-_—_.CUC OO (el



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA apR20 ‘42 Social Seeurity Bulletin Volume 5 MARCH 1942 Number 3

To PROVIDE TEMPORARY IMMEDIATE AID to Ci- vilians, pending the development of adequate legis- lation, Paul V. McNutt, as Federal Security Administrator, was asked by the President on February 6 ‘‘to assume responsibility for providing temporary aid necessitated by enemy action to civilians, other than enemy aliens, residing in the United States: (1) who are disabled; or (2) who are dependents of civilians who are killed, disabled, interned, or reported as missing; or (3) who are otherwise in need of assistance or services. This aid may take the form of cash allowances or temporary provision for hospitalization, medical care, food, shelter, clothing, and transportation. It is not intended that such aid should cover civil or other personnel of the Federal Government, for whom other provisions are contemplated.” The sum of $5 million was made available from the Emergency Fund for the President for all necessary expenses in carrying out the activities specified. “Numerous proposals covering various parts of this problem have already been made,” the Presi- dent added, ‘‘and others are being developed. I have asked the Bureau of the Budget to give par- ticular attention to the coordination and recom- mendation of legislation required because of enemy action which necessitates aid to the civilian population. I should therefore like you to con- tinue to keep in close touch with the Bureau of the Budget so that all proposals can be considered in the submission of over-all legislation.” Pending the enactment of such temporary aid is being administered by the Bureau of Old-Age and Survivors Insurance to certain dependents in the United States of civilians (other than enemy aliens) who have been killed or totally disabled or are missing or detained as the result of enemy action the continental United States. The first claims under consideration are for the dependents of civilian workmen engaged in the construction of military and naval air bases on Wake, Guam, and the Philippine Islands.



Social Security in Review

The first payments to eligible claimants were made for March. Payments are related to the monthly earnings of the person affected by enemy action. Benefits vary from $20 a month for one child to a maximum of $85 for a family unit. Benefits are available to wives, widows, children, and parents who were mainly dependent on the individual affected by enemy action. The sum of $750,000, allocated to the Board by the Adminis- trator from the $5 million made available by the President, will be used in providing the monthly payments,

An allocation of $500,000 was made from the same emergency fund to the Public Health Service for temporary provision for hospitalization and medical care of the civilians affected by enemy action. No part of the allocation is to be used for administrative costs. The Public Health Service is authorized to utilize existing Federal hospitals when available, hospitals under contract with the Public Health Service and such other civilian hos- pitals as may be needed; to obtain all necessary medical, nursing and other temporary care; and to pay burial costs. In a letter to the Surgeon Gen- eral, dated February 25, the Administrator pointed out that, since the Social Security Board and the Public Health Service would be dealing with the same individuals, “‘the closest possible cooperation should be developed between the two agencies especially at the points of service. Specifically, representatives of either agency in an emergency and in the absence of a representative from the other agency may give temporary authorization for medical or other aid contemplated under the President’s order.”

Tue Orrice or Derense HEALTH AND WELFARE Services and the Office of Civilian Defense clari- fied the relationships of the two offices in a formal statement released in February. The Office of Civilian Defense is to serve as the general center for coordinating Federal civilian defense activities

which involve relationships between the Federal Government and State and local governments. In addition to this function, the Office of Civilian Defense will assist in establishing or reorganizing State and local defense councils, will sponsor and encourage the creation of effective community or- ganization, and will organize volunteer services. The Office of Defense Health and Welfare Services has direct administrative responsibility for co- ordinating the health and welfare services of the Federal Government and other public and private agencies to meet State and local community needs arising from the defense program.

In developing the substantive programs for community action in its fields of responsibility, the Office of Defense Health and Welfare Services will call on the Office of Civilian Defense for neces- sary volunteer participants; in dealing with State and local defense councils it will operate through the Office of Civilian Defense, and will cooperate in fitting its health and welfare services into a general plan of civilian defense. The Office of Civilian Defense, in turn, will work through the Office of Defense Health and Welfare Services, rather than with individual Federal or national private agencies, in carrying on its relationships in the fields of health and welfare services, and will recommend representation, on State and local defense councils, of official State and local agen- cies responsible for operating health and welfare


REMOVAL AND RESETTLEMENT Of enemy aliens and their dependents from certain prohibited areas on the West Coast was made the responsibility of the Federal Security Agency and the Office of Defense Health and Welfare Services, at the request of the Department of Justice, Mr. McNutt announced in February. The aliens transferred wil) be un- der the surveillance of Federal authorities, and the public funds spent in their removal will be Federal funds.

