Federal Grants to State and Local Governments, 1967-68

FEDERAL GRANTS to the States and localities continued their upward trend during fiscal year 1967-68 and reached an all-time peak of $18.1 billion. About 69 percent of all grants ($12.5 billion) went for programs of a social welfare nature. In the preceding fiscal year the grants t,otaled $14.8 billion, of which $9.9 billion (67 percent) were for social welfare purposes. In both years about half of the total grants were administered by the Department of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare. Table 1 shows the 1967-68 grants by State and by purpose.

(The data presented here differ slightly from the grants as published in the Statistical Appendix to the 1968 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury. Two additions t,o that report are not reflected here: $65,431,000 undistributed to States for the community action program (miscellaneous social welfare, economic opportunity) an d $11,375,000 to the District of Columbia for a sewer project (miscellaneous) .)

Grants-in-aid are but one of the Federal fiscal aids to State and local governments, although quantitatively they are the most signifiicant. Federal grants are also made to other types of recipients (individuals and institutions, pri- marily), but those made to the lower government levels are, again quantatively, the most significant.

The scope of the grant data in the accompany- ing tables is confined to grants for cooperative Federal-State or Federal-local programs admin- istered at the State and/or local level and to those programs in which the bulk of the funds is channeled through agencies of State and local governments. Emergency grants and the value of grants-in-kind, such as surplus foods distributed domestically or Braille materials for the blind, are included when they conform to these criteria. Programs in which the States or localities are acting solely as agents of the Federal Government are excluded, as are shared revenues and payments in lieu of taxes.

* Office of Research and Statistics, Division of Econ- omic and Long-Range Studies. The author was assisted with the preparation of the statistical data by Alice Skinner.

BULLETII’J, AUGUST 1969

by SOPHIE R. DALES*

REVISION OF HISTORICAL GRANTS SERIES

The revision of the grants series that was described in last year’s article1 has now been completed for the historical data, and the entire series, 1929-30 through 1967-68, is presented in t,he new groupings in table 2. With the few unavoidable exceptions described in t,he preceding art,icle, the grants series is now in conformity with the revised social welfare expenditure series presented annually by the Social Security Administration.2

For all years before 1948, the revised grants totals agree exactly with the pre-revision totals. From 194748 through 1967-68, total grants and the education group are higher than they were before by the amount of the annual grants for on-the-job training of veterans, previously omitted from the series. The largest amount involved is $5.3 million for 194748, with the figure decreas- ing gradually to less than $1.0 million from 1962-63 on.

Federal grants to the States and localities are composed, basically, of grants for two major purposes-social welfare and highways. Over the years-as nntioual needs have developed, been identified, changed, and received different legis- lative emphasis and as different Federal financing philosophies have evolved-the proportion of total Federal grants devoted to each of these two main grant groups has changed to correspond. The accompanying chart shows the fluctuations in the proportion of total grants attributable to social welfare programs and the proportion attributable to highways (from 1933-34 through

1 Sophie R. I)ales, “Federal Grants to State and I~ocal Governments, lRBCMY7,” Sofia1 Bcrurity Bulktin, July 1068, pages ‘3-15.

2 Social Wclfnrc E.cpcnditzlrcs Under Public Programs in iltc Ijnitrd Ktatrs, 192946, Office of Research and Statistics (Research Report Xo. 25), and SociaZ Security I~uZZctin, December 1968, pages 14-27. Social welfare, as defined in Research Report So. 25 and in the annual BuZZtti~a articles, is limited to those activities that directly concern the economic and social well-being of individuals and families. Sot included in this concept are ln-ogranis aimed at the general welfare of the population and only indirectly affecting the welfare of the individual.

15

TABLE l.-Federal grants to State and local governments,

[Amounts in thousands]

social welfare - -

-

.-

3

Total r 3x- ‘ent 1 all ants

.mount

.318.647 29.4 w3,809

286.269 29.7 -

814.918

,9.$,;~

481744 216,478 931,252

9,107 ““y&

7:184 84,89?J

34.6 10.0 20.6 27.8 51 .o 17.5 43.8

4.3 10.9 20.0

it?:! 23.1

2:: 26.3 22.1 12.8

%i 2:732

12,181

24.5

2:: 28.8

2

;:;

12:8 30.4

6.5

2: 17.2

:“2:: 29.8

I%i 13: 748 8,778

%E 121:655

4,105

%z 12:495 35,432 25.112

271.584

‘%G 21:.573

%% 14:52! 17.651 31,08!

:i% 83:sn

106,2li 77,01: 45.78:

lO$*$

07: 7s; 54.52(

25.c 15.t 25.1 44.f 17.8 15.: 22.: 19.:

ii:1 21.:

2.t 19:1 27.1 13.1 27.! 19.’

‘7% 4:oli 8.19:

;.::

2:07: 6.M

21.271 15.01

iti! 18:581

6,12 1;,6$

10: 70 10.45

31 *if

54i

24.8 2.: 1.:

Health Education

States ranked by 1-7 sverage

Total

COtl- truction

---

$377.676 -c_

365,366

125,173 3,736 3,937 8,483

17.065 3.3J8

12.23J 247

3,595 i,66Ll 7.572

12.8J6 8.737 U,178 4,766 3.704

13,281 3,961

122 ) 057 7,52U

liJ,3A 4,152 9.183 8,635 8,362 4,184 3,501 ;,g

3'373 L1:57a ;,g

9:38i 5,848

18.424

118,13( 7.6X 3.31i

10,12! 3,81!

f.2

1o:oe: 6,801

1;::

7:39! 3.79:

10 ) 13! ;,g

4:23l

6,92!

-.

