main largely white: 38% of the whites in metropolitan areas lived outside the central cities but only 16% of the blacks did so. .Black migration has followed three avenues: along the Atlantic seaboard north toward Boston; from Mississippi north toward Chicago; and from Louisiana and Texas west toward California. Between 1955 and 1960, 50% of non-white migrants to the New York metro politan area came from North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Alabama. The movement of welfare recipients has shown a sim ilar trend (Exhibit 7). Statistics on mothers receiving aid to families with dependent children indicate their dis proportionate migration to the industrial north. In New York City, in 1968 for example, 78% of AFDC mothers 9 were born out of state, although only 37.2% of all women there aged 25 to 29 were born out of state. This migration was principally from the South Atlantic states and Puerto Rico. Such migrations to a most significant extent have been caused by factors outside the control of states and localities. Hand in hand with the concentration of poverty in the hearts of the large cities, there has gone the concentra tion of welfare burden and associated problems in the same large metropolitan areas. The concentration of poor persons in central cities, such as New York City, imposes vast social and physical burdens on local governments, in addition to the direct cost of welfare programs. For illus tration, with approximately 1/7 of its population now on welfare, New York City has a deteriorating inventory of residential rental housing, the incomes of welfare recipi ents being insufficient to provide the rental income neces sary for adequate housing maintenance. In addition, a low- income population with few technical skills and inadequate educational background results in higher costs of educa tion, health care, police and fire protection and sanitation. (h) Expenditures per inhabitant for public assistance have increased from $15.50 in the calendar year 1950 to $56.35 in the calendar year 1969 (Exhibit 4). In the same period, expenditures per inhabitant on aid to families with dependent children has increased from $3.50 to $17.25 (Exhibit 4). The per recipient monthly aid to families with dependent children in 1950 was $20.85, in 1967 $39.50 (Exhibit 5). Per family aid in the same category in 1950 was $71.45, in 1967 $161.70 (Exhibit 5). For the year 1971, the corresponding figures are anticipated to be substan tially higher. (i) In September, 1970, 4,292,000 members of the total civilian labor force of 82,547,000 were out of work, rep 10 resenting an unemployment rate of 5.2% (Exhibit 6). There is no indication when this 4,292,000 of unemployed people will be returned to work. (j) While the unemployment rate rises, inflationary forces continue to operate throughout the country. In the single year from September of 1969 to September of 1970, the cost of living index rose from 129.3 to 136.6 for all items, and from 146.0 to 157.7 for all services (Ex hibit 6). (k) The rapid increase in welfare costs in the past few years has been significantly affected by national economic policies, that is, policies formed and carried out by the federal government. The economic recession has brought people on to the welfare rolls, with particular burden on the urban centers. In New York City, specifically, in 1970, more than 31% of the increases in family cases in New York City were directly traceable to loss of employment and decrease in the number of cases closed in New York City by reason of employment. This was twice the rate in 1969. Moreover, the inflation caused by national policies has substantially raised the cost of living as reflected in the consumer price index. The operating rate of the econo my, and the amount of unemployment are essentially the consequence of national policy. (l) Concerning the national need and problem herein above described, the President of the United States has declared the following: “One of the first steps in the review of the federal system was to sort out those activities that are appro priate for the Federal Government from those that are best performed at the State and local level or in the private sector. We decided early on one primary Fed eral responsibility—providing, with a combination of 11 work incentives and work requirements, an income floor for every American family. My welfare reform proposals . . . are an integral part of our effort to give people the ability to make their own decisions, to build the capacity of state and local government, and to encourage more orderly na tional growth.” President Nixon’s Budget Message, New York Times, Jan. 30, 1971, p. 13, col. 4. The National League of Cities has stated the following: “Welfare in the United States is a national problem requiring a national solution. Our present system of public assistance has been found to contribute mate rially to the tensions and social disorganization which permeates many areas of our cities.” The United States Conference of Mayors has similarly declared the following: “One of the priorities requiring immediate attention is restructuring and modernizing the welfare system. We call on Congress to adopt national standards with com plete federal funding for the welfare program.” # # # “We need national assumption of [welfare] costs be cause the welfare problem is national in origin and national in solution.” (m) The nature and size of the problem, so deeply con nected with the “general Welfare” of the nation as a whole and so requiring a unified national treatment, is such as to demand planning and funding by the one body that can give such systematic, national treatment—the Congress. 12 10. The plaintiff City of New York as of the date of this complaint is, and for a number of years preceding has been, in an intolerable financial and legal situation with respect both to its public assistance requirements and budgetary needs and resources. This situation is, and has been, the result primarily of legal wrongs inflicted upon the plaintiff City through the combined action of the federal government, and officials thereof, and the government of the State of New York and officials thereof. a. Under the Social Security Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 620, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 301-1396g, the respective states, including the State of New York, are reimbursed by the federal government on a percentage basis applied to the amount of public assistance expenditures made by the state, in this instance, the State of New York. This reim bursement is effected under a “ state plan” required by the above-cited federal statute to be submitted by the State to the Secretary of HEW, reviewed by that Secretary and, if found satisfactory by him, approved by him. In particu lar, in the case of the State of New York, that State has heretofore submitted such a state plan to the Secretary of HEW, and that Secretary has reviewed such state plan and granted his approval thereof. From time to time, such state plan has been amended in like manner. b. The State of New York submitted the state plans above referred to without prior consultation with the plain tiff City of New York, without the approval or consent of the plaintiff City obtained with respect thereto, and with out the plaintiff City having the right to the review thereof either administratively or in the courts. The federal stat ute, 42 U.S.C. §1316, accords a right of review of the state plan, but only to the respective states, and not to the political subdivisions thereof. Subsequent to such approval 13 of the state plan by the Secretary of HEW, federal reim bursement for public assistance expenditure in the State and City of New York has been made based upon, and in accordance with, the state plan as so submitted and ap proved. c. The legislature of the State of New York has enacted a statute, the Social Services Law, which constitutes the basis and foundation of the state plan. The effect of such statute, including specifically Sections 62, 91, 92, 131, 131-a, 153, 356 and 368-a thereof, is to mandate the plaintiff City of New York to bear roughly one-quarter of the cost of its federally-aided gross expenditures for public assistance payments in the social services district which it comprises, and make the requisite impositions of tax and appropria tions out of its budget to cover such one-quarter cost to itself. From the gross expeditures by the City in the federally-aided categories is deducted the amount of fed eral reimbursement funds received on account of such ex penditures. Fifty per cent of the difference is the amount of the expenditure mandated upon, and to be borne wholly by the plaintiff City, without further reimbursement or contribution by the federal or state governments. The effect, as stated, is to mandate the plaintiff City to bear, pay, impose taxes with respect to, and provide in its budget for approximately 25% of such federally-aided gross expenditures. d. The ultimate and final cost to the plaintiff City for public assistance payments made by it for the year 1970, based on a gross, over-all expenditure of $1,702,056,000 (including expenditure for home relief which is not feder ally-aided) was $499,272,000. The corresponding figures for the eleven years preceding are shown on the attached table (Exhibit 8). The graph below shows the trend: 14 '58 '(>0 '62 '64 '*6 'is 17o Year e. With regard to the above-described, non-reimbursed expenditures, the City of New York has been deprived of any choice as to whether to make these expenditures. The combined mandate of the federal and state governments, assuming it to be valid, has been obligatory upon the plaintiff City, without right of prior consultation or prior approval with respect to such combined mandate, or right of objection thereof, or review thereof. f. On the other hand, the New York State Constitution, in its Home Rule provisions, Article IX, Sections 1, 2 and 3, grants to the plaintiff City power, and at the same time fastens upon it responsibilities, consistent with effective local self-government and its nature and existence as a municipality and metropolitan community. 15 11. In this situation of mandated public assistance ex penditures, and at the same time prescribed municipal functions and obligations, the plaintiff City of New York has been limited in the extreme in the matter of its tax and other revenue sources: a. The power of the City to raise revenue based on real estate taxes to meet operating expenses is circumscribed by the State Constitution, Article 8, Section 10, to 2V^% of the average full valuation of its taxable real estate. b. The power of the City to impose non-property taxes is limited to the taxes authorized by the state legislature to be so imposed by the City. c. The City is without power to finance its annual oper ating budget by means of long-term indebtedness. d. The City is unable to obtain substantial additional revenues from such sources as the personal income or cor porate income tax, or the sales tax. The federal and New York State governments have effectively pre-empted to themselves the major portion of the personal and corpo rate income taxes. The extent of such pre-emption is illus trated by the attached tables showing the rates of per sonal income tax imposed by the Federal, New York State and New York City governments, respectively (Exhibit 9). A comparable situation exists with regard to other desir able tax sources, such as represented by death and gift taxes and the like. e. Any increase in such taxes would accelerate the existing migration of middle and high income persons out of the city, thereby further narrowing the tax base. Tabulation of the sources of revenue increases to the three levels of government, federal, state and local generally, over the 20-year period 1947-48 to 1967-68, shows the comparative unavailability to the localities of such de sirable tax sources (Exhibit 10). The rate of sales tax in 16 New York City is already unsurpassed by any state or city. 12. In preparing and adopting its expense budget, the plaintiff City is faced additionally with the difficulty that under Social Services Law, Section 91, the plaintiff City is mandated to appropriate the amount necessary for pub lic expenditure made by it and to cause taxes to be levied to cover the amount of the appropriation to the extent such taxes are authorized by the State Constitution and legis lation. The expenditure in question is required to be in cluded in the expense budget without diminution or reduc tion, with the result that any inadeqacy of revenues can only be dealt with in a realistic way by reducing or even totally eliminating other budgetary items. The amount of city revenue devoted to public assistance has dramatically increased over a ten-year period, even when compared to such expensive services as police, fire and environmental protection. City expenditures for public assistance grew from $77,893,476 in calendar year 1959 to $499,272,000 in calendar 1970. During the same period, expenditures for police grew from $168,000,000 (fiscal 1960-61), to $477,000,- 000 (fiscal 1970-71); fire, from $85,000,000 (fiscal 1960-61), to $214,000,000 (fiscal 1970-71); environmental protection from $109,000,000 to $256,000,000 (Exhibits 2 and 11). Thus, expenditures for public assistance have increased out of all proportion to expenditures for Police, Fire and Environ mental Protection have only increased by 135% to 184%. This is illustrated in the table below. Percentage Increase in Expenditures Over 10 Year Period Public Assistance Police Fire Environmental Protection 540% 184 152 135 17 13. The result of these actions and policies of the federal and state governments has been to cause the plaintiff City to be unable properly to discharge its constitutionally- derived and imposed functions and responsibilities to its residents and taxpayers. For illustration, arising from these causes, the City has been unable to build adequate housing, to build and staff the schools necessary to cure overcrowding or to cope in an adequate manner with the mounting demands of waste disposal and air pollution. The jointly-mandated cost destroys the ability of the plaintiff City to function as a viable municipal government. 14. The combined action by the federal and state gov ernments, in their respective legislative enactments, and of the officials of those respective governments in pursu ance thereof which, as set forth and described in the fore going paragraphs, threatens the very survival of the plain tiff City, has involved violation of provisions of the federal and state constitutions respectively, as follows: a. With regard to the plaintiff City, the federal statute above-cited has exceeded, and exceeds, the power delegated to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the federal constitution in that, whereas the power delegated to Congress under that Clause is to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare, it has been interpreted and employed, as above-described and set forth, to man date the plaintiff City of New York to tax and spend for the general welfare. Specifically, the federal government, through the legislation referred to, and the device of re quiring approval by the Secretary of HEW of any state- submitted plan and then after review granting approval of the plan, has joined with the State of New York in mandating the plaintiff City of New York in the manner included in the plan in suit. Without the federal approval so given, such state-submitted plan would never have taken 18 effect and would never have produced the federal-state mandated action of which the plaintiff City has been the victim, and currently suffers, as herein complained of. With such federal approval so given, moreover, the State of New York is not in a position, acting alone and without further federal approval and consent, to undo the unfair and unjust burden upon the plaintiff City which the State of New York, acting by and through its officials, in conjunc tion with the Secretary of HEW, has placed upon the plain tiff City. The power to mandate is the power to destroy. The power to mandate a particular item of cost, without bound or limit as to amount, is the power to destroy. It is no less so than the power to tax, and for the selfsame reason. b. With regard to the plaintiff City, the federal statute above-cited, as here applied, constitutes an unconstitutional intrusion into the affairs of the State of New York and of the City of New York, of which the plaintiff City has been the victim, and currently suffers, in a manner violative of the Tenth Amendment of the federal Constitution, as well as destructive both of the quasi-sovereignty of the states and the integrity of the federal system. The reserved powers so illegally intruded upon have included, and pres ently include, the portion of those reserved powers granted to the plaintiff City of New York under the Home Rule provision of the New York State Constitution. By making the determinations it has, the federal government, acting by and through its Secretary of HEW, has proceeded in a manner inconsistent with the foundation principles of our dual system of government and intrusive into State- City matters which are exclusive concerns reserved to the States. c. With regard to the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff City, the federal statutes and the state statutes above cited 19 and described, by combining to effect the mandate on the plaintiff City of which that plaintiff has been, and is the sufferer, have had the further effect of depriving the plain tiffs other than the plaintiff City of New York of essential services to which, under our federal system, they would have been entitled as citizens of the State of New York and resi dents of the City of New York, and at the same time, and in addition thereto, have greatly added to the burden of their taxes as citizens, residents and taxpayers, all in viola tion of the Due Process Clause of both the federal and state Constitutions, the Ninth Amendment of the federal Con stitution, and the Equal Protection Clause of the federal and state Constitutions. d. With regard to the plaintiff Jule Sugarman, that plaintiff has been required to take, and has taken an oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York. That plaintiff is in the position of having to choose between the enforcement of the above- cited void and unconstitutional provisions, which would be in violation of his oath of office, or his refusal to enforce such provisions, which would be in violation of Sections 77, 131 and 131-a of the Social Services Law of the State of New York requiring him to administer public assistance in New York City, and in either instance might be vulner able to attempts to obtain his removal. 