Removal! will not mean internment, since enemy aliens known to be dangerous or inimical to this country’s interest have already been apprehended. “Many of the aliens affected by these plans,” Mr. McNutt said, “are now performing services which contribute directly to the success of our American war effort. The proper reestablishment of these dislocated aliens is important to certain types of labor supply and to the maintenance of our agri-

cultural output. For these reasons it is in the interest of the United States that this operation be carried out with the smallest possible loss of human resources.”

WORKERS WITH SKILLS IN OCCUPATIONS in which there is an undersupply of lubor are being referred by public employment offices to employers ep. gaged in war production before requests are filled for workers in civilian production, the Federal Security Administrator announced on March 5. “In areas where lack of skilled workers is most acute,” Mr. McNutt said, “preferences may have to be granted even as between holders of priority ratings, and, if so, will follow the priority ratings assigned them by the War Production Board.” The policy allows for exceptions in particular cases—as for skilled workers at Army and Navy civilian establishments outside the continental United States—when such exceptions will promote war production.

AN OCCUPATIONAL INVENTORY Of the country’s manpower was started in March by the United States Employment Service, in cooperation with the Selective Service System. The information on skills necessary for war production will be assembled from a special occupational form to be included in a more comprehensive questionnaire which the Selective Service System will send to all men between 20 and 44 years of age who registered on February 16. Later the same questionnaire will be sent to other men between the ages of 18 and 64—those who have already registered for selective service and those who still have to register. With the completion of the total inventory, the Employment Service will have information about the major and secondary occupational skills of 40 million men, for any one of 20,000 jobs and especially for a selected list of 225 occupations which are vital to war production. The informa- tion obtained for the workers will supplement the reports on present and anticipated labor needs which the Employment Service has been receiving regularly from 12,000 employers engaged in war production, and will help to show where the workers with needed skills are to be found.

A DIRECT MOVE to safeguard young workers who may be called upon in some areas to help in crop harvesting was made in a statement of national

Social Security


the tion s of


en- illed leral h 5. nost lave rity ings rd.” ular

ntal note

ited with tion | be » be aire all

aire f 18

for ster.

the rout f 40 and ions ma-

the peds ving war


who rop ynal




policy issued in February by the Children’s Bureau, the Department of Agriculture, the Office of Education, and the United States Employment Service. The statement urged that all plans in- yolving the use of young people on the farms should be developed as part of broad programs based on consideration of all available sources of labor and the wages and working conditions offered to adults.

The statement further recommended that State departments of education, labor, and agriculture participate in the development of policies and the possible modification of school programs, and that proposals for employment of young workers during normal school terms be approved only after the Farm Placement Service of the United States Employment Service has declared that the antic- ipated need for labor cannot be filled by older persons who live in the community or within a reasonable distance.

“Young workers,’ the statement declared, “should be placed in agricultural work only where their health and welfare are safeguarded through reasonable hours of work; equitable wages at not less than established prevailing rates; safe and suitable transportation where needed; and for those living away from home to be near their work, provision of fully adequate housing ac- commodations, supervision, and leisure-time activities.”

INCREASED USE OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED individuals to meet the need for several million additional workers in defense industries was urged by the Administrator in a letter in February to the State Governors. Mr. McNutt estimated that there were several hundred thousand physi- cally handicapped persons who are already quali- fied for defense jobs or who can be trained for such work, and added, “At the direction of the Presi- dent, the Federal Security Agency is now working out plans for expanding the vocational rehabilita- tion program.

“In the meanwhile,” the letter continued, ‘I believe that under the existing Federal-State programs for vocational rehabilitation much can be done in expediting and intensifying our present activity with respect to the rehabilitation and training of many handicapped persons. This will involve the broadening of the training activities how carried on as part of the State rehabilitation

Bulletin, March 1942

programs; speeding up the pace of present voca- tional rehabilitation activities; encouraging in- dustry to accept larger numbers of handicapped persons who are qualified for work ; and developing more effective relationships between the State vocational rehabilitation services and the offices of the United States Employment Service in the placement of handicapped workers.”