All grants ’ Total perca its

personal ncome P

‘FIT- ant I all ants _-

38.9

‘er- ent r ~11 ants

‘er- ent I all ants

15.4 - 15.1 -

12.6 17.0 1’2.6 14.3

8.7 19.2 11.7 18.3 15.6 16.3

:;:i 15.0 22.7 24.1 13.4 13.0 13.8

16.6 12.7 13.3

:::4’ 14.8 13.0 18.7 21.2 113.6 16.3 14.0 2J.9 14.7 11.8 24.0 18.0 17.3

18.5

:t:: 16.2

E 18:l 24.7 17.8 12.5 23.0 17.0

:83:: 18.7

z: 18:l

3.3

81.C

lervices

6490,333

e

-

-

.-

imount

Total * .._..._.. 8.096,091 1.459,599

United States a- _ _ _ 7.806.822 --

1.198.024

4.6 -- 4.6

--

4.5 7.8 3.9 4.8 4.3 4.2 3.4 1.8 4.1 2.9 6.3 5.8 4.5

i::

::t 5.2

5.1 5.6 4.7 4.0 7.0 4.7

94.64 4:s 5.3 5.5 2.8 5.8 3.3

:*: 417 4.2

$346,476 ---

334.528 -__

136,791 3.125 2,392

14,168 23,271

503 27,355

740 1,100 4,24J7 9,106

I?.461

xi: ‘864

1,859 15,708

7,656

88,581 2.41( 2,286 3,54! 1.81: 1,59:

a3

!I:

14:05! 7.05: y&

fj:g

6:89: 6,024

,781.316

51,002 “*OpQ~

66:166 42$8f3

589:300

i2E al:364

105,585

129.06 lb.27 50.17

59.7 17.6

5:;

5614 73.0 35.7 45.8

2;

59.5

2:: 61.8

.E::

64.9 63.5 73.1 67.9 70.1

2:; 68.0

2 71.7

ii::

% 57:1 59.7 68.9

244,614 10,771

6,922 23,494 34,851

1,597 411.978

1,WS 1,541 7,974

;$f

7:054 13 ) 13’ 3.831 2.94:

1pJcQ

142,0% 28,lUi

7,63! 4,731

10,981 ;.3g

4:1x 5,92:

I:% 1:05:

‘% 2:271

:% 19: 73

93.75 4,lS 1,72 4,85 13 1,21 1.43 3,lO

12.61 6.01

12.02 7.67 9.39 ;.8$

22 4:41

8,37 64

1.41

.694,144 .328,778

949,248

;;$j;

l&i, “% 141,3z

6,65Z

“4% 6:751

fy$

5&97C 35,91f .54,63: 14,86z 10,41f 76,671 34.90:

702,711 104,27(

28.65: 34.18 34.07: 16,7W

%I? 31:95!

6,941 55 42

5:45l 73.841 10.411 4.98

x,08 29.12

138,471

676.82 16.10 10.93 43.48 10,13 15.25

9,91

;g

78:02 62.21 w.23 27.07 58.16 49.94 42.93 46,69

4.28 . . . _

33.71

5,947,302 120,308 129.343 533,646

202,451 49.390 &5,249

413,996 138,899

212,781 82,965

113,29f 32.612

,074,420 &I,341 29,651

111.573 159,29;1

9,963 237,548

18.189 10,346 69.079 M.640

z2 63:813 10,629 14.120

%z

Fd4,767 111,796

%z 43:256 25,425 46,868 22,767 35,456 10,340

“El 8P:427 14,li3 8,567

83.491 34,973

156.893

4.284 _. _. . .

40.635

gWlp.. ._ . . . D.C.. ._......_ _._ COML . ._ _. . . -. Ill___........_.. _-. N.Y _....._....__._ Del. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Calit.. _. ._ _. Alaska _..._. ..__. NfJVadS.. . . . . . NJ-. ._. . . . . Mass ____ _....._.. Micb- _ _ _ _ - Wash.. _ _ _ _. . Md-. ._. _ . Hawaii.-. _ .__. _. R.I____....... ._... Ohio..- _. . Ind ____..__.._.._..

grlXlp. . _ _ _ _ _ -. Pa. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . WiS .._. . . ._. . . Iowa... _ _ _ _ _ Cola.. _. . Oreg. _ _ _ _ _ . MiIUL.. . . ._ -. Nebr-............ Kans- _ __ . _. N.H. ._ ._ _ _. . Moe.. _ ._ _. wyo _...... ~. . . . . . F1a.m............. Mont.. ._ _. ._- vt.. _ ._ . . . _ -. Va.. ._ _ _ _ _. Ariz. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- Texas.-. _ _ _ _ .

Utah--.. ____..... Maine. _ _. _ _. - Okla... __ __. _. . Idaho.. _ _ _ 6. Dak ____.._._... N. Dak ______..... N. Mex ___.__...-. Oa... _ _ _ _ _ . La. _ _ _. . . . -. N.C __.__._....... Ky- _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ . - Term- _. _. _._._... w. Va.. ._ . . Ala-. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -. 8.C ____..._._..... Ark-.-. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ - Miss _._._. _ _._....

Outlying areas: P.R ____._..___. V.I_-...._..._-. OthW.. . __. __. -.

1 See footnotes to table 2 for programs in each group of grants. ‘Includes a small amount undistributed, grants to the outlying areas.

listed, and grants under a few programs to American Samoa, the Canal Zone and the Trust Territory of the Pa&c Islands.

194546, to highways and other public works). the fluctuations between these two major grant Comparison of the two curves discloses that one purposes, as well as the degree to which the two is almost an exact reverse image of the other, groups dominate the Federal grants picture. thus clearly displaying the reciprocal nature of The chart is based on percentages shown in table 2.

16 SOCIAL SECURITY

amounta and percent of total grants, by purpose, fiscal year 1967-68 [Amounts in thousands]

T- Highways

Social welfare-CVmtinwd

Miscellaneous social welfare

States ranked by 1965-67 sverage

per c5 its personal ncome P

Lg%ctw nstural

resources

~-

$139,961

146,313

- I Total

MiSCd- 1SlleOUS

--

$547,543

636.169

ZE

s651.500 --

647,090

‘2%” grants

Economic pportunity

$1,357,519

1332,684

Other

9,1wm 2.069,999

Amount

$4.197.489 -___

4.185,226

Amount

__-

$3,522,8Z7 19.6 rota1.

United States. 3,402,693 19.1

1,535,598 58,349 41,634

167,934 329,647

8,637

3% 10:002

lOl,OC4 86,923

113.668 5&g

12:153 18.560

137.956 49,525

927.723 X3.234

64.787 39,178

E:E xii 23:658 11,003 7i.53;

88:925 13,R97

8,641 yg

59:349

S3$3A

14:ew 52.366 10.388 14,873 ll,S21

$:E

5%

“d% 84:12f 65.542

1~:~

69,lOl 2,02! 3.08:

18.0

:Ki 21:5 18.1

:4”::

18.7

Yi;: 17:8 18.0 18.4 16.6

::4 17:e 19.4 10.6 22.6 14.4

21 .a

:::i

:t: 15:s 15s 18.i 21.4 IS.! 25.2 19.;

itI xi1 27.4 20.: 37.1

$1 6.1

6.193 3,729

23.977 27,805 67,710

38;,g

6:57: 19,7%

3,374

n,B& 32!