15. By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment of this Court declaring and adjudging that the combined action of the federal and state governments, and the respective legislative enactments thereof as above referred to, and the acts of the respective defendant officials pursuant thereto, are illegal, unconstitutional and void, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and final injunction of this Court enjoining and restraining the continuance in effect of such illegal and unconstitutional 20 mandate by the combined action of sucb federal and state governments. As and For a Second Cause of Action, in Favor of the Plaintiffs Against the Defendant George Wyman, as Commissioner of Social Services of the State of New York: 16. The plaintiffs repeat each and every allegation con tained in paragraphs “ 1” to “ 13” , inclusive, of this com plaint, with like force and effect as if fully set forth and realleged as part of this second cause of action. 17. The people of the state through their Constitution have granted “home rule” to the cities; the legislature cannot take it away through the technique of mandated welfare costs which make it impossible for the cities to exercise their “home rule” powers. The sections of the state statute above-described and set forth, as applied to the plaintiff City of New York and to the plaintiff Sugar- man, are in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the State of New York, and specifically the Home Rule provisions, Article IX, Sections 1, 2 and 3 thereof, and, as applied to the plaintiffs other than the plaintiff City of New York and the plaintiff Lindsay and the plaintiff Sugar- man, are in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution and of the Constitution of the State of New York. 18. By reason of the foregoing, the plaintiffs are en titled to a judgment of this Court declaring and adjudging that the action of the New York State legislature, as above referred to, and the acts of the defendant George Wyman, as Commissioner of Social Services of the State of New York, pursuant thereto, are illegal, unconstitutional and void, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary 21 and final injunction of this Court enjoining and restrain ing the continuance in effect as obligatory upon the plain tiff City of such unconstitutional state mandate. As and For a Third Cause of Action in Favor of the Plaintiffs Against the Defendant George Wyman, as Commissioner of Social Services of the State of New York: 19. The plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every al legation contained in paragraphs “ 1” to “ 13” , inclusive, of this complaint, with like force and effect as if fully set forth and realleged herein. 20. For purposes of the administration of public as sistance under the State Social Services Law, the State of New York has been divided under Section 61 of that Law into specified, geographical social services districts. The plaintiff City of New York and certain other cities under that Section each comprise a social services district. Other social services districts under Title 3-A of that Law are county-wide or city-wide, by city option. 21. Each social services district under Section 62 of that Law is made responsible for the aid, care and support of the needy found therein. 22. The result of the organization of the public assis tance system in New York by the State is to require the various social services districts to pay, in general, ap proximately one-quarter of the amount of public assistance payments made in their districts. These amounts are passed on, in normal course, through the burden of local taxes, to the respective taxpayers in such districts. 23. The classification geographically of the State of New York into respective social services districts for the pur pose of allocating costs to them (as distinguished from 22 mere administration) is arbitrary in that it is based on the assumption that the mere presence of poor people geo graphically in a particular locality in the State furnishes just and adequate reason to require their most immediate neighbors in the same district to contribute to their support. 24. The number of people receiving public assistance in the State of New York has grown from 512,691 in 1960 to 1,371,147 in 1969 (Exhibit 12). In the City of New York, the increase was from 325,771 in 1960 to 1,016,405 in 1970, an increase of more than 200% (Exhibit 12). Outside of New York City, the increase was from 186,960 in 1960 to 354,742 in 1969, an increase of 89% (Exhibit 12). During the calendar year 1970, 13.91% of the people in New York City were receiving public assistance, up from 4.18% in 1960 (Exhibit 13). The huge and abnormal rises indicated in the foregoing figures reflect causes far outside the re sponsibility and control of the City of New York. As shown previously, some 78% of the women receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children were not born in the state (Exhibit 7). They are not reasonably or validly more the responsibility of New York City residents and tax payers than the responsibility of other citizens, residents and taxpayers of the State of New York. 25. The large increase in the number of persons receiving assistance in New York City has resulted in huge increases which have been passed on to local residents and taxpay ers. In 1969, 11.01% of tax revenues of the plaintiff City of New York were spent on public assistance, namely, $431,000,000 of the $3,914,000,000 of the City-financed budget (Exhibits 8 and 14). New York City funds spent on public aid per capita rose from $10.24 in 1960 to $63.46 in 1970. Local funds expended per capita for public assis tance in New York City in 1968 inclusive of medicaid and administrative expenses, were $27.39 as compared to $6.14 outside the City (Exhibits 15 and 16). As a result of the 23 above rapid rises-in public assistance costs, residents and taxpayers in New York City have been foreed to pay in creased taxes. Such taxpayers, moreover, are burdened with higher welfare costs than those imposed on residents of counties with few welfare recipients. 26. The problem of relieving poverty in New York State is not a local problem. The phenomenon of poverty has long since transcended local causation and control. The poor are constitutionally entitled to, and do, cross the boundaries of cities and states. The New York social ser vice system, which obligates local social services districts to bear by local taxation one-quarter of the public assis tance costs incurred in such district is arbitrary and un reasonable in that it bears no relation to the problem to be solved, and, moreover, constitutes discrimination against taxpayers who live in districts where relatively large num bers of welfare recipients happen to reside at the time. Residents and taxpayers in New York City are thereby deprived by the State of New York of Due Process and the Equal Protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the State Constitution. The plaintiff City is deprived of its rights and powers under the Constitution of the State of New York, including specifically the Home Rule provisions, Article IX, Sections 1, 2 and 3 thereof, and under the above-stated Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. 27. The plaintiffs in this third cause of action are en titled to a decree of this Court declaring and adjudging the provisions of the State Social Services Law, specifically Sections 62, 91, 92, 131, 131-a, 153, 154 and 356, 365 and 368a thereof, that require each social services district to pay approximately 29% of the total public assistance costs incurred in such district, and the imposition of local taxes 24 to meet these, are invalid as in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend ment of the federal Constitution and the like Clauses of the Constitution of the State of New York, as well as the Home Rule provisions of the State Constitution, and en joining and restraining the continued allocation and distri bution of public assistance costs in the manner herein stated, and the requirement as to the imposition of local taxes accordingly. For a Fourth Cause of Action in Favor of the Plaintiffs Against the Defendants Elliott L. Richardson, Bernice Bernstein, and Elmer Smith, Secretary, Regional Di rector and Regional Commissioner respectively of HEW, and John B. Connolly, as Secretary of the Treasury. 28. The plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” to “ 13” , inclusive, of this complaint, with like force and effect as if fully set forth and realleged herein. 29. Since the need for public assistance is, as herein above shown, a national need, and the problem of poverty a national problem, and the requisite financial means of the respective states to cope with that national problem wholly inadequate, the provision of the federal statute purporting to entrust it to the option and discretion of any given state whether to avail itself of federal reim bursement for the financing of its public assistance pro gram is illusory. On a simple, factual basis, the individual state is being either mandated or coerced to accept the federal reimbursement of its public assistance expendi tures to the extent, and in the manner offered under the terms of the federal statute. Every state in the union has received and accepted, and continues to receive and accept such federal reimbursement as offered (Exhibit 1). 25 30. The effect of the public assistance needs within each of the respective states turns the seeming choice of right of election of each state into a federal mandate. Thus, the federal role rather than being one of “assisting the States” as stated in the Social Security Act has, given the magnitude of the problem, left the states with no viable option but to avail themselves of such federal assistance. While the original Congressional intent may have been at the time to assist the states in their then problems, the facts have since so changed that assistance has be come coercion, with options having become mandates. The individual states are today being compelled to tax and spend for the purpose of financing an obligation for the “general Welfare” , which is properly and constitutionally the federal responsibility under its delegated power. 31. Such compulsion extends the federal power under the “general Welfare” clause of the federal Constitution to a power not delegated and included in that consti tutional grant of power to Congress, as no power was ever granted to the federal government to coerce the states or their subdivisions to “ tax and spend to provide for the general Welfare.” 32. The effect of such illegal exercise by Congress of its delegated power in the statute under consideration is, further, to invade the province of power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. Further, it denies and disparages the rights of the people of the several states under the Ninth Amendment in that it interferes with the enjoyment by the people of the benefits and services which, under the federal system of the Constitu tion, can be provided to the people only by the state and local governments. 33. The effect of the federal statute referred to in the foregoing paragraphs is to vary the percentage require ment with each of the fifty states and the District of 26 Columbia. A table showing such varying percentages as applied in the fiscal years July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1971, is attached (Exhibit 17). Such unequal and varying per centages of reimbursement to the respective states in turn produce profound dislocations in the nation as a whole, relative to the economic factors bearing on the ability to compete in business and industry on a fairly competitive basis. The dislocations with regard to economic factors result from the higher burden of taxes in the states and localities with higher public assistance benefits and larger number of recipients causing, in turn, higher local prices and higher living costs, which in their turn produce higher local wages and thereby reduce the ability to compete in business and industry of such high public assistance ju risdictions. In such instance, moreover, where persons are on fixed incomes, they may be depressed by such higher living costs below the level of subsistence, thereby add ing to the pool of the persons requiring public assistance, in this manner producing a spiralling effect with regard to such dislocations. 34. As described more fully in paragraph 9 above, the effects of World War II and the technical changes in agri culture have caused millions of poor persons to leave their rural homes and migrate to the cities in search of work. Lacking in skills or education, large numbers of these citi zens found themselves on welfare. By failing to provide 100% reimbursement, the federal statute permitted those rural states with large numbers of politically disenfran chised poor blacks to keep welfare payments low, while im posing a direct burden on the urban states to which these citizens came in search of economic opportunities. The indirect costs to the cities in terms of disruption to the community and the higher costs of education, police, fire and sanitation services, compounded by a deteriorating 27 housing supply and tax base, were even greater. Thus the federal welfare program converted this national phenom enon into an urban nightmare. 35. The federal statute as above described, to the ex tent it fails to provide reimbursement of 100 % to each and every one of the fifty states and the District of Co lumbia, and the acts of the defendant public officials in pursuance thereto, most specifically as applied to these plaintiffs, is invalid and unconstitutional on the following grounds: a. It exceeds the power delegated to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the Constitution, “ To lay and collect Taxes * * * to * * * provide for the general Welfare of the United States,” transforming and distorting that power by its mandate or coercion of the states into a power “to lay and collect Taxes to compel the states to pay and collect taxes to provide for the gen eral Welfare of the United States.” Such excessive exer cise of power by mandate to, or coercion upon, the states to provide for this national responsibility for public as sistance as a development of our modern urban society, can be avoided only by a determination that the legisla tion presently in effect be limited so that federal reim bursement to the states for their public assistance ex penditures be a full 100% and applied without discrimina tion to all the states of the union. b. It exceeds the power delegated to Congress as afore said in that it brings about regulatory effects and economic dislocations, not authorized by the Constitution, not directly related to the delegated power to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare, not adapted to such purpose, and not in exercise of the necessary and proper powers with respect to such constitutionally delegated power to tax and spend. 