REVISION OF ESTIMATES OF AMOUNTS FOR OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE AND AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN Mr. ALTMEYER. There again the March figures show that the average now is actually $36.49. These averages should not be taken as true today either in this program or in the old-age assistance. If you do you will estimate too low. If you want we will undertake to make recalculations on the basis of our last month's figures. Mr. HARE. You mean revised figures? Mr. ALTMEYER. For all three, in lieu of the pages here. These would be revised figures that should be inserted to give you the latest information. Mr. HARE. We will be glad if you will do that. Mr. ALTMEYER. Will that confuse the record? (The matter referred to is as follows:) REVISION OF ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT REQUESTED FOR GRANTS TO STATES FOR OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE FISCAL YEAR 1944 The estimate of total payments to recipients amounting to $647.2 million was arrived at on the basis of an estimated average monthly number of 2,330,000 recipients and an estimated average monthly payment per recipient of $23.15. Examination of the trend since these estimates were prepared indicates that the estimate of the number of recipients is somewhat high, but is largely offset by the fact that the estimates average monthly payment is too low. This judgment is based on the following information. 1. Number of recipients. The number of recipients has decreased slightly each month since June 1942. By March 1943, the number of recipients was 2,194,000, a decline of about 21⁄2 percent in this 9-month period. On the basis of this trend, it appears that during the fiscal year 1943-44, the monthly average number of recipients will be about 2,150,000, about 180,000 or 71⁄2 percent less than the original estimate. 2. Average monthly payment per recipient.-The average monthly payment per recipient has risen steadily, and between June 1942 and March 1943 increased by $2.04, from $21.83 to $23.87. It will be noted that the average payment for March 1943 already exceeds by 72 cents the estimated average monthly payment on which the 1943-44 budget was based. On the basis of the present trend, it seems that the average monthly payment per recipient for the fiscal year 1943-44 will approximate $25 instead of $23.15 as originally estimated. An examination of State data indicates that substantial increases in average monthly payments can occur in most States within the present maximum limitations on payments. 3. Total payments to recipients.-It is evident that the decrease in number of recipients will be largely offset by an increase in average monthly payment per recipient. Thus, according to present data, payments to recipients will amount to $645,000,000 (2,150,000 multiplied by $25 a month) or about $2,000,000 less than the original figure. Revised estimate of amount for grants to States for old-age assistance, fiscal year 1944 Since the revised estimate of total fund requirements differs so little from that originally submitted, the distribution of total requirements by States is essentially the same as shown in table 1 submitted with the original estimate. REVISION OF ESTIMATE OF AMOUNT REQUESTED for GRANTS TO STATES FOR AID TO DEPENDENT CHILDREN, FISCAL YEAR 1944 The original budget estimate called for $150,644,000 for total assistance payments. This figure was based on an estimated average monthly number of 355,400 families and an estimated average monthly payment per family of $35.33. Examination of the trend since these estimates were prepared indicates that the number of families will be considerably smaller but the average monthly payment per family will be appreciably higher. This judgment is based on the following information: 1. Number of families.—Between the first and last half of 1942, the monthly average number of families declined by 23,500 or about 6 percent. On the basis of this trend, it appears that during the fiscal year 1943-44, the monthly average number of families to be assisted will be 318,600, about 36,800 or 10 percent less than the number included in the estimate submitted to the Committee on Appropriations. 2. Average monthly payment per family.-Between June and December 1942, the average monthly payment increased by $2.54 from $33.85 to $36.39. Between December 1942 and March 1943, it rose by $1.10 to $37.49. It is estimated that by December 1943, the average monthly payment will be at least $38, which is $2.67 above the estimate submitted to the Committee on Appropriations. 3. Total payments to recipients.-Using revised estimates of 318,600 families and an average monthly payment per family of $38, the estimate of total assistance payments becomes $145,282,000, or $5.4 million less than that presented in the original budget. Thus, the reduction in the Federal share, including administrative expense, would amount to about $2.5 million. Revised estimate of amount for grants to States for aid to dependent children, fiscal year 1944 Since the revised estimate of total fund requirements differs so little from that originally submitted, the distribution of total requirements by States is essentially the same as shown in table 1 submitted with the original estimate. No revision of the estimate for "Aid to the blind" is indicated on the basis of experience since the original estimates were made. AVERAGE MONTHLY PAYMENTS Mr. HARE. I notice on page 223 of the justification, for illustration, the average monthly payment per recipient for 1944, in Aid to the Blind, will be approximately $25.78, and the average monthly payment for 1943 is estimated at $24.76 and was $24.01 in 1942 and $23.47 in 1941. Mr. ALTMEYER. The last average we have, for March, shows $25.49. It is still going up. Mr. HARE. That is right. Are there any further questions? SALARIES, BUREAU OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Mr. HARE. The