.58 9/,

94-16

<

govern MEN i

Storage

PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS BENEFITS ACT

DCUMENTg

JAN 2 ? W b

KANSA S 8 T « e

- o « ? v '< X S 1HEARINGS

BEFORE TH E

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZ ENSHIP, 

AND INTERNATIO NAL LAW

OF TH E

’ RJ 

’ m 

:i-n

■ zr 

.-0

:-0

:

 o 

!

 □

i-A

■ < t

COMMITTEE ON TH E JUD ICIAR Y

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NIN ETY-F OU RTH CONG RESS

FIR S T SE SS IO N

ON

H.R. 365, H.R. 366, and H.R. 3544

PU BLI C SA FE TY O FFIC ER S B E N E F IT S ACT , DEA TH BEN EF IT S TO SU RV IV OR S OF PU BLIC SA FE TY O FFIC ER S WH O 

D IE IN T H E PE RF ORM ANCE OF DU TY

SEPTEM B ER 18 an d 19, 1975

Serial No. 18

P ri nte d fo r th e us e of th e Com m itt ee on th e Ju dic ia ry

61-356 O

U.S . GOVERNME NT PRINTING OFFIC E

WASHINGTON : 1975
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIA RY

P E T E R W. RO DIN O, J r., New Jersey, Chairman

JA C K B R O O K S, Texas

R O B E R T W. KASTEN M EIE R , Wisconsin 

DO N EDW AR DS, California 

WI LLIAM L. H U N O ATE, Missouri 

JO HN CO N Y E RS, J r., Michigan 

JO SH UA E IL B E R Q , Penn sylvania 

W ALTE R FL OW ER S, Alabam a 

JAM ES R. MAN N, South Carolina 

P A U L S. SA R B A N E S, Maryland 

JO HN F. SE IB E R LIN G , Ohio 

G EO R G E E. DANIE LS ON, California 

R O B E R T F. D R IN A N , Massachusetts 

B A R B A R A J ORD AN , Texas 

R A Y TH O R N TO N , Arkansas 

E LIZ A B E T H HO LT ZM AN , New York 

ED W AR D M EZVIN SKY, Iowa 

HER M AN B A D IL LO , New York 

ROMA NO L. MA ZZOL I, Ken tuc ky 

EDW AR D W. PA TTI SO N, New York 

C H R IS T O P H E R J. DO DD , Connecticut 

WI LLIAM J. HUGHES , New Jersey

M AR TI N A. RU SSO, Illinois

E arl C . D ud le y, Jr., General Counsel

G ar ne r J. Clin e, Sta ff Director

Her be rt Fuchs, Counsel

ED W AR D HUTC H IN SO N, Michigan 

R O B E R T M cC LO R Y, Illinois 

TOM R A IL SB A CK , Illinois 

CH A R LES E. WIG GI NS , California 

HAM IL TO N FISH , Jr., New Yor k 

M. C A LD W ELL B U T L E R , Virginia 

WI LL IAM S. CO HEN , Maine 

CA R LO S J. MOO RH EA D, California 

JOHN M. A SH BRO O K, Ohio 

H E N R Y J. H Y D E , Illinois 

TH OM AS N. K IN DN ESS , Ohio

William P. Shattuc k, Cou nsel

Alan A. P ark er , Counsel

James F. Falco, Counsel

Maur ice A . Bar bo za, Counsel

T homas W. Hutchison, Counsel

A rthur P. E nd re s, Jr., Counsel

D aniel L. Coh en, Counsel

F ranklin G. P ol k, Cou nsel

T homas E . Moo ne y, Counsel

Ale xa nd er B . C ook, Counsel

C onsta ntine J. Gek as , Cou nsel

Alan F. C of fe y, Jr., Counsel

K enn eth N. K le e, Counsel

R aym ond V. Smi et an ka, Cou nsel

S u b c o m m it tee on I m m ig r a tio n, Cit iz e n s h ip , an d I n t e r n a tio n a l L aw

JO SH UA E IL B E R G , Pennsylvania, Chairman

P A U L S. SA R B A N E S, Maryland HAM IL TO N FISH , Jr., New Yo rk

E LIZ A B E T H HO LT ZM AN , New Yo rk WI LLIAM S. CO HEN , Maine

CH R IS T O P H E R J. DO DD , Connecticut

M AR TI N A. RU SS O, Illinois

Gar ne r J. Clin e, Counsel

A rth ur P. E ndres, Jr., Counsel

Janic e A . Zar ro, Assistant Counsel

Ale xa nd er B. C ook, Associate Counsel
C O N T E N T S

Hearings held on— P a *

e

September 18, 1975__________________________________________ 1

September 19, 1975__________________________________________ 65

♦ Tex t of—

H.R . 365........................... 2

H.R . 366__________ ___________ _________ __________ ______ 8

H.R . 3544______________ 15

X, Witnesses—

• Bauman, Charles W., chairman, legislative committe e, Fratern al

Order of Police, prepar ed statem en t__________________________ 61

Burden, Ordway P., chairm an, the Hun dred s Club Information

Council-------------------------- - ------------- ------------------------------------ 99

Prepared statem en t_______________________________________ 88

Durham, Hugh M., legislative counsel, Office of Legislative Affairs,

U.S. Departme nt of Justic e__________________________________ 24

Prepared s tatemen t_______________________________________ 27

Fisher, Charles, counsel, the Hundreds Club Inform atio nal Council__ 99

Gordon, Robert D., execu tive director, International Conference of

Police A ssociations_________________________________________ 104

Harrington, John, pa st president, Fra ternal Order of Police_______ 52

Hemm ert, Raym ond, distric t vice president, International Association of Firefighters_________________________________________ 65

Kiernan, Edward J., president, Intern ational Conference of Police

Associations_________________________________________________ 104

Prepared statem en t___ ______________________ 

Lambert, Walter, dire ctor of research, Intern ationa l Association of

Firefighters________________________________________________ 65

Lyons, Kenneth T., presiden t, Intern ational Brotherhood of Police

Officers___________________________________________________ 41

Prepared statem en t_______________________________________ 44

Stark, Pat, president, Fra ter nal Order of Police__________________ 52

Prepared s tatemen t_______________________________________ 55

Simons, Larry, presiden t, IBPO Local 442, Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Departm ent__________________________________ 41

Snyder, Sgt. Steve, Denver, Colo., Police De partm ent_____________ 41

Waller, Jack A., legislative represen tative, Intern ationa l Association

of Firefighters_____________________________________________ 65

• Prep ared st ate m ent_____________________________________ 87

Whitney, Alan, executive vice president, Int ern ational Brotherhood of

Police Officers______ ___________ _____________ ____ - ......... — 41

Appen d ix es

* Appendix 1.—

Annunzio, Hon. Frank, a Rep resentativ e in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, prep ared s tatemen t_______________________________ 113

Conte, Hon. Silvio O., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Massachusetts, prepared statem en t_________________________ 114

Gilman, Hon. Benjamin A., a Representati ve in Congress from the

Sta te of New York, prepared statem en t____ _____ ____________ 115

Helstoski, Hon. Henry, a Rep resentativ e in Congress from the State

of New Jersey, prepared sta temen t__________________________ 116

King, Glen D., executive director, Int ern ational Association of Chiefs

of Police, prepared statem en t________________________________ 119

Perry, Albert M., legislative atto rney, the Library of Congress, letter

dated September 17, 1975, to House Committee on the Ju di ci ar y, . 120 

(m)
IV

Appendixes—Continued

Railsback, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pare

Illinois, prepared statem ent______________________ _________ 116

Roe, Hon. Robert A., a Representative in Congress from the State of

New Jersey, prepared s tate ment____________________________ 117

Schroeder, Hon. Patricia, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Colorado, letter dated October 1, 1975, to Hon. Joshua Eilberg- 118 

Appendix 2.—“Analysis of Workmen’s Compensation Laws,” prepared

and published by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States------- 130

Appendix 3.—Survey of 1975 Salaries and Working Conditions of the

Police Departments in the United States________________________ 148

Appendix 4.—International Association of Firefighters, 56th annual 

fire department working conditions survey in the United States and

Canada (part 2)_______________________________________ -------- 163

Appendix 5.—“Pension Profile,” International Association of Fire Fighters,

AFL -CIO-C LC_____________________________________________ 171

Additional material—

1973 Annual Death and Injury Survey, International Association of

Firefighters_____________________________________________ 80
PUBLIC SAFE TY OFFI CERS BENEF ITS ACT

TH U RSD AY , SE PT EM BER 18, 19 75

H ou se of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S ubcom m it te e on I m m ig rati on,

C it iz e n s h ip , an d I n ter n a tio n a l L aw

of t h e C om m it tee on t h e J ud ic ia ry,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joshua Eilberg [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Eilberg, Sarbanes, Dodd, Russo, and Fish.

Also present: Garner J. Cline and Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsels; 

Janice A. Zarro, assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate 

counsel.

Mr. E il b e r g . The subcommittee will come to order.

This morning and tomorrow morning we will be conducting hearings 

on death *benefits to survivors of public safety officers who die in the 

performance of duty.

Our first witness is Mr. Hugh M. Durham, legislative counsel, 

the Office of Legislative Affairs in the Department of Justice.

First, Mr. Fish and I would like to make statements, if you will 

stand by for a moment.

Today’s hearings have been called in order to consider several 

bills which have been introduced to provide a lump sum death 

gratuity to the surviving dependents of public safety officers who are 

killed in the line of duty.

The primary bills under consideration today will be H.R. 3544, 

introduced by the chairman of the judiciary committee, which would 

provide a $50,000 death benefit to the survivors of public safety 

officers including both law enforcement officers and firemen. Also 

considered will be the two bills which I have introduced which provide 

identical coverage but in separate pieces of legislation—H.R. 365 

would cover firemen and H.R. 366 provides coverage for law enforcement officers.

[Copies of H.R. 365, H.R. 366, and H.R. 3544 follow:]

(l)
2

94t h CONGRESS 

1st S ess ion H. R. 365

IN THE HOUSE OF RE PR ES EN TA TIVE S 

J anuary 14,1975

Mr. Eilrero introduced the following hill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 

of 1968, as amended, to provide benefits to survivors of 

certain firefighters who die in the performance of duty.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of liepresenta2 tives of the United States of Americ a in Congress assembled,

3 That this Act may he cited as the “Firefighters Benefits

4 Act of 1975” .

5 Sec. 2. Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

6 Streets Act of 1968 is amended by adding at the end thereof

7 the following new part:

8 “P art J —Fire fig hters Dea th Ben ef its *

9 “Sec. 701. (a) In any case in which the Administra1° tion determines, under regulations issued under Pa rt F of

i
«

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

3

this title, that an eligible firefighter has died as the direct and 

proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the performance of duty, leaving a spouse or one or more eligible 

dependents, the Administration shall pay a gratuity of 

$50,000, in the following order of precedence:

“ (1) If there is no dependent child, to the spouse.

“ (2) If there is no spouse, to the dependent child 

or children, in equal shares.

“ (3) If there are both a spouse and one or more 

dependent children, one-half to the spouse and one-half 

to the child or children, in equal shares.

“ (4) If there is no survivor in the above classes, to 

the parent or parents dependent for support on the 

decedent, in equal shares.

“ (b) As used in this section, a dependent child is any 

natural, illegitimate, adopted, posthumous child, or stepchild 

of the decedent who a t the time of the firefighter’s death is— 

“ (1) under eighteen years of ag e; or

“ (2) over eighteen years of age and incapable of 

self-support because of physical or mental disability; or

“ (3) over eighteen years of age and a student as 

defined by section 8101 of title 5, United States Code. 

“ (c) As used in this section, spouse includes a surviving 

husband or wife living with or dependent for support on the
1

o

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

4

decedent at the time of his death, or living apart for reasonable cause or because of desertion by the decedent.

“ (d) As used in this section, the term ‘dependent for 

support’ means more than one-half of the support of the 

dependent concerned.

“ (e) As used in this section, the term ‘eligible firefighter’ means any individual serving, with or without 

compensation, as a firefighter (including any individual 

serving as an officially recognized or designated member of a 

legally organized volunteer fire department) who is determined by the Administration to have been, at the time of 

his injury—

“ (1) actually and directly engaged in fighting a 

fire; or

(2) otherwise engaged in the performance of his

lb duty where the activity is determined by the Adminis17 tration to 'be potentially dangerous to the firefighter.

18 “Sec. 702. (a) Whenever the Administration deter19 mines, upon a showing of need and prior to taking final

20 action, that a death of a firefighter is one with respect to

21 which a benefit will probably be paid, the Administration

22 may make an interim benefit payment not exceeding $3,000

23 to the person or persons entitled to receive a benefit under

24 section 701 of this part,
w

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

5

“ (b) The amount of any interim benefit paid under 

subsection (a) of this section shall be deducted from the 

amount of any final benefit paid to such person or persons.

“ (c) Where there is no final benefit paid, the recipient 

of any interim benefit paid under subsection (a) of this section shall be liable for repayment of such amount. The Administration may waive all or part of such repayment, and 

shall consider for this purpose the hardship which would 

result from repayment.

“Sec. 703. (a) No benefit shall be paid under this 

part—

“ (1) if the death was caused by the intentional misconduct of the firefighter or by such firefighter’s intention to bring about his death ;

“ (2) if voluntary intoxication of the firefighter 

was the proximate cause of such officer’s death; or

“ (3) to any person who would otherwise be entitled 

to a benefit under this part if such person’s actions were 

a substantial contributing factor to the death of the 

firefighter.

“ (b) The benefit payable under this part shall be in 

addition to any other benefit that may be due from any 

other source, but shall be reduced by—

“ (1) payments authorized by section 8191 of title

5, United States Code;

22

23

24

25
1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

6

“ (2) payments authorized by seetion 12 (k) of the

Aet of September 1, 191(5, as amended (D.C. Code, 

see. 4 -5 3 1 (1 )) .

“ (c) No benefit paid under this part shall be subject to 

execution or attachment.

“Sec. 704. The provisions of this part shall apply with 

respect to any eligible firefighter who dies as the direct 

and proximate result of a personal injury which is sustained 

on or after October 11, 1972.” .

Sec. 3. Section 520 of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, is amended by inserting “ (a )” immediately after “520” and by adding at the 

end thereof the following new subsection:

“ (b) There are authorized to be appropriated in each 

fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 

purposes of part J .”.

Sec. 4. Until specific appropriations are made for carrying out the purposes of this Act, any appropriation made to 

the Department of Justice or the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for grants, activities, or contracts shall, 

in the discretion of the Attorney General, be available for 

payments of obligations arising under this Act.

Sec. 5. The Administration is authorized to establish 

such rules, regulations, and procedures as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this part J. Such rules,

*

A

23

24

25
V

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

7

regulations, and procedures will be determinative of conflict of laws issues arising under this part J.

Sec. 6. The Administration may prescribe rules and 

regulations governing the recognition of agents or other 

persons, representing claimants before the Administration. 

The Administration may, by rule and regulation, prescribe 

the maximum fees which may he charged for services performed in connection with any claim before the administration of this part, and any agreement in violation of such rules 

and regulations shall he void.

Sec. 7. In making determinations under section 701, 

the Administration may delegate such administrative functions to the State and local agencies as it determines necessary 

and proper to the administration of this part. Responsibility 

for making final determinations would rest with the 

Administration.

Sec. 8. If the provisions of any part of this Act 

are found invalid or any amendments made thereby or the 

application thereof to any person or circumstances he held 

invalid, the provisions of the other parts and their application to other persons or circumstances shall not he affected 

thereby.
8

94th CON GRESS 

1st Session H. R. 366

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

J anuary 14,1 975

Mr. Eilberg introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com- *

mittee on the Judic iary

__________________ _____ U

A BILL

To amend die Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 

1968, as amended, to provide benefits to survivors of certain 

public safety officers who die in the performance of duty.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 lives of the United States of Am erica in Congress assembled,

3 That this Act may be cited as the “Public Safety Officers

4 Benefits Act of 1975 ”.

5 Sec. 2. Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe

6 Streets Act of 1968 is amended by adding at the end thereof

7 the following new pa rt:

8 “ P art J .—P ub lic Safety Officers Death Ben ef its

9 “Sec. 701. (a) In any case in which the Administra10 fion determines, under regulations issued under part F of

I
»

1

2

3

4

5

6

.7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

this title, that an eligible public safety officer has died as the 

direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in 

the performance of duty, leaving a spouse or one or more 

eligible dependents, the Administration shall pay a gratuity 

of $50,000, in the following order of precedence:

“ (1) If there is no dependent child, to the spouse. 

“ (2) If there is no spouse, to the dependent child 

or children, in equal shares.

“ (3) If there are both a spouse and one or more 

dependent children, one-half to the spouse and one-half 

to the child or children, in equal shares.

“ (4) If there is no survivor in the above classes, to 

the parent or parents dependent for support on the 

decedent, in equal shares.

“ (b) As used in this section, a dependent child is any 

natural, illegitimate, adopted, posthumous child or stepchild 

of the decedent who at the time of the public safety officer’s 

death is—

“ (1) under eighteen years of age; or 

“ (2) over eighteen years of age and incapable of 

self-support because of physical or mental disability; or 

“ (3) over eighteen years of age and a student as 

defined by section 8101 of title 5, United States Code. 

“ (c) As used in this section, spouse includes a surviving 

husband or wife living with or dependent for support on the
10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

decedent at the time of his death, or living apart for reasonable cause or because of desertion by the decedent.

“ (d) As used in this section, the term ‘dependent for 

support’ means more than one-half of the support of the 

dependent concerned.

“ (e) As used in this section, the term ‘law enforcement 

officer’ means a person engaged in any activity pertaining to 

crime prevention, control, or reduction or the enforcement 

of the criminal law, including, but not limited to police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend 

criminals; activities of corrections, probation, or parole authorities; and programs relating to the prevention, control, 

or reduction of juvenile delinquency or narcotic addiction.

“ (f) As used in this section, the term ‘crime’ means any 

act or omission which is declared by law to be a crime in the 

jurisdiction where the injury to the public safety officer 

occurred. Such an act is a crime for th e purposes of this section notwithstanding the guilt, innocence, disability, or 

identity of the actor.

“ (g) As used in this section, the term ‘eligible public • 

safety officer’ means any individual serving, with or without compensation, a public agency in an official capacity as 

a law enforcement officer who is determined by the Administration to have been, at the time of his injury engaged in—

*

*
11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 *

24

25

“ (1) the apprehension or attempted apprehension 

of any person—

“ (A) for the commission of a crime, or 

“ (B) who at that time was sought as a material 

witness in a criminal proceeding; or

“ (2) protecting or guarding a person held for the 

commission of a crime or held as a material witness in 

connection with a crime; or

“ (3) the lawful prevention of, or lawful attem pt 

to prevent, the commission of a crim e; or

“ (4) the performance of his duty, where the activity is determined by the Administration to be potentially dangerous to the law enforcement officer.

“Sec. 702. (a) Whenever the Administration determines, upon a showing of need and prior to taking final 

action, that a death of a public safety officer is one with 

respect to which a benefit will probably be paid, the Administration may make an interim benefit payment not exceeding 

$3,000 to the person or persons entitled to receive a benefit 

under section 701 of this part.

“ (b) The amount of any interim benefit paid under 

subsection (a) of this section shall be deducted from the 

amount of an y final benefit paid to such person or persons.

“ (c) Where there is no final benefit paid, the recipient 

of any interim benefit paid under subsection (a) .of this sec-
12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

tion shall be liable for repa yment of such amount. The 

Administration may waive all or part of such repayment, 

and shall consider for this purpose the hardship which would 

result from repayment.

“Sec. 703. (a) No benefit shall he paid under this 

part—

“ (1) if the death was caused by the intentional 

misconduct of the public safety offioer or by such officer’s intention to bring about his death;

“ (2) if voluntary intoxication of the public safety 

officer was the proximate cause of such officer’s death; or

“ (3) to any person who would otherwise be entitled 

to a benefit under this part if such person’s actions were 

a substantial contributing factor to the death of the 

public safety officer.

“ (b) The benefit payable under this part shall be in 

addition to any other benefit that may be due from any 

other source, but shall be reduced by—

“ (1) payments authorized by section 8191 of tide

5, United States Code;

“ (2) payments authorized by section 12 (k) of the

Act of September 1, 1916, as amended (D.C. Code, 

sec. 4 -5 3 1 (1 )) .

“ (c) No benefit paid under this p art shall be subject to 

execution or attachment.

*
13

*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

“Sec. 704. The provisions of this part shall apply with 

respect to any eligible public safety officer who dies as the 

direct and proximate result of a personal injury which is 

sustained on or after October 11, 1972.”.

Sec. 3. Section 520 of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, is amended by inserting “ (a ) ” immediately after “5 20” and by adding at the 

end thereof the following new subsection:

“ (b) There are authorized to be appropriated in each 

fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 

purposes of part J .”.

Sec. 4. Until specific appropriations are made for carry ­

ing out the purposes of this Act, any appropriation made to 

the Department of Ju stice or the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for grants, activities, or contracts shall, 

in the discretion of the Attorney General, be available for 

payments of obligations arising under this Act.

Sec. 5. The Administration is authorized to establish 

such rules, regulations, and procedures as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this part J. Such rules, 

regulations, and procedures will be determinative of conflict of laws issues arising under this part J.

Sec. 6. The Administration may prescribe rules and 

regulations governing the recognition of agents or other 

persons, representing claimants before the Administration.

61-356 0 - 75 - 2
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

The Administration may, by rule and regulation, prescribe 

the maximum fees which may be charged for services performed in connection with any claim before the administration of this part, and any agreement in violation of such rules 

and regulations shall be void.

Sec. 7. In making determinations under section 701, 

the Administration may delegate such administrative functions to State and local agencies as it determines necessary 

and proper to the administration of this part. Responsibility 

for making final determinations would rest with the 

Administration.

Sec. 8. If the provisions of any part of this Act 

are found invalid or any amendments made thereby or the 

application thereof to any person or circumstances be held 

invalid, the provisions of the other parts and their application to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected 

thereby.

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

this title, that an eligible public safety officer has died as 

ttie direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the performance of duty, leaving a spouse or one 

or more eligible dependents, the Administration shall pay 

a gratuity of $50,000, in the following order of precedence: 

“ (1) If there is no dependent child, to the spouse. 

“ (2) If there is no spouse, to the dependent child 

or children, in equal shares.

“ (3) If there are both a spouse and one or more 

dependent children, one-half to the spouse and one-half 

to the child or children, in equal shares.

“ (4) If there is no survivor in the above classes, 

to the parent or parents dependent for support on the 

decedent, in equal shares.

“ (b) As used in this section, a dependent child is any 

natural, illegitimate, adopted, posthumous child or stepchild 

of the decedent who at the time of the public safety officer’s 

death is—

“ (1) under eighteen years of ag e; or 

“ (2) over eighteen years of age and incapable of 

self-support because of physical or mental disability; or 

“ (3) over eighteen years of age and a student as 

defined by section 8101 of title 5, United States Code. 

, “ (c) As used in this section, spouse includes a surviving

husband or wife living with or dependent for support on the

' i
17

1 decedent at the time of his death, or living apart for reason2 able cause or because of desertion by the decedent.

3 “ (d) As used in this section, the term ‘dependent for

4 support’ means more than one-half of the support of the

5 dependent concerned.

6 “ (e) As used in this section, the term ‘law enforcement

7 officer’ means a person engaged in any activity pertaining to

8 crime prevention, control, or reduction or the enforcement 

9* of the criminal law, including, but not limited to police

10 efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend

11 criminals; activities of corrections, probation, or parole au12 thorities; and programs relating to the prevention, control,

13 or reduction of juvenile delinquency or narcotic addiction.

14 “ (f) As used in this section, the term ‘crime’ means any

15 act or omission which is declared by law to be a crime in the

16 jurisdiction where the injury to the public safety officer

17 occurred. Such an act is a crime for the purposes of this sec18 tion notwithstanding the guilt, innocence, disability, or

19 identity of the actor.

20 “ (g) As used in this section, the term ‘eligible public

21 safety officer’ means any individual serving, with or without

22 compensation, a public agency in an official capacity as a law

23 enforcement officer, or as a fireman (including any individual

24 serving as an officially recognized or designated member of

25 a legally organized volunteer fire departm ent) who is deter-
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

mined by the Administration to have been, at the time of 

his injury—

“ (1) a law enforcement officer engaged in—

“ (A) the apprehension or attempted apprehension of any person—

“ (i) for the commission of a crime, or 

“ (ii) who at that time was sought as a

material witness in a criminal proceeding; or

“ (B) protecting or guarding a person held for 

the commission of a crime or held as a material witness in connection with a c rime; or

“ (C) (i) the lawful prevention of, or lawful 

attempt to prevent, the commission of a crime; or 

(ii) otherwise engaged in the performance of his 

duty, where the activity is determined by the Administration to be potentially dangerous to the law 

enforcement officer; or

“ (2) a fireman—

“ (A ) actually and directly engaged in fighting 

a fire; or

“ (B) otherwise engaged in the performance of 

his duty where the activity is determined by the 

Administration to be potentially dangerous to the 

fireman.

25 “Sec. 702. (a) Whenever the Administration deter-
19

13

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 mines, upon a showing of need and prior to taking final

2 action, tha t a death of a public safety officer is one with

3 respect to which a benefit will probably be paid, the Admin4 istration may make an interim benefit payment not exceeding

5 $3,000 to the person or persons entitled to receive a benefit

6 under section 701 of this part.

7 “ (b) The amount of any interim benefit paid under

8 subsection (a) of this section shall be deducted from the

9 amount of any final benefit paid to such person or persons.

10 “ (c) Where there is no final benefit paid, the recipient

11 of any interim benefit paid under subsection (a) of this sec12 tion shall be liable for repayment of such amount. The

13 Administration may waive all or part of such repayment,

14 and shall consider for this purpose the hardship which would

15 result from repayment.

16 “Sec. 703. (a) No benefit shall be paid under this

17 part—

“ (1 ) if the death was caused by the intentional misconduct of the public safety officer or by such officer’s 

intention to bring about his death;

“ (2) if voluntary intoxication of the public safety 

officer was the proximate cause of such officer’s death; or

“ (3 ) to any person who would otherwise be entitled 

to a benefit under this p art if such p erson’s actions were
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a substantial contributing factor to the death of the public 

safety officer.

“ (b) The benefit payable under this part shall be in 

addition to any other benefit that may be due from any other 

source, but shall be reduced by—

“ (1) payments authorized by section 8191 of tide

5, United States Cod e;

“ (2) payments authorized by section 12 (k) of the

Act of September 1, 1916, as amended (D.C. Code, sec.

4 -6 3 1 (1 )) .

“ (c) No benefit paid under this part shall be subject to 

execution or attachment.

“Sec. 704. The provisions of this part shall apply with 

respect to any eligible public safety officer who dies as the 

direct and proximate result of a personal injury which is sustained on or after October 11,19 72.” .

Sec. 3. Section 520 of the Omnibus Crime Control and 

Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, is amended by inserting “ (a )” immediately after “52 0” and by adding at the 

end thereof the following new subsection:

“ (b) There are authorized to be appropriated in each 

fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out the 

purposes of part J .” .

Sec. 4. Until specific appropriations are made for carrying out the purposes of this Act, any appropriation made to
21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the Department of Justice or the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for grants, activities, or contracts shall, 

in the discretion of the Attorney General, be available for 

payments of obligations arising under this Act.

Sec. 5. The Administration is authorized to establish 

such rules, regulations, and procedures as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this part J. Such rules, 

regulations, and procedures will be determinative of conflict of laws issues arising under this pa rt J.

Sec. 6. The Administration may prescribe rules and 

regulations governing the recognition of agents or other 

persons, representing claimants before the Administration. 

The Administration may, by rule and regulation, prescribe 

the maximum fees which may be charged for services performed in connection with any claim before the administration of this part, and any agreem ent in violation of such rules 

and regulations shall be void.

Sec. 7. In making determinations under section 701, 

the Administration may delegate such administrative functions to State and local agencies as it determines necessary 

and proper to the administration of this part. Responsibility 

for making final determinations would rest with the 

Administration.

Sec. 8. If the provisions of any part of this Act are 

found invalid or any amendments made thereby or the appli-
22

1 cation thereof to any person or circumstances be held invalid,

2 the provisions of the other parts and their application to

3 other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
23

Mr. Eilberg. It is extremely unfortunate, tragic in fact, tha t these 

hearings are necessary. This legislation was close to enactment in 

both the 92d and 93d Congresses, but I regret to say tha t for several 

reasons this legislation did not reach the President’s desk in either of 

those Congresses. These reasons are well known and I do not intend to 

take the time of the subcommittee to recite the previous history of this 

legislation.

At any rate, this legislation is certainly not new to the subcommittee, 

and we have carefully considered the various issues associated with 

these bills during numerous hearings and markup sessions.

As my colleagues are aware, I have strongly supported these proposals in earlier Congresses, and they will continue to receive my 

support. Both Houses of Congress on several occasions have overwhelmingly approved various versions of this legislation, and I believe 

this is a clear mandate to this subcommittee to make every effort to 

insure its enactment.

The information presented to this committee during its detailed 

consideration of this matter clearly indicates tha t the perils of police 

work and of firefighting have increased continuously over the years. 

It is my firm belief tha t public safety officers who have given their 

lives to protect our property and personal safety are deserving of our 

support. Certainly, the Federal Government has a legitimate interest 

in preserving our public safety; and it is most appropriate tha t the 

Federal Government recognize in a practical manner the debt that 

is owed to those who are charged with the responsibility of preserving 

peace and order in our society.

In my own city of Philadelphia a recent tragedy occurred which took 

the lives of eight dedicated firemen who were atte mpting to put out a 

fire in a Gulf refinery. There were 21 children involved. Some of these 

firemen had large families, and the death of the breadwinner will 

certainly place financial strains on their survivors. Passage of this 

legislation is designed to provide some measure of protection for the 

loved ones of deceased public safety officers and will alleviate some of 

the initial financial hardships tha t they will encounter during this 

difficult adjustment. The legislation will also serve to express our 

appreciation for the work performed by public safety officers as well 

as our concern for the families of those officers who are struck down in 

the line of duty.

I am most hopeful th at this legislation will be quickly enacted during 

this Congress, and I am sure tha t these hearings will assist us in 

achieving that objective.

Mr. Fish?

Mr. F ish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At the outset, let me thank you and the chairman of the full Committee for bringing this legislation before us.

Mr. Chairman, in the last session of Congress, the House of Representatives passed legislation to provide $50,000 to survivors of public 

safety officers killed in the line of duty. Unfortunately, the Senate and 

House were not able to reconcile their differences in formulating a 

final version of the bill.
24

Th is year, this H ouse subcomm itte e is once again considering several 

bills to provide much-needed benefits to su rvivin g dependents of pub lic 

safety officers who give th eir lives for th e public well-being.

Th e need for this legislation is clear. Over 200 policemen and 

firemen, most of th em w ith families, are killed each yea r in this c ou ntry 

while perform ing their duties. Pre sen tly, the surviv ors of pub lic 

safety officers mu st rely on a patch wo rk system of indemnification 

consisting of life insura nce whose premiu ms are qu ite often too high 

for the policem an or fireman to afford, an d vo luntary contribu tions by 

local citizens to a su pp ort fu nd.

Th e risks tak en by public saf ety officers, and the sacrifices ma de 

by t he ir families are too gr ea t for us to allow th e possibility of financial 

disaste r to be an added bu rden to a widow and children of a dea d 

officer.

In this time of rising crime, ma ny police de pa rtm en ts which are 

op erating below streng th may now be able to att ra ct highly qualified 

person nel who, because of concern for the finan cial sec urity of their 

loved ones, hav e refrained from joining local police forces. There is n o 

do ub t th at in ma ny are as in the country inadeq ua te com pen sation 

for the risks tak en has been the prim ary reason for the difficulty in 

recru iting public safe ty officers.

All too often, we tak e the pub lic saf ety officer for gra nte d. Th e 

policem an or firem an many times perf orm s heroic acts wi tho ut bein g 

thanked. It is time th at we pu t the services thes e peop le perf orm in 

perspectiv e, and realize the trem end ous risks th at are involved, 

especially financially for t he ir families.

Tha nk you very much, Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. Eiliser-g. Tha nk you , Mr. Fish.

TESTIMONY OF HUGH M. DURHAM, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, OFFICE 

OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. D urham. Th an k yo u, Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. Chairma n, I am pleased to ap pe ar today befo re the subcom ­

mittee to discuss the views of the Dep artm en t of Justi ce regarding 

H .R . 365, H.R . 366, a nd H .R . 3544, public safe ty officer death benefits 

legislation.

Th e three bills are all qu ite sim ilar, in th at a $50,000 gr atui ty would 

be paid to the surviv ing dependents of public saf ety officers found to 

have “died as the dir ect an d pro xim ate resu lt of a pers onal injur y 

susta ined in the performance of duty .” H.R . 365 w ould apply only to 

firefighters so killed, while H.R . 366 would apply only to law enforceme nt officers. H.R . 3544 wou ld apply bo th to firefighters and law enforcem ent officers. Each bill would am end title I of the Omnibu s 

Crime Contr ol and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as am ended , so th at the 

pro gra m would be admi nis ter ed by the Law Enforce me nt Assistance 

Ad mi nis tra tio n.

To be eligible, a law enforcement officer m ust, at the time of i nju ry, 

have been engaged in the app reh ens ion , at te m pt ed app rehension, 

pro tec tio n, or guard ing of a person w anted or held for the commission 

of a crim e, or as a ma ter ial witn ess, or in the pre vention or attempt ed 

pre vention of a crime. A firefighter mu st hav e been actua lly an d dir ectly engaged in fig hting a fire. Provision is a lso made in each instanc e for
25

eligibility if the decedent was otherwise engaged in the performance 

of duty where the activity is determined to be potentially dangerous.

The terms “crime,” “law enforcement officer,” firefighter,” and 

“dependent for support” are further clarified in the legislation. No 

benefit would be paid if death was caused by the intentional misconduct of the decedent or intention to bring about his own death, if 

voluntary intoxication of the decedent was the proximate cause of 

death, or if the actions of any person wrho would otherwise be entitled 

to a benefit were a substantial contributing factor to death.

The provisions of each of the bills would apply with respect to any 

eligible public safety officer who dies as the direct and proximate 

result of a personal injury sustained on or after October 11, 1972. 

Such sums as necessary would be authorized to be appropriated for 

the program, with Department of Justice and Law Enforcement 

Assistance Administration appropriations available until necessary 

funds were provided.

These three bills are, as you know, Mr. Chairman, just a few of the 

pieces of legislation introduced in the 94th Congress which have 

similar goals. Legislation which would accomplish essentially the same 

purpose was passed by both Houses in the 92d and 93d Congresses, 

but for a number of reasons did not get enacted into law.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, during the 92d and 93d Congresses 

the Department of Justice supported a legislative proposal which 

would provide death benefits to survivors of public safety officers. 

Assistant Attorney General McKevitt testified before this subcommittee on July 26, 1973, on this subject. The program which we have 

proposed and supported differs, however, in several substantial and 

important respects from the proposals before you today.

First: We would require tha t the death benefits be available only 

to survivors of eligible officers who died as a result of a criminal act. 

We believe tha t the much broader coverage included in H.R. 365 and 

H.R. 366 is not justified by the Federal interest or involvement.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the earlier proposals for a Federal 

death gratuity program were a partial answer to the shocking wave 

of police killings in the spring of 1971, and of the fact tha t some 

police officers were inadequately covered by job-related benefits. We 

believe, and we have stated this position previously, tha t expansion 

to cover all job-related deaths would start the Federal Government 

down a road tha t is unwarranted and undesirable, in addition to 

placing upon the Federal Government a further substantial and costly 

Federal benefit program.

To reiterate, we believe tha t the proposal should be designed to 

deal solely with the slaying of eligible officers and not with accidental 

deaths. As we indicated in prior testimony before the subcommittee, 

we believe that accidental death is a hazard of many types of employment and we are aware of no rationale that would suggest Federal 

intervention in these situations.

Providing survivors benefits for those who are killed accidentally 

should be the responsibility of the employer in the same manner as 

other employment benefits. The murdering of public safety officers, 

however, is an act which attacks the very essence of a stable society 

and puts in jeopardy the well being of our country. For this reason we 

have supported Federal assistance in these limited instances.
26

Second: We believe th at the pro vision shou ld apply pro spe ctively 

only. The thr ee measure s previo usly described would all apply to 

injuries susta ine d since October 11, i972. We believe th at whe n new 

benefits are cre ate d by stat ut e, they should only apply pro spe ctively 

unless there is a compelling pub lic policy reason for deter mi nin g a 

date for retro activ e app lica tion. We feel th at the choice of an y retro ­

active da te in thi s m atter would be arbi tra ry and th at pro spe ctive 

app lication is a fair resolution of the prob lem.

In this con nection , in Au gust 1974, in antic ipa tio n of passage of 

H.R . 11321 of the 93d Congress, the Law En forceme nt Assista nce 

Ad mi nis tra tio n developed a cost ana lysis of the proposal. At th at 

time, ret roactiv e benefits would ha ve cost the Federal Go vernme nt 

$32.3 million. To day th at one-ti me expense, pro vid ing retro ac tiv e 

benefits for bo th law enforc ement officers and firefighters, would 

exceed $50 million.

I hav e outlin ed the ma jor differences between the proposals before 

you and the m easure which we ha ve su pport ed. We would still su pp ort 

a mea sure th at conformed su bs tantially with these views. I would 

like, however , to o utline to you a course of a ctio n wh ich we think would 

be a preferable answ er to the problem.

The Presiden t in his rec ent crim e message to the Con gress specificall y endorsed a program which wou ld provide benefits very comparab le in ma gnitude to those incl ude d in the police officers de ath 

gr at ui ty proposal. The Presiden t’s pro gra m would ext end to all victim s of Federal crime. Specifically, he stated :

In addition to this general effort to reform and impr ove the criminal justice syste m, the Federal law should be specifically revised to tak e into greater acco unt the needs of vic tim s of crime. They, as well as the general public, must be made aware that the gove rnment will not neglect the law-abid ing citize ns whose coop­ eration and efforts are crucial to the effect iveness of law enforce ment. I urge the Congress to pass legislation to meet the uncompensated economic losses of victim s of Federal crimes who suffer personal inju ry. In order to pro­ mote the concept of restitutio n within the criminal law, the monetary benefits should come from a fund consisting of fines paid by convicted Federal offenders.

Pro visions which would imple me nt the Pr esiden t’s rec om me ndations are cu rre ntly contained in the p end ing proposed C rim ina l Justic e 

Reform Ac t—S. 1 and H.R . 3907. These provisions would provide 

benefits of up to $50,000 for survivors of victim s of specified Feder al 

crim inal vio lations . Pub lic service officers are no t barre d from qualifying as beneficiaries under this propo sal. Moreov er, we would s up po rt 

a modification to the Law En force me nt Assistan ce Ad minist ratio n’s 

au thor ity , i.e., title I of the Safe Streets Act, so th at State s could 

utilize block gr an t funds to finance a State pro gram of de ath benefits 

for St ate and local law enforc ement officials.

In summ ary , we would su pp or t a pub lic saf ety officers benefits 

pro gra m consistent with the pro gra m which we have supp orted in 

the 93d Con gress. I hav e pointed ou t tod ay the ma jor differences 

between the pro gram we would su pp ort and the provisi ons of the 

pen ding bills. We would, how ever, prefer the more encompassing 

app roa ch which I have suggested tod ay thr ough the provisions of 

S. 1 and un de r LEA A.

I th an k you for the op po rtu ni ty of pre sen ting the D ep ar tm en t’s 

views on thi s im po rta nt m at te r and will be ha pp y to try to answ er 

any que stio ns which you ma y have.

Th an k you , Mr. Chairma n.

[The pre pared statem en t of Hu gh M. Du rham follows:]
Statement of Hugh M. Durham, Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Affairs

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear today before the Subcommittee to 

discuss the views of the Depar tment of Justice regarding H.R . 365, H.R. 366, 

and H.R . 3544, public safety officers de ath benefits legislation.

The thre e bills are all quite similar, in th at a $50,000 gra tuity would be paid 

to the surviving dependents of public safety officers found to have “died as the 

direct and proxim ate result of a personal injury sustained in the performance of 

duty.” H.R . 365 would apply only to firefighters so killed, while H.R. 366 would 

apply only to law enforcement officers. H.R. 3544 would apply b oth to firefighters 

and law enforcem ent officers. Eac h bill would amend Title I of the Omnibus 

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, so th at the program 

would be administered by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

To be eligible, a law enforcement officer m ust, at the time of injury, have been 

engaged in the apprehension, att em pte d apprehension, protection, or guarding 

of a person wanted or held for the commission of a crime, or as a material witness, 

or in the prevention or attem pte d prevention of a crime. A firefighter must have 

been actually and directly engaged in fighting a fire. Provision is also made in 

each instance for eligibility if the decedent was otherwise engaged in the performance of duty where the activ ity is determined to be potentially dangerous.

The terms “crime,” “law enforcement officer,” “firefighter,” and “de pendent 

for sup port” are further clarified in the legislation. No. benefit would be paid if 

death was caused by the inte ntio nal misconduct of the decedent or intention to 

bring abo ut his own death , if volun tary intoxication of the decedent was the 

proximate cause of dea th, or if th e actions of any person who would otherwise be 

entitled to a benefit were a sub stantial contributing factor to death.

The provisions of each of the bills would apply with respe ct to any eligible 

public safety officer who dies as the direct and proximate result of a personal 

injury sustained on or after October 11, 1972. Such sums as necessary would be 

authorize d to be appropriated for the program, with Department of Justice and 

Law Enforcement Assistance Adm inistration appropriations available until necessary funds were provided.

These three bills are, as you know, Mr. Chairman, just a few of the pieces of 

legislation introduced in the 94th Congress which have similar goals. Legislation 

which would accomplish essentially the same purpose was passed by both Houses 

in the 92d and 93d Congresses, bu t for a number of reasons did not get enacted 

into law.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, during the 92d and 93d Congresses the Department of Justice supported a legislative proposal which would provide dea th benefits to survivors of public safe ty officers. Assistan t Attorney General McKevitt 

testified before this subcomm ittee on July 26, 1973 on this subject. The program 

which we have proposed and supported differs, however, in several su bstantial and 

im portant respects from the proposals before you today. First, we would require 

th at the dea th benefits be available only to survivors of eligible officers who died 

as a result of a criminal act. We believe th at the m uch broa der coverage included 

in H.R. 365 and H.R . 366 is not justifie d by the federal inte rest or involvement. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the earlier proposals for a federal dea th gra tuity 

program were a partial answer to the shocking wave of police killings in the 

spring of 1971 and of the fact th at some police officers were inadequate ly covered 

by job rela ted benefits. We believe, and we have sta ted this position previously, 

th at expansion to cover all job rela ted deaths would st ar t the federal government 

down a road that is u nwa rran ted and undesirable, in addition to placing upon the 

federal government a fur the r sub stantial and costly federal benefit program.

To reiterate, we believe th at the proposal should be designed to deal solely with 

the slayin g of eligible officers and not with accid ental deaths. As we indicated in 

prior testimony before the subcommittee, we believe th at accidental death is a 

hazard of many types of employm ent and we are aware of no rationale th at would 

suggest federal intervention in these situations. Providing survivors benefits for 

those who are killed accidentally should be the responsibility of the employer in 

the same manner as other employm ent benefits. The murdering of public safety 

officers, however, is an act which att acks the very essence of a stable society and 

puts in je opa rdy th e well being of ou r country. For this reason we have suppo rted 

Federal assistance in these lim ited instances.

Secondly, we believe th at the provision should apply prospectively only. The 

three measures previously described would all apply to injuries sustaine d since
October 11, 1972. We believe that when new benefits are created by statu te they 

should only apply prospectively unless there is a compelling public policy reason 

for determining a date for retroactive application. We feel that the choice of any retroactive date in this matter would be arbitrary and that prospective applica­ tion is a fair resolution of the problem. In this connection, in August, 1974, in anticipation of passage of H.R. 11321, 93d Congress, LE AA developed a cost analysis of the proposal. At that time, retroactive benefits would have cost the federal government $32.3 million. Today that one time expense, providing retro­ activ e benefits for both law enforcement officers and firefighters, would exceed $50 

million. I have outlined the major differences between the proposals before you and the measure which we have supported. We would still support a measure that con­ formed substantially with these views. I would like, how’ever, to outline to you a course of action which we think would be a preferable answer to the problem. The President in his recent Crime Message to the Congress specifically endorsed a program which would provide benefits very comparable in magnitude to those included in the police officers death grat uity proposal. The President’s program would extend to all victims of Federal crime. Specifically, he stated: “ In addition to this general effort to reform and improve the criminal justice system, the Federal law should be specifically revised to take into greater account the needs of victims of crime. They, as well as the general public, must be made aware that the government will not neglect the law-abiding citizens whose co­ operation and efforts are crucial to the effectiveness of law enforcement. “ I urge the Congress to pass legislation to meet the uncompensated economic losses of victims of Federal crimes who suffer personal injury. In order to promote the concept of restitution within the criminal law, the monetary benefits should come from a fund consisting of fines paid by convicted Federal offenders.” Provisions which would implement the President’s recommendations are currently contained in the pending proposed Criminal Justice Reform Act (S. 1 and H.R. 3907). These provisions would provide benefits of up to $50,000 for survivors of victims of specified Federal criminal violations. Public service officers are not barred from qualifying as beneficiaries under this proposal. Moreover, we w'ould support a modification to the Law Enforcement Assistance Admin­ istration’s authority (i.e., Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act) so t hat states could utilize block grant funds to finance a state program of death benefits for state and local law enforcement officials. In summary, we would support a public safety officers benefits program con­ sistent with the program which we have supported in the 93d Congress. I have pointed out toda y the major differences between the program we would support and the provisions of the pending bills. We would, however, prefer the more encompassing approach which I have suggested today through the provisions of 

S. 1 and under LEA A. I thank you for the opportunity of presenting the Department’s view's on this important matter and will be happy to try to answer any questions which you 

may have.

Compa rative Cost Anal ysis, Limited and Broad Cover age Versions of

Public Saf ety Officer Death Bene fits Legis lation, U.S. Department

of Justic e, October 1975

Public safety officer death benefits bills currently pending before the Congress all contain a provision allowing the promulgation of regulations b y the administer­ ing agency. Such regulations would serve as guidelines and clarify, where necessary, the statuto ry language. In interpreting the law', it is possible that the regulations could also serve to expand or limit the eligibility of certain survivors for benefits. In assembling the data which follows, care was taken to assure as full com­ pliance with Congressional intent as possible. How'ever, since the legislation contains certain ambiguities and some unclear expressions, the cost estimates provided could subsequently be subject to revision in light of administrative 

interpretation. The cost analyses were made as complete as available data permitted. Informa­ tion on public safety officer and firefighter deaths was collected from numerous sources. Some estimates were of necessity made, and it is possible that additional sources of information will come to light if the legislation is enacted. Thus, cost 

estimates may be the subject of further revision.
29

Da ta sources used in compiling the cost analyses include the following:

Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Rep orts.

Internation al Association of Fire Fighters.

National Fire Protection Association.

American Corrections Association.

Telephone Communications with Fire Marshals in All Sta tes.