28 c. It violates the Fifth Amendment, in particular the Due Process Clause therein contained, in that it compels some states, political subdivisions, and the citizens, resi dents and taxpayers thereof, to bear national public bur dens which, under our federal system and in all fairness and justice, should be borne on an equitable basis by the nation, its citizens, residents and taxpayers as a whole. d. It violates the Fifth Amendment in that it discrim inates in its operation and effect against non-whites who are most affected by the adverse migratory consequences and economic effects and dislocations hereinabove described. e. It violates the Tenth Amendment by having an ad verse regulatory effect unrelated to the delegated federal power being exercised, and within the proper province of the states under their reserved powers, at the same time that it violates the Ninth Amendment by denying and dis paraging rights retained by the people. f. It violates the constitutional doctrine that protects the right to travel, and the constitutional doctrine that protects each state in its power, dignity and authority and equality of quasi-sovereignty along with all the other states, and entitled, as a consequence, to receive no less in the way of favorable treatment from the federal government than each of the other states of the union. 36. The within statute cannot be cured, insofar as it exceeds the power of Congress as above set forth, except by eliminating all provisions therefrom which would allow for reimbursement to the states of less than 100% of their public assistance expenditures. 37. By reason of all the foregoing, the plaintiffs are entitled to have this Court declare and adjudge that the federal statute in question, and all acts of the defendant 29 federal officials in pursuance thereof, are unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that they permit or require any state or political subdivision to receive less than 100% of its public assistance expenditures, and any individual citi zen, resident or taxpayer to receive in the given state less than the result and effect of such 100% reimbursement. For a Fifth Cause of Action in Favor of the Plaintiffs Against the Defendants Elliott L. Richardson, Bernice Bernstein and Elmer Smith as Secretary, Regional Di rector and Regional Commissioner respectviely of FLEW, and John B. Connolly, as Secretary of the Treasury. 38. The plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “ 1” to “13” inclusive, of this complaint, with like force and effect as if fully set forth and realleged herein. 39. The effect of the provisions of the federal statute referred to in the preceding paragraphs is to measure the reimbursement by the federal government to any par ticular state either: (a) after a percentage of a first small dollar bracket of grant, on the basis of the single factor of the square of the ratio of the per capita income of the particular state to the per capita income of the nation as a whole, or (b) on the basis of the single factor of the square of that ratio alone. In either situation, the lower such square of the ratio, the higher the percentage of re imbursement to the given state. Conversely, the higher such square of the ratio, the lower the percentage of reim bursement to the particular state. 40. The statutory scheme above described, while pur porting to be based upon and to take into account, the factor of so-called “ability to pay” , does not in fact do so. This is because the single factor of per capita income within any given state reflects only the average of the per capita 30 income in the state, not the ability of individual persons to bear the burden of expense and tax. A state with a high per capita income ratio, which is therefore limited to receiv ing under the federal statute a low reimbursement percent age relative to other states, may be unable to avail itself of such high per capita income to the extent necessary to offset the lower federal reimbursement. Where, in any given state, there is a marked degree of polarization be tween the few of high income and the many of low income, but at the same time resulting in a high per capita income for the state, that state will still be unable to reach by taxation the pool of high income in the hands of the narrow sector of persons having such high income. By employing as the basis for reimbursement the square of that ratio, as distinguished from the ratio itself, the unreasonableness of the statute is compounded in geometric proportion. b. Moreover, the federal government has itself pre empted by its own high income tax rates much of that desirable and highly productive tax source. The same holds true also with regard to such levies as death or gift taxes. The consequence of the foregoing is that the per capita income of the particular state fails to reflect truly the ability to bear the burden of public assistance in that state and thereby negates any reason why such state should be treated less favorably by the government in the matter of percentage of federal reimbursement for state public as sistance expenditures than a state of lower per capita in come. Tables illustrating, in the matter of personal in come tax only, the priority on that desirable tax source enjoyed by the federal government to the consequent dis advantage of the state and local governments have been attached as already stated (Exhibit 10). 41. The federal statutory scheme of varying percentage reimbursement previously referred to is unconstitutional 31 and invalid additionally in that it fails to take into account certain further factors required to be considered if the percentage finally arrived at for the respective states is to reflect the minimum of justice and fair treatment re quired by the federal Constitution. Those additional fac tors include, without being all-inclusive: (1) the standard of public assistance benefits accorded to the residents of the particular states; and (2) the number of persons actually entitled to receive, and receiving such public assistance, in the particular state. 42. The percent system gives the respective states the option of setting the benefit level. This has resulted in significant variations of benefit level from state to state. The non-white section of the population has been the big gest sufferer from this set of circumstances. Many states have established benefit levels below the poverty line. This departure from a reasonable standard of public assistance benefits could only be maintained in an area where the poor, and especially the non-white poor, were, and continue to be, systematically denied the benefit of full voting rights. 43. By reason of such statutory scheme, which is de fective as stated as being based on the single factor of per capita income alone and failing to take into account at least the other two factors above-noted, the federal stat ute under consideration is violative of the federal Constitu tion and the federal constitutional system established there under, in the following respects: (a) It exceeds the power delegated to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the General Welfare Clause), and to that extent violates that Clause of the Constitution, in that by applying an unfair and unjust reimbursement 32 formula that favors certain states above others, it is di rected to an unrelated, regulatory effect with regard to population influx and outgo, and with regard, additionally, to industrial and commercial competition among the sev eral states, in both respects being disruptive of the unity, coherence and normal economic growth as between the sev eral states and no less the well-being of the country as a whole. (b) It violates the Fifth Amendment in the matter of the Due Process Clause therein contained, in that it compels some states, and the citizens, residents and taxpayers thereof, to bear to an unjust and unreasonable extent na tional public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne equitably by the states, and the citizens, residents and taxpayers of the nation as a whole. This it does by placing an unequal and discriminatory burden on the citizens, residents and taxpayers of states, the sole distinguishing feature of which states is a high per capita income, in favor of the like citizens, residents and taxpayers of states with a low per capita income. It also violates the Fifth Amendment to the extent that that Amendment bars discriminatory treatment amounting to, and the equivalent of, a denial of the Equal Protection of the laws, such latter violation and adverse effect having particular reference to the non-white sectors of the population. (c) It violates the Tenth Amendment in that, by being directed and designed to have, and by having, an adverse, regulatory effect unrelated to the particular delegated power being exercised, namely, the power to spend to pro vide for the general welfare, it invades the proper field of exercise by the states of their reserved powers. (d) It violates the constitutional doctrine that protects the Right to Travel (including the right to settle and to 33 return) in that, by applying unjust and discriminatory per centage reimbursements to the respective states, it has an adverse, inhibitory effect on travel by indigents seeking employment and other benefits. It also violates the doctrine by preventing moderately-circumstanced persons from migrating to those cities where they will be subject to increasingly burdensome state and local taxes caused by excessive federal welfare costs. Moreover, the city is de prived of the benefits of such migration. (e) It violates the constitutional doctrine that protects each state in its equality of quasi-sovereignty along with all other states, and entitled on that basis to receive no less in the way of favorable treatment from the federal government than the treatment accorded to all the other states of the union. 44. By reason of all the foregoing, the plaintiffs are entitled to have this Court declare and adjudge that the federal statute in question is unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it puts into effect the presently unjust and discriminatory statutory scheme of federal reimburse ment based on the single factor of per capita income alone, and permits any given state to receive less by way of fed eral reimbursement for public assistance expenditure than 100% of such expenditure, or permits any state to receive less by way of such federal reimbursement on a percentage basis than any other state, and permits any individual, citi zen, resident or taxpayer to receive in his state less than the full benefit to which he would, under a valid statute, be entitled. W herefore, plaintiffs respectfully pray the Court for judgment against the defendants, as follows: 34 On the First and Second Causes of Action: 1. Declaring and adjudging that the combined action of the federal and state governments, and of the respective defendant officials thereof, as alleged and described above, is illegal, unconstitutional and void ; that the plaintiff City of New York is entitled to a preliminary and perma nent injunction of this Court enjoining and restraining the continuance in effect and operation of such illegal and unconstitutional combined mandate. On the Third Cause of Action: 2. Declaring and adjudging that the provisions of the State Social Services Law, specifically Sections 62, 91, 92, 131, 131-a, 153, 154 and 356, 365 and 368-a thereof, that provide for the distribution and allocation of public assis tance costs and payments, and the imposition of local taxes accordingly, are invalid as in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amend ment, and the Home Rule provisions of the New York State Constitution, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a pre liminary and permanent injunction enjoining and restrain ing the continued division of the State into such social services districts, and the allocation and distribution of public assistance costs and the requirement as to the impo sition of local taxes accordingly. On the Fourth Cause of Action: 3. Declaring and adjudging: (1) that the federal statute in question is unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it provides for any state to receive less than 100% for its public assistance expenditures, and any individual citizen, resident or taxpayer to receive in the given state less than the benefit of such 100% reimbursement; and (2) that the federal statute is unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it provides for any state to receive reim 35 bursement in a percentage less than the percentage received by the state receiving the highest such reimbursement percentage; and (3) granting appropriate injunctive relief, both preliminary and final, accordingly. On the Fifth Cause of Action: 4. Declaring and adjudging that the federal statute in question is unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it puts into effect the presently unjust and discriminatory statutory scheme of federal reimbursement, based on the single factor of per capita income alone, and permits any given State to receive less by way of federal reimbursement for public assistance expenditure than 100% of such ex penditure, or permits any State to receive a lower per centage of federal reimbursement than any other state. 5. That plaintiffs have such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper. Dated: New York, N. Y. February 24, 1971. Signed : J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Office & P.O. Address: Municipal Building, New York, N. Y. 10007. Tel. 566-4515 Norman Redlich, E dmund B. Hennefeld, Mary P. Bass, of Counsel. 36 Verification State of New Y ork, County of New Y ork, s s . : John V. L indsay, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York; that he is one of the plaintiffs herein; that he has read the foregoing complaint and knows the contents thereof and that the same are true of his own knowledge except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believes them to be true. John V. L indsay Sworn to before me this 24th day of February, 1971. Mary Rita Rheinwald Notary Public, State of New York No. 43-8555500 Certificate filed in Richmond County Commission Expires March 30, 1972 la Exhibit 1 TABLE 1 PROPORTION OP POPULATION OX FEDERALLY AIDED WELFARE UNDER PRESENT LAW AND ADMINISTRATION REVISED REVISION Civilianresidentpopulation > eder&Uy aided welfare recipients, January 107* Percent of Number population Welfare recipients eligible under administration revised rcylsion rerecut of Number population 1 ̂ Total, United States ____ . . . 203,790,700 10, 436, 197 s 1 23, 800, 300 11. 7 Alabama.. ________ 3,505,000 255, 400 3 6G5, 800 19. 0 Alaska____________ 252,000 10, 274 4 1 25, 100 10. 0 ’| Arizona________ . . 1,085,000 72, 410 4 3 204, 600 12. 2 Arkansas__________ 1,990,000 115, 000 5 .8 369, 700 IS. 5 California_________ 19,213,000 1, 655, 400 8,6 2, 323, 400 12. 1 1. Colorado__________ 2,065,000 111, 110 5.5 368, 000 17. R 0 j Connecticut___T_. . 3,009,000 97, 140 5 2 187, 900 6. 2 « Delaware__________ 537,000 23, S60 4.4 55, 000 10. 2 I District of Columbia. 783,000 47, 490 6. 1 65, 900 8. 4 Florida___________ 0,332,000 295, 900 4.7 683, 600 10.. 8 i j Georgia___________ . . 4,565,000 328, 400 7.2 1, 025, 500 22. 5 I Hawaii____________ 747,000 29, 072 3.9 02, 700 8. 4 I Idaho_____________ 717,000 22, 100 5 1 51,400 7. 6 1 Illinois____________ 11,031,000 446, 100 4.0 S06, 300 7. 3 Indiana______ ___ 5,136,000 98, 100 1.9 298, 100 5. 8 L Iowa___________ . . 2,785,000 92, 300 OO. O 235, 700 8. 5 K KKansas. . _________ 2, 28S, 000 73, 940 3.2 158, 600 6. 9 I Kentucky_________ 3, 192, 000 211, 200 6.6 523, 500 16. 4 VLouisiana__________ 3,724,000 346, 500 9.4 934, 200 25. 1 Maine____________ 967,000 43, 920 5. £ 145, 400 15. 0 M Mai yland______ . . 3, 732,'000 157, S50 4.2 202, S00 7. 0 M M Massachusetts___ . . 5,475,000 282, 500 5. 2 438, 500 8. 0 \; Michigan__________ 8, 70S, 000 310, 200 3. U 6-10, 400 7. 3 MMinnesota.... ........... 3,714,000 10S, 120 2. $ 320, 3110 8. 6 Mississippi....... ........ 