1,811

950,106 g*5$

105:704 267,161

5,252 169,701

2% 63:146 54,413 71,918 g,g

8:832 12,396

6.2‘3’3

32%

‘%% 70:534

191, SS7 206,008

18,395 428,657

xii 115:3m

74,695 l;$,F;

533819 23,859 29,919

%:Z

1.348,137 217,307

57,S68 53,291

ii:% 1;: I ;;

37:338 21,591 82,571 39,0@ 80,772 48.w 33,25f

111,81: 68,Oli

226,571

“Ei 2O:Sli y&J

37:38( 2S,lW 44,5w 88,06 81,39 58,62!

;:E

72:6@ 41.56 42,48’ 40,85!

27.1

TS :;

:.I

33:2 25.1

29 Xl:; 61.1

% 45:; 33.: 36.1 25.1

22.;

g:;

14.: 39.: 40.1 30.’

5::

14.1 24.1 25.: 30.1 19.’ 20.

2.: .,

7.

398,963 6,736

n.883 24,288 76,552

63$:g

2:372 31.233 48,451 27,562

8,503 10,950

3,197

4?% 11:035

169,266 fJy$

8:14i 1,61! 3,a

10,78f 7n

E 17:m

88J3.S

4,!! 7.m 1.w

121

1.Z 12.13:

2.13 12,55 14.13 l&S4

I,31 ‘3738

97 6.32 1.75

2,61 2

35,%

:*is 3:;g

6,245 2,;;

1,305 1,760 2,697 2,367 1,959 1,470

412 yg

31

1’:

%% 6:578

27,425 40.305

1.741

~*~~ a:17s WW

11,198 14.679 12,404 1z.46;

7:Ixx 25.218

7-m

134.74! 38.17$

Be’;

6:3; 4,971

14,61; 4.48: fg

10:76l 1,171

12,131 4.43’ 3,05!

22.401 5,71!

m,m?:

187,14 5.38 3.73 7,18

:z 2:45 6,5CI

15.64 16,75 20.42

ix 19:n 12.38

7,98 11,50 10.55

22.4 4.2

Aigh-income group. District of Columbia. Connecticut. fllinois. New York. Delaware. Iplifotl’R.

New& New Jersey. Massachusetts. Michigan. Washington.

p$&nd.

Rhode Island. Ohio. Indiana.

Middle-income group. Pennsylvania. Wisconsin. Iowa. ggop.

~bgxgg5.

Kansas. New Hampshire. Missouri. Wyoming. Florida. Montana. Vermont. Virginia. Arizona. T0X5S.

~m&ucome group.

Maine. ;dy;8yms.

South Dakota. North Da$Ota. Ne~awgy*fXIco.

Louisiana. North Carolina. Kentucky. Tennessee. West Virginia. Alabama. South Carolina. Arkansas. Mississippi.

Outlying areas. Puerto Rico. Virgin Islands. 0 ther.

Source: Annual Re Finant.? for the f

ort of the Secretary of the lbmw~ on the St& of the Fitm Year Ended June 300, 1058.

* Includes a small amount of undistributed sums.

In the a-year period immediately preceding percent in 1933-34 and 1.4 percent in 1934-35. passage of the Social Security Act in August At that time the only social welfare grants of 1935, social welfare grants as a proportion of all consequence were being made for education: $22 Federal grants were at their all-time low-l.3 million of the $24 million social welfare total in

BULLETIN, AUGUST 1969 I7

TABLE 2.-Federal grants to State and local governments, total amount, by purpose, fiscal years 1929-30 to 1967-68 [Amounts in millions]

Socisl welfare

Health 8

- - I

Highways 0

Total Public assistant t Education 1 Miscellaneous

social welfare s All ther ’

$1

i 2

1,557 1,893

684 247 178 393 272 120

74 126 138 130

if74 33 64 53 Xl .!I6 83 74 97 85

133 1x1 251

z 385 477 778 941

2: 1,439

Fiscal year All

grants 1 ---

moun moun ‘ercent of all :rsnts

_ .-- ‘ercent of all :rants

-_-

mount

? 2

; 3

ii 86

134 187 156 139 94 99

108 133 560 335 295 402 350 333 400 519

FE: 848 816 897 896

1,083 1,348 1,24e 1,5Oi 1,54X 2,147 2,864 3,522

‘ercent of all :rants --

1.3

:“8 .9

:: 3.7 4.4

10.8 13.0 19.4 17.0 15.0

9.5 10.1 11.7 15.7 36.2 21.2 16.0 18.2 15.5 14.3 14.6 17.6 18.1 2l.E 21.f 17.c 14.: 13.1 15.c 17.: 15.c 15.4 14.i 17.: 19.1 19.:

0 - _-

‘A

_-

/

, ,

1 I

i

I

;

i

- P

?

‘ercent of all grants

‘ercent of all :rants

%!rcent OI all

ermts _ .--

75.5 85.2 87.1 86.0 12.3 12.F, 22.1 41.6 31.2 16.6 17.0 18.7 17.1 17.6 14.7

9.5 8.8

12.8 20.2 22.3 19.4 17.8 18.0 18.8 13.2 19.3 21.5 24.3 .11.7 41.4 43.0 37.9 36.1 36.3 37.3 37.8 31.8 27.1 23.2

II F t

I mount

- 1929-30. .._. ........... 193031.. __. ........... 1931-32 .._. ..... _ ......

“E 214

l,E 2,197 1,015

818 790

1,031 967 915

iti 983 917

1% 1,581 1,840 2,212 2,253 2,329 2,759 2,958

xz 3:936 4,794 6,316 6,838 6,921 7.703 “g,$

10:630 12,519 14,820 18.096

% ii 2

107 230 365 446 531 624

%

% 701

1,302 1,229 1,366 1,731 1.802 1,554 2,162 ;.3$

2:615 2,848 3,095 3,450 3.610 3,950 4,.535 4,825 5,352 5,671 7,634 9,85F

12.46(

23.2 13.9 12.1

% 1:3

10.5 28.1 46.2 43.2 54.9 68.2 74.9 69.7

:z 83:1 84.1 77.8 74.2 78.2

;t:

::.i 77.6

:s 64:6 -54.f 52.t 57.1 58.1

2:: 53.4 61.c 66.: 68.5

$10 (8) $iS 24 23 22

:

ii 50 51

113 151 171 136 103

ii 120

76 82 93

156 259 248 ‘296 276

z 376 441 460 491 558 579 705

1,595 ;,;;y

21.8 13.1 11.3 12.3

1.2 1.2 3.6 4.6 6.1 4.8 5.2

12.3 16.3 17.2 13.8 11.3

6.8 4.2 7.6 4.2 3.7 4.1 6.7 9.4 8.4 9.6 8.0 7.1 6.4

E 6.6 6.4 6.7 5.9 6.6

12.7 16.0 15.4

% 186 163 222 275 224 341 247 192 165 171 158 174 144

67 75

199 318 410 429 400 420 517 538 597 740 955

1,519 2,614 2,942 2,623 2.783 3,023 3,644 4,018 3,975 4,021 4,197

0.4 1.6 1.9 1.4 2.3 2.8 3.1 3.1 6.1 8.6 8.4

?: 3:6 5.6 7.7 8.0 6.3 4.7 3.E 3.s 4.1 3.7

2.( 3.c 4.f

::: 216 247 271 330

2

E 439 614 718 928

1,123 1,186 1.178 1.330 1,438 1,427 1,455 1,556 1,795 1.966 2,059 2,167 2,432 2,730 2,944 3,059 3,528 4,175 5,319

2.8 17.6 27.3 24.0 28.0 36.0 40.4 39.9 41.2 44.7 52.0

iit:: 5b.4 50.8 52.6 50.6 48.2 48.6 46.1 42.3 39.6 37.4 31.1 30.1 31.3 31.6 32.8 30.1 28.8 28.2 28.2 29.4

4 13 15

ii 26

f i 60 79

74

ii”7 123 174 187 173 140 119 133 162 176 211 214 240 263

r

2; 34f

E 83F

1932-U. _ _ ......... _ .. 1933-34 .. _ _ .......... 1934.35 .. ._ ..... _ ...... 193596 ____ _ _ _ _ . 1936-37 ................ 1937-38 __._. ........... 1938-39 .. ._ .... _. _. ... 1939-46. .. . ............ 194041_ .._ ............ 1941-42. .._. ........... 194243 ._._ ............ 194344 -............... 1944-45...- ............ 1945-16 ................ 194647 __._. .... _. ..... 194748 ... _ ............ 194849. ............... lS49-50. ............... lR.m-51.. .............. 1951-52..--..~ ......... 1952-53 ._._. .. _ ........ 1953-54...-........~~ .. 1954-55. ___ ............ 195566 .___ ..... _ ...... 1956-57...- ............ 1957~-58 ................ 19~59 ................ 1958-60 ................ 1960-61.___. ........... 1961-62...-. ........... 1962G3 __._ ............ 1963~4 ................ 1964-65. .__ ............ 1965-66...- ............ 1966-67 . ..-...-......-- 1967-68 . .._. ...........

1 On checks-issued basis for most programs; includes small amounts to American Samoa, Canal Zone, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

distrihntion to State accounts in unemployment insurnnce trust f,md of certain tax collections. 1955-56 to 1957-58; W bite House Conference on Aging, 1959-69 to 196&61; Federal sbare of value of food stamps redeemed, 1961 62 to date; manpower development. 1962-63 to date; housing demonstration. 1963-64 and 1964-65; economic oppcrtunity programs’ work experience. corn- rnnnity action, and Neighborhood Youth Corps, 1964-65 to date; adult train- ing and development, and veterans’ nursing homes, 1966-67 to date.

6 Coonerative construction of rural uost roads. 1929-30 to 1939-40: Federal- aid highways (regular and emergency, prewar and postwar) and trust fund activities, restoration of roads and bridges, flood relief, secondary and feeder roads, grade-crossing elimination, 1930-31 to date; National Industrial Rc- covery Act highway activities, 1933-34 to 1943-44. 194f-47 to 1948-49, and 195+51; emergency relief activities, 1935-36 to 1943-44 and 194647 to 1951-52; access roads, flight strips, strategic highway network. 1941-42 to 1956-57 and 1958-59; public land highways, 194243 to date; payment of claims, 1945-46 to 1951-52; war damage in Hawaii, 1947-48 to 1955-56: reimbursement of District of Columbia highway fund. 1954-55 and 1957-58; forest highways, 1957-58 to date; Appalachia highways, 1965-66 to date; and beantificat,ion and control of outdoor advertising, highway safety, and landscaping and scenic enhance- ment, 1966-67 to date.

2 Old-age assistance, aid to families with dependent children, and aid to the blind, 1935-36 to date; .aid to the permanently and totally disabled, 19.51-51 tp date; medical assistance for the aged, 1960-61 to date; aid to the ;Ftlt;lmd. or disabled, 1963-64 to date; and medxal assistance, 1965-66

3 Promotion of welfare and hygiene of maternity and infancy, 1929-30; maternal and child health services, services for crippled children, and general public health services, 1935-36 to date; venereal disease control, 1940-41 to date: emergency maternity and infant care. 194243 to 1948-49 and 19M51; construction of community facilities, 1944-45 and 1953-54 to 1955-56; tnber- cnlosis control, 1844-45 to date; mental health activities, cancer control, and hospital survey and construction, 1947-48 to date: heart disease control, 1949-N to date; construction of heart disease research facilities and industrial waste studies, 1948-50 to 1952-53; construction of cancer research facilities. 194%50 to 1953-M; emergency poliomyelitis vaccination, 1955-56 to 1960-61; water pollution control (sanitary engineering, environmental health activi- ties), health research construction, 1956-57 to date; chronic diseases and health of the aged, 196-62 to date; radiological health, 196263 to date; vac- cination assistance, 1863-64; dental services, 1964-65 to date; nursing services, 1X5-66 to date; medical care services, 106647; comprehensive health plan- ning and services, and regional medical services, 1967-68.

4 Colleges for agriculture and mechanic arts. vocational education, eduea- tion of blind, cooperative State research service (agricultural experiment stations), agricultural extension work, State marine schools, 1929-30 to date; education emergency grants, 1935-36 to 194041; training of defense workers, lS40-41 to 1945-56; maintenance of schools, 1946-47 to date; veterans’ ednca- tion facilities, 194748 to 1949-50; survey and construction of schools, 1950-51 to date; White House Conference on Education, 19,5-55; defense education, 1958-59 to date; education of handicapped, 195S-6G to date; educational tele- vision and adult education, 1964-65 to date; elementary, secondary. and higher education and equal education opportunity, 1965-66 to date; Teacher Corps and health manpower education and utilization, 1967-68.