Telephone Communicatio ns with Officials in All States Regarding Corrections Officer Deaths.

Stanford Research In sti tute Report on Violence Problems Affecting Fire 

Departments (1972).

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN LIMITED AND BROAD COVERAGE VERSIONS OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS DEATH 

BENEFITS LEGISLATION AFFECTING ELIGIB ILITY

Subject matter Lim ited coverage Broad coverage

* Circumstances of death..........

Eligible officers.........................

Killed in the line of duty and the direct and 

proximate cause of such death was a 

crim inal act or an apparent crimina l act.

Serves a public agency, with or with out 

compensation, as a law enforcement 

officer (inclu din g a corrections or court 

officer) or a firefighter.

Nature of duty engaged in at 

death.

Apprehension, or attempted apprehension 

of a person (1) for the commission of a 

crim e or (2) who is sought as a material 

witness; law ful prevention or attempted 

prevention of a crim e; as the d irec t result 

of a crim inal act.

Definition of crime or criminal 

act.

Effective date............................

Crim inal act means any crime, including an 

act, omission, or possession under the 

laws of the United States or a State or 

unit of general local government, which 

poses a substantial threat of personal 

injury, notwithstand ing the fact that the 

person was legally incapable of c ommitting a crime.

Effective upon anactment and would operate prospectively only.

Officer has died as the direct and proximate 

result of a personal injury sustained in 

the performance of duty.

Serves, with or without compensation, a 

public agency in an official capacity as a 

law enforcement officer, or as a firefighter 

(inc lud ing a member of a legally organized 

volunteer fire department.) Law enforcement officer includes police, corrections, 

probation, parole authorities, and juvenile 

and narcotics officers.

Apprehension or attempted apprehension of 

a person (1) for the commission of a 

crim e or (2) who is sought as a material 

witness; protecting or guarding the same; 

lawful prevention, or attempted prevention of a crime; actually and directly 

involved in fighting a fire; or any activity 

potentially dangerous to the officer. (Some 

include perform ing official duty or mere ly 

line of duty.)

Crime means any act or omission which is 

declared by law to be a crim e in the 

jurisdic tion where the injury occurred. 

Such an act is a crim e for the purpose of 

the section notwithstanding the guilt, 

innocence, dis ability, or ide ntity of the 

actor.

Benefit could go to the survivors of an 

eligible officer who died as the result of an 

injury occurred on or after Oct. 12, 1972

TABLE A .-E STIMATED COSTS OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DEATH BENEFITS LEGISLATION WITH LIMITED 

COVERAGEi

V Projected 

annual costs, 

calendar year

Num ber of retroactive deaths Retroactive 1976 and

Public safety officer class

1972

base

year

deaths

(calendar year) benefits following

1972, 4th 

quarter 1973 1974 a;

1975,

jpro xim ate

Number

Amount

(m illion s)

Number

Amount

(m illions )

Total........................... 298 41 180 178 180 579 $28.95 195 $9. 75

Police officers....................... 112 31 3

 127 3

 128 128 414 20.7 125 6.2 5

Firefighters (paid) _______ 3

 148 8 « 32 3

 32 32 104 5.2 45 2.25

Firefighters (volun tee r)___ 30 2 < 6 3

 6 6 20 1.0 10 .50

Corrections officers.............. 8 . 3

 15 « 12 14 41 2.05 15 .7 5

1

 If provision permitting benefits retroactive to October 1972 is deleted, only projected annual costs would apply.

1

 FBI, uniform crime reports.

3

 Includes all performance of duty deaths.

* Estimate derived from base year data on arson and fires of suspicious origins (22 percent of base year deaths.) 

3

 Deaths reported to LEAA.

• Estimate derived from previous year data. , ,

61-356 0 - 75 - 3
30

TABLE B.—ESTIMATED COSTS OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER DEATH BENEFITS LEGISLATION WITH BROAD 

COVERAGE »

Number of retroactive deaths (calendar 

yea r)) Retroactive benefits

Projected annual 

costs, calendar year 

1976 and 

following

Public safety officer class 1972, 1975, Ap- Amount Amount

(causes of death) 4th qtr. 1973 1974 proximate Number (m illion s) Number (m illions )

Total............ .................. 91 364 390 392 1, 237 $61.85 386 $19.3

Police............................... 44 171 200 200 615 30.75 191 9.55

Felonious1

.................................. 31 127 128 128 414 20.7 125 6.25

Other crim ina l ac ts 3________ 5 14 42 42 103 5.15 36 1.8

Other line of duty deaths 8 30 30 30 98 4.9 30 1.5

Firefighters (p aid) ......... 39 148 148 148 483 24.15 150 7.5

Arson 8

....................................... 8 32 32 32 104 5.2 40 2.0

Other c rim inal acts 8

................. 13 50 52 52 167 8. 35 50 2.5

Other line of duty deaths « .... 18 66 64 64 212 10.6 60 3.0

Fire fighters (vo lun tee r)______ 8 30 30 30 98 4.9 30 1.5

Arson 8___________________ 2 6 8 8 24 1.2 8 .4

Other criminal acts 8_._............ 3 11 10 10 34 1.7 11 .55

Other line of duty deaths 3 13 12 12 40 2.0 11 .55

Corrections officers___ 15 12 14 41 2.05 15 .75

Fe lon iou s8

.................................

Other deaths’ ............................

15 12 14 41 2.05 15 .75

' If provision permitting benefits retroactive to October 1972 is deleted, only projected annual costs would apply.

1

 FBI, uniform crime reports.

3

 Estimate of annual deaths associated with crimes other than felonious.

< Estimate of deaths due to other hazardous duty (no crimes involved).

3

 Arson and other crim inal acts deaths derived from National Fire Protection Association sample of firefighters and 

Stanford Research Institute data.

8

 Information obtained from American Corrections Association and State survey.

’ Information or estimates not available.

Note: If the inte nt of the legislation is to cover deaths from occupational illnesses and diseases, added costs are estimated at $100,000,000 in retroactive benefits and $31,000,000 annually thereafter.

Mr. E ilberg. Thank you, Mr. Durham, for a very fine statement.

We have some questions for you.

Can you tell us what benefits are currently provided by State and 

local governments, in terms of lump sum death benefits, life insurance, 

employees’ compensation?

Mr. D urham. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that they vary 

extremely widely. In discussing with the committee counsel yesterday 

afternoon the possible questions, he indicated tha t maybe if I could 

get one State as an illustrative point it might be helpful to the committee. I had LEAA contact Pennsylvania, your home State.

It was my understanding from the information I got yesterday that 

Philadelphia itself has a very generous program for the police survivors 

of the Philadelphia police force. It amounts to approximately 70 percent of their pay, which, with tax benefits, brings it up essentially to 

almost full pay, plus a scholarship program for survivors, and so forth, 

which makes it an extremely generous and adequate compensation.

But the State as a whole, the various municipalities, small places, 

and so forth, have varying amounts. It is likely that many of these are 

inadequate. There is a provision, I am told, in Pennsylvania State law 

tha t if a locality does not provide comparable insurance or other 

benefits, the survivors come under the State workmen’s compensation, 

which I am told is $100 per week for a certain period of time. I think
31

it is 3 or 4 yea rs. It is ce rta inly a step in the ri gh t direction, bu t i t is n ot 

com parable either to the Ph iladelph ia pro gra m or to some othe r 

programs.

So, in sum ma ry, the va ria tio n across the co un try is manifold. The 

real prob lem, as I see it, arise s from the fact th at you have a fragme nte d police au th or ity across the country . I rem em ber one surve y a 

few ye ars ago in the g reater St. Louis area, there were some 90-odd differ ent police agencies in the greater St. Lou is area. I think over 90 

perce nt of policemen who were covered were in St . Louis proper, bu t 

in the oth er 10 p erc ent, yo u had some 80 or 85 or 89 different ham lets,

* 5 police in this haml et, 10 police in an othe r an d so forth . Tho se are 

the ones th at really lack co verage and suffer.

Mr. E ilb erg. Are you in a position , then, Mr. Du rham , yo ur Depa rtm en t, in getting us a breakd own of the na tio na l situatio n?

I t would be helpful to this subcom mittee and to the Congress if 

we had th at i nfo rmation.

Mr. D urham. I will certa inly un de rta ke to ob tain all the inform ation we can. Whethe r it can be 100 perce nt or 90 perce nt inclu sive, 

I could no t pre dic t. We will go to work and see wh at we can come up 

with .

Mr. E ilb erg. Will yo u do that?

Mr. D urham. We will do it.

[See appen dix 2 a t p. 130 for “A nalysis of W ork me n’s Com pen sation 

La ws ” ; see app end ix 4 for am ounts of life insura nce provided to 

firemen in various cities; and see app end ix 3 for am ounts of life 

insura nce provided to policemen.]

Mr. E ilb erg. In yo ur opinion, should Feder al law enforc ement 

officials be covered by thi s legislatio n?

Mr. D urham. In our proposals, we hav e covered Fed eral law 

enforcement officials. We would su pp ort this coverag e for Federal 

officers.

Mr. E ilb erg. Federal law enforcem ent officers are prese ntly 

covered by the Fed eral Employee s C om pensation A ct. So m y q uestion 

is, would you also include benefits for the m under this legislatio n?

Mr. D urham. We have in the past, and we conti nue to supp ort 

th at coverage.

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Du rham , it is my un de rst an din g th at benefits 

r va ry de pen ding on the condition of the family of t he deceased Fed eral

law enforcement officer, bu t that it is no t unu sua l for th at fam ily 

to, within reasonable tim e, receive benefits in excess of $50,000.

The questio n I am rea lly asking you is wh eth er it is necessary to

• include Federal law enf orc em ent officers if the y are gett ing su bs tantial 

benefits at the pre sen t time ?

I would ask you , if yo u would, to com pare the benefits of Fed eral 

law enforcement officers and tell us what benefits the y get precisely , 

so th at we are n ot adding on unnecessarily. We did no t do so in the la st 

two Congresses because we felt in a great ma ny cases the families 

would receive a su bs tantial am ount, if no t more th an $50,000. So I 

wonder if you would examin e th at problem and rep ort to us on th at .

Mr. D urham. I would be glad to.

[The following st at uto ry provision sets forth the benefits of the 

Federal Employ ees Comp ens atio n Act:]
32

Title 5.—Government Organization and Employees

8ECTION 8133. COM PENSATION IN CASE OF DEATH

(a) If dea th results from an injury sustained in the performance of duty, the 

United States shall pay a monthly compensation equal to a percentage of the 

mon thly pay of the deceased employee in accordance with th e following schedule:

(1) To the widow or widower, if there is no child, 45 percent.

(2) To the widow or widower, if there is a child, 40 perc ent and in addition 

15 percent for each child not to exceed a total of 75 perc ent for the widow or 

widower and children. (3) To the children, if there is no widow or widower, 35 percent for one child

and 15 perc ent additional for each additional child not to exceed a total of 75 

percent, divided among the children share and share alike. *

(4) To the parents, if th ere is no widow, widower, or child, as follows—

(A) 25 percent if one paren t was wholly dependent on the employee at 

the time of dea th and the o the r was not dependent to any exten t;

(B) 20 percent to each if bo th were wholly d epende nt; or

(C) a proportionate amoun t in the discretion of the Secretary of Labor *

if one or both were pa rtly dependent.

If there is a widow, widower, or child, so much of the percentages are payable 

as, when added to the total perce ntages payable to the widow, widower, and 

children, will no t exceed a tota l of 75 percent. (5) To the brothers, sisters, grandparents, and grandchildren, if there is no 

widow7

, widower, child, or d ependent parent, as follows—

(A) 20 percent if one was wholly dependent on the employee at the time 

of deat h; (B) 30 percent if more than one was wholly dependen t, divided among 

the dependen ts share and share alike; or

(C) 10 percent if no one is wholly depe nden t bu t one or more is partly 

depe ndent, divided among the dependents share and share alike.

If there is a widow, widower, child, or depe ndent parent, so much of the percentages are payable as, when added to the tota l percentages payable to the 

widow, widow7er, children, and dependent parents, will not exceed a tota l of 75 

percent. (b) The compensation payable und er subsection (a) of th is section is paid from 

the time of death until—

(1) a widow dies or remarries;

(2) a widower dies or remarries or becomes capable of self-support;

(3) a child, a brother, a sister, or a grandchild dies or marries or becomes 

18 years of age, or if over age 18 and incapable of self-support becomes 

capable of self-support; or

(4) a paren t or g randpa rent dies or marries or ceases to be dependent. 

Notwithstand ing para graph (3) of this subsection, compensation payable to or 

for a child, a brother or sister, or a g randpa rent t ha t would otherwise end because 

the child, brother or sister, or grandchild has reached 18 years of age shall continue if he is a stud ent as defined by section 8101 of this title at the time he reaches

18 years of age for so long as he continues to be such a stud ent or un til he marries. i

(c) On the cessation of compensation under this section to or on account of an 

individual, the compensation of the remaining individuals entitled to compensation for the unexpired pa rt of the period during which their compensation is payable, is th at which they would have received if they had been the only individuals 

entitled to compensation at the time of the dea th of th e employee. (d) When there are two or more classes of individuals entitled to compensation 

under this section and the app ortionm ent of compensation under this section 

would resu lt in injustice, the Secretary may modify the appo rtionme nt to meet 

the requirem ents of the case. (e) In computing compensation under this section, the mon thly pay is deemed 

not less than th e minimum rate of basic pay for GS-2. However, the tota l monthly 

compensation may not exceed— (1) the monthly pay computed under section 8114 of this titl e; or

(2) 75 percent of the monthly pay of the maximum rat e of basic pay for 

GS-15. (Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 547; Pub. L. 90-83, § 1(62), Sept. 11,

1967, 81 Stat. 211.)
33

Mr. Eilberg. If, as vou suggest, the benefits should be limited to 

deaths resulting from criminal acts or apparent criminal action, where 

does this leave the firemen?

Mr. Durham. We would suggest tha t they get the same benefits.

Now, back in, I recall, the riots of 1968 there were numerous 

instances where firemen were shot at when they went into the riot 

area to try to put out the fire. There had been instances-----

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Durham, we know firemen tha t are involved 

in deaths caused by arson or deaths caused by sniper fire would clearly 

be covered tha t way. But we know also from previous experience of 

this subcommittee that those numbers are negligible. We are talking 

about the great bulk of firemen who die.

I wonder what your attitu de is?

Mr. Durham. Our position has consistently been, Mr. Chairman, 

that accidental deaths, such as deaths of firemen in fighting a normal 

fire and so forth, should be covered by employment benefits of the 

employer. To include firemen for accidental deaths, we see no real 

rationale for including them and excluding sanitation workers who 

get caught in workings of their machines or anybody, else who is 

subject to accidental death.

Mr. D odd. Would you please describe for me what a normal fire is?

Mr. Durham. A typical fire, I suppose, is a building on fire, and 

the firemen go to put it out. I realize it varies from fire to fire, and 

there are circumstances tha t make certain fires more dangerous than 

others. Certainly, the size of the building burning and so forth: I 

would imagine city fires by and large are more dangerous, because 

they can be the larger buildings.

Mr. Dodd. I ju st wanted to get to the point. You are talking about 

normal fires. If someone dies while trying to put out a fire, whether 

it is normal or abnormal seems to me a little vague, what you are 

trying to get at.

I do not want to belabor the point, but I would like to see a fireman 

try to describe what a normal fire is. When they have to go in and 

fight them, whether they are normal or abnormal, it is dangerous.

Mr. D urham. There is no question about that.

Mr. E ilberg. By what reasoning do you call that accidental death? 

In support of Mr. Dodd’s point, if a man is burned to death or dies 

as a result of a flaming building, do you still call that an accidental 

death, and therefore it should not be covered?

Is tha t what you believe?

Mr. Durham. We believe tha t the Federal interest or Federal 

involvement should be limited to a crime-induced death, because the 

genesis for the program and so forth has been-----

Mr. Eilberg. We understand that. I just object very much to the 

use of the term “accidental death.” I think it has no useful connotation at all with regard to this legislation, fighting fire and death as a 

result of activity, which, according to the bill, is determined by the 

administration to be potentially dangerous. The term “accidental 

death” has very little meaning to me or the members of this 

subcommittee.

That is my reaction.

But for a moment, accepting your position, the Departme nt’s 

position, on death by crime, Gulf Oil Co. in Philadelphia recently 

had a fire. According to the city solicitor, he said tha t the building
34

code or fire code was violated. There is some construction tha t was 

defective. I have not examined that provision in the local ordinance 

and do not know whether it amounts to a misdemeanor.

Suppose it amounts to a misdemeanor. Would you include those 

firemen wrho died as a result of a misdemeanor—the construction of 

this particular refinery?

Mr. Durham. Tha t type of question, of course, would require 

legal research and so forth. My off-the-cuff opinion is tha t it would 

probably not be covered. Otherwise, I think you would, in effect, be 

reading a crime into every fire, because in almost every instance 

there is some violation of something.

Mr. Eilberg. Do you agree tha t the definition of crime should be 

determined by the local law, by local jurisdiction?

Who is going to determine whether an act involved was a crime or 

not?

Are you going to determine that, or is that going to be determined 

by LEAA, or is it going to be left to local authorities?

Mr. Durham. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, tha t LEAA as administrators of the program would make the determination, taking 

into account the legislative history of the proposal and what was 

intended and would administer the program in keeping with the 

intention of Congress.

Mr. Eilberg. I am going to yield to Mr. Dodd.

Mr. Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Jus t touching on a point on which I asked the chairman to yield 

and he so gracefully did, with regard to the whole question of accidental 

death, unintentional death, in dealing with police and fire, I can appreciate what you are trying to say.

I would like to ask you just a basic—what I consider to be a fundamental question. Do you understand tha t the job of a fireman or a 

policeman is inherently dangerous?

Mr. Durham. Absolutely.

Mr. D odd. I have difficulty, looking at the bill—I would like, maybe 

if you have a copy of the bill in front of you-----

Mr. Durham. Yes, I have one right here.

Mr. Dodd. Looking at H.R. 366, on page 4, I wonder if you could 

just—at the top of page 4, where it talks about “at the time of his 

injury”—I am reading from the bottom of page 3—“at the time of a

of his injury engage in,” then it proceeds to enumerate the various 

activities under which a, in this case, a public safety officer would 

qualify for the benefits. It lists the four categories.

I wonder if you could cite for me, give me a good example under *

those four instances in which a person would not qualify for these 

benefits under your definition in any one of them.

Mr. Durham. Well, I would say if he were responding to a call, say, 

in a police car and was told something happened 10 blocks away, 

he was driving in a normal way, with no lights on and so forth, and 

he gets in an automobile accident, I do not see tha t tha t in and of 

itself would probably qualify for recovery.

I think you can think up many hypotheticals. I do not know all 

the details of the ways in which police have met accidental death 

while they were on duty. I am sure tha t a lot of them get run over 

walking across the street or directing traffic.

Mr. Dodd. Shot at.
35

Mr. Durham. The ones th at are shot at are covered ; no problem.

Mr. Dodd. M y poin t is, we seem to be looking at it from two differen t views. I see the police officer or firefighter really, in ter ms of discussing this po int to be actin g in the line of du ty. The police officer 

who is drivin g to the scene of an acc ide nt or when th at pa rti cu lar car 

has been sen t to a problem area, or a police officer who is walking down 

the street and some one tak es a shot at him, or someone drives ou t of 

a blind area and run s into his car and hits him is in the line of du ty, 

performing a service to protec t people, and he is killed in the perfo rm ­

ance of th at du ty.

• I j us t have a very difficult time appreciat ing the significance of y ou r 

poi nt th at we should be sp littin g hairs, in a sense, between th at 

case where someone s hoots at someone and in the case where someone 

drives ou t and run s into his car where he is performin g the same

* functio n in the normal course of his obligation .

Mr. D urham. In the case of the police officer, the distinctio n is 

more difficult. In the case of the fireman, it is a clear distinctio n.

In the case of the police officer, for instan ce, suppose a police 

officer, ju st on rou tin e patrol, is riding around 20 miles an ho ur on 

patrol, and he is run into by somebody who run s a sto p sign, ju st like 

I could be run int o or you could be run into . We do no t see t hat un de r 

those circ umstance s a police officer n ecessarily should get an y pa rtic ular benefits from the Fed eral Gover nm ent .

Now, he certa inly is en titled to job -re lated benefits in m ost cases.

Mr. D odd. T hat is all I hav e, Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. E ilbe rg . Th an k you.

Mr. Du rham , wh at is the an tic ipa ted cost of this legislation for 

each year after en actm en t, if y ou know?

Mr. Durham. As to legislation, as prop osed by the subcom mittee, 

the only figures I have are the LEA A stu dy , which ind ica ted $50 

million pro gra m for the b ackdating, using the figures of app roximate ly 

200 per ye ar; 200 times 50,000 would be ab ou t $10 million a year. 

I thi nk th at is probably the ball park.

Again, it is ha rd to put a precise figure until we d ecide exactly who 

is included in the non crim e-re late d death s.

Mr. Eilb er g. So you are pro vid ing a ball park figure un de r 

criminal acts, un de r the con cept you supp ort, abo ut $10 million a 

v

yea r?

Mr. D urham. I think th at would be generous. I thi nk it probably 

would be less than th at . I will get you this precise figure.

Mr. E ilb erg. We would like to hav e it, if you could pro vid e us 

« with th at , the cos t of the proposals th at we hav e before us and the

cost of y ou r proposal. We also would like to hav e the answer to the 

que stio n of how much retro ac tiv ity would cost, if you can get th at 

info rma tion .

Mr. D urham. All right.

I have th at included in my statemen t. Our figures are ap prox im ate ly 

$50 million as of the pre sen t time.

Mr. Eilberg. Now, I take it, the n, th at , from wh at you have said, 

you are ta lking abo ut police officers.

Are there any o th er categories th at you would include?

Mr. Durham. We would incl ude public saf ety officers. In th at we 

would include peop le invo lved in corrections, people involve d in the
36

actua l cou rt proceedin gs, and so forth. In o ther words, people inv olved 

in the criminal j ustice process.

Mr. Eilb erg. Would yo u inclu de narc otics agen ts?

Mr. Durham. Yes, sir. Th ey are law enforceme nt officers.

Mr. E ilb erg. How ab ou t officers involve d in the work of juvenile 

delinquency?

Mr. D urham. If the y are p ar t of th e public service compon ent of the 

political en tit y, yes.

Mr. Eilberg. W ha t a bo ut judges?

Mr. Durham. Yes, sir.

Mr. E ilb erg. Lawy ers? *

Mr. Durham. You are sta rti ng to get furth er and fu rth er aw ay. I do 

no t t hink lawyers would be include d.

Mr. E ilb erg. Sten ograp her s, court sten ograph ers?

Mr. D urham. N o. *

Mr. Eilb erg. Bailiffs?

Mr. D urham. I would think the bailiffs, in connection with— in other 

words, the type of episode th at h appened out in Califor nia a few y ears 

back. I think th at would be conte mp lated in the program.

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Du rham , do you believe the kind of legislation 

we are talkin g about, wh eth er you acc ept the version th at app ear s 

in the bills before us or wh eth er you acc ept the crim inal act concept, 

will aid in the re cru itm ent qu ality of police officers?

Mr. D urham. I think it should be a factor. It is certainly no t going 

to be the determ ining f act or, bu t it is all pa rt of the r ecognition of the 

importance of this typ e of work, an importance th at Congress places 

on i t a nd people place on it.

Mr. Eilb erg. Will it in crease morale?

Mr. D urham. I would think so, yes, sir.

Mr. Eilb erg. Mr. Sar ban es.

Mr. Sarb ane s. Mr. Du rham , I am no t quite sure I follow your 

rat ion ale with res pect to this prop osal. I tak e it on page s 5 an d 6 t ha t 

yo ur pref erred position is th at the public saf ety officers be encompassed within the Pr esiden t’s proposal and his crim e message for victim s of Fed eral crime. Is th at right?

Mr. D urham. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sarb ane s. That is yo ur preferred position?

Mr. Durham. Yes, sir. a Mr. Sarb ane s. Please go to page 5 of your sta temen t. ou sta te 

the re, ju st before the quote , “the Presiden t’s program would extend 

to all victim s of Federal crim e.” I am impressed with the word 

“F ed eral.” In the quote you also con tinu e, “I urge the Con gress”— K

thi s is the Presi dent tal kin g n ow— “ I urge the Congress to pass legislation to meet the uncomp ensat ed economic losses of victim s of F ede ral 

crim es who suffer person al injury .” You would place the pub lic 

safety officer within th at purview, is th at right?

Mr. D urham. Well------

Mr. Sarb anes. Sup pose he is killed , no t as a consequence of a 

Federal crime bu t of a St ate crime, he would no t get any benefit, is 

th at right?

Mr. D urham. We advocate, and I hope I hav e ma de it clear, th at 

States ad op t com parable pro grams for victim s of State crimes, no t 

ju st pub lic service officers bu t all victim s of State crimes, the same as
37

the President’s program would compensate all victims of Federal 

crime, not just police officers, not just Federal police officers, and not 

just State police officers, but the man in the street who is a victim of 

a Federal crime, the man who is in a bank when a Federal bank 

robbery takes place.

Mr. Sarbanes. Did you read the legislation tha t has been intro ­

duced, the measures which you criticize as containing that limitation?

Mr. Durham. The criticism we have of the measures introduced 

are two: one, the retroactivity, the other, the extension to recovery 

for other than a victim of a criminal act.

Mr. Sarbanes. I want to take you a step further because, as I 

understand the measures that have been introduced, they would pay, 

if you were killed in the performance of duty-----

Mr. Durham. Tha t is right.

Mr. Sarbanes [continuing]. Whether that performance of duty ran 

to a Federal crime or a State crime.

Mr. Durham. Well, they go even further than that.

Mr. Sarbanes. I understand that.

I am not talking about that.

But, your preferred position would not extend protection to a 

public safety officer killed by a criminal act if the criminal act was 

criminal under State law rather than Federal law, is tha t correct?

Mr. Durham. You are correct. However, we advocate tha t States 

adopt, and I think cpiite a few of them have already adopted-----

Mr. Sarbanes. I want to be very clear tha t I understand what 

your position is. I want to go to page 5 of your statement. I would 

like to understand the course of action which you think would be a 

preferable answer to the problem. You then outline what I understand 

to be your preferred position. Leaving aside the question of accidental 

death, and I understand your point in that area. Tha t was the 

exchange you had with Congressman Dodd. I do not really know how 

you are going to draw tha t distinction. I think you have a lot of 

problems with it. But let us leave it to one side.

Your preferred position under the proposal, the death gratu ity 

proposal would extend to the victims of Federal crime, whether they 

are public safety officers or not, but they are victims of Federal crime; 

what about a safety officer who is killed in the performance of duty 

bv a criminal act tha t is criminal under State law and not under 

Federal law? As I understand your preferred position, he would not 

be covered, is that correct?

Mr. Durham. Our preferred position is that victims of a Federal 

crime be paid by the Federal Government under this particular 

legislation; victims of State crime be paid under comparable State 

programs, and we also suggested here, at least to the extent-----

Mr. Sarbanes. I think we ought to get this out. Your preferred 

position is really an extraordinarily limited position, is it not?

Mr. Durham. Not at all.

Mr. Sarbanes. It certainly is more limited than the legislation 

before the committee, not only with respect to accidental death as 

opposed to deaths that are the result of criminal acts, but it then 

subdivides criminal acts, really, into two categories, and provides 

payment if it is a Federal crime, but not payment if it is a State 

crime.

Is tha t correct?
38

Mr. Durham. No. We advocate tha t victims of crime be compensated. We advocate tha t the Federal Government compensate the 

victims of Federal crime. We would support and we advocate State 

compensation for victims of State crime.

Mr. Sarbanes. Leaving aside the accidental deaths, are not most of 

the deaths in the line of duty of law enforcement officials from criminal 

acts, the result of State crimes and not Federal crimes?

Mr. Durham. Probably a large percentage of them, yes; though 

there are, as you probably know, the provisions of 5 U.S. Code 8191, 

which was enacted about, back in 1968, which provides a benefit for 

State officers killed in the enforcement of Federal law, has been very 

liberally interpreted, so tha t if the person, the perpetrator of the 

death, was wanted by the Federal Government on a felony warrant 

and so forth, it is considered the result of a Federal crime. The interpretation has been, I believe, pretty liberal. So the percentages are 

a little bit higher than you would otherwise anticipate.

Mr. Eilberg. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Sarbanes. Yes.

Mr. Eilberg. Assuming, Mr. Sarbanes, on your approach, turn to 

page 6 of your statement, in your first paragraph, you say that the 

“States could utilize block grant funds to finance a State program of 

death benefits for State and local law enforcement officials.” Is tha t 

what you are saying, tha t this should be the place or the only place 

tha t the Federal assistance would be received for the death of local 

police or fire officials?

Mr. Durham. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. And that there should be no separate $50,000 benefit 

under the kind of legislation we are offering here?

Mr. Durham. No. We are talking about, essentially the same 

quantum of recovery. In other words, the President’s program contemplates benefits up to $50,000.

Mr. Eilberg. Would you agree there is a great deal of competition 

among those block grants for various purposes, and we have no assurance, the Congress would have no assurance, in any particular State 

tha t a preference or a priority would be placed upon the deaths of 

policemen or firemen?

Mr. Durham. Yes, sir.

Mr. E ilberg. Do you not think tha t is a weakness in your position?

Mr. Durham. It certainly is a problem.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Sarbanes?

Mr. Sarbanes. Has the Department considered an approach which 

would make it a requirement of receiving LEAA funds, tha t State 

and local governments join with the Federal Government in establishing a comprehensive program of benefits, perhaps not only death 

but also injury? You might establish it on some kind of insurance 

principle, but in effect what you would be establishing would be a 

program that, in effect, assured to all public safety officers tha t the 

benefits would be paid. The distinctions you draw do not make sense. 

The essential premise, it would seem to me at the end of all of this, 

would be tha t these men and women perform an important function 

for the society, one th at is under great stress and pressure. Therefore 

we need to provide for them and their families as a matter of public 

policy, and tha t the Department really ought to be taking this need 

into account. Developing a program that compels the State and local
39

governments in conjunction with the Federal Government to make 

such benefits available.

Under the system you are proposing, one surviving family is going 

to get $50,000, and another family which is in roughly the same posture will not get a penny because it was a State crime and not a Federal crime. One fellow, if he is startin g out to get somewhere and is 

10 blocks away and runs into somebody at the street corner may not 

get anything. But if he is within a block of where the Federal crime 

is being committed and can somehow bring himself within the purview of the criminal act tha t is being committed yet his family is 

going to get the $50,000. I t has no logic to it.

Why do we not take as a premise that these people perform a very 

important social function. They are not being protected by a benefit 

plan adequately. The Federal Government has involved itself through 

the LEAA program. Just take that program another step, and in 

effect, establish comprehensive benefits, perhaps not only for death, 

but for injury as well.

Has the Departmen t considered that?

Mr. Durham. We certainly have considered it, and I think we have 

encouraged States and localities to take appropriate action. As far 

as dictating to them, we have been very reluctant. In fact, I believe 

the Safe Streets Act itself has limitations in it in what we can command State and local governments to do with or about their police 

forces. We do not want to get into the position of dictating to States 

tha t they must do this or must not do that. I think tha t is the wrong 

road.

Mr. Sarbanes. Do you think tha t it is really of no matter to 

the Federal Government, which is putting millions of dollars into 

the LEAA program, whether they establish a proper comprehensive 

benefit system for their people? You earlier, I understand, indicated 

tha t the type of program a State establishes with LEAA funds has a 

very important impact on morale.

Mr. D urham. I think it is very important that they have good programs, adequate programs. I think there is a difference between encouraging them to have adequate programs and giving them information on what an adequate program is and showing them what Philadelphia does as against what Podunk or somewhere else does, and 

show them. T hat is one of the big functions of LEAA, to get the word 

around, to get good programs, to get the States exposed to good programs. But as far as dictating, we do not take the position tha t tha t 

is one of our proper functions.

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pursue Mr. Sarbanes’ 

initial question to you regarding public safety officers.

Your suggestion is th at the States ought to come up with comparable plans to provide benefits to the dependents of those people who 

are killed where there is the performance of a criminal act.

Are you suggesting as well that a Federal officer, a Federal public 

safety officer who is killed, in your definition, in the performance of 

a criminal act tha t turns out to be a State crime would also be excluded from your plan?

Mr. Durham. Under the proposal which we backed in the last 

Congress, he would not be excluded. Under the proposal of the President, he would not be included if he were killed as the result of a 

State crime.
40

Mr. Dodd. A Federal officer would not be?

Mr. Durham. That is right.

Mr. Dodd. What about a State public safety officer who is killed 

in the performance of a Federal crime?

Mr. Durham. He would be covered under the President’s proposal.

Under the President’s proposal, the test is not who is killed, but how 

he is killed; in other words, if he is killed as the result of a Federal 

crime, it does not make any difference whether he is a Federal law 

enforcement officer.

Mr. Dodd. How does a public safety officer who is killed in the 

performance of a State crime get any compensation from a State if 

he is a Federal officer?

Mr. Durham. The Federal officer who is killed as the result of a 

State crime is going to get his own Federal Employees Compensation 

Act benefits and the Federal insurance-----

Mr. Dodd. But he would not qualify for this?

Mr. Durham. That is right.

Mr. Sarbanes. You are not suggesting tha t the public safety enforcement officers, before they go in on a criminal situation, ought to 

make some determination of whether it is Federal or State, are you?

Mr. Durham. I am sorry?

Mr. Sarbanes. Would not the prudent thing for the public safety 

officer to do before going into a criminal situation be to determine 

whether it is a Federal or State crime?

Under your suggestion, tha t certainly would be sort of the logical 

and prudent thing to do, would it not?

Mr. Durham. Not really, Mr. Congressman, there has to be a line 

drawn in almost any benefit program. People just on the other side of 

the line feel tha t the line should have been drawn differently. Take 

retroactivity—the selection of the date of October 11, 1972, has a 

certain obvious logic to it because of what happened on that day.

But by the same token, somebody who was killed on the 10th is going 

to think this is not a very good, logical position. W’hy do we not go 

back to the first of October, and so forth and so on. Anyplace you 

draw the line, people are going to get hurt. I agree tha t you can think 

up hypotheticals under any of these proposals which would seem to 

create an illogical result.

Mr. Sarbanes. You are drawing so many lines, you are obviously <

going to have to draw a time line because you are going to put in a 

program where you did not have one. So, you have a question of when 

does the program take effect. That is a question that always confronts 

us with any program that carries benefits with it. But beyond tha t, *

you are carving up the class of beneficiaries in such a way tha t this 

creates one illogicality upon another. Your own proposals do that.

You really have come along with different propositions. As I understand it, on the one hand you say you have the same position you had 

before; b ut on the other hand you say really, your preferred position 

is the President’s message, which is not identical with your prior 

position.

Mr. Durham. T hat is right. We indicated we would still support our 

prior position; but we indicated tha t if we had our choice, we would 

rather have this newer program. But either program would receive 

the support of the administration.

Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
41

Mr. Eilberg. Under the President’s proposals and your comments 

following it, it seems to me th at we are not getting to the problem that 

this subcommittee is trying to face at all. First, I believe that the majority of Federal employees would already 

be covered adequately by the standards of the bills tha t we are 

considering under the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Second, 

I do not know the extent to which you personally follow the legislation, 

but S. 1 and H.R. 3907 are very extensive bills. I am not a betting man, but I would like to suggest tha t these bills, 

which cover a wide range of subjects, will n ot be enacted in the 94th 

Congress. This Member is n ot content to wait even for the passage 

of tha t legislation, which would not answer everything, even the 

problem we are concerned with here.

Thank you.

Mr. Durham. I understand.

Mr. Eilberg. We have just two other witnesses. We would like to 

accommodate them if we can. I would like to welcome Mr. Kenneth Lyons, president of the 

International Brotherhood of Police Officers. I understand he is 

accompanied by Alan Whitney, executive vice president, and Sgt. 

Steve Snyder of the Denver, Colo. Police Department.

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH T. LYONS, PRESID ENT, INTERNATIONAL

BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE OFFICERS, ACCOMPANIED BY ALAN

WHITNEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERN ATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF POLICE OFFICERS; SGT. STEVE

SNYDER, DENVER, COLO. POLICE DEPARTMEN T; OFFICER LARRY

SIMONS, PRESIDENT, IBPO LOCAL 442, WASHINGTON, D.C., METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT; AND PFC. JIM TUCKER, P RESIDENT, IBPO LOCAL 498, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD. POLICE

DEPARTMENT

Mr. Eilberg. It is a pleasure to see you again, Mr. Lyons. I know 

of the interest you have in this legislation and how we have worked 

together frequently. We are very pleased to have you here this morning.

Mr. Lyons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am accompanied by Mr. Alan Whitney, our executive vice president, and Sgt. Steve Snyder of the Denver Police Department.

Mr. Eilberg. Which is Mr. Whitney?

Mr. Lyons. Mr. Whitney [indicating] and Mr. Steve Snyder 

[indicating] of the Denver Police Department. Officer Larry Simons, 

president of the District of Columbia Police Department is sitting 

over here [indicating].

And Officer Jim Tucker, president of our local at Montgomery 

County Police Department. I might add too th at Larry Simons is the 

president of the District of Columbia Police D epartment union here 

in Washington.

First, I want to thank the committee for allowing us to testify here 

today. I would like to point out that in an era which is marked more 

by indifference than attention to the individual needs of police officers 

and their families, it is refreshing and reassuring to witness the support evidenced by this subcommittee’s past approval and present 

consideration of the legislative proposal now before you.
42

The purpose of this bill was described in a committee report dated 

March 21, 1974, as being, “in recognition of society’s moral obligation 

to compensate the families of those individuals who daily risk their 

lives to preserve peace and to protect the lives and properties of 

others.”

H.R. 366 would provide a Federal payment of $50,000 to the survivors of public safety officers who died on or after October 11, 1972. 

It also would permit the immediate payment of an interim benefit of 

up to $3,200 in cases where it appears probable tha t a final benefit will 

be awarded.

For the background of the subcommittee’s members, I would like 

to briefly and quickly describe the history of our organization. The 

first local of the IBPO was formed in 1964 by the officers of the Cranston, R.I., Police Department. In 1968 the IBPO convention voted to 

affiliate with and become a division of the National Association of 

Government Employees.

Since tha t merger in 1968, the IBPO has grown rapidly and dramatically. Today, it is the Nation’s largest bona fide police union, with 

more than 300 locals and 30,000 members. The IBPO represents 

police officers in departments both large and small, including, for 

example, the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department; 

Hartford, Conn.; Springfield, Mass.; Salt Lake City, Utah; Boise, 

Idaho; Santa Barbara, Calif.; Beaumont, Tex.; St. Augustine, Fla.; 

and many others throughout the United States.

Our objective is twofold: First, to enhance and protect the rights 

and benefits of our members through legislation and the collective 

bargaining process; and second, to promote a high degree of professionalism among law enforcement personnel.

We firmly believe tha t legislative approval and enactment of 

H.R. 366 will admirably serve both these objectives. We believe th at 

the intention of the Congress to write 4his promise into law has been 

abundantly demonstrated and justifies prompt action toward tha t end.

Previous hearings have thoroughly examined both the premise and 

the application of this proposed legislation. In view of the lengthy 

record already compiled, I do not intend to go into great detail. 

However, I believe tha t several important points deserve restating 

and reemphasis.

Data derived from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s uniform 

crime reports show clearly th at the problem which originally brought 

about introduction of this legislation in the 92d Congress has not 

abated in the least; law enforcement officers continue to die in the 

line of duty at a rate more than three times greater than in 1961.

The following table represents an updating of the table which 

appeared in the committee report, dated March 21, 1974, accompanying H.R. 11321. It reflects the number of law enforcement officers 

killed each year since 1961 as the result of felonious criminal action. 

You will note, in 1961 there were 37 police officers killed; in 1974, 

132; in 19?5 to date, 92. :
43

Number

Year: killed

1961 .................. ............................................... ........................- 37

1962 _______________________________ _____________ 48

1963 ....................... ......... ................................ .......................... 55

1964 ..... ........... . ........................... ................... ........................ 57

1965 ___ ________ __________ ________ _____ -........... . 53

1966 _______________ 57

1967 ............. .................................. ......... ..................-............... 76

1968......... 64

1969 __________________ 86

1970 _________________ _____ ______________ ___ ____ 100

1971 ___ ______________ _________ _____ _______ _____ 126

• 1972________________ ______ ____ ___________ ______ 112

1973 ________ __________ _______ ___________________ 131

1974 ____________________ 132

1975 (to September 18)__________________________________ 92

These statistics, dramatic as th ey are, do no t even begin to convey the anguish and trauma visited upon the wives and ciiildren of the 

officers who have died bravely and violently in the service of our communities. Nor could numbers do any more t han hint at the incal­ culable loss to our Nation and our society th at their deaths represent; for, in trut h, with each death of a police officer, we lose one of our 

best and our brightest. In most jurisdictions of the country, the aftermath of the death 

of a police officer in the line of duty is not pleasant to contemplate. Oftentimes, it is a young widow and her young children who are sud­ denly and crushingly faced with the abrupt loss of a husband and father. Initially, this shock tends to obscure the realization of the long-term impact and its practical effects on the financial security 

and well-being of the family. Only after the emotional period following the funeral passes does the widow come face to face with the despairing realization that she has been left without the means to cope with the financial needs of caring for, raising, and educating her children. The day-to-day problems which would have been difficult enough to deal with on the average police officer’s sala ry are now compounded beyond any rational expectation 

of her ability to cope. The overriding justification for enactm ent of H.R. 366 lies in the 

moral obligation tha t we as a Nation owe to the survivors of those public safety officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice of giving up their lives to protect our lives, our safety, and our property.

In a state men t to this subcommittee in July 1973, Congressman Claude Pepper of Florida spoke meaningfully and with great wisdom of the high ideals and motivation of those who enter the field of law 

enforcement. He also explained, in the following words, why an atta ck 

on a police officer is an attac k on us all :

It has been said that killing a policeman is a “ plain and simple murder.” But it is much more than that. When anyone consciously attacks a policeman, he is attacking both an important symbol of organized society and an indispensable element of an organized and viable society. He attacks our body of laws. He attac ks our democracy. He attacks each of us in a very real way.

Parenthetically, I would like to note tha t most testimony on this matt er in previous years has referred almost exclusively to policemen. 

However, since a year ago, we can no longer confine our concern to the 

men who have laid down their lives as police officers.
44

A year ago tomorrow, Washington, D.C., officer Gail Cobb became 

the first policewoman in the Nation to be killed in the line of duty when 

she died at the hands of a shotgun-wielding bandit. Gail was a member 

of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and all members 

of the IBPO will always honor her contribution and her unique place 

in the history of law enforcement.

Officer Cobb’s death teaches us an important lesson: Th at the threat 

of violent death befalling a police officer cuts across all lines—age, 

sex, and race. She was a young black woman, but she died because 

she was an officer of the law.

Officer Cobb left a young son whose future is more certain, whose 

education is secure, because the Congress has provided for the payment of a grant of $50,000 to the survivors of those District of Columbia metropolitan police officers who die in the line of duty. That, in 

addition to the $10,000 benefit being held in trust from his mother’s 

union insurance, helps to insure this child’s security.

But what of the thousands of family members of other police 

officers in cities throughout the Nation? What is their security? What 

assurance do they have tha t their lives will not be irreparably disrupted by financial catastrophe if their father or mother, or husband 

or wife, fails to return from a tour of duty.

The Congress can provide this security and this assurance. We are 

confident the Congress will provide it. But it is important to us and 

our members and to all law enforcement officers that action be taken 

as soon as possible. The hope and expectation tha t it will be approved 

has sustained the survivors of numerous officers slain since October 11, 

1972.

In closing, I wish to again thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the 

members of the subcommittee for your honest concern and your help 

in seeking enactment of this important bill.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Lyons, we will go and vote, take a brief recess, 

and be right back.

[The prepared statement of Kenneth T. Lyons follows:]

Statement of Kenneth T. Lyons, President, I nternational Brotherhood

OB' Police Officers

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: At the outset, I would like to 

express the thanks of the members of the Intern ational Brotherhood of Police 

to the members of the subc omm ittee for your unflagging care and concern for 

the welfare of the policemen and policewomen of our nation.

In an era which is marked more by indifferences tha n attention to the individual 

needs of police officers and their families, it is refreshing and reassuring to witness 

the sup port evidenced by this subcom mittee’s past approval and present consideration of the legislative proposal now before you.

The purpose of this bill was described in a Committee Report dated March 21, 

1974, as being “in recognition of society’s moral obligation to compensate the 

families of those individuals who daily risk their lives to preserve peace and to 

protect the lives and properties of others. . . . ”

H.R . 366 would provide a Federal paymen t of $50,000 to the survivors of 

public sa fety officers who died on or after October 11, 1972. It also would perm it 

the imm ediate paymen t of an interim benefit of up to $3,000 in cases where it 

appears probable th at a final benefit will be awarded.

For the background of the sub com mittee’s members, I would like to briefly 

and quickly describe the history of our organization. The first local of the IBPO 

was formed in 1964 by the officers of the Cranston, It.I. police dep artm ent. In 

1968, the IBPO convention voted to affiliate with and become a division of the 

National Association of Gov ernm ent Employees.
45

Since th at merger in 1968, the IBP O has grown rapidly and dramatica lly. 

Today, it is the natio n’s largest bona fide police union, with more tha n 300 locals 

and 30,000 members. The IBPO represents police officers in departm ents both 

large and small, including, for example, the Washington, D.C., Metrop olitan 

Police Department; Hartford, Conn.; Springfield, Mass.; Salt Lake City, Ut ah; 

Boise, Idaho; Santa Barbara, Calif.; Beaumont, Texas; Saint Augustine, Fla., 

and m any others throug hou t the United States.

Our objective is two-fold: first, to enhance and pro tect the rights and benefits 

of our members thro ugh legislation and the collective bargaining process; and, 

secondly, to prom ote a high degree of professionalism among law enforcem ent 

personnel.

We firmly believe th at legislative approval and ena ctm ent of H.R . 366 will 

admirably serve both these objectives. We believe th at the intentio n of the Congress to write this promise into law has been abundantly dem onstrated and justifies p rom pt action toward that end.

Previous hearings have thoroughly examined b oth the premise and the ap plication of this proposed legislation. In view of the lengthy record already compiled, 

I do no t inte nd to go into grea t detail. However, I believe th at several im po rta nt 

points deserve res tating and reeinphasis. Data derived from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime 

Reports show clearly that the problem which originally brough t about introduction of this legislation in the 92d Congress has no t abate d in the lea st; law 

enforcement officers continue to die in the line of duty at a rate more than three 

times greater tha n in 1961.