2,336,000 211, 000 9. 0 806, 10U 34. 5 V ' Missouri__________ 4,637,000 255, 200 5. 5 443, 600 9. 6 y N Montana_____ ____ 688,000 18, SS0 2. ; 52, 200 7. G._ N Nebraska__________ 1,437,000 43, 550 3 .0 107, 700 11. 7 N Nevada...---------- 452,000 15, 570 3. 4 37, 000 8. 2 New Hampshire____ 720, 000 la, 200 2.0 39, S00 5. 5 N New Jersey________ 7,128,000 3IS, 720 4. 5 50S, 800 7. 1 a V New Mexico_______ 976, 000 69, 260 7. 1 194, 400 19. 9 N New York_________ 18,309,000 1, 227. 400 6. 7 1, 979, 300 10. 8 N North Carolina. . . .. 5,110,000 194, 600 3. $ 900, 600 18. 9 North Dakota... ---- 600,000 16, 583 2.S 90, 900 16. 2 < »• Ohio______________ 10,786,000 355, 400 3.3 799, S00 7. 4 < )i, Oklahoma__________ 2, 545, 000 188, 700 7. 4 • 366, 200 14. 4 p. Oregon. ---------------- 2,044,000 93, 800 4. 6 143, 500 7. 0 1:. Pennsylvania_______ 11,797,000 511, 800 4. 3 1, 234, SU0 10. 5 Rhode Island........ . 8S6, 000 45, 810 5. 2 67, 200 7. 6 >.* South Carolina______ 2,036,000 83, 900 3. 2 490, S00 18. G T South Dakota---------- 650, 000 22, 110 3. 4 107, 400 16. 5 T Tennessee__________ 3,971,000 205, 400 5. 2 741, 800 18. 7 V Texas______ ______ 11,097,000 478, 800 4. 3 1, 521, 500 13. 7 Utah______________ 1,049,000 42, 760 4. 1 55, 100 5. 3 V, Vermont___________ 444,000 18, 000 4. 1 46, 800 10. 5 W: Virginia____________ 4,514,000 109, 400 2. 4 431, 300 9. 6 w Washington------------- 3, 3S6, 000 153, 450 4. 5 312, 300 9. 2 \v West Virginia_______ 1,819,000 115, 5S0 6. 4 275, 300 15. 1 Wisconsin.......... ........ 4,242,000 101, 180 2. 4 23S, 400 5. 6 w Wyoming--------1 ------ 317,000 7, 447 2. 3 20, 000 6. 3 Puerto Rico----------- 2,763,000 264, 930 9. 0 800, 000 29. 0 Guam_____________ 87,700 2, 072 2. 4 3, 400 3. 9 Virgin Islands--------- 59,000 2, 319 3. 9 2, 900 4. 9 30URCE: Congress, Finance, H.R. 16311, 2d bession. The Family Assistance Act of 1970. 91st Analysis by the staff of the Committee on Senate, p. A13 Tab!* 1. — R ecip ient* o f p u b lic a s s is ta n c e sjoney payments and/or non-medi ndor payments and average monthly payment per r e c ip ie n t , by program, December o f calendar yc«ra 1936-1969 1J Recipients (in thousands) December Of each year Old-age assist ance Aid to the blind Aid to the per- manently and total ly dis abled Aid to fondlies with dependent children General assist ance \J Emergency assistance (Families) Institu tional services in inter mediate care facilities Old-8ge assist ance Aid to the blind Aid to the per manently and total ly dis abled Aid to f aid lies with de pendent children General assist ance y Kmcrgency assict&nce (p«- Jarlly) Famines Total recipi ents 2/ Children ’ 6........... 1,10 8 k5 ... 162 5k6 kok k,5k5 ... ... ne.8o 426.10 48.80 48.00 ... 1,579 56 — 229 769 568 k,8k0 — ... 19.k5 27.20 — 9.35 8.50 ... '3........... 1,779 67 — 281 935 688 5,177 — - — 19.55 25.20 — 9.60 7.90 ... 1,912 70 — 316 l,0k2 76k k,675 — — 19.30 25 .k5 — 9.65 8.30 “ ’*0........... 2,070 73 ... . 372 1,222 895 3,618 ... ... 20.25 25.35 ... 9.85 8.30 ... 1 ........... 2,238 77 — 391 1,208 9kk 2,068 — - ... 21.25 25.80 — 10.20 9.U0 — 2........... 2,230 79 — 3U9 1,15 8 851 1,000 ... ... 23.35 26.55 ... 10.95 11.6 5 — 3........... 2,lk9 76 ... 272 916 676 558 — - — 26.65 27.95 ... 12.35 lk. 55 k........... 2,066 72 — 25k 862 639 k77 ... — 28.1*5 29-30 13.kO 15.60 ... 5........... 2,056 71 ... 27k 9k3 701 507 — ... 30.90 33.50 ... 15.15 16.55 —— 5........... 2,196 77 ... 3k6 1,190 685 673 . .. ... 35.30 36.65 ... 18 .10 18.k5 ... ?(It 2,332 81 ... kl6 1 ,1*26 1,060 739 ... ... 37.kO 39.60 ... 18.1*0 20.60 ... 9........... 2,1*98 86 ... k75 1,632 1,21k 8k2 — k2.oo k3.55 20.90 22.kO . —. 9........... 2,736 93 — 599 2,ok8 1,521 1,337 ... — kk.75 k6 .10 ... 21.70 21.25 — 0........... 2,786 97 69 651 2,233 1 ,6 6 1 866 ... __ k3.05 1*6.00 4kk.l0 20.85 22.259 2,701 97 12b 592 2,0kl 1,523 66k ... ... kk.55 1*8.05 1*6 .U5 22.00 22.90 — • 2,635 98 161 5?6 i,9?l 587 — — - k8.8o 53.50 ke.ko 23>5 23.30 — 7 2,582 100 192 5U7 l,9kl l,l*6k 618 ... — - k8.90 5k.05 k7.90 23.20 22.05 -- 4........ . 2,553 102 222 60k 2,173 3.639 880 ... — U8.70 5k.35 V8.35 23.23 22.85 ... 5........... 2,538 1C* 2k 1 602 2,192 l,66l 7k3 • ... — 50.05 55.55 k8.75 23.50 23.30 -- ................. 2,1*99 107 266 615 2,270 1,731 731 ... ... 53.25 60.00 50.70 2k . 00 23 .k5 — • 7.......... . 2,U80 108 290 667 2,1*97 1,912 907 ... — 55.50 62.20 52.35 25. kO 22.70 — 9........... 2,k38 no • 325 755 2,1*86 2 ,18 1 l,2k6 ... ... 56.95 63.55 53.80 26.65 2k .05 —— 9.......... . 2,370 106 3>*6 776 2,9k6 2,265 1,107 ... — 56.70 65.60 5k.15 27.30 23.05 — o ........... 2,305 107 369 803 3,073 2,370 l,2kk ... ... 58.90 67.k5 56.15 28.35 2k . 85 1 ........... 2,229 103 389 916 3,566 2,753 1,069 — - — 57.60 68.05 57.05 29.k3 26.15 — • -2........... 2,183 99 1*28 932 3,789 2,8kk 900 — — 61.55 71.95 58.50 29.30 26.30 3........... 2,152 97 k6k 95k 3,930 2,951 872 — - — - % 62.80 73.95 59.85 29-70 27.k5 • •• h ........... 2,120 95 509 1,0 12 **,219 3,170 779 ... ... 63.65 76.15 62.25 31.50 30.50 ... 5........... 2,087 85 557 1 ,05k k,3S6 3,316 677 ... ... 63.IO 81.35 66.50 32.85 31.65 — 6 ........... 2,073 8k 588 1 ,12 7 k,666 3,526 663 ... — 68.05 66.85 7k. 75 36.25 36.20 ... 7........... 2,073 83 6k6 1,297 5,309 3,936 782 ... —— 70.15 90.k5 80.60 39.50 39.kO ... 2 ,o n 81 702 1.522 6,036 k,555 826 ... lb 69.55 92.15 82.65 1*2.05 kk.70 — 2.077 --- 51---- 803 1.675 7.313 ?.4i3 657 8 92 73.95 93-75 90.20 • >•5’l5 50.05 T O T 2,025 00 711 1,556 6,223 k,65l 652 -- 32 69.75 93.00 83.V5 k2.95 45-30 -— 2,025 80 718 1,592 6,38k k,7k9 828 -- 58 70.10 93.15 ek.30 k2.70 k5.05 — - March........ 2,030 80 728 1,622 6,1.87 k,821 826 ... 60 70.65 9k .25 a*.6o k2.90 W6.20 — 2,031 80 738 1,0*3 6,551 k,869 8ck — 67 70.55 9k .k5 85.10 k3.35 k7.55 — Kay.......... 2,033 80 7k7 1,652 6,555 k,876 795 -- 69 70.65 9k. 85 85.65 k3 .10 k7.55 ——— 2,036 8o 755 1 ,66k 6,577 k,893 767 — 77 70.50 95.30 85.65 k3.85 k7.65 — .̂ ily....... 2,0kl 80 763 1,63k 6,63k k,932 73* 6 86 70.95 95.30 86.20 kk.30 k8.20 118.00 2,0kk 80 770 1,717 6,7k8 5,015 807 8 88 71.35 95.80 87.10 k5.05 k8.95 Ilk.95 Scptesber..... 2,052 80 777 1,753 6,8r6 5 .1 1 1 826 8 89 72.50 97.05 87.-5 k5.10 k7.70 123.30 2,063 So 786 1,790 6,995 5,199 822 7 90 73.30 97.95 09. -0 k5.25 k8.70 n5.50 2,070 SO 793 1,626 7,12k 5,238 821 8 92 73.kO 98.30 89.05 kk.75 k9>5 117.60 >ceber...... 2,077 81 803 1,875 7,313 5,kl3 857 8 92 73.95 98.75 90.20 k5.15 50.05 113.00 Average monthly payment per recipient Institu tional services in inter mediate care fa c ilitie s « - ict!# ' 21k.30 219.90 223.83 22k. kO 23k.70 231.03 2k3.53 2kT.60 2kk.k3 2k2.33 Jk6.80 laeluSei Putrto Rico and tha Virgin Ialnnda, beginning October 1950 (under the 1950 enendnenta to the Social Security Act) end Pv t , hfjjnnirg hily 3959 (under tba 195# aemdnanta). Children and c m or both parenta or ooa adult caretaker relative other then a parent In fanlllei In vhlch the requlrenenta of tC'-h adult* veto < O'lAered la datenlnlng the aaount of aailvtaaca] kaferl Ceceeixr 1950 partly eatlnatad. Tata inco*̂ 3lets. Urgency assistance authorized to needy families with children urier title IV-A. I SOURCE: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social and Rehabi litation Service, National Center for Social Statistics, Public Assistance -Annual Statistical Data - calendar year 1969 (NCSS Report A-7 (CY 69) P« 1 E xhibit 2 I i Table 3. - - Amount o f public u i l i t u c t payments, by program, calendar years 1936-1969 (Amounts In thousands) Money payments Medical vendor payments \ j Total Federal ly aided programs General assistanca Total Federally aided programs General assistance Total Old-age assistance Aid to the b lind Aid t o the permanently and t o t a l l y disabled Aid to families with dependent ch ild ren Amount Percent o f t o t a l payments $6 5 5 ,0 8 6 $217,951 $1 5 5 ,6 8 6 $1 2 ,8 1 6 . _ $6 9 ,6 5 3 $637,136 . . . . . . . 802 ,93T 396,217 309,550 16,173 . . . _ 7 0 ,6 9 6 *06,720 . . . — - — 987,025 511,619 396,876 18,953 . . . 97,59* 675,606 — — . . . 1,050,790 568,670 *33.507 20,372 . . . 1 1 6 ,7 9 1 6 8 2 ,12 0 . . . — — . . . 1 , 0 2 0 ,1 1 5 6 2 7 ,9 0 6 672,778 21,735 . . . 133,393 39* .2 0 9 — — — . . . 9 8 9 ,3 9 7 716.231 5*0,07* 2 2 ,9 5 6 . . . 153,301 2 7 1 ,1 6 6 . . . — — . . . 9 56 ,8 6 6 776,608 5 0 7,6 0 0 26,559 . . . 15 8 ,6 6 9 18 0 ,* 3 8 . . . 9 2 6 ,3 2 5 815,616 6 6 9 .9 7 0 25,065 . . . 1*0,399 110,91* — . . . . . . —• 9 6 0 .3 9 9 851,051 690,727 25,256 . . . 13 5 ,0 6 8 8 9 ,3 6 7 — . . . . . . 9 8 7 ,9 3 6 901,673 725.683 26.515 . . . 1 6 9 .6 7 5 86.262 . . . . . . — . . . 1 , 1 7 9 ,3 1 8 1,058,921 819,766 30,717 . . . 2o e ,* * o 12 0 .3 9 6 . . . . . . — . . . 1 , 1*8 0 ,6 0 0 1.316,576 9 8 6 ,3 6 6 3 6 ,1 9 3 . . . 29* ,0 1 5 166,226 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ,7 3 0 ,7 1 3 1,532,262 1,126,190 k l , 28k -y - 352,788 198,651 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 , 1 7 6 ,9 7 6 1,893.717 1,372,898 *8,U*8 . . a 672,371 281,257 — " r . . . . . . *,*5* ,*85 2 ,o6 l ,7 0 0 1,653,917 52.567 $8,062 567,176 292,786 $5 1 ,8 0 3 2 .2 $21,916 $29,867 2,279,612 2,065,153 1 , 6 2 7 ,6 0 3 5 6 ,6 7 3 56.312 568,765 196.659 103,179 ■ 6.J 5 6 ,7 8 2 *6,397 * . 3 l l .5 * > 2,162,065 1,662,936 59.536 81,533 538 ,0 6 0 169.695 139.539 5.7 8 8 ,6 1 6 51,105 2 , 3 7 6 ,1 5 8 2,222,891 1,513,293 6 3 .6 0 1 1 M , 0 U 563.966 151,267 165,721 6.5 116,606 51,315 2 . 6 5 1 ,7 8 5 8,855,735 1,697.578 65,236 1 1 9 ,7 9 1 573,128 1 9 6 ,0 5 0 1 9 0 ,8 5 1 1 .2 129,117 6 1 .7 3 3 8,516,590 2,102,636 1,687,991 67,806 1 3 6 ,6 3 0 6 1 2 ,2 0 9 213,956 211.566 6 .* 1 6 3 ,6 1 7 68,127 2 , 58* . 20k 2,387,003 1 , 52 9 ,0 6 8 72.926 150,162 63*,887 isrr.2 0 1 268 ,8 66 9.* 196,705 72,161 2 ,7 8 8 ,1 6 1 2,577,082 1 , 6 0 9 ,3 9 0 T8.679 172,170 716,8*42 2 1 1 , 07? 3 0 2 ,1 6 1 9.8 226,695 77,6*8 3 ,0 6 8 ,7 0 1 8,765,393 1,667,376 81,655 1 9 6 ,6kk 8 1 9 ,9 1 8 30 3.306 357,75* 10.* 266,972 92,786 3,200,768 2 , 8 5 8 ,7 1 9 1,620,715 83,553 217,279 937,172 362.069 6 56 ,9 6 6 1 2 .5 36 0 ,6 65 96,298 3,262,769 2/ 2 , 9 6 3 ,2 6 8 1 , 6 2 6 ,0 2 1 8 6 ,0 6 0 236,*08 9 9 6 ,6 2 5 319.521 5 2 2 ,2 2 8 U - J 1..*0,*** 1 0 1 ,9 8 3 3 6̂ 10 ,5 6 8 2j 3 .0 5 9 ,1 5 3 1 ,5 68 ,9»T 8*.506 255,665 1 , 16 8 ,8 3 8 351.395 6 8 8 ,3 2 0 1 6 .8 5V3, 058 110,262 3 , 5 1 2 ,1 2 8 5 / 3,222,590 1 , 5 6 6 ,1 2 1 83,856 2 8 1 ,1 1 7 1 , 2 8 9 ,8 2 6 269,536 926,978 20.8 t n , 8 6 6 1 0 2 ,1 1 5 3,667,906 1 / 3 .3 7 0 ,*7k 1 ,6 1 0 ,3 1 0 8 5 ,1 2 2 317,656 1.355.538 277,632 1 , 06 6 ,66 6 22.6 06I ,659 10 3 ,2 0 6 3 , 8 1 7 , **6 2/ 3 , 5 6 7 ,1 8 6 1 ,6 0 6 ,5 6 1 86,139 355,663 1.656,525 270,260 1.255.131 2* .7 1 .!*■'*, 308 3.995.907 y 1.715.295 1,596,1*3 77.378 *16.765 1 ,6 * * ,0 9 6 260,612 1,680,119 27.0 1 ,* 5 5 .0 5 6 k.*<*.507 2 / 6 , 0 5’ ,6 3 0 1 ,6 3 0 ,1 3 1 8k , 706 687,212 1.8*9,886 251,877 2,007,626 31.8 1,323,1*2 k j 931,661 ? / k , 608,621 1 ,6 9 8 ,1 6 5 8 6 ,9 5 0 573,575 2 ,2 6 9 ,6 7 1 121,060 2 , 8 7 2 ,6 5 6 ^6.8 ■r, 8 06 ,59 0 6 6 ,1 0 6 5 ,6 6 0 ,kk l 2 j 5,2*0,987 1,673,191 8 7,8 2 8 655,792 2,823,861 619.516 6 , 0 9 6 ,13 3 *1 .9 *,0S?0,1** 75»989 6 , 6 3 2 ,6 0 6 y 6 , 15 8 ,3 2 8 1,766,716 91,390 786,757 1,533,281 676,678 6 ,6 8 0 ,52 6 ' *0.5 6.597.215 8 3 ,3 1 1 Emergency assistance Intermediate care fnelllt&ee 1936., 193T.. 1938. 1939. 190............1961............196*............196?...... ......19*»6............ 19**5........1966............ 19**T........1966............1969............ 1990 ........................ 1991 ........................ 199*.............. 1955...............19*....... 1957.............. 195«.............. 1959.............. I960..........1061..........1!«*..........1963.......... 1966 ..... 1969..................... 1966................... 1967 ..... 1969.................... 196?............. ... $*55,086 802,917907,029 1.050.790 1 , 020,115 989.397 956,81,6 926,325 960,399 567,936 1,179,318 1 ,680,800 I . 730,713 2,176,97*6 2, 606,288 2.382.791 2 ,651,060 2.539,879 2,662,635 2.768.135 2,853,070 3.090,306 3, 626,659 3.657,712 3,786,995 6,098,867 6,637,107 6,712,572 5,072,577 5 , 676,025 6.313.136 7,806,377 9,768,276II. 567,682 I* .66511,030 99,277 203,120 y r .d .r .1 participation 1 . «n d or p .p « « U for —d l c l c . r . under p r o ® - .. ( c r e p t (cn crc l c . l . t c n c c vhleh 1 . rincncrf entirely f r c . S t .tc end l o r d rund.) aede pocdk lc bcflnnlnf Octobw 1 , 1950 kp the 8 . 1 .1 " r 2 / S i S ^ I o e r ' n ^ i e n t . under e d l c e l eeelet.nce for the .fed ee f o l l o w . I960, 9320, 000-, 1961, 91,177,000; 1962 , 91,672,000; 1963, $1,868,000; 1966, $2,268,000; 1965, $2,963,000; 1966, $1,693,000; 1967, $2 T «.0 »i 1968, $275,000; 1969, $186,000. i SOURCE: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social and Reha bilitation Service, National Center for Social Statistics. Public Assistance annual statistical data - Calendar year 1969 (NCSS Report A-7 (CY 69) p. 3 i E xhibit 3 E xh ib it 4 Table b.— Expenditures per Inhabitant 1/ for public assistance, by program, calendar years 1936-1969 Year Money payments Medical vendor payments Emergency assistance Payments to intermediate care facilities Total ✓ * Federally aided programs Generelassistance Total Federally aided programs General assistanceTotal Total Old-age assistance Aid to the blind Aid to the permanently and totally disabled Aid to families with dependent children 1936..... $5.10 $5.10 $1.70 $1.20 $0.10 m—— $0.b0 $3-b0 . . . ... ... 1937..... 6.25 6.25 3.10 2.bO .15 ' . -- .55 3.15 — -- — -- — 1938..... 7.60 7.60 3.95 3.05 .15 .75 3.65 — — — -- — 1939..... 8.05 8.05 *♦.35 3.30 .15 — — .90 3.70 -- — — — 19*10..... 7.75 7.75 b.75 3.60 .15 _ 1.00 2.95 — — -- — 19U1..... 7.**5 7.*<5 5.*10 b .05 .15 — 1.15 2.05 — — — - 19><2..... 7.15 7.15 5.80 b.b5 .20 — 1.20 1.35 — -— — — 19*13..... 6.85 6.85 6.05 u.eo .20 — - 1.05 .80 — - —. — — 19''*i..... 19'*5..... 7.00 7.00 6.35 5.15 .20 — 1.00 .65 -— ; . — - ' -— — 7.'*0 7.*t0 6.75 5.**5 .20 — 1.10 .65 — - .) ' ... -— -- — - 19*16..... 8.U0 8.b0 7.55 5.85 .20 --- 1.50 .85 — - - — — — — 19*i7..... 10.30 , 10.30 9.15 6.85 .25 — 2.05 1.15 — . — - — — - . 19*18..... 11.80 11.80 I0.U5 7.70 .30 2.b5 1.35 — - • •'«■ — — — — I9*i9..... lb. 20 lb.20 • 12.b0 8.95 .30 — 3.10 1.85 — — — — — 1950..... 15.50 15.15 13.30 9.35 .35 $0.05 3.50 I .90 $0.35 ■ / ■ $0^15 $0.20, — — - 1951..... 15.10 IU.U5 13.25 9.05 .35 .35 3.50 1.25 .65 .35 . .30' — — - • 1952..... 15.30 l*i .**5 13 .**0 9-15 ’ .35 .50 3.35 I.05 .85 .30 — 1953..... 15.60 l*t .60 13.65 9.30 .bO .65 3.35 .95 1.00 .70, .30 — — 195**..... 15.90 l*i.75 13.60 '9.00 •bo .70 3.b5 ^ 1.20 1.15 .8-1 • .35 — 1955..... 16.25 lb. 90 13.60 8.80 .bo ■ .so 3.60 1.25 1.35 • 95 .bO -- — 1956..... 16.55 15.00 13.85 8.90 .b O .85 3.70 1.15 1.55 1.15 ; .Uo — — 1957..... 17.65 15.90 lb. 70 9.20 •b5 1.00 b.10 1.20 1.70 1.30 • .b5 -- — - 1958..... 19.25 17.20 15.50 9.25 .*•5 1.10 b .70 1.70 2.00 1 .50- .50 -- -— 1959..... 20.20 17.65 15.80 8.95 .b5 1.20 5.15 1.90 2.50 2.00 .55 — — i960..... 20.55 17.70 16.00 8.85 M 1.30 5.bo 1.75 2.85 2.30' .55 — — 1961..... 21.90 18.25 16.35 ’ 8.bo .b5 1.35 6.15 ' 1.90 3.70 3.10 .60 ... — 1962..... 23.35 18.50 16.95 8.2? .b5 1.50 6.00 1.50 b.85 b .15 .55 — — 1963..... 2*1 .*15 18.90 17.50 8.35 .b5 1.65 7.05 l.b5 5.50 5.00 .55 196*1..... 25.95 19.55 18.15 8.20 M 1.80 7.65 l.bo . 6.bo 5.85 • 55 — — 1965..... 27.70 20.20 18.90 8.05 .b O 2.10 8.30 1.30 7.50 6.65 .60 — __ 1966..... 31.60 21.55 ' 20.30 8.15 .b O 2.b5 9.25 1.25 10.05 9.65 • .bo — 1967..... 38.65 2*1 .*15 22.85 8.bo .b5 2.85 11.15 1.60 lb. 25 13.90- .35 — 1968..... U8.15 27.90 25.85 8.25 .b5 3.25 13.95 2.05 20.20 ■ 19.80 • 35 $0.01 $0.05 1969..... 56.35 - 32.*10 30.05 8.55 .b5 3.85 17.25 2.30 22.35 22 .b5 .b O .05 1.10 1J Before 1968 based on population as of January 1, excluding Armed Forces overseas, estimated by the Bureau of the Census. Beginning 1958 based on population an nf Julv 1. SQORu.'b: Dept, of Health, Education andWelfare, Social and Reha bilitation Service, National Center for Social Statistics, Public Assistance annual statistical data - calendar year 1969 (N033 Report A-7 (CY 69 p. U) 5a Exhibit 5 T a b l e 130.—Public unaUnce: Average m o n t h ly payment par recipient, 1930-07 (IndndM nan medical raider payments. See table US lor pertinent tootnotae] Deemaber i Old-age | l id to Um blind Aid to the permanently and totally S in eu s Aid to families with dependent children Oenerel Per family P a recipient assistance $18.10 $86.10 $29.86 $9.90 $8-99 J0.16 25.