Tue Unirep States EmMptoyMent Service and the Civil Service Commission issued early in March a joint statement of policy governing relations between the two agencies in recruiting workers for the Federal Government. The state- ment is based on the premise that the Civil Service Commission has primary responsibility for recruit- ing such workers, and that, conversely, an orderly handling of the problem of labor supply can be effectuated only if the Commission makes full use of the resources of the Employment Service. The agreement includes the following specific items. The Commission will request assistance only when actual vacancies exist and in no case to build up a list of eligible workers for future undetermined labor requirements. The Commission will handle all contacts with Federal agencies concerning personnel, and its district offices will request assist- ance from the nearest office of the Employment Service whenever lists of eligible persons do not exist or, if they do exist, are inadequate. In addition, the Commission will immediately place one of its own representatives in Employment Service offices located in large industrial areas where Government establishments are an impor- tant factor in the labor market; this representative will have the full authority of the Commission to act on all matters involving recruitment, and it will be his responsibility to see that the facilities and resources of the Employment Service are utilized to the fullest possible degree.

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT payments of $41.1 mil- lion in January were almost double those for December and 5 percent above January 1941 payments. Most of the rise from December, which was the highest December—January rise on record, was the result of normal seasonal reductions in employment in the North Central, Rocky Mountain, and Pacific Coast areas and the initi- ation of new benefit years in many States; because of the high level of employment during 1941,

moreover, more persons were able to qualify for benefits when they were laid off or lost their jobs. Priorities and conversion lay-offs in some of the highly industrialized States contributed to the total rise. The most marked increase took place in Michigan, where total benefit payments more than tripled. For the country as a whole, benefit payments compensated approximately 3.5 million man-weeks of unemployment. More than a million workers received at least one benefit payment dur- ing the month, slightly more than in January a year ago and two-thirds more than in December 1941.

The sharp December-January rise in benefit payments was accompanied by a seasonal decline of 11 percent in the number of placements in the same period. Placements of farm workers were one-third below the December volume; nonagri- cultural placements decreased by only one-tenth. The number of persons seeking work through local offices of the United States Employment Service has been increasing since November; at the end of January, the active file totaled 4.9 million, the highest number since July but 4 percent less than in January 1941.

OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE monthly benefits in force, which for several months have been increasing at a steady monthly rate of about 4 percent in both number and amount, totaled 503,000 at the end of January and amounted to $9.1 million. Comparable figures for January 1941 were 268,000 and $4.9 million. Of the total number of benefits in force at the end of January 1942, 453,000, representing a monthly amount of $8.2 million, were in current-payment status. Benefits in conditional-payment status, which beginning with November have been declining as a percentage of all benefits in force, declined in absolute numbers as well. In January there were 45,800 such benefits, representing a monthly amount of $892,000.

EXPENDITURES FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE and earn- ings under the several Federal work programs in

the continental United States, which totaled gp estimated $162 million for January, were 27 pep. cent less than in January 1941 and 4 percent less than in December 1941. This percentage de. crease from the same month of the previous year was the highest that had been registered durj the past 12 months. The unduplicated number of recipients and households benefited by these payments showed little change from December, General relief payments were 34 percent below the January 1941 level and 4 percent above that for December. Earnings on projects of the Work Projects Administration, which have shown ap almost continuous decline during the past year, were 40 percent less than in January 1941—the greatest decrease for any month during the past year. For all three special types of public assist. ance, aggregate payments were higher and the number of recipients larger for January 1942 than for January 1941; payments for old-age assistance increased 13 percent, and for aid to dependent children and aid to the blind, 8 percent each.

ENROLLMENT in the Civilian Conservation Corps was cut 25 percent early in March, when 200 of the 800 CCC camps were closed to eliminate all work not connected with the defense program. “Effective immediately,’’ Mr. McNutt announced on February 6, “all camps will concentrate their efforts on war products concerned with work on military reservations or military areas for the United States or with protection and development of natural resources essential to the war effort.”

THE ANNUAL PROCLAMATION designating May | as Child Health Day was issued by the President on February 6. In recognition of ‘‘the vital im- portance of the health of children to the strength of the Nation” the President called for a concerted effort in all communities to have children immu- nized against diphtheria and smallpox, “the two diseases for which we have the surest means of prevention.” Since 1928, May 1 has been desig nated by Act of Congress as Child Health Day.