5 Vocational rehabilitation and State homes for disabled servicemen, 1929-30 to date; employment service administration 1933-34 to 1942-43 and 194647 to date; child welfare services and unemployment insurance adminis- tration under the Social Security Act and removal of surplus agricultural commodities under Act of Aug. 24, 1935 (sec. 32), 193536 to date; school lunch and Federal annual contributions to public housing antborities, 193% 40 to date; community war-service day care, 1942433; veterans’ re-use housing, 1946-47 to 1851-51; administration of veterans’ unemployment and self- employment allowances, 194748 to 1952-53; veterans’ on-the-job training, 184748 to date; commodities furnished by Commodity Credit Corporation, 1%4+59 to date; defense public housing, 1953-54; schoo! milk, 1954-55 to date;

7 Forestry cooperation including watershed protection and flood preven- tion, 192%30 to date; Civil Works Administration, 1933-34; Federal Emer- gency Relief Administration. 1933-34 to 1937-38; Federal Emergency Ad- ministration of Public Works, 1933-34 to 1939-40; Reclamation Service (emergency), 1935-36; wildlife restoration, 1938-39 to date; war public works, 194142 to 194344; Public Works Administration, 194142 to 194+50; farm labor supply, 194243 to 194849; community facilities and defense com- munity facilities, 194445 to 1948-49, 1952-53, and 1954-55 to 1958-59; public works advance planning, 1946-47 to 194849; Federal airport program. 194i- 48 to date; cooperative marketing project and disaster, drought, and other emergency relief, 1948-49 to date; civil defense, 1951-52 to date; slum clear- ance, 1952-53 to 1954-55; urban planning and renewal, 1955-56 to date; library services and waste-treatment-works construction, 1956-57 to date; Nation&I Science Foundation installations, 1957-B; small business management re- search, 1958-59 to 196465; area redevelopment assistance and accelerated public works, 1962-63 to date; open space tand, 1963-64 to date; urban mass transportation, water resources research, commercial fisheries research, arts and humanities, law enforcement, State technical services of Commerce Depart.ment, and rurat water and waste disposal, 1965-66 to date; economic develooment facilities. Aunslschian assistance. and technical and commn- nity a&stance, 196G6? t,ddate; model cities, mkat inspection, and economic development planning, 19674.

8 Less than 0.05 percent. Source: Annual Reports o/the Secretary o/the Tnmury, Combined Statement

of Receinte. Emexditzrres nnd Hnlancea of the United States Governntent. and rigency iep&ts.-

18 SOCIAL SECURITY

Federal grants for highways1 and for social welfare as a percent of all grants

Percent of Total

70

60

50

40

30

2C

1c

0

100

90

60

70

60

50

41

3l

21

11

I

SOCIAL WELFARE -

3 ‘35 '40 '45 '50 '55 '60 '65

HIGHWAYS

’ For 193446, data include public works.

Education grants have followed a somewhat similar pattern. Their increasing and decreasing proportion of the grants total, however, has been determined more by the rise and fall of the proportion spent for other purposes since their dollar total from 1949-50 on has been almost steadily on the rise. The increases have been especially notable since the Federal Government began to participate financially in the construction and operation of elementary and secondary schools and, more recently, in the area of higher education. At their two lowest points after passage of the Social Security Act-1935-36 and 1949-50-education grants represented 3.6 and 3.7 percent, respectively, of all grants. In the earlier year (the first with public assistance

BULLETIN, AUGUST 1969 19

1933-34 and $26 million of the following year’s total of $28 million. They were at their peak proportion in the first 2 years after World War II, when they accounted for 83.1 percent in 1945 46 and 84.1 percent in 1946-47. In the first of these years, public assistance grants of $439 mil- lion made up 63 percent of social welfare grants. In the following year, although public assistance grants had increased 40 percent, they then com- prised only 47 percent of all social welfare grants, which had been augmented by $357 million for veterans’ housing.

From this peak of prominence the social wel- fare grants rapidly descended to about 75-80 per- cent of all Federal grants where they remained, more or less, for the next decade. Their decline in relative importance continued throughout the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, with a low for that period of 52.5 percent in 1959-60. By 1966-67 and 1967-68, they rose gradually to more than two-thirds of all Federal grants.

The component grant groups of the social wel- fare total-public assistance, health, education, and miscellaneous social welfare programs-are also shown in table 2. From the second year of their existence (193637), the public assistance grants have dominated the social welfare group. For several years immediately before and after 1950 they comprised more than half of all grants and about two-thirds of all grants for social welfare. Grants for health purposes have shown sizable increases in dollar amounts since these grants were initiated. They have never repre- sented as much as 10 percent of all grants, how- ever, and relatively rarely as much as 5 percent.

grants) that level represented more than one-third of social welfare grants, but it reprednted only one-twentieth of the social welfare total in 1949-50.

The group of miscellaneous social welfare grants has long been dominated by and subject to the annual fluctuations of the several domestic food distribution programs. In 1939-40 this group accounted for almost 20 percent of total grants and more than a third of the social welfare grants. A decade later it represented only one percentage point less in relation to all grants but had dropped to between one-fourth and one-fifth of social welfare grants. Within the past few years, grants under economic opportunity legisla- tion have more than made up for the gradual exhaustion of these agricultural surpluses.

The foregoing discussion has been cast in the framework of the proportion of total grants and of social welfare grants rather than in terms of dollar amounts. With continual increase in pop- ulation and progressive erosion of the value of money it is not possible to make meaningful statements about program growth by reference to increases in the amount of current dollars expended. Each year’s grants article has carried per capita grants expenditures for the current year, and comparisons have been made with the immediately preceding year. Sometime in the future, staff time may become available to subject the entire revised series to similar treatment and also to recast the current dollar historical series into constant dollars.

GRANTS IN FISCAL YEAR 1967-68

The most recent half-decade has witnessed an expansion of the rate of increase in the amount of grants for all purposes that is about double their growth in the immediately preceding 5 years. Grants in 1967-68, at $18.1 billion, were 22 percent more than in 1966-67. This $18.1 billion was 85 percent more than the total of $9.8 billion in 1963-64, which in its turn was only 43 percent higher than the total in 1959-60 ($6.8 billion).

The growth of social welfare grants during the same time span is even more spectacular: The $12.5 billion granted for social welfare purposes in 1967-68 represented ‘a 26-percent increase from the preceding year and a rise of 133 percent from

the 1963-64 total ; growth in the preceding 4 years was only 48 percent.