$5 12.40 9.86 8.90 80.80 IS.50 68.06 16.16 16.65 a .M 46.00 *44.10 71.46 30.85 33.26 44.65 43.05 46.46 76.80 23.00 23.80 a .so 53.50 46.40 82.10 23.46 23.30 48.90 54.06 47.90 82.30 23.30 23.05 i8 .70 64.16 43.35 83.70 23.15 23.85 50.05 66.66 48.76 85.50 23.60 33.80 53.25 60.00 50.70 81.50 24.80 23.45 55.50 62.20 62.35 85.15 25.40 22.70 56.95 63.55 53.80 100.40 26.65 34.05 68.70 65.66 64.16 101.70 37.30 25.05 58.00 67.45 56.16 106.85 38.35 >4.85 57.60 66.05 67.05 114.65 29.45 26.16 61.55 71.85 56.50 119.10 28.30 36.80 62.80 73.85 59.85 122.40 28.70 27.46 63.65 76.15 62.25 181.80 31.50 30.50 1965................................................................................................ 63.10 81.16 66.60 138.85 $2.85 $1.851066........................................................................... 68.05 86.85 74.75 160.10 36.25 36.20 1067.................................................................................................................... 70.15 80.45 80.80 161.70 38.60 30.40 T a b l e 131.— Public assistance: Expenditures for assistance and percentage distribution by source of funds, 1936-67 [These data not comparable with annual data lor assistance based on monthly series (table 138), mainly because these figures Include more cancellations of payments. Be*Inning July 1950, Includes vendor payments for medical care) Year Amount (In thousands) Percentage distribution Total Federal funds State funds Local funds Total Federal funds State funds Local funds 1836................................................................... 3655.065 '188,101 $336,471 $230,314 100.0 ■13.4 51.4 35.31840............. ................. .............. .................... 1,020,115 283,848 478,328 346.838 100.0 28.8 47.0 34.31845.................................................................... 867,834 401,854 462,834 123,186 100.0 40.7 46.8 12.3 1850................................................................... 3,406,286 1,064.328 1,068.887 255,861 100.0 46.1 44.3 10.61851........................................... ........................ 2,382,781 1,133,820 881,482 257,478 100.0 47.6 41.6 10.81852................................................................... 2,461,060 1,182,501 1,004,834 263,744 100.0 48.2 41.0 10.81853.................................................................. 2,538.878 1,318,125 862,662 259,092 100.0 51.8 87.8 10.31854................................................................... 2,842,635 1,337,240 969,119 316,273 100.0 50.6 87.4 13.0 1855................................................................... 2.748.135 1,358,071 1,053,847 336,517 100.0 48.4 38.3 13.31856.................................................................. 2.853,070 1,411,235 1,100,892 340,943 100.0 49.5 38.6 13.01857.................................................................... 3,000,304 1,586.020 1,143,642 361.642 100.0 51.3 37.0 11.71858................................................................... 3,426,458 1,738.016 1,260.737 437.707 100.0 50.4 36.8 13.81850................................................................... 3,657,712 1,800.067 1,305,761 442,803 100.0 52.3 *8.7 12.1 1860.................................................................... 1,784,885 1,957,705 1,376.014 481,376 100.0 51.7 36.4 11.91961......................................... ......................... 4,086,867 2,177,140 1,438,067 482.640 100.0 53.1 35.1 11.91862..................................... 4,437,107 2.411,364 1,526,718 488.025 100.0 54.3 34.4 11.31963................................................................... 4,712,572 2.626,867 1,543,370 542,335 100.0 55.7 33.7 11.61964................................................................... 5,073,577 2,781,052 1,863,828 505,805 100.0 65.0 83.2 11.7 1865................................................................... 5,478,025 2,858,602 1,865.145 653.270 100.0 54.0 34.1 11.91966................................................................... 6.813.134 3,498,146 2.038.303 778,664 100.0 55.4 33.3 13.S1987................................................................... 7.804,377 4,211,207 2,617,704 873,466 100.0 54.0 33.3 12.8 i Includes $12,500,000 balance of Federal Emergency Relief Administration funds spent tor general aseistance. 1 Excludes expenditures for the medical assistance program (Title X IX ) > Partly estimated for the Virgin Islands; data not available. > Lees than 0.06 percent SOURCE: Social Security Balletin, Statistical Supplement, 1967, STATISTICAL S U P fU M IN T , 1*47 6a / Exhibit 6 T a b l e M -29.— Civilian population and labor force, 1940-70 1940.. IMS.. 1050.. 1055.. 1060.. 1061.. 1062.. 1063.. 1064.. 1065.. 1066.. 1067.. 1968.. 1060.. September. October___ November. December. January... February.. March....... April.......... May........... June........... July............ August___ September. Civilian population 1 (In thousands) Period Total 182.120 128,112 150,700 162,067 178,153 181,207 183,706 186,667 180,372 101,804 103,767 105,671 107,584 100,682 1060 200,067 200,286 200,527 200,738 1070 200.065 201,162 201,345 201,674 201,708 202,032 202,242 202,465 202,706 Under Aged 65 age 18 and over 64,408 65,004 67,331 68,674 70,197 70.402 70.620 70,732 70,787 70,736 16,658 17,013 17,308 17,667 17,856 18,156 18,457 18,802 10.120 10,463 70,578 10,610 Civilian labor lore* aged 16 and over > (In thousands) Unemployment as percent of civilian labor force Total Employed Unemployed Unadjusted Seasonally adjusted 55,640 47,520 8,120 14.6 53,860 62,820 1,040 1.0 62,208 58,0-20 3,288 6.3 65,023 62,171 2,852 4.4 60.628 65,778 3,852 5.6 70.450 65,746 4,714 6.7 ro, eu 66,702 3,011 5.5 71,333 67,762 4,070 5.7 73,001 60,305 3.786 6.2 74,455 71.068 3,366 4.6 76.770 72.805 2.875 1.8 77,347 74,372 2.075 3.8 78,737 75.020 2,817 1.6 80,733 77,002 2,831 3.5 80,064 78,026 2,058 3.7 3.8 81,510 78.671 2.830 3.6 1.8 81,427 78,716 2,710 3.3 3.6 81,416 78,788 2,628 3.2 1.6 80,710 77,313 3,406 4.2 3.0 81.283 77,489 3,794 4.7 4.2 81,600 77,057 3,733 4.6 4.4 81,060 78.408 3,552 4.3 4.8 81,741 78,357 3,384 4.1 8.0 84.050 70,382 4,660 5.6 4.7 84,801 80,291 4,510 6.3 5.0 84.115 70,804 4,220 6.0 6.1 82,647 78,256 4.202 5.2 5.6 1 Includes Alaska and Hawaii for all years. Annual data are estimated as of July 1. Data not adjusted for errors of coverage and of age misreporting. ’ .Annual data are averages of monthly figures. Beeinning 1060, includes Alaska and Hawaii. Data for 1950 and 1955 adjusted to reflect definitions adopted January 1957; two groups (those on temporary layoff and those waiting to start new wage and salary jobs within 30 days) formerly classified « emrwwed—with a iob but not at work—were assigned to other classifica- jmployed. Beginning 1062, comparability with pre vious years affected somewhat by the Introduction of material from the 1060 Census (level of labor force and employment lowered by about 150,000). Beginning January 1067, civilian labor force series revised to show aged 16 and over. Source: Population data from Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce. Labor-force data from Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor. T a b l e M -30 .— Consumer price indexes, 1940-70 (1057-50=100; yearly data are annual averages) Feriod All Items All items less medical care Medical care Food Apparel and upkeep Housing Transpor tation Personal care Reading and recreation Other goods and eerrlces All services 1040.......................... 48.8 50.3 40.5 48 8 50 0 1045.......................... 62.7 57.5 58.4 70.1 67 5 55 4 1050.......................... 83.8 73.4 85.8 00.1 83.2 70 0 1055.......................... 93.3 88.6 04.0 05 0 04 1 80 7 1060......... ............... 103.1 102.8 108.1 101.4 102.2 103.1 103.8 104.1 104.9 103.8 WJ. 0 106.61061.......................... 104.2 103.8 111.3 102.6 103.0 103.0 105.0 104.6 107.2 104.6 108.81062............... .......... 105.4 104.9 114.2 103.6 103.6 104.8 107.2 106.5 100.0 105.3 110.01963.......................... 106.7 106.1 117.0 105.1 104.8 106.0 107.8 107.0 111.5 107.1 113.01064 *....................... 108.1 107.5 119.4 106.4 105.7 107.2 100.3 100.2 114.1 108.8 115.21065...................... ._ 109.9 100.1 122.3 108.8 106.8 108.5 111.1 109.0 115.2 111.4 117.81066.......................... 113.1 112.3 127.7 114.2 100.6 111.1 112.7 112.2 117.1 114.9 122.21967.......................... 116.3 115.0 136.7 115.2 114.0 114.3 115.0 115.5 120.1 118.2 127.71068.......................... 121.2 119.7 145.0 110.3 120.1 H0.i 110.6 120.3 125.7 123.0 134.3I960.......................... 127.7 126.1 155.0 125.5 127.1 120.7 124.2 120.2 130.5 120.0 143.7 1060 September............. 120.3 127.6 157.6 127.5 128.7 128.6 123.6 127.3 131.6 131.3 146.0October................... 129.8 128.2 156.0 127.2 120.8 120.2 125.7 127.3 132.0 132.2 146.5November............. 130.5 128.9 157.4 128.1 130.7 120.8 125.0 127.8 132.3 133.1 147.2December.............. 131.3 120.7 158.1 120.0 130.8 130.5 128.0 128.1 132.7 133.5 148.3 1070 January.................. 131.8 130.1 150.0 130.7 120.3 131.1 127.3 128.5 133.1 133.0 140.6February................ 132.5 130.8 160.1 131.5 130.0 132.2 127.3 120.0 133.2 134.3 150.7March................. . 133.2 131.5 161.6 131.6 130.6 133.6 127.1 120.0 133.6 134.8 152.3 April..................... 134.0 132.2 162.8 132.0 131.1 134.4 128.0 120.8 134.4 135.6 153.4M a y ................. . 134.6 132.9 163.6 136.4 131.0 135.1 120.0 130.3 135.2 136.1 154.1June........................ 135.2 133.4 164.7 132.7 132.2 135.6 130.6 130.2 136.1 136.7 155.0July................... . 135.7 133.9 165.8 133.4 131.4 138.2 131.4 130.6 136.6 137.3 155.8August................... 136.0 134.2 166.8 133.5 131.5 137.0 130.6 131.3 137.1 138.1 156.7September........... 136.6 134.8 167.6 133.3 133.6 137.8 131.0 131.7 137.7 138.8 157.7 1 New series, beginning January 1064. For details, see Major Changes In Source; Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index (Department of Labor, March 3,1964). I SOURCE: S o c i a l S e c u r i t y B u l l e t i n , D ecem ber, 1 9 7 0 , p* UU SO CIA L SECURITY 7a Exhibit 7 Table 18: Percent white AFDC mothers born out o f sta te , 1967; percent white women, age 25-29, born out o f State, i 960; and AFDC grant standard, 1968: by State Percent AFDC Percent women Column 1 AFDC mothers born age 25-29 born divided by grant out o f State, out o f State, column 2 standard State_____________1967______________i 960 ___________________________ New York ‘ I l l in o is New Jersey Connecticut Indiana Utah Pennsylvania Ohio Wisconsin Nevada Oregon Nebraska Wyoming Michigan Montana Arkansas Washington South Dakota Kansas Oklahoma California Idaho Iowa New Hampshire Minnesota Colorado Delaware North Dakota Fhode Island Florida Massachusetts West Virginia North Carolina Arizona Alabama Virginia Tennessee Maine South Carolina Mississippi Louisiana Texas New Mexico 57.7 2l*.2 2. 381* $278 1*1.6 30.1 1.382 279 **5.9 38.2 1.202 332 1*6.7 39.7 1.176 307 1*0.5 35.3 1.11*7 150 35.** 32.5 1.089 185 l **.2 13.1* 1.060 213 36.5 3^.5 1.058 193 20.0 19.0 1.053 239 85.6 85.1 1.0C6 158 62.0 62.1 .993 226 28.5 29.1 .979 200 62.6 6i*.0 .978 200 27.6 28.7 .'562 2'*6 1*0.6 '13.2 .9**0 22l* 23.5 25.1 .936 90 52.2 57.5 .908 268 26.0 28.8 .903 229 36.2 1*0.2 ................900 237 27.0 30.5 .885 175 57.5 65.1 .883 221 1*1*. 2 50.1 .882 238 19.2 22.6 .O50 21*1* 33.0 1*0.5 .815 25>t 20.9 25.7 .813 266 1*5.9 57.0 .805 185 1*3.8 56.3 .778 137 17.8 23.0 .771* 251 23-5 30.1* .773 266 58.5 76.2 .768 85 15.7 21.8 .720 288 1 1 .1 15.7 .707 161 12.6 19.9 .633 l'*l* 1*5.3 7**.0 .612 131* 12.0 2] .5 .558 ’ 89 23.0 1*2.1 .5**6 191 13.8 26.9 • 513 120 9.5 18.8 .505 137 13.1* 28.1 .1*77 93 1 1 .1 23.8 . 1*66 55 13.3 29.1 .>*57 116 11.9 29.8 • 399 111* 15.1 59.1 .255 183 SOURCE: U.S. House of Representatives, 91st Cong., 1st Session, Comm, on Ways and Means. Report of Findings of Special Review of Aid to Families with Dependent Children in New YorkCity. 1969 d 76-78. ’ * 8a Exhibit 7 -77- Table 19s Percent Negro mothers born out o f State 1967; percent nonwhite women age 25-29, born out o f State, I960; and ATOC grant standard, 1969t by State State Percent AFDC mothers born out o f State, 1967 Percent women Column 1 age 25-29 born divided by out o f State, Column 2 I960 Ai'DC grant standard 1968 — ---------- T J~ • -v Mexjyo l.-izona- ' 86.5 31.7 2.729 $183 79.2 35.U 2.237 13U v.C'ring 81.6 62.2 1.312 200 w»n:.esota 70.2 53.9 1.302 266 isshington 90.7 70.1 1.29U 268 71.8 60.5 1.187 185 tevada 96.3 81. 1) I . I 83 158 ,tr Kansas 18.5 16.0 1.156 SO Cc nnecticut 85.1 76.0 1.120 307 j-iiunn 70.6 65.0 I . 0S9 150 Colorado 91.0 83.9 I.O85 185Massachusetts 65.3 60.L 1.081 288 Oregon 79.9 7U.l1 1.07U 226 >ev York 72.3 67.3 I . 07U 278 Tennessee 32.7 30.0 1.062 120 Visconsin 20.0 19.0 1.053 239Sew Jersey 65.1 62.2 I . 0U5 332Nebraska 71.0 69.8 1.017 > 200 California 80.5 79-8 1.009 221 I ova 56.2 56.5 .995 2UU 1llinoi s 7U.3 7U.7 .995 279Oklahoma 21.2 21.6 .981 ■. 175Florida U9.O 50.3 .97U 85Virginia 23.2 2U.2 .959 191Michigan 71.8 75.0 .957_______ - 2U6 PeJavare ______ ------------- 51,1,--------- 53.8 .955 187 Kansas 63.8 67.1 .951 237Ohio 59.6 62.9 . 9U8 , , 193North Carolina 12.8 1U.0 • 91U 1UU ilhode Island U3.6 51.3 .850 266 Pennsylvania 1)2.8 51.0 .839 , 213Missouri U7.5 60.1 .790 12U Texas 15 .1 21.3 .709 11U West Virginia 19.0 • 29.9 .635 161 Alabama 3.9 6.3 .619 89Hississlppi 3.2 5.5 .582 55South Carolina 3.6 7.0 • 51U 93Louisiana U.8 12.7 .378 116 New Mexico and Arizona have large numbers o f non-white nonmigrnnts (American Indians) and this may explain why these low payment states are nevertheless f ir s t on the l i s t . D ata prepared by the N ation al C en ter fo r S ocia l S ta tistics, S ocia l and R eh a b ilita te S ervice,.U . S. D epartm ent o f H ealth , E d u cation , end W elf«*-“ 9a Exhibit 7 |U! Ito O Crt H* T3 r t n O csr p ►- < 'K frH *0 a wt- rt ft ̂ rt '-S o- r> rt rr 01O H> *1 ri ** 9 STo sr SM OCi- *3 C in t-‘ 75 H- O O 09 3 ft) 3 3! rtrt O t1a. rt ^ 3 rt *3 r t n B 3 P rt * rt *"t O rt *i Oft wo oH O £ X o o< tl • rt • »-•g t- 3 vo a. • o p o P *:rv *rtrt 09 3* rt 3 cro 2 ? ? § ft f> 3 H* o »i j: ft f - ft 3* rtO r* In Oi o M N as 23 2SH • • • • > > f' 52 » 5* V/t • • •. > > > v j U s j ^ ft, > :o ►-» t-_ i N C VO in O O 13 ° no a 3 C 2. c i3 rt VO*-*■>— oa h, to 3 rt rt »t O >- M. C VO 3 O CA H* »-* 4> rt ft* 3 rt S 3 I*■*v» >H H*O ►-* >-* VO O' ervt- <3 f> l*> rt > t - 3* Nl vo rt O CT M n ***J a |cn I f c M3* H8 vo rt M f *i O < T able 2 0 : P ercen t o f w om en and w elfa re recip ien ts b om ou t o f S tate by eth n ic grou p , K cw Y ork C ity, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1968 10a Exhibit 7 I TABLE 46.~AFOC FAMILIES, BY 6IRTHPLACE OF MOTHER, 1967 STATE ANO CENSUS DIVISION TOTAL FAMILIES BIRTHPLACE OF MOTHER IN SAME STATE NOT IN SAME STATE NEW ENGLAND MIODLE ATLANTIC EAST north central WEST NORTH CENTRAL south ATLANT !C EAST SOUTH CENTRAL t WEST* SOUTH CENTR/S TOTAL: 1NUMBER..... . 1 278 260 670 066 10 037 20 335 25 839 30 087 128 701 97 546 89 499! PERCENT......... 100.0 52.4 .8 1.6 2.0 2.9 10.1 7.6 7.0 NEW ENGLAND....... 6fl 685 62.0 8.1 3.0 .7 .2 10.5 3.6 1.2 MAINE........... 5 874 76.8 4.5 1.3 .7 .0 .6 .2 .4 NFW HAMPSHIRE.... 1 402 61 .6 24.7 2.1 1.3 .4 .9 .4 .4 VERMONT......... 2 105 79. 1 9. 8 5.2 .8 .4 .8 .0 .2 MASSACHUSETTS.... 35 958 70.9 6.7 2.5 .6 . 1 7.9 4.0 1.6 RHODE ISLAND.... 7 50 1 69. 8 13.3 3.1 1 .3 .5 4.8 1 .0 1.6 CONNECTICUT..... 15 845 30.6 8.4 4.6 .8 • 4 25.0 5.9 .9 MIDDLE ATLANTIC.... 300 050 42.0 .6 2.9 .9 .2 24.5 4.0 .8 NEW YORK........ 196 218 33.2 .7 2. 4 .9 .2 25.1 4.5 .9 NEW JERSEY.... . 36 176 38.3 .4 6.6 .7 .1 34. 8 8.2 .2 PENNSYLV AN I A.... 67 656 69.5 . 3 2. 3 1.3 .4 17.1 2.7 .7 E. N. CENTRAL..... 182 619 43.7 .2 l.i 3.4 2.9 9.2 27.7 7. 6 OHIO............ 53 479 49. 3 . 1 2. 2 1.4 .4 14 .9 25.6 2.7 INDIANA......... 12 172 42.4 .0 1.0 5.2 2.5 3.2 30.6 8.3 ILL I NO I S........ 57 903 33.2 .2 .3 3.0 5.3 3.3 36.5 l 1.0MICHIGAN........ 44 455 46.0 .1 1.2 4.5 2.7 9.9 22.4 8.1 WI SCONSIN........ 14 610 58.7 .1 .6 7.0 3.4 2.2 13.5 8. 1 W. N. CENTRAL..... 7* 940 63.3 .0 . 4 2.9 7.6 • 6 7.1 7.8 HINNESOTA....... 15 929 71.2 .1 .5 5.9 9 .9 .4 2.0 2. 1 IOWA............ 11 795 71.2 • 0 . 5 4.4 10.5 .3 2.8 1.9 MISSOUR I........ 26 729 56.6 .0 . 1 1.8 2.1 .6 14.5 9.6 NORTH OAKOTA.... 2 312 81.8 .0 .7 .8 3 .9 .3 .0 .5 SOUTH OAKOTA.... 3 706 78.1 .0 .2 1. 2 12.7 .2 . I .7 NEBRASKA........ 5 509 56.3 .3 .9 1.8 12.7 1.0 7.1 10. 2 KANSAS.......... 8 960 52.4 .0 . 9 l .0 10.8 1.4 4.5 23.3 SOUTH ATLANTIC.... 163 on 62.6 .2 1.2 1.0 .1 14.8 4.0 . 3OE L AW ARE........ 3 818 47.6 .0 7. 8 .7 — »0 ~ 3 2. a 3.1 . 7 MARYLAND........ 26 443 39.6 .2 1. 3 .6 .0 14. 7 . 9 .1DIST. OF CUL.... 5 341 45. 5 .0 1.6 .5 .1 47.8 2.0 . 6 VIRGINIA........ 10 153 74.2 .3 1.8 .7 .3 17.8 2 .0 .1WEST VIRGINIA.... 20 887 82.3 .2 l.i 2.0 .i 4.2 3.1 .0 NORTH CAROLINA... 26 098 83.1 . 1 .5 .1 .1 10.3 .7 .0 SOUTH CAROLINA... 