Social Security

led an 7 per. Nt less ze de. IS Year during umber these smber, ow the at for Work mm an

year, |—the e past Assist. d the ? than stance ndent i.

Corps 00 of te all cram. unced their rk on r the ment fort.”

fay | ident | im- ongth erted nmu- » two ns of lesig- Day.


Duration of Unemployment Benefit Payments in 27 States’

THE DURATION OF BENEFIT PAYMENTS under an unemployment compensation system based on a pay-roll tax must necessarily be limited if the system is to remain solvent. The State laws, with one exception, determine this limit by stating the amount of money a claimant can receive in benefits during a l-year period called the benefit year. Benefits are usually paid weekly, and the number of weeks of unemployment which can be compensated is a byproduct of the total amount of benefits payable and the amount paid for a week of total unemployment. In measuring dura- tion of benefits the number of compensable weeks is a more useful concept than the total amount payable, and it is customary to state the total amount payable during the benefit year in terms of weeks. Thus, a claimant entitled to $100 in benefits within a benefit year at a rate of $10 per week is said to have a potential duration of 10 full weeks. This concept does not mean that he can receive benefits in only 10 different weeks. If he is partially unemployed, the amount he receives each week may be less than $10, and he will be entitled to draw benefits during that year

*Prepared in the Reports and Analysis Division, Bureau of Employment Security. This article is summarized from ‘“‘Duration of Benefit Payments

in 27 States,’ Bureau of Employment Security, Benefit Duration Series of 141, No. 8. A preliminary study of benefit duration in 11 States appeared inthe Bulletin for January 1941, pp. 40-43

for any number of weeks until a total of $100 has been paid to him.

Similarly, actual benefit duration, the number of weeks for which a claimant draws benefits, is computed in terms of the amount of money paid to him during the benefit year and converted into weeks by dividing the total amount paid by the weekly benefit amount. Thus, if a claimant whose weekly benefit amount is $10 receives $60 during his benefit year, his actual benefit duration is said to have been 6 full weeks.

Two general methods of determining the max- imum amount of benefits payable during the ben- efit year are incorporated in State laws (chart 1).! The simpler of these two methods, known as uniform duration and incorporated in 16 State laws, defines total benefits payable to each eligible claimant as a specified multiple of the weekly benefit amount. This multiple varies from 13 to 20 times the weekly benefit amount. The remain- ing 34 State laws limit benefits to whichever is the lesser of two formulas—a certain multiple of the weekly benefit amount or a fraction of earn- ings in covered employment during a base period prior to the benefit year. The base period is

1 The Wisconsin Jaw limits benefit duration to a certain number of weeks, dependent on weeks of employment in a prior period. For this reason, this discussion is limited to the remaining 50 laws.

Chart 1.—States classified by type of provision limiting duration of unemployment benefits '

Variable-duration provisions limiting benefits to—

Uniform-duration provisions

(16 States {0 percent or more of 1 year’s }4 or less of 1 year’s earnings 44 or less of 2 years’ earnings | A varying percentage of 1 earnings (14 States) (11 States) (5 States) | year’s earnings (4 States) Georgia. Alabama 44. | Connecticut. 244. | Arizona 46. | California. Hawaii Alaska j _ SRR 44. | Florida 16. | Illinois. Kentucky Arkansas 44. | Indiana. ....... 316%. | lowa 16. | Minnesota. Maine. Colorado 4g. | Louisiana. ._- 44. | Missouri 4s. | Rhode Island. Mississippi Delaware 4g. | Maryland. --. 44. | Pennsylvania bg Montana. District of Columbia by Michigan... 4. New Hampshire ansas 4g. | New Jersey Ms. New York M assachusetts 30%. | Oregon 16 North Carolina. Nebraska bg. | Texas My North Dakota Nevada 4g. | Virginia... -- 4. Ohio New Mexico 44. | Wyoming... 14 South Carolina Oklahoma.. 44. South Dakota. Vermont 4. Tennessee Washington bg. Utah

West Virginia

! Based on laws in effect Oct. 1, 1941.