The following tab le represents an updating of the table which appeared in the 

Committee Rep ort, dated March 21, 1974, a ccom panying H.R . 11321, It reflects 

the numbers of law enforcement officers killed each yea r since 1961 as the resu lt 

of felonious criminal action:

JVumbez

Yea r: killed

19 61 ..____ 37

1962 ________________________________________________________ 48

1963 ________________________________________________________ 55

1964 ________________________________________________________ 57

1965 ________________________________________________________ 53

1966._____ ______________ . . . ______ _____ 57

1967 ________________________________________________________ 76

1968 _______________ . . . ____ _____ 64

1969 ________________________________________________________ 86

1970 ________________________________________________________ 100

1971 _______________ . . . 126

1972 ____________ 112

1973 ________________________________________________________ 131

19 74

i975~(to"dxite)” Z“ Z” "ZZZZZZZ” ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"ZZ"ZLLZ 92

These statistics, dramatic as they are, do not even begin to convey the anguish 

and trauma visite d upon the wives and children of the officers who have died 

bravely and v iolently in the service of our communities. Nor do cold num bers do 

any more than h int a t the incalculable loss to our nation an d our society th at th eir 

deaths represe nt; for, in tru th, with each death of a police officer we lose one of 

our best and our brightest.

In most jurisdictio ns of the country , the afterm ath of the dea th of a police 

officer in the line of d uty is not p leasant to contemplate. Oftentimes, it is a young 

widow and her young children who are suddenly and crushingly faced with the 

abrupt loss of a hus ban d and father. Initially, this shock tends to obscure the 

realization of the long-term impact and its prac tical effects on the financial 

security a nd well-being of the family.

Only after the emotional period following the funeral passes does the widow come 

face to face with the despairing realization th at she has been left witho ut the 

means to cope with the financial needs of caring for, raising and edu cating her 

children. The day -to-day problems which would have been difficult enough to 

deal with on the average police officer’s salary are now compounded beyond any 

ratio nal expectation of her ability to cope.

The over-riding justification for enac tment of H. R. 366 lies in the moral oblig ation th at we as a nation owe to the survivors of those public safe ty officers who 

have made the ultimate sacrifice of giving up the ir lives to pro tec t our lives, our 

safety and our property.

6 1 -3 56 0 - 75 - 4
46

In a state me nt to this S ubco mmittee in July, 1973, Congressman Claude Pepper 

of Florida spoke meaningfully and with grea t wisdom of the high ideals and 

motivation of those who en ter the field of law enforcement. He also explained, in 

the following words, why an attack on a police officer is an atta ck on us all:

“I t has been said that killing a policeman is a ‘plain and simple murder.’ But it 

is much more than that. W hen anyone consciously att acks a policeman, he is 

attack ing both an important symbol of organized society and an indispensable 

element of an organized and viable society. He attacks our body of laws. He atta cks 

our democracy. He atta cks each of us in a very real w ay.”

Parenth etically, I would like to note th at most testimony on this ma tte r in 

previous years has referred almost exclusively to “policemen.” However, since a 

year ago, we can no longer confine our concern to the men who have laid down 

their lives as police officers.

A yea r ago tomorrow, Washington, D.C., officer Gail Cobb became the first 

policewoman in the nation to be killed in the line of d uty when she died at the 

hands of a shotgun wielding ban dit. Gail was a member of the Intern ationa l 

Brotherhood of Police Officers, and all members of the IBPO will always honor 

her contribution and her unique place in the history of law enforcement.

Officer Cobb’s death teaches us an imp ortant lesson: th at the threat of violent 

dea th befalling a police officer cuts across all lines—age, sex and race. She was a 

young black woman, bu t she died because she was an officer of the law.

Officer Cobb left a young son whose future is more certain, whose education is 

secure, because the Congress has provided for the paym ent of a gran t of $50,000 to 

the survivors of those D.C. metrop olitan police officers who die in the line of duty.

Tha t, in addition to the $10,000 benefit being held in tru st from his mother’s 

union insurance, helps to ensure this child’s security.

But what of the thousand s of family members of other police officers in cities 

throug hou t the nation? What is the ir security? What assurance do they have 

th at the ir lives will not be irrepa rably disrupted by financial catastroph e if their 

fath er or mother, or husband or wife, fails to return from a to ur of d uty .

The Congress can provide this security and this assurance. We are confident the 

Congress will provide it. But it is important to us and our members and to all 

law enforcement officers th at action be taken as soon as possible. The hope and 

expectation t ha t it will be approved has sustained the survivors of numerous officers 

slain since October 11, 1972.

In closing, I wish to again thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the 

Subcommittee for your honest concern and your help in seeking enactment of 

this important bill.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Mr. Eilberg. The subcommittee will resume. The House is in the 

5-minute rule. Normally, the committees may not meet during the 

5-minute rule, but the consent of the House has been received for the 

subcommittee to meet at this time. So, we may continue our hearing.

Mr. Lyons, I want to ask you a few questions. If and where you 

deem appropriate, please feel free to refer the questions to any member of your staff when you feel there is something special anyone else 

might be able to offer.

Mr. Lyons, is life insurance more difficult to obtain for police than 

other employees of State and local governments?

Mr. Lyons. Yes, it is. Any type of insurance is. I know in our union 

tha t for the nonpolice member, the accident-dismemberment insurance 

is far less than tha t for a law enforcement officer. Police officer is 

rated as a hazardous occupation; therefore, the rates are higher and 

coverage more difficult to obtain.

Mr. Eilberg. We recognize you are the leader of the International 

Brotherhood of Police Officers, and certainly we do not want to embarrass you in any way, shape, or form. I think you know the thrust 

of the bills we have before us. With all that, do you think that coverage 

should be limited or restricted to criminal acts?

Mr. Lyons. No, I do not. I think the Federal Government has 

already set precedence in behalf of its own employees tha t they are
47

covered in the line of du ty, wh eth er they be, as the gen tleman from 

the Justice Dep ar tm en t poi nted ou t—wh eth er it be a str eetcl eane r 

th at works for the Federal Go vernme nt or a security officer, the Fe deral Comp ensation A ct tak es care of b oth of t hem in the same ma nner.

As far as th e police officer is concerned, I b elieve th at th is c overa ge— 

or any, if he is killed in the line of du ty, wh eth er he is cha sing a felon 

or helping some pers on cross the stre et—I think the re sho uld be full 

coverage. He is on the firing line at all time s.

Mr. E ilbe rg . I tak e it, then, you would hav e no objec tio n to 

inclu sion of firem en if the Congres s were to pass legislation.

Mr. L yons. No ne whatso ever. Here again, I do no t think the av er ­

age pers on wa nts to get too close to th at fire. Th e only one th at is in 

there at all times is the firefighter. I believe his job —a nd it is ra te d as 

a hazar dous occupatio n— and I believe th at 80 perce nt of all fires are 

set, the re is arson invo lved. Of course, th at is a crim inal act. I have 

the sam e view of the firefighters as I do of police officers.

Mr. E ilbe rg . We do no t have any solid evidence of the 80-pe rce nt 

figure, so I will no t argu e with you on th at .

Mr. L yons. It is p retty difficult for the in suranc e comp any to pro ve 

all of this, too.

Mr. E ilb er g. Mr. Lyons, wha t efforts have been made by va rio us 

police organiz ations and interest groups to work with the St at e govern me nts for the purpose of encouraging the State s to in stitut e com ­

pensa tion pro grams?

Mr. Whitn ey. Mu ch of this, of course, Mr. Ch airma n, is ac tivi ty 

th at is generated at the local level within the various S tates an d s ub or ­

din ate governm ental jurisdictions. In th at vein , this is one of the re asons why we invit ed Sgt. Steve Snyder of the Denver, Colo., Pol ice 

Dep artm en t to acc ompan y us this mornin g. I tho ug ht, perhaps, his 

com ments could s hed some lig ht o n t hat very as pect.

If you would no t mind, I would like to tu rn it over to Stev e.

Mr. Snyd er. M r. Ch air ma n, the o nly thing th at we hav e in Den ve r 

is, we have two organiz ations; the Pol iceme n’s P rotec tiv e Assoc iation 

and the police unio n.

Mr. E ilb erg. Cou ld you spe ak a little louder?

Mr. Snyder. One is the Policemen’s Prote cti ve Assoc iation, 

and the othe r is De nver Police Unio n. I am pa st preside nt of the 

police union as of 2 years ago. Th e only coverage we hav e in reg ard 

to an ything like thi s at all, the asso ciation provides a $3,000 de ath 

bene fit if the officer is killed in the line of du ty. The uni on pro vid es 

a $1,500 cov erag e if the officer is killed in the line of duty.

There is also an insu rance pro gra m, I belie ve, which is a $10,000 

program th at we can get throug h the association, th at we do pay 

ou t of our own poc ket. As far as any legi slation on the St ate level, to 

my know ledge we have none in Colo rado.

Mr. E ilb erg. W ha t was yo ur las t com ment?

Mr. Snyd er. T o my know ledg e, we have none on the St ate level.

Mr. E ilb er g. H ow do you define the line of duty?

Mr. Snyd er. Fro m the ad minist ratio n’s po int of view, I believe 

this would be an y officer who is killed while in the perfo rm ance or 

the fun ctio n of his duties, wh eth er it be an automobile accid ent, 

gun sho t, or wh ate ver, as long as he was in the performance of his 

duties.
48

Mr. E ilberg. Do you believe, Mr. Lyons, or anyone, th at this 

legislation will aid in the recruitm en t anti morale of police officers?

Mr. Whit ney . Mr. Ch airma n, Officer Simons is presi dent of our 

local whi ch repres ents the D.C . Police Dep artm en t, which does have 

this coverage. He can spe ak from actua l experience.

Mr. Simons. Mr. Ch air man , I feel it has a gr ea t im pact on the 

recruitm en t and hiring policies of the police de pa rtm en t, due to the 

fac t th at ma ny of us are you ng, marrie d, we have young families. 

As we appro ach this as a career, know ing th at a t any time in any d uty, 

one bu lle t could end yo ur life, we are concerned ab ou t our family, 

our children, and the ir futur e.

I think thr ou gh ou t the recruitm en t process here in the Dist ric t 

th at thi s has been widely publicized as one of the benefits you would 

have upo n join ing the Metr op olita n Police Dep ar tm en t and since 

Septe mb er a year ago we have had thre e officers whose fam ilies received 

this $50,000 de ath benefit.

Mr. E ilberg. In your opinion, do rec ruits for the police force 

tak e thes e benefits into con sideration in considering wh eth er or no t to 

join the police force?

Mr. Simons. Yes; the y do.

Mr. E ilb erg. Some States and mu nicipalities are pro vid ing benefits. 

I think we do wa nt to preserve local ini tia tiv e where we can.

Th e question I ask is do you feel this legislation will encourage or 

rem ove the inc entive to St ate gov ern me nts to in stitu te the ir own 

pro gra ms for the de pendents of pub lic safety officers?

Mr. Lyons. I think the best way to answ er th at , Mr. Ch airma n, 

is the fac t th at wheth er it enco urag es the m or not, I think it is somethi ng t hat is needed. I think the a ctio n b y o ur Cong ress, if there should 

be an ac t signed by the Presiden t of the Un ited State s, is som ething 

they do no t have at the presen t time. I do ub t very much th at many 

of the State s would act if the Feder al Go vernm ent did not.

I know there are so many other subsidized pro gra ms th at would 

tak e care of so ma ny people. But I think this is one of the most 

im po rtan t of all, and I do no t think the State s are acti ng. I thi nk it is 

incumbe nt upon the Federal Go vernm ent and Congress to act; w het her 

or no t it will encourage the m to do any more, I do no t know. Possibly 

it will; som ething in the line of scholarship s and the like for children 

of officers who are killed in the line of du ty.

Mr. E ilb erg. Who do yo u believe should be included in the definition of public safety officers?

Mr. Lyons. Well, na turally , the police officers, and correction al 

officers. I think we positively can agree with the definition th at is 

conta ine d in the bill— correction officers, cer tainly probati on officers, 

parole officers. I would eve n include the judg es. We hav e even had 

jud ges th at have been shot, and certainl y a large numb er of them 

have to be pro tec ted in their dealing with crim inal justice.

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Lyo ns, would you be conte nt to recognizing th at 

in these bills, we do not begin to deal with the whole asp ect of com ­

pen sation ? Would you be co nten t to hav e the Congress st art with the 

pro gra ms th at are enuncia ted in thes e bills? In other word s, we sh ould 

have a com pensation syste m or a system for injury .

Th e com mittee in the pa st has strugg led to decide how far we 

should go. In the pa st Cong resses, we have take n the position, th at
49

we could start with the death cases. It is the kind of program which 

involves a very limited staff, a very limited Federal involvement 

beyond payments. Can you live with this legislation, let us say, as 

a starter?

Mr. Lyons. Most certainly, and I think my views may be shared 

by other police organizations, tha t this is a very important start. And 

I think if you attach any compensations to it, I think it would be a 

little difficult—maybe not getting through Congress, but certainly 

having the President sign it—in view of the many bills he has already 

vetoed. I think it would be rathe r dangerous to attach any other 

compensation benefits to the bill. I think the bill, as is, is an excellent 

bill, and certainly one we would endorse. I think we would be endangering this bill if you put on any other amendments or other 

benefits to it.

Mr. Eilberg. You are referring to H.R. 366?

Mr. Lyons. That is correct.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Dodd?

Mr. Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lyons, for 

your statement. I should add, when you listed some of the communities 

tha t you included Hartford, Conn, which is in my State. But you 

also represent Norwich, Conn, which is my home. It has a good 

reputation.

I have a couple of questions for you. Were you here for the earlier 

testimony by Mr. Durham? Did you hear the testimony of 

Mr. Durham?

Mr. Lyons. Most of the latter part of it; yes.

Mr. Dodd. As you probably picked up, because this ran through 

most of the questioning, there was a lot of discussion regarding the 

question involving criminal activity, his reference to accidental death. 

Where would you draw the line and see some circumstances, or cite 

some examples, tha t you may have thought of or anyone on vour 

panel here, where an accidental death or death with someone who is on 

duty would not, should not be included under the provisions of this 

bill?

Mr. L yons. I really cannot, not while on duty. I could not agree 

with his line of reasoning whatsoever when he was trying to explain 

the p art where you would have to be enforcing a Federal law in order 

for the widow to obtain the $50,000.

Mr. Dodd. Let us say a fellow is in the barracks, and he has a 

heart attack, and he is on duty.

Mr. Lyons. Here again—that is very dangerous, too, because the 

Federal Government only recently has agreed with us tha t an air 

traffic controller who suffers a heart attack or gets high blood pressure 

has compensable injury and it is a compensable death, and the Federal 

Government pays. So that the rigors of the job, or a past emergency 

that the police officer was involved in, could have been the element 

that caused the heart condition or the heart attack or the death or the 

high blood pressure that caused the death.

So we would be getting involved in some nitty -gritty and lengthy 

court cases if wre get into that; tha t we would restrict it to certain 

heart attacks and certain cases of high blood pressure.
50

Mr. D odd. In line with th at questio n, in discussion with some 

members of the com mittee, we were talkin g ab ou t going beyond the 

de ath and set tin g the pe rm an ent disabi lity where you would have a 

defi nition of someone, because of the ir physical condition as a resu lt of 

an injur y incurred in the line of du ty, the y beca me perm anently 

disabled . I recognize this in yo ur very las t statem en t—you said 

you did not want to jeopar dize the bill by exp anding unnecessarily at 

this parti cu lar poi nt in time the provisions of the bill, which might 

cause its veto bv the Presi dent. But I won der if you could possibly 

give me some of your ideas reg ard ing som ething more th an de ath — 

and I am no t su ggesting a n in jury —b ut I am talkin g ab ou t the kind of 

injury which would disable a pe rso n p erm ane ntly.

Mr. L yons. I thi nk Stev e Snyder could answer th at bes t. He was 

alm ost killed. He took three or four sho ts a couple of years ago. He 

was ou t of work some time , and he lingered nea r de ath . I think he 

ought to answ er tha t.

Mr. Snyd er. I cer tainly would like to see som ething like you hav e 

ju st prop osed, bu t I really feel th at in regard to this bill at this time, 

I would no t hav e this pa rti cu lar bill jeop ardized. As the cha irm an 

pointed out, it is a s tarte r, and I thi nk this is good, to at lea st get the 

st ar t, and ma ybe we can work from there in the future . I would ha te 

to see an ything att ached to this such as perm anent injury. I believe 

pe rm an en t injury is going to be extrem ely difficult to define too.

Mr. D odd. I recognize th at.

Mr. Snyd er. I have myself some perm anent injury which is no t 

notice able, which rea lly does n ot ------

Mr. D odd. I was thinking of permanently disabled. Again, as the 

chairma n was talkin g ab ou t it, someone could be perm anently disabled, I suppose, and aft er a p eriod of 5 or 10 years, the y may become 

employable again, so I recognize w hat yo u are talkin g about. I am ju st 

curious as to wh at your thou gh ts are regarding th at pa rticular 

provision.

Mr. Snyd er. I would really like to see something, bu t I think it is 

some way down the road .

Mr. D odd. The bill talks a bo ut pro viding p ayme nts re tro activ ely in 

1972. Would you have any difficulty if, le t’s say, there was word th at 

cam e from on high th at the bill is acc eptable bu t pro vided you delete 

the provision which would include the retroactiv e paym ents to 1972?

It h as been suggested by the Justice D ep artm en t th at it be prospective, ra th er than retroa ctive. Would you —would th at deletion of th at 

pa rti cu lar provision up set you t o the po int where you feel as th ough the 

bill should n ot be su pported, o r would th at be------

Mr. L yons. We would like to see it ret roactiv e to 1972. If you notice 

on the s tatis tic s we p rov ided, it h as increased alarmingly over the l ast 

few y ears. We do have some very serious cases of widows with ra th er 

larg e families who are hav ing a very difficult time. I hope th at it s tay s 

in the bill, but, of course, if you ge t the call from way up high th at 

it ju st will no t go along with it, I guess we would hav e to acc ept w hat 

we could get, bu t we would like to see it, and we hope th at the commi tte e and Congress will vo te the bill thr ough with the ret roact ive 

fea tur e to 1972.
51

Mr. Dodd. My last question is, you mentioned tha t the chairman 

asked you if you could list anyone else, or who you thought should be 

included under the definition of a public safety official or officer. I 

wonder if you might conversely give me some idea of someone who 

should be excluded. Lawyers were mentioned by Mr. Durham, for 

instance, who did not think tha t lawyers should be included in that 

definition. It occurred to me when he said that, referring back to the 

time when a judge was killed on the bench in California, as I recall, I 

do not think any of the attorneys. But it is possible that an attorney,

« as an officer of the court representing a client in tha t capacity, could

easily be considered an official, if we are going to include judges or 

bailiffs in a courtroom. What would be your thoughts on that?

Mr. Lyons. I do not think the attorney at all times has what you

• could describe as a hazardous occupation. Many times-----

Mr. Dodd. Someone might take issue on that.

Mr. Lyons. I think—I do not know if the President would ever 

sign the bill, if that was included.

Mr. Dodd. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Lyons, we certainly thank you and your associates 

for coming and helping us with this. We will do our best to expedite 

the thrust of this legislation. I cannot speak for all the members of this 

subcommittee, bu t my personal position is very clear, and we will do all 

we can. We appreciate having you.

Mr. Lyons. We want to thank you very much, and as far as the 

police officers are concerned, you are champs.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you.

I would like to announce, for the benefit of those present, and also 

for the record, tha t we have had numerous requests from local police 

departments and local organizations throughout the country to testify 

on these measures, and there have been so many requests that, with 

the limited time available, the subcommittee decided tha t it was 

physically impossible to hear from all these local groups. I say th at reluctantly, but that is the decision we made, particularly reluctant when 

I have to turn down opportunities to testify to people from my own 

city of Philadelphia. And you can be sure it pains me, so I would just 

r

say to the gentleman from the welfare department, sheriff’s office,

and youth studies centers, Local 159 of the American Federation of 

State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Mr. John A. 

Campbell, president, and Mr. Hosmer D. Gunning, tha t we wish tha t

„ we could have you on the stand and cross-examine you, but we cannot

do so.

We are quite willing, however, to receive your statement, and make 

it part of the record, as I have noted your presence here. Are one of 

you gentlemen, or both of you gentlemen in the room? Mr. Campbell, 

Mr. Gunning. Apparently, they stepped out. But we will get their 

statements.
52

[The prepared sta teme nt of John A. Campbell and Hosmer D. Gunning follows:]

Welfare Department,

Sherif f’s Offic e and Youth Study Center,

Local 159, American F ederation of State,

County & Municipal Employees—AFL-C IO,

September 18, 1975.

As Union Officials representing Correctional Officers and Deputy Sheriffs 

in the City of Philadelphia, we are vitua lly interested in HR 366.

As recently as 1973, we lost two good men, Warden Patrick Curren and Deputy 

Warden Rob ert Fromhold, who were murdered in Holmesburg Prison.

Their families were left with only the small amount of Pension Funds as pro- *

vided under the survivorship clause of the Pension Plan.

Needless to say this is not very much, certainly not enough to raise a family.

The people we represent work daily with fear. Not necessarily physical fear, 

bu t the far greater fear tha t in the event they are killed, as a result of their service 

to the Community, their families will be left in need. •

We heartily supp ort HR 366 and pray you Gentlemen, will report on it 

favorably.

John A. Campbell,

President.

Hosmer D. Gunning,

Business Agent.

Our next witness is Mr. Robert Pat Stark, president of the Fraternal 

Order of Police, accompanied by Mr. Charles W. Bauman, chairman 

of the legislative committee.

Mr. Stark and Mr. Bauman, we are glad to welcome you here today.

You have been with us, in support of this kind of legislation, and we 

look forward to your contribution this morning.

Before we begin, I would like to make a statement. There is apparently some small disagreement tha t has arisen between someone 

in your organization and this chairman. I would like to point out to 

you that I was not responsible for the failure of the bill emerging in 

the 93d Congress. I would like to point out tha t the Senate did 

not act on the House bill, which was the Line-of-Duty bill. The 

Senate had acted on the Criminal Act bill. The normal procedure 

would have been for the Senate to have disagreed with the House 

bill, or to have agreed with it, or to have disagreed and asked for the 

appointment of conferees, which would have been a normal thing to do.

So I think it is quite wrong to say th at I was in any way responsible 

for the defeat or failure of the measure in the 93d Congress, Mr. Stark, "

and I would appreciate it very much if you would convey tha t to 

your members, because I thin k there has been a misrepresentation with 

regard to me personally, and I do not appreciate it.

Mr. Stark. *

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT PAT STARK, PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL

ORDER OF POLICE, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES W. BAUMAN,

CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE; AND JOHN HARRINGTON.

PAST PRESIDENT

Mr. Stark. First of all, I would like to state to the committee I 

was just elected national president, and a lot of this is new to me.

Maybe sometimes my approach, or some of our members’ has been 

wrong. You can rest assured, Mr. Eilberg, that they will be informed, 

and inadequacies w’ill be corrected.
53

Mr. Eilberg. I hope you understood all of what I just said, 

because there is at least one other person in your organization that 

does not understand all that I saia.

Mr. Stark. Yes, sir.

First of all, I would like to say that I am new to appear before 

this committee to speak, so I hope you will bear with me. It is new 

to me.

I am an active police officer, 25-year veteran in the Indianapolis 

Police Department. I was elected to represent police, and I am n ot a 

civilian representing any police organization. I am a police officer.

< And I discussed my coming here with our national attorney, Mr.

Ruckelshaus, and he felt tha t I should try to convey to you, and this 

committee, the actual feelings of the policeman on the street today 

pertaining to this piece of legislation, and this is what I will attempt 

• to do.

He advised me th at you probably had all the facts and figures that 

you needed, because you did not request any from me, so this is what 

I would like to try to do, is give you the opinion of the actual policeman 

today, working out here, as it pertains to legislation.

The police of this country today are engaged in an ever-increasing 

war, the war against crime and the destruction of this country from 

within. This war is of a nature tha t it is not being fought on foreign 

soil, nor will it be over in 2 or 3 years; it is being fought every day on 

American soil.

This war will continue and its end can only be hastened by those 

who make the laws that we must all live with. Those laws have to be 

changed to protect the innocent and rigidly punish the criminals. The 

permissiveness tha t now exists within our judicial system tha t worries 

more about the rights of criminals than it does about the victim of 

crimes has to be reversed.

In this country today, more than ever before in its history exists a 

total lack of respect for law and order. The police officer is very frustrated, angry, and disgusted, frustrated at the attitude of some of our 

courts and some members of the U.S. Supreme Court who seem to be 

much more sympathetic to our criminal element than to the victims 

who suffer physical abuse, monetary loss, and even loss of life.

The police feel t hat everyone should be protected as to their rights, 

r

but feel that when a man of his own doing commits a crime, then he

no longer is a decent citizen of the community but has placed himself 

in the position of a criminal and his rights are no t as important as his 

victim’s.

k The policeman’s uniform today does not deter murderous acts

against him by the criminal; anything that stands for law and order 

today is a mockery to criminals. If the laws of today are inadequate, 

then Congress must change them to stem the rising crime rate. If our 

prisons are not large enough to keep criminals on the streets, then 

again, build the prisons bigger. Use tax money for purposes such as 

these, instead of conducting wasteful surveys as to the physical 

measurements of airline stewardesses, or how the sweat glands of 

certain races function.

The police today are angry because back home in their local cities 

and States they are the ones who have to enforce our Nation’s laws; 

they are the ones who feel the wrath of the citizens when criminals
54

are turned loose b ecause of some loophole in the law, to prey on people 

again .

Yet the police are never consulted for any inpu t into the makin g of 

our laws. We, the police, face the people of this c ou ntry while enfo rcin g 

the laws—n ot those who mak e the laws. A police officer toda y faces 

each criminal he comes in co nta ct with with one thought in mind: 

this could be my life or his. Tha t policeman has no one to help him 

make his decisions. He s tan ds there alone. The s nap decision he makes 

can do one of thr ee thin gs: save a life, tak e a life, or give his own life.

Th e policeman of to da y is tho rou ghly disgusted because of all the 

previous thin gs I hav e mentio ned while he goes ab ou t his daily ro uti ne. >

He then ha s to become invo lved in a figh t w ith his own city and St ate 

ove r a dec ent sal ary increase or benefits which make him feel like 

wa nting to do his job.

Many times these arg um ents have to be take n to court for long •

periods of time. In essence the policem an has to no t only figh t the 

war of crimes, he has to fight eve ryb ody to maintain a living wage.

To day there is a dang er th at mo st people are no t aware of. To day 

you hav e a different type, or bree d, of policem an. Th ey are mu ch 

you nge r, more militant, as most of th em are ex-s ervicemen and they — 

if they become disgusted enough with low pa y and all the complex 

pro blems—will walk off the job —which is evide nt by wh at is going 

on tod ay.

Th ey still have a sense of ded ication. Th ey are ju st sick and tire d 

of being made fools of, th ey feel, if this, a wo rld where everyone thi nks 

only of themselves, then the y, too, are sta rti ng to feel th at way. Th ey 

feel, why shou ld I place my life on the line when nobody r eally cares.

I ask you to pic tur e one thou gh t f or ju st a second. What if the police 

of our country decided to call it qu its and all go to work in private 

indu str y? Tod ay ’s pro blems of economy, oil pro duction, unem plo yment, even foreign affairs, would all become minor prob lems, beca use 

the crim inals would rea lly hav e a hey day.

I know this com mittee has ma ny othe r problems to discuss and 

think about, however, I urge you to pu t those othe r prob lems aside 

for a few hours and give the police of this c ou ntr y our att en tio n. Th ey 

deserve y our s upport and con sideration , for wi thou t them, all the laws 

th at Congress can p ass are ju st w ords on paper with no tru e meaning .

Th ey are useless with ou t someone to carry the m ou t and pro per ly „

enforce them .

The police tod ay are tire d of bein g ignored and forgo tten abo ut.

Las t ye ar—1974—there w ere 134 policem en mu rde red in this c ountr y,

and ma ny injure d and maimed. *

I urge this com mittee— by yo ur action s—to pass thi s bill, H .R . 366, 

onto the floor of Congress, and then assist in its passage to show the 

police of this country th at the Go vernme nt of the Un ite d State s does 

ap preciat e the ir efforts.

Pas sage of this bill will d o muc h to increase the m orale of our police, 

and will let them know th at if they pay the suprem e price of giving 

their life, at lea st their rem ain ing widow and children will be take n 

care of by our Go vernm ent. W ha t be tte r way to say to the police of 

the Un ited Sta tes , Con gress supp orts you in your nev er-end ing war 

again st crime. Tha t is the feeling of the police officer on the stre et 

tod ay.

[The pre pared stat em en t of R. P at St ark follows:]
Sta tem e n t o f R o b e r t P at St a r k , P r e s id e n t, F r a ter n a l Or d er o f P o l ic e

Chairman Peter W. Rodino, Jr., and Members of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Congress of the United States.

The Police of this Country today are engaged in an ever increasing War— The 

War against Crime and the Destruction of this country from within. This War 

is of a nature that it is not being fought on foreign soil, nor will it be over in two 

or three years, it is being fought everyday on American soil.

This war will continue and its end can only be hastened by those who make 

the laws that we must all live with, those laws have to be changed to protect the 

innocent and rigidly punish the criminals, the permissiveness that now exists 

within our judicial system that worries more about the rights of criminals than it 

does about the victim of crimes has to be reversed.

In this country today, more than ever before in its history exists a total lack 

of respect for Law and Order, the police officer is very frustrated, angry, and 

disgusted; frustrated at the attitude of some of our courts and some members 

of the United States Supreme Court who seem to be much more sympathetic to our 

criminal element than to the victims who suffer physical abuse, monetary loss, 

and even loss of life.

The police feel that everyone should be protected as to their rights, but feel 

that when a man of his own doing commits a crime, then he no longer is a decent 

citizen of the community but has placed himself in the position of a criminal 

and his rights are as important as his victims. The policeman’s uniform and badge 

today do not deter murderous acts against him by the criminal, anyth ing that 

stands for Law and Order today is a mockery to criminals. If the Laws of toda y 

are inadequate then Congress must change them to stem the rising crime rate, 

if our prisons are not large enough to keep criminals off the streets, then again 

build the prisons bigger, use tax money for purposes such as these, instead of 

conducting wasteful surveys as to the physical measurements of airline 

stewardesses, or how the sweat glands of certain races function.

The police toda y are Angry because back home in the local cities and states 

they are the ones who have to enforce our nation’s laws, they are the ones who 

feel the wrath of the citizens when criminals are turned loose because of some 

loop-hole in the law to prey on people again, yet the police never are consulted 

for any input into the making of our laws, we the police face the people of this 

country while enforcing the laws, not those who make the laws, a police officer 

today faces each criminal he comes in contact with, with one thought in mind, 

this could be my life or his, that policeman has no one to help him make his 

decisions, he stands there alone, the snap decision he makes can do one of thre« 

things, Save a Life, Take a Life or Give his own life.

The Policeman of today is thoroughly disgusted because of all the previous 

things I have mentioned while he goes about his daily routine then on top of that 

he has to become involved in a fight with his own city and state over a decent 

salary increase or benefits which make him feel like wanting to do his job, many 

times these arguments have to be taken to court for long periods of time, in essence 

the policeman has to not only fight the war of crimes, he has to fight everybod y to 

maintain a living wage.

Today there is a danger that most people are not aware of, today you have a 

different type or breed of policeman, they are much younger, more militant as 

most of them are ex-service men and they, if they become disgusted enough with 

low pay and all the complex problems will strike and walk off the job, they still 

have a sense of dedication, they are just sick and tired of being made fools of, 

they feel, if this, a world today where everyone thinks only of themselves, then 

they too are sta rting to feel that way, they feel why should I place my life on the 

line when nobody really cares.

I ask you to picture one though for just a second, “ What if the police of our 

country decided to call it quits and all go to work in private industry” , todays 

problems of Economy, Oil Production, Un-employment, even Foreign Affairs would 

all become minor problems, because the criminals would really have a hey day.

I know this committee has many other problems to discuss and think about, 

however I urge you to put those other problems aside for a few hours and give the 

police of this country your attention, they deserve your support and consideration, 

for without them, all the laws that Congress can pass are just words on paper with 

no true meaning, the y are useless without someone to carry them out and properly 

enforce them.
56

The police today are tired of being ignored an d forgotten about, last year, 1974, 

there were 134 policemen murdere d in this country an d many injured and maimed.

I urge this comm ittee by your actions not words to pass this bill H.R. 366 onto 

the floor of Congress and then assist in its passage to show the police of this 

cou ntry th at the Government of the United States does app reciate their efforts.

Passage of this bill will do much to increase the morale of our police and will 

let them know th at if they pay the suprem e price of giving their life a t least their 

remaining widow and children will be taken care of by our Government, what 

bette r way to say to the police of the United States, Congress suppo rts you in your 

never ending WAR against crime, keep up the good work, help us pu t this country 

back on the right track, the way our forefathers originally inte nde d it to be.

Mr. Eilb er g. Th an k you, Mr. Sta rk.

Mr. Stark, do you know the bill substan tia lly , in its present form, 

perha ps with some changes, has passed the House twice?

Mr. Stark. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. I would like the reco rd to also state th at in the 92d 

Congress there was a conference repo rt agreed to in the dyi ng days 

of the session. Under the rules of the House at th at tim e, the conference com mittee report ha d to be filed 3 day s before it could be 

acted upo n, and una nim ous con sen t of the Hou se to ac t upo n the 

measure.

Also, atH he same time , it was this Me mber th at rose an d asked for 

unani mo us consent, bu t th at the gen tlema n from California, 

Mr. Wiggins, who was on the com mittee at th at time, opposed th at . 

So we did no t have the measure in the 92d Congress.

I wa nte d to be very clear on th at.

Mr. Stark, do yo u believe this legislation will a id in the r ecruitm en t 

of police officers?

Mr. Sta rk. I certainly do.

I believe it would encourage ma ny young men to tak e the job 

if they thou gh t the y were going to at least hav e their wives an d 

children tak en care of.

Mr. E ilb er g. Will it increase mora le?

Mr. Sta rk. I cer tainly do think it would, sir.

Mr. E ilberg. We hav e ask ed this que stio n before, bu t we would 

like yo ur opinion. Is life insura nce more difficult to ob tai n for police 

than othe r employees of St ate an d local governments?

Mr. Stark. Yes, sir. Definitely.

We are listed in all of our St ate laws and city ordinances as a 

hazar dous d ut y profession. T hat makes the insuranc e h arde r to obt ain , 

with higher premiu ms that we mus t pay.

Mr. E ilb er g. What State or city, mu nicipality , do you come from, 

Mr. Stark ?

Mr. Stark. Ind ian apo lis, Ind.

Mr. E ilbe rg . Could you tell us some of the difficulties of gettin g 

insura nce in Ind ianapo lis?

Mr. Sta rk. The cit y of Ind ian apoli s has no life insura nce on its 

police officers.

Mr. E ilbe rg . Why is that?

Mr. Sta rk . Th ey hav e med ical Blue Cross-Blue Shield, bu t no t 

life.

Mr. E ilb er g. F or w hat reas on?
57

Xlr. Stark. Because of the high premium rate of hazardous duty. 

Because of the local lodge there, we have a $1,500 policy on every 

member.

Mr. Eilbero. Life insurance?

Mr. Stark. Yes, sir.

In our General Assembly in the State of Indiana, we finally did 

get—it is not an insurance bill—but we finally did get a bill passed 

tha t will guarantee any police officer in the State of Indiana, who 

loses his life in a criminal act, tha t his children, surviving children, 

will be given a free college education at any State-supported institution of their choice. That is not insurance, but we did get it passed.

Mr. Eilberg. Are there any other benefits provided in your State 

or city?

Mr. Stark. That is the only one, sir.

I know tha t question has come up, so I would like to say tha t in 

my travels through the country, of police departments, very few 

police departments have life insurance plans provided for by the city.

Mr. Eilberg. Because they are too expensive?

Mr. Stark. Yes.

Mr. Eilberg. Or unavailable?

Mr. Stark. Yes, sir.

Mr. Eilberg. We have been previously engaged in fighting for 

public safety officers. Not only policemen, bu t firemen as well.

Do you believe tha t coverage should be limited to criminal acts on 

them?

Mr. Stark. No, sir. I believe tha t when a police officer starts his 

8-hour to ur of duty, if he receives a radio run to a holdup in progress, 

or another crime in progress, when he transmits and OK’s that call, 

he is on his way to the scene of the crime. I think tha t anything tha t 

happens to him from the time he OK’s tha t run and starts to go to 

tha t crime scene, that his life should be covered.

Mr. Eilberg. Do you agree with the approach tha t appears in the 

bill, namely, tha t the LEAA should determine what hazardous duties 

are and establish regulations?

Do you believe in tha t concept?

Mr. Stark. No sir.

I think tha t should be upon the local or State administration to 

determine that.

Mr. Eilberg. How would we decide the kind of situation which 

has troubled this subcommittee in the past, where a police officer is 

walking a beat, and perhaps trips and falls ami hits his head on the 

sidewalk or street, and dies as a result of th at contact?

Do you believe tha t tha t these officers should be included in the 

benefits provided in this legislation?

Mr. Stark. No sir.

I think each case has to be judged on its own merits.

Mr. Eilberg. By whom?

Mr. Stark. I felt by the administrative powers of tha t city and 

State.

Mr. Eilberg. You have, I am sure, heard about the Gulf Refinery 

fire in Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago, as a result of which eight 

firemen lost their lives.
58

There were some 21 minor children involved amo ng those eig ht. 

To my know ledge, it has not been clea rly established wh at the cause 

of the fire was. Th ere was impro per construction.

Do you believe th at in a case like th at , benefits should be pro vid ed 

to the next of kin?

Mr. Star k. I do, sir, because a fire is a fire no m at ter how it st ar ts . 

And when a firem an loses his life, he is dea d no m at te r how it ha pp ened.

Mr. E ilb erg. Would you give me your idea ab ou t who might be 

included in the definition of public saf ety officer?

Mr. Star k. I agree with the bill, sir, the way it is wr itte n.

Mr. Eilb erg. T hat is 366?

Mr. Star k. Yes, sir.

I do believe th at , as was spok en earlier a bo ut the judg e, I think th e 

judge should be incl uded in the bill. When it spoke of attorn ey s— I 

certainl y have worked with them for 25 y ears, and I hav e ma ny good 

friends wrho are attorn ey s, bu t I think i t should be on the m erits aga in, 

wh eth er the at to rn ey is an officer of the c ourt. Whethe r he is prosecuting a criminal or wh eth er he is a defense attorn ey a nd walks o ut of the 

cou rt.

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Stark, I do no t wa nt to dissuade you of an y 

position you might tak e, bu t this sub com mittee, in the past, has con ­

sidered judges and lawyers , and recognizing the re is an economic 

problem involve d, we hav e, in the past, felt th at judges and law yers 

are more able to tak e care of them selves. And we wante d to pro vid e 

benefits where there is real financial need. I am no t say ing ev ery ju dge 

and lawyer has done extrem ely well; I wante d to give you an ex pla nation as to why we have no t included those officials in the pas t.

Mr. Star k. Ac tua lly, if you brought it down to the basics, sir, I 

think i t p robably should be anyone who is invo lved in the appreh ens ion 

and ret en tio n of crim inals. Police officers who app reh end , police 

officers in prisons who hav e to retai n them .

Mr. E ilb erg. And those who die when they a re obviously perfo rm ­

ing their du ty, no t as the res ult of an accident, I suppose.

Mr. Star k. Yes, sir.

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Dodd?

Mr. Dodd. I would ju st like to than k Mr. St ark for testify ing.

I was going to ask, really, only one que stio n, and it is really for my 

own inform ation; I do no t know if you thou gh t about it at all.

On page 5 of the bill, section 703, there are listed circum stance s 

under which no benefits should be paid: Intentiona l miscon duc t and 

vo luntary intoxica tion and denial of benefit to someone who was, I 

presum e, caused or involved in the appro xim ate cause of the officer’s 

death .

I was won dering if you had anyth ing to add to th at at all. Cou ld 

they give any othe r circ umstance s under which there should be a 

prohibition?

Mr. Star k. I would no t think th at a police officer is any different 

from any oth er citizen of this country . I do no t think he sho uld be 

en titled to it if he brings it about himself.

Mr. Dodd. Those are the only circumstance s?

Mr. Stark. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dodd. Mr. Ch air man, I hav e no other questio ns.

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Stark, the chairma n is n ot satisfied th at we h ave 

ye t available as mu ch inform ation as we could get on the sit ua tio n
59

nationwide as to what benefits there are available throughout the 

country.

We are endeavoring to get these for every State and municipality 

and community, but it is extremely difficult to get that kind of 

information. Do you have any records, or access, or could you help us 

with that, so the committee would be as best informed as it possibly 

can be?

Mr. Stark. I believe we have a national salary survey, and a list 

of insurance benefits, et cetera. I believe we could give you some 

information from th at. 1

Mr. Eilberg. We would appreciate having all the information you 

could provide to us regarding all the benefits that are provided to a 

family, to next of kin, to a police officer who dies in the line of duty 

or as the result of criminal act, or whatever the local definition may 

happen to be, so th at we can present this accurately to the House.

Mr. Stark. I would be happy to assist this committee in any way. 

As I stated, I am new and I have a lot to learn. I will probably make 

some mistakes, but they will be honest mistakes. But I will assist 

this committee in any way I can, and our officers will.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Stark, you have done a very good job. I want to 

commend you for that. I hope you will not think tha t because some 

members are engaged in other subcommittee meetings tha t they are 

not interested. It happens that most of the members are pretty 

familiar with this subject, and I want to assure you tha t they will 

give this consideration as most favorable as we can.

Mr. Dodd. My question to you—I have just been thinking about 

your response to me regarding the circumstances under which a person 

would be excluded from receiving benefits, and your answer to me, 

basically, was anyone who brings about or causes his own death by 

some act he does should be excluded.

What about the fellow who not necessarily violates a regulation, 

but does not perform an activity tha t he has been trained to perform, 

properly. In other words, he is guilty of a stupid mistake an officer 

might make and is killed as a result of tha t mistake, or one could 

establish that was the approximate cause of his death.

Would you add tha t as an area where you might exclude benefits 

to someone?

Mr. Stark. No; I would not, sir.

I feel that if he, himself, of his own volition, contributed to his 

death—now if he makes a mistake; like I just said, we are all human. 

I think probably I could judge his mistake, but if it is proven tha t 

it was a stupid mistake, and it was not of his own doing, purposely-----

Mr. Dodd. Do you think tha t an officer who storms a room full 

of people with machineguns on his own rathe r than call into headquarters—John Wayne style—made a stupid mistake?

Mr. Stark. I would not call him stupid, because we do have some 

police officers tha t are really that dedicated; tha t the odds mean 

nothing to them. So I would say probably he is the type of fellow 

who was not weighing the circumstances and was just reacting out 

of normal instinct as a policeman.

Mr. Dodd. Thank you.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you, Mr. Stark.

1

 See appendix 3 for related Information.
60

Mr. Ha rring ton and Mr. Baum an?

Mr. Harrington. Mr. Ch air ma n, I would like to correct a stat eme nt th at was made by the man from the Justice De pa rtm en t.

He was refe rring to the Philadelph ia Police Dep artm en t, which I 

joined in 1940. He said our benefits are won derful; we have scholarships. Th e scho larsh ips th at a policeman’s children gets if he is killed 

in the performance of his du ty is donat ion s mad e by the public. The 

public does no t make these do natio ns; the re are no sch olarships; 

this is no t given by the city governm ent. That fund, rig ht now, could 

no t pay its last debts —the de bt th at was due, the y had to wa it for 

the res ults of this scholarship show.

This money comes str ictly on don atio ns.

He also said th at the pension benefits th at a pol iceman’s widow 

would get is 70 percen t. Th e benefit is 60 percen t, and if she would 

rem arr y, th at would cease immedia tely .

There was also refere nce ma de to the sanitatio n worker, th at if 

he gets hurt and gets killed—sanitatio n work ers, if they are killed 

in the city of Philadelphia, would no t only receive a 60- per cen t pension, bu t they would receive social sec uri ty benefits also. Pu tti ng 

both of these together, it would am ou nt to more than full pay .

A policem an in the same cit y cannot join social sec urity . He is 

pro hib ited by law from join ing social sec urity. So he would only get 

the one benefit, which would be th at 60 per cent if he is killed in the 

perf orm anc e of his du ty.

Man y sta temen ts like this th at are made—it was made in the 

92d Con gress; it was mad e th at sanitatio n workers hav e a more da ngerous position than policemen. It was mad e by Mr. Wiggins.

I ju st heard from the medical assoc iatio n th at more people were 

conc erned ab ou t the movies th at are being show n throug ho ut the 

co un try —called “Jaw s” —people are now afraid to go in the water, 

afraid of the sharks. The medical association has given the fac ts and 

figures th at more people are killed by bees than by sha rks, ye t people 

will go in a room with 10 bees, bu t the y won’t go in a pool with 10 

sharks.

So these sta temen ts th at are made hav e hurt this bill in the past, 

and they are no t exact ly tru e sta temen ts. There is the 

concern ab ou t------

Mr. E ilbe rg . Le t me say we would like to include, once we have 

more solid figures, wh at is happ ening throug ho ut the country so th at 

people will un de rst an d th at at exactly —I might add , as you know in 

the St ate of Pennsylvania , there is a bill th at has passed the State 

House pro vid ing $25,000 lum p sum ben efit; bu t I un de rst an d the 

pro spe cts in the S tate S enate are nil.

Mr. H arrin gto n. It has passed the House, bu t ju st as you say, it 

has a very slim chance of pas sing the Sen ate. Th ere has been a lot of 

talk and a lot of tes tim ony on sho uld a policem an rece ive this bene fit 

if it is no t the result of a crim inal ac t th at he loses his life.

And I think the comm itte e ou gh t to tak e int o conside ration th at a 

policem an is a public safety officer. And in the city of Philadelph ia, 

where you and I come from , policem en had to lan d their hel ico pte r 

on the bu rning roof of a n old age home on 39th and Che stnu t so the y 

could evacua te some of the old peop le and wake up the ones on the 

top floor.
61

There was no criminal act there, but they did save every person in 

tha t building, and they could have been blown up. There was another officer in a flood; he had to go out in a boat to get some women off a dike, and although none of the women were lost, he was drowned. So, in public safety work, you are required to do hazardous acts tha t do cost your life. Now, a man could—and he would be taken to the front, and maybe lose his job for cowardice if he did not jum p over to save somebody who was drowning; a man in full clothes, 40, 45 years of age, could do this and save the person, and as a result of the strain of doing that, he could die from a heart atta ck a few hours 

* later while, perhaps, sitting on a bench.

Mr. Eilberg. Do you agree with the concept we have in H.R. 366 tha t hazardous duties would be determined—there would be standards 

tha t would take care of cases like that?

Mr. Harrington. I think it should be included in hazardous duties; the incidents I just cited, like floods, where men have to take action; fires, where they have to take action. In the case where eight firemen were burning at Gulf Oil, he would have to go in there and take some action. In that case, he would have been the ninth victim, but he would have to take the action and there was no criminal act. In most of these fires and things tha t take place, 99 percent of the time you just cannot prove there was a criminal act, even though your conscience tells you there was.

Mr. Eilberg. In the legislation, we inserted that the hazardous 

duty would be determined by the LEAA. There is one important reason for tha t; there would be uniform standards around the country. I am personally fearful that if this were left to the individual municipalities, possibly even the States, tha t you would have different standards all over the country, and you would have people covered in one State but not in another State. There would be injustice in that. I wonder what your reaction is to 

that.