6 996 89 .7 .0 . 2 .2 .0 4.6 . 9 .0 GEORGIA......... 25 941 69.3 .0 .1 .2 .0 2.9 2.7 . 0 FLORIDA......... 37 334 44.4 .6 1.7 2.2 .3 26.9 n .2 1.0 E. S. CENTRAL..... 92 146 79,2 .0 .1 .4 .2 2.0 5.6 . 9 KENTUCKY . ........ 26 804 71.6 .0 . 1 i.i .0 1.0 3.5 .5 TENNESSEE....... 23 535 73.5 .0 . 1 .4 .6 4.6 13.7 1.8 ALABAMA......... 18 1ST 88.5 .0 .0 .i .1 2.1 2.7 . 4 MISSISSIPPI..... 23 671 86. 5 .0 . 0 .0 .0 .3 2.3 1.0 W. S. CENTRAL..... 85 060 79.5 .0 • l .4 l .4 .7 2.5 6. 7 APKANSAS........ 9 233 78.0 . 2 .0 .5 2.4 .7 8.1 5.7 LOUISI ANA....... 27 156 82.6 .0 .1 .4 .2 . 3 3.0 1.4 OKLAHOMA........ 22 316 76. 7 .0 . 1 .4 • 3.0 n o 1.3 13.6 TEXAS........... 26 355 79.2 .1 .2 .5 1.0 • 8 1.2 6.8 MOUNTAIN.......... 48 637 56. 1 .3 .8 2.6 5.9 .8 2.0 11.3 MONTANA......... 2 495 67 .9 .4 .4 1.6 13.2 .8 .2 2.2 IOAHO........... 3 047 48.8 • 5 .4 2 . 9 10.3 .7 . 9 4. 0 WYOMING......... l 220 32. 1 . 2 . 5 4.2 17.1 1.2 2.5 * 7.5 COLORAOO........ 13 951 50.9 .3 L.I 2.1 10.3 1.1 2.7 n.i NEW MEXICO...... 9 396 71.1 .0 .3 .5 l .1 .3 .8 9 . 9 ARIZONA......... 10 208 54.3 .4 1.0 5. 1 1.9 .4 2.2 19. 1 UTAH............ 6 672 62.1 .0 .6 1.8 3.2 1.5 1.2 3. 5 NEVADA.......... l 648 15.4 1.3 2. 6 5 .0 5.0 2.2 9.0 33.4 PACIFIC 225 275 32.3 .8 2.1 4.7 6.1 2.5 5.5 26. 2 WASHINGTON................ 15 867 41.2 . 5 . 8 4.3 13.0 2.1 3.1 10 .0 OREGON.......... 10 206 32.4 .6 . 9 4.8 13.7 1.2 3. 2 12.1 CAL IFORN IA................ 193 336 30. 3 . 9 2.3 4.8 5.3 2.7 5.9 26. 7 ALASKA........................... i 217 80.2 • 6 1.9 2.1 1.3 • 2 2.9 HAWAII........................... 4 649 73.1 .5 .0 .4 .1 .5 .0 . 1 PUERTO RICO.. . . . . . . 37 458 83.8 .0 . 0 . 0 . 1 . 0 .0 .0 VIRGIN ISLANDS..... 393 52 .2 . 0 .5 .0 .0 .3 .0 . 0 ICONTINUEO) 11a STATE A NO CCENSUS DIVISION TOTAL: NUMBER.......... PERCENT......... NEW &NGLANQ....... MAINE........... NEW HAMPSHIRE. .. . VERMONT......... MASSACHUSETTS. . . . PHODE ISLAND.... CONNECT 1 CUT..... MIODLE ATLANTIC.... NEW YORK........ NEW JERSEY...... PENNSYLVANIA.... E. N. CENTRAL..... OHIO............ INDIANA......... ILLINOIS........ MICHIGAN........ WISCONSIN....... W. N. CENTRAL..... MINNESOTA....... IOWA............ MISSOURI........ NORTH DAKOTA.... SOUTH DAKOTA.... NEBRASKA........ KANSAS.......... SOUTH ATLANTIC.... DELAWARE ......... MARYLAND........ D I SI . or COL.... V IRGINIA........ WEST VIRGINIA.... NORTH CAROLINA.. . SOUTH CAROLINA... GEORGIA......... FLORIDA......... E. S. CENTRAL..... KENTUCKY........ TENNESSFE....... ALARAMA......... MISSISSIPPI..... W. S. CENTRAL..... ARKANSAS........ LOUISIANA....... OKLAHOMA........ TEXAS........... MOUNTAIN.......... MONTANA......... IDAHO........... WYOMING......... COLORADO........ NEW MEXICO...... ARIZONA......... UTAH............ NEVADA.......... PACIFIC WASHINGTON...... OREGON.......... CALIFORNIA...... ALASKA.......... HAWAII.......... PUERTO RICO........ VIRGIN ISLANDS.... Exhibit 7 TABLE 1*6 . — A FDC FAMILIES, eY BIRTHPL ACE OF MOTHER, I 967— CONTINUED BIRTHPLACE OF MOTHER NOT IN SAME STATE OTHER TOTAL PUERTO OTHER U.S. LATIN FOREIGN F AM II IFS MOUNTAIN PACIFIC RICO TERRI TORY CANADA AMERICA COUNT RY UNKNOWN 1 278 260 21 502 8 598 58 887 l 195 2 595 16 325 11 252 85 810 100.0 1.7 .7 4. 6 .1 • 2 1.3 .9 6.7 68 685 .1 .2 3.4 .0 1.1 . 1 1.7 3. 9 5 874 .2 . 0 .0 .0 3.7 .0 .6 l 1.0 1 402 .0 .1 .0 .0 2.4 .0 2. 1 3.4 2 105 .0 .2 .0 .0 1 .3 .0 • 6 1.7 35 958 . 1 .2 1.7 . 1 1.2 .1 2.2 .3 7 5CL .2 .3 .3 .0 .2 .0 1. 1 2. 6 15 845 . 1 .0 10. 9 .0 .3 .3 1.3 10.4 300 050 .1 .1 18.0 .2 .2 1.1 .9 3. 6 196 218 .0 . 1 25. 6 .4 .2 1 .7 1 .0 3. 3 36 176 .0 . 1 7.3 .0 .0 . 2 1.1 6.0 67 656 • 1 .1 1.7 .0 .1 .0 .6 3. 2 182 619 .2 .1 1.0 .0 .2 .3 .7 2.9 53 479 .2 .0 .4 .0 .0 . 1 .7 1.8 1 2 172 .0 .5 . 6 .0 .0 .0 l .1 4.6 57 903 .1 .1 2.6 .0 .0 .5 .5 3. 3 44 455 .3 . 1 . 1 .0 • 6 .1 l .1 2.9 14 61 C .1 .4 .3 .0 . 1 1.0 .4 3.9 74 040 .8 .6 . 0 .0 .2 .1 .6 8.0 15 929 .6 .9 . 1 .0 .7 . 1 .9 4.5 1 1 795 . 6 .9 .0 .0 .0 . 1 .3 6. 5 26 729 .0 . 1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 14.2 2 312 2.0 .8 .0 .0 1.2 .0 1.2 2. 1 3 706 1.7 .6 . 0 .0 .1 .0 .4 4.0 5 509 3.0 l .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 1.3 4.4 8 960 1.3 .6 .0 .0 .1 . 1 .4 3. 1 163 01 1 .C .1 • 1 .0 .0 . 3 . 1 1 5.3 3 8 18 .0 .0 • 9 .0 .0 .0 .2 6. 9 26 443 .1 .1 .0 .0 . 0 .2 .1 42.2 5 341 .0 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 . 1 l. 6 10 153 .0 .0 . 1 .0 .1 .0 .3 2.2 20 887 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.0 26 098 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 . 1 5.0 6 996 .0 .0 . 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 4.5 25 941 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 24.6 37 334 .0 .2 . 1 .0 .0 . 1.2 .3 9.9 92 146 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 11.5 26 804 .2 .0 .0 .c .0 .0 . 1 72. 0 23 535 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 5.3 18 137 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6. 1 23 671 . 0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.0 85 060 .6 .4 .0 .0 .0 k 1 2.5 4. 9 9 233 .9 .4 .0 .0 .0 .0 .2 2.9 27 156 .1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .1 .4 11.4 22 316 .9 .9 .0 .0 .0 .3 .2 1. 7 26 355 .S .3 .0 .0 .0 .0 7.5 1.7 48 637 9.2 2.6 .1 .0 .1 2.3 .7 5. 2 2 495 4.4 3. 2 . 0 .0 .6 1.0 .4 3.8 3 047 9.0 8.7 .0 .0 .2 . 7 1.1 11.8 1 2 20 21.1 1.5 .0 .0 .2 .5 l .2 10.3 13 951 14.4 1.1 .0 .0 .0 .9 l.l 3.0 9 396 2.5 i.i .2 .0 .0 1.7 . 3 10. 1 10 208 3.5 2. 3 .0 .0 .2 7.0 .2 2.1 6 672 16.7 3.8 .3 .0 .5 . 8 l.l 2.9 1 648 7. 1 8.8 .2 .0 .0 .2 .4 9.3 225 275 6.8 2.6' .2 .? .3 4. 7 1.3 5.7 15 867 9. 7 6.9 .1 .0 1.5 .6 1 .0 5.1 10 206 8.6 12.8 .0 .0 .8 .9 .8 7.2 193 336 6.7 1.7 .2 .1 .2 5.3 1.3 5. 4 l 217 1.5 5. 3 . 0 .0 .6 .0 .9 2.5 4 649 .0 .4 .0 3.7 .0 .0 1.4 19.7 37 458 .0 .0 . 0 .1 .1 .1 .0 15.9 393 .0 .0 31.0 .0 .0 8. 7 .0 7.4 12a Exhibit 7 TABLE *7.--AF0C FANIL IES» BY WHETHER MOTHER EVER LIVEO OUTSIOE STATE AND, IF SO, YEAR OF LAST MOVE INTO S TA T E , 1967 MOTHER NEVER MOTHER HAS L I V E O OUTSIOE S T A T E . YEAR OF LAST MOVE INTO STAT E STATE AND CENSUS DIVISION TOTAL FAMI LIES LI VE D OUTSIDE STATE TOTAL 1967 196 3- 1966 1965 1964 1960- 1962 t o t a l: NUMBER........... i 278 213 648 618 598 201 18 932 29 8*2 29 706 52 **3 69 182 PERCENT......... 100.0 50.7 46.8 1.5 2.3 2.3 4.1 5.4 NEW ENGLAND........ 68 683 56.2 41.8 1.6 3.4 2.6 4.9 6.0 MAINE............ 5 87* 66. 1 30.0 2.8 3. 7 1.3 2.6 4.5 NEW HAMPSHIRE.... 1 402 49.6 46.5 i.i 2.7 3.0 3.9 5.8 VERMONT......... 2 105 61.2 36.5 3.8 4.8 2. 1 4.8 3.8 MASSACHUSETTS.... 35 956 64.2 35.5 .6 3.3 1.9 4.5 5.4 RHODE ISLAND.... 7 501 64.6 35.0 1.1 1.3 2.7 4.7 2.9 CONNECTICUT..... 15 845 30.2 64.0 3. 3 *.2 *.5 7.1 9.7 MIDDLE ATLANTIC.... 300 028 40.5 57.7 2.0 2.6 2.5 4.8 7.1 ■ NEW YORK........ 196 200 33.2 65.4 2.5 3.0 3.0 5.3 8.0 NEW JERSEY...... 36 175 37.7 59.6 1.3 2.2 2.3 6.3 8.8 PENNSYLVANIA.... 67 654 63.1 34.6 1.1 1.6 1.3 2.7 3.6 E. N. CENTRAL..... 182 6 14 41.1 56.8 .9 1.8 2.5 *. 2 5.1 OHIO............ 53 4 76 45. 8 52.9 .8 1.8 1.9 4.0 3.8 INDIANA......... 12 171 37.3 54. i .6 1.3 2.9 3.8 3.8 ILLINOIS........ 57 902 33. 1 65.2 .6 1.8 2.9 4.6 6.4 MICHIGAN....... . 44 455 43.2 55. 5 1.4 1.9 2.6 3.5 4.7 WISCONSIN....... 14 610 51.8 46.2 .7 1.8 2.2 5. 1 6.3 W. N. CENTRAL..... 74 937 55.3 41.8 1.8 2.2 2.5 4.2 4.5 MINNESOTA......•• 15 927 60.3 35.3 1.8 1.8 2.0 3.9 3.9 IOWA............ 11 795 62.3 35.5 1.4 2.0 2 .3 3.8 3.7 MiSSCURI........ 26 728 53.7 43.0 • 6 1.7 2.4 3.4 4.0 NORTH DAKOTA.... 2 312 61.7 37.2 7.9 3.8 3.0 5. L 3.0 SOUTH DAKOTA.... 3 706 62. 1 36.8 3.2 3.7 2 .4 5.0 5. 1 NEBRASKA........ 5 509 46.8 51. 3 3.0 3.3 3.2 5.1 6.5 KANSAS.......... 8 960 42.9 55.1 2.8 3.0 3.6 6.1 6.6 SOUTH ATLANT IC.... 163 003 64.3 30. 1 1.2 1.7 1 .* 2.5 3.5 DELAWARE........ 3 819 47.8 49.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 3.0 6.9 MARYLAND........ 26 442 51.9 29.5 1.0 1.3 ".9" 2 .1 4.1 DIST. OF COL.... 5 341 47.1 49.4 • 1 .9 1.1 3.2 6.0 VIRGINIA........ 10 153 67.0 31.8 1 .0 1 .0 2.0 2.8 3.9 WEST VIRGINIA.,.. 20 886 74.0 22. 7 2.0 3.3 1.5 2.2 2.9 NORTH CAROLINA... 26 095 78.6 17. * 1 .0 1.2 1.2 2.2 2.5 SOUTH CAROLINA... 6 996 81.5 1*.9 .7 .9 1 .5 2.4 1.5 GEORGIA......... 25 939 80.4 16.9 1. 7 1.9 .7 1.4 1 .5 Fl o r i d a......... 37 333 46.9 50.4 1.2 1.7 2.3 3.6 5.2 E. s. c e n t r a l..... 92 143 77.3 19.7 1.2 1.6 1.2 l .8 1 .7 KENTUCKY........ 26 804 75.3 20.5 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.0 TENNESSEE....... 23 534 70.5 28.5 1. 1 1.5 .7 2.7 2.2 ALABAMA........ . 18 134 78.9 17.6 1. 3 l. 9 1.8 2.0 1.6 MISSISSIPPI..... 23 671 84.9 11.8 .9 1 .0 .9 1 .0 1 .0 W. S. CENTRAL..... 85 053 75.7 23.1 .4 1.6 1.5 2.2 2.9 ARKANSAS........ 9 232 71.6 27.8 .9 2.9 1.8 2.2 2.9 LOUISIANA....... 27 154 85.7 12.9 .2 1 .0 .9 i.i i.* OKLAHOMA........ 22 316 66.0 32.4 .3 1.8 2.* 3.5 4.6 TEXAS............ 26 351 74 . a 24.0 • 4 1.5 1.3 2.0 3.1 MOUN TAIN........... 48 635 49.3 47.6 3.6 3.1 2.6 5. 1 6.1 MONTANA......... 2 4R5 53.9 34.5 6.4 3.6 1.8 4.2 *.2 IDAHO............ 3 047 34.9 60.0 6.9 6.3 5.1 7.2 6.7 WYOMING.......... 1 220 30.8 65.1 5.7 4.7 3. 3 5.7 6.7 COLORADO........ 13 951 *1.5 56. 7 4.4 3.3 3.5 6.4 7.6 NEW MEXICO...... 9 395 65.6 29.8 2.2 2. 2 1.9 3.9 2.8 ARIZONA......... 10 208 51.6 *7.2 1.9 1.* 1.8 4.1 7.4 UTAH....... . 6 672 55.7 61. 7 3.5 3.7 1.4 3.7 3.3 NEVADA........... 1 648 15.9 82.2 3.6 6.0 5.0 11.5 I*. 1 PACIFIC.... ....... 225 270 31.9 66.2 1.5 3.3 3.4 6.0 0.1 WASHINGTON.... . . 15 867 33.7 64.5 2.0 5.8 4.1 5. 5 7.5 OREGON........... 10 206 20.9 66.4 2.4 5.3 5.2 7.3 7.9 CALIFORNIA...... 193 332 3C. 8 67.8 1.4 3.1 3.3 6.1 8.2 ALASKA........... 1 217 73.0 24.6 2.3 2. 1 2.6 3.6 3.2 HAWAII........... 4 648 66.8 17.3 2.2 2.4 1.6 1.3 3.6 PUERTO RICO....... 37 455 94.9 4.9 .7 .4 .5 • 8 .6 VIRGIN ISLANDS.... 393 49.9 46.6 .3 1.5 .8 1.3 3.6 i (CCNTINUEOI 13a Exhibit 7 TABLE A T . — AFDC FAHI l I F S , BY WHETHER MOTHER EVER L I V E D OUTSIDE STATE AND, IF S O , YEAR OF LAST MOVt INTO S T A T E , 1967— CONTINUED STATE AND CENSUS DIVISION HOTHER HAS LIVED OUTSIOE STATE. YEAR OF LAST HOVE INTO STATE TOTAL 1955- 1950- 1950- BEFORE FAMILIES 1959 1955 1959 1950 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN WHETHER HOTHER EVER LIVED OUTSIOE STATE total: NUM3ER.•••••••••• 1 278 213 PERCENT......... 100.0 new En g l a n d....... 68 683 MAINE.... . 5 875 NEW HAMPSHIRE.... 1 502 VERMONT........... 2 105 MASSACHUSETTS.... .35 956 RHODE ISLAND.... ’ 7 501 CONNECTICUT..... 15 855 MIDDLE ATLANTIC.... 300 020 NEW YORK....... . 196 200 NEW JERSEY...... 36 175 PENNSYLVANIA.... 67 655 E. N. CENTRAL..... 182 615 OHIO ............. S3 576 INDIANA......... 12 171 ILLINOIS....... . 57 902 MICHIGAN........ 55 555 WISCONSIN....... 15 610 W. N. CENTRAL..... 75 937 MINNESOTA....... 15 927 IOWA............. 11 795 M I S S O U R I . . . ------------------------2 8 7 2 8 NORTH DAKOTA.... 2 312 SOUTH DAKOTA.... 3 706 NEBRASKA........ 5 509 KANSAS........... 8 960 SOUTH ATLANTIC.... 163 003 DELAWARE........ 3 818 MARYLAND........ 26 552 DIST. OF COL.... 5 35 1 VIRGINIA..... . 10 153 WEST VIRGINIA.... 20 886 NORTH CAROLINA... 26 095 SOUTH CAROLINA... 6 996 GEORGIA.......... 25 939 FLORIDA......... 87 333 E. S. CENTRAL..... 92 153 KENTUCKY........ 26 805 TENNESSEE....... 23 535 ALABAMA....... 18 135 MISSISSIPPI..... 23 671 W. S. CENTRAL..... 85 053 ARKANSAS........ 9 232 LOUISIANA..... . 27 155 OKLAHOMA........ 22 3l 6 TEXAS............ 26 351 MOUNTAIN........... 58 635 MONTANA......... 2 595 IDAHO............ 3 057 WYOMING..... 1 220 COLORADO........ I3 951 NEW MEXICO...... 9 395 ARIZONA......... 10 208 UTAH............. 6 672 NEVADA........... 1 658 PACIFIC............ 225 270 WASHINGTON...... 15 867 OREGON........... 10 206 CALIFORNIA...... 193 332 ALASKA........... 1 217 HAWAI I........... 5 658 PUERTO RICO........ 37 555 VIRGIN ISLANDS...*. 3<73 105 375 79 496 81 495 N00 6.2 6.4 7.3 4.1 3.6 3.9 4. 5 2.1 6.1 3.4 2.0 5.0 2.3 1.7 6.7 3.8 3.4 5.0 3.1 3.1 11.5 5.5 5.5 10.1 7.0 5.7 11.6 8.2 6.5 12.5 7.6 6.7 4.5 3. 1 2.8 10.4 9.9 10.5 8.4 9.0 10.3 8.6 9.4 7.8 14.7 12.3 13.4 7.7 8.6 9.7 10.0 7.9 4.4 7.5 5.1 4.7 5.2 3.6 2.7 4.9 3.6 2.4 9.7 7.1 7.3 3.9 2.6 2.0 4.2 2.9 4.1 8.9 4. 3 3.7 9.9 6.1 5. 1 5. 1 3.4 3.6 10.0 7. 2 5.9 4.0 3.7 2.7 e.2 7.6 10. 2 5.8 4.2 3.8 1.8 1.2 2.2 2.5 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.9 3.3 1.1 1.3 10.2 6.4 6.9 2.8 1.9 1.4 3.0 1.4 1.5 3.8 3.6 2.4 2.7 1 .3 .8 1.9 l .0 .9 4.0 3.0 2.5 2.9 4.2 2.9 2.9 1 .6 1.4 6.8 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.7 8. 3 5.6 5.6 5.2 4.8 3.0 5.6 2.4 4.2 8.0 9.0 10.3 9.9 5.6 7.4 5.8 3.8 3.2 10.3 8.0 6. 1 5.3 4.1 5.2 17.4 12.8 6. 1 11.9 9.4 12.0 10.0 8.4 10.9 7.7 5.1 8.2 12.6 10.0 12.7 2.8 1.1 .8 1 . 5 1 . 0 . 1 “ .4 ----.0 3.1 3.1 3.8 25 459 106 271 31 395 2.0 8.3 2.5 .9 7.4 2.0 1.3 3.2 3.9 1.4 17.0 3.9 .8 7.3 2.3 .7 5.4 .3 1.3 10.0 .3 1.2 11.6 5.8 1.1 14.8 1.8 1.1 16.2 1.4 2.1 9.9 2.7 .7 13.1 2.3 3.0 8.7 2.1 2.8 9.6 1.8 4.0 12.1 6.6 4.3 4.1 1.7 2.0 13.4 1.4 .8 7.0 2.0 1.9 7.4 2.9 1.7 8.7 4.4 1.3 10.2 2.2 2.4 4.3 3.3 1.2 4.8 1.0 1.8 4.5 1.1 2.0 11.3 1.9 1.4 10.5 2.0 1.7 5.9 5.5 2.0 8.7 2.4 .7 9.0 18.6 5.6 6.5 3.5 2.0 5.5 1. 1 1.8 3.7 3.3 .9 2.0 4.0 1.0 .0 3.6 .6 3.3 2.7 2.9 10. 1 2.7 1.2 4.8 3.0 1.0 <*.B 4. 2 2.0 8.5 1.0 .6 3.5 3.5 1.3 2.1 3.3 2.5 2.5 1 .3 5.7 1.3 .5 1.0 1 .3 1.4 3.5 2.2 1.6 2.1 4.3 1.2 2.4 5.2 3.1 1.4 .0 11.6 .9 14.8 5.1 3.3 8.5 4.2 4.7 3.9 1.8 .9 3.0 4.6 2.5 3.7 1.2 .8 10.3 2.6 .9 4.8 1.9 3.3 7.2 1.9 3. 1 7.3 1.8 1.7 15.5 4.7 3.5 6.9 1.4 • 0 6.0 2.5 .2 3.5 15.9 • 0 - ̂8 * 2 .8 28.5 3.6 14a Exhibit 7 TABLE *8. ~AFOC FAMILIES. BY WHETHER MOTHER EVER LIVEO OUTSIOE STATE ANO, IF SO, STATE FROM WHICH SHE LAST MOVEO. 1967 STATE ANO CENSUS DIVISION MOTHER NEVER LIVEO TOTAL OUTSIDE FAMILIES STATE MOTHER HAS LIVED OUTSIDE STATE, PLACE SHE LAST MOVEO FROM NEW TOTAL ENGLANO EAST MIDDLE . NORTH ATLANTIC CENTRAL WEST NORTH SOUTH CENTRAL ATLANTIC EAST WEST SOUTH SOUTH CENTRAL CENTRAL NUMBER.............................. 1 2 7 8 2 75 6 6 3 3 7 6 6 1 4 8 9 9 13 1 48 3 4 5 8 1 4 4 7 2 9 3 0 3 5 7 . 1 3 0 1 2 2 8 5 7 7 8 8 4 2 0 3 PERCENT............................ 1 0 0 . 0 5 1 . 9 4 8 . 1 1 . 0 2 . 7 3 . 5 2 . 4 1 0 . 2 6 . 7 6 . 6 NEW ENGLAND...................... 68 6 8 5 5 6 . 2 4 3 . 8 1 0 . 6 5 . 9 1 . 7 . 4 1 0 . 5 * * 3 . 0 1 . 5 MAINE................................. 5 8 7 4 6 6 . 3 3 3 . 7 1 5 . 0 3 . 7 1 . 7 . 2 4 . 1 . 7 . 9 NEW H A M P S H I R E . . . . 1 402 . 4 9 . 6 5 0 . 4 2 8 . 4 3 . 7 2 . 0 • 3 4 . 0 * . 6 . 3 VERMONT........................... 2 105 6 1 . 2 3 8 . 8 1 9 . 0 8 . 8 1 . 3 • 6 2 . 1 . 4 . 4 M A S S A C H U S E T T S . . . . 3 5 9 5 8 6 4 . 2 3 5 . 8 8 . 1 4 . 8 v * • * . 2 8 . 2 3 . 4 1 . 9 RHODE IS LA N O ............. 7 501 6 4 . 6 3 5 . 4 1 5 . 4 5 . 1 1 . 6 1 . 0 4 . 8 1 . 3 1 . 6 CONNECTICUT............... 1 5 845 3 0 . 2 6 9 . 8 9 . 6 9 . 4 2 . 2 • 8 2 2 . 6 4 . 4 1 . 2 MIDDLE A T L A N T I C . . . . 3 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 . 5 5 9 . 5 . 9 4 . 9 2 . 1 . 3 2 3 . 0 3 . 4 • 8 NEW Y O »K ........................ 196 218 3 3 . 2 6 6 . 8 1 . 1 3 . 6 1 . 6 . 2 2 4 . 2 3 . 8 . 9 NEW J ERS EY.................. 36 1 76 3 7 . 7 6 2 . 3 . 8 1 1 . 9 1 . 6 • 3 3 2 . 1 2 . 9 . 4 PENNSYLVANIA............. 67 6 5 6 6 3 . 1 3 6 . 9 . 5 5 . 1 3 . 6 . 4 1 4 . 8 2 . 4 . 6 E . N. CENTRAL............... 182 6 1 9 4 1 . 1 5 8 . 9 . 3 1 . 9 6 . 8 3 . 2 8 . 2 2 4 . 1 6 . 7 O HIO.................................... 53 4 7 9 4 5 . 9 5 4 . 1 . 2 3 . 2 4 . 3 . 6 * 1 4 . 9 2 3 . 2 2 . 8 INDIANA........................... 12 172 3 7 . 8 6 2 . 2 . 0 . 6 1 1 . 0 2 . 7 3 . 8 2 3 . 8 6 . 3 I L L I N O I S ........................ 57 9 0 3 3 3 . 1 6 6 . 9 . 2 1 . 2 5 . 3 5 . 7 3 . 7 3 3 . 0 1 0 . 5 MICHIGAN........................ A A 4 5 5 4 3 . 4 5 6 . 6 . 3 1 . 8 9 . 0 2 . 4 9 . 2 1 8 . 0 6 . 6 WI SC ONSI N..................... 14 6 1 0 5 1 . 8 4 8 . 2 . 6 . 7 1 2 . 1 5 . 9 2 . 5 1 0 . 7 6 . 3 W. N. CENTRAL............... 74 9 40 5 5 . 8 4 4 . 2 . 1 . 6 5 . 7 1 0 . 9 1 . 3 . 6 . 3 7 . 6 MINNESOTA..................... 15 9 2 9 6 0 . 3 3 9 . 7 . 1 . 7 7 . 5 1 2 . 8 1 . 3 1 . 4 2 . 8 I 3w A.................................... l l 795 6 2 . 4 3 7 . 6 . 0 . 5 7 . 1 1 2 . 8 . 9 1 . 9 1 . 9 M 13 S 3 JR I ........................ 26 7 2 9 5 5 . 0 4 5 . 0 , ' . 1 . 4 6 . 6 4 . 5 1 . 3 1 3 . 7 9 . 8 NORTH OAKOTA............. 2 312 6 1 . 7 3 8 . 3 . 0 . 7 2 . 1 1 8 . 5 . 3 . 7 . 8 SOJTH DAKOTA............ 3 7 06 6 2 . 3 3 7 . 7 . 0 . 4 2 . 3 2 0 . 5 . 7 . 1 2 . 3 NEBRASKA......................... 5 5 09 4 6 . 8 5 3 . 2 . 4 1 . 4 2 . 9 1 7 . 8 1 . 7 5 . 0 8 . 1 KANSAS.............................. 8 9 6 0 4 3 . 0 5 7 . 0 . 0 . 8 2 . 0 1 4 . 0 1 . 7 3 . 9 2 0 . 9 SOUTH ATLANTIC............. 163 O i l 6 4 . 4 3 5 . 6 v . 3 3 . 0 2 . 1 . i 1 7 . 3 3 . 5 . 6 DELAWARE........................ 3 8 1 3 4 7 . 