Several factors contributed to the most recent annual increase in the social welfare grants total. Public assistance grants of $5.3 billion were 27 percent higher than they were in the preceding year. They accounted for 43 percent of social welfare grants-about the same proportion as in 1966-67. The 1967-68 rise is attributable largely to the maturing of the medical assistance program (Medicaid) : All States, or almost all, have now initiated Medicaid programs, which accounted for three-fifths of the $1.1 million increase in assistance grants.

Grants for health services and construction, at $837 million, rose 86 percent from their 1966- 67 total. Since they form one of the smallest groups (dollarwise), their relative increase-from 5 percent of social welfare grants in 1966-67 to 7 percent in 1967-68-is not startingly noticable. The substantial growth in mental health grants, which went from less than $7 million in 1966-67 to more than $175 million the following year, accounts for the largest part of the increase.

Health grants now run close to five times their total a decade ago. Introduction of two new health grant programs in 1967-68 helped swell t,he total: $55 million was disbursed for a new program of comprehensive health planning and services, and grants of $21 million initiated a regional medical services program.

Grants for education services and construction totaled $2.8 billion in 1967-68 and were 22 percent of the social welfare grants of that year. They were 17 percent higher than in the preceding year but formed about the same relative proportion of the total. Two new grant programs were added to the education group in 1967-68: $16 million went for a Teacher Corps program and $33 million for health manpower education and utilization.

The miscellaneous social welfare grants in- creased 23 percent in 1967-68 to $3.5 billion. In 1966-67 and 1967-68 these grants represented about two-sevenths of social welfare grants. Eco- nomic opportunity grants of $1.4 billion (exclud- ing those for education programs, which are listed with the other education grants) were 29 percent higher in 1967-68 than in the preceding year; they represented about two-fifths of the miscellaneous social welfare group.

20 SOCIAL SECURITY

The remaining grants-the non-social-welfare grants-accounted for somewhat less than one- third of all 1967-68 grants, and totaled $5.6 billion, as follows : Highways, $4.2 billion, about 4 percent more than 1966-67; urban affairs, $651 million, a 42-percent increase ; agriculture and natural resources, $140 million, up 8 percent ; and a general miscellany amounting to $648 million. New programs among the last three groups- which are combined into an “all other” group in presenting per capita and historical data- include grants for model cities, meat inspection, and economic development planning.

Tentatively, the multipurpose model cities pro- gram has been classified with the urban affairs group outside the social welfare orbit, since the $1.6 million granted in 1967-68 was largely for planning purposes. A change in classification may be necessary in future years, depending on the extent to which model cities grants become iden- tifiable as serving social welfare purposes, accord- ing to the present definition.

RELATION TO OTHER INDICATORS

Grants per capita are presented in table 3. Exactly $90 of Federal grants was received during 1967-68 for every man, woman, and child in the United States, an increase of $16.03 per person from the national average grant of 1966-67. As in table 1, the States are classified in three income groups by ranking the per capita personal income received in each State. Within each income group the States vary widely in the per capita receipt of Federal grants. States with low population density benefit from the minimum allotment pro- visions in certain of the grant formulas, particu- larly that for highway construction.

States that spend a great deal from their own resources for federally aided programs tend to receive more than the national average, whatever their income level. It might be expected that, as a result of the equalization aspects of many grant programs, the poor States would receive the largest per capita Federal grants and rich States the smallest. However, matching formulas built into several of these programs-particularly the Federal matching of State public assistance ex- penditures-result in relatively high Federal grants. Thus the States that receive the largest per capita assistance grants include some with

the highest per capita incomes in the country as well as some with the lowest.

Per capita grants for many programs tend to vary inversely with per capita personal income since the latter is often used in grant formulas, either as a measure of need or of fiscal capacity or both. Formula grants continue to dominate the series despite the increasing use of project grants in recent years.

Comparison of Federal grants with State and local revenues provides an indication of the role of Federal grants in the finances of the States and localities as well as further confirmation of the equalization effect of many formula grants. It would perhaps be more appropriate to compare the grants and revenues of the same year, but release time of data from the Bureau of the Census makes such a comparison impossible. Comparisons of 1967-68 grants with 1966-67 revenues are of considerable value for two reasons. First, State and local revenues change relatively little from one year to the next. At most the overall change would be slight since the ratios are averaged for the three income groups of States. Second, most closed-end grant formulas refer to per capita income for preceding years, not (for the obvious reason) for the current year in which the grants are actually disbursed, and the income received in a State is the dominant factor in the amount of revenues collected in that State.

Nationwide, Federal grants represented 19.4 cents of every dollar of total State and local general revenues (which include the grants re- ceipts). This is an increase of 2 cents on the dollar from 1966-67. In the low-income States the grants accounted for 28 cents of each general revenue dollar; in the high-income States, for 17 cents. To every dollar collected by all the States and localities from their own sources (direct general revenues), the Federal Govern- ment added 23 cents in grants. In the low-income States the Government added grants of 36 cents to each State and local dollar; in the high-income group it added 20 cents. The individual State figures are shown in table 3.

Federal grants averaged 2.8 percent of total personal income received in the country. In the high-income States, grants represented 2.4 per- cent of personal income, and in the low-income States they represented 4.5 percent of personal income.

21 BULLETIN, AUGUST 1969

TABLE 3.-1967-68 Federal grants in relation to personal income, to State and local general revenues and direct general revenuea,

and to population, by State 1

Total grants as percent of- Per capita grants

Total

--- States rankedrb~ysyl~a~7

*v*mge persona income Y Personal

income, 1968

ate-local direct !eneral venues, 868-67 )

Total ate-local !eneral ivenlles, 866-67 1

-- 19.4

discells- ms social welfare

Public sistance Health due&ion ighways .ll other

$13.85 $17.54 $7.li

4.12

3.96 17.20 3.19 3.46 4.34 4.18 3.62 6.58 6.21 1.75 5.90 3.97 4.24 5.07 6.17 5.34 3,12 2.80

4.20 4.2C 3.25 3.1f 7.7( 4.Uf 4.35 8.ut 3.5: 4.7( 4.8: 5.5: 3.8’ 4.51

12.91 3.1’ 5.6( 3.4

4.6 6.4, 4.01 3.2 5.2’ 4.2

$2 a:7 4.0 5.1 4.5 4.7 3.3 4.4 3.6 5.3 4.4

3.2 217.8

7.9

26.72

24 16:72 19.91 5 .72

# 1 38

:;z l&33 12.18

%I

TE 16.97 30.89 14.61

7.16

22 26.2f

% 24.8( 19sH 20.2 11.5: 26.5: 12x 15.0 15.01

?:F 15.2: 25.a

27.8 19.4 21.8

Ei 21.7 27.9 30.7 27.3 43.9 16.5 33.1 19.5 25.2

5%

E:!