Mr. Harrington. I think tha t Congress should have some fair means set up in this law that there would be one group to justify the results as to was it hazardous duty, was it in the performance of the 

duty, and so forth. I would be satisfied if Congress set tha t up in this law, in their 

i wisdom, to make a position where every man would get an honest

shake.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Charles W. Bauman follows:]

<

Statement of Charles W. Bauman, J r., Legislative Chairman, Fraternal

Order of Police Grand Lodge

Mr. Chairman and members of the Judicia ry Com mittee: My name is Charles W. Bauman, Jr. I am the Legislative Chairman of th e National Fratern al Order of Police. The Fra ter nal Order of Police is the oldest and largest police organizatio n of full tim e law enforcement officers in the U.S.A. We were organized in May, 1915 and have a membership of over 135,000 policemen. To join the Fraternal Order of Police, as an active member you must be a full time police officer of the Federal Governm ent; a State Governm ent; or a Local Municipality. It is in their behalf th at I come before you toda y, to give to you the ir views on 

the legislative bills before you. Similar types of legislation has been before Congress for the past four years. The reason why this type of legislation has been brou ght before you, was because there has been an increase in the killing of policemen for no ma tte r whatsoever.

61-356 0 - 75 - 5
62

The killer often referred to the policemen as pigs and knew if he was caug ht the 

worse sentence would be life im prisonment. This only averages a period of about 

three years. This type killer kills again yet a policeman must face him. Recently 

a man killed th e warden and deputy warden in th e Philadelphia prison. Two weeks 

ago in a Philadelphia Court after the judge sentenced him to 10 to 20 years the 

killer laughed out loud and slouched in his chair. William Hollewell who killed 

two policemen, served two life sentences, was pardoned thro ugh the efforts of his 

foster mother, was released then murdered her.

In the past few years several bills such as HR. 12, HR. 6449, S.B. 15 and 

HR. 11321. HR. 12 which was introduced by Mr. Rodino, S.B. 15 by Senator 

McClellan and HR. 6449 all called for the survivor of a policeman to receive 

$50,000.00. However, they did differ. HR. 12 required a policeman to be killed 

in the performance of duty, to become effective on the date of signing. SB. 15 

and HR. 6449 both required a policeman to be killed as a result of a criminal act. 

Then SB. 15 and HR. 6449 differed in th at SB. 15 was retroa ctiv e to October 17, 

1972 while HR. 6449 was effective on date of signing.

SB. 15 while requiring a policeman to be killed as a result of a criminal act 

only required a fireman to be killed in the performance of duty. SB. 15 and 

HR. 6449 called for $3,000.00 to be given to the survivors at the time of death 

and $47,000.00 later. HR. 366 and H R. 3544 before you provides the same $3,000.00 

at dea th and $47,000.00 to come later. I believe the survivors should receive 

this pay ment no ma tter if the man is killed as a result of a criminal act or in 

performance of his duty.

The Legislative branch of the Federal Government passes laws which the 

policem an must enforce and sometimes in so doing is killed. It is th e policies and 

regulations set down by the Federal Judicial bran ch th at has caused the permissiveness in this country. This has done more to increase the crime rate and with 

all the law’s, regulations and policies handed to a policeman by the Federal Governmen t they pay him nothing for carrying them out. In many states policemen 

cannot join Social Security. Oth er working people enjoy Social Security and if 

they are killed in the performance of their work duty, no ma tte r what the ir 

occupation may be. Their survivors are paid Social Security benefits for wife and 

children. In a very short time this benefit can amoun t to $50,000.00. They could 

also receive a pension from the company and insurance paymen ts. Police p ay in 

many parts of the co untry is still poor and forces men to moonlight to make ends 

meet. If a policeman seeks insurance many times the premium is to high.

Law’ enforcement officers are dedic ated to their law enforcement careers and 

the m aintaining of their families. The benefits you are considering would improve 

the qua lity of law’ enforcement and the morale of those who enforce the rules 

and regulations. Each law enforcement officer, no ma tte r what branch of law’ 

enforcement he works for, is fully aware th at dea th may come anytime in the 

sworn perform ance of his d uty.

We policemen w’ould like to see the bills before this Committee become a 

piece of legislation, th at would gra nt the survirors of a policeman killed in the 

of du ty, the sum of $50,000.00. With $3,000.00 paid immediately and the balance 

in one lump sum. The bills should also be retroac tive to October 11, 1972 because 

the Preside nt in 1970 promised this legislation when bill S2087 was passed in 

the Senate September, 1972, and should have been enacted into law' by October 11, 1972. Further, the meaning of law enforcement officer, should be any 

professional law enforcement officer employed and trained to enforce the laws 

of the land. As for the firemen, I do not speak for them, however, I feel the wisdom 

of this Committe e will correctly include who in firefighting should be included.

I want to thank the Chairman and the Committee for p erm ittin g me to make 

my remarks. Also their Counsel who are always courteous.

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Russo , I know you hav e no t had much of an 

op po rtun ity to listen to: a gr ea t deal of the testim ony. I know you 

were bu sy elsewhere. Do you hav e any com ments or questions?

Mr. Rus so . Yes. I would ju st like to mak e a brief com ment. I have 

been tied up in ma rkup sessions this morning in an othe r su bco mm itte e, 

and I was unable to be here. But as a fellow who total ly supp orts 

this legislation —and I am also one who is a cosp onso r of this legislatio n—I think it is a very vital piece of legislation th at should come 

ou t of this Congress; i t should be enacted b efore this session ends.
I worked very closely with many police officers in my days as a 

prosecutor back home, and I appreciate the problems they have, 

especially in view of the increasing amount of killings tha t take place 

today of police officers in the line of duty. I think we ought to move on this as fast as possible and get this bill 

over. I t is important. I thank the chairman for his interest, and tho opportunity to say 

this.

Mr. E ilberg. Ladies and gentlemen, this subcommittee will end the discussion at this point on this legislation, and will pick up tomorrow with the number of other witnesses, and we will determine whether 

further hearings are necessary.

Mr. Stark. Congressman Eilberg, I would like to say tha t the Fraternal Order of Police supports this committee 100 percent, and 

any request you make of us, we will carry out.

I want you to know that personally.

Mr. Eilberg. I would appreciate, too, if you would correct tha t statement with regard to me. I did not think tha t was a fair statem ent tha t appeared in the issue, the J uly issue, I believe-----

Mr. Stark. We will take care of it.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you. We will recess the hearing on these m atters, and take up our other business. [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee proceeded to other 

matters.]

PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS BENEFITS ACT

FR ID AY, SE PT EM BE R 19, 1975

H o use of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

S ubcom m it te e on I m m ig rati on,

C it iz e n s h ip , an d I n ter n a tio n a l L aw

of th e C o m m it te e on t h e J u d ic ia ry,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m. in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joshua Eilberg [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Eilberg, Sarbanes, Russo, and Fish. Also present: Garner J. Cline and Arthur P. Endres, Jr., counsels; Janice A. Zarro, assistant counsel; and Alexander B. Cook, associate 

counsel.

Mr. E il b e r g . The subcommittee will come to order. Today we will continue consideration of bills H.R. 365, H.R. 366, and H.R. 3544, relating to death benefits to survivors of public safety officers who die in the performance of duty. We had testimony yester­ day ; this is a continuation of yesterday’s hearings. We are beginning with no other members of the subcommittee present, recognizing there are witnesses who are anxious to appear and 

make commitments elsewhere. Our first witness is Raymond Hemmert, district vice president of the International Association of Firefighters, accompanied by Jack A. Waller, legislative representative of the International Association of 

Firefighters. Would you gentlemen please come up? Let me say first it is a pleasure to welcome you gentlemen back. I particularly want to recognize Ray Hemmert from the city of Phila­ delphia, who is, in addition to being vice president of the International, the president of the local in Philadelphia, whom I have worked with 

before.

It is a pleasure to have you here. Mr. Waller, for the record, would you identify the gentlemen to 

your right?

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND HEMMERT, DISTRICT VICE PRESIDENT,

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTER S, ACCOMPANIED BY JACK A. WALLER, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE,

AND WALTER LAMBERT, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH

Mr. W a l l e r. The gentleman to my right is Walt Lambert, director of research for the International Association of Firefighters. I am Jack Waller, legislative representative for the Internatio nal 

Association of Firefighters.

Mr. E il b e r g . I take it you are the chairman of this team?

(65)
66

Do you wish to tes tify first, and the n Mr. He mm ert?

Mr. Waller. Yes.

Mr. La mbe rt will ans wer any sta tistic al question s th at any of the 

memb ers m igh t hav e.

On behalf of our membership, I wish to express ou r deep app rec iation 

to you , Mr. Chairma n and the mem bers of the sub com mittee, for 

sch edu ling hearings on thi s legislation which we feel is so vit al and 

nec essary to main tai n a viab le pub lic saf ety org anization in the 

hard -pressed mu nicipalities of this Nation.

We also wish to th an k the app rox imately 140 Members of the 

House of Re presentat ives who have intrdu ced or cosponsore d legislation of this same type in the pas t, in one form or ano the r, th at 

would provide com pen sation for firefighters who are total ly disa bled 

in the line of du ty and provisions for the ir surviv ors in the ev en t 

of de ath in the line of du ty.

I note th at some of the legislation th at has been introd uced is 

writ ten to cover only one seg ment of the pub lic safety de partm ents. 

It is the strong feeling of the In ternationa l Association of Firefig hters 

th at legislatio n of this na tu re should be broad enough in scope to 

pro vid e pro tection for all public saf ety officers, the guard s in correctional ins tituti ons, and the mem bers of the judic iar y when the y die 

in the line of du ty.

Th e arg um ent supp ortin g this coverage is wTitten daily on the 

fron t pages of the new spa per s throu ghout thi s Na tio n and TV med ia. 

Th ere is no segment of the pr ote cti ve force of this N ation who re present 

the establishm ent th at are free from poten tia l daily d eath and inj ury. 

I need only cite to you, th at betw een 1960 and 1975, 50 firefighters 

were killed in civil disorders or dur ing acts of civil dis tur bance or 

while being harassed. Th is does no t include the man y firefighters 

wrho fall victim to the flam es sta rte d by an arsonist or to the man y 

me mb ers of our org ani zation who are killed or maimed resp onding to 

an illegal false alarm.

I t is the firm belief of the Intern ationa l Association of Firefighters 

th at Federal com pen sation should be given to sur viv ors of any pub lic 

safety officer who is k illed in th e line of d uty. In the ye ar of 1973, for 

every 100,000 firefighters emp loyed in th e Un ited State s, 69 paid the 

supre me sacrifice while fighting fire. An oth er 111 p er 100,000 em ploy ed 

died from occ upatio nal disea ses, such as heart atta ck s and r espirat ory 

ailme nts . In the same y ear, 47.9 firefighters were injure d for every 100 

employed . Th e fac ts are th at the statist ics show th at in 1973 the fire 

serv ice obtained the d ubiou s d istinc tio n of having more of its members 

killed per 100,000 w orkers t han alm ost any othe r occ upatio n. Min ing, 

roc k quarryin g, and co nstru cti on also ha d a l arge toll.

One last and final statistic , from 1963 to 1973, 919 firefighters met 

th ei r d ea th in the line of dut y. T his sta tis tic was compiled by surv eying 

approx im ate ly 170,000 firefighters.

We su pp ort the philosop hy of a lum p-sum gr an t for the survivin g 

families of public safet y officers killed in the line of du ty. This legislatio n shou ld no t be restr icted to those who lose their lives because of 

a crim inal act. It is difficult to distinguish the needs of surviv ors of 

firefigh ters who lose th eir lives in a heroic rescue from those who die 

from a criminal act.
67

It becomes more evident, as time moves on, tha t the true responsi­ bility for the protection of the public safety officers and their depend­ ents lies within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. The recent attem pted assassination of the Presiden t once again established the mobility of the people of America. The individual who p erpetrates criminal acts of the type tha t are covered b y this legislation are very 

seldom a local problem. The assassin, the arsonist, the perpetrat or of civil disorders, the bomb terrorist, are almost witho ut exception imports. The perp etra­ tor of any of these horrendous crimes may well have th at same day been on the other side of this Nation and if successful in his crime be back across the N ation before nightfall. The time has come when public safety officers of this Nation are in dire need of a boost in morale and there is no b ette r way tha t this could be obtained than by having the Federal Government enact a type of legislation tha t is presently before 

this committee. I can assure you t ha t it would bring back to th e firefighter and police officer the feeling of being needed and of being appreciated by those people whose lives and property they strive daily to protect. I feel positive tha t the benefits derived by the people of this Nation from the enactment of such legislation would far offset the cost factor 

involved. It is very reassuring to, on numerous occasions, note in the Con­ gressional Record the compliments and platitud es directed toward 

public safety officers of this Nation. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, today you have the opportunity to do something truly meaningful for the people engaged in public safety work, and the Internatio nal Association of Firefighters recommends to you that your committee favorably 

report H .R. 3544.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Hemmert, would you be good enough to give us any thoughts you might have. I am sure, among other things, tha t you would be concerned with the recent Gulf refinery fire in the city of Philadelphia. You are familiar with this legislation. Please proceed.

Mr. Hemmert. Than k you, Congressman Eilberg. Along with my colleagues here, I again appreciate the opportunity to be here today on behalf of the firefighters. We feel th at the Federal Government has responsibilities toward firefighters who die in the line of duty for the following reasons. Firefighters have ever increasing hazards in their occupation because of the very large number of lethal materials being transported interstate by tank car and tan k truck. These extremely dangerous substances provide an ever present danger to firefighters who, in case of vehicle or train collision and 

resulting fire, are the first to be called upon. Over the last few years a number of deaths in accidents involving hazardous materials has shown remarkable increase. For instance, in Kingman, Ariz., 13 firefighters were killed within a few minute s of arrival at the scene of an explosion of a tan k car. The National Trans portation Safety Board has developed statistics showing that fire­ fighters are 156 times more liable to injury and death in a derailment involving hazardous materials than a train crewr

 itself. In the case of 

the tank truck fire, the. extreme risks come from rocketing, of the ends of the trucks and from the phenomenon known as bleving. This is a
68

boiling liquid expansion va po r explosion, where the pressure rises 

so fas t in a tank th at there is a failure of the me tal and immediate 

increase of large qu an tities of vap or. This vapor is in such concentra ­

tio ns th at it is easily ign ited, resulting in the explosion and a grea t 

sheet of flame all aro und the tru ck for hu nd red s of feet. This is followed by missile effects from the fragm ent ed tank tru ck or tank car, 

usu ally accomp anied by rocketing.

Th e rang e of this rocket ing, in mo st cases, 1,000 to 1,500 feet. 

The Fed eral Go vernm ent bears a sha re of the responsibility for this 

dangero us situation because of failure to require, No. 1, ide ntifica tion 

sys tem which could easily be learned by firefighters so the y would 

know conte nts of a vessel bein g tra nspo rte d. No. 2, t he air po rts of the 

co un try depend on firefigh ters to provide the pro tec tio n essential to 

the ope ration of such facilities. In many instances, those airp lanes 

carry no t only passengers and ordin ary freight, but sub stance s of 

tox ic na ture which could pose addition al hazards of firefighters, in 

th e event of a crash lan din g and resulting fire.

Airpo rts hav e ma ny flights of cargo plan es car rying an infinite 

va rie ty of materi als, some of which is toxic. Th e risk of death from 

ign itin g of these substances is incre asing steadi ly.

No. 3, the Federal Go vernm ent has large numb ers of buildin gs 

throug ho ut the country . Fir e pro tection has to be accorded to the 

str uc tur es. This is an addit ion al reason for Federal inter est in 

firefighters.

No. 4, the seaports of the Un ite d State s are prote cte d by firefigh ters and the cargoes of ma ny of these ships con sist of toxic an d 

explosive substan ces which add to the perils th at firefighters face in 

the ev en t of fires on ships.

No. 5, oil refineries— oil refineries are engaged largely in in terstate 

ope rations. These ins tallation s pre sen t extr emely dan gerous s itu ati ons 

to firefighters, as evidenced in the rec ent fire de ath s in Philadelphia.

Gentle men, I think th at you are all aware of wha t hap pen ed in 

Philadelph ia with the eig ht firefighters th at were killed in the line of 

du ty . Th e reason or reason s at this point------

Mr. E ilb erg. You are refe rrin g to the Gulf Oil fire?

Mr. H emm ert. Yes. Th e reasons for this a re unk nown a t this p oin t. 

But we feel sure th at whe n the inv estigations are completed, the re 

will be negligence on the pa rt of Gulf refinery. Th ere is no detection 

device in any of the refineries in Philadelph ia and I spe ak firs thand a s 

an activ e firefighter who ha d been at Gulf, no t on this pa rticular fire, 

bu t on occasions before. I was at Atlan tic, there was no detection. Th e 

dan gers are ever increasing. We know of no law. We hav e ask ed—no 

prote ction from OSHA as ye t in Pen nsy lvania . But we do feel th at 

whe n this is over, thes e lives are wasted because a simple detection 

device to show leaks in the tan ks, overflow in the tan ks, simple detec ­

tion devices.

An d we know of many millions of dollars t hat oil refineries hav e a nd 

the mon eta ry cost of detec tio n devices th at would give us a fighting 

chance are absen t. Fo r this rea son we feel th at th is bill sh ould be passe d 

for line -of-duty death s for firefighters.

Mr. E ilb erg . Mr. He mme rt, ju st very briefly, is i t no t tru e th at of 

the eight firemen who died in the line of du ty in th at Gulf Oil fire 

ab ou t a mo nth ago in Philadelph ia, th at in addit ion to spouses the re 

were a total of 21 min or children of those eight firemen?
69

Mr. H emmert. Yes; there was, 21 minor children tha t are fatherless.

Mr. Eilberg. Now, I have a number of questions and probably a 

number of them are directed to you, Mr. Waller or perhaps your 

research man here. I note that in the statistics you read you indicated 

your 69 firefighting deaths per 100,000 employees in 1973. Can you 

translate this figure into a total number of firefighters killed in the 

line of duty in 1973?

Mr. Waller. I will turn that over to Mr. Lambert.

Mr. Lambert. I can furnish you with the 10 years from 1963 to 

1973 total and for how many each year in 1973, there were 90 firefighters killed. Tha t is 90 professional firefighters. Tha t does not 

include volunteer fire fighters or people outside of our organization, 

although we represent the great majority.

Mr. Eilberg. What would be involved in getting these statistics 

for the voluntary firefighters?

Mr. Lambert. I do not have any idea. In testifying before the 

President’s Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, we made 

some statements tha t there was nobody in the Nation who knows 

how many volunteer firefighters there are. Nor is there anyone in 

the Nation who keeps statistics on it. I do not believe the staff at 

tha t particular time believed this but they do now. Our problem is th at 

when you go into a volunteer fire department, you may find a list 

of 100 volunteers and m any of them are citizens who have contributed 

to tha t particular fire department, who have been volunteers in the 

past. But out of 100 you may have only six or seven who are active. 

This is the problem.

Mr. Eilberg. I do not question tha t firefighters are the most 

dangerous activity and tha t there are more fire deaths than in any 

other occupation. Or at least I am told, as far as the public services 

are concerned, if we do not know the number of deaths of voluntary 

firefighters, how can we accurately say tha t firefighting is the most 

dangerous public safety profession?

Mr. Lambert. If we computed the volunteers into it, it would be 

much higher. But at the present time with the amount of people 

tha t we cover and so forth, it is the highest in tha t category. I am 

sure if we added all the other figures in, it would be just that much 

higher, but I do not know how you could, at this particular time, 

ever determine how many volunteers are killed or injured and so 

forth. I do not have any idea.

Mr. Waller. The National Fire Protection Association who does 

some work along this line has issued some statements but there really 

are not statistical facts to back up their statem ents so we just do 

not use them.

Mr. Eilberg. Do you have the number of firefighters killed in the 

line of duty for 1974?

Mr. Lambert. No, in 1974, I am presently doing this survey. I 

will have those figures at the end of September. We published these in 

the November issue of our magazine but we will be complete a t tha t 

particular time.

Mr. Eilberg. Will you provide us with the results?

Mr. Lambert. Yes.

Mr. Eilberg. The figure you have given us is reliable?
70

Mr. L ambert. Yes, the sta tistics do no t basically come from the 

union. The union publish es them bu t it comes from the Fire Adm inistra tio n, the fire chiefs, and so forth. Th ey furnish us with this 

inform atio n.

Mr. E ilb erg. Can you furn ish us with death s of firefighters killed 

in the line of du ty, going back to say, 1960, on an annual basis?

Mr. Lambert. No, I can go back to 1963.

Mr. Eilb erg. Please do th at .

Mr. Lambert. Yes, sir.

[The ma terial refe rred to follows:] *

D ea th s o f F ir e F ig h t e r s

The following totals are based on an annual survey of fire administrations by 

the Internatio nal Association of Fire Fighters. This survey only includes professional fire fighters.

Year:

1963...........................................

1964............................................

19 65 .............. ............... ............

19 6 6 -. ..____ _________ _

1967 _______ ____ _______ _

1968 ______________________

1969........................... ........... ..

Total

69

65

55

93

96

92

104

Y ea r: Total

1970 ........... 115

1971 ......... 106

1972 ....... 100

1973 __________ 90

Tot al___________________ 985

Mr. Eilb erg . Mr. Waller, what, in your opinion, is pro per ly 

considered a line of du ty death ? Should it include only death s at the 

scene of the fire or should it include any death s while the firem en 

are resp ond ing to or return ing from a fire? Should it cover death s 

from occ upation al diseases such as lung dam age or he ar t disease?

Mr. Waller. We would hope th at we could cover occup ational 

diseases such as he art at ta ck s and res pir ato ry ailments. W ha t I 

think , in going over this, with the com mittee and the Sen ate side, it 

ju st does no t seem we would be able to get th at kin d of an appro ­

priat ion . We worked dilige ntly with you and yo ur staff to have the 

wording th at is in the present piece of legislation.

Mr. Eilb erg. I wonder if yo u would tak e the m icrophone up closer?

Mr. Waller. We hav e worked very diligently with yo ur staff and 

you rself and Mr. Fish on this wording. Ce rta inl y it is no t as broad 

as we w ould like it, bu t I th in k legislative process is one of negotiation, 

of give and take. We would be very ha pp y if we could ju st get this 

piece of legislatio n enact ed int o law in tne wording th at it is. As I 

un de rst an d, wh at we have agreed to in the wording of the rep ort s, 

we are talkin g about cov erin g a firefighter who dies, no t only at the 

scene of a fire in line of du ty , but one who dies from perform ing a 

du ty th at is deem ed to be hazar dous, which would tak e care of an ybody making, say, for example, the rescue of a drow ning child. Tha t 

would certainl y be deem ed by anybody to be a hazar dous involve ­

me nt and cer tain ly the widow of th at man would be covered.

We certa inl y believe th at the lang uage is broad enough to pro tec t 

our peop le who are killed, respon ding on a piece of fire appa ratus , 

because I can assure you travelin g in traffic in some of our big cities 

is more haz ard ous than going down into th at smoke filled basement.
71

It is one of the fac ts of life t ha t we are involved in. We ca nnot go 5 miles an hou r to get to a fire. We hav e to try to get there as rap idly as 

possible.

Mr. Eilb erg. Mr. Waller, are you and yo ur org anization satisfied with the language in the bill as we provide for inclusion, actua lly fighting the fire and also those activ itie s th at are considered hazardous 

by the LEA A? Are y ou satisfied with th at?

Mr. Waller. We would also wa nt to say, we would continue to hav e the legislation amend ed and bro ade ned to cover our people who die. For exam ple, say , in a fire sta tio n, who is on fire sta tio n du ty du ty and dies of a he ar t attack , we would try to convince yo u and the 

res t of Congress th at th at also should be covered.

Mr. E ilb erg. We un derst and yo ur position. I made referenc es to this before bu t I would ask you specifically, is firefighting still considered to be the mo st hazar dous occ upation by the Dep ar tm en t 

of Labor?

Mr. Lamb ert. Yes. The Dep ar tm en t of La bo r basically uses our 

sta tistics and have used them in arbi tra tio n and court p rocedu res a nd so forth. At the presen t time, because of the lack of coverage of the national occ upation and hea lth and saf ety law to public emp loyers, 

these are the only sta tis tic s available. The Na tional Safety Council does some minor sta tistic al are as for 158 units of Go vernme nt which are units of Go vernm ent who agre e to set up their rep ortin g system and agree to use wh at the y deter mi ne as the Zr-16 definition of injury , which is no t acc eptable to the L ab or Dep artm en t or othe r org anization s th at are in the sta tistic al field.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Waller, in yo ur 1973 de ath and injur y surve y, you state th at line-o f-duty death s decline in 1973 by 10 perce nt. Wa s 

the re a similar decrease in death s in 1974?

Mr. Wal ler. Maybe I should let W alt —it seemed like we rea che d a peak, according to our statistics, of individual death s in ab ou t 1970, when we reache d 115 death s. Then, since th at time , the figures have 

shown a decline.

Mr. Lamber t. From 1972 to 1973, i t was appro xim ately 10 percen t 

decrease in dea ths.

Mr. Eilb er g. Again ------

Mr. Lamb ert. In 1974, sta tis tic s will be availab le soon, and I 

think the y will show at the prese nt time also a decrease.

Mr. Eilb er g. Ca n you give reasons for those decreases?

Mr. Lamber t. Yes. I thi nk we have take n some strong looks at the typ es of firefighting we are doing. Fo r instan ce, the ord erin g of firefighters into buildings who have been previously burne d or va ca ted buildings, and so forth . We hav e lost a treme ndous am ou nt of lives in this area, and I think the ad mi nis tra tio n of the fire de pa rtm en ts hav e tak en a new look at the procedures which we use in those type s of buildings. So l ast year, we continued to lose lives in this same are a. Anoth er thing is th at the natio nal occup ational health and safety law is e nforc ing upon the States new St ate e nactm ents, t hat are coming up with be tte r fire prote ction clothing, be tter bre ath ing ap pa ratus,
72

bett er equipment, and so forth. The firefighters who are being burnt up 

with cotton clothes on, they are nowhere near what a firefighter should 

wear. The day has ended for those types of situations. The employer 

himself, the cities, are being forced into the position tha t they must 

buy better and more up-to-date equipment.

Mr. Eilberg. With the use of better equipment, it is possible, 

therefore, to reduce the deaths in the firefighter profession, in your 

opinion?

Mr. Lambert. Right. Also, we have two other items. In 1975, we 

have the multiple deaths—in the last years, we have not had the 

multiple death situation tha t we had before.

Mr. Eilberg. But you had it at the Gulf Oil fire.

Mr. Lambert. I say for 1975. But in the 2 years previously, we 

have not had the multiple deaths which will hold us down. Prior to 

tha t time, we had in Boston 11 killed. In Massachusetts, we had 15 

killed in 1 month’s time. So where the multiple deaths disappear, 

your total will be reduced sharply.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Waller, here is a question which really gets to 

the core of the difference between the House and the Senate. I am 

going to ask your opinion on it for the record.

There has been some criticism by the D epartment of Justice to the 

effect that the national interest to extend the Federal involvement in 

public safety or fire prevention is not as great as crime prevention, 

since crime has no boundaries. I would like your general reactions to 

the propriety of Federal involvement in the public safety profession, 

particularly as it relates to providing death benefits to the dependents 

of the survivors of firemen who die in line of duty.

In other words, you remember tha t basically, the House position 

was death in the line of duty, and the Senate position was death from 

criminal act. How do you react?

Mr. Waller. A firefighter not only saves the life and property, he 

is first line of defense, as proven recently when we had disturbances. If 

a fire destroys a building, that provides jobs for people, it has a definite 

effect on the Federal Government’s ability to operate and function.

The people know—a typical example is the increase in the arson 

fires that has taken place in our Nation, due to the economics that we 

are faced with today. Once again, the people who do these things are 

not the local boy. Like my testimony showed, they are the imports. 

They come in and they do their deed and leave.

One of the very difficult things—and I know tha t the law is written 

by the Senate side, and some of the language was hoped to be broad 

enough to where there was really no need, I suppose, to prove tha t, and 

a criminal act had taken place. You would just presume it. We are 

fearful of that, that tha t kind of language is what we end up with, 

because it is very, very difficult to determine the cause of a fire if an 

arsonist has done a good job. He can make it look like it was a short in 

an electrical system, or an overheated stove or furnace. He can make it 

look like tha t to even experts.

So, we just know tha t our people would never get what they are 

entitled to, if that kind of language is what is finally decided on.

Mr. Eilberg. You mentioned arson repeatedly. Do you know how 

many arson fires are set, and particularly how many deaths resulted 

from fires from arson?
73

Mr. Lambert. The answer is no, and the reason the answer is no, 

on many fire reports, the cause of the fire is left open. And although the firefighters at the scene have a pretty good suspicion that that particular fire was arson-caused, the proof of it is extremely difficult. Also, if the cause was put on there as arson and we could n ot prove it, we may deny some person the insurance benefits of th at particular claim. So the total number, really, is very difficult.

Mr. Eilberg. A witness yesterday stated it was possible tha t 80 percent of fire deaths might have resulted from fires set by arsonists. Do you have any way of recognizing tha t figure? Does it have any 

meaning?

Mr. Lambert. No; it has no meaning to me.

Mr. Eilberg. Finally, gentlemen, recognizing tha t you w'ould be totally unsatisfied with the criminal act restriction, because very few firemen would be included, would your organization support concepts that would provide compensation for deaths resulting from unlawful act, perhaps a misdemeanor rather than a felony; perhaps a summary offense rather than a misdemeanor? In other words, an unlawful act not arising to the degree of crime such as because the fire was a violation of a building ordinance. As you know, in many municipalities, the violation amounts to a summary of an offense or violation. How would you answer that?

Mr. Waller. Certainly tha t language would be far better than the Senate interpretation of the language of the bill that the Senate sent to the House a couple years back. I am sure it would provide a few more of our widows with coverage. But once again, it is going to be very difficult for anyone to prove what started the fire, or caused the fire. Gulf Oil Co. in Philadelphia; we knew if they would have had detective devices, we would have been notified earlier, and it would 

have never reached that proportion. When th at investigation is over, and you see that mass of wreckage and ruin, for anybody to come out and say tha t was caused by this or tha t is almost totally impossible. I just know, once again, maybe the building owner was in violation of the code, so that our people would be protected. And once again, you are going to get into civil suits to determine whether or not he was in violation.

Mr. Eilberg. I am not talking about civil suits. I am saying, if you can show tha t there is a violation of the building code, there are some fines imposed, this might be construed as an unlawful act, and possibly might be the basis of including legislation. And we run into the same kind of resistance in the Senate as we did before. I jus t 

wonder whether tha t would be-----

Mr. Waller. It would broaden our coverage, and certainly, again, we would insist upon or we would atte mpt to influence Members of Congress, both sides, to accept the language of the legislation that has been before your committee and passed by the House of Repre­ sentatives in previous sessions. We would do everything we could to 

maintain death in the line of duty.

Mr. Eilberg. Under the position of the Senate, past position, how many firefighter deaths do you believe would be covered under very 

liberal interpretation of th at restriction?

Mr. Lambert. I do not know. Because of my statement that the cause is left open, unless arson is almost proven, and the evidence is
74

recove red, I thi nk it woul d be very difficu lt to det erm ine wh eth er 

you have a lawful or unlawf ul, or a viol ation.

Mr. Eilb er g. Would you ha ve some sta tis tic s ind ica tin g th at the re 

are a few iden tifia ble arsons each yea r, de ath s res ult ing from arson? 

In the pa st, the re hav e been some few snip er dea ths; cer tai nly thos e 

would be inclu ded. The po int I am mak ing, try ing to elicit from you 

is, inde ed, the numb er woul d be very small . I assu me y ou would agree 

with th at stat em en t?

Mr. Lam ber t. I would think so, bu t I thi nk we are en ter ing int o 

a vague are a. I as a sta tis tic ian int end to furn ish sta tis tic s. Th ey 

mu st have some int eg rit y wit h them. To be emo tion ally involv ed or 

to mak e bro ad sta tem en ts wi thou t confirmed basis , I wou ld be in a 

very poo r position.

[No inform ation could be sup plie d since accu rat e est im ate s are no t 

ava ilab le.]

Mr. Eilb er g. Congres sma n Fish ?

Mr. Fis h. Th an k you , Mr. Ch air ma n.

I welcom e you , Mr. Waller, an d yo ur asso ciat es. Th e inf orm ation 

an d sta tis tic s th at you an d yo ur assoc iate s of the Na tio na l Asso ciation 

of Fire figh ters have been tal kin g ab ou t wit h us this mo rni ng only 

conc erns paid firem en?

Mr. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Fis h. It seems to me th at i t should be possib le to ge t the in for ­

ma tio n for volun tee r firem an. Ce rta inly where I come from , vo lun tee r 

firemen greatly outnu mb er th e pa id firemen, even in o ur cities. A nd the re 

is a co un ty assoc iation which is in 62 countie s in New Yo rk Sta te, 

exc ept for the me tro polita n are a— I should think we could ge t the 

inf orm ati on from those asso ciations .

Is th at no t a feasible thin g in all the St ate s?

Mr. Lamber t. It is not, to my knowledge . Some St ates —you 

me ntioned New Yor k—Wa shingt on St ate is an oth er one th at has 

reg iste red volun tee rs and so forth . There is no prob lem. Th ey kee p good 

sta tis tic s. Ca lifo rnia also is in this area.

Mr . Fis h. Yo ur prob lem is the differen ce between peop le being on 

the roste r an d being act ive —I mean in terms of how man y death s 

ha ve occ urre d, as an abs olu te figure.

Mr. L amber t. We have a g ra nt from the nati on al bur eau to inv est iga te the de ath s of firefighters. Th is inclu des inv est iga tin g the de ath s 

of volun tee r firefig hters, as well as profe ssional, in the are a. The gr an t 

is involve d with the In tern ationa l Assoc iation of Fire Chief s, which 

rep res ents a tremendo us am ou nt of volun tee r chiefs, and ourselve s 

rep res entin g the profe ssionals. We ha ve been try ing to keep, use eve ry 

vehic le ava ilable to us, so we are know ledg eabl e ab ou t an y de ath s 

th at occur.

We are ha vin g a ver y difficult time . As a m at te r of fac t, we are 

finding ou t de ath s acc ide ntally. In ma ny cases, we are using a clipp ing 

service to keep up with th at . So we hav e no t been suc cessful, I am sure, 

in coverin g all the de ath s of volun tee r firefighters.

Mr . Fis h. Th ere are some are as I would like to explo re th at the 

chair ma n has alr ead y gone into. I thi nk it is im po rta nt , in view of 

the pro blem s we had in the pa st in this legislati on, th at we make a 

reco rd on the iss ue of how, if the th ru st of the legislation was res tri cte d 

to de ath th at was associated with a crim inal act , th at thi s would real ly
75

not be of any real benefit to you. And if I understand y our testimony, Mr. Lambert, it is largely because, despite the fact tha t fires maybe have been set by arsonists, that the proof of this is extremely difficult; tha t often, the cause of the fire is not definitively determined, and tha t unless it was related to arson or sniping, would not be of any 

significant benefit to firemen.

Mr. Lambert. Th at is basically true.

Mr. Fish. The Justice Departm ent, in their testimony yesterday, urged as an alterna tive that we look at the Presid ent’s recent crime message to the Congress, and specifically tha t par t tha t called for taking greater account of the needs of victims of crime. I do not know if you gentlemen on this panel are familiar with the testimony yester­ day. Specifically, they are talking about victims of Federal crimes, and the testimony indicated tha t public service officers would not be barred from qualifying as beneficiaries under this proposal. But I assume, here, we have the same problem. Since we are talking about crimes, going this route again would be no help to firemen.

Mr. Waller. No help. Of course, it would broaden it for the 

civilians, as I interpret it.

Mr. Fish. I would assume you oppose this legislation. It simply would not be a substit ute for what the bill before us—-—

Mr. Waller. The State I am a resident of already has criminal 

compensation.

Mr. F ish. Could I ask you, at this particula r point, before the enact­ ment of this legislation, what provisions are there for the survivors of 

firemen killed in the line of duty?

Mr. Waller. You mean at the local level? They vary so drastically, it is almost impossible to arrive at the plateau. We do make a pension profile. We have told the staff we will give them a copy of this pension profile, and from tha t we can determine how many have widow’s coverage, how many have workmen’s compensation coverage. It will be very difficult to bring i t out in sta tistics tha t would be useful.1

Mr. Fish. H ow were these pensions arrived at?

Mr. Waller. They vary. Some are local ordinances. Most are State laws. I believe most are by a State act or local ordinance.

Mr. Fish. Do you know from your knowledge whether the State regulations, the local ordinances, apply to volunteer firemen? Or do they jus t apply to firemen employed by municipality?

Mr. Wtaller. I know of only one S tate tha t provides—personally, I only know of one State tha t provides hospital and medical and death benefit, and a pension for volunteer firefighters.

Mr. Fish. We can assume tha t over a million volunteer firemen in the United States aie simply not coveied under any death benefits 

program?

Mr. Waller. Yes.

Mr. Fish. There have been some suggestions tha t fall short of the death benefit lump sum proposed. I would like your comments on them. These are alternatives. One would be the purchase by the Federal Government of group insurance for public safety officers. Do you have 

any comment?

Mr. Waller. I would not want to see tha t become a supplement for what legislation you have discussed. I have testified before this

1

 See appendix 5 at p. 171 for pension profile of Int ernational Association of Firefighters (include excerpts from IATF pension plan report).
76

committee a number of years back. Even with the threat of being 

greedy, my statement was tha t both would be legitimate and 

reasonable.

I would also say, the criminal act aspect—if tha t is the best that 

can come out of this Congress, then it certainly should have the insurance tied to it to take care of the other people who would get the 

insurance no matter where the death occurred, or what the cause was. 

I support both, selfishly.

Mr. Fish. Certainly, if the language th at comes out of the Congress 

is restricted to the criminal act, you would believe this insurance would 

be lost. Another alternative would be providing grants to match 

State and local death benefits. I rather think you have almost answered that with respect to the volunteer firemen, because there are 

not any.

Mr. Waller. All you would be doing in that kind of a case would 

be having one who has already something getting more than one who 

has nothing still getting nothing.

Mr. Lambert. In evaluating the pension profile, the date on tha t 

was 1973. It is amazing, the broad coverage that goes out throughout 

the United States. When a man is killed in the line of duty, his widow 

receives a return of the contributions back to a certain amount of 

pension 60 percent—with so much for each child. I think when you 

talk about all the people in the United States, or all the firefighters, 

plus the volunteers, you are talking about a wide variance of benefits 

to a group of people.

Mr. Fish. Thank you for tha t. Would anybody like to comment on 

this? Would the passage of this legislation before us aid in recruiting 

for the fire service?

Mr. Waller. Definitely it would. Any improvement in the benefits, especially to the survivors of a firefighter, will aid in the recruitment of firefighters. If you can say to a man, today you are trying to 

hire him, and you say; all right, if you get killed in the line of duty, 

your widow will get 50 percent of your salary—that is probably about 

the norm for what the average widow would get. In addition to that, 

if you said your widow was going to get 50 percent, but the Federal 

Government will give her $50,000 to pay off the mortgage and see 

the kids through school, I think it would improve recruitment.

Mr. Fish. Mr. Waller is an expert witness. We may not have him 

before us again. What are your views as to what some of the language 

in this bill means—you recall the way it is set-up. The LEA A administrator determines that an eligible public safety officer has died as the 

direct and proximate result of personal injuries sustained in the performance of duty. The fireman would be actually or directly engaged 

in fighting a fire. I think tha t is pretty clear cut—or otherwise engaged 

in the performance of his duty where the activity is determined by the 

administration to be potentially dangerous to the firemen.

I wonder, if you could address yourself to that language, otherwise 

engaged in the performance of his duty or any activities determined 

by the administration to be potentially dangerous. Give us some examples as to what you think the coverage in that section means.

Mr. Waller. Just recently, we had a building over here in Arlington th at was under construction. It toppled down. I cannot remember 

how many were killed, b ut a lot of them were trapped. If a firefighter
77

on the rescue squad was in there, and another beam fell down and killed him, he would in our opinion be—at that time been engaged in, not fighting a fire, but certainly in a hazardous duty situation. I think before the committee, the example was given of a child drowning in a pond, and a firefighter goes in to save the child. We have had it happen. I think at the last hearing, we ju st had this happen about a week ahead of the hearing. And that, in our opinion, would certainly be engaging in a duty tha t was hazardous. I think it would just broaden, besides the fire scene, it would broaden us to that rescue 

scene. Recently, we had a firefighter out here in Montgomery County respond to a person overcome in a vault. Failure of the mask, and the firefighter lost his life. There was no fire there at all. He was in a rescue effort. It certainly was a hazardous situation. Those are examples, Congressman, that we felt—and was discussed before—of what we are trying to get at, of how we are trying to extend 

this coverage.

Mr. Fish. Thank you very much for your help.

Mr. Eilberg. Congressman Russo? Mr. Russo. Mr. Chairman, I just have a statement to make. In going over Mr. Waller’s testimony on page 3, it indicates tha t we hear many platitudes and compliments about the great job public servants do. It is time, I think, tha t the Congress and the people of this country do something to show our gratitude. I wholeheartedly support this 

legislation, and I have no further questions.

Mr. E ilberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Russo. Mr. Russo is a former district attorney, and well versed with the problems of public 

safety officers. Mr. Sarbanes?

Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I want to thank you for a very helpful and very thoughtful statement on this question. . I would like to pursue the questioning that Mr. Fish was doing. I think it is important to get a good record with respect to this matter. I think it is important to focus on this question of death as a result of a criminal act versus death in the performance of the line of d uty. You indicated one of the benefits of this would be to contribute to the morale of the personnel and be an attraction, at least a benefit, people would consider in entering the service and staying in the 

service. I think that is true. I wonder what the impact on morale would be if you had a situation in which, because it was limited only to consequences of criminal act, if some men would have a $50,000 benefit for their family if there was some disturbance involved with fighting a fire—whatever it may be, some tenuous reaching out for a criminal act—and other men, who may well have been exposed to much more serious danger, in terms of fighting the fire, and lost their lives but would be denied the benefit because you really could not make any contention tha t a criminal act had occurred. Th at is a distinction you would be drawing within 

the firefighting service. I wonder what the impact on morale might be if such a distinction 

existed—

Mr. Waller. One of the real difficult problems in the fire service 

is that we all live together, we work together, and we rely on one

61-3 56 0 - 75 - 6
78

another. Any time any kind of a situation is involved where you and I 

are riding on the back step of that rig, and just because of some kind 

of a situation like you have described very perfectly, your widow is 

going to have some benefits mine does not have, to us, we would 

rath er not have that.

I have said this before, we would ra ther just not have tha t kind of 

legislation at all. It would be very destructive in morale in the fire 

service.

Mr. Sarbanes. I think tha t is a thoughtful answer. I am quite 

concerned about that. The same thing, of course, applies with respect 

to the police and especially applies with respect to this distinction 

tha t the Justice Departme nt was trying to make yesterday between 

Federal crimes and State crimes, which I think is a distinction tha t is 

totally unworkable.

In your statement, on page 2, I want to be sure I am clear on this. 

You say, “One last and final statistic, from 1963 to 1973, 919 firefighters m et their death in the line of dut y.”

Mr. Waller. I am glad you raised tha t point, because Walt says 

there has been a typographical error made, tha t this should have 

been 985. I will furnish the committee with the total for the years.

Mr. Sarbanes. Nine hundred and eighty-five. Is tha t just paid 

firemen or all firemen?

Mr. Lambert. Professional firefighters who are members of our 

organization.

Mr. Sarbanes. I see.

Mr. Eilberg. Jus t on tha t point, I would like to have clarified 

whether this is all deaths during any tour of duty. This committee, 

as you know7

, is not considering sitting in a fire station, while simply 

there, he has a heart attack.

Is tha t kind of death included?

Mr. Lambert. No. This is deaths during a fire, at the fire scene or 

rescue. This is not deaths in an occupational death or disease category.

Mr. Sarbanes. Let me ask you, w7hat percent of firefighter death s 

in the line of duty, total nationwide, wrould you think tha t 985 figure 

represents?

Would tha t be half of such deaths, 80 percent of them?

Do you have any w7ay of guessing?

Mr. Lambert. I do not have any idea. The Census Bureau came 

out with a total figure of people wrho work in the fire service in the 

United States as 394,000. However, coupled into tha t are the people 

who are associated with the fire service, the secretaries, the various 

categories, the mechanics and so forth. I am assuming th at when you 

take on an average out of that, tha t you may come up with a figure 

tha t is close to 250,000 firefighters, totally. This is small departments, 

one man, maybe a chief, and so forth, throughout the United States. 

That is the closest assumption we could make, based on the figures of 

the Census Bureau.

Mr. Sarbanes. I was ju st doing some calculations here. If, in fact, 

you pay $50,000 to the survivors of 985 firefighters, tha t would be 

$49,250,0 00.

Mr. Lambert. For 10 years.

Mr. Sarbanes. That is right. Which means just under $5 million 

per year, which, put in those terms—and you are talking about the
79

entire country—is not a large sum of money in relationship to the 

benefit that is being provided here and to the importance of this benefit to the morale of the force and to the families. I went at those figures because I wanted to try to get some idea for the total number of deaths we are talking about, because a great tendency to project these figures over time and talk about them in rather large sums, but if you break them down into a yearly figure, it really becomes a much more manageable figure. I have not done the same thing yet for the police side of the thing. This table you have furnished is extraordinarily helpful. Most people do not appreciate that the deaths per 100,000 in firefighting exceed by a significant margin the deaths per 100,000 in police work. You are really probably in the most—well, I had earlier seen a table in which you were in the most dangerous occupation. I see tha t deaths from mining now, on the later survey, now exceeds you. But I remember looking at some figures or the year before where firefighting was the most dangerous occupation.

Mr. Lambert. Right. In the two mine disasters, one in Idaho and one in West Virginia, in which 201 miners were killed—those two disasters raise it up. In the construction situation, the construction is raising up. I t is raising up because of the deaths up there at Arlington,

F

lus the Metro construction. It has got to be ridiculous; we have had, think, 13 or 14 deaths in 1 year in Metro construction. These kinds of statistics will raise up and then they will average out lower as time 

goes on.

Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Before releasing you, gentlemen, I would like to 

direct the record to be complete. Mr. Waller, when I read your statement, you did not include the chart which Mr. Sarbanes has referred to. I would like the chart to 

be made a p art of the record. Without objection, tha t will be made part of the record, as well.

[The document referred to follows:]
80

1973 

Annual 

Death and 

Injury Survey
81

1973 Annual 

Death and 

Injury Survey

For the firs t time in many years our latest IAFF death 

and injury survey shows that in certain areas, concerning 

fire fighters'health and safety, there has been a decrease In 

the number of incidents. In 1973 line of duty deaths 

decreased by 10 percent and injuries sustained in situations 

other than fire also were down. While these statistics are 

encouraging, they provide little room for rejoicement.

Fire fighters can still only count on a 50-50 chance of 

getting through a year without being injured. The statistics 

on fire fighters forced to change occupations or retire 

because of on-the-job injuries or occupational disease has 

continued to increase. Furthermore, many of the statistics on 

fire fighters' injuries and death have decreased only slightly 

below the 1972 figures.