8 5 2 . 2 . 4 9 . 8 2 . 2 . 0 2 6 . 7 2 . 0 l . l MARYLAND........................ 2 6 4 4 3 5 2 . 0 4 8 . 0 . 1 2 . 6 . 9 . 0 1 8 . 4 . 9 . 2 D I S T . OF COL............. 5 341 4 7 . 2 5 2 . 8 . 1 2 . 8 . 6 . 1 4 3 . 5 1 . 7 . 7 V I R G I N I A ......................... 10 153 6 7 . 2 3 2 . 8 . 3 4 . 3 1 . 4 . 0 2 0 . 9 2 . 1 . 4 WEST V I R G I N I A . . . . 20 8 8 7 7 4 . 0 2 6 . 0 . 4 2 . 0 7 . 5 . 4 7 . 7 2 . 3 . 2 NORTH C A R O L I N A . . . 26 0 9 3 7 8 . 6 2 1 . 4 . 4 4 . 2 . 4 . 1 l ? » 3 • 9 . 4 SOUTH C A R O L I N A . . . 6 9 9 6 0 1 . 5 1 8 . 5 . 0 2 . 6 . 7 . 2 1 1 . 7 . 9 . 0 GEORGIA........................... 25 941 8 0 . 4 1 9 . 6 . 1 1 . 4 . 9 . 0 8 . 8 3 . 3 . 5 F LO RID A........................... 37 3 3 4 4 6 . 9 5 3 . 1 . 6 3 . 1 2 . 5 . 2 2 6 . 5 9 . 5 1 . 4 E . S . CENTRAL................ 92 1 4 6 7 7 . 3 2 2 . 7 . 1 . 9 4 . 5 . 5 3 . 4 7 . 1 1 . 5 KENTJCKY......................... 26 8 0 4 7 5 . 3 2 4 . 7 . 0 . 8 1 0 . 0 . 1 2 . 6 4 . 6 . 6 TENNESSEE..................... 23 5 3 5 7 0 . 7 2 9 . 3 . 1 1 . 1 2 . 7 l . l 5 . 4 1 3 . 4 2 . 0 A1. A 3 A M A ........................... 18 1 3 7 7 8 . 9 2 1 . 1 . 4 1 . 6 2 . 5 . 2 5 . 0 5 . 8 1 . 0 M I S S IS S I P P I ................ 23 6 7 1 8 4 . 9 1 5 . 1 . 0 . 1 l . 6 . 4 1 . 0 4 . 7 2 . 4 W. S . CENTRAL............... 85 0 6 0 7 5 . 7 2 4 . 3 . 2 . 3 1 . 3 2 . 1 . 8 2 . 7 8 . 5 ARKANSAS........................ 7 2 3 3 7 1 . 6 2 8 . 4 . 2 . 7 3 . 5 3 . 3 . 9 7 . 7 7 . 5 L O U I S IA N A ...................... 27 1 56 8 5 . 7 1 4 . 3 . 0 . 0 . 7 . 6 . 3 3 . 8 4 . 7 OKL AHOMA........................ 22 3 1 6 6 6 . 0 3 4 . 0 . 1 . 3 1 . 0 4 . 6 1 . 2 . 9 1 5 . 2 TEXAS................................. 26 3 5 5 7 4 . 9 2 5 . 1 . 3 . 4 1 . 5 1 . 3 . 9 1 . 3 7 . 1 MOUNTAIN.............................. 48 6 3 7 4 9 . 3 5 0 . 7 . 2 . 9 2 . 3 5 . 1 . 7 1 . 5 1 0 . 6 MONTANA........................... 2 4 9 5 5 3 . 9 4 6 . 1 . 2 . 2 2 . 4 9 . 2 . 6 . 2 2 . 6 IDAHO................................. 3 0 4 7 3 4 . 9 6 5 . 1 . 4 . 4 1 . 4 5 . 6 . 7 . 5 4 . 0 WYCJM l N3 ........................... l 2 2 0 3 0 . 9 6 9 . 1 . 3 . 7 3 . 2 1 2 . 8 1 . 2 1 . 2 4 . 7 COLORADO........................ 13 9 5 1 4 1 . 5 5 8 . 5 . 5 1 . 2 3 . 2 9 . 7 . 8 2 . 1 1 1 . 7 NEW MEXICO................... 9 3 9 6 6 5 . 6 3 4 . 4 . 0 . 6 . 9 1 . 7 . 5 . 5 9 . 0 ARIZO N A........................... 10 2 0 8 5 1 . 6 4 8 . 4 . 0 . 3 1 . 9 1 . 7 . 2 l . 8 1 7 . 2 UTAH.................................... 6 6 7 2 5 5 . 7 4 4 . 3 . 2 1 . 1 2 . 3 2 . 6 1 . 4 . 8 3 . 3 N E /A D A ............................... l 6 4 8 1 5 . 9 8 4 . 1 . 7 1 . 5 4 . 3 2 . 8 1 . 3 7 . 8 2 7 . 9 P A C I F I C ................................. 2 2 5 2 7 5 3 8 . 2 6 1 . 3 . 8 1 . 9 4 . 7 4 . 5 2 . 4 4 . 3 . 2 1 . 4 WASHINGTON.................. 15 8 6 7 3 3 . 7 6 6 . 3 . 4 . 7 3 . 3 8 . 4 2 . 9 2 . 2 6 . 1 OREGON.............................. 10 2 0 6 2 8 . 9 7 1 . 1 . 2 . 4 2 . 5 7 . 0 1 . 3 2 . 0 8 . 3 CAL IFO RN IA.................. 193 3 3 7 ! 3 0 . 1 6 1 . 9 . 9 2 . 2 5 . 1 4 . 2 2 . 5 4 . 7 2 6 . 0 ALASKA.............................. 1 2 1 7 l 7 3 . 0 2 7 . 0 . 0 . 9 2 . 3 1 . 1 . 8 . 2 . 9 H A W A II .............................. A 6 4 9 i 6 6 . 8 3 3 . 2 . 5 . 4 . 6 . 8 1 . 2 . 1 l . l PUERTO R I C O ...................... 3 7 4 5 8 9 5 . 0 5 . 0 . 0 3 . 0 . 5 . 0 . 3 . 0 . 0 VIR G IN ISLAND S............. 3 9 3 5 0 . 1 4 9 . 9 . 0 5 . 9 . 0 . 0 . 8 . 0 • 0 (CONTINUED! \ 15a Exhibit 7 t a b l e 4 8 . — AFDL F AM U I ( S • BY WHF T Mf R MOTHER EVER L I V E D OUTSIDE STATE AND, |f Sit, STATE fwtW WHICH SHE LAST MOVEO, 1967— CONTINUED MOTHER HAS L I V E D OUTSIDE STATE • PLACE SHE LAST MOVED FROM STATE AND CENSUS DIVISION OTHER TOTAL PUERTO OTHER U . S . L A T I N FOREIGN FAMILIES MOUNTAIN P A CI F I C RICO TERRITORY CANADA AMERICA COUNTRY UNKNOWN TOTAL : NUMBER.......... 1 278 27b PERCENT......... 100. 0 NEW ENGLAND....... 66 MAINE........... S 87* NEW HAMPSHIRE.... 1 *,o? VERMONT......... ? JOr» MASSACHUSETTS.... 35 953 RHODE ISLAND.... 7 501 CONNECTICUT..... 15 8*5 MIDDLE ATLANTIC.... 300 050 NEW YORK........ 196.215 NEW JERSEY...... 36 1 76 PENNSYLVANIA.... 67 656 E. N. CENTRAL..... 182 619 OHIO............ 53 A79 INDIANA......... 12 172 ILLINOIS........ 57 903 MICHIGAN........ 64 455 WISCONSIN........ 14 610 W. N. CENTRAL..... 74 940 MINNESOTA....... 15 929 IOWA............ II 795 MISSOURI........ 26 729 NORTH DAKOTA.... 2 312 SOUTH DAKOTA.... 3 706 NEBRASKA........ 5 509 KANSAS.................8 960 SOUTH ATLANTIC.... 163 01 l DELAWARE........ 3 818 MARYLAND........ 26 443 DIST. OF COL.... 5 341 VIRGINIA........ 10 153 WEST VIRGINIA.... ?0 887 NORTH CAROLINA... 26 098 SOUTH CAROLINA... 6 996 GEORGIA......... 25 941 FLORIDA......... 37 336 E. S. CENTRAL..... 9? 146 KENTUCKY........ 26 804 TENNESSEE....... 23 535 ALABAMA......... 18 137 MISSISSIPPI..... 23 671 W. S. CENTRAL..... 85 060 ARKANSAS........ 9 233 LOUISIANA....... 27 156 OKLAHOMA........ 22 316 TEXAS........... 26 355 MOUNTAIN.......... 48 637 MONTANA......... 2 495 IDAHO........... 3 047 WYOMING......... 1 220 COLORADO........ 13 951 NEW MEXICO...... 9 396 ARI20NA......... 10 208 UTAH............. 6 67? NEVADA.......... 1 648 PACIFIC........... 225 275 WASHINGTON...... 15 867 OREGON.......... 10 206 CAL IFORNI A...... 193 337 ALASKA.......... 1 217 HAWA! I.......... 4 6A9 PUERTO RICO........ 37 458 VIRGIN ISLANDS.... 393 32 063 28 386 53 658 1 030 2. 5 2.2 4.2 • 1 .3 1.4 2.7 • .0 . 7 .9 .0 .0 .0 1.0 .0 . 1 .4 i .5 .0 .0 .2 1.6 1.2 . 1 .5 1.0 . 2 .0 • 4 l.l 8.7 .0 .2 . 7 1 6. 5 • 2 .2 . 7 23.7 .3. 4 .6 5.7 • 1 .3 .8 1.3 .0 .6 1.1 .6 .0 .7 1.1 .0 . 8 l. 7 .3 .0 . 3 .8 2.2 .0 .9 1.1 .0 .0 1. 1 1.8 .3 .0 2.5 3.7 .0 .0 1.7 4.5 .1 .0 2.B 4.0 .0 .0 1. 1 2.6 .0 . .0 4.4 8.2 .0 .0 5.4 3.5 .0 . 0 6.9 3.0 .0 . 1 . 3.8 4. 7 .0 .0 . 1 .5 . 1 .0 .6 .6 .9 • 0 • 1 .2 .0 .0 .0 .2 .0 .0 .7 • 4 .0 .0 .0 1.2 .0 .0 .0 . 3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 . 1 . 5 .0 .0 . 1 . 7 .2 .0 .3 .2 .0 .0 .5 . 1 .0 .0 • 1 • 1 .0 .0 .5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .4 .0 .0 1.2 2.6 .0 .0 1. 1 1.8 .0 .0 . 3 1.5 .0 .0 2 .2 5.6 .0 .0 1.4 1.6 .0 .0 13.6 8.3 .0 .0 12.0 11.4 .0 .0 18.6 19.0 .0 .0 29.0 4.8 .0 .0 18.0 7.0 .0 .06.9 6.8 .0 .0 7.2 7.4 .0 .0 18.7 6.8 • .2 .0 13.4 17.7 .2 .0 8.9 5.8 .1 .111.8 18.4 .0 .0 9.8 25.2 .0 . 18.8 3.7 .2 • 1 1.9 11.5 .0 .0 .4 5.8 .0 3.3 .0 .1 .9 .0 .0 .0 29.3 . 8 l 940 12 756 9 648 52 499 .2 1.0 .8 4. 1 .7 .2 1.3 3.5 2. 1 .0 • .6 3.0 1.3 .0 1.4 7.3 1.2 .0 .2 2.9 .9 .1 1.5 2.0 • 2 .0 1.1 1.6 • 1 .4 1.3 7.7 . 1 1.0 .8 4.7 .2 1.5 .8 4.0 .0 . 1 .9 4.6 .0 .0 • 5 6. 5 .2 • 2 .6 4.2 .0 .0 .6 2. 3 .0 .0 .8 10. 3 .0 • 5 .3 3. 3 .7 . 1 1.0 5.6 .0 .7 .3 5.2 .2 .0 .4 4.7 .6 . 1 .6 5.4 . 1 .0 . 3 5.2 .0 .0 .3 4. 6 .5 .0 .5 1.7 .2 .0 .6 1.7 .0 • 0 .5 5.5 .0 . 1 .2 5.0 .0 .2 . 1 7. 6 .0 .0 • 2 7.8 .0 • 2 . 1 24.2 • 1 .0 . 1 2.9 .0 .0 .3 2.G .0 . 0 .1 4.2 .0 .0 . 1 2. 3 .0 .0 .2 2.4 .0 .0 4.0 . 1 .8 .1 7. 1 .0 .0 . 1 4. 3 .0 .0 .2 5.2.0 .0 .0 3.2.0 * . 0 .0 4.2 .0 .0 .0 4.4 .0 .1 2.6 1.9 .0 . .0 .4 1.3 .0 . 1 • 1 2.2.0 .1 . 3 2.5 .0 .0 7.9 1.4 . 1 1.3 .6 5.6 .6 .2 .4 6.2.0 .4 1.3 12. 8 .0 .2 .7 10. 5 .2 .2 .6 3.5.0 1.7 .3 5.4 . 2 3.9 .2 5.8 .2 .3 1.2 5. 3.0 .4 .2 6.0 . 2 3.6 1.0 1.81.1 .0 1.0 9.9 . 3 .0 .7 13.2 .2 4.2 1.0 .2.6 .4 .0 6.4 .0 .0 1.4 17.4 .0 .0 • 0 . 3.0 8. 1 .3 4.9 SUMMARY 07 EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC AID January 1959 to December 1970 I 1 I Year Total Dept. Budget P.A. M.A. ($1000's) Other Cicy State ($1000's) Federal City Percent i State Fercent Federal Percent 1959 245,907 185,890 - 60,017 77,893 72,999 95,015 31.67 29.68 ~3iC63“ 1960 249,880 186,522 - . 63,358 79,706 74,558 95,616 31.89 29.83 33.26 • 1961, 272,295 190,792 13,255 68,248 85,825 78,666 107,804 31.51 28.88 39.59 1962 297,416 . . 195,913 21,377 80,126 92,803 84,449 •*12.0,164 31.20 28.39 40.40 1 1963 339,515 % 220,960 25,865 * 92,690 104,569 98,440 136,506 30.79 28.99 40.20 V *i . . 1964 414,048 264,576 30,911 118,561 134,761 123,126 156,160 32.54 29.73 37.71 1965 478,608 314,375 36,866 127,367 153,035 145,167 180,406 31.97 30.33 37.69 1966 580,624 382,448 43,291 154,885 186,847 178,470 215,306 32;i8 30.73 37.08 1967 . 848,995 527,073 119,509 202,413 ‘ 250,097 261,268 337,629 29.45“ 30.77 39.76 1968 1,371,962 823,087 277,799 271,076 402,985 436,970 532,007 29.37 , 31.84 38.77 1969 1,484,493 892,716 292,314 299,463 430,653 441,758 612,082 29. (jl 29.75 41.23 1970 1,702,056 1,019,689 363,545 318,822 499,272 500,409 702,375 29.33 29.40 41.26 Source: New York City Department of Social Service C\ ic SOURCE: N w York City, Bureau of the Budget. 17a Exhibit 9 f t Sec. 1 ,[1954 Code], (a) M arried Individuals Filing Joint Returns and Surviving Spouses.—T here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— (1) every married individual (as defined in section 143) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a )), A tax determined in accordance with the following table: If the taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $1,000.........................................14% of the taxable income. Over $1,000 but not over $2,000.$140, plus 15% of excess over $1,000. Over $2,000 but not over $3,000.$290, plus 16% of excess over $2,000. Over $3,000 but not over $4,000.$450, plus 17% of excess over $3,000. Over $4,000 but not over $8,000.$620, plus 19% of excess over $4,000. Over $8,000 but not over $12,000..........$1,380, plus 22% of excess over $8,000. Over $12,000 but not over $16,000.$2,260, plus 25% of excess over $12,000. Over $16,000 but not over $20,000.$3,260, plus 28% of excess over $16,000. Over $20,000 but not over $24,000.$4,380, plus 32% of excess over $20,000. Over $24,000 but not over $28,000.$5,660, plus 36% of excess over $24,000. Over $28,000 but not over $32,000.$7,100, plus 39% of excess over $28,000. Over $32,000 but not over $36,000.$8,660, plus 42% of excess over $32,000. Over $36,000 but not over $40,000......... $10,340, plus 45% of excess over $36,000. Over $40,000 but not over $44,000.$12,140, plus 48% of excess over $40,000. Over $44,000 but not over $52,000.$14,060, plus 50% of excess over $44,000. Over $52,000 but not over $64,000.$18,060, plus 53% of excess over $52,000. Over $64,000 but not over $76,000.$24,420, plus 55% o f excess over $64,000. Over $76,000 but not over $88,000.$31,020, plus 58% of excess over $76,000. Over $88,000 but not over $100,000. . . $37,980, plus 60% of excess over $88,000. Over $100,000 but not over $120,000.. $45,180, plus 62% of excess over $100,000. Over $120,000 but not over $140,000. . .$57,580, plus 64% of excess over $120,000. Over $140,000 but not over $160,000.. .$70,380, plus 66% of excess over $140,000. 17a.l Exhibit 9 If the taxable income is : The tax is 5 Over $160,000 but not over $180,000.. .$83,580, plus 68% of excess over $160,000. Over $180,000 but not over $200,000.. $97,180, plus 69% of excess over $180,000. Over $200,000 ........................................... $110,980, plus 70% of excess over $200,000. (b) H eads of Households.—T here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual who is the1 head o f a household (as defined in section 2 (b )) a tax determined in accordance with the following table: If the taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $1,000.......... .............. ............. 14% o f the taxable income. Over $1,000 but not over $2,000..........-.$140, plus 16% o f excess over $1,000. Over $2,000 but not over ? 1 ,000 ..... . .$300, plus 18% of excess over $2,000. Over $4,000. but not over $6,000............$660, plus 19% of excess over $4,000. Over $6,000 but not over $8,000............$1,040, plus 22% of excess over $6,000. Over $8,000 but not over $10,000..........$1,480, plus 23% of excess over $8,000. Over $10,000 but not over $12,000.$1,940, plus 25% o f excess over $10,000. Over $12,000 but not over $14,000_.$2,440, plus 27% of excess over $12,000. Over $14,000 but not over $16,000.$2,980, plus 28% of excess over $14,000. Over $16,000 but not over $18,000..$3,540, plus 31% of excess over $16,000. Over $18,000 but not over $20,000.$4,160, plus 32% of excess over $18,000. Over $20,000 but not over $22,000.$4,800, plus 35% of excess over $20,000. Over $22,000 but not over $24,000.$5,500, plus 36% o f excess over $22,000. Over $24,000 but not over $26,000.$6,220, plus 38% o f excess over $24,000. Over $26,000 but not over $28,000.... .$6,980, plus 41% of excess over $26,000. Over $28,000 but not over $32,000.$7,800, plus 42% of excess over $28,000. Over $32,000 but not over $36,000.$9,480, plus 45% of excess over $32,000. Over $36,000 but not over $38,000.1.. .$11,280, plus 48% of excess over $36,000. Over $38,000 but not over $40,000.$12,240, plus 51% o f excess over $38,000. Over $40,000 but not over $44,000’ . . . .$13,260, plus 52% o f excess over $40,000. Over $44,000 but not over $50,000.$15,340, plus 55% of excess over $44,000. Over $50,000 but not over $52,000..-. .-.$18,640,.plus 56% of excess over $50,000. Over $52,000 but not over $64,000.$19,760, plus 58% o f excess over $52,000. Over $64,000 but not over $70,000.$26,720, plus 59% of excess over $64,000. Over $70,000 but not over $76,000.$30,260, plus 61% of excess over $70,000. Over $76,000 but not over $80,000.$33,920, plus 62% of excess over $76,000. Over $80,000 but not over $88,000.$36,400, plus 63% of excess over $80,000. Over $88,000 but not over $100,000 .. $41,440, plus 64% of excess over $88,000. Over $100,000 but not over $120,000.. $49,120, plus 66% of excess over $100,000. Over $120,000 but not over $140,000.. $62,320, plus 67% Of excess over $120,000. Over $140,000 but not over $160,000.. $75,720, plus 68%.of excess over $140,000. Over $160,000 but not over $180,000.. $89,320, plus 69% o f excess over $160,000. Over $180,000 ........................................... $103,120, plus 70% of excess over $180,000.> (c ) U nmarried Individuals (O ther T han Surviving Spouses and H eads of Households).—T here is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every in dividual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b )) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 143) a tax determined in accordance With the following table: If the taxable income is : The tax is : Not over $500...........................................14% of the taxable income. Over $500 but not over $1,000..............$70, plus 15% of excess over $500. Over $1,000 but not over $1,500...........$145, plus 16% of excess over $1,000. Over $1,500 but not over $2,000...........$225, plus 17% of excess over $1,500. Over $2,000 but not over $4,000...........$310, plus 19% of excess over $2,000. Over $4,000 but not over $6,000...........$690, plus 21% of excess over $4,000. Over $6,000 but not over $8,000...........$1,110, plus 24% of excess over $6,000. Over $8,000 but not over $10,000.........$1,590, plus 25% of excess over $8,000. Over $10,000 but not over $12,000........... $2,090, plus 27% of excess over $10,000. Over $12,000 but not over $14,000....... $2,630, plus 29% of excess over $12,000. Over $14,000 but not over $16,000.......$3,210, plus 31% of excess over $14,000. Over $16,000 but not over $18,000....... $3,830, plus 34% of excess over $16,000. 17a.2 Exhibit 9 If the taxable income is: The tax is: Over 518,000 but not over 520,000......... $4,510, plus 36% o f excess over $18,000. Over $20,000 but not over $22,000......... $5,230, plus 38% of excess over 520,000. Over $22,000 but not over $26,000......... $5,990, plus 40% of excess over $22,000. Over $26,000 but not over $32,000......... $7,590, plus 45% of excess over $26,000. Over $32,000 but not over $38,000......... $10,290, plus 50% of excess over $32,000. Over $38,000 but not over $44,000.:.. .$13,290, plus 55% o f excess over $38,000. Over $44,000 but not over $50,000......... $16,590, plus 60% of excess over $44,000. Over $50,000 but not over $60,000......... $20,190, plus 62% of excess over $50,000. Over $60,000 but not over $70,000......... $26,390, plus 64% o f excess over $60,000. Over $70,000 but not over $80,000......... $32,790, plus 66% o f excess over $70,000. Over $80,000 but not over $90,000......... $39,390, plus 68% of excess over $80,000. Over $90,000 but not over $100,000... .546,190, plus 69% of excess over $90,000. Over $100,000 ....................................... ■. .$53,090, plus 70% of excess over $100,000. (d) M arried Individuals Filing Separate Returns; Estates and Trusts.— There is hereby imposed on the taxable inco’ T.e of every married individual (as defined in section 143) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and o f every estate and trust taxable under this subsection, a tax determined in accordance with the following table: If the taxable income is: The tax is: Not over $500........................................... 