State grouping in tables 1-7 is gov-

etned by duration provisions controlling the benefit rights of claimants Studied; therefore, State groups in tables vary somewhat from State

groups in chart 1. those of other States

Bulletin, March 1942

Excludes Wisconsin, since its law is not comparable with

2 May be reduced if reserve fund falls below $40 million. 3 Earnings in 15 months.

usually 1 year, but 5 States use a 2-year period. This method of limiting benefits is generally refer- red to as variable duration, since claimants are entitled to draw multiples of their weekly benefit amounts which vary according to the amount of their base-period earnings. The limiting fraction of base-period earnings varies from one-eighth of 2 years’ earnings to one-half of 1 year’s earnings. The maximum limit under these provisions varies from 13 to 26 times the weekly benefit amount. Fourteen of the State laws with variable-dura- tion provisions limit benefits to a substantial por- tion (30 percent or more) of earnings in a 1-year base period. Eleven laws limit benefits to one- fourth or less of earnings in a 1-year base period.” 2 The dividing line between these two groups of State laws is purely arbi- trary, but seems justified since the data analyzed indicate that the State laws

in the first group were definitely more liberal with respect to duration of benefits than the State laws in the second group.

Five laws limit benefits to one-fifth or less of earp. ings in a 2-year base period, and four others use g varying percentage of earnings in a 1-year base period. The State laws in this last group custom. arily provide that claimants with low weekly benefit amounts can draw benefits up to a higher percentage of base-period earnings than cap claimants with high weekly benefit amounts,

Duration Experience Selected for Analysis

To determine how the various types of duration provisions have operated in the short time during which unemployment benefits have been payable in this country, the experience of a sample of claimants whose benefit years ended during 1949 and the first 3 months of 1941 in 27 States was selected for analysis (table 1). These 27 States

+ The data for the various States do not, in all cases, cover this entire period,

Table 1.—Benefit-duration provisions of 27 State laws selected for analysis


Fraction of Minimum Maximum

Sorind i 5 nes , wage credits potential potential

State Period pip dir pend me ended Earnings requirement in 1 year to which duration duration

s st benefits (multiple multiple

are limited of wha of wba ')

Uniform duration Maine_. April 1940-March 1941 $i44 None 16 6 Montana July-December 1940 30 x wha None 16 16 New York April 1940-March 1941 25 x wha None 13 13 North Carolina | February-December 1940 $130 None 16 16 Ohio___.___. January-December 1940 | Employment in 20 weeks None 16 16 South Carolina July-December 1940 40-50 x wha None 16 16 South Dakota April 1940-March 1941 $126___. None 14 u West Virginia April 1940-March 1941 $150 None 14 4 Benefits limited to 44 of 1 year’s earnings Colorado May-December 1940 | 30x wha 'y 0 16 Minnesota | July-September 1940 | 30x wha ly 0 16 Nebraska | January-December 1940 | 30x wha be 0 16 New Mexico | July-December 1940 | 30x wha hy 0 16 North Dakota | April-December 1940 | 30x wha ly 0 16 Vermont | May-—December 1940 | 25 x wha ly 4.3 4 Washington | July-December 1940 'y 6.7 16 Benefits limited to 4 or less of 1 year’s earnings Illinois | April 1940-March 1941 $225 4% i 16 Maryland | April 1940-March 1941 30 x wha \y 7 16 New Hampshire March 1940-February 1941 $200 1, 4.2 16 New Jersey January-December 1940 16x wha le 2.7 16 Oklahoma | April-December 1940 16 x wha Me 2.7 16 Oregon | January-December 1940 $200 le 3.3 16 Texas | April 1940-March 1941 16 x wha Ly 3.2 16 Utah July 1939-June 1940 30-34 x wha 1 4 16 Benefits limited to or less of 2 years’ earnings Florida | July-December 1940 ? 30 x wha he ; 16 Pennsylvania January-December 1940 13 x wba ' 1.6 13 Benefits limited to varying percentage of 1 year’s earnings California February-November 1940 $156 Schedule i » Virginia April 1940-March 1941 25 x wha Schedule f 16 W ba denotes weekly benefit amount ? For the claimants studied, the base period was 15-18 months

6 Social Security

iximum tential iration ultiple wha ')

were selected because they prepared usable reports of duration data for claimants whose benefit years ended during this period. During 1939 most State legislatures revised the benefit provisions of their memployment compensation laws; since these provisions affected claimants with benefit years ending in 1940, many States were unable to sub- mit reports which reflected experience under a single set of benefit provisions. Although these 97 States are not representative of the country as a whole, their statutes contain examples of the major types of duration provisions. Furthermore, 73 percent of the $519 million paid in benefits during 1940 was paid by these States, and they included approximately 68 percent of the 34 mil- lion workers who earned wages in covered employ- ment during that year. It is apparent that an analysis of the duration experience of claimants in these 27 States covers the experience of a signifi- cant portion of all claimants in the country, although this experience is not necessarily com- parable to that of claimants in States not included.