Yet we are hopeful that the year 1973 marks the beginning 

of a downward spiral in the incidents of fire fighters' deaths 

and injuries.

I, for one, believe that the decreases we experienced 

in 1973—as slight as they may be—are a result in part of 

the lAFF’s continuous efforts to create an awareness of 

the hazards connected with the fire service.

The 1973 figures are also reflective of the lAFF's 

participation and support of research projects in the area 

of safety and health!

We must all realize that although we have seen some 

decreases, the death and injury figures are still disastrously 

high. If we are ever to see the fire service relatively free 

of death and inju ry we must continue our efforts.

We must not allow these declining statistics to be a signal 

for us to sit back and congratulate each other, but rather 

let them serve as an impetus for an even more vigorous 

campaign against fire fighters’ deaths and injuries.

iOivi. y C&~~
82

The vast majority of reported injuries— 48,825—were 

sustained at the scene of a fire. The rest came while 

responding to or returning from alarms, during training, at 

the fire station, and from other w ork-related causes. A total 

of 768 fire fighters suffered on-the-job injuries serious enough 

to force them to seek retirement.

Of those injuries suffered at the scene of a fire, 25.8 

percent were sprains and strains; 17.4 percent, cuts; 9.7 

percent, inhalation of toxic gases; 8.7 percent, burns;

Fire Fighter and Police Deaths 

in Line of Duty Per 

100,000 Employees—1964- 1973

*

This graph illustrates Fire Fighter and Police 

deaths per 100,000 workers. Here it can be clearly 

seen that, contrary to a large proportion of public 

opinion, the life hazard attached to fire fighting is 

much greater than that attached to police work. On 

the average, from 1964 thru 1973. there were 83 

deaths for every 100,000 Fire Fighters, compared 

with 55 deaths for every 100,000 Police Officers.

SOURCES: Police figures from “Crime in the 

United States, Uniform Crime Reports" by the FBI; 

Fire Fighter figures from Fire administration records as reported to the IAFF.

»
3.8 percent, over-exertion; 2.5 percent, heat exhaustion; 2.5 

percent, broken bones; and 29.6 percent, other causes.

Among the causes of occupational injuries was “ individual 

violence (harassment), which resulted in 401 reported 

injuries last year.

There were some encouraging statistics uncovered by this 

survey and for the first time in many years we can see a decrease in several of the areas concerning fire fighters' 

deaths and injuries.

The 111 deaths from occupational diseases represent a 

16 percent decrease over the 1972 figure. Furthermore, the 

number of fire fighters forced to change occupations or retire

Percentages of Specified 

Fire Fighter In ju ries —1973

OVER EXERTION

• Injuries sustained while at scene of a fire.

There were 62.619 injuries sustained by Fire Fighters in 1973. 

46.285 injuries were sustained while at the scene of a fire and the remainder were sustained m training operations, respond mg to and from a fire and false alarms, station accidents, etc This chart gives a percentage breakdown of the types of injuries sustained while at a fire

SOURCE: Fire Administration Reports

Fire Fighters Forced 

to Leave Department 

Because of Occupational 

Diseases

1970 1971 1972 1973

Fire Fighters forced to leave their departments, or retire because of occupational diseases totaled 702 in 1973 Of this 

number 499 had heart diseases and 115 suffered lung damage 

The remainder were not specified m the reports received Among 111 Fire Fighter deaths from occupational diseases •n 1973. 74% were due to heart diseases, while 13% were attributed to lung diseases

SOURCE: Fire Administration Reports

00

w
84

because ol occupational disease increased only 1 percent 

to 702. Of these, 499 had heart diseases. 115 had lung 

diseases and the remainder suffered other types of ailments.

SOME OTHER SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY 

INCLUDED

• There were 8.112 injuries sustained at fire stations last 

year, a decrease of 33 percent.

• Injuries sustained going to and returning from a fire 

totaled 3.607, a decrease of 8 percent.

• False alarm related injuries totaled 202. a decrease of 

44 percent.

• The num ber of men forced out of fire fighting by on-the-job

Accidental Work Deaths 

Per 100,000 Workers —1973

*

SOURCES: "Accident Facts. 1974." a publication of the Na 

tional Safety Council. Police figures are computed from 

'•Crime Report” of the FBI. Fire Fighter figures are as reported to the IAFF by Fire Administrations.
85

injuries totaled 768, constituting an 8 percent increase.

While there was some decrease in the statistics it is 

important to note that the combined total of all injuries

suffered by fire fighters did not decrease.

There were 62,619 reported injuries which represented

an injury rate of 47.9 per 100 fire fighters. There was almost 

one injury fo r every two fire fighters in 1973. In the last 5 

years fire figh ter inju ries have increased from 37 per 100 

workers to the staggering 47.9 per 100 workers.

A total of 201 professional fire fighters lost their lives in 

on-the-job accidents or from occupational diseases in 1973. 

There were 90 deaths of fire fighters in the line of duty

Fire Fighter Injuries 

Per 100 Workers

Responding Government Units reported 62,619 tota l injuries. This figure computed with the total number of respondents equals a disastrously high rate of 47.9 fire fighter injuries per 100 workers. This allows the fire fighter only slig htly better 

than a 50-50 chance of making it through the year without 

being injured. If we are to seek relief from this astounding injury rate management and labor must work together. The 

establishment of a Joint Safety and Health Committee which would implement and monitor a safety and health program is 

a must. The entire fire service has to confront this problem immediately if there are to be any meaningful reductions in 

injuries and deaths in the future.

SOURCE: Fire Administration Reports.

1969 1970 1971 1972 1973
86

last year. This averaged out to 69 on-the-job deaths per 

100,000 fire fighters, making fire fighting one o f the most 

hazardous types of employment in the nation.

The 69-per-100,000 fire fighting death rate compared to 

49 deaths per 100,000 for police. It is far higher than the 

17 per 100,000 for all industries, and 8 per 100,000 in the 

manufacturing industry.

In the 10 years ending in 1973, fire fighters suffered an 

average of 83 deaths per 100,000, compared to 55 deaths 

for every 100,000 policemen. These figures are especially 

significant in view of the fact that the decade includes those 

years during which violence became a rising national 

concern in the U.S.

A total of 1658 government units, comprising 156,604 

employees were surveyed fo r the 1973 Death and Injury

Survey, for an 83 percent response rate. The government 

units responding constituted 130,532 employees.
87

Mr. E ilberg. Thank you, gentlemen. This has been one of the most 

enlightening sessions tha t we have had. You have made a real contribution here this morning. We are deeply grateful to you.

Mr. Waller. Thank you very much.

[The prepared state ment of Mr. Jack Waller follows:]

Statement of J ack A. Waller, Legislative Represen tative, I nternational

Association of Fire Fight ers, AFL-C IO

On behalf of our membership, I wish to express our deep appreciatio n t o Chairman Eilberg and the Members of the Subcommittee for scheduling hearings on this legislation which we feel is so vital and necessary to maintain a viable public safety organization in the hard pressed municipalities of th is Natio n. I also wish 

to thank the approxim ately 140 members of the House of Representatives who have introduced or co-sponsored legislation in the past th at would provide, in 

one form or another, compensation for Fire Fighters who are tota lly disabled in 

the line of duty and provisions for their survivors in the eve nt of death in the line 

of d uty.

I note that some of the legislation th at has been introduced is written to cover only one segment of the public safety departm ents. It is th e strong feeling of the Internatio nal Association of Fire Fighters th at legislation of this n ature should be 

broa d enough in scope to provide protectio n for all public safety officers, the guards 

in correctional institutions and the members of the judiciary when they die in the 

line of duty.

The argument supporting this coverage is written daily on the front pages of the newspapers throug hou t this Nation and TV media. There is no segment of the 

protective force of this Nation who represent the establishm ent that are free from potential daily dea th and inju ry. I need only cite to you th at between 1960 and 

1975 fifty (50) Fire Fighters were killed in civil disorders or during acts of civil disturbance or while being harassed. This does no t include the many Fire Fighters who fall victim to the flames s tar ted by an arsonist or to the many members of our 

organizatio n who are killed or maimed responding to an illegal false alarm. It is 

the firm belief of the Intern ational Association of Fire Fighters th at Federal com­ pensation should be given to survivors of an y public safety officer who is killed in the line of duty. In the year of 1973, for every 100,000 Fire Fighters employed in 

the United States 69 paid the supreme sacrifice while fighting fire. Another 111 

per 100,000 employed died from occupational diseases, such as hea rt and respira­ tory ailments. In the same year 47.9 Fire Fighters were injured for every 100 employed. The facts are th at the statistics show th at in 1973 the Fire Service obtain ed the dubious distinction of having more of its members killed per 100,000 workers tha n almost any other occupation. Mining and rock quarryin g and constru ctio n had had a larger toll.

One last and final st atistic , from 1963 to 1973, 919 Fire Fighters met their death 

in the line of du ty. This statistic was compiled by surveying approximate ly 170,000 

Fire Fighters. (Death and Injur y Survey Attached).

We supp ort the philosophy of a lump sum grant for the surviving families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty. This legislation should not r estrict 

to those who lose their lives because of a criminal act. It is difficult to distinguish the needs of survivors of Fire Fighters who lose th eir lives in a heroic rescue tha n 

those who die from a criminal act.

It becomes more e vident, as time moves on, th at the tru e responsibility for the protection of the public saf ety officers and the ir dependen ts lies within the jurisdiction of the Federal Governm ent. The recent attem pte d assassination of a 

President once again established the mobility of the people of America. The individuals who perpe trate criminal acts of the type th at are covered by this 

legislation are very seldom a local problem. The assassin, the arsonist, the perpe­ trator of civil disorders, the bomb terriorist, are almost w itho ut exception imports. 

The perpe trator of any of these horrendous crimes may well have th at same day been on the other side of th is Nation and if successful in his crime be back across 

the Nation before nightfall. The time has come when public safety officers of this Nation are in dire need of a boost in morale and there is no bette r way th at this 

could be obtaine d than by having the Federal Gov ernm ent ena ct a type of legislation th at is presently before this Committee. I can assure you th at it would bring back to the Fire Fighter and Police Officer 

the feeling of being needed and of being appreciated by those people whose lives 

and property they s trive daily to protect. I feel positive t ha t the benefits derived 

by the people of this Nation from the ena ctm ent of such legislation would far 

offset the cost factor involved.
88

It is very reassuring to on numerous occasions n ote in the Congressional Record 

the compliments ana platitu des direc ted toward public safe ty officers of this 

Nation. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, tod ay you have the 

opportunity to do something tru ly meaningful for the people engaged in public 

safety work and the Intern ationa l Association of Fire Fighters recommends to 

you th at y our Committee favorably report H.R . 3544.

Mr. Eilberg. Next is Mr. Ordway P. Burden, chairman of the 

Hundred Clubs Informational Council.

Mr. Fish. Mr. Chairman, it is a great deal of pleasure to introduce 

Mr. Ordway P. Burden of New "York, the founder of the Hundred 

Clubs Informational Council. Mr. Burden has given totally unself- *

ishly of his time and effort in this endeavor, the main purpose of 

which is to provide some security and support for the survivors of 

police officers. In this connection, I would note tha t Mr. Burden, 

therefore, is highly qualified to testify before us this morning on this .

issue of death benefits for survivors.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Burden, I welcome you here this morning on 

behalf of the committee, and I met you a few weeks ago at the luncheon 

of the International Brotherhood of Police in Boston. I was most 

impressed with the effort th at you are making that you explained to 

me.

I particularly would congratulate you as a total volunteer in this 

effort, and we know from your experience you have something to 

say. I have read your statement and know that it is a very comprehensive one. I might add, also, I know you have missed your plane and 

tha t being the case, we could—and since the statement is quite 

long—make the statement part of the record. You are free to summarize and speak extemporaneously if you wish to do so.

Mr. Burden. Missing the plane is insignificant, compared to what 

I can contribute to the work of the committee. I have a four-page 

summary of my statement. Perhaps, it would be better if I read tha t 

initially. Then you could follow with questions.

Mr. Eilberg. Let us place the full statement in the record. I 

read it last night. I think it is extremely interesting. Without objection, 

the full statement will be set in the record. You may proceed.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burden follows:]

Statement of Ordway P. Burden, Chairman, Hundred Clubs I nformational

Council m

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fish and Members of the House Jud icia ry Comm ittee:

Th ank you for the opportu nity to appear and testify on H.R. 5544, The Public 

Safety Officers Dea th Benefits Act of 1975. I am testifying as Chairman of the 

Hundred Clubs Info rmational Council—a volun tary non-profit association of *

some of the 57 Hu ndred Clubs from througho ut the nation.

Hundred Clubs are local volun tary associations of leading businessmen and 

oth er public spirited citizens who h ave organized on a non-profit basis for charitable 

activities. While many of the 57 clubs differ in detail, the thru st of th e groups is to 

provide some financial security to the spouses and children of public safety officers 

slain in the line of duty. Hundred Clubs are not social clubs bu t vehicles for the 

community to meet its responsibilities to public servants who serve them in 

partic ularly dangerous capacities.

The first such Hundred Club was begun in 1952 when a Detroit citizen, moved 

by the killing of a police officer, wrote to 100 friends, urging them to dona te to a 

fund for the officer’s widow. Thus he was able to present the widow with $7,800.

Th at led to perm anent formation of a club with a stan ding treasu ry rather than 

having to rely on individual efforts each tim e a crisis arose. From t ha t beginning 

oth er clubs were created, each composed of public-spirited people who raised
89

money through dues, initiation fees and contributions. Th at money provides 

financial assistance to surviving members of families of public safety officers who 

die in the line of d uty.

Within 24 hours of such a tragedy most clubs are at the home of the public safety 

officer to present the widow with a check, generally at least $1,000, to cover immed iate expenses. Some Hundred Clubs assume the family’s mortgage obligations 

and pay off all departm ent store and oth er debts. Some provide scholarships for 

the children of the deceased officer.

Most clubs have limited memberships, i.e., 100, 200, etc. although there are 

Hun dred Clubs with more tha n 1,000 members. They are known by oth er names, 

such as Two Hundred Clubs, Shield Clubs, Bluecoats, Backstoppers, Heroes, Inc., 

bu t they share a common goal, providing financial benefits to the widows and 

children of slain public safety officers.

Before discussing the details of Hundred Club coverage as well as state and local 

coverage for lump sum death benefits I believe the Committee would find it 

interesting and enlightening to examine a profile of a slain public safety officer. 

The facts and figures set forth below are derived from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports.

During the years 1962-1975 there have been one thousand one hundred ninety 

one (1,191) public safety officers 1 slain in the line of duty. The yearly figures are 

set f orth below:

Number

Year: o/ deathe

1962 .................................. ........... ................. ............... ............... ............... 48

1963 ___________ _____ ______ ______ _______ ___________ ____ 55

1964 ........................................................................... ................................... 57

1965 ........................................................................... ............... ........... ....... 53

1966 .................................. ............. ................. ....... ..................... ............... 57

1967 ............................................... ............... . ................. ........................... 76

1968 ............................................... ....................... ........... ....................... .. 64

1969 _____ ___________ ______ _______________________________ 86

1970 ................ .................................. ................... ......... ............. ............... 100

1971 ............................................... ....................................... ......... ......... . 129

1972 _____________ ___ _______ ____________ _________________ 116

1973 _____________ _____ _____ _________ _____ ____ _________ 134

1974 ........................ . ........................................ ................... ....... ............... 132

1975 ................................................................... .......................84 as of 8/31/75 2

Available inform ation shows th at over the last ten (10) years attem pting arrests—with two hundred forty four (244) deaths—has been the most hazardous 

du ty of a public safety officer followed by robberies in progress—two hundred 

(200) deaths and “routine” disturbance calls—one hundred sixty thre e (163) 

deaths. A complete breakdown by act ivity at the time of dea th for the Years 

1965-1975 follows:

244--------------------------------------------------- Atte mpting arrests

163_________________________________ Responding to disturbance calls

200_________________________________ Robberies in progress

99........ ........................................ ............... .. Traffic stops

84____________ _____ _______________ Ambush

7 2 .. ............................................................... Suspicious persons investigation

68................................................. ................. Burglaries in progress

50____________ _____ _______________ Handling of prisoners

38. ................ ................................................ Mentally deranged persons

13__________________________________ Civil disorders

Ninety-five (95) percent of the officers killed during the period 1970-74 were 

killed with firearms. Seventy one (71) percent of the weapons used were han dguns. A complete breakdown for the years 1970-74 follows:

1

 Firefighters are excluded from statistical analysis due to a lack of sufficient information.

’ All references to 1975 figures will include information as of August 31, 1975.
90

PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS KILLED IN THE UN ITED STATES AND PUERTO RICO BY TYPE OF WEAPON, UNIFORM

CRIME REPORTS (F B I)

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 Total

Handgun........... ..................................... 73 97 77 93 95 435

Rifle . . . . .. 8 16 16 21 12 73

Shotgun....................................................... 12 11 18 13 21 75

Total firearm s........................... 93 124 111 127 128 583

Knife or cutting ins tru ment_________ 3 2 3 2 1 11

2 . . . 1 . . . 3

Personal weapons.................................... 1 2 . . . . 3

Other (clubs, etc .).................................... 1 1 1 5 3 11

Grand to ta l.................................... 100 129 116 134 132 611

Return ing to a 1965-75 statistical base the geographical distributio n of public 

safety officer deaths is as follows: The southern states (Ala., Ark., Del., Fla., Ga., 

Ky., La., Md., Miss., N.C., Okla., S.C., Tenn., Tex., Va., a nd W. Va.) accounted 

for four hundred twenty thre e (423) officers killed. The north central states 

claimed the lives of two hun dred sixty five (265) policemen (Ill., Ind., Iowa, 

Kan., Mich., Minn., Mo., Neb., N.D., Ohio, S.D., and Wise.). Western states 

(Alaska, Ariz., Calif., Colo., Hawaii, Ida., Mont., Nev., N.M., Ore., Utah, Wash., 

and Wyo.) reported one hundred seventy seven (177) dea ths of officers. The 

northeaste rn states (Conn., Me., N.H ., R.I ., Vt., N.J., N.Y., Penna., and Mass.), 

one hundred forty nine (149). Pue rto Rico and Guam recorded seventeen (17) 

officers killed. Although the 1975 information is not yet available w’e do know something about 

those who kill public safety officers. Twenty (20) percent of those who killed 

public safety officers w’ere on parole. Seventy six (76) percent of those who murdered officers had a prior arrest for criminal activity; Fifty nine (59) percent had 

prior arrests for crimes of violence; Eighteen (18) percent had prior arrests for 

weapons charges; Twelve (12) perc ent had prior arrests for narcotics; and Nine 

(9) percent had prior arre sts for police assault.

With the Chair’s indulgence I would like to delve into one year 1974—in detail 

so th at the Committee might have an even better picture of the problem it is 

addressing.

In 1974, one hundred thirty two (132) local, county, sta te and federal law 

enforcem ent officers were killed in the line of duty. For ty thre e (43) of those 

officers —almost a third —were serving in our m ajor urban cities with populations 

in excess of two hundred and fifty thousand (250,000) including six (6) from the 

City of Chicago. Interestingly, cities with a population of und er ten thousand 

(10,000) were next with fifteen (15) death s. A complete analysis by popu lation 

group is set forth below:

Population Group Total

Group I— Cities over 250,000--------------------------- ----------------------------- 43

Group 11—100,000 to 250,000.........................................................- ............... 10

Group II I— 50,000 to 100,000..................................................... .....................

Group IV—25,000 to 50,000. ..........................................................- ............. 5

Group V—10,000 to 25,000------------------------------------------------------------- 8

Group VI—U nder 10,000..................................................................................

Rural counties__________________________________________________

Suburban counties_____________________________ _______ __________

Sta te Police and Highway Pa tro l______________________________ 18

Pue rto Rico____________________ ______ ____________________ ____

Federal Agencies..... .................... 2

To tal_____________________ 182

The North ern industria l states of Illinois a nd Michigan were the most dangerous 

with each recording eleven (11) law enforcement deaths in 1974. However, the 

South lead the geographical regions with fifty seven (57) deaths. Saturday with 

twenty five (25) deaths was the most dangerous day to be a public safety officer 

and one (1) to two (2) A.M. with fifteen (15) deaths was the most dangerous hour. 

A full forty seven (47) deaths or almost thirt y six (36) percen t of all public safety 

officer deaths accrued between the hours of nine (9) P.M. and three (3) A.M.
The most dangerous activities for public safe ty officers in 1974 were responding 

to routine disturbance calls (family quarrels, man with gun, etc.) which were 

responsible for twenty nine (29) dea ths; robberies in progress with twenty five (25) 

deaths; and attem pting arrests—twenty eight (28) dea ths—for o ther th an burglaries and robberies. In ninety nine (99) of the deaths the offender killed the officer 

within a distance of ten (10) feet.

In 1974 one hundred twenty eight (128) of the one hundred thirt y two (132) 

public safety officer death s resulted from firearms.

The profile of those who killed public safe ty officers in 1974 is fairly clear. 

Officers are most likely to be killed by a man of either race aged twenty (20) to 

thirty (30) who has a prior criminal arrest record. The full profile is set forth 

below:

PR OF ILE OF OFFEN DE RS, UNIFO RM CRIM E RE PO RT S- 19 74 (F B I)

Percent of 

Total total

Total known offenders...........................................................................................................

Under age 18...........................................................................................................................

From 20 to 30 ye ars of a ge...................................................................................................

Male..........................................................................................................................................

Fem ale.....................................................................................................................................

White........................................................................................................................................

Negro.......................................................................................................................................

Other race................................................................................................................................

Prior crim inal ar re st..............................................................................................................

Convicted on prior crimi nal charge......................................................................................

Prior arrest for c rime of violence.........................................................................................

Convicte d on criminal charges-granted le ni en cy ..............................................................

On parole or probation at time of ki lli ng ............................................................................

Arrested on prior murder charge.........................................................................................

Prior arrest on narcotic drug law violation.........................................................................

Prior arrest for assaulting policeman or resisting arrest..................................................

Prior arrest for weapons v iolatio n........................................................................................

1 6 7 ......................

10 6

83 50

162 97

5 3

87 52

79 47

1 1

125 75

92 55

68 41

58 35

32 19

10 6

29 17

0 5

44 26

The use of alcohol has been a significant factor in these killings. Of the total 

one hundred sixty seven (167) known assailants in the police killings, twe nty 

two (22) men or thirteen (13) percen t were under the influence of alcohol. Some 

seventeen (17), or ten (10) percen t were narcotics users and eleven (11), or seven 

(7) perc ent, were narcotics dealers. Twelve (12) of the one hundred sixty seven 

(167), or seven (7) percent, had been convicted of prior possession of a controlled 

substance. Six (6) of them were m ental cases. And twenty eight (28) of the officers, 

or twenty one (21) perc ent of those slain, knew the ir assailants.

Even more important than a profile of the offenders is a profile of the slain 

public sa fety officer for in most cases the dea th benefits their spouses and dependents receive are direc tly tied to the number of years in service.

Twelve (12) percent of the public safety officers slain in 1974 were under age 

twe nty five (25). Thirty one (31) percen t were aged twe nty five (25) to t hirty (30). 

Officers over age thirt y (30) accounted for fifty seven (57) percen t of the 1974 

deaths. The officers killed in 1974 had a median years of law enforcement service 

of only five years which means the ir pension benefits would be minim al at best. 

In 1974 a full seventeen (17) percen t of the officers h ad less tha n one (1) year 

service when killed. Forty five (45) percent of those killed had less than five (5) 

years service while another t hirty thre e (33) percent had only five (5) to ten (10) 

years of service. Only twe nty two (22) percent of the officers killed in 1974 have 

over ten (10) years of service.

The critical importance of this inform ation becomes apparen t when one discovers th at no city with a population of over one million (1,000,000) allows a 

pension to vest within five (5) years and only one (1), Philadelphia allows its 

pensions to vest within ten (10) years.3

Of our major cities with a population between five hundred thousand (500,000) 

and a million (1,000,000) only one—St. Louis allows a pension vesting within the 

first ten (10) years of service. Of American cities with a population between two 

hundred fifty thousand (250,000) and five hundred thou sand (500,000) only one, 

Las Vegas allows for pension vestin g within the first ten (10) years and again none 

with the, first five (5) years. Thus, in 1974 only th ree (3) cities with a popu lation 

in excess of two hundred fifty thousand allowed pension vesting with the first

* Th is and all other information on pension vesting is taken from th e Fra tern al Order of Police Survey of 

Salaries and Working C onditions of the Police Dep artm ents in th e United States (24th Edition), pp. 1-28.
92

ten (10) years of service and only one of those within the first five (5) years notwithstanding the fact t ha t forty three (43) public safety officer death s occurred in cities of such size in 1974 and the median age of service of the officers slain in 1974 was five years. More im portantly only twenty two (22) percent of the slain officers 

in 1974 had more tha n ten (10) years of service. In cities with a population between one hundred thousand (100,000) and two hundred fifty thousand (250,000) only two (2) Richmond, Va., and Berkeley, Calif., allow pension vesting within five (5) years and only four (4) Baton Rouge, La., Columbus, Ga., Livonia, Mich., and Savannah, Ga., allow for pension vesting 

within ten (10) years. The story in cities with a population of fifty thousand (50,000) to one hundred thousand (100,000) is not much be tter . Four (4) cities allow pension vesting within five (5) vears and three (3) within ten (10) years. In cities with a popu lation of ♦

twenty five thousand (25,000) to fifty thousand (50,000) the situ ation is only marginally b ette r. There fourteen (14) cities allow pension vestin g w ithin ten (10) years and ten (10) allow it within five (5) years. Of the numerous cities and towns with a population of ten thousand (10,000) to twe nty five thousan d (25,000) only eight (8) allow for pension vesting within the first five (5) years of service and •

twenty seven (27) within ten (10) years. Of towns and cities with a population Of und er ten thousand (10,000)—the population size where more officers were killed then any other except cities in excess of two hundred fifty thou sand (250,000) population—only one, Hales Corner, Wise., allows pension vestin g within the first five (5) years and only six (6) allow for pension vesting within the first ten 

(10) years? As if the above inform ation were not discouraging enough a 1971 study® of public safety officer d eath benefits and pensions showed how meager those death benefits from pensions are even where they have vested. The study covered some 

forty one (41) cities of varying size and the results are set forth below.

City

Death benefits: Pensions

Widow Sur viving childre n Other

Atlanta, Ga..........

Baltimore, M d .. . 

Birmingham , Ala .

Boston, Mass___

Buffalo, N.Y .........

Cinc innati, Ohio. 

Cleveland. Oh io.. 

Dallas, Te x..........

Denver, C o lo ,. ..

El Paso, Te x........

Forth Worth, Tex

Honolulu, Hawaii

Indi anapolis , Ind

Jackso nville, Fl a. 

Kansas City, Mo.

50 percent of pe nsion...............

37.5 percent of pens ion............

40 percent of employee’s 

final average salary (death 

in line of duty).

6635 percent service connected.

State plan var ies; city , 1 

years salary plus $100 a 

month.

$140 per month.........................

$135 per month.........................

25 percent base sala ry plus 

25 percent >ongevity.

)5 of active officers base pay . . 

)5 of s ala ry................................

Same formula as member for 

unremarried widow, min imum $100.

50 percent of average F.C. 

less workmen's compe nsation award.

30 percent of 1st grade 

patrolm an's salary with 10 

years until remarriage.

33) 5 percent of sa la ry .............

25 percent of F.C. until remarriage.

If no widow, same as widow 

until age 18.

If no widow, same as widow; 

more if widow is alive.

$10 a month per child until 

age 18.

$312 per years to age 18.........

State plan varies; c ity, $1,000 

each child under 18.

$40 per month..........................

$50 per month to age 18.........

25 percent base salary plus 25 

percent longevity.

$30 for 1st child , $15 each 

additional to age 17.

)5 salary until age 16 no more 

than 50 percent for f amily. 

$50 to each dependent ch ild ..

None.

Do.

Do.

Do.

State plan varies, no city plan.

25 percent base sa<ary plus 25 

percent longevity if totally 

dependent.

App lies to minor children 

under age 18.

10 percent of 1st grade patrolman’s salar y with 10 years 

service to age 18.

$15 per month per child to 

age 18.

$25 per month each to age 18 ..

)5 for dependent mother or 

father.

Same formula as member for 

unremarried widow, min imum, $100.

Compensation award to dependent parents.

20 percent of 1st grade patrolman’s salary with 10 years 

service to dependent parents.

None.

If no spouse or children contribute return to beneficiary.

* T his is not a fluke statistic. Figures for th e firs t eight (8) m onth s of 1975 show the same pat tern. Tow ns with a population of less than ten thou sand (10,000) rank second in num ber of public safety officer death s.

5

 Kansas City , Missouri Police De par tment, General A dministrative Survey, Planning & Research Un it, 

November, 1971.
93

Death benefits: Pensions

*

r

City Widow Surviving children Other

Long Beach, Calif.............Non-service -retirem ent con- Included with wid ow ..................

trib ution plus M year 

salary service 50 to 75 

percent violent condition.

Louisville, Ky................... 70 percent of earned retire- J.5 of wid ows.............................

ment.

Memphis, Tenn...............................................................................................................................

Miam i, Fla........................ 50 percent of salary (service 50 percent of salary (service

connected). connected).

None.

Minneapolis, M in n.. 

Nashville, Davidson, 

Tenn.

Newark, N J..............

New Orleans, L a ....

Norfolk, Va...............

Oakland, Ca lif...........

18/80ths......................................6/80ths..........................................

50 percent of salary (service 

connected) to dependent 

mother or father.

Maximim un of 32/80ths.

Oklahoma City, Okla.

Omaha, Ne br. 

Phoenix, Ariz.

Pittsburgh. Pa. 

Portland, Oreg.

St. Louis, Mo.

St. Paul, M in n .. . 

San Antonio, Tex.

San Diego, Calif.

San Francisco, Calif. 

San Jose, Calif........

50 percent if active; 25 percent after retirement.

50 percent of salary for l if e ...

None...........................................

50 percent of member’ s salary if service connected.

After 15 years total years 

service taken as percent of 

of 20 years.

Varies..........................................

pension plus industrial 

benefits if service connected.

50 percent of pen sion ............

50 percent of patrolm an's 

salary.

L.D.D.—50 percent average— 1 

F.C. natural—25 percent 

average F.C.

20 percent patrolman’s salary.

50 percent of high 5 years 

salary less than 5 years 

service, average for all 

years.

50 percent of F.C. (hig h 3 

years); pension for life if 

LOD death.

LOD—fu ll salary un til retire ­

ment date, then pension.

0.375 tim es fina l base p a y .. ..

$50 per month, maximum 4 

children.

None..........................................

25 percent of widow's allo wance for 1; 40 percent for 

2; 50 percent for 3 or more. 

C ) ..............................................

Varies..........................................

H each child unt il age 21..........

25 percent to w idow's pension. 

25 percent 1st child, 15 percent 2d ch ild, 10 percent all 

other.

10 percent average F.C. to 

each, maximum of 3 to age 

18; age 22 if college.

5 percent patrolm an’ s salary 

per ch ild under age 18.

If no wid ow, 25 percent of base 

salary and longevity.

C ) ...............................................

Seattle, Wash. 

Toledo, Ohio..

50 percent of salary..................

$130 monthly.............................

Full salary to childre n LOD 

under age 21.

0.25 times final base pay for 

each child under 18 years, 

maximum, 75 times FCP 

per fam ily.

50 percent plus 5 percent per 

child under age 18.

$45 m onthly...............................

Tulsa, Okla........................

Washington, D.C...............

Same as husband before Same as fath er if under age 18 

death. and mother remarries or

expires.

40 percent o, salary................. (* ) .................................................

Dependent parents.

$50 per month to mother, if no 

spouse.

None.

If dependent parents am ount 

determined by pension 

board.

Varies.

None.

Parents if d ependent

If no widow or children refund 

contributions to heir.

None.

C).

None.

None.

$45 monthly for dep endent 

pa rent

None.

Designated beneficiary.

A word of caution is in order before too many conclusions are drawn from the 

above inform ation. We have no way of knowing from this information if pension 

provisions automatically apply in the case of a line of du ty dea th regardless of 

time in service or if other benefits including insurance or legislated benefits migh t 

exist.

To resolve this dilema I undertook the task of contacting the one hundred 

thre e (103) jurisdictions in which officers were slain in 1974 to ascertain exactly 

what lump sum cash payments were provided in those cases. While a more deta iled 

study of all de ath benefits from whatever source would have been preferable, time 

constraints would not permit th at undertak ing. Such a detailed study would also 

include pension plans and insurance coverage plus a review of “ knockout clauses” 

i.e. prohibitio n of double collection. The Committe e should note th at while such 

information would be helpful it is beyond the scope of the legislation contained in 

H.R . 3544. The problem H.R . 3544 addresses is th at of lump sum cash benefits

th at apply directly as a re sult of a line of d uty d eath and not employment benefits 

th at accrue regardless of th e circumstances of death.

The results of my study are as follows:

61 -356 0 - 75 - 7
94

CITY AND STATE OR LOCAL LUMP SUM CASH PAYM ENT FOR LINE OF DUTY VIOLENT

DEATH EXC LUSIVE OF PENSIONS AND INS URANCE

Boston, Mass.—$50,000 from State.

Union City, N.J.—3/2 X Salary from City.

Buffalo, N.Y .—$6,000 from City.

Mt. Vernon, N.Y .—None.

New York, N.Y .—$25,000 from City.

New York State Police—None.

Yonkers, N.Y .—City— 1 yr. Salary (optional).

Chester, Pa.—$10,000 from City.

Philadelphia, Pa.—$10,000 from City.

Pittsburgh, Pa.—None.

Chicago, Ill.—$20,000 from State, 1 yr. salary from City, plus up to $15,000 

for depen dents.

Downers Grove, Ill.—$20,000 from State.

Ill. Central R.R. Ill.—N ot Available.

Penn. Central R.R ., Ill.—Not Available.

St. Anne, Ill.—$20,000 from State.

Winnebago County, Ill.—$20,000 from State.

Crawfordville, Ind.—None.

Gary, Ind.—None.

Indianapolis, Ind .—None.

South Bend, Ind.—None.

Dearborn, Mich.—None.

Detroit, Mich.—$10,000 from City.

Grand Rapids, Mich.—$12,500 from City.

Highland Park, Mich.—$50,000 from City.

State Police, Mich.—None.

Troy, Mich.— None.

Wayne, Mich.— None.

Cincinnati, Ohio—$1,000 from City.

Cleveland, Ohio—None.

Dayton, Ohio—None.

Lima, Ohio—None.

Milwaukee, Wise.—$25,000 from City.

Sedgwick County, Kans.—None.

Oronogo, Missouri—None.

Omaha, Neb.—None.

District of Columbia—$50,000 from City.

Crestview, Fla.—None.

Dade County, Fla.— None.

Delray Beach, Fla.— None.

Escambia County, Fla.— None.

Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.—None.

Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm., Fla.—None.

Riviera Beach, Fla.—None.

Sta te Highway Patrol, Fla.—None.

Atlanta , Ga.—None.

Camden County, Ga.—None.

College Par k, Ga.—None.

Madison County, Ga.—None.

Polk Cou nty, Ga.—None.

Towns Cou nty, Ga.—None.

Baltimore, Md.— None.

Baltimore, Wash., Internatio nal Airport—None. 

Canton, N.C.—None.

Cum berland County, N.C.—None.

Greensboro, N.C.—1 yr. Salary.

State Highway Patrol, N.C.—None.

Wildlife and Marine Resources Dept., S.C.—None. 

Charleston County, S.C.—None.

Columbia, S.C.—None.

Forest Acres, S.C.—None.

Keeshaw County, S.C.—$10,000 from County. 

Perry, S.C.—None.
95

State Highway Patrol, S.C.—None.

Carroll County, Va.—$10,000 from State.

Chesapeake, Va.—$10,000 from State.

Lincoln, Ala.—$10,000 from City.

State Highway Patrol, Ala.—$10,000 from State.

Hernando, Miss.—None.

Warren County, Miss.—None.

Waveland, Miss.—None.

Clarksville, Tenn.— None.

Hazen, Ark.—None.

New Orleans, La.—None.

Port of New Orleans Harbor, La.—None.

Dewar, Okla.—None.

Oklahoma City, Okla.— None.

Okmulgee County, Okla.— None.

Alice, Texas—$20,000 from State.

Dallas, Texas—$20,000 from State.

Harris County, Texas— $20,000 from State.

Mesquite, Texas—$20,000 from State.

Orange, Texas—$20,000 from State.

Texas City, Texas—$5,000 from City plus $20,000 from State.

Texas Dept. of Public Safe ty—$20,000 from State.

Mohave County, Ariz.—None.

Tucson, Ariz.—None.

United States Custom Service, Ariz.—None.

State Fish & Game Dept., Mont.—None.

Thompson Falls, Mon t.— None.

State Highway Patrol, Utah—None.

Ketchikan, Alaska—Balance of Years Salary (Optional).

State Police, Alaska—None.

Los Angeles, Calif.— None.

Oakland, Calif.—None

Riverside, Calif.—None

Riverside County, Calif.—None.

Sacramento, Calif.—C ity—6 mo. full sal.

State Police, Calif.—Sta te— 6 mo. full sal.

Union City, Calif.—12)£% to 25% (depending on no. of dependents) above 

regular pension with automatic aud it for a t least 20 yrs. of service time.

Yuba County, Calif.—None.

Portland, Ore.—City—1 yr. full sal. tax-free.

Sta te Police, Wash.—None.

Puerto Rico—N ot Available.

In sixty five (65) out of the one hundred three (103) jurisdiction s (or 63%) th at 

experienced a public safety officer killed in the line of d uty in 1974 no lump sum 

cash paym ents exclusive of whatever insurance or pension benefits existed were 

made. In many of those cases widows and children have survived because friends 

or fellow officer families have pooled resources to pay th e bills. Remembering t ha t 

only twenty two (22) perc ent of the officers killed in 1974 had more t han ten (10) 

years service and th at few jurisdictions provide pension benefits th at early in a 

career it is clear th at a subs tantial problem exists which requires the attention of 

the Congress.

_ 

I V °.n *y. f iv ® c

.

i t i e s (°r

 4.85%)—Boston, Mass.; Union City, N.J.; Highland 

Park, Mich.; Chicago and the District of Columbia—do the cash benefits for a 

violent dea th reach the fifty thousand (50,000) dollar level. In only three (3) cities 

(or 2.9% )—New York, Milwaukee, and Texas City do the benefits reach the 

twenty five thousand (25,000) dolla r level. In only eight (8) cities (or 7.7% )—all 

Illinois except Chicago and all Texas except Texas City—do the benefits reach the 

twenty thousand (20,000) dollar level. In only eleven (11) cities (or 10.7%)— 

Philadelphia; Detroit; Kershaw, S.C.; Greensboro, N.C .; Chester, Pa.; Carroll 

County, Va.; Chesapeake, Va.; Lincoln, Ala.; Alabama Highway Patrol; Grand 

Rap ids and Portland, Oreg.—do the benefits reach the ten thousand (10,000) 

dollar level. Finally, in only seven (7) cities (or 6.8% )— Buffalo; Cincinn ati; 

Sacramento, Calif. State Police, Union City, Calif.; Yonkers, N. Y. and Ketchikan, 

Alaska do the benefits reach un der the ten thou sand (10,000) d ollar level. In the
96

last two cases—Yonkers and K etch ikan —the benefits are optional at the discretion 

of the local council.

Obviously, there is a tremendo us gap between the needs of the widows and 

children of public safety officers killed in the line of du ty and cur ren t local benefits. 

It is this gap th at Hundred Clubs have sought to reduce while mindful th at they 

can not hope to fill t ha t gap. Another problem is t ha t there are not enough such 

clubs across the nation and i t is in the areas where they are m ost needed th at they 

are lacking. In many Western, mid-Western and Southern s tates where there have 

been a large number of deaths, freq uen tly the survivor benefits are small or 

nonexistent and the officer pay scales are low. Often there are no H und red Clubs 

in these areas. If you draw a straig ht line from the Texas-Louisiana boundary 

on the Gulf of Mexico to the North Dakota-M innesota border on the Cana dian 

border, you will find only six (6) of the seventeen (17) Western states are p artially 

covered with Hundred Clubs. They are Texas, California, Nevada, Arizona, 

Nebraska a nd Colorado with a to tal of twelve (12) clubs. Yet in the past ten (10) 

years (from 1964 to 1974) two hundred seventy one (271) law enforcement officers 

have been killed in those seventeen (17) states. Already in 1974 anoth er twenty 

one (21) officers have been slain in those states.

In preparatio n for tod ay’s testimony, I surveyed a sample of the Hundred 

Clubs from across the nation. 8 Seventeen (17) of the fifty seven (57) clubs have 

responded to requests for information. Those clubs have an average life of six 

and a half (6%) years with Cleveland being the oldest at nineteen (19) years 

while a num ber w’ere just started in 1974. Some of the Hundred Clubs cover 

firefighters as well as law en forcement officers. Others cover some b ut n ot all law 

enforcement officers within their jurisdiction. Some limit coverage to felonious 

deaths while others cover all line of du ty deaths. Some make a lump sum cash 

payment at the time of death while others provide continuing benefits including 

scholarship aid and deb t retirement.

With those limitations in mind the seventeen (17) clubs have paid claims in 

approximate ly one hundred eighty eight (188) 7 cases tota lling approximate ly 

one million two hundred thousand (1,200,000) dollars. If the figures represent 

an accurate cross section for all clubs, Hun dred Clubs have prob ably paid benefits in over six hundred (600) cases with cash paymen ts approac hing four million 

(4,000,000) dollars. Yet only seven (7) clubs, New Mexico, Minnesota, New 

Hampshire, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island provide sta tewide protection; while a full twe nty one (21) states have no clubs; and in twenty 

two (22) sta tes Hundred Club coverage is limited to certain cities or counties. 

Perhaps these figures provide the Com mittee with some idea of the dimensions 

of the need.

The sta tes withou t clubs bu t with deaths during the past ten (10) years plus 

the first eight (8) months of 1975 are:

Alabam a____________ ______________________________ ________ 22

Arkan sas______________- - ____________ ____ _________ . ______ 13

Kansa s_____________x_______________________________ x- _____ 7

Lou isiana.x.......... x______ xx............... <__ * ......... . ....... ............. . ........ 29

Marylan d _ u _ ____ _____________ - - - __ x . . . . . ____________ -- 27

No rth Carolina_________ x___x______.x __ xx. ..- ____ x x x .....__ 30

Oklahoma__________________________-x x .. x _________ - __ - - __ 20

Oregon_____ _____ _____ x___ ______ _x________________ :— - — 6

South Da kota__________________________ ,xxx_________________ 4

West V irgi ni a. ........... ..... x____________ xxx.x x.._______________ 7

Alaska________ 4___________ _________ __________ . . _________ 5

Washington___ x___ _______ _____ ______________ xx____ 'x----- - 6

M on tana .............. x............... ............... ..................... ....... *............... — 2

I d a h O ___________X X ................... X J x X . X X ________X X . X X . X X . X X ........................................................................ — 5

W yo m in g. .._____ _________ _______ xxx__________ *-------- ------- 1

Utah______________ .. .x ________ ____ ___________ _______ _ 4

No rth Dak ota________ x.x ______ ___ ____ — 1

I O W a _ _ x ___________________________________________ _______________________ x x x x x x . x x x x x x ______X— 7

Maine____ ___________ _____________ X,x_ _xx_xxxx-x.x.xx_x-x-- 1

Vermon t..................................... ................................. *x_x.x......... ........... 2

Delaware _____ ______________ ___________________ ___________ 2

Total number of deaths in States w ith no Hundred Clubs---------- - 8 201

’ Unfortuna tely time constraints prevented a com plete canvass of Hu ndr ed Clubs across the nation.

7

 T he num ber paid by the Louisville, Ky. Clu b is uncertain at this time' as the information is k ept by

dollar amounts an d not numbers of cases.

• Puerto Rico does not have a club and h as had sixteen (16) deaths while Gua m h ad had one (1).
In states th at provide only partial coverage it is impossible, withou t more 

extensive research, to determine precisely in which cases Hundred Clubs have 

paid benefits but we do know that the coverage has been limited. The gross 

figures on deaths in s tates with partial coverage are as follows:

State Deatht

California__ . .............. 107

Nev ad a________________________________________________________ 3

Arizona________________________________________________________ 16

Colorado..... .......................................................................... - ............................. 13

Nebraska____ _______ 6

Texas_____________________ 84

Missouri__________________ 26

Wisco nsin______________________________________________________ 14

Illinois_________________________________________________________ 69

Michigan_______________________________________________________ 56

Indian a_________________________________ 26

Ke ntu cky______________________________________________________ 23

Te nnessee.............................. 16

Mississippi______________________________________________________ 16

Florida__________________________ 38

Geo rgia_______________________ 43

South Carolina__________________________________________________ 26

Virg inia-------------- 17

Pen nsy lvania.............. 33

New York______________________________________________________ 69

New Jersey_____________________________________________________ 28

Haw aii______________________ 2

Tota l number of deaths in States partiallv covered by Hundred 

Clu bs__________________________________________________ 731

The only conclusion th at can be drawn from this information is tha t the H undred 

Clubs are filling a critical immediate need in a few of the many deserving cases. 

Much more must be done and it must be done uniformly througho ut our nation.

Because of our wrork, those associated with Hundred Clubs understand the 

need for some effective federal legislation to provide a minimal level of lump 

sum dea th benefits for line of d uty deaths. On behalf of the H undred Clubs across 

the nation I urge the Members of this Committee to join with their colleagues 

in the House and the Senate to enact the most progressive legislation possible unde r 

the trying circumstances th at have surrounded this and similar legislation in the 

past.

Tha nk you very much for the privilege of a ppearing before you today and for 

your patien ce in permittin g these ex tended remarks.
•4S..

1975 Hundred Club Coverage

SH O W IN G LA W E N FO R C E M E N T O FFIC ER S K IL LED IN TH E L AST 1 0 YE AR S

/ v ) L . - — S oak B a N(M

111

Q

IT LOU«W

«■

o»**‘

0 ; d P

co

OO

___ ______ 7 *

•«tM townTM

PASO

K / >

n s ?

* « * »
99

Mr. F ish. One further comment on Mr. Burden’s qualifications. In 

addition to his direct work with this information council, he is either a 

member or in all cases a strong supporter of the International Association of Chiefs of Police and Fra terna Ordei of Police and International 

Conference of Police Associations.

Mr. Eilberg. Thank you. Mr. Burden.

TESTIMONY OF ORDWAY P. BURDEN, CHAIRMAN, THE HUNDRED

CLUBS INFORMATIONAL COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. FISH ­

MAN, COUNSEL

Mr. Burden. Gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

and testify on H.R. 3544, H.R. 365, and H.R. 366. I am testifying as 

chairman of the Hundred Clubs Informational Council. Hundred 

Clubs are local voluntary associations of leading businessmen and 

other public-spirited citizens who have organized on a nonprofit 

basis for charitable activities.