14% of the taxable income. Over $500 but not over $1,000..............$70, plus 15% of excess over $500. Over $1,000 but not over $1,500.......... $145, plus 16% of excess over $1,000. Over $1,500 but not over $2,000............$225, plus 17% of excess over $1,500. Over $2,000 but not over $4,000............$310, plus 19% of excess over $2,000. Over $4,000 but not over $6,000............$690, plus 22% of excess over $4,000. Over $6,000 but not over $8,000............$1,130, plus 25% of excess over $6,000. Over $8,000 but not over $10,000..........$1,630, plus 28% of excess over $8,000. Over $10,000 but not over $12,000........ $2,190, plus 32% of excess over $10,000. Over $12,000 but not over $14,000........ $2,830, plus 36% of excess over $12,000. Over $14,000 but not over $16,000........$3,550, plus 39% of excess over $14,000. Over $16,000 but not over $18,000........ $4,330, plus 42% of excess over $16,000. Over $18,000 but not over $20,000........ $5,170, plus 45% of excess over $18,000. Over $20,000 but not over $22,000........ $6,070, plus 48% of excess over $20,000. Over $22,000 but not over $26,000........ $7,030, plus 50% of excess over $22,000. Over $26,000 but not over $32,000........ $9,030, plus 53% of excess over $26,000. Over $32,000 but not over $38,000.... $12,210, plus 55% of excess over $32,000. Over $38,000 but not over $44,000..,.. .$15,510, plus 58% of excess over $38,000. Over $44,000 but not over $50,000.$18,990, plus 60% of excess over $44,000. Over $50,000 but not over $60,000.$22,590, plus 62% of excess over $50,000. Over $60,000 but not over $70,000.$28,790, plus 64% of excess over $60,000. Over $70,000 but not over $80,000.$35,190, plus 66% of excess over $70,000. Over $80,000 but not over $90,000.$41,790, plus 68% of excess over $80,000. Over $90,000 but not over $100,000. .. $48,590, plus 69% o f excess over $90,000. Over $100,000 ........................................... $55,490, plus 70% of excess over $100,000. Exhibit 9 Sec. 602. * * * (b) For taxable years beginning on and after January first, nineteen hundred sixty-eight, the tax imposed by section six hundred one shall be determined in accordance with the followinc table: If the New York taxable income is: Not over $1,000 Over $ 1,000 but not over $ 3,000 Over $ 3,000 but not over $ 5,000 Over $ 5,000 but not over $ 7,000 Over $ 7,000 but not over $ 9,000 Over $ 9,000 but not over $11,000 Over $11,000 but not over $13,000 Over $13,000 but not over $15,000 Over $15,000 but not over $17,000 Over $173̂ 00 but not over $19,000 Ovet '$l9,000 but not over $21,000 ,-QVer $21,000 but not over $23,000 Over $23,000 The tax- is: 2% of the New York taxable income $ 20 plus 3% of excess over $ 1,000 $ 80 plus 4% of excess over $ 3,000 $160 plus 5% of excess over $ 5,000 $260 plus 6% of excess over $ 7,000 $380 plus 1 % of excess over $ 9,000 $520 plus 8% of excess over $11,000 $680 plus 9% of excess over $13,000 $860 plus 10% of excess over $15,000 $1,060 plus 11% of excess over $17,000 $1,280 plus 12% of excess over $19,000 $1,520 plus 13% of excess over $2i,000 $1,780 plus 14% of excess over $23,000 NEW YORK STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAX RATES s New York Tax Reports, par. 15-210SOURCE 17a.4 Exhibit 9 ."•cc. T46-3.0 ♦ * * The tax imposed by scctiou two shall be determined in arcorounce with the following table: Ii the city taxable income is: The tax is: ' ° ' , r ............................................. 0.4% of the city taxable income Over $ l.UuO but not over $ 3,000........ $ 4 phis 0.6% of excess over $ l.OoO ij Over $ 3,000 but not. over $ 6,0:K» ........$ 16 plus 0.3% of excess over $ 3,000 ^ O.er ? 6.000 but not over $10,000.........$ 40 pies 1.0% of excess over? 6,000 Over $10,000 but not over $15,000...... $ t.O plus 1.2% of excess over $10 000 Over $1.\000 but not over $20,000 . . . $140 plus 1 4% of excess over $15 000 ° vcr l>«» «"t over $35.000.........$310 plus 1.6% of excess over $20 000 Over $’ .'.000 but not over $50.1)00.........$290 plus 1.3% of excess over $25%00 \tr Y- 0/ 00 ........................................$380 plus 2.0% of excess over $30,000 [See. T4O-3.0, N. V. C. Adm. Code.] NEW YORK CITY PERSONAL INCOME TAX BATES : New York Tax Reports.SOURCE 18a Exhibit 10 SOURCE; NYC Bureau of the Budget, a critique of Government Revenue trend, 1947-1968, and their implication for New York City. TABLE B • 1967/68 over 1947/48. SOURCES OF THE REVENUE INCREASES Revenue Source (In billions) Federal % State %' Local °/= Individual Income $49.5 52.1. $ 5.7 16.1) Corporate Income • 19.0 20.0 2.0 5.4 j• $ 1.05 3.1 Sales & Consumer 8.6 9.1' ' 17.0 47.5 1.5 4.6 Property . Death and Gifts ) .- —- . .6 i 1.8 21.0 63.3 Licenses } 2.8 3.0 4.4 12.4 1.05 3.1 Total Taxes $79.9 84.2 $29.7 83.2 $24.6 74.1 Other Revenues • 14.9 15.8 6.0 16.8 8.6 25.9 Total $94.8 100.0 $35,7 100.0 533.2 10_0._0 1970 19a Exhibit 11 ! II SELECTED MAJOR EXrtNSE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS 1970-71 1969-70 1965-66 1960-61 M illio n s Percent M illio n s Percent M illio n s Percent M illio n s P ercent Social Services .(Welfare) $1,712 22 $1,519 23 $ 494 13 $ 246 10 Education 1,489 20 1,203 18 752 20 440 19 Health Services 687 9 570 9 352 9 199 8 Police 477 6 446 7 272 7 168 7 Environmental Protection 256 3 226 3 157 4 109 5 Fire 214 3 192 3 133 3 85 4 Debt Service 778 10 676 10 545 14 402 17 Pensions 547 7 466 7 343 9 215 9 Other 1,549 20 1,281 20 827 21 481 21 Total $7,709 100 $6,579 100 $3,875 100 $2,345 100 SOURCE: Citizens Budget Commission, Pocket Summary of New York City Finances, for the fiscal year 1970-1971 20a Exhibit 12 NuSibtt;* . York r>: c.r Persons on Welfare in Nev? York City, to and the rest of the Nation. Upstate New York, All New N.Y. State Out- Total Outside N,Y. Total Year New York City side of City N.Y. State State 1960 32: ,771 186,920 512,691 6,585,309 7,098,000 1961 3<'; 7 ,8 Cl 208,446 556,247 6,799,753 7,356,000 1962 363,542' 220,729 584,271 6,814,729 7,399,000 1963 393,621 248,196 647,817 6,867,183 7,515,000 1964 454,168 267,376 721,544 7,000,456 7,722,000 1965 510,493 278,947 789,440 7,012,560 7,802,000 1966 568,115 258,298 826,413 7,247,587 8,074,000 1967 797.539 .277,022 984,561 7,908,439 8,893,000 1968 889,261 321,340 1,210,60.1 8,511,399 9,722,000 1969 1,016,405 354,742 1,371,147 9,759,853 11,131,000 Sources: New York State and City data through 1968, from: Statistical Supplement to Annual Report for 1968, New York State Dept.~of Social Service, 1969 data from: Social Service in New York State 1969, State of N.Y. Dept,, of Social Services, April 9, 1970, National data from: Public Assistance - Annual Statistical Data, Calendar year 1969, Dept of Health, - Education and Welfare, Social and Rehabilitation Service, National Center for Social Statistics, NCSS Report A-7 (CY69), Table 1. 21a Exhibit 13 Population Estimates for New York City, New York State Outside of New York City, and the Nation outside of New York State. (Also Estimates of Proportion of Population receiving Public Assistance). Year New York City % on Welfare (Thou Rest of N.Y. State Outside , nN„Y.Co sands) % on Welfare Rest of Nation % on Welfare 1960 7,782 4.18 9,075 2.06 163,135 3.93 1961 7,782 4.47 9,267 2.24 166,008 4.03 1962 7,782 4.67 9,422 2.34 168,686 3.38 1963 7,782 5.14 9,585 2.58 171,291 3.95 , 1964 7,780 5.83 U, 740 2.74 173,852 3.97 1965 7,840 6.50 9,812 2084 176,163 3.95 1966 7,960. 7,13 9,895 2.60 178,081 3.99 19 b/ « , L K f U b.KU 9,975 l o t i 179,646 4.26 1968 ■8.125 10.94 10,065 3.18 181,671 4.68 1969 8,110 12.52 10,152 3.49 183,659 5.31 3 970 7,868 13.91 10,323 186,809 Sources: New York State Statistical Yearbook 1970, N.Y.StateSOffice of Statistical Coordination p. 46, 1970 estimates, New York Times August 15, 1970 and January 21 1971. Welfare recipiency rates computed by the Department of Social Service. City of New York. NEW YORK CITY’S EXPENSE BUDGET AND IlJTS FINANCING, 1959-60 TO l969-:70a (In millions of dollars) Pineal > Expense Federal ' i Finance;*!' i Enbate City User Other Year Budqet Total Aidb I' r » Eudcret Taxes Taxesc Charges^ Revenue® 1569-70 .. 6,604f '2,690 3,914 ! 1,908 i • . ; 1,511 270 _ 225 1963-69 6,007 : )■ 2,523 | " ‘3,484 i • • f ■ • | 1,738 1 1,3018 .266 j 1 7 9 . 1967-68 5., 296 1,968 ; 3,328 1,648 ' 1,265 229 ' ‘ 136 1966-67 4,497 1/500 ■; • 2,997 . 1,573 1,064 232 30 1965-66 3,780 • .t 1,141 :! » 2,639 1,409.1- 859 178 : • " ' 193 1561-65 3,349 848 1 2,501 1 ■■ " ; 1# 314 881 165• . i '* . . 137 ‘. . * . 1963-64 3,103 1 753 :!; 2,345 . ;1*229 793 v . I - ' - 172 160 1662-63 21,793 . ' • i ♦ 712 2,081 '1,135 656 157. * ! . 133 1561-62 2,605 612 1,993 1,071 . 602 •. ■ ' 146i •' t 174 19CC-S1 i 2,422 547 ’1,075 1,028 574 •:iC. 145; 1 123 ' . 1955-60 2,226 , 471 1,754 979 571 130 67 IsDtoP E xhibit 14 I! tht •Tote: Detail may not acid to totals, because of rounding. ' j ip •_’or 1959-70,’ the basis is the Executive Budget proposed-by the Mayor; for ,1968-69, the Budget as adopted and modified; for other years, actual results. ] ... j 'includes State aid in* the Conor a 1 Fund. k - ..j i •‘includes stock transfer and mortgage taxes/ nominally State taxes.’ ■ • j ... |- j ‘includes water and sower charges, rents for docks, airoort3 and markets and other city property, - parking meter receipts, ferry fares, fees, charges for miscellaneous services, privileges and-,. ; i..inor sales. .• _• '• • •..his shoos erratic year-to-year variation because it includes the effect of certain special ; •- borrowing arrangements and transfers among city-owned funds. •Vhc Budget as adopted uac $2 5 million lower and real estate levy $15 million lower than in the Executive Budget proposed by the Mayor. » V 'Actual tax collections were roughly $110 million higher than estimated in the Budget as modified, 'ike higher tax collections in 1950-69 vcrc taken into account in framing the 1969-70 Budget. Sources: 1-Tcw York City Comptroller, Annual Reports; City of New York Executive Budget. E xh ibit 14 24a Exhibit 15 Expenditures on Public Assistance, New York City (Exclusive of Medicaid g/(id Administrative expenses) Pei inTWbltant share by Federal, State and City governments Amount of Total per inhabitant Year Population P*A. ($1000*s) Federal Share. State Share City Sharp' expenditure for Public Assistance I960 7,782,522 186,522 $10.42 $ 6.87 $6.68 $23.97 1961 7,782,000 204,047 11.92 7.18 7.12 26.22 1962 7,782,000 217,290 13.02 7.50 7.40 27.92 1963 7,782,000 246,825 15.00 8.44 8..?7 31.71 1964 7,780,000 295,486 16.57 10.69 10.72 37.98 1965 7,840,000 348,230 18o04 13o30 13.OS 44.42 1966 7,960,000 425,740 2.0o72 16.20 16.55 53.47 1967 8,040,000' 653,773 27.52 19.81 18.23 65.56 1968 8,125,000 823,087 41.63 32.27 27.39 101.29 1969 8,110,000 892,716' $46.69 $33.03 $30.34 $110.07 Sources: Population Estimates from: N^Y. State Statis tic.al Yearbook 1970. Public Assistance data, from which per capita expenditures were derived, are from NYC.DOSS Annual Reports for the relevant years. 25a Exhibit 16 At: 1.11C 1 jlI:c*.i'll'. 1 7 I-:::pencl:ilures per Inh New York St: a ah itr.nl:, for te outside of Public As New York sistercc City, - Year 3k -himaketl j'opuJ all rj vi 'fhousamls Amount of 'P.A. ($1000’s) Federal Share State Share Loc-il Share .Per inhabitant expenditure for P.A. •* 1960 9; 075 120,274 $4.99 $4.31 $3.95 $13.25 1961 ^267 131,528 6.22 4.18 3,79 14.19 2 9,422 146,427 7.55 '4.04 3.95 15.54 1963 9,585 163,324 8.48 4.32 4.7.4 17.04 1964 9,740 184,044 9.OS 4,95 4.86 18.89 1965 9,812 199,821 9.47 5.53 5.36 20.36 1966 9,895 164,753 7.93 4.48 4.24 16.65 1967 9,975 170,413 6,97 5.73 3.38' 17.08 1968 10‘ )65 219,121 8,85 6.78 6,14 21.77 ------- ---------------------------------------------------rJL Sources: New York City, Dep't. of Social Sercices 26a Handbook of Public. A sr-iu ta iicv /uliuinLPt ration vi: jfj____________________ _ , _ fisca l OpcvaLlci.s and Arccrr^.; Lt:1 ”.y v>.V'■}.... ............ ....... _ _ PawHints. to iic/itca__ ___ _ _________ j / A’J/t'J J'Voinul-yy•■•u of )\ 'rral. !’{!i-c?n(:rw r , Federal Medic:*.l P'lroctnt'-^or . /nicl Fcd jrol. M~.r* f cn l An;: I Pcrccntno.es (Corttir,. r;') Exhibit 17 l / l / M - 4 / J O / M S t a t e r e g a r d l » t r c i i r t r » j I d r t c l t i l e d p r r c t u t £ ; e f s f . r s l I d l e s t f c c s o t i g a / 1 i t : . u .............................. 4 5 . C3 7 6 . 1 5 I S . 54 i l a a V a ................................ 5 0 . CO 5 0 . 6 0 5 3 . 0 0 i r l t o r a .............................. » : . e ? ( 7 . 6 3 € 5 . 4 2 A r V x r . y r a ........................... 6 5 . CO 7 7 . 5 1 7 9 . 7 6 C : l l t ^ r u ! a ..................... 5 0 . CO 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . CO C o l - a r c J o ............ •............. 5 1 . 3 ? 5 1 . 5 7 5 6 . 7 4 C c a v e t i c v t .................. 5 0 . 0 5 0 . CO 5 0 . 0 0 D i U ' v s r f ........................... 5 0 . CO 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . CO H o t r l c c o f C o K r b i a ..................... 5 3 . OJ 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . CO f l o r l J : .............................. C O . 11 ( 3 . 1 1 6 4 . 1 0 C c o r j i a ............................. S 5 . C 3 ( 0 . 3 1 7 1 . ( 9 C u : a ................................ .. ................. 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . CO t o . v « t i ................................ 5 0 . 0 3 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 7 5 K s h s ................................... 6 5 . CO ( 5 . 4 6 6 1 . 9 1 n i t o o l a ........................... 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . CO : 5 0 .0 0 I n . l L . - u .............................. 5 0 . CO 5 0 . CO 5 7 . « 5 I c v i ...................................... 5 0 . 3 0 s o . s o 5 5 . 1 7 V .o n s r f s ................................. 5 3 . C l 5 3 . 0 9 5 7 . 7 8 K » ( u d y ........................... 6 5 . 0 0 7 3 . 4 5 7 4 .1 0 l e u ' j l . - . r . a ........................ 6 5 . CO 3 0 . 6 1 7 1 . 5 7 M a i n s ................................... 6 1 . 5 1 6 4 . 6 1 4 3 . 1 5 t o r y l c r . 4 ........................... 5 0 . CO 5 0 . CO 5 0 . 0 0 h a ; « 3 c f c ’j f t c c t 4 ........... SO. CO 5 0 . CO 5 0 . 0 0 K l e M e a a ............ .............. 5 0 . C 3 5 0 . CO 5 0 . 0 0 I t l n . i ; j » : c ........................ 5 7 . 1 7 5 7 . 1 7 5 6 . 1 5 * K l r . s l i S i p p l .................. C 3 . r o 1 0 . 0 0 6 ) . CO M i s s o u r i ........................... 5 4 . 7 7 5 4 . 7 7 5 5 . 7 9 K i r . t r . n 3 .............................. C O . f O € 0 . 6 0 4 4 . 7 7 K t h r t a V j ........................... 5 ? . ' 0 5 7 . 5 0 5 7 . 7 5 H 3 v : d 4 ................................ 5 0 . CO 5 0 . CO 5 0 . 0 0 t e v / T ^ p s h l r c ............. 5 4 . 6 4 5 4 . 6 4 S 3 . IS P t v J c r a r y ..................... 5 0 . 0 0 JO .CO 5 0 . 0 0 V c.\i K : x l c v ..................... 6 5 . CO i d . 31 7 1 . ( 0 K t j T o r i ........................... 5 0 . 0 0 ' 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 6 3 t o r c h C a r o l I n s . . . . 6 5 . 0 3 7 1 . 0 7 . 7 3 . 9 5 E a r t h P t V a c i ............... t 5 . r o 6 ? . ? 0 7 0 . 4 8 - O M O . a . V ........................... 5 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 0 0 5 7 . 4 2 O i l t h c - t a ........................... t S . C O ( 5 . 1 3 U . S 4 O r e g o n ................................. 5 1 . 5 1 5 1 . 5 1 5 * 35 P c n n c y l v e n l a . 5 0 . CO 5 0 . CO 5 4 . 6 0 ? u » r c o R i c o ............................. 5 0 . CO 5 0 . 0 3 I h o l . l a I . - . r . J ............... 5 0 . CO s o .c o 5 1 . 7 0 • f . i t f t h C c r c l l u . . . . 6 5 . CO 7 4 . 1 2 7 S . 6 S S i s t h D e i * c :a ............... 6 5 . CO 6 6 . 5 7 4 1 . 7 1 T * s r . i » ' ; « ...................... 6 5 . CO 1 1 . ( 1 7 4 . 6 2 ........... .. .................. 6 2 . 5 5 * 7 . ( 5 4 6 . 6 6 l ' « h ................................... * 5 . 1 1 ( ' . . 7 0 I S . 2 ) ’U r ^ i M ............................ C l . O I ( 1 . 0 7 4 1 . 9 6 V I t r I h l u t c c i a ................ J G .C O 5 3 . 0 0 V l t ’ J n l a t l . i i 4 1 . 1 6 6 5 . 0 6 V ? c M n j C e r . .................... 5 0 . ( 5 S o . C O SO.CO U ” . t V l t ^ t n t a ............ 6 5 . C 3 7 1 . 0 3 7 5 . 7 1 V l a c e r j l n ........................ 5 0 . 3 4 5 0 . 3 4 5 5 . 2 1 V y w U j ......................... 5 5 . 5 0 • 5 5 . 5 3 4 0 . to —t ’ EXHIBIT 17 % • SOURCE: Dept, of Health, Education and Welfare, Handbook PuSic Assistance Administration, par . 2233 MEILEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C. < s ^ p » 219