Economic Influences

The industrial composition of a State affects duration statistics. For example, in States where highly unstable industries account for a relatively large portion of the covered employment, bene- ficiaries may, in general, experience more weeks of unemployment during the year than will claim- ants in States with more stable industries. There are, however, certain factors in the benefit for- mula which tend to reduce differences attribut- able to economic variations. On the one hand, the maximum limitation placed on benefit dura- tion restricts the extent to which high wage levels and regular employment can raise potential benefit rights under the variable-duration laws. These upper limits are so low in relation to the prevailing earnings experience of covered workers inmost States that the full effect of differing wage levels and regularity of employment is not reflected in statistics on potential duration. In addition, eligibility requirements eliminate work- ers with very low earnings, thus setting a lower limit to potential benefit rights under laws pro- viding variable duration. The range between these upper and lower limits is not great when compared with the variations in earnings of daimants in each State.

The claimants studied for this analysis were

Bulletin, March 1942 449057—42——-2

receiving benefits during 1939, 1940, and the first 3 months of 1941—a period of improving business conditions and rising employment. In the latter part of 1940 and the first 3 months of 1941 the defense program stimulated employment at an increasing rate. Under these conditions the rate of reemployment of claimants can be expected to be relatively high and the percentage of claimants exhausting benefits relatively low, and benefit payments should extend over the entire period of unemployment of a large portion of the claimants. In a period of recession and depression, on the other hand, actual duration of benefits can be expected to approach potential duration as the rate of reemployment decreases, and under prevailing laws a larger proportion of the claimants will probably exhaust their benefit rights.

Duration Experience Under|Variable-Duration Provisions

Potential benefit duration.—Average potential duration in the 19 States with variable-duration provisions ranged from 9 weeks in Oklahoma to slightly more than 15 weeks in Minnesota during the period studied (table 2). Because the maxi- mum limit on benefit duration was comparatively low in relation to base-period earnings of eligible claimants, the bulk of the claimants tended to concentrate in the upper duration brackets; in 14 of these 19 States more than half of the claimants were entitled to 12 or more full weeks of benefits.

This concentration was particularly noticeable under the laws which permitted claimants to draw as much as one-third of their base-period earnings. Provisions of this type, when accompanied by a fairly stringent eligibility requirement, tend to resemble uniform-duration provisions in a period of favorable business conditions. With the excep- tion of the State of Washington, average potential duration for eligible claimants in these States was within 1 week of the maximum potential, and more than two-thirds of the claimants were en- titled to the maximum. High potential duration for claimants is not the result of a liberal benefit formula alone, but is also achieved by a stringent eligibility provision which denies benefits to claimants with low earnings records. The Wash- ington earnings requirement of $200 is easier to meet than the requirements in the other States. Two hundred dollars is 28.6 times $7, the mini-


Table 2.—Full weeks of potential benefits available to claimants, 19 States with variable-duration pro-

Average | Percent of total eligible claimants entitled number to— of = oa a weeks state available | 1 cg - to all than 4 4-7.9 8-11.9 | 12-15.9 weeks ;. Ht weeks weeks | weeks | weeks or more | Benefits limited to 4 of 1 year’s earnings Colorado... . ff) a aoe 10.2 20.6 69. 2 Minnesota_.... i) ak See 8.1 17.6 74.3 Nebraska_-._..- |) 7 Se “pee 10.8 21.1 68.1 New Mexico... | 2 Sates eee 9.5 21.6 68.9 orth Dakota ) | = San 10.0 21.0 69.0 Vermont.-___....... EAS eee 14.8 85. 2 eS ashington_ | | Saree | 8.6 20.6 16.7 54.1 ! | | | Benefits limited to 44 or less of 1 year’s earnings Mlinois._...._- 13.3) 10.1| 20.0) 23/ 43.6 Maryland....___ 14.3 |_..... 19} 186| 195| 60.0 New Hampshire ERO f..w 16.0 2.2) 43.5 12.3 New Jersey- 10.2) 55| 205) 265) 27.1 11.4 8) a 9.0 17.9 31.2 19.5 16.3 | 15.1 Oregon ........... 9.8 | 4.4 32.2 31.6 21.1 | 10.7 Texas......... 10.8 | 4.1 29.1; 2.1 18.4 | 25.3 Utah 3, i eas: © 36.2) 23.5) 40.3 Benefits limited to 4 or less of 2 years’ earnings Florida__._......... 10.2 | 34.4) 346/ 21.9 9.1 Pennsylvania..____- .4/) 48 | 95) 43/| 71.4 | | Benefits limited ts a varying percentage of 1 year’s earnings California il telah | en 16.1 29.4 22.3 | 32. 2 Virginia. ....._. omen 7 5.3 19.2 18.7 56.8