While many of the 57 clubs differ in details, the thru st of the 

groups is to provide some financial security to the spouses and children 

of public safety officers slain in the line of duty. Hundred Clubs were 

formed to partially meet the substantial needs of widows and children 

of slain public safety officers for lump sum cash benefits, the very 

need addressed by the legislation before you today.

In preparation for today’s hearing, I surveyed a sample of the 

Hundred Clubs from across the Nation. Seventeen clubs were included 

in the survey. Some covered firefighters as well as law enforcement 

officers. Others covered some, but not all, law enforcement officers 

within their urisdictions. SoYne limited coverage to felonious deaths, 

while others covered virtually all deaths of active officers. Some make 

only lump sum cash payments at the time of death, while others 

provide continuing benefits, including scholarship aid and debt retirement. Over the years, the 17 clubs have paid claims in approximately 

188 cases, totaling approximately $1,200,000. If these figures are an 

accurate cross section of Hundred Clubs—and I refer you on that 

point to pages 18 and 20 of my complete test mony—all 57 clubs 

have probably paid benefits in over 600 cases, with cash payments 

approaching $4 million. Yet only 7 States have Hundred Clubs 

statewide, 21 States have no clubs, and in 22 States, club coverage is 

limited to certain cities or counties.

Each of these categories is set forth along with the number of 

deaths over the past 10 years on pages 19 and 20 of my full testimony.

W’hile many jurisdictions provide pension death benefits to the 

widow and children of deceased law enforcement officers, those pension 

plans contain minimum years of service requirements tha t render 

them virtually useless to most officers slain in the line of duty.

As I show on page 8 of my testimony, many of the officers killed in 

1974 were young; 12 percent were under age 25, 31 percent were 

between 25 and 30 years of age, and their median years of law enforcement service was only 5 years at the time of death. In fact, 17 percent 

of the officers killed in 1974 had less than 1 yea r’s service; 45 percent 

of those killed had less than 5 years’ service, while a full 33 percent 

had only 5 to 10 years’ service.
100

Obviously, pension benefits were not of much help. To understand 

how limited pension coverage actually is, on pages 9 through 13 of 

my testimony, I examined the plans available in American cities today. 

In 1974, 43 officers were killed in cities with populations in excess of 

250,000, but only three such cities, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Las 

Vegas, allow for pension vesting within the first 10 years. In all 

American cities with a population from 10,000 to 250,000, only 24 

allow pensions to vest after 5 years, and 48 allow vesting after 10 

years’ service. In towns with a population under 10,000 the population size where more officers were killed than any other, except in 

cities in excess of 250,000, only one allows pension vesting after 5 

years’ service, and only six allow it after 10 years.

Even when pensions do vest, the amounts provided a wife and 

children are very little. Sample benefits are set forth on pages 11 

through 13 of my testimony.

To further understand the need for Federal legislation for lumpsum death benefits for public safety officers, I contacted the 103 jurisdictions that experienced a death in 1974 to determine what lump-sum 

cash benefits were given to the widows and children other than benefits tha t would accrue from an accidental off-duty death. Those jurisdictions and the results are set forth on pages 14 through 17 of my 

testimony.

Briefly, 65 of those jurisdictions had no lump-sum cash benefits. 

Only five had benefits reaching the $50,000 level. Three had benefits 

of $25,000, and eight had benefits of $20,000. Eleven more had lumpsum cash benefits of $10,000, and seven cities have lump-sum cash 

benefits of under $10,000.

The only conclusion that can be drawn.from this information is tha t 

the One Hundred Clubs are filling a critical, immediate need in a few 

of the many deserving cases. Much more must be done, and it must 

be done uniformly throughout the Nation. Because of our work, those 

associated with Hundred Clubs understand the need for some effective 

Federal legislation to provide a minimal level of lump-sum death 

benefits for line-of-duty deaths.

On behalf of Hundred Clubs across the Nation, I urge the members 

of this committee to join with their colleagues in the House and 

Senate to enact the most progressive legislation possible.

Thank you very much for the privilege of appearing before you 

today and for your patience in permitting these remarks.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Burden, thank you very much for your summary 

and for your prepared statem ent. Your prepared statement, particularly, shows a great many hours of work. It will be very helpful 

to the committee.

I would like to ask you a few questions now. What efforts have the 

Hundred Clubs made on the State level to encourage State governments to institute a compensation program for the survival of dependents of law enforcement officers?

Mr. Burden. We are tax-exempt organizations. Contributions 

to a club are deductible from income tax. Therefore, we could not 

engage in lobbying of any kind. However, we have had two annual 

conferences of the Hundred Clubs Council, at which t me there were 

informal exchanges. My impression is that because of the tax-exempt 

problem, most clubs have shied away from any kind of legislative 

influence, including those State plans you mentioned.
101

Mr. Eilberg. I might point out tha t among my colleagues who 

resist this kind of legislation, one of the arguments made by them is 

that this is a problem that is best dealt with by the State and local 

municipalities and a subject in which the Federal Government should 

not get involved. Therefore, I asked the question. Of course, I certainly 

understand the answer given, but I think tha t efforts have to be made 

at certain State and local directions as well, because we just do not 

know when or how soon the Federal Government may act

Mr. Burden. If I might comment on that, the real problem with 

organizing State action is the complete lack of standardization 

across the country, which, as you look through the pension plans 

and lump-sum payments, becomes mmediately obvious. I, personally, 

feel there is a very valid Federal interest here due to many billions of 

dollars the Federal Government has invested in law enforcement 

throughout this country.

Mr. Eilberg. The members of this subcommittee feel certainly 

crime is a nationwide phenomenon. It knows no boundaries, so it 

should not be provincialized in any way.

On page 3 of your statement you provide the subcommittee with a 

breakdown of the number of officers that met their deaths as a result 

of attem pts to make arrests responding to robberies in progress, 

responding to disturbance calls, and so forth. This information is 

extremely useful since, in the last Congress, the House version of the 

Safety Officers’ Benefits Act attem pted to broaden coverage to 

those activities which are considered bv LEAA to be potentially 

dangerous, not just those just resulting from apparent criminal acts.

Could you supply for the record from what sources you derived 

this breakdown?

Mr. Burden. The “Uniform Crime Reports of the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation,” which is the source for most of the data in the 

early part of the testimony.

Mr. Eilberg. On page 5 of your statement, I found it interesting 

tha t a large proportion of the deaths of slain officers appeared to be 

in the cities which have a population of 125,000, with deaths at 43, 

and those cities which have a population of 10,000—that is, the 

smaller cities—deaths, 15, the intervening cities having less numbers. 

Can you explain this phenomenon to the subcommittee?

* Mr. B urden. I would really leave th at opinion to one of the experts 

on police work and police procedure, which I do not consider myself 

as being. However, if you look on page 10, the footnote there, tha t 

statistic is reaffirmed and is not a fluke. Again, I would defer my

• comment on that, not being a professional police officer or an expert 

on police work.

Just one second, please.

[Pause.]

Mr. Burden [continuing]. 250,000 to 125,000 was the first 

figure—Group I. Over 250,000, I am sorry.

Mr. Eilberg. What do you mean by that?

Mr. Burden. Mr. Fishman, could you comment on that?

Mr. Eilberg. What is your associate’s name?

Mr. Burden. Mr. Charles Fishman of Washington. He is my 

attorney.
102

Mr. Fishman. You referred, I think, in your question to cities of 

over 125,000. I think tha t the figure you are looking for is 250,000.

The cites of over 250,000 lead the list. I am not an expert any more 

than Mr. Burden is.

Mr. Eilberg. I accept the correction, then.

Mr. Fishman. I think the assumption in that case, then, is the normal difficulties of living in urban, a large urban area of tha t sort 

produces a heightened degree of danger. The shocking statistic is the 

one of under 10,000, and the one which we have been unable to 

research and find any rational explanation for. But it does continue 

to appear year after year after year. It is not a very safe place for 

public safety officers.

Mr. Eilberg. Th at also tends to establish or carry out the idea 

tha t this is not a problem tha t is associated only with large cities.

It is a national problem.

Mr. Fishman. M any of your rural congressmen, I think, are shocked 

to discover that a lot of their public safety officers will benefit substantially by this legislation.

Mr. Eilberg. Well, do you want to add to that, Mr. Burden?

Mr. Burden. No, th at covers it very well.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Burden, on page 8 of your statement you indicate 

many of the officers killed, for example, in 1974, had minimum service 

of 5 years as a law enforcement officer, thereby indicating your pension 

benefits would be at a minimal level to include the nature of this 

hazardous occupation. Is any effort being made to see tha t pension 

benefits are increased even though minimal amount of service is given 

prior to death?

I think you have already indicated tha t as a tax-exempt organization you cannot lobby exactly as a group. But how would you answer 

this question?

Mr. Burden. I would answer it by saying that this is an area of 

activity for which the national police organizations are particularly 

qualified, specifically the International Conference of Police Associations and the Fraterna l Order of Police, through their legislative 

committees.

I myself have not gone into this area of legislation with the exception 

of H.R. 9281 last year, the 2% percent pension bill for Federal law 

enforcement officers. *

Mr. Eilberg. You indicate on page 20 of your statement that 

Federal legislation is needed to provide a minimum level of lump sum 

death benefits for individuals slain in the line of duty. But do you feel 

that $50,000 is an adequate figure? •

Mr. Burden. In my opinion it is minimal. But we all deal within the 

realm of the politically possible, and I figure it is the maximum we can 

ask for at this time; particularly, as you know, there is legislation 

which provides for a $50,000 payment to a local law enforcement officer 

aiding a Federal officer in attem pting to prevent a Federal crime. And, 

this seems to have been the working definition, the $50,000 level. I am 

not certain how it was evolved, but I think my friends from the police 

organizations could probably supply some additional information in 

that area.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Fish?

Mr. F ish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
103

Thank you, Mr. Burden. I particularly w ant to compliment you for 

the analysis you have provided us on pages 8 and 9 of your full statement with regard to the inadequacy of the current pensions. I think 

you made a very strong case here. It is going to be helpful in the work 

of this subcommittee in persuading our colleagues of the need for this 

legislation.

I wonder if you could tell us what the term public safety officers 

embraces to the Hundred Clubs?

Mr. B urden. Generally it means sworn personnel of police a nd fire 

departments, whether salaried or not.

Mr. F ish. Sworn?

Mr. Burden. Right. Yes, b ut not civilian employees.

Mr. Fish. Of police and fire departments. How about court 

personnel?

Mr. Burden. No. I would like to emphasize we have identified 57 

different clubs across the Nation, and they all have different coverage 

policies. There is no standardization. There are only two or three I can 

think of tha t might cover court officers, but generally this is not 

within the scope of coverage.

Mr. Fish. Narcotics agents?

Mr. Burden. Again, this will vary. Yes, I can think of at least two 

clubs that have made payments to Federal narcotics agents. I know 

of no case in which a State or local narcotics agent was involved other 

than in his capacity as a police officer.

Mr. Fish. At one point you, in your testimony, you say within 24 

hours of the tragedy most clubs are at the home of the public safety 

officer to present the widow with their check. I wonder if you could 

just describe to us a typical response th at you would expect from the 

members of the Hundred Clubs upon hearing of the death of a policeman?

Mr. Burden. Well, of course, we are in a state of shock. We are 

deeply grieved emotionally. We believe tremendously in these men 

and the work they are doing. Generally there is a delegation from the 

club t hat goes to the home of the widow who, of course, needs all the 

help and counseling she can possibly get, and presents the check 

without intruding or imposing, just telling her tha t friends are there, 

that support is there. She is immediately grateful.

It is not a pleasant duty. I have done it myself. There have been 

psychological studies of the effect of ^rief on widows. I remember one 

was discussed in the ICPA publication, also in our newsletter. The 

idea is just to offer a firm, willing hand during the immediate period 

of shock. To cover funeral expenses a check of approximately $1,000 

is usually deemed adequate. Then, later on when the widow has 

regained her composure to a certain extent, we follow up with professional counseling on investment matters, legal matters and financial 

matters.

Mr. F ishman. If I may, Mr. Fish, the study tha t Mr. Burden refers 

to was done by Professor Dentow in Michigan, which interestingly,

I believe it was 10 widows of public safety officers slain in Michigan— 

one interesting finding was that the women uniformly were terribly 

hostile to the governmental entities tha t handled the benefits, different 

death benefits they were entitled to. They uniformly had feelings tha t 

they did not care, tha t they were literally statistics to them, and it
104

was very routine. It showed no understanding or sympathy of their 

problems. On a voluntary basis, I believe it was 8 out of 10 who 

volunteered very strong and warm remarks about the conduct of the 

Hundred Clubs involved in tha t area, the service thev performed.

Those were voluntary remarks. The point, Professor Den tow went 

into them in some detail in the study, to point out how surprised he 

was that both their hostility to the governmental reaction and their 

positive reaction to the private effort—you can get a copy of tha t 

study if you would be interested to see it.

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 0 Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Burden, we are indeed grateful to you and Mr.

Fishman for coming here today and giving us your contribution.

Speaking as the chairman of this subcommittee, I am hopeful 

tha t we can move this through the subcommittee and through the 

full committee of the House. We have had some difficulty in the other 

Chamber in the last couple of Congresses. Perhaps you, with your 

powers of research and persuasion can help convince the other body 

this time tha t this is very appropriate legislation.

We look forward to your future cooperation as well as your present 

cooperation.

We thank you gentlemen very much.

Mr. Burden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. It is our pleasure to introduce two old friends,

Mr. Edward J. Kiernan, president, and Robert D. Gordon, secretarytreasurer of the Internatio nal Conference of Police Associations.

Welcome to our subcommittee.

TESTIMONY OF EDW ARD J. KIER NA N, PR ESIDEN T, IN TE RN ATION AL CONFERENCE OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS, ACCOMPANIED

BY ROBERT D. GORDON, SEC RET ARY-TREA SUR ER, INTE RN ATIONAL CONFERENCE OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS

Mr. Kiernan. It is a pleasure to be back before the committee.

I hope that this time it will be more fruitful than it was on the last two 

times. I can safely say tha t was not the fault of the Members of the 

House in any way, shape, or form. The cooperation and attention 

we got from the Members of the House was tremendous. *

I would like at this time to identify Mr. Burden as being the 

official liaison from the International Conference of Police Associations 

to the Hundred Clubs. I can atte st to the authenticity of the statistics 

tha t he has supplied to this committee. We have worked with him on •

many, many occasions in compiling this material and assisting him in 

compiling other police-related material. I can attest tha t it is factual.

He is worthy of your consideration.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is 

Edward J. Kiernan, president of the International Conference of 

Police Associations. We represent over 170,000 police officers in the 

United States.

At this time I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on these very worthwhile bills.

With me is Mr. Robert Gordon, secretary-treasurer of the International Conference of Police Associations, who has also appeared 

before you in the past on similar legislation, and is our legislative 

representative in Congress.
105

We are here to spe ak in supp ort of H.R . 366, which specifically 

applies to law enf orcement officers killed in the performance of their 

duties as well as H.R . 3544, which applies to police and fire corre ction 

officers, and others. I think , Mr. Ch air ma n, you covered th at point 

pre tty well in some of y ou r rem arks to the previous speakers. We are 

well aware of the problems th at you had las t ye ar because of the 

dissen ting views of the Members of the Sen ate.

As an elected officer of the In tern ationa l C onferen ce of Police Officers 

rep res ent ing policemen , we hav e a sworn res ponsibility to prote ct the 

rig hts of our mem bers. We fully su pp ort the omnibus bill which con ­

tai ns the police, fire, and corr ectional officers, and inten d to work with 

yo ur com mittee to see th at it is eventua lly passed int o law by the 

Senate and the President of this country .

We also do have the resp ons ibility, though , to repres ent police 

officers. H.R . 366 rep res ents th at bill, so, when I speak , I think I can 

safely say I am speak ing on behalf of bo th pieces of legis latio n com ing 

before yo ur com mittee .

In our prev ious tes tim on y on sim ilar bills in the last Congress we 

refe rred to the numb er of police officers who have given their lives in 

the prote ction of our citizens. Un fortu na tel y, since th at time the tide 

has n ot turned and I am sorry to rep ort th at in 1974, 132 law enforcemen t officers ga ve their lives, and to da te in 1975, 84 more hav e ma de 

the suprem e sacrifice. Since 1962, ove r 1,200 police officers hav e died 

in the line of du ty. Ju st in the pa st several day s two police officers in 

New York Ci ty were gunned down on a rou tin e au to check.

One of the un fortu na te pa rts of my job is the attend an ce at the se 

funerals. I hav e to leav e here toda y to attend a fun era l tom orrow for 

one of the police officers in New York City. Th e other one is being 

buried on Mo nda y.

Ou r men hav e been the targ et of assa ssin s’ bullets in eve ry area of 

the country , in large cities as well as sma ll villages, and there is no 

dis tinction betwee n black, white, and brown officers. The questio n 

came up in the pa st in discussion s before the Congress as to wh eth er 

or no t this is a bill th at should be conside red by the Federal Go vernme nt ra th er than the State s. I thi nk if y ou look at the map th at Mr. 

Burde n subm itted in the bac k of his tes tim ony, you will find ou t th at 

every single St ate in thi s country , with the exception of Rh ode 

Isl and, has had police officers killed in the performance of their du ty . 

So, we are no t talkin g ab ou t a dis tin ctive piece of legislation th at will 

benefit only people in one State or anoth er. We are tal kin g ab ou t a 

piece of legislation th at p otentia lly is go ing to have a n i mp act on e ver y 

single St ate in this co un try . There is no legisla tor sit tin g in thi s 

Congress who can say th at his people have not been affec ted by thi s 

treme ndous upsurge of killings as they affect police officers.

We have watched the prog ress of this legislatio n ove r the yea rs, 

havin g been invo lved in it from its inc ept ion , and h ave seen it p rogress 

thr ough the committees, to the full House and Senate Floors, and then 

die, as our men die, because of a technicality . I can only hope th at 

this bill, H.R . 3544, has now resolved all of the technicalities and will 

res ult in an affirmative vote by both Hou ses of Congres s and become 

law with the signature of the Pre sident. I hav e no intention at this 

time to get involved in discussion as to which is the mo st dangero us 

job —police or fire. I think when we s it down and ana lyze the dangers
106

of bo th jobs, we can truth fully say tha t the potential of danger and 

death in both jobs is tremendous.

Unfortunately in legislation such as this we do not take into consideration the number of police officers who have been maimed and 

seriously disabled. Cases like the young police officer in New York 

City, or probationary officer who had his eyes blown out by a booby 

trapped doorway—alive, existing, but not a statistic as far as death is 

concerned, bu t still a tremendous calculation as far as the dangers of 

police work is concerned. The hundreds of thousands of police officers 

around this country who today cannot fully partake of our society 

because they were maimed and disabled, who would not be eligible 

for benefits in this bill b ut still should be taken into consideration as a 

factor when we sta rt talking about the hazards of the various jobs.

As a former police officer with 30 years of service in the city of 

New York, I can speak with a degree of certainty about what goes on 

in the mind of a policeman.

Most young men become police officers because they want a job 

tha t is interesting, active, and unique. They are aware of the dangers 

involved and are ready to accept them. They dedicate themselves and 

their lives to the protection of the public and the maintenance of what 

we know as law and order. Historically, they are family men and their 

love of children, their own and others, is well known to all of us. If 

there is one thought in their minds while they engage in their dangerous 

work, it is the constant worry about what will become of their wives and 

children if and when they are called upon to make the supreme 

sacrifice.

There has been much discussion about the responsibility of S tate 

and local governments to assume this responsibility and again I am 

sorry to say that they have walked away from it and the ones who 

suffer are the families of our police officers who are left behind. In 

many States, there are no death benefits paid to survivors at all and 

they are forced to go on the welfare rolls in order to survive. This is a 

sad reflection on the gratitude of our elected officials for those who 

have sworn to give their lives in order to protect these same officials. 

We witness today attempts or threats on the lives of our President, 

our judges, our Senators and Congressmen, and every other elected 

officer of our government and in every case it is the police officer who 

willingly puts himself in front of the assassin’s bullet to protect these 

same people as witnessed by the recent atte mpt on the life of our 

President and except for the action of the law enforcement officer we 

would be sitting here today in mourning for the life of a President of 

this country.

This is a distinct indication of the dedication tha t these law enforcement men on the Federal, State, and ocal level have. This officer was 

willing to jeopardize his own life to protect the life of the President 

and rightfully so, tha t is our job. All we ask of you is consideration 

and your colleagues’ consideration and, in return for this very, very 

monumental sacrifice, approval of legislation which will have some 

meaningful impact on the families of the people who are left behind. 

I could go into a longwinded dissertation about salaries and benefits 

or rather the lack of them, which really has nothing to do with this 

bill. I could philosophize about how the restoration of the death penalty for killing a police officer could go a long way toward reducing 

the amount tha t this bill will cost.
107

But again, tha t is not the issue. What is the issue is whether or 

not the people of this country, through you, their elected officials, 

have the compassion and appreciation to give these men the peace 

of mind they so rightfully deserve by passing this bill and acknowledging your thanks to this thin blue 1 ne of public servants. In so doing, 

you will be also assisting tremendously in the job of recruiting police 

officers and firefighters into these hazardous jobs.

Mr. Chairman and members, I thank you very much for your atte ntion and courtesy to appear here.

[The prepared statement of Edward J. Kiernan follows:]

Statement of Edward J. Kiern an, Presid ent, International Conference

of Police Associations

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee my name is Edward J. 

Kiernan, President of the Intern ational Conference of Police Associations, which 

represen ts over 170,000 police officers in the United State s. I wish to tha nk you 

for the opportunity to testify on these very worthwhile bills. I have with me Mr. Robert Gordon, Secr etary-Treas urer of the Intern ational Conference of 

Police Associations, who has appeare d before you in the past on similar legislation 

and is our legislative representativ e in Congress.

We are here to speak in sup port of H.R. 366, which specifically applies to law 

enforcement officers killed in the performance of their duties as well as H.R. 3544, 

which applies to Police & Fire, Correction officers, and others. In our previous 

test imony on similar bills in the last Congress we referred to the num ber of 

police officers who have given the ir lives in the protection of our citizens. Un­ fortun ately, since tha t time the tide has n ot turned and I am sorry to report th at in 1974, 132 law enforcement officers gave their lives and to date in 1975 82 more 

have made the supreme sacrifice. Since 1962 over 1200 police officers have died 

in the line of duty. Just in the past several days two police officers in New York City were gunned down on a routine auto check. Our men have been the tar get 

of assassins’ bullets in every are a of the country, in large cities as well as small 

villages, and there is no distinction between black, white and brown officers.

We have watched the progress of this legislation over the years, having been 

involved in it from its inception and have seen it progress thro ugh the Commit­ tees, to the full House a nd Senate floors a nd then die (as our men die) because of 

a technicality. I can only hope th at this bill, H.R. 3544, has now resolved all of 

the technicalities and will result in an affirmative vote by b oth Houses of Congress 

and become law with the sign ature of th e President. As a foim er police officer w ith t hirty years of service in the City of New York, 

I can speak with a degree of certainty abo ut what goes on in the mind of a policeman. Most young men become police officers because the y want a job th at is 

interesting, active and uniq ue. They are aware of the dangers involved and are ready to accept them. They dedicate themselves and the ir lives to the protection 

of the public and the m aintenanc e of w hat we know as law and order. Historically, 

the y are family men and th eir love of children, the ir own an d others, is well known to all of us. If there is one t ho ught in their minds while they engage in their dan ­

gerous work, it is the constant worry abo ut what will become of their wives and 

child ren if and when the y are called upon to make th e supreme sacrifice.

There has been much discussion abo ut the resp onsibility of sta te and local 

governments to assume this responsibility and again I am sorry to say th at the y have walked away from it and the ones who suffer are the families of our police 

officers who are left behind. In many states there are no death benefits paid to 

survivors at all and the y are forced to go on the welfare rolls in order to survive. 

This is a sad reflection on the gra titu de of our elected officials for those who have 

sworn to give their lives in orde r to protect these same officials. We witness tod ay 

att em pts or threats on the lives of our President, our Judges, our Senators and Congressmen and every oth er elected officer of ou r governmen t and in every case 

it is th e police officer who willingly puts himself in f ron t of th e assassin’s bullet to 

pro tec t each and every one of you as witnessed by the recent attempt on the life 

of ou r President and the action of his bodyguard. Serious crime continues to rise, 

municipalities are in danger of going bankru pt a nd the only one able to pro tect ou r 

families is the Federal Governm ent.
108

I could go into a long winded dissertation about salaries and benefits or rather 

the lack of them, but th at has nothing to do with the bill in question. I could 

philosophize about how the restora tion of the dea th penalty could probably go a 

long way toward reducing the amount of money th at this bill will cost, bu t again 

th at is not the issue. What is the issue is whether or not the people of this country, 

through you, their elected officials, have the compassion and appreciation to give 

these men the peace of mind they so rightfully deserve by passing this bill and 

publicly acknowledging your thanks to this Thin Blue Line of public servants. In 

so doing you will also be assisting tremendously in th e recruiting of police officers 

and firemen in these hazardous jobs.

Thank you.

Mr. E ilb erg. Mr. Ki ern an, we wa nt to th an k you for wh at is 

indeed an inspired sta temen t. I think you know we agree with you. 

We reg ret very much th at we do no t have a law on the books, bu t I 

am no t going to review at this time all the hur dle s we ha d in the last 

Congress and the Congress before.

Ju st a few questions I would like to ask you. The concept of this 

legislation was born in the lat e sixties, early seventies when there was 

a shocking wave of disorder in the cou ntry. There was a Presi denti al 

conference; the idea was fou nde d the n th at there sho uld be Federal 

com pen sation for public safety officers. We do no t seem to hav e th at 

wave rig ht now or th at kin d of objection to organized governm ent 

th at we had at th at time. Some people say there is n ot the same need 

as the re was, per hap s in 1971. I wonder if y ou would add ress yourself 

to th at question?

Mr. K ier na n. I thi nk wha t you see toda y when you look over the 

sta tistic s th at I have sup plie d and Mr. Burde n has supplie d, will 

pro bably r efu te th at point of view. The assassination s th at took place 

during the late sixties and early seventies, while the y may have been 

political in na ture in the minds of some of the ind ividuals who were 

involve d, have created an atm osphere in the min ds of the crim inal 

eleme nt of our co untry th at it is perm issive to kill police officers.

Bec ause of a lack of defin itive acti on during those years, an ideology 

has been bu ilt up in the minds of these people th at you can kill a 

policem an and get a way w ith i t. I think we only have to look at those 

sta tis tic s to see th at had the feeling prevailed th at this was a tem ­

porar y thin g, this politica l assass ination type or political reactio n 

typ e effect, th at it would also be logical the n to assume th at since th at 

has cha nge d, th at the de aths of police officers who were killed in the 

line of du ty would dim inish. Un fortu na tely we find ou t th at is no t 

so. We find out th at they continue to increase.

Un fortu na tel y, also again, we hav e no reason able conclusion to 

dra w th at the y are going to diminish this year or in succeeding 

yea rs. So while th at ma y be a the ory , I think the ava ilable sta tistic s 

refute th at theory in the sense th at more and more police officers 

are dying. While I am no t a tea cher in any of our academ ies, I know 

th at it is cops who are bein g killed on the str ee ts and I know more 

of the m are being killed to da y than ever before. So while we may 

sit dow n and write learned book s and stuff on why, two practic al 

fac ts rem ain ; th at no tw ith sta nd ing the fac t th at the political assassination typ e thing has slowed down, the death s hav e increase d.

Mr. E ilb erg. Do you belie ve this legislatio n will aid in the recr uitme nt and morale of police officers?

Mr. Kiern an . I think it goes wi tho ut saying, whe n we get you ng 

men in a job —and I think one of the questio ns you asked before was
109

about the age factor—I think if you did a survey today, you are 

going to find out that the average age of police officers in the service 

in the country is under 10 years of service. We are recruiting young 

men into the job. Recruiting young men into the job becomes harder 

and harder when we look at the competition we have from private 

industry. At one time, the theory was tha t you had job security as a 

police officer. That is why it was im portant to become a police officer. 

In addition to everything else, we no longer find that. There is no 

such thing as job security today.

We had 2,500 police officers yesterday down here in this Capitol 

pleading their cause who have been laid off. So the invitation to 

recruit this intelligent, competent young man into the police service 

because of security has been completely destroyed. We find out tha t 

in the mind of any man who goes out and puts his life on the line, 

paramount is the fear that in the name of God if something happens 

to me I at least want to know my family is going to be protected.

Let us look at what we are talking about with $50,000 in this 

economy today. What we are saying to a woman is tha t we are going 

to give you and your family, and in many cases the youths in the 

fire fighters and police ranks are very prolific, we are talking about 

four and five children. We are saying, ‘‘you are going to get 2 years’ 

or 3 years’ salary and tha t after that, so be it, you are on your own.”

You know in this economy today if you took $50,000 and tried to 

equate how you are going to utilize tha t $50,000 to maintain your 

family in the absence of a breadwinner, when you say 3 years, we are 

being very, very conservative. In most cases, it will not last t hat long. 

So we are telling this woman and these children, “we are going to 

give you a pittance, it is a pittance to at least allow you to establish 

your life in some fashion until you can make your own plans to do the 

things you want do so.”

As Mr. Sarbanes brought up before, the cost, when we sit down and 

analyze the cost of current negotiations on defense, which I believe 

wholeheartedly in and the cost of providing outside assistance to 

depressed areas throughout the rest of the country, which I also 

believe in, I think if we can justify in our minds these kind of expenditures to the billions and billions of dollars, how can we not 

justify an outlay of millions of dollars to take care of the people here 

who protect us day by day?

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Kiernan, as we know and Mr. Burden’s studies 

show, some of the State governments and municipalities have programs, they are trying to do the right thing. Some are assuming 

the responsibility. Do you feel this legislation would encourage or 

remove the incentive to State governments to institute their own 

compensation programs for the dependents of public safety officers?

Mr. Kiernan. I think this legislation can be considered as a 

means toward taking care of a condition tha t exists today. I think 

tha t when and if the States of this country decided that they are 

ready to assume their own responsibilities, which they have completely 

abrogated, as you can see by the report submitted by Mr. Burden, 

then we can sit down and consider changes in the legislation. But 

what I am talking about today is the need today. You can see that 

need just by going over the statistics, since the time we started.

6 1 -3 5 6 0 - 75 - 8
110

Mr. E ilberg. What I mean to say—it is my feeling and that is 

all it is—that if a municipality or State has moved in the right direction, they are not going to curtail their program suddenly because 

an additional contribution has come from the Federal Government. 

I wanted to know whether you shared that feeling?

Mr. Kiernan. I share that feeling wholeheartedly. I do not think 

this will in any way, shape or form influence those who have taken 

over their responsibilities. But what I am speaking about is those 

who have not taken over the responsibilities and whether or not this 

will encourage them in the future to try and assume part of their 

responsibilities as well.

Mr. Eilberg. You do not think existing programs by States and 

municipalities would be eliminated simply because the Federal 

Government has come in with a $50,000 benefit.

Mr. Kiernan. Absolutely not.

Mr. Eilberg. We have heard testimony about the risks that the 

public safety officers undertake. They may be killed or injured 

permanently, temporarily. Should a Federal benefit be given for 

temporary and permanent disability to local and State public safety 

officers?

Mr. Kiernan. I think the same opinion as I expressed as far as 

the death award being given for a person who is killed in the line of 

duty should be considered also as far as those who are permanently 

disabled because of tha t same activity. When we sit down and take 

into consideration tha t many police officers throughout the country 

are not covered by social security, in a good many cases they are 

not covered by workmen’s compensation; we have found cases in 

States throughout this country where a police officer is seriously 

injured in the line of duty, no longer able to perform his duties, has 

been summarily dismissed from the department and tha t is it.

Here again we are faced with the man who took an oath to protect 

the lives of the people who he represents and because, in the course 

of doing that, he became seriously disabled, unable to perform his 

duties and they in turn completely disregard his dedication and 

summarily fire him from the ranks of the department.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Kiernan, there is a tendency in some minds, 

I think, to feel the legislation would benefit primarily the big cities, 

the heavily populated areas. I would ask you, would this legislation 

primarily benefit urban or rural areas? W hat is your reaction?

Mr. Kiernan. I think the remarks I made before relative to every 

single State in this country being involved would be one indicator 

tha t this is not just a major metropolitan piece of legislation. Policemen are being killed in every area of our society. The small cities, as 

Mr. Burden so very well indicated in his report, and the large cities, 

it is no longer a thing we can jus t say only affects big cities. Again, 

it is another indication of why it becomes a national consideration 

rather than a local one.

Mr. E ilberg. Mr. Fish?

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kiernan 

and Mr. Gordon.

Jus t a couple of questions. You might have heard the response of 

the International Fire Fighters representative regarding alternative 

approaches that have been suggested to this problem. I wonder if 

you would just comment on whether you think these are feasible.
One is the purchase by the Federal Government of group insurance 

for public safety officers and the other is providing grants to match 

State and local death benefits.

Mr. Kiernan. I think what we are talking about here is a piece of 

legislation that is specific in its intent and the intent is not to become 

competitive with State and local governments but to recognize the 

responsibility on the part of the Federal Government to take care of 

law enforcement officers because of the type of duties they do, which 

are national in scope. I think that whatever the State or local governments feel they can do to aid and assist, put more on top of this, should 

not be taken into consideration as being detrimental to this bill.

1 think the $50,000 is not enough and if we can get $25,000 from 

the State or local agency to augment this, tha t we have every responsibility to do th at as well. I think the responsibility of the Federal 

Government applies to this $50,000 grant.

Insofar as the group life insurance program you are talking about, 

I can only envision as a result of the complexities of getting this bill 

passed, what we are going to run into when the type of legislation is 

introduced and we will be sitting here 10 years from now discussing 

the legalities and ramifications of that group life insurance program 

for every police officer.

Mr. F ish. The concept of the group life came up because of the comparison between the Federal Government’s responsibility to servicemen, who have placed their lives in jeopardy at the time of war, and 

to police officers. In the case of servicemen, we have the national 

service life insurance. It is a group known to everybody in uniform. 

The suggestion was made, this be the same approach we take to 

police officers.

Mr. Kiernan. It is a tough thing to compare, emotionally, police 

and soldiers. The only thing I can say in justification to our position 

on tha t is th at we, all policemen as well as everybody else, when our 

country was in danger, went into the military to protect it and defend 

it. We know that when that service has been concluded and the 

defense has been successful, we are going back and we are going to 

resume our normal life, in many cases, selling shoes, delivering milk, 

jobs such as that. When we talk about a police officer we are talking 

about a man who has dedicated his entire life to protecting those 

people; not 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, but his entire life. I think tha t 

we have to take a look at it from tha t point of view. We are not talking 

about a temporary period of our lifetime. We are talking about our 

entire permanent life structure. We have to take it—th at means a 

little bit more—than the servicemen.

Mr. Fish. I think that is a good answer. You yourself were a New 

York City policeman for 30 years.

Mr. Kiernan. That is right.

Mr. Fish. This was 30 years of active duty on the line, on the 

streets dealing with crime?

Mr. Kiernan. Never more than a patrolman, sir. I was on the 

street.

Mr. Fish. Continuous hazardous duty for 30 years?

Mr. Kiernan. That is right.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Gordon?
112

Mr. Gordon. May I, Mr. Chairman, make a comment? I know, as 

in the past, the old argument is going to be put forth about Federal 

involvement. I am sure, as you well know, several years ago there 

were several members of the committee and the full committee who 

gave minority reports and they expounded on the Federal Government should not become involved and it should be a local problem. 

Yet, every day we have dealings with LEAA, constantly mandates 

guidelines to police departments throughout the United States and 

they threaten to cut off these funds unless they adopt these guidelines such as height lowering, height requirements of police officers to 

5 feet. I stated at one of the hearings th at we are going to have an army 

of midgets. They are adopting guidelines that are forcing police officers 

to accept applicants as police officers with arrest records.

We just saw this out in Dallas, Tex. They are getting involved 

in the areas now of collective bargaining where they are funding 

seminars with the International Association of Chiefs of Police to 

attend these labor seminars. So the Government is actively involved 

in telling the police departments of this country what they can and 

cannot do. For those who oppose this legislation, to say tha t the 

Federal Government should not become involved in the local law 

enforcement officers, LEAA today is controlling almost every police 

department in this country. So I think we are going to have to get 

prepared again to ward off the criticism by some of the members of 

either the full committee or the subcommittee—I am happy to say 

most of them here today are behind this bill—we are going to have to 

do a number to prove the points tha t we are making here as far as the 

Federal Government involvement.

Mr. Fish. I think tha t is very helpful.

Mr. Gordon, finally the question of either of you gentlemen, H.R . 

3544, do you support as it is written?

Mr. Kiernan. Yes, sir.

Mr. Fish. Are you happy tha t this bill covers the court personnel? 

I am thinking in terms of the shootout in the courtroom, activities of 

corrections, probation, and parole authorities are mentioned in the 

definition of law enforcement officer. Of course, it would not normally 

be considered a hazardous duty if you are a deputy sheriff in the 

courthouse. I think the potential for hazard is certainly there. I 

think it should be clearly covered in this bill.

In the International Association of Firefighters’ testimony, they 

referred to the inclusion of the members of the judiciary when they 

die in the line of duty. In your judgment, you are happy that this is 

covered adequately in the language?

Mr. Kiernan. Yes, sir. We cannot speak formally in support of 

this as far as the various associations who may represent these different groups. We representing police realize tha t there is a distinct 

relationship between us and court personnel, corrections personnel, 

and we have no objections whatsover to their being included.

Mr. Fish. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Eilberg. Mr. Kiernan, Mr. Gordon, we thank you once again 

for coming before us and helping us out. Let us hope we have bette r 

luck this time than we did last time.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kiernan. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject 

to the call of the Chair.]
APPENDIXES

Appen d ix 1

Sta te m en ts an d C o rr espo n d en c e S u bm it ted fo r th e R ec or d

St a te m e n t o f H o n . F r a n k An n u n z io , a R e p r e s e n t a t iv e in C o n g r ess

F ro m t h e Sta t e o f I l l in o is

Mr. Chairman: Thank you for this opportu nity to testify before your Sub­ committe e on behalf of my bill, H.R . 189, the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act which would improve the morale of our law enforcem ent officers by providing 

certain benefits for theoi. In order to perform services which are essential to the well-being of all Amer­ icans, public safety officers face personal danger every day. Whether the y are policemen, officers in our cou rts and corre ctional facilities, or firefighters, many of the tasks which they mu st routinely undertake—from attem pti ng to make an arr est to extinguishing a blaze—are potentially perilous. We are for tun ate th at these men and women are so devoted to public service th at they are willing to rise to the challenges of their demanding professions, which they perform with 

dedication and courage. In recent years, as crime and violence have become increasingly widespread, the jobs of public safe ty officers thro ughout the country have grown even more dangerous. Because they are conspicuous symbols of au tho rity in the ir com­ munities, hostility to wards governm ent and ot her institutions is often irration ally 

directed at them. The num ber of law enforcem ent officers who have been killed while on the job is alarm ing. There were 858 such deaths in the ten-year period 1964 through 1973, and the rate at which these killings occur is alarm ing. Criminal acts resulted in the dea th of 127 officers in 1973; and of 132 policemen in 1974. In 1973, 90 firefighters were killed during the performance of their dutie s. All public safety officers are vulnerable to attack. Many of them must bear the additional burden of knowing t hat, should they be disabled or killed, their families will be faced with severe financial hardships as well as the anguish t ha t accompanies 

the injury to, or loss of, a loved one. Although a public safe ty officer may feel th at benefits from workmen’s com­ pensation, or from retirem ent or pension plans, would not provide adequate protection for his family in the event of such a tragedy, he may find t ha t private insurance is difficult to obtain or prohibitively expensive fo r persons engaged in his 

hazardous profession. Many states provide no specific benefits for the dependen ts of public safety officers killed in the line of duty. In some states, benefits were limited in various ways and in others, they may be paid only to firemen, or only to policemen, or the benefits given may be only in the form of scholarships. In several state s, benefits are available only to the dependents of officers killed in cities having 

a given population size, but n ot throug hou t the S tate. I have introduced the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1975 (H.R . 189) to insure that all public safety officers, including those who volunteer their services for the protection of persons and property, will receive benefits in the event th at they are disabled in th e line of duty due to a criminal act, and t ha t the dependents of officers who are murdered while on the job will also receive compensation. No amount of money will erase a widow’s sorrow, or make any att ack on a policeman, fireman, or corrections officer less tragic. But this Act can reduce the fear th at public safety officers must now have for the welfare of their families whenever they confront dang er on their jobs. The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act is also one way th at we, the American public, can express our appreciation for the brav ery and devotion th at is displayed daily by the men and women in 

the law enforcement and public safety professions.
114

St a t e m e n t of H o n. Sil v io O. C o n t e, a R e p r e s e n t a t iv e in C o ng ress F rom

t h e Sta t e o f M ass a chu setts

Last tuesday night in Man ha tta n’s lower east side, two policemen while on 

routine patrol, were ruthlessly murdered. This abhorre nt act raised the New 

York City Police Department’s death toll of officers while on du ty to six in 1975.

In the United State s, between two and three policemen are killed every week 

while protecting the rest of society as best they can, from steadily increasing 

lawlessness. They stand guard between the law-abiding public and the bullet of 

crime twenty four hours a day.

The families of Sergeant Red dy and Patrolman Glover had no assurances that 

the ir husband and father would return home safely Tuesday night, or any o ther 

night. Such assurances are non-existent for policemen’s families all across the *■

nation. Yet they must accept, if not understand, this nagging insecurity.

The policeman is an extrem ely visible symbol to us all. To most he or she stan ds 

for deterrence of crime and the upholding of law in society. Unfortunately , 

however, for those who are dissatisfied, frustrated or confused—th e policeman can 

represen t the society he feels has rejected or mistreated him. In this position the •

“cop” on the bea t is subjec t to verbal abuse as well as dangerous, violent attack 

by those who see him as the most d iiect targ et of societal retrib ution for the wrongs 

done to him.

Pay is comparatively low for such a high risk occupation, and therefore when 

the policeman, fireman or corrections officer is either killed or seriously disabled 

the financial status of their dependen ts becomes dangerously unstable.

It is for this reason th at I co-sponsor and strongly endorse H.R. 2641, known 

as Public Safety Officer’s Benefits Act of 1975. This, I believe, is excellent and 

long overdue legislation meant to aid those policemen, firemen and corrections 

officers who run the risk of d eath or serious disability as they perform their daily 

functions. I am happy to say th at H.R . 2641 is more extensive t ha n similar previous legislation. This act would allow for compensation of $50,000 to surviving 

depende nts of an officer eith er killed or suffering multiple dism emberment while 

in the line of duty. Additionally, it provides the official with $25,000 in the event 

th at he or she lost the use of a limb. To cover the initial expenses of an officer’s 

family at the time of such an unfortunate event, this bill allows for an interim 

pay ment of $5,000. Although the recipient of such a paymen t will be held liable 

for the amount in case the final payment is not made, the adm inistration may 

waive the liability in pa rt or in full. At this time th ere are other similar bills pending 

action including H.R . 6551, H.R . 3105, and H.R . 3479. Each bill also allows 

for $50,000 gratuity to dependen ts of public safety officers killed in the line of 

duty. Each, with the exception of H.R . 3105, stops there. We cann ot neglect 

the fact th at dismemberm ent of a public safety officer renders him useless in his 

occupation and in need of retrainin g. Each of these occupations requires the 

employee to be physically sound and could not, therefore, accom modate someone 

who h ad suffered the loss of a lim b.

Due to the limited salaries of these occupations m any are incapable of providing 

sufficient life and health insurance. $25,000 is a minimal figure to tide an officer 

and his family over until he can adjus t to his physical handicap. These men and »

women are protec ting society and when, in the course of their work, they lose th eir 

limbs or the use of their limbs, society has a moral obligation to help them adjust 

to their disability and proceed with new career train ing.

These public servants and their families would be rendered a great disservice if 

we in Congress denied them this small compensation for an invaluable service. *

Unbelievable as it may seem, many firefighters in volunteer fire de partme nts don’t

even have enough death benefits to cover funeral expenses.

I must also emphasize the need for the provision of an interim paymen t of 

$5,000. If the adm inistratio n believes th at final paymen t will be justified it will 

have the auth ori ty to pay the party $5,000. This amount will tide the survivors of 

the officer over until the bureaucratic process is concluded and the full amount is 

paid. This sum will be deducted from the final amount and if the party does n ot 

secure final p aym ent he will be liable for the interim compensation.

The decade between 1964 and 1975 saw the lives of 862 policemen take n as the 

result of criminal assault—in 1973 alone 131 were killed. 790 firemen lost their 

lives in the line of duty between 1960 and 1970. These brave men and women died 

protecting you and I and the rest of society, so let us do the least we can for them 

and their families. We in Congress have waited too long on this important issue.

I urge all members to support H.R. 2641 without amendment.
115

Statement of Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress

F rom the State of New York

PU B L IC S A FET Y officers’ D E A TH B E N E F IT S LE G IS LA TIO N

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcom mittee on Immigration,

Citizenship, and Intern ational Law.

I welcome the opportunity to add my support to the public safety officers’ 

dea th benefits legislation pending before you.

The need for this type of legislation was succinctly sta ted by the full Judicia ry

Committee in its committee report on the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 

1974.

"Notw ithstanding the severe occupational hazards which confront policemen, 

firemen, correctional officers, and other public safety officers, many states have 

failed to provide sufficient death benefits for the ir survivors. Because of this 

fact and in recognition of socie ty’s moral obligation to compensate the families 

of those individuals who daily risk their lives to preserve peace and to protect 

the lives and property of others, the Committe e is of the opinion th at a Federal 

payment of $50,000 should be provided to meet the imm ediate needs of the 

officers’ survivors.”

Since 1962, the num ber of public safe ty officers slain in the line of du ty has 

increased from 48 deaths in th at year to 132 deaths in 1974. And as of August 

of this year, 84 more public safety officers have already m ade the supreme sacrifice, 

and some of these men resided in my Congressional district.

This is a sad com men tary on our way of life and a forbidding prospect to our 

future welfare. But what has compounded this traged y is the seeming lack of 

gratitu de th at our sta te and local governments have dem onstrated toward those 

brave young men and women by the callous disregard for the welfare of these 

same officers’ families.

Clearly, sta te and local employers have a duty to provide adequate dea th 

benefits to the survivors of public safety officers who are killed in the performance 

of their duties. Yet, it is a fact that in many of our states there are no death 

benefits and very meager pension benefits for those for tun ate enough to survive 

long enough to become vested. This has forced many of the survivors of our slain 

officers unwillingly onto our nation’s swelling welfare lists.

While the blame for this unfortunate sta te of affairs and the responsibility for 

rectifying this injustice lies squarely on the shoulders of our elected sta te and 

local officials, it is evident from the discouraging level of pension benefits paid to 

public safety officers th at the sta te will not be forthcoming with an additional 

death benefits program, at least not in the conceivable futu re.

A quick glance at the statistics reveals th at where pension benefits do exist, 

the y are inadequate for th e reason that the level of the benefit is often tied directly 

to the number of years of service. And surely the members of th is Subc omm ittee 

know th at th e mortal ity table s reflect a correspondingly grea ter num ber of de aths 

for those officers with the fewest years of service.

