Among the "voluntary" or "optional" States it is seen that the greatest proportion of adopting counties occurs in Montana and Wisconsin, in the order named. That the larger and more populous counties are the ones which have seen the value of the pension system is also shown. Thus, although in Minnesota only 4 of the 87 counties have adopted the system, these contain over two-fifths of the entire population of the State. Baltimore, the only part of Maryland which is paying old-age pensions, contains nearly half of the State population. In Wisconsin, the nine counties (one-eighth of the whole number) which have accepted the pension system contain some threeeighths of the State population. Four-fifths of Montana's popula tion have the protection of the old-age pension law. At the other end of the scale is Kentucky, where the law is practically a dead letter, only 1 of the 120 counties (with 0.3 per cent of the State population) having paid pensions in 1931. The report for that State, by the State bureau of agriculture, labor and statistics (which made a survey of the pension system there, on behalf of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics), indicates that many counties favor the system and even in those counties in which opinion is unfavorable the opposition rests mainly on the poverty of the county and the resultant lack of funds; there is also some dissatisfaction with certain features of the law as now written. In lieu of the pensions, a certain amount of poor relief is being carried on in the State. As would be expected, a much wider use of the pension system is shown in the "mandatory" States, particularly those in which the State bears some part of the cost. In California, Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York the system is practically state-wide. California had only one county (whose population was 241) in which no pensions were being paid at the end of 1931. In Massachusetts, where the system is a town-and-city, not county, plan, in only 22 out of 355 cities and towns in the State were no pensions being paid; that these form a very small part of the State is shown by the fact that only one of the nonpaying communities was large enough to warrant separate presentation in the census statistics of population. It is significant that in California and New York the State pays half of the cost of the pensions, and in Delaware the whole cost. In Massachusetts the law provides in general for State aid to the extent of one-third of the cost, but under a ruling of the State attorney general on a 1931 amendment to the act the State must bear the whole cost during the years 1931 and 1932. In the other five mandatory States the entire cost must be met by the counties. It is seen that the coverage (i. e., the proportion of the population in the adopting counties) in these States ranges from 10 per cent in Colorado to nearly 80 per cent in Wyoming. The mandatory feature of the Colorado law became operative only on January 1, 1932, and is now being questioned in the courts, this tending to delay the adoption of the system. In New Hampshire the law became effective only on September 1, 1931, but already the accepting counties afford protection to two-thirds of the State population. Idaho, another new pension State, has also shown a remarkable degree of favor toward the system. TABLE 2.-EXTENT AND COVERAGE OF PENSION SYSTEM IN SPECIFIED STATES, BY TYPE OF LAW1 1 New Jersey and West Virginia are not shown in this table because in neither are pensions being paid; the New Jersey law is mandatory and that of West Virginia voluntary. Includes also those which, although they have adopted the system, have not yet put it into effect. Actual percentage is 99.99+. Cost of Pensions TABLE 3 shows the proportion of pensioners in the population and the cost of pensions in those counties which were paying pensions in 1931. It is seen that the highest percentage of pensioners is in Delaware, surpassing in this respect even such industrial States as Massachusetts and New York. The average annual amount disbursed per pensioner is, of course, affected by a number of factors, such as the limitations set by the various State laws, the pensioners' circumstances, the number of deaths during the year, the funds available, etc. The largest average amounts spent were those of California, Maryland, and New York. In Maryland, however, the figure shown in the table is based upon the sum of $50,000 reported as having been appropriated and spent; the validity of the average in this case is open to question. The average annual cost of the pensions per inhabitant, in the counties having the pension plan, ranged from 7 cents in New Hampshire to 95 cents in New York. TABLE 3.-COST OF OLD-AGE PENSIONS IN SPECIFIED STATES IN 1931 1 Based on counties reporting number of pensioners. In general it may be said that most of the objections to the pension system are based either on the cost to the taxpayer or on the charge that the pension discourages thrift and decreases the sense of family responsibility. Some of the county reports call attention to the fact that the county has a large sum of money invested in the almshouse and does not feel it can incur additional expense, since as long as there are any inmates at all at the poor farm the plant there must be maintained. Many of the reports from counties in States having purely county systems indicate that lack of resources is the chief factor in keeping the county from adopting the plan. Many favor a State system which would distribute the cost of plan over the whole State, pointing out that those counties which have the greatest proportion of aged poor and which therefore need the pension system most are precisely the counties whose resources are least. Thus of 120 counties in the State of Kentucky, only 1 county is paying pensions; 66 have almshouses, while others are supporting certain needy cases in private homes. Others apparently have no form of relief. One of these reports that it is "miserably in debt" and has "no poor farm or institution of any sort and can not support one." Average Pensions Paid TABLE 4 shows, where available, the lowest, highest, and average monthly pensions in the various pension States in 1928 (the year of the bureau's first study), in 1930, and in 1931. The "average pension" here shown is the average of amounts paid in individual cases, as distinguished from the average amount disbursed (obtained by dividing the amount spent in pensions by the number of pensioners). The difference may be illustrated by the following case: In California in 1930 the amount of monthly pension reported in individual counties was as low as $10 in some cases and as high as $27.76 in others; by weighting the amount of individual pensions by the number receiving them an average pension for all was obtained of $22.69. This takes no consideration of the period during the year for which the pension may have been paid, a pension of $25 paid for one month having as much weight as one of the same amount paid for 12 months. On the other hand, on the basis of the total number of pensioners and the total amount paid out in pensions, the average amount disbursed per pensioner in this State for 1930 was $15.63. In the latter case the amount is affected, of course, by the period for which the pension was paid in each case. It is seen that in most of the States there is a considerable margin between the average pension actually granted and the maximum possible under the law. TABLE 4.-LOWEST, HIGHEST, AND AVERAGE MONTHLY PENSIONS PAID IN SPECIFIED STATES, 1928, 1930, AND 1931 As the table shows, the smallest average monthly pensions in 1931 were those of Kentucky and Utah. Several reports from Utah express the opinion that the amounts awarded in pensions are too small, but state that they are all that the county, by itself, can afford; one of these takes the position that the State should pay a like amount. Delaware, which is not shown in the table because no pensions were paid in 1930, was, at the end of 1931, paying an average pension of $9.54 per month. As regards this point, it is pointed out that the amounts are limited by the appropriations available; also, that many of the pensioners live on farms in the southern part of the State, where living costs are very low. Progress of Old-Age Pension Movement TABLE 5 shows in summary form the spread of the pension system since 1928. In that time the number of States with old-age pension laws has tripled. Whereas in 1928 financial assistance in old age was secured to only about one-twelfth of the population in those States having pension laws, by the end of 1930 over half, and in 1931 more than threefourths, were so protected. TABLE 5.-PROGRESS IN OLD-AGE PENSION MOVEMENT, 1928 TO 1931 Table 6 shows the situation in those States in which the pension system was in operation in both 1930 and 1931. Some gains and some losses are shown, the greatest gains in number of adopting counties being in Colorado and Wyoming. The number of pensioners rose from 10,000 to 14,000, but the outlay for the purpose nearly doubled. TABLE 6.-NUMBER OF ADOPTING COUNTIES, NUMBER OF PENSIONERS, AND Number of M M M M N State The development of the pension system in the various States since the passage of the laws is shown in Table 7. The results of the 1931 amendment to the Colorado law, making the adoption of the system mandatory upon the counties, is shown by the figures for that State, although, as already indicated, the progress was not so great as had been expected, due to the feeling of uncertainty as to the constitutionality of the law. |