Total...................~.. . . . . . . ..-..

United States ._.__..._... 2.8 17.m

15.70 72.21 14.28 15.44 18.31 15.34 15.33 41.66 22.87 14.49 16.05 13.19 15.71 13.20 15.97

Ei 9.86

15.53 15.70 13.07 14.24 19.8E 16.K 16.X 14.c 10.3i 15.9: 16.9( 21 .O( 14.71 19.91 20.7: 13.51 28.41 14.6(

23.3: 18.21 15.0: 20.8: 14.71 22.2 18.8’ 29.1, 20.8 21.81 19.6 24.6

ii:! 23.7 20.8 26.9 45.3

25.6 36.1 17.2

21.15

19.29 45.50 24.19 17.66 11.44 35.10 22.68

‘EIi 16.54 13.79 16.92 30.28 14.62 31.35 33.23 19.99 23.87

22.56 18.62 13.83 19.37 28.17 31.67 33.04 21.61 16.37 31.x 17.N

%:~

2:: 24.6( 41.3; 20.8s

23.51 Ml.61

:;:; 42.7 55.9i 46.2( 44.1 19.5: 22.1: 11.3 30.71 23.5( 38.8’ 20.51 15.8 21.31 17.4

13.62 --

10.98 37.55 10.17 10.26 8.85

19.01 12.57 66.87 23.51

9.91 10.09

8.45

:::2 25.79 15.71 8.57 7.74

13.80 9.5E 9.z

13.92 21.G 12.8: 12.91 15.7s 15.54 14.91 14.2: 27.5: 13.6: 20.31 20.5! 17.71 21.2: 14.4(

19.7: 23.1! 14.41 21.5 19.8 27.8 22.7, 39.5 17.2 13.9 17.9 21.8 17.1 17.0 19.2 21.8 25.3 21.7

7.14 25.86 12.44

4.94 6.66 8.03 6.42

99.43 19.18

5.94 11.34

5.22

i:E 10.66 11.56

6.60 4.47

6.64 9.04 4.92 6.32 4.90 6.40 7.69 5.46 7.22

11.88 G.68 8.37 4.62 9.48

10.52 7.14 6.31 5.11

8.14 7.67

10.38 9.08 6.98 7.98 6.89 9.97 7.56 5.83 7.09

13.42 8.93

12.97 6.26 4.12

10.95 7.78

2.63 11.44 25.25

2.4 5.3 2.0 1.9 2.6 2.7 2.9 9.8 4.2 1.6 2.6 2.0 2.7 2.2

Z 2.1 1.3

2.E 2.1

;:i 3.t 2.1 3.: 2.1

3’:; 2.1 6.: 2.: 5.1 6.: 2.1 4.e 3.1

4.

2

.i: 5.

i: 3.

i: 5. 4.

4”: 3.

::

16.9 38.6 17.8 17.3

z.3” 17:o

2:: 14.2 19.1 14.4 17.5

::.i 26:9 17.8 12.9

19.4 19.2 14.4 16.: 202 16.; 18.f 19.’ 15.1 24.: 21.t 27.. 15.1 26.1 35.1

$1. ie.

27. 25. 22. 28. 2.3.

2;

25. 25.

2 26. 33. 30. 25.

ii:

19.9 56.6

Z:“o 18.3 21.1 21.0 71.3 29.3 16.1 22.2 16.8

Ii::

2: 20.7 14.7

2.T

16:; 19.! 25.: m.; 22.: 23.1 18.1 29.: 26.1 39.1 17.1 35.’ 47.1 25.1

2

36. 34. 27. 38.

Z: 28.

2 32. 28. 45. 35. 45. 39.

it: 45.

87.23 220.26

80.98 71.67

101.31 99.05

107.79 366.09

‘E% 93.46 68.40 92.75 76.51

106.92 117.42

66.02 56.OC

%:Z 69.6f 80.1(

11O.G 87.0: 99.41 84.6i 73.2l flu.4 87.1:

197.4: 65.1(

138.2 174.5l

73.9:

‘ii? .

1Ofi.S 125.6

86.9

:::: 140.0 126.0 MD.0

97.1 111.8

77.8 128.4

93.6 128.9 103.0 76.0

123.7 1m.a

47.E 272.7 281.i

High-income group .......... District of Columbia -. __._. ... Connecticut- ... _. ............. Illinois ____ _.~ ... _._. ...... ._. New York ._.._......_. ........ Delaware ...................... California -. _. ._. ........... Alaska. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .... _ _ ........ Nevada. _ _ ._ _. ........ _. ..... New Jersey ..__._......._....-. Massachusetts ._....._ ......... Michigan- _ _ _ _ __ ..... _. ....... Washington _..__ .............. Maryland ... _ .......... _ ...... Hawaii ....... _ _ _ ....... _ ...... Rhode Island.--- _ _ ............. Ohio-.--................~ ..... Indiana -. _-_. .................

Middle-income group. .. . .... Pennsylvania ___. _ ............ Wisconsin- .................... IOWS~..~~...................~. Colorado- ....... _ _ _ .... _ ..... Oregon................-- ...... Minnesota _____ .: __ ............ Nebraska _.__ .. _ _ _ ............. Ka*sils.............- .......... New Hampshire ___ ... ._._ ..... Mi%+Xri .. _ _ ...... _ _. .... _. ... Wyoming---. ... ..__. ......... Florida.-...........-.-....- ... Montana .... _ _ _ _ _ ............. Vermont. _ __. ... ..__. ......... Virginia .. _. ....... _ _ _ ......... Arizona- _ _ __ ....... ._ .. _ ...... Texas...-.............- ......

Low-income group _ . .._ ...... Utah __ ... .._ .... .._ ........... Maine..-...................~ .. Oklahoma ..................... Idsho..-- ..................... South Dakota _........_....._. North Dakota..............- .. New Mexico _____. ............. Qeorgia.... _ _ Lonisisns~ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . _ North Carolina ._....__ ._._... Kentucky.. _ _ ._ . . _ . _ Tennessee. _ _ _ _ . . -. - West Virginia. ._. _.... .._. . . Alabama--..............-..... South Carolina. . . _ . .._. . Arkansas..............--...-.. Mississippi. _ _ _ _ _ . _ .