With such a poor record by states in dispensing accrued employment benefits, 

regardless of the circumstances of death, can we sit back and await the states to 

institute a benefits program. I believe we know the answer to th at question.

Accordingly, I endorse the thrust of the various public safety officers’ dea th 

benefits bills pending before the Subcommittee.

H.R . 365, II.R. 366, and H.K. 3544 are all quite similar in that a $50,000 

gra tuity would be paid to the surviving dependents of public safety officers found 

to have "died as the dire ct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in 

the perform ance of du ty.” To be eligible, a law enforcement officer must, at the 

time of injury, have been engaged in the apprehension, protection, or guarding of a 

person wanted or held for the commission of a crime. A firefighter must have been 

engaged in fighting a fire. The provisions of each of the bills would apply with 

respect to any eligible public safety officer who dies as the direct and proximate 

resu lt of a personal inju ry sustained on or after October 11, 1972.

Mr. Chairman, I would offer one suggested revision to the pending legislation. 

I believe that th e term “eligible public safety officer” should be defined to include 

both law enforcement officers as defined in H.R . 3544 and firemen who serve as 

officially recognized or designated members of a legally organized volunteer 

fire dep artm ent.

Once again, perm it me to commend the very fine work of this Subcommittee 

and to thank you for the opportunity of testifying on this extremely vital 

legislation.
116

St a t e m e n t of H o n . H en r y H e l s t o s k i, a R e p r e s e n t a t iv e in C o n g r ess F rom

t h e Sta te o f N ew J er se y

Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend you and the Members of this Subcommittee 

for holding these most important hearings on bills which would provide death 

benefits to survivors of public safety officers killed in the performance of duty.

I have been a sponsor and an advoc ate of related legislation for the past several 

years. It is my sincere hope that your deliberations will lead to early approval of 

a comprehensive bill which will merit the prompt and favorable attention of the 

full Judiciary Committee.

Differing versions of similar measures were passed by the House and the Senate 

in the closing days of the 92nd Congress, and again in the 93rd Congress. As you 

are probably aware, this inability to enact a bill despite overwhelming votes in 

favor of passage of such legislation has seriously and understandably undermined 

the morale of our nation’s public safety officers.

I would like to offer the suggestion that broad latitude be used in the definition 

of “ public safety officers” to be covered under the provisions of the measure 

which you approve. The two bills, H.R . 3105 and II.R . 5168, which I have 

sponsored this session relative to death and disability benefits would extend 

coverage to police officers, firefighters (paid or volunteer), correctional officers, 

and members of ambulance teams and rescue squads.

Although I note that the three bills which you presently have under active 

consideration are restricted to the provision of death benefits for survivors, I 

nevertheless urge you to include disability benefits in the legislation which you 

report to the full Committee. When a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or 

rescue worker suffers a permanent disability in the line of duty, a $50,000 gratu ity 

would amount to minimal compensation for such a tragic, personal sacrifice.

Hundreds of lives have been lost and severe injuries have been sustained in 

recent years by courageous public safe ty officers. Yet, our society offers too little 

in the way of expressing our gratitu de for the heroic deeds of these men and 

women. Generally, they are underpaid, especially when measured against the 

benefits which we, in our communities everywhere, derive from their bravery. 

We depend on these guardians of public safety and welfare, but we are complacent 

about the extent of the dangers and risks inherent in these increasingly hazardous 

occupations.

All too often when a young policeman is slain or a fireman’s life is taken in an 

effort to protect or save others, his family is faced with an uncertain future. It is 

not too much for these public safety officers to ask that should they be killed or 

disabled in the performance of their duties, their families will receive some 

financial assistance. Although we could never begin to replace that grievous loss, 

surely we have an obligation to try to ease the financial burden with which these 

families are frequently left.

Many of the Members of your distinguished Committee share my longstanding 

interest in the passage of legislation which gives overdue recognition to the 

extraordinary sacrifices made by law enforcement officers and firefighters on behalf 

of the public well-being. I urge you to act expeditiously on this very significant 

issue by approving a strong bill.

St a t e m e n t of H on. T om R a il s b a c k , a R e p r e s e n t a t iv e in C o n g r ess F ro m

t h e St a te of I l l in o is

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, all too frequently we pick 

up a newspaper only to find that, once again, a public safety officer has been 

injured or killed. As of November 3rd of this year, there have been 104 law enforcement officers who have lost their liv es in the line of duty.

We in Congress have been aware of the special plight of our policemen and other 

law enforcement officers, such as prison guards, who risk their lives doing their 

job. In two Congresses now, we have passed the Public Safety Officers Benefits 

Act in the House and Senate but a final conference report has not been agreed 

upon so that we might send this legislation to the President for his signature.

I have again sponsored a similar bill in this session. H.R. 2842 would amend the 

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, to provide 

benefits to survivors of certain law enforcement officers who die in the performance 

of their duty. Should such an officer be killed under these conditions, his surviving 

spouse or family would receive $50,000 and this amount would be payable from 

Federal grants to the States.
We are all aware of the severe occupational hazards which men in the dangerous 

field of law enforcement must live with daily and yet many States have failed 

to provide sufficient death benefits for the ir survivors. I strongly feel th at this legislation should receive the priority it deserves—H.R. 2842 should be considered 

and enacted early, for it is compassionate and j ust legislation. The question has been raised as to whethe r it should be the Federal responsibility 

to provide such dea th benefits to survivors of Sta te and local law enfo rcem ent 

personnel killed in the line of duty. I believe it is necessary to establish a Federal 

standa rd for these benefits for survivors of public safety officers, prosecutin g 

atto rneys, judges, and prison guards, since several States offer vir tually no 

financial assistance and oth er States have only meager programs in this rega rd. Our obligation is ju st as great, whether a law enforcem ent officer serves at the 

Federal, Sta te or local level. Enforcing the laws of our country has becom e 

increasingly hazardous. To attrac t capable, responsible men and women, we owe 

them the security and the peace of mind which comes from knowing th at if harm should befall them, the ir own family would not be forced to suffer unduly for 

financial reasons. I am aware th at a $50,000 paymen t provides only small comfort to those who 

must suffer the loss of a loved one, but this de ath gratui ty has become an economic 

necessity as much as a hum anitarian symbol. Studies have shown th at most 

officers who have been slain in the line of duty were th e head of a young, strug gling family. As staggering as his dea th is for the loved ones to accept emotionally, 

there are still the harsh economic realities of bills to be paid, and the necessities 

of living to be faced. This payment could serve to assist them in the ir transi tion 

period following th e death of tha t person who in most cases has been the head of the household. Due to our Congressional inaction, the widows of these men are 

inheriting a truly bleak future. We must not wait to take positive action on providing them a means toward some financial independence—th e minimum 

debt of gr atitud e for the ir husbands’ services.

The wave of crime th at has hit our nation costs all of us dearly in res tric ting 

our sense of freedom and security. But it is the law’ enforcement official who puts his very life on the line. These men confront the problem s of our com munities 

on a one-to-one basis. The y work tirelessly to mend the cut and broken fabric of 

our society. We must do everything possible to help them, and I feel the best way 

is to act affirmatively on this legislation th at will at le ast ease an officer’s m ind in 

term s of th e se curity of his family should something tragic befall him.

The passage of H .R. 2842 would be a way to say we realize the dangers public 

safe ty officers face everyday and we want to protect the ir families as t hey p rotec t 

us. I urge the quick and favorable passage of this crucial legislation.

Statement of Hon. Robert A. Roe, a Representative in Congress From

the State of New J ersey

Mr. Chairman, as a sponsor of H.R . 3479 to amend the Omnibus Crime Control 

and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (as amended) to provide benefits to survivors of 

certain public safety officers including policemen, firemen, volunteer firemen, 

and members of volunteer ambulance team s or rescue squads who die in the performance of duty, I am pleased and privileged to join with my distin guished 

colleagues in suppo rt of this legislation which is the sub ject of your hearings tod ay.

I can state unequivocally th at this legislation is one of my highest priorities a nd 

one which has had my fullest support in the p ast two Congresses as well as in the 

94th. It is, in fact, a societal obligation, not luxury, to provide some semblance of financial secu rity to depende nts of public safe ty officers who die while protecting 

th at society. Pa rt of this obligation can be realized readily via an act of Congress such as my bill, H.R . 3479 and/or the many similar bills before this Subcommittee.

One of our surest commitm ents, as a Congress a nd as people, should be to those 

who daily risk their own lives in behalf of others. Such service to huma nity is 

the ultimate sacrifice and the fact such sacrifice is made through structured roles 

such as the police force, fire or rescue squads should in no way diminish the 

unselfishness of those performing these duties. One concrete assurance which can 

be extended to these individuals is th at should they suffer a personal injury in 

the line of duty which results in death, their families and /or eligible depend ents 

will not be suddenly, in some cases, devoid of minim um financial security. This, 

of course, in no way compensates for the loss of a loved one but, being realistic, one majo r burden i.e. the financial one must be faced and this measure is a concrete step of p artial reassurance in this area.
118

Another aspect of vital importance is the ongoing necessity of adequate recruitment of personnel and volunteers in these public service areas. Needless to say, 

qua lity is as important as qu antity and, facing facts, one should realize this 

added secu rity in a profession involving the consistently high risk of personal 

life is not an extravagance to be debated endlessly Congress after Congress bu t a 

necessity to be legislatively facilitated as prom ptly as possible. I t is this necessity 

for survivors’ benefits which my bill permits. It is only applicable when death 

results irom the performance of d uty . It is truly a small fiscal price to pay for insuring the availability of dedicated public safety officers to pro tec t the public 

good.

I strongly urge this Subcomm ittee to tak e positive and pro mp t action on this 

legislation as I truly believe it is of the grea test importance among the legislative 

responsibilities before us. The families of public service officers who, in the line *

of duty, have sacrificed their lives unselfishly deserve the concrete recognition 

and attentio n of this Congress. In this legislation before you there is the availability of a vehicle for achieving pa rt of this goal. It is up to this Subcommittee 

to take the first step in this direction.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D.C., October 1, 1975.

Hon. J oshua Eilberg,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law,

Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. C hairman: Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am

pleased to be able to express my support for H.R . 3929, the Public Safety Officers 

Benefits Act.

I also wish to present, for inclusion in the record, two additional letters of sup ­

port, one from Denver Police Unio n Local 109 and the other from the Denver 

Police Chief.

With kind regards.

Sincerely,

Patricia Schroeder,

Congresswoman.

Denver Police Union Local 109,

Denver, Colo., September 18, 1975.

Hon. P atricia Schroeder,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Mrs. Schroeder: This letter is in regard to bill S. 1527 introduced by 

Senator Fra nk E. Moss from Ut ah providing for a $25,000.00 dea th benefit for 

survivors of slain peace officers and also including a scholarship bill.

The 1,000 plus members of the Denver Police Union Local 109 urge you to 

support this bill by any means available to you. We are definitely in favor of this 

bill and any assistance and sup port you can lend will be greatly appreciated. 

Yours very truly,

Stan W. F lint,

President.

City and County of Denver,

Department of Safety,

Denver, Colo., September ££, 1976.

Hon. Patricia Schroeder,

Member of Congress, House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

Dear Congresswoman Schro eder: I am writing to encourage your supp ort 

for S-15%7 Public Safety Officers Benefit Act of 1975.

The Denver Police Dep artm ent has had seven officers killed in the line of 

duty since 1962. As you know, each incident is sad and heart-re ndering and always 

so senseless, bu t each points out the inadequate benefits and resources left to 

the widows and orphans of th e deceased. Some efforts have been made locally to
help, bu t not enough has been done. State Compensation Insurance and dependents benefits are paid through the City and County of Denver Ch arter (I am 

enclosing a copy of t hat section of th e Charter). S-1527 would bridge the gap by providing both financial aid and assurance of 

educational benefits. The overall cost would not be great, bu t would give great 

comfort and secu rity to the family. I will apprecia te any assistance and support you may be able to extend on 

this Bill.

Sincerely,

Arthur G. Dill,

Chief of Police.

Co.40-1 * * * Upon the death of a member of the Police Departme nt, the 

cash benefits att rib utab le to the mem ber’s accumulated sick leave and vacation 

time shall be paid to the member’s surviving spouse or if there be no surv iving 

spouse, then to the mem ber’s surviving child or children, or if there be no surviving child or children, then to the mem ber’s estate.

C5.41-4 Hospital-M edical Benefits. The City and County of Denver shall 

contribute to each member of th e Police Department in the Classified Service an 

amount equal to the amount contributed for other City and County of Denver 

employees toward the cost of City and County of Denver sponsored hospitalmedical benefits. C5.41-5 Holidays. The following days are recognized as holidays for the pu rposes provided herei n:

New Year’s Day (Jan uary 1).

Wash ington’s Birthd ay (Third Monday in February).

Memorial Day (Las t Monday in May).

Independence Day (July 4).

Labor Day (First Monday in Septem ber).

General Election Day (Tuesday following first Monday in November in 

even-numbered years).

Veteran’s Day (Fo urth Monday in October).

Thanksgiving Day (Fourth Thu rsday in November).

Christmas Day (December 25).

Each member of t he Police Departme nt in the Classified Service, employed at 

the time of each of the above holidays, shall be paid, in addition to regular compensation, an additional day’s compensation at his straig ht time rate.

C5.41-6 Equ ipm ent Allowance. An annual allowance of Fifty ($50.00) Dollars 

shall be paid to each member of the Police Department in the Classified Service 

required to wear firearms. This payment shall be made at the end of each calendar 

year or upon termin atio n or retirement from the Police Dep artm ent, of each 

qualified member who has served during the year.

Statement of Glen D. King, Executive Director, International

Association of Chiefs of Police

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship 

and International Law, my name is Glen King and I am executive dire ctor of 

the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The association is professionally recognized as the official voice of executive 

lawF

 enforcem ent throughout the country. On behalf of the more tha n ten thou sand police officials who comprise the 

membership of the IACP, I welcome the opportu nity to offer testimon y in sup ­

port of H .R. 365, 366 an d 3544.

I would like to extend my apologies for being unable to attend the hearin gs 

on these bills.

During your proceedings, our association was meeting in annual conference 

in Denver, Colorado.

One of the critical issues discussed at th at conference was the same prob lem 

facing your comm ittee— the in discriminate slaying of our police officers.

The secu rity and well-being of our Nation’s citizens depends upon the police 

officer as its first line of defense.

But th at perim eter is weakening.

It is being assaulted by the factions of our society which would destroy our 

democratic system of government through violence.

It is being undermined by public apathy.
120

And i t is being th reatened by Legislative indifference and painfully slow courtroom machinery.

In 1974, a tota l of one hun dred and thirty two of o ur Nation’s police officers 

were killed by criminal assaults.

In one incident, a sergeant and patrolm an went to a home after receiving a 

report of a domestic quarrel and a shooting.

When they arriv ed at the scene, the two men were m et by a volley of gunfire.

While attem pting to take cover, the sergeant, an eleven-year veteran of the 

force, was fatally shot in the chest.

His partner , who had been on th e force for four years, died from a bullet wound 

in the head.

A state trooper citing a motorist for a traffic viola tion was killed in an unprovoked atta ck when a car traveling in th e opposite direction crossed the center line *

and s truc k the trooper.

The suspect, a nineteen-year-old man, was found to have received several ticke ts 

by the trooper.

The chief of police of a California town was making a speech to a civic group 

in a local church when six rounds from a .30 caliber rifle were fired through a *

church window.

The chief, an eleven-year veteran of law enforcement, was hit in the throat 

and killed.

Three other people in the church were wounded in the attack.

Our files and the files of the FB I are full of accounts of tragedies such as this.

In incident after incident, we find evidence of efforts to remove the police from 

our stre ets through terrorism.

Despite our efforts to combat this menace, it seems to grow every year.

The bills under consideration by your subc omm ittee will n ot stop the murder 

of police officers.

But the y will offer a small ackn owledgem ent of the deb t we all owe to those 

men and women who have chosen to pursue law enforcement careers.

Present Federal laws provide for dependents’ compensation for police officers 

killed in the line of duty while enforcing Federal laws.

There are also State and local laws th at provide benefits, as well as workmen’s 

compensation, group life insurance and charitable donations.

Compensation differs in each State, and there are as many variations as there 

are individual agencies.

On many cases, adm inistrative red tape and procedures tie up funds for years 

before any actual benefits are realized.

A single federally sponsored and administered law will allev iate the weaknesses in these systems.

It will provide a comprehensive series of benefits for the families of public 

safety officers killed while doing the ir jobs.

The law enforcement community in the Ln ited States needs this kind of law.

We must not turn our backs on the anguish and poverty suffered by the survivors of law officers slain while protecting our righ ts and liberties.

Your task carries an awesome responsibility.

I am convinced your decisions will be the right ones.

Thank you.

T h e L ib r a r y of C o n g r ess, 

C o n g r essio n a l R esea r c h S e r v ic e,

Washington, D.C., September 17, 1975.

To: House Judiciary Committee.

From : American Law Division.

Sub ject: Lump-Sum D eath Benefits P ayab le to Public Safety Officers.

_ Reference is made to you r inquiry of Septemb er 3, 1975, requestin g a fifty

(50) sta te survey to determin e the lump-sum dea th benefits payable to public 

safety officers and to our telephone conversa tion with respect thereto .

A survey of the indexes to the codes of several represe ntative states failed to 

reveal or indic ate any sta tutory provisions which provided lump-sum death 

benefit paymen ts to public safe ty officers. Thus, we are of the opinion th at such 

benefits, in general or if available, may fall within retirem ent or employee survivor plans worked out with respect to each individual jurisdiction or agency 

involved and that the only method of obtaining reliable information concerning 

such lump-sum paym ents would be by sub mitting a questionnaire to the appropriate official of each of the several s tates or represen tatives local jurisdiction.
It is pointed out, however, tha t death benefits are available under Workers’ 

Compensation Statutes in each of the several states. A tabulation of such statutes 

is attached. In addition, we were able to obtain a survey of pension benefits for police officers in several represen tative metropolitan areas from the Intern ational 

Association of Chiefs of Police. A copy of that survey is attached.

We hope the material provided herewith will be helpful. If it is desired th at a 

questionnaire be submi tted to each of the several states, please advise.

A l b e r t M. P er r y ,

Legislative Attorney.
TA BLE 3.—G EN ER AL AD M IN IST RA TI VE SU RV EY

Retireme nt contribution 

(per cen t) (32 ) Minimum retirement provisions (33) Maximum retirement provisio ns (34)

City By officer By city

Years

service Age Benefits

Year s

service

Compulsory retiremen t

age Benefits

Atlan ta, Ga ._ ............................ .. 6 6 10 None Prorated on a 35 yr . pe ns io n. .. .......... ........ 25 65 Plus 1>$ % each year over 25 years service.

Baltim ore, M d ...____ ________ «6 « 17.75 25 50 25 ’ 55 66 % % avg. pay per year of last 5 years 

service .

Birm ingh am, A la _______ ______ 8.35 9.3 5 25 46 50 % of final avg. salar y....... ........... ........... .. 30 70 50 % of final avg. + J ^ % for each year over

Boston, Mass_____ ___________ 5 Balance 20 55 2% F.C. (hig h 3 yrs .) x years ser vice _____ 20 65 02 5% avg. high 3 yrs. salar y x yrs, serv ice: max. 80 % of high 3.

Buffalo, N . Y . . . ............................. 10 . . . 55 l/20th F.C. x yr s. service and annuit y______ 25 62 50 % F.C. (Hig h 3 y rs.) + l/60th for each yr. 

over 25.

Cin cinn ati, Ohio______________ 7 12.5 25 52 2% of av g. annual sal. (high 5 y rs. ) x number of yrs. service. 33 70 66 % of base pay (hig h 5 yrs. ).

Clev elan d, Ohio _____ _________ 7 13. 66 25 52 50 % of avg. high 5 ye ars ser vic e_______ . 33 70 66 % of avg. high 5 years service .

Colum bus, Ohio ............................ 7 14. 47 25 52 2% per yr. of ser vic e--------- --------- -------------

50 % of Ptl. base salar y + 50 % lo ng ev ity. ..

33 70 2% per years of service to 6 6% .

Dallas, Te x................. ............. .. ’ 5 ’ 15 20 55 35 65 8% of Ptl. base salar y + 50 % longevity.Denver, Colo ................................ 3.5 ( ’) 25 50 50 % of last year sal ary ................. ................. 25 65 50 % of last year salary . El Paso, T e x._ ____ ___________ 6 18 25 50 50 % salar y of rank held---------------------------- 25 65 50% .

Fort Worth, T e x ........................... ____ 6 9 25 55 1 % % x avg. high 5 yrs. x yrs. - 5 % for 

each yr. under age 60.

25 60 Same as #33 except no reduction after 35 

yrs. serv. or age 60.

Honolulu, Haw aii____ . . . . . . . ____ 10.4 10.4 25 55 80 % of av g. 5 yrs. F. C................. ....................... . 70 2>£% for each yr. service based on avg. high 5 yr s comp.

Indi anapolis , In d..........................____ 3 97 20 44 50 % of 1st grade Ptl. sala ry with 10 yrs. 

service.

32 70 2 % for each yr. service over 20 yrs. to max. 

of 7 4% .

Jackso nvi lle, Fl a__________________ 6 6 25 50 30 65 65 % avg. last 3 yr s.

Kan sas City. Mo........................... ____ 6 12 25 None 2% of F.C. x yrs. ser vice ................................ 30 65 Same as 33.

Long Beach, C al if ........................ ____ 9 26.9 68 20 50 $100.................... ................................ ......... .. 30 60 75 % of final compensation.
• ♦

Lou isville, Ky.........................................

Memphis, Tenn.....................................Miami, Fla...... .......................................Minneapolis, Minn ................................

Nashville-Davidson, Tenn..... ..............Newark, N.J...........................................New Orleans, La...................................No rfolk, Va............................................

Oakland, Ca lif........................................Oklahoma City, Okla............................Omaha, Nebr.........................................

Phoenix, Ariz .........................................Pittsburgh, Pa.......................................Portland, Oreg.......................................

St. Louis, Mg..............................................

St. Paul, Minn.......................................San Antonio, Tex..................................San Diego, Ca lif....................................San Francisco, Ca lif..............................San Jose, Ca lif.......................................Seattle, Wash........................................

Toledo, Ohio..........................................

Tulsa, Ok la............................................

Washington, D.C...................................

5%

7

Balance

7

2015 ..

55 2% x yrs. service x high 5 years...... .............

50% o f gross salary per year.........................

33%

25

6260

66 %% F.C.Same as 33.

8.5 11.9 25 50 2% per year...... ..................................................

32/80ths of top grade Pt l’s pay_____ _____

60 2% per year.

40/80ths of top grade Ptl.'s pay. 6 (•) 20 50 20 65

(’ ) C) 20 55 50% of salary_________ ______ ________ 20 62 50% of salary.

(’ ) 9. 58 25 51 50% of salary............................... ................... 44 65 50% sal. + 1% for each yr. over 25.

5 Balance «20 50 50% o f salary............................................... .. 30 68 80% of salary.

None 100 32 60 34 62 68%.

1% % per yr. afte r eligibility for re t; max.

66%% .

74 to 7 9.42 25 55 of base pay of last 3 years____ _______ 35 65

6 8.5 20 None 50% avg. pay last 30 months____________ 32% ... 75% avg. pay last 5 yrs. cf service.7 + 7 25 55 50% monthly income for the highest 12 

months.

25 62 Same as 33.

5 11.96 20 Nene 50% of avg. last 5 yrs_________ ________ 30 «64 60% of avg. last 5 yrs.

6.5 0 20 50 50% of pay, highest 36 mos........... ............... 20 65 50% of pay.

7 21 20 55 40% Ptl. base salary....................................... 30 64 60% Ptl. base salary.

7 16.60 20 None %7 avg. F.C. (last 5 yrs.) x yrs. service___ None 65 Same as 33.

5 17 20 50 40% Ptl. salary....... ............... ......................... 25 65 50% Ptl. salary.

7.5 •7 .5 20 None 40% ef base sal. + longevity, avg. high 5 

yrs.

30 65 60% cf base sal. 4- longevity avg. high 5 

yrs.

(<) (’ ) 20 50 High 3 yrs. avg. x yrs. of service x 2 % ____ 20 65 High 3 yrs. salary x yrs. serv. x 2% , 

Bonus f or serv. over age 50.

6.5 29.9 25 50 55% based on last yr. of service pay______

50% x final base pay......... ......... .................

30 65 70% based on last yr. of service pay.

4.34 18.66 20 55 30 65 75% x final base pay.

6 6 5 20 (8)................................................. ......... ........... 20 8 60 2% of salary afte r 20 yrs.

7 15.52 25 52 2% x yrs. service x avg. o f high 5 yrs. 

salary.

33 65 Same as 33.

7.5 8.5 20 None 50% of final avg. salary...................... ........... 30 70 75% of final avg. salary.

7 Balance 20 None 50% of salary___________ ______ ______ 30 64 80% o f salary.
TABLE 3. — GENERAL ADMINISTRATION SURVEY— Continued

Dis ability pensions— illness and injury Death ben efits: pensions

City Nonservice connected (35) Service connected (36) Widow (37) Su rviv ing child ren (3 8) Other (39)

Atlanta, Ga.....................

Baltimore, Md...............Birm ingham , Ala...........Boston, Mass.................Buffalo, N.Y...................

Cincinnati, Ohio............

Cleveland, Ohio.............

Columbus, Ohio______

Dallas, Te x.....................

Denver, Colo..................El Paso, T ex...................Fort Worth, Tex.............

Honolulu, Hawaii_____

Indianapolis, In d...........

Jacksonville, Fla...........

Kansas City, Mo...........

Long Beach, Calif.........

Louisville , Ky.................

Memphis, Te nn .............

Miami, Fla......................

2% x yrs. servic e.............................

Depends on yrs. of service_______

40% of mo. sal. at tim e of disability.

Under 55, after 15 yrs., .025% avg. 

high 3 yrs. x yrs. of serv.

Varies depending on length of 

service and total compensation.

2% x yrs. service............................. 2% x years service...........................

2% annually (afte r 5 y r s .) ...........

Prorated.............................................

Determined by Pension B o a rd .. .. 

50 %....................................................

B i% of avg. high 5 yrs. x yrs. 

serv. min. $150 per mo.

10 yrs. cred. serv. & below age 55; 

25% after 10-15 yrs.

30-50% of 1st grade Ptl. sal. with 

10 yrs. serv-dec. by Pen. Bd.

50% sal. for illness, 75% retire.

contribs. returned for injury.

2% of F.C. x yrs. service, must

have 10 yrs. service.

1.5% x yrs. service x F.C................After 5 yrs., 2% x yrs. serv. x 5 yr. 

salary avg.

2% of final avg. pay x yrs. serv. 

not to exceed 50% or less 25%.

40% of salary....................................

2% x 35 yrs. service of 6th yr. 

Ptl.’s salary.

100%—depending on type in ju ry ..60% of mo-sal. at tim e of serv. 

connected dis ability.

66%%, salary....................................

75% Final Compensation................

50% of base pay...............................

66% o f sal ar y. ..... ............................

Determined by Pension Bd. (50% 

max.)

Same as 33........................................

50% of last yrs. salary....................50 %....................................................

Full pay...... .....................................

% F.C. less workm en's Compensation award.

50% of 1st grade Ptl. salary with 

10 yrs. service.

50% o f salary...................................

60% o f F.C........................................

% pay................................................

75% of final salary..........................

50% o f final avg. c om pe ns ation... 66%% of salary...............................

If no widow, same as widow until 

age 18.

If no widow, same as widow; more 

if widow is alive.

$10 a mo. per child un til age 1 8 .. .$312 per yr to age 18......................

State plan varies: City —$1000 

each child under 18.

$40 per month................................... $50 per month to age 18.................

$45 per month..................................

Same as 37........................................

$30 for 1st child, $15 each addition al to age 17.

% salary un til age 16, no more 

than 50% for fam ily.

$50 to each dependent ch ild ...........Applies to minor children under 

age 18.

10% of 1st grade Ptl. salary with 

10 yrs, serv. to age 18.

$15 per month per child to age 1 8. .$25 per month each to age 18.........

Included with widow........................

% of w id o w s.. ................................

Same as 37........................................

50% of pension.................................37.5% of pension.............................40% of employee’ s final avg. sal. 

(death in line of duty).

66%% service connected................

State plan varies: City —1 yr. 

salary + $100 a month.

$ h 0 per mo nth ................................

$135 per month................................. $130 per month.................................

25% base salary +25% lon gevity. 

One-third of active officers base pay. 

% of salary.......................................Same furmula as member for unremarried widow , min. $100.50% of avg. F.C. less Workmen’s 

Compensation Award.

30% of 1st grade Ptl. sal. with 10 

yrs. un til remarriage.

33%% of salary................................25% of F.C. un til rem arriage..........

Non-ser-ret. contr.+ J^ yr sal 

serv..-50% to 75%,-violnt. cond.

70% of earned retirem en t-...........

50% of salary (service connected).

None.

None.

None.None.

State plan varies, no city plan.

$120.00 4- (dependent parents). 

Same as 37 if totally dependent.

% for dependent mother or fathe r. 

Same as 37.Compensation award to dependent 

parents. 20% of 1st grade Ptl. salary with 10 yrs. to dep. parents.

None.

If no spouse or children, contrib. 

retu rn to beneficiary.

None.

Same as 37 to dependent mother 

or fathe r.

* *
61-356 0 - 75 Minneapolis, Minn........ G o t t is . . . ........................................... Nashville-Davidson, 55%, plus 10% for c hildren_____ Tenn. Newark, N J ...................40% of the avg. of last 3 yrs. salary. New Orleans, La........... Determined by Pension Board........... 3?S oth s.... Same as 35. >9$oths_ %oths................................................. Max. of 

3 ^6oths.

66^5% of salary at time of in ju ry .. Determined by Pension Board........

50% if active; 25% after retirement.

50% of salary for l ife .......................

Norfolk, Va.....................2% x yrs. service................................

Oakland, Calif................3 3)5% with 10 or more years service.

Oklahoma City, O kla .. . After 15 yrs. total yrs. serv. taken 

as percent of 20 yrs.

Omaha, N ebr................M in. of 10 yrs. service necessary,

then pension varies.

Phoenix, Ariz .................Min. 10 yrs. serv.; max. 20 yrs.

fu ll pens.; reduced 4% fo r ae. 

yr. bel. 20.

Pittsburgh, Pa............. . Dis ability pension afte r 15 years

service.

Portland, Oreg...............2% Ptl. sal. yrs. of serv.; 20%

min., 60% max.

St. Louis, Mo................. After 10 yrs. avg. F.C. (last 5

yrs.) x yrs. service.

St. Paul, Minn ...............Regular sick leave...............................

66 %%................................................75% of base pay to retirement, 

50% therea fter; all members. 

Yrs. of service as a percent of 20

yrs.

Same as 33........................................

None...................................................

50% of member's salary if service 

connected.

Same as 35.................................. ..

$50 per month, maxim um 4 ch ildren.

None...................................................

25% of widow’s allow, fo r 1; 40% 

for 2; 50% for 3 or more.

( ') ........................................................

Dependent parents.

$50 per month to mother if no 

spouse.

None.

If dependent parents amount determ ined by Pension Bd.

Full workm en's comp, coverage 

or full retirement benefits.

Va rie s..................................

55 each ch ild un til age 21.

Varies. 

. None.

San Antonio, Tex.......... 50% of high 5 yrs. sal., less than 5

yrs. serv. avg. for all yrs.

San Diego, Calif.............Afte r 10 yrs. serv., 33%% to max.

retirement.

San Francisco, C a lif. .. . Service retirement after 10 years.. 

San Jose, C a lif . .. .. .. . (• )........................................................

Full dis ability pension.........

( ') ............................................

75% avg. F.C.........................

Six (6) months fu ll pay........

Same as 35............................

50% of higher 3 yrs. salary.

50% to 90% , depending on type 

of injury.

( ') .......................................................

Seattle, Wash.................50% of salary.................................... .Toledo, Ohio_________ 154% x yrs. service x avg. total

salary.

Tulsa, O k la ... ...............(«)........................................................

Same as 35______________

Last yr. salary x 6 6% ...........

50% of present avg. s alary.

Washington, D.C______2% x yrs. serv. after 5 yrs. min.

40% and max. 70%.

255% x yrs. serv. min. 66% % 

and max. 70%.

1 Biweekly.

J Percent of patrolman base pay.’ 6 to 9 percent, determined by age at appointment. « 6.73 to 9.08 percent.

* City and State balance.

Va ries.................................................

>5 pens ion +indus tria l benefits if 

serv. connected.

. 50% of pension.................................

50% of Ptl. salary.............................

L.D.D.—50% avg. F.C. natural 

-2 5 % avg. F.C.

20% Ptl. salary.................................

Same as 35........................................

50% of F.C. (High 3 yrs.) ; pens, 

fo r life if LOD death.

LOD—fu ll salary until re t date, 

then pension.

.375 x final base pay.........................

Same as 3 5........................................

$130 monthly __________________

Same as husband before death___

40% of salary....................................

25% of widows pension................... Parents if dependent.

25% 1st child, 15% 2nd child, 10% 

all other.

10% avg. F.C. to ea. max. of 3, to 

age 18; age 22 if college.

5% Ptl. salary per child under age 

18.

If no widow , 25% of base salary 

& longevity.

( ') ........................................................

If no widow or children, refund 

contr. to heir.

None.

(•).

None.

8

Full salary to children LOD— 

under age 21.

.25 x fin. bas. pay fo r ea. child under 18 yrs. max. .75 x FCP pr. 

fm.

50% + 5% per child under age 

18.

$45 monthly.......................................

Same as fa ther if under age 18 & 

moth er remarries to exp.

(’) - ......................................................

None.

$45 monthly for dependent parent. 

None.

Designated beneficiary.

i Normal level cost plus 3 percent on deficit. 

7 5.327 percent for each 3 percent.

11 See attached comments.

’ 3 percent to $7,800.
TABLE.— BENEFIT S FOR SU RV IVING SPOUSES AN D CHILDREN IN DEATH CASES PROVIDE D BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATIO N STATUTES IN THE UN ITED STATES

Maxim um percentage

of wages

Widow

Jurisdiction

Widow

only

plus

children Maxim um period

Alabam a............................

Alaska ................................

Ar izon a..............................

Arkans as.................... ..

Califo rnia........... .................Colorado............................

3766%

35

35

66%

66% 500 weeks............................................................

90 Wid owhood;*’ children until 19 or marria ge .’66% Widowh ood;c hildren u ntil 18 or ma rriage.’ ..

65 ..........do.’.....................................................................

66% 313 wee ks’ .............................................................

Connecticut....................... 66% 66% Widowhood; c hildren until 1 8 ’ ____________

Delaw are ........................... 66% 80 Wido who od ;

1 children until 18.’ ..................

Dis trict of Colu m bia .. 50 66% Widowhood; children until 18.’ ____ _______

Flo rida................................ 45 60 Widow ho od ;

1 children until 1 8 ’ ....................

G e o rg ia .. ........................

Ha waii................................Id ah o .................................

66%

5T

45

Afiiz Ann

66 % Widow hood; children until 18.’ . ......................60 500 weeks------------- ------------ -------------------------

Ill in ois ................................ 66% 66% Widowhood;1 11 children until 1 8.’ -------------In dian a..............................

Iowa....................................

66%

*’ 80

66% 500 weeks......... ....................................................

*» 80 Widowhood;

1 *’ children until 18.’ . .................

Kansas........................ .. *’ 66% ” 66% Widowhood;

1 children until 18.’ *’ ...................

Kentucky........................... 50 75 Widowhood; children until 18.’ .......................

Louisiana...........................Ma ine..................................

32%66%

65 500 weeks.............................................................. .

66% Widowhood; children until 18.’ .......................

Ma ryland........................... 66% 66% Widow ho od ;

1 *»children until 1 8 ’ ..................

Massachusetts...................M ic h ig a n .. .....................Minneso ta................ ........

66%

■•40

.................. Widowhood; children until 18 ’ *’ ___________

66% 500 wee ks; the reafter to children until 21 >.

66% Widowhood; children until 1 8 ’ *’ _________

Payments per week

Minimu m Maximum

Total maximumstated in law

$30, or actual wage if less..................................

$45 to $75 *..............................................................$16.15 to $30.77 «...................................................

$1 5..............................................................................$35 • ...........................................................................

25 percent of applica ble maximum ($ 30.0 3)’ .

$2 0..............................................................................

22% percent of State's average weekly

wage ($41.82).

50 percent ot national average w eek ly wage

(♦74.5 7), or wor ke r’s actual wage if less.

$20 , or actual wage if less..................................

$25, or actual wage if le ss................................$38 .75, widow or wid ower.

1’ ..............................

45 percent of Sta te's average weekly wage

($62.10).

50 percent of State 's average we ekly wage

in manufacturin g industries ($ 102.5 0)»

$50 , or average wage if less...............................$18 , or actual wage if le ss.................................

$7 ................................................................................

20 percent of Sta te's average weekly wage

$17 .50, or actual wage if less.............................

$2 5..............................................................................

$25, or average wage if less...............................

Same as ma xim um ................................................$70 to $8 2« ..............................................................

$17 .50, or actual wage if less >»........................

80 percent of Sta te's average weekly wage

($19 8.40 ) »

$80.77 to $153.8 5*...............................................

$6 6.50 .......................................................................

$119 • .......................................................................

66% perce nt of State’s average weekly

wage ($ 12 0.12 ), plus $5 for each dependen t child.’

66% percent of State’s average production

wage ($11 9).

66% to 80 percent of Sta te's average weekly

wage ($12 5.47-$150.56 ).*

175 percent of national average weekly

wage ($261).*

66% percent of State 's average weekly

wage ($10 5).

$9 5............................................................................

$1 16 .19 to $ 1 5 5 * 10 .............................................45- 60 percent of State’s average weekly

wage ($62.10 to $82 .80).*

10C percent of S tate's average week ly wage

($ 20 5) 11; or 50 percent of decedent's

average weekly wag e, whichever is

greater.

100 percent of State's average weekly wage

($ 16 0) .”

66% percent of State 's average weekly

wage ($103.10 ).*’

60 percent of Sta te's average weekly wage

($88).

$6 5...........................................................................

100 percent of Sta te's average weekly wage

($141.4 1).**

100 percent of State's average weekly

wage ($1 64.59 ).**

$55, plus $6 for each child...............................$107 to $13 0* *’ ...................................................$100 * » . . . ...............................................................

$3 7,50 0

*$40,0 00-4 5,0 00

$5 0,00 0

• $3 2,50 0 ex«°) * 31 ,0 50 -4 1, 400

45 ,000

*’ 50,00 0

(* •)

*• 16 ,000” 40, COO

TABLE.— BENEFITS FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES AND CHILDREN IN DEATH CASES PROVIDED BY WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTES IN THE UNITED STATES—Continued

Maximum percentage 

of wages

Widow 

Widow plus

Jurisdiction only children Maximum period Minimum

Payments per week

Maximum

Total maximum 

stated in law

United States:”

FECA.......................

LS/HWCA................

50

50

75 Widowhood; children un til 18* *......................

66% Widowhood; children un til 18*......................

$57.65................................................................. $519.23” ................................................................................................... 50 percent of national average weekly 175 percent of national average w e e kly .......................................

wage ($74.57), or wo rke r’s actual wage wage ($261).”

if less.

1 The term “ widowhood” is used to mean the period un til the death or remarriage of the widow . 

(In some cases, the benefits are paid to a w idower.) . . . . „ , ’ Lump sum of 2 yr benefits payable upon remarriage of surviving spouse in Alaska, Delaware, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and South Dakota. * May be continued beyond age 18 (19 in Alaska and Wyoming, and 21 in Michigan) if physically or mentally incapacitated or incapable of self-support. In New York, payments may be continued beyond 18 if dependent child is totally blind or mentally or physically disabled and whose disable­ ment is total and permanent. In Hawaii, paymants may be continued to unmarried, fu ll-tim e students un til 22, the dollar maxim um does not apply to child ren under 18, nor to unmarried children over 18 if 

they are incapable of self-support, nor to a surviving spouse who is physically or mentally incapable of self-suppo rt. In Missouri, payments may be continued to fu ll-tim e students un til 22; or if at age 18 a dependent child is a member of the U.S. Armed Forces on active duty, during 4 yr of full-tim e attendance at an accredited ins titu tio n to commence prior to 23 yr of age and imm ediately upon cessation of such active duty. Payments may be continued to full-t im e students un til 21 in Minnesota; un til 22 in Florida, Kentucky, Nevada, South Dakota, and Tennessee; u nt il 23 in the District of Colum­ bia, Kanasas, Maine, Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Wash­ ington, West Virginia, and under the FECA and IS HWCA; un til 25 in Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Mon­ tana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Texas; and fu ll-tim e students regardless of age in Massachusetts and Vermont. < According to number of dependents. * Alas ka: Effective Jan. 1,1976, maximum weekly benefits will be 100 percent of the State s average weekly wage; Jan. II 1977,133.3 percent; Jan. 1, 1979, 166.6 percent; and Jan. 1,1981, 200 percent. « California: In actual practice under its discretionary power, the W orkm en’s Compensation Appeals 

Board orders death benefits paid at the maximum weekly rate ($119). ,

i Colorado: Effective Sept. II 1975, maximum weekly benefits w ill be 80 percent of the State s average weekly wage ($144.13); and the minimum will increase to $36.03. Benefits will be payable to a surv iving spouse un til death or remarriage, with a lu mp sum of 2 years benefits upon remarriage. ’ LS/HWCA and District of Columbia : Based on 175 percent (ma ximum $261, minimum $74.57) of natio nal average weekly wage from Oct. 1, 1974, to Sept. 30, 1975; and 200 percent beginning Oct. 1, 1975. “ National average weekly wage,” as determined by the Secretary of Labor, shall be based on the national average weekly earnings of production or nonsupervisory workers on private 

nonagricultural payrolls. ’ Georgia: Total maximum applies to surviving spouse who is the sole dependent at the time of death, 

and where there is no other dependent for 1 yr or less.

» Hawaii: Lump sum of 2 yr benefits to widow upon remarriage. Total maximum is the product of 

312 times the State's average weekly wage.

•i Illin ois

- Lump sum of 2 yr benefits payable upon remarriage of surviving spouse in cases where the deceased left no children en titled to benefits. Benefits to a surviving child under 18 at tim e of decedent’s death shall continue for a period of not less than 6 yr. Effective July 1, 1977, maximum weekly benefits will be based on 133)5 percent of the S tate’s average weekly wage in manufacturing 

industries; July 1,1979,166% percent; and July 1,1981,200 percent. u Iowa: Maximum percentage of wages based on employee’ s average weekly spendable earnings. Lump sum of 2 yr benefits payable to widow or widower upon remarriage if there are no children entitled to benefits. Effective July 1, 1977, maximum weekly benefits will be 133% percent of the State’ s average weekly wage; July 1,1979,166% percent; and beginning July 1,1981, 200 percent.

i* Kansas: Maximum percentage of wages based on employee’s average gross weekly wage. Lump sum of 100 weeks benefits upon remarriage of su rviving spouse. If periodic benefits are payable under the Federal OASDI, th e workmen's compensation weekly ben3fit shall be reduced by % the amount of such Federal benefit for such week. Total maximum of $50,000 may be exceeded in the case of 

min or children. , . . . . ......... . , . w Maine: Effective July 1, 1977, maximum weekly compensation will be 133% percent of State s average weekly wage; July 1, 197 9,166% percent; and July 1,1981, 200 percent. >5 Maryland: Provides for con tinu ing benefits, after a maximum of $45,000 has been paid, if st ill 

wholly dependent. Upon remarriage of surviving spouse, 2 yr-compensation payable. i* Massachusetts: Benefits continue to widows during periods they are not fully self-supporting, w Michigan: The maximum benefit rate is adjusted annually on the basis of a $1 increase or decrease 

for each $1.50 increase or decrease in the State s average weekly wage. is Minnesota - Combined total weekly governmental survival benefits and State workm en s com­ pensation death benefits shall not exceed 100 percent of the deceased employee's weekly wage at tim e of death; workm en’s compensation benefits shall not be payable for any week in which survivor benefits payable under the Federal program exceed 100 percent of such weekly wage. Effective Aug. 1, 1975, there will be no statutory minimum weekly payment; benefits will be payable during widow or widowerhood, and to children in school u ntil age 21. For injuries occurring after Oct. 1,1975, benefits shall on Oct. 1, 1976, and each Oct. 1, thereafter be adjusted according to a specified form ula tying them to the State’s average weekly wage. Effective Oct. 1, 1975, the maximum percentage of wages used in computing benefits for a widow only will be 50; a lump sum of 2 yr benefits w ill be payable to a surviving spouse upon remarriage; the maxim um weekly payment will be $135; and the total maximum of $40,000 w ill be eliminated.
n In addition , lump-sum payment at death of wo rker: In Mississippi, $250 to widows; in North Dakota, $300 to widow and $100 for each dependent child; in Washington, $800.

»o M ississippi: Law provides for a total maximum recovery of $23,500 for an injury to, or death of, 

an employee, or any combination thereof.

New Hampshire: Benefits set in accordance with a “ wage and compensation schedule," up to 

average weekly wage of $138 (m aximum payable $92). If employee’s average weekly wage is over $138, compensation shall be 6635 percent of such wage, not to exceed 100 percent of State's average weekly wage rounded to nearest dollar.

 New Jersey: Any earnings from employment by the widow after 450 weeks of compensation have 

been paid shall be deducted from the compensation thereafter payable to her.

J’ New Mexico: Effective Jan. 1,1976, maximum weekly benefits will be 6635 percent of the State’s 

average weekly wage; July 1, 1976,78 percent; July 1,1977,89 percent; and July 1,1978,100 percent. 

The to tal maxim um will be an amount equa to 600 multiplied by the maximum weekly compensation 

payable at the tim e of injury.

»« North Carolina: Effective Oct. 1,1975, benefits will be 100 percent o f the State's average weekly 

wage.

” Rhode Island: Effective Sept. 1,1975, maximum weekly benefits w ill be 100 percent of the State's 

average weekly wage.

» Texas: Each additional $10 increase in the average weekly wage for manufacturing production 

workers, as determined annually, will increase the maximum weekly benefit by $7, and the minimum 

by $1 per week.

” Utah: After 312 weeks, benefits are payable from special fund for duration of dependency.

» Vermont: Benefits payable to widows un til death; but in no event shall benefits be paid for less 

than the lim it of compensation except in case of her death.

J’ V irg inia: The total maximum amount payable shall be the resuit of m ultiplyin g the State's average 

weekly wage for the applicable year by 500. Benefits shall be increased by cost-of-living adjustments 

for those who receive, under the Workers’ Compensation Act and the Federal Old-age, Survivors and 

Disab ility Act, less than 80 percent of the decedent’s average monthly wage if death occurred on or 

afte r Jmy 1, 1975. Such cost-of-living adjustments shall be determined according to increases as indicated in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor annually.

” Washington: For injuries occurring on or after July 1, 1975, a specified form ula provides for an 

annual adjustm ent of benefits.