mum weekly benefit amount in that State, and only 13.3 times $15, the maximum weekly benefit amount. If the Washington law had required earnings equal to 30 times the weekly benefit amount, many claimants with short potential duration would have been ineligible, whereas those entitled to 16 weeks would not have been affected. Thus, although there would have been no increase in the number of claimants entitled to 16 weeks of benefits, they would have represented a larger percentage of the eligible group, and the average potential duration for eligible claimants would have been higher.

The eight States which limited benefits to one- fourth or less of earnings in 1 year provided shorter potential benefit duration, on the average, than the group discussed above (table 2). Only in Maryland was the average potential duration as high as that in any of the States in the first group. The Maryland average was higher than the average in Vermont and Washington. If the Vermont law had provided a 16-week maximum,

the Vermont average would probably have been higher, since more than three-fourths of the claimants in that State were entitled to the maximum of 14 weeks. The Maryland average may have been higher than that in Washington because of the higher eligibility requirement.

The relatively short average potential duration in this group of States is partly accounted for by the low minimum duration which resulted from the interrelation between the eligibility require- ment and the fraction of base-period earnings to which benefits were limited. In the first group of States, only Washington provided a minimum du- ration of less than 8 weeks, whereas the provisions in four States in the second group resulted in a minimum of less than 4 weeks, and only in Utah was the minimum as high as 8 weeks (table 1), The interrelation of these factors is shown in the following tabulation.

lp : ays |Fraction of Minimum

. ; Average

State | Earnings require- my potential potential

ment ! benefit. (duration? | duration | amount (full weeks) (full weeks) New Jersey 16x wha Ly 2.7 10.2 Oklahoma 16x wha le 2.7 9.0 Oregon. _. $200 Ly 3 9.8 Texas_. 16x wha Ls 3.2 10.8 Illinois_- 225 by 4. 13.3 Maryland 30 x wha by 7 14.3 New Hampshire $200 be H 12.0 Utah... 30-34 x wha hs 5 13.1

1 W ba denotes weekly benefit amount.

2 Results from interaction of eligibility and duration provisions except in Utah, where an 8-week statutory minimum was provided. Maximum po- tential duration was 16 weeks in each State.

The benefit formulas in the first four States pro- vided minimum benefit duration of less than 4 weeks, and in the other four States, more than 4 weeks. The first four States had, in general, lower eligibility requirements, although the requirements in Oregon and New Hampshire were the same.‘ Average potential duration was definitely shorter in the four States with low minimums.

Since weekly benefit amounts, as well as poten- tial duration, are related to prior earnings, claim- ants with high weekly or quarterly wages might be expected to have high annual wages. It would also be logical to expect that claimants with high weekly benefit amounts would have longer po- tential duration than claimants with low weekly benefit amounts, a tendency which is evident in virtually all duration data. In all but one of the variable-duration States studied, claimants with

4 Minimum duration was lower in Oregon than in New Hampshire because the Oregon law provided a higher minimum weekly benefit amount.

Social Security

——— a er CO

been the the rage rton

tion r by rom lire- 8 to p of du- ions na ‘tah

1). the

ver its




T_T ence



weekly benefit amounts of $15 or more had longer potential duration than did claimants with lower benefit amounts (table 3). Thus the lower-paid workers, who were presumably least able to cope with unemployment, were entitled to compensa- tion for only short periods.

