City of New York v. Richardson Complaint

    (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