next item appears on page 230 of the justification, "Salaries, Bureau of Public Assistance." I note that your appropriation for 1943 was $993,560. Your estimate for 1944 is $923,000. This represents a decrease of $70,560. Did I understand you to say that you are decreasing your personnel to that extent? Mr. ALTMEYER. Yes, sir. Mr. HARE. Do you think it will be further decreased this year? Mr. ALTMEYER. I think it will be-there will be a further decrease. But you understand that these figures do not include anything for overtime at all. We have not figured the overtime costs in these figures. Mr. THOMAS. You have lost 700 employees; is that correct? Mr. HARE. We will insert page 230 of the justification in the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Salaries, Bureau of Public Assistance, Social Security Board Regular appropriation, 1943 act Supplemental appropriation for 1943. $993, 560 0 AMOUNT TRansferred TO WAR MANPOWER COMMISSION, 1943 Mr. HARE. The next item appears on page 232 of the justification, "Grants to States for unemployment compensation administration. The regular appropriation for 1943 was $79,650,000, and your estimate for 1944 is $39,000,000. We had a revised estimate from the Bureau of the Budget as of May 5 showing a decrease to $37,328,000, a total decrease of $1,672,000 plus $746,827. Is that correct? Mr. CLAGUE. The $746,827 decrease is explained in the estimate which you have before you which was prepared in the month of July 1942. However, since that time we have obtained more information relative to probable work loads and it now looks as though the State agencies will receive 165,000,000 reports of wages instead of 145,000,000. This increase is due to more employment and more coverage of workers and therefore more contribution. However, other categories of work have fallen below our original estimates and the total estimate has been revised accordingly. This revision is reflected in a. statement which I have here which should be substituted for the statement previously furnished you. Mr. HARE. Of the 1943 appropriation of $79,650,000 it is noted that $39,903,173 was transferred to the War Manpower Commission. That accounts for a reduction of the 1943 appropriation and would make it $39,746,827 for this item. I assume the War Manpower Commission will make the request for $39,903,173 or an approximate amount. Mr. ALTMEYER. They will include in their budget a sum for the operation of the United States Employment Services. Mr. ENGEL. Why should we not deduct from this bill the amount that we have to add to the War Manpower Commission appropriation? Mr. ALTMEYER. It has been deducted. Mr. ENGEL. Is that the amount they will ask for? Mr. ALTMEYER. I do not know. Mr. THOMAS. They will ask for more than that. They want an increase of almost 50 or 100 percent. SUMMARY OF REVISED ESTIMATE Mr. HARE. I think it is appropriate to insert the sheet that you have submitted, showing the break-down of personnel costs. (The statement referred to is as follows:) Grants to States for unemployment compensation administration, Social Security Board 1 Experience of the State employment security agencies indicates that the cost of annual and sick leave granted employees averages 9 percent of the total functional operating personnel cost; accordingly, the functional operating personnel costs have been adjusted to include this cost. Does not include approximately $1,162.000 expended by U. S. Employment Service for claims taking activities prior to transfer of Employment Service to War Manpower Commission on Dec. 1, 1942. Mr. THOMAS. Do you have any further decreases on this new sheet from the figures shown on page 232? Mr. CLAGUE. There are decreases in the various items and the total change from the original 1944 estimate of $39,000,000 is approximately $1,671,000. The revised estimate totaled $37,328,502. Mr. THOMAS. You are asking for a decrease of $2,400,000 out of an appropriation last year of approximately $39,000,000? Mr. CLAGUE. That is correct. I call your attention to another item Mr. THOMAS. Excuse me just a minute. For 1943, according to this sheet, you have $39,746,000, and you are asking for $37,328,000, which is a deduction of approximately $2,400,000. Is that right? Mr. CLAGUE. That is right. SUMMARY OF BUDGET REQUEST BY STATES Mr. HARE. We will insert pages 243 and 244 of the justifications at this point; and I suggest that they be revised to correspond with the previous page, 242, just in order to modernize these estimates. (The matter referred to is as follows:) INDIVIDUAL STATE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE REVISED TITLE III ESTIMATE, GRANTS TO STATES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION The title III appropriation estimate, and the individual grants to States for unemployment compensation, is based on unit costs and work-load estimates for the basic unemployment compensation work-load factors under the Bureau's time and cost program in the State agencies. While we can estimate the trend of the basic unemployment compensation work-load factors on a national basis, it is difficult to predict how fluctuations in load will affect individual States. Thus, we are unable at this time to determine with any precision the amounts which will be granted the States under the revised appropriation estimate. Some States will experience a decline on over-all work load from the original estimates, while others will experience an increase in over-all work load. These work loads are largely influenced by national industrial policy in the location of industrial plants, national manpower policy in the placement of unemployed workers, allocation of materials, and other indeterminable factors. The amounts which will be granted the States by the Board under the revised estimate will be based on information to be received from the State employment security agencies during the weeks immediately preceding the two semiannual budget periods. |