Actual benefit duration.—Since the maximum duration under variable-duration provisions is comparatively low in relation to the prevailing earnings experience of workers in a period of favor- able employment conditions, data on potential duration of benefits minimize the effect of inter- state differences in wage levels and regularity of employment. This effect is shown by the con- centration of claimants at or near the maximum in most States. Data on actual duration of benefits are more responsive to such interstate differences. While the data on potential duration appeared to follow closely variations in benefit formulas during

Table 3.—Average full weeks of potential benefits avail- able to with specified weekly benefit amounts, 19 with variable-duration pro-

claimants States


Average number of full weeks available to claimants with weekly benefit amounts of—

State a ——— ers Lessthan| $5.00- | $10.00- | $15.00 or $5.00 9.99 | 14.99 more

Benefits limited to 4% of 1 year’s earnings

Colorado 14.8 | 15.1 | 15.6 Minnesota 14.8 15.4 15.7 Nebraska 14.9 15.1 15.4 New Mexico 14.1 14.9 15.3 15.6 North Dakota 14.7 15.3 15.6 Vermont 11.6 13.3 13. 6 13.4 Washington 12.4 12.3 14.7 Benefits limited to \ or less of 1 year’s

earnings Illinois 12.2 12.6 14.2 Maryland 13.8 14.8 15.4 New Hampshire 11.5 12.2 13.6 New Jersey 8.9 10.9 13.5 Oklahoma 1.3 7.8 10.5 12.5 Oregon 7.5 8.1 11.8 Texas. 9.9 12.4 13.5 Utah 12.2 12.9 14.2 Benefits limited to % or less of 2 years’ earnings Florida 7.7 9.7 10.6 | 12.3 Pennsylvania 10.0 | 12.0 | 12.6 Benefits limited to a varying percentage of 1 year’s earnings

California 10.7 12.8 16. 6 Virginia 11.2 14.0 5.0 15.3

Bulletin, March 1942

the period studied, data on actual duration showed less dependence on the terms of the benefit formula because the rate at which claimants became reem- ployed varied widely from State to State.® The average actual duration of benefits ranged from 6.3 full weeks in Oregon to 12.5 full weeks in North Dakota (table 4). There was a tendency for the average actual duration to be relatively long in States where potential duration was long, but there was no very definite correlation between actual and potential duration. Under six of the seven State laws which limited benefits to one-third of earnings, the ratio of average actual to average 5 Duration statistics derived from a uniform-duration formula are better adapted to measuring rates of reemployment than are statistics derived from a variable-duration formula. It has been found that, under variable-duration provisions, claimants entitled to low weekly benefit amounts and short potential duration are reemployed less rapidly than claimants with high weekly benefit amounts and long potential duration. Study of the reem- ployment experience of all claimants is restricted because adequate data are not available for claimants who exhausted their benefit rights, and claimants

can exhaust their rights under variable-duration provisions after drawing from 2 to 10 weeks of benefits.

Table 4.—Relationship between average actual and average potential duration, 19 States with variable- duration provisions

i Average duration | pean Ratio —_—__—_—_—____—_———| between (percent) . average of average Exhaus- State actual and | ‘actual to tion . , | average ratio ! Potential | Actual rotential average (percent) (weeks) | (weeks) | E : potential pe duration duration (weeks) Benefits limited to 4% of 1 year’s earnings Colorado 15.1 | 11.8 3.3 | 78.1 53.3 Minnesota 15.2 11.4 | 3.8 | 75.0 56.9 Nebraska 15.0 11.7 | 3.0 | 78.0 54.0 New Mexico | 15. 1 11.6 | 3.5 | 76.8 54.8 North Dakota 15.0 12.5 2.5 | 83.3 57.8 Vermont 13. 4 9.8 3.6 | 73.1 53.8 Washington 13.7 10. 2 3.5 74. 5 54.2

Benefits limited to \ or less of 1 year’s earnings

| Illinois 13.3 8.1 5.2 | 60.9 40.4 Maryland 14.3 9.1 5. 2 | 63. 6 41.9 New Hampshire 12.0 6.7 5.3 | 55. 8 36.9 New Jersey - - 10, 2 8.2 2.0 | 80. 4 66. 6 Oklahoma 9.0 7.4 | 1.6 82.2 73.8 Oregon 9.8 6.3 | 3. 5 | 64. 3 50.0 Texas 10.8 8.6 | 2.2 | 79. 6 66. 2 Utah 13. 1 9.3 | 3.8 71.0 50.7

Benefits limited to \% or less of 2 years’ earnings

| Florida 10. 2 8.1 | 2.1 | Pennsylvania 11.4 8.9 | 2.5 |

hho “eo

9.4 73,