Outlying *Teas: Puerto Rico- _...__ _. . ..-. _. ..__. ._ Virgin Islands _.___._. .__.. _..._._. Other-...-...........-..-... . . . . . . .._.

1 See the appropriate footnote to table 1 for the programs in each group of grants and for components of total and United States lines.

2 Revenues (except trust revenues) from all sources. 8 Revenues (except trust revenues) from own sources.

Source: State and local revenues data from Goocmment Finances in 1066-6’7

Federal grants for social welfare purposes represented 11.5 percent of 1967-68 social welfare expenditures by all governments in the United States. They ‘accounted for more than 20 percent of all Federal social welfare expenditures and were the equivalent of more than 26 percent of the State and local government expenditures from

of the Burenu of the Census. Per capita data are based on estimates of the Bureau of the Census for the total population, excluding the Armed Forces overseas, as of July 1, 1967. Personal income data are for cslendar years and are from the Szlrocy of Current Rwiness, August 1968.

expenditures made by State and local govern- ments from their own sources for social welfare purposes.

The tabulation below shows the proportion of total social welfare expenditures that Federal social welfare grants to States and localities

(Continued on page 5-j)

22 SOCIAL SECURITY

TABLE M-27.-Gross national product and personal income, by type, 1940-69

[Amounts in billions. Before 1960, data are for the 48 States and the District of Columbia. except where otherwise noted. Beginning 1960. includes Alaska and Hawaii]

-

.-

.

.

_ .

_ _ _

Personal income ~--

Other ineon1e ’

Less: personal

contribw tions for

social insurance ’

--

$2.7 3.4 $26.4 1.0 .6 52.1 2.3 10 74.7 2.5 .8 89.7 3.2 .8 112.9

‘2 2:9 5.2 9.3

118.2 9.6 125.5 10.3 133.2 11.8 142.0 12.5 156.3 13.4 169.4 Ii.8 177.9 20.4 lwJ.9 22.9

IU9.3 22.R 189.9 22.9 192.1 23.1 193.1 1’:, .2 194.5 23.3 195.5 23.4 196.1 23.5 196.E 23.5

197.c 25.4 198.2 25.5 199.2 25.6 2W.l 25.8 2oo.I 25.9

I-

Social insurance and related payments *

Public assistance payments s Gross

national product

$99. 211.

E: 503.

620. 560.

~~“2: 2 789. 860.

___.._.__.. 852.

Period

Total Wage and salary dis- bursements ’

Amount Amount

.--- .-__

$78.3 171.1 227.6 310.9 401.0

EE 146: 7 211.3 270.8

$1.7 2.9 6.7

12.7 23.3

2.1

hi 4.1 5.8

416.8 278.1 26.8 6.4 3.4 442.6 296.1 27.8 6.3 3.5 465.5 311.1 29.4 6.3 3.6 497.5 333.7 30.5 6.1 3.8 538.9 358.9 33.1 6.1 4.0 586.8 394.6 36.3 6.2 4.3 628.8 423.4 42.9 6.8 4.9 685.8 463.5 48.8 7.1 5.6

KS 689.2 694.1 699.7

77%: 713.5

457.5 48.7 i.2 5.5 462.2 49.0 i.2 5.5 4fi5.4 49.2 7.1 5.6 468.7 49.8 i.2 .5,.7 472.8 49.9 7.1 5.8 474.9 50.3 7.2 5.9 475.9 50.5 7.1 6.0 483.3 51.0 7.1 5.9

716.1 486.5 51.5 7.2 5.9 721.: 480.4 52.0 7.2 6.0 727.i 495.7 52.2 7.2 6.1 731.: 498.0 52.7 7.2 6.2 735.c 503.6 53.0 7.2 6.4

Percent of personal inCOllIe

--__

.8

:i .8

:: .R .8

9 .

0

4

. .

.3

1963

May ______.....__.___ ___ June--. _. .-. -- -. -. July __________.__________ August . . . . September ______.._...._ October... . ..__._.______ November-.. . . . . . . . . .._ December--.------------

871.

_.--.._.__. 887.

______-___. _-.-_-- .._.

993

1965

January ___..._ ........... February- _ _ _ _____._____ March- _ ................ April ___ ................. May.. ..................

1 Includes payments in kind; includes pay of Federal civilian and military personnel in all areas. Excludes earnings under work-relief programs in effect during 1935-43.

1 Includes government transfer payments to beneficiaries under OASDHI. railroad retirement, public employee retirement, unemployment insurance, and veterans’ pensions and compensation programs: cash and medical pay- ments under workmen’s compensation and temporary disability insurance: and court-awarded benefits for work injuries sustained by railroad, maritime. and other workers under Federal employer liability acts.

’ Includes government transfer payments to recipients of direct relief under programs of old-age assistance. aid to families with dependent children. aid to the blind, aid to the permanently and totally disabled, and general assist- awe; includes, during 193543. earnings under work-relief programs and the

value of surplus food stamps. Exchldes payments made in behalf of rccip- ients to suppliers of medical care (vendor payments).

1 Includes proprietors’ income, dividends. personal interest, and rental income; other transfer payments not enumerated in footnotes 2 and 3 (such a.3 Government life insurance paymen’s, World Mar bon::s paymellts. mustering-out pay and terminal-leave be refits to discharged sen icemen. subsistence allowances to veterans at xh ~01): and employer contriblitions to private pension and welfare funds and other labor income (except compellsa- tion for injuriesi.

J Includes life insxance premium payments for reterans.

Source: Department of Commerce. Office of Business Economic?. Data regrouped to highlight itemsofspecial interest to ttre social security program.

FEDERAL GRANTS

(Continued from page 22)

represented in the fiscal year under review, a year earlier, and 10 years earlier.

Fiscal year A$SO;;;l

-

Public assistance

Health Education

10.4 7.2 5.9 6.6 4.3 2.0

f Preliminary.

Public assistance grants provided approxi- mately the same proportion of all public expendi- tures for public assistance in each of the 3 years: 53 percent, 53 percent, and 51 percent a decade ago. The big advance in the health field occurred from 1966-67 to 1967-68 when t,he proportion of public health and medical care expenditures pro- vided by Federal health grants nearly doubled. In the education sector, although there was a relatively small gain in the part, played by Federal grants during the single year, in the lo-year period their proportion of all public education expenditures more than tripled.

54 SOCIAL SECURITY