« Wisconsin: Add itional benefits payable from children’s fund to the widow for chil Iren under 16 

years of age (13 percent of the widow's benefit is the weekly or monthly allowance made for each dependent child), or for children over 16 if mentally or physically incapacitated.

» Wyoming: Lump sum of $500 payable from balance of award upon remarriage. After original 

award ($25,000) has been paid in full, payments may continue for life under specified cond itions at a maxim um rate of )5 of ine State’s average monthly wage ($56 per week). As to the allowance for 

the children, the law states there shall be credited to the account of each such child a lump sum equivalent to $60 per month un til the tim e when each of said children would become 19 yr of age; 

provided th at the lu mp sum credited to the account of all said children shall in no case exceed $20,000. 

The total maximum of $45,000 shown on the table includes the $20,000.

a FECA means Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 8101-8150). LS/HWCA means 

Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. 991-950).

M Federal employees: Based on 75 percent of the pay of specified grade levels in the Federal 

civ il service.

i—*8
130

A ppen dix 2

o | * y . <

. _ • j « . . r

r

< k j - j a j

T.??J

..'. 1 . .-iJ

S 3 r '■

T ; r

r i 'J

J . » I

;. j t s J J

; -aU /vOsI

saa

is^e.u

, i3 * f c

. * b u w .3 • • ■s.k . ,<h£/jti

. ,L : , - . .- ■

flNALYSJS 

I f i i S s s b . OF W O R XM ’S

-...*5^-— 7 - r r ■ * * £ • ;? • • /*73 

Ls&sk'S.-/ •:., i'.-- ■, .• V

• :5

^ l k - , ’ :-A ~ ;

3 •>

LAWS

«• • - i '

i . Jj

X t 3 t . i l SS£ 

i xw j ? -«■ 1 •” ■'■ J *5 ^ ; l & r h ' J

i r

- -3 - • I

,

.’ J ’

. J

<4•?.••' ‘ ■* i '• • * • > « '

PREPARED AND PUBLISHED ANNU ALLY BY THE CH AM BER OF CO MM ERCE OF THE UNITED STAT ES

A

t
FOREW ORD

This Analysis of Workmen's Compensation Laws is a ready reference to the statutory 

provisions of the laws of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto 

Rico and the Canadian provinces. It outlines, briefly, important provisions of workmen's compensation and is intended to provide both a comparison and an improved 

understanding of the various laws.

Fourteen detailed charts are presented to aid employers, employees, insurance 

firms, agents, brokers and others in locating specific provisions of workm en's compensation laws.

Although the Analysis provides essential information needed daily in many business offices, it should not be considered as supplanting exact provisions to be found 

in statutory texts and law digests.

The underlying data required to bring together this publication was supplied by the 

American Insurance Association, insurance companies and governmental officials in 

the several states and other jurisdictions. The legal research, analysis and editing of 

the charts was furnished by Abraham Farkas, Consultant and member of the New 

York Bar.

Additional assistance came from other sources, including the casualty insurance 

industry, the U.S. Department of Labor and the Social Security Administration. U.S. 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

All contributions to this publication are gratefully acknowledged.

Arch N. Booth 

President

Chamber o f Commerce of the United States
132

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OF WORKMEN'S 

COMPENSATION and 

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY

Workmen 5 compensation laws are designed to provide 

saiisfactor. means of handling occupational disabilities. 

As a 20th Century development in the United States, the 

laws have evolved as the economy became more industrial and 'ess agricultural.

Before these laws were enacted a well-established common-law principle held that a master or employer was 

responsible for injury or death of employees resulting 

from a negligent act by him. Thus disabled workers who 

sued emp'oyees for damages had to prove their injuries 

were due to employer negligence—a slow, costly, uncertain legal process. As business enterprise and machine 

production expanded, the number of industrial accidents 

and pe-sc-'al-injury suits increased. At the close of the 

19th Century it was apparent that the accepted commonlaw defenses—contributory negligence, assumption of 

risk, neg' gent acts of fellow servants—operated too 

harshly on claims of disabled workers. This situation led 

to demands for new legal provisions.

.As a result, between 1990 and 1910 so-called employer's 

Ila: I n. s were adopted by many states. Although they 

tended to_modify/common-law defenses, in effect they 

did not p-ove completely satisfactory; employees still had 

to prove employe* responsibility and negligence. Other 

legal remedies were urged.

A new answer was forthcoming: In 1911 the first workmen's compensation laws were enacted in the United 

States c-

 art enduring basis.

Toda-, each of the 30 states has a workmen's compensat on. law. The workmen's compensation laws of Guam 

a*: Pus-to Rico are also outlined in this "Analysis." Federa' workmen's compensation laws have been enacted; 

fc- example, the Workmen's Compensation Law of the 

□ strict of Columbia the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. and the U.S. Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act—the latter providing for private 

cr pub ': employees in nationwide maritime work. Each 

cf the Canadan Provinces has a compensation act.

Ip. essence, workmen's compensation laws hold that 

industrial employers should assume costs of occupational

disabilities—witho ut regard to any fault involved. Resulting economic losses are considered costs of production 

—chargeable, to the extent possible, as a price factor. The 

laws serve to relieve employers of liability from commonlaw suits involving negligence.

Six basic objectives underlie workmen's compensation 

laws; they:

1— Provide sure, prompt and reasonable income and 

medical benefits to work-accident victims, or income 

benefits to their dependents, regardless of fault;

2— Provide a single remedy and reduce court delays, 

costs and work loads—arising out of personal-injury 

litigation;

3— Relieve public and private charities of financial 

drains—incident to uncompensated industrial accidents;

4— Eliminate payment of fees to lawyers and witnesses 

as well as time-consuming trials and appeals;

5— Encourage maximum employer interest in safety and 

rehabilitation — through appropriate experience-rating 

mechanism; and

6— Promote frank study of causes of accidents (rather 

than concealment of fault)— reducing preventable accidents and human suffering.

To what extent have the laws achieved desired objectives? Answers to this vary from state to state and depend on many factors including the viewpoint of the 

appaiser.

However, a 1972 evaluation by the National Commission on State Workmen's Compensation Laws concluded 

that state laws were not living up to their potential. Despite this negative assessment the Commission was convinced that workmen's compensation is a fundamentally 

sound system and a valued institution in our industrial 

economy.

The constructive criticism rendered by the Commission 

gave new impetus to the development and growth of 

workmen's compensation laws and these laws now enjoy 

a more prominent role w ithin the social insurance system 

of the United States.
133

intr odu ction / GENERAL INFORM ATION

This analysis of workmen's compensation laws attempts 

to provide a ready reference to the statutory provisions 

found in the laws of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Canadian provinces.

!n the tollowing pages, 14 charts w ill be found grouped 

under three categories:

• Coverage o f Laws wherein the various requirements 

for determining what employments, injuries and diseases are listed (Part I);

• Benefits Provided wherein the required income replacement benefits and medical benefits are to be 

found (Part II);

• Administration o i Laws wherein the many administrative requirements and safeguards are grouped (Part 

III).

COMMENTS ON CHARTS

Complete to December 31,1974, the charts on the following pages present the statutory provisions of the workme~ s compensation laws as amended. The effects of 

man. decsions—b\ courts and administrative agencies— 

ha.e been taken into account in interpreting these laws.

Aii provisions presented by the charts in this booklet 

he .e required study and interpretation to reduce them to 

t'_ e brief statement? *ound in the charts. In some cases 

spate cces not perm'* sufficient explanation to clarify all 

points. 'n such cases it is suggested that the text of the 

'e-*. should be examined.

CANADIAN WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION EAWS 

Canadian government employees are compensated under 

pr p.'sio“ S of the Government Employees Compensation 

Act adm nistered b\ the Department of Labor. Compensation as paid by the Canadian government, the amount 

be ng determined by the provincial Workmen's Compensat on Board; pay ment is in accord with the Workmen's 

Compensation Act o f the Province in which the employee 

is usual:*, employed.

~'3 »e Canadian government and private employees 

*a- . ng n the Northwest Territories may receive compe -- = tion under the provisions of the new Workers' 

Cc -sensation Ordinance effective October 1. 1974. In 

v.ew of this arrangement, the charts do not include the 

Canadian Government Compensation Act but do cover 

or ::e employments.

RECENT CHANCES IN STATE LAWS 

Th-t ag -latures of forty-three states and Congress, convened m session during 1974.

Ina .' over one hund'ed-fifty laws were enacted covering 

a m.-.st every phase of workmen’s compensation, such as

increasing benefits, coverage, reducing waiting periods, 

increasing medical care and improving administration of 

the laws. Undoubtedly, much of the legislation enacted 

was a result of the impact of the recommendations of the 

National Commission accompanied by the caveat that in 

the event the states failed to improve their laws so as to 

insure an adequate, prompt and equitable workm en's 

compensation system, it may become necessary to enact 

federal legislation requiring minimum standards.

Benefits: Indemnity benefits were increased in forty-two 

states this year. Of that number, thirty states now provide 

for the automatic adjustment of benefits, annually, based 

upon the state average weekly wage. In thirty-three states, 

the maximum weekly benefit now equals or exceeds 

66’/j% of the average weekly wage for temporary total 

disability cases while nine states moved to 100%.

Medical Care: In forty-nine jurisdictions, formerly fortyeight, medical care is unlimited. In four states the benefits 

are limited as follo ws: Alabama. $35,000; Louisiana, $25,- 

000; New Mexico, $40,000 and Tennessee limits the duration of such benefits to three years. Kansas moved to unlimited care.

Broad Coverage of Occupational Diseases: Broad coverage of occupational diseases is now provided in fifty 

jurisdictions, an increase from forty-nine. The following 

three states still retain a schedule of covered diseases: 

Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Kansas dropped its 

schedule approach.

Compulsory Coverage: Forty-eight jurisdictions now provide for compulsory coverage under the workmen's compensation law instead of forty-one. Coverage is still elective 

in five states.

Numerical Exemptions: The number of states providing 

for numerical exemptions o f employees was reduced from 

fourteen to twelve. Two states eliminated numerical exemptions completely. Georgia reduced the number of 

exempted employees from four to two, Missouri from six 

to four and South Carolina from five to three.

NEXT EDITION OF THE ANALYSIS OF 

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS 

Forty-nine state legislatures and Congress convene in

1975. Undoubtedly, there will be numerous changes in 

many workmen's compensation laws. A complete revision 

of this volume will be printed annually. The 1976 edition 

will be available in March 1976. It will reflect changes 

made in workmen's compensation laws up to January 1,

1976.
134

par t , / COVERAGE OF LAWS

A basic and oft repeated objective of workmen's compensation on which there is broad agreement is that coverage under the acts should be virtually, if not completely 

universal. For various historical, political, economic or 

administrative reasons no state law covers all forms of 

employment.

Most of the reasons put forth against extension of coverage have lost their force, and in recent years the percentage of covered workers has begun to increase noticeably. Charts I through III delineate the statutory employment coverage requirements.

Another basic objective for workmen's compensation is 

to provide compensation for all work-related injuries and 

diseases. Note that workmen's compensation does not 

seek to cover all worker health problems. To make this 

distinction, fairly uniform statutory' definitions and tests 

have been adopted in each state. Typically the statute 

limits compensation benefits to "personal injury caused 

by accident arising out of and in the course of employment."

Although the test is fairly uniform, its interpretation has 

not resulted in completely uniform coverage of injuries 

and diseases. The most troublesome area in this regard 

has been the coverage of occupational diseases. Initially, 

this problem was remedied by providing coverage for 

specific occupational diseases. With advances in medical 

technology and increased exposures to a growing number 

of substances with a variety o f physical stresses, it became 

impractical to define work-related diseases by specific 

enumeration. Most states have therefore amended their 

statutes to provide full coverage of occupational diseases. 

Chart IV portrays the status of the laws on this point. 

CHART I: TYPE OF LAW

Compensation laws are compulsory or elective. Under an 

elective law, the employer may accept or reject the act, 

but if he rejects it he loses the three common-law defenses—assumption of risk, negligence of fello w employees and contributory negligence. Practically, this 

means that all the laws, in effect, are "compulsory." A 

compulsory law requires each employer within its scope 

to accept its provisions and provide for benefits specified. 

Suits for Damages—Under workmen's compensation acts 

emplovers generally are exempted from damage suits, 

'.'.here an employee rejects the act, and sues an employer 

who has accepted it, the employer usually retains the 

three common-law defenses. Conditions for rejection of 

the act often are so severe as to make the privilege virtuallv inoperative.

CHART I: INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 

Security for Payment of Benefits—Most jurisdictions require employers to obtain insurance or prove financial 

2C''i‘y to carry their own risk.

Chart I notes provisions relating to (1) insurance requirements; (2) penalties for failure to insure; and (3) 

whether self-insurance is permitted.

Six states and all Provinces require employers to insure 

in a monopolistic State or Provincial fund; in some instances, employers may qualify as self-insurers. Twelve 

states permit employers to purchase insurance either from 

a competitive state fund or private insurance company. 

Five of the six monopolistic state funds were created between 1913 and 1915, when the principles of workmen's 

compensation were still new.

The Chamber o f Commerce of the United States advocates that employers be permitted to buy private insurance if they so desire and that employers who can qualify 

be allowed to be self-insurers. Chamber policy states:

"Insurance is an integral part of private enterprise. 

Insurance should not be regarded as a function to be 

carried on by the government, and insurance monopolies 

carried on by governmentally created entities should not 

be permitted."

Self-Insurers—Some large corporations prefer to assume 

liab ility for workmen’s compensation and avoid administrative costs associated w ith insurance policies.

Self-insurance operates best when an employer has a 

spread of risks so large that he may benefit from the law 

of large numbers. It is necessary and desirable that the 

self-insurer establish his own protective services—similar 

to those insurance companies would furnish for safety 

engineering and claims adjustment. Also, the self-insurer 

may have to retain attorneys and doctors to handle problems incident to claims, medical and legal services.

Self-insurance is permitted in 47 states—as shown in 

Chart I.

Employers may set up a reserve fund for self-insurance 

to pay compensation and other benefits under the workmen's compensation act of the states. Contrary to the 

treatment accorded insurance premiums, amounts paid 

into this reserve fund are not deductible from gross income as a business expense for income tax purposes. 

However, amounts paid out—as cash or medical benefits 

—are deductible.

In many cases insurance is purchased because such 

purchase can dispose of the item of expense and future 

cost in the current year.

CHART II: PRIVATE AND PUBLIC EMPLOYMENTS

Virtually all industrial employment is covered by workmen's compensation—as Chart II shows in detail; also 

it indicates the extent of coverage for public employment.

Some jurisdictions cover all private employment; others exempt those with less than a stipulated number of 

employees. Most jurisdictions specifically exclude certain 

employments Due to nature of the work, farm labor, 

domestic servants and casual employees usually are ex-
135

cepted. Most jurisdictions permit employees in an exempted class tobe brought in voluntarily by the employer 

or by Board order.

Many jurisdictions provide workmen's compensation 

for all or certain classes of public employees.

CHART III: MINORS

Minors are covered by workmen's compensation. However, in some jurisdictions double compensation or added 

penalties are provided—as shown in Chart III. In many 

states minors also enjoy special legal benefit provisions. 

These are specifically noted for each state.

Injuries Outside the Jurisdiction— Frequently, when a 

worker's occupation takes him into another jurisdiction 

questions arise as to which law determines compensation 

payable. In effect, most compensation laws are extraterritorial—either by specific provisions o r court decision. 

Answers depend on provisions of the particular laws involved and require consideration of circumstances—such 

as place and nature of employment, place where contract 

was made, employee's residence and employer's place 

of business.

Civil Defense and Other Volunteers— Many states have 

laws to compensate civil defense and other volunteer 

workers (as firemen) injured in line of duty. Attention 

is called to these laws, but no attempt is made to chart 

their provisions.

CHART IV: OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

Although workmen's compensation laws initia lly had no 

specific provisions for occupational diseases, now all 

states recognize responsibility for them. Coverage varies 

— depending partly on the need and pertinency of occupational disease previsions.

Chart IV outlines occupational disease coverage available in each jurisdiction. Generally, compensation is the 

same as for disabilities noted in Chart V.

Occupational diseases usually become evident during 

employment or soon after exposure. However, as with 

radiation disabilities, the disease may be latent for considerable time. As Chart IV notes, many states have extended periods in which claims may be filed concerning 

certain latent, slowly developing occupational diseases.

Some states impose special restrictions regarding silicosis. asbestosis. radiation disability and occupational loss 

of hearing due to noise (prolonged exposure cases).

Two equally important problems in the occupational 

disease field are determining (1) what diseases should be 

covered by law and (2) how hazards leading to them may 

be reduced. By combining medical and engineering techniques much progress has been made. This approach requires determinations of the significance o f health hazards 

involved and the design of controls to keep exposures 

below safety levels established by medical research.

Working independently or with insurance carriers' 

safety engineers, employers may eliminate many occupational disease hazards. In the development of many new 

materials and processes, constant vigilance is required of 

both engineers and doctors. Their cooperation has conS

tributed outstandingly to solutions of many occupational 

disease problems.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

A. Accident Prevention—The encouragement o f safety is 

another basic objective of workmen's compensation. The 

effort to reduce the frequency and severity of workrelated injuries is accomplished in at least two ways.

First, the workmen's compensation program provides 

employers w ith preventive services, including safety engineering. This role is assumed by casualty insurance carriers, state funds and safety agencies, and employers. 

A second general role is to provide a monetary incentive 

to employers to improve their safety records. Here the 

insurance premium structure is a primary force.

Costs of accident-prevention services are included in 

workmen's compensation insurance premiums. Casualty 

insurance engineers help in setting up accident prevention programs of continuing benefit. Benefits are found in 

lower insurance rates, increased production efficiency and 

better use of manpower. Of course, the greatest beneficiaries are those kept from industrial accidents through 

applications of effective loss-prevention engineering 

methods.

B. National Rate Administrative Bureau—Premium rates 

for workmen's compensation insurance are compiled 

scientifically. Accident experience throughout the nation's 

industry and business is collected by an agency recognized by all insurance carriers and state fund administrators in the U.S. This agency—the National Council on 

Compensation Insurance—operates in most states. It grew 

out of a 1915 conference which agreed that rate making 

for compensation insurance could not be handled by 

each state separately. The states that maintain independent agencies cooperate w ith the Council in making rates. 

The Council's manual rates generally are a basis for compensation rates charged by stock and mutual companies.

Member companies of the Council report experience 

incurred under workmen's compensation policies. This 

experience serves as a basis for workmen's compensation 

rate determinations in accord with a standard nationwide 

rate-making procedure approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

The National Council's basic manual is standard with all 

insurance companies. It sets forth Council rules, procedures and rates applicable to workmen's compensation 

insurance. Where statutes provide for rate regulation by 

a state supervising authoritv, revised compensation rates 

and supporting data are filed annually with it; often, 

public hearings are held before rates are revised. The 

supervising authority must approve the rates carriers 

charge. All states now provide for rate regulation by state 

authority. In Canada rates are in the form of an assessment—established by each Provincial Compensation Board 

annually by class of risk.

As set forth in the Council's manual, compensation 

rates are based on payroll. Usually only an estimated 

premium is collected when the policy is written. After 

the policy expires, a payroll audit is required. The actual 

premium is then figured and adjustments made.
CHART I TYPE OF LAW AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS January 1,1975

r '

xw tsoicn oM TYPE O F LA W IN S U R A N C E SELF- IN S U R A N C E P E N A L T IE S O N F A IL U R E T O IN SU R E

ALAEJU rf A* Cor rx xiHor y. R s c v o d . Pe rm itt ed . Fine o f not le u th en $2 5 nor more th en $ 100 0. Em ploy er m ey be en jo in ed f ro m d ongb oein ee e en d liable to eu lt 

w it h defens e* ebrogeted end d ou ble am ou nt of comp en satio n.

A L A S K A Com puHcry . R aou*a d. F ^ m R - d . S I .0 00 fine. y ear Imprison men t or b oth . Common la w dafans as io d amage suit abrogate d. Preaum ptiost th at in ju ry 

la pr oxi m at e taau lt of neg ligence of em pl oye r. I I a cor po ra tion , pan ona In charge shaM b a p ereo na tty Mabie fo r 

pay m an t o f comp en satio n.

A R IZ O N A Com pu lsory. Req uire d. Pw mirtw d. Em plo yar liable to suit w it h defenses abrog ate d: 1 0 * p en alty of aw ar d, expenses and attorn ey 's foes: aw ard p aM 

fr om Special Fund; inju nctio n against do ing busineta in state.

A M KA NSAS Co mpu lsory. Req uire d. Pe rm itt ed . $6 0 0 fine or 1 ye ar im pr ison men t, or b oth ; am pioy ar liable to suit w it h defen ses abrogaaad.

C A U F C 0 M C A Com pel »ory. Req uired. Pwrmittwd. Misdeme anor. O n con tin uan ce o f Nonc om plianc a fo r 30 days , m and ato ry lin o of $3 00 . Com pa na at tan sssay b a b iir m id 

1 0 * . Em plo ya r lia ble also to auit w it h dafansas abrog atad a nd m ay ba e njoine d fr om doin g bours es A m o u n t o f 

prem iums at if Insured aasaamd aa pen alty pay able to U ninsured Employ er s Fund.

C O L O R A D O Elec tiv e. Ropux sd . Pw m it w d. Co mpensation Increased 5 0 * or em pl oye r lia ble to au it w ith dafansas a brog atad (at option o f erss pioyee). Esrpfcsysr 

ma y alto ba en joined f ro m d oing business.

Connecticut Ccm pu isor y. As qu irs d. L Permitt ed . Fine o l not mor e than $100; am pioya r lia ble to suit w ithin 1 ye ar (defenses s hm gaw d l

3 D t u m u i C om puhory . Req uired . Per mittad. Fine o f 10 cants par day pa r em ploy ee (m ax im um $ 9 0. m in im um $ 1 pa r day ); i f defau lt c o n tin u e fo r 9 0 days a m pfoy ar ma y be enjoined f ro m doing business. Em plo yar liable to s uit w it h defe nses abrogated.

J ots nucro F

COLUM BUS

Com puxx xy. P-oqusrvd. Farm i trad. Fine o f not more th an $ 1 0 0 0 or 1 ye ar im prison men t or b oth .

" F L O R ID A Co mpu iaory. i Req uire d. Farm! ttad. Fine o f not more th an $ 9 0 0 or not m ore than 1 ye ar imprison men t, or b o th ; am pi oya r lia ble t o auit w it h defen ses 

abroga ted , and m ay ba e njoine d from doing business.

C e O M G U l Com pu Ho ry- ' Req uire d. Fto n it ta d . Misdeme anor. Co mp ensatio n m ay alt o b a increased 1 0 * plus a ttorn ey 's fees.

* SV 1A M Co mpu lso ry. Rao uirsd. N ot per m itt ed . Misdem eano r, fine o f not m ore than S I.0 0 0 o r im prison men t f o r n ot m ore t ha n on e y ea r, or b o th .

' M A M A II C o n o u it o ry ! R w ju im d. Pe rm itt ed . $ 2 6 o r $ t per em ploy ee p er d ay d uring defa u lt , which ever it gree ter. In ju nction against business in th e S tate .

!O A M O Co mpu lsory. ; Re qu ire d. Pe rm itt ed . Misdem eanor. Em plo yar also liib le to pen alty o f St par d ay par em pl oye e, en d m ay ba e njoine d fr o m d oin g busine ss 

after 3 0 days def au lt. Fo r defa ult in prem iums to S tate fund, pen alty la $1 pur da y per em pl oye e, e nd p olic y m ay be 

cance led a fter 3 0 day s def au lt.

Illinois Com pu Ho ry. • Rso uirad . Pe rm itt ed . Fin e o f $ 1 0 0 to $ 5 0 0 f or each day's d efau lt.

X L V A A Com pu iaor y. i Req uire d. Pe rm itt ed . Fin e o f $ 5 0 t o $ 5 00 .

!C V tA Com pu lsor y. ! Raq uu/w l Pe rm itt ed . Em plo ya r lia ble to su it w ith defenses a brogate d an d pres um ption of neg ligence o f a m pioy ar. In coa l m in in g, em plo ye r la lia ble to p en alty o f S I 0 to S I 0 0 pe r d ay a nd m ay b a en joined f ro m fu rther no ncom plianca.

Co rro uhort . Se cu irod . Per mitted. Em plo ya r liable to s uit w ith dafansas abrogatad .

- - — - — •—
+ * a f

v t j c x y • Cs»-ouJ»sr». Aeouaed.

. . . . ..

Fermi ned. Employer liable to w it with Oefeniei abrogated. Ma .itnum fine $ 50 0 o r , year imprijonment or both

-^ -A F A S A FeC* W. <n Fermit’ed. 1 2 * pena'ty and attorn ey-! lee! for collection of claim.

U X jX e 5 c '-s «.t e-* M CLHC. Fermirred. Pine o f $ 1,000 or one y M ' impriionment. or both Employer liable to w it with def er iei abrogated.

M A» Y^XHD * “ Ccmpukac*y. Feov^ ed.

t Fermitted.* Pine of 55 00 to 55 .000 and/or imprnonment for not more than 1 year. Additional penalty lor failure to comply w ith Cottim u -o n i order! amounting to 6 month ! inwrance premium!. Employer alto l.abie to w it w ith d«f «n t*t abrogated. Other in wre n aueued to pay unpaid c laim ! of insolvent inw re r/ Fm e of $15 0 and 15% penalty on award payable to Uninsured Employers Fund.

m a s s a - - J S r r r s CcrXA.oory. Fso-nred. Fermitted. Fine of not more then S50C or .morisonment for not more then t year. or both, employer laabte to is .it with defenses abrogated.

M IC — 5A% Cc*“Ou sc-r *-eov«r»d- Fermi: ted. Fine of $1 0 to S1C0 or imprisonment for 30 days to 6 months, or both.

W IV U IS C TA Cc—C-- AST.. _-ecu'*eC. P«irnin»O. Pine of $50. For continued noncomplianee there it an additional penalty of 5 timet lawful p rem ium lor period o f noncomplience, plut a penalty o f 53% or compensation award.

W IS E iC .’ * ’ Cc*-©u:«e*r. = td - -UC Fermitted. Pine up to $1300 or one year imprisonment or both. Employer also liable to w it with del an u t abrogated.

W S S ? .» ; Ce_ ou ite *». Fermitted. Employer liable to suit with defenses abrogated.

W C -V A S A ~ * C

-txxJsc*"* F ee- rec. Fermitted. On default ol payment of pre miu m to State fund am ployw liable to w it with defame! ebrogatnd; alto may be charged 25% over e itet lu ntd rate. Right to inwrance in State fund may be canceled within 60 days. Failure of employer to provide security, fine o’ $ 10 0 to $5 00 or imprisonment for not lets than 6 months. or both.

% 23 XA$< A Co meu so ’y -♦ a . n o . Fermitted. Employer liable to suit with defenses abrogated. 51.00 0 fine max.. T yr. imprisonment or both, may be enjoined from doing business.

v t . a x a Ce'-e u'*? '-, ®-eov red m

S n> hand.

Not permitted. Employer liable to w it with defenses abrogated end may be enjoined from doing busmest.

h « A -A W P $ » M _vc*"©u sc*y. »eo .r ec. Fermitted. Fine of $1 00 for each day of fa*«u»e to keep evidence of financial ability on file.

* e * j e » s r r Rgc uty c. 1

,

Fermitted. Employer liable to w it with d e 'e 'i n abrogated. Mudemeanor. punithe».ie by • line of not more tl un SlOCO or not more then 6 0 days impriionrr.ent or both, plut S25 lor each 10 d jy period but not more than $1C3 at any one t v t * Also assessment of S I5 0 plus 15 1 of award up to a 1500 pry able to Uninsured Employers Fund.

v s * t . 's r c o Ci*-C u,sory. F.eiv *eo Permitted. Fine of not more then SI CO) Emp’c /e r may he en;o»ned from doing bonnets

v r * » 5 * < CorrOulSCry. s eou.rec. Fermitted. Fine of not more lh»** SSOO or irrpn zjnm en t for not more than 1 year, or both. Employer liable to suit with cor laws special defenses ahroga*ed Additional h ne of SSO if uninsured for lets than 10 days

k C flT n C AA OC M . ! Ccrr«-,»so-y. Fermitted. Misdemeanor. punishjb'e by fine o f IGd pe« day per employee (maximum S50 0 0. minimum $1 per d ay ), imposonmenr Or both. Employer li ib lf to suit with common Ijw defenses abroad’»d.

Oeciw * rC‘C > m a y n ot t t .*eo.»*e2 13 I*O r*3 e •r^. .-3« > or security. ‘ Workmen's CcmpenuT’On Co^ mny ofl may require insurance against catastrophe. other thun w x . »-pe?x. :? - . r m j s • •q . red .: > > .* • :< A 13 o* ’ •l iim um liability ’ Officers and o th e 'e ’ eeul.ves included as employees «f insurance purchase but may be excluded. '. y ’•* -*«*rrs .-■ e~e y e te i-Pe* !. ‘ Conecuh County autho r'ied to establish workmens compensation fund ftx rrs employees and off«e »; !? 9* 7) . ’ " v m *• ru es, cor-ce<y &r assoc 41 on re c. -e c. L*> cye*s o* farm workers not required to Insure.
CHART I □ TYPE OF LAW AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS □ January 1, 1975 (c o ntin ued)

JU RISDICTION TYPE OF LAW INSURANCE SELF- INS URANCE PE NA LT IES ON FAILURE TO IN SURE

NORTH DA KO TA Compulsory Required in

State fund.

Not permitted. Misdemeanor punishable by S500 line, 1 year imprisonment or both. Uninsured employer liable lor damaue or 

injuries or death and cannot avail himself of common law defense. Employer may be enjoined proh.Oinn^ m from 

employing uninsured workers.

OHIO Compulsory. Requ.*«d in

State fund.

Permitted. Fine of not more than $500. and if willful, imprisonment for not more than 90 days. Employ** may be e^.o-ned from 

doing business. Employer is also liable to suit with defenses abrogated.

OKLA HOMA Compulsory. Required Permitted. Penalty of Si per day per employee. Employer liable to suit with defenses abrogated.

OREGON Compulsory. Required. Permitted. Employer is liable to suit with defenses abrogated. Enjoined from hiring workmen. Fine of S?50 plus $25 per day administrative costs and legal fees, and fines up to S5.000 based on type of injury.

PE NNSYLV ANIA Compulsory. Rscu*ed . Permitted. Fine of $50 0 to $2,000 per day or not more than 1 year imprisonment, or both. Employe* liable to suit w«th defenses abrogated.

PU ER TO RICO Compulsory A«qu red m Territorial Fund. Not permitted. Misdemeanor, fine of $25 to $1,000. or imprisonment for not more than 6 months or both. F "ployer i.ab*e to suit with defenses abrogated. Penalty 30% o f compensation minimum $10.00.

RHOOE ISLA ND Compu'sory. Required. Permitted. Fine of not more than $100; employer liable to suit with defenses abrogated.

SO UTH CAROLINA Elective. Required. Permitted. Fine of 10 cents per day per employee (maximum S50, minim um $1 per day); if default continres fo* 30 d*vs employer may be enjoined from doing business. Employer liable to suit with defenses abrogated.

SO UT H DAKOTA Compulsory. Requ-red. Permitted. Employer liable to tuit with defenses abrogated. Alto, double compensation and medical care as demagee

TENNESSEE Compulsory Ptc w ra d. Permitted. Fine of $10 to $100 and after conviction, fine of $1 to S10 for each day of non-compliance Employe* s'so liable to su«t with defenses abrogated.

TEXA S Elective. Required. Not permitted. Employer liable to suit with defenses abrogated Motor bus certificate may be revok'd on failure to insure.

UTA H Compulsory. Requred. Permitted. Fine of $10 to $10 0 or imprisonment of 3 0 days to C months or both. Employer a'so liable to suit w it h dsfen tes abrogated. Also, costs and attorney’s fees in civil suit.

VE RMONT Co mpu *o ry Recu*red. Permitted. For failure to provide security for 30 days after notice by Commissioner. emo}oyer liable to fine of not mc*e than $25 per day after first 30 days. Employer liable to suit w ith de* antes abrogated

V IR G IN IA Compuno-y. Required. Permitted. Fine $50 per day per employee (maximum $1,000, minimum $5 0 pe-* day). Employer liab*e to suit with defenses abrogated

WAS HING TO N

—

Compulsory.

■ ■— - —— — -

Requ-red m

State f«nd.

Permitted. Fine of $25 to $ 10 0 per day plus 50% of cost of claim On default of premium, employer is liable to penalty of 23 % of premiums in default, and may be required to furnish double bond. In addition, employer may be enjoined 5 o o do-ng 

business.

WEST V IR G IN IA Comtx..scoy Recused in

S*a:e fund.

Permitted. Employs* liable to suit with defenses abrogated.

WISCONSIN Compulscry. Required. Per-Turted. Fine o* $10 to $100 or imprisonment from 30 days to 6 months, e* both . Each day is a separate offense. Employer may t e restrained from employing any person pending compliance.

WY OM ING Ccmpuisory Required in 

, State fund.

Not pe.mined Fine of not more than $500, plus 10% of premiums due. Employer may also be enjoined from doing business. Tn<<t 

is an adc tional penalty for coal mining opera’ors of double the prem ium due.

*
fed era l

ev fioye es -

COMP EN SA TION

AC T

Zomounory fn fund.

/

— ........... ' ■ - 1

LO NG SH OR EM EN 'S

ANO HA RB OR

WOR KE R'S A CT

Comouieonv Requ red.

i

Permitted. Fine of not more then Si 00 0 or t year in prison or both for failure to secure payment o f compeosa'ipn.

ALB ERTA Compuiycry. 1 K « q -- W in

Srsa *’j<xL

No t permitted. For failure to notify Board within 10 days after ttertihg operar.ons or lo r failure to submit statement or wages or f > non-payment of assessments. employer liable for such percentage penalty as Board may establish. May be en.^n ed from continuing operations.'

BRITIS H C OLU MBIA Comou>scry. Reou red m

,

t Suet fund.

No t permitted. Failure to comply with provisionsof Part 1 o f A ct Penalty not exceeding $ 500 . Failure to pay assessments pn due date-Penalry set by Bocrd. Uninsured employers liable for full amount or cap*rt*ced value of any incurred compensation during default.

MANITOBA Com pulicxy.

■ ' 1 RaQuirec in State Snd . Not permitted. Failure to submit statement of wages upon commencing operations or at other required ti m «m a«m u m Peru.’ry $5 00 Failure to pay assessment, employer liable for percentage penalty to be established by Board plus penalty 2"V> f sr each » half month for period of default?

NEW BRUNSW ICK

V.

Compulsory. Racu red ;n

State fund.

Not permitted. Failure to submit statement of wages upon commencing operations or at o th x required times-rneaimvm penalty $SOC. • Failure to pey assessment, employer liable for percentage penalty to be eetab’ s*»rd by Board but not td exceed »ZX per year.

NEW FO UNDLA ND CompuiSOry R ecu*red in

State *und.

t il Failure to submit statement of wages upon operating—maximum fine o< S500 P»us penalties. Percent tge penahy on failure to pay.

NOVA SC OT IA Compulsory. R«Ouu«j <n

Sea:* fund. ______________________ No t permitted. Failure to pay assessment, employer may be enjoined from operating and I-able fo r percentage penalty to be established by Board. Board has power to establish for all violations of the act.

O NTARIO Compuh<xy. Required in

State fund.*

Not permitted. Failure io submit statement of wages upon commencing operations and at other required t-.Tws—penM ry $5 00 liability fur additional percentage of assessment and costs of claim at discretion of Board.

PRINCE EOWA RO

ISLA ND

Compulsory. Recused in

State fund?

Not permitted. Failure to report payroll or pay js im m tn i *ubj*ct to penal'y of S '00 lor t * h rreeL ol defau lt, plue percentage penalty.

QUEBEC Compulsory. Req u’eo in

State fund?

Not permitted. Failure Io submit ttatem ant o l wages upon commencing operaiiont or at other required tim ot—mo».'r-wn »m« SSQft.

Failure to pay assessrr.tnt. employer liable lor percentage penalty to be ettabl shod by Board and a>u> a I o l not over $1 00 per day.

SA SK AT CH EW AN Ccmpuliory.

■

Requ red in

State fund. ______________________ Not permitted. Failure to submit statement of wages upon commencing operations or at other required tim es-ma«imum fine SSO0. Failure to pay assenment, employer liable for percentage penalty to be establ.shed by Board and may be en/>.«seo from operating.

CANADIA N

MER CHANT

SE AM AN 'S A CT

Coinpulsory. R-sks must be

covered by

•nsurance or

other means.

At discretion

of Board. Failure to insure or cover by other means satisfactory to the Board may cause sh.p to be detained by Customs.

In ecJU'tion mutt pay one-bait the co ttt of compensation of tr y i-curred compensation for

accidents happening during default not exceed -wj a maximum of from S350 to $500.

’ Special provision for payments by ro n resident employers »n*o industrial Accident Fund,

on plies to eefre harardou; occupations.

w

o

’ Employers in Schedule II are indnndueity liable end mey insure

* Board may. subject to the approval o f Lt. Governor in Council. me^e or Sanction any a'rangemen?

for insurance or re insurance, subject to terms and conditions which the Gnardmay p'etcr-be.

 

c a o ^ c t A Ccm euHor y as co ail am olo vm enn

3 or m o o tm pioy ae s.

ComouHory to t o t he State, m un icipal co rporations end

p d rtc a l subdrvisaone.

Far m labor . aotnsstW n n w t i , a nd wnpfcsyeee o f V olu nta ry t e t o em pl oym ents e nd

co unty s chool d istricts, fu ll tim e co unty

em plo yees, offlc ia H —saieried or elec te d -e n d

plan ning comm issions.

G U A M Cc mpu leory fo r ell Indu strie ’ em cacvm tf tB .*

—

8 0 '- paid and vo lunt ar y wor k d o r. fo r Go ve rnmen t o f

S o o n o r an y po ll deal sub division th ereo f e xce pt U A.

Gove rnmen t em ployees r e iw id b y P .l _ 20 8 and

dac tad offr cielL

Em ployees engaged In inters tate or for eig o comm erce

covered only so f ar as the tame 1. p erm ltti b lt u nd er

th e la w . o f th e U .S ., f ar m labo r and casud am -

ployaaa.

A ll contracts o f Irving in th e te rr it o ry ar e

presumed to includ e m i agreem ent ao c o r e

Injuries received ou tside th e terr it ory by

accid ent arising o ut ot an d In th e cou rse of

em pl oym en t.

H A W A II C crr xu it o ry a co in durc r^ i tm o lo vmen t. a t oef'ned.'

- 

Cor ro ulso ry as to ell public o fficials elective or ap ­

poin te d. Cove n p ub lic b oa rd me mb ers , reserve police

o ^ c e n , v oiu nw er f irem en end v olun teer Fish & game

iT je n a .

Em ployees of religious ch ar ita ble or nonpr of it

organization s.

Volu nta ry as t o e mploy men ts n o t def in ed

as ind ustrial.

t& A H O Co*—cu is ory a to «ll fn p lo y m e n tL - Co mpu lsory ee t o all p u b ic em ploymen ts. Agr icultura l pursu its. do mes tic serv ants, casud em ­

p lo ym ent!. im dw ellm g me mb ers o f em pto yw 'i

fa m ily, o utw ork er. , em plo ym ent not fo r m o ra y,

airm en , w ork in g me mbe rs o f partn er sh ip. o ffice rs

o f co rp ora tion o wning 10% o f sto ck a nd co mm ission

real a ta ta salesmen and bro ken.

Em plo yee ! w it h in St ate who w ork to r am -

ployers dom ic ile d in ano ther St ate are

covered. Cre dit la provide d fo r b en e fi t, pai d

to e m ploye e! un de r t he la w o f oth er State s.

I L U * 9 < $ Co mpu lso ry ee to e num erated "e xt ra -

*a 2a *o ou sw em ploy men ts. (In cludin g

oc cupational (fs ee se s).*

C b -p u ls o ry at to .11 O ublic em ploy men ts except

c *fc o t» and mam bars of f ir . and po tte r depa rtm en ts in

e r a over 20 0.0 0 0 p opul at io n. Members of C anard

Assam oly and Sc at . Gua rd.

Ce rtain fa rm lab or end persons not in usual course

of em ploy er's businees.

Volu nta ry at to e xc lude d tr nplo ym err tL *

IS 04 A H A Co mpulso ry as i p sli em pl oym ents .* Co—exjifOey a to th e State , all munic ip d c orp ora tion.

t m M l p d .t ic d subdivisiona o f the S u n . includ e. S t ir ,

lepistatprs. ele cte d and ap po inted of fic ia l*.

Far m labo r, dome stic servants. casual w orke rs. and

railroa d em plo yees engaged In train service.

Co mpu lsory as t o coal mining. V o lu n ta ry ee

to e xc lude d em ploy men ts.

*O O A

—

Co mp ulsory « to ail but ex cepted sm*

ploy m o n o ,* includ ing co rporate executive offic er s wh o ere em ployees.

— .-----------------------------------------------------------------

Com pu lsory as to ell public e mploy men ts, ex ce pt f ireme n snd po lic em en e ntitled to pension f und . Covers

h ^ ri v e y safet y pe trol officers, conservation officers

end vo lunt ee r firemen.®

Do me sti c an d casud w o rk an e arnin g un de r $ 2 0 0 par

quar ter, farm la bor , if em ploye r pay ro ll un der $2 ,8 00

per ye ar, or an y regular em ploy ee for le a than 40

hours wea kly du rin g 13 w eak!.

Em ployees w it h in th e Sta te wh o w ork fo r

em ploy ers do m ic ile d in ano th er Sta te w e

covered. C re dit is p rovide d fo r be nefits pa id

to e mploy ee s u nd er th e la w o f oth er States.

C L ft S A S Co mou isory m to a ll em pic y-n eno,

includes axacucive o f ^ c n ot co rporanor n. dec eive a io ( n n -ie n . in d iv d u d t

Compu lsory as t o ell pu blic em ploy men ts, inc ludes

ee em ov yn ery institu tio ns .

Ferm labo r or an y em ploy er whose gross annuel

pay ro ll is not mor e th en $1 0,0 0 0.

Volu nta ry as to e xcluded em ploy men ts.

4 -

♦ < " T St ate Cou rts very in d sctu or* w hether m in im um nu mber o t person s m ust be in State.

•Sea 'E xce pbcn e. "

‘ Com oen se rk n lew s ere clas sified e t c o m jx i’ sory or elec tiv e. A com pu lsor y le w requires every em ploy er to accept

r w act ano gey th e co mpe nsati on specified . An el ec tiv e ect is o ne in w hic h th e em pl oye r hes th e option o f either

w etter mg y re-o cting .h e act. b ut in case he rejects it he loses t t e c us tomary co mm on lew defenses (assumed risk

3* T*e e m plo ys *. negi-gence o * fellow servants end contr ib uto ry negligencej. In most States w orkers in excepte d

2r ex clud ed em ploy men ts may b e bro ught under cov erage o f th e act th ro ug h vo lunt ar y ac tio n of the em ploy er,

n oth er S ir e s , such ec tio n o f th e em pl oye r m us t be co nc urred »n by th e em plo yees.

’ A sp fy ng to p rivat e am cMov mee ts o n ly . The ex ce ptions f or p ublic e r- olo ym en ts are given under "E mplo ym en ts

C -’.e re d -^ .c ix :.”

’ The la w states th at it is elec tiv e as to priv ets em ploy men ts of e nonhaxardous na ture. How ev er as th er e ar e

no p rovision s in t he la w ab roga tin g th e em ploy er 's defenses in case he do es n o t accept th e ac t. it i t

cons idered , in this ta ble , t o b e e vo lu ntary on e. State Suprem e C ourt rule s ell pu blic em ployees subjec w o

th e ect w it h o u t righ t o f re jectio n.

* Em plo ym ent in trad e, oc cu pation. o r professio n, ca rried o n by em pl oye r fo r pec un iary gain.

* Spe cial ect covers employees of U.S.S . Alaba ma Batt les hip Comm, end authorize s excess medical care

be ne fits not to e xceed $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 per e m ploy ee , also, fo r em plo yees o f D ep t. o f Agric ulture end Indu str ies.

* V olu nta ry fo r sponsoring agencies o f Ec on om ic O pport unity Progra ms.

’ Exc lude s a mateu r at hle tic par tic ipan ts w ho e re n ot em ployees.

* Covers a gric ultu ral wo rk er s at State un iversities.

9 t

MISS OU RI Compulaory as » all amoioymenta

haying mom s o n 5 amo.oyaaa. Employ art of 5 or eat matr elect sooperate unoar -a * Act.

Comscdtory aa to all public amploymana, also to atettmg m«.Cor-Ou aory 'or all t a n emp loy***, alactad or appointed

ra ta o 'fm ai* arc member* of the legislature, contractor*of a put>«e corporation, ano sheriffs and deputy sheriff*.

Fams labor and domestic servants of employer

having annual payroN of S2.500 or lest.

Workers on t u t* wa ffa r* proiscts under

Fade-*) Economic O pportunity Act Pull bo

inaurad.

MONTA NA Compulsory w to « i wn pioy vn .* Cor-cufoory « » Hl public employments including

sontr>ctor«. {

Oomestic servants, agricultural employments andrailroad employments.

Voluntary aa so exem pt amploymana*.

NE BR AS KA Com ex, :scry h : 3 » ; *we*py -r<n:s.*

incJudw t - u o /m

«s a** employments including o ffic es

fc»ec~n sr apoomtea For fixed terms and civil defense

agr-cy.

fa rm labor, domestic servants and casual employee*. Voluntary as to farm l«txx and Comes:<

1 NEVADA Comcu.sonr n to »<~cioy»*-v*

-

..

Comou -acry at to all amoioymenta including public

co r-nc tora. Aao include* unpaid member* of Stas*

oap artm ana. beard*. Commieaiort*. agencies or bureausacoc-ntsd by a statutory autho rity, members of localbence snd orchestras.'

Farm labor, domestic servants, casual employees and

stockholders of certain farming corporations wbo erecompensated for services. Acton , except employees

of motion picture producers.

Elect, to aa to farm labor and dom setae same*.

NEW HAMP SH IRE

1 “

Comou ac-y a* to ail amploymana.

Eiae-ad or rooc-mad corporate

aaacc’.v* o“ o*r* m excess of

1 counted as employ-tea.'

Co '-o ue or y » :□ ell public employments. Civil defense

w o o n trt«*ec ss sure employees. Covers volunteer or

eu< H^ry mem ben of fire, police departments, or

e - x V c s corps and forest fire fighters.

Elective es to farm labor of 3 or more, domestic

servants, end casufl employments; or owner oroccupant of dwelling of not more than 3 apartmentswho hires repair or maintenance man thereon, orpartners.

NEW JERSEY Eloctiw n TP HI fm pio yrw nti.* Ccr^pu so*y es to ail public employments. Casual workers, maritime workers, and railroad

workara engaged in intaratata commerce.

Employers o f domestic servants a*e r at

required to carry insurance but are >c«efor compensation under act.

NEW MEXIC O Com<xjijo<Y « W ^ i c y - n t n i having

< or mcr» em ptc /w *.*

__________________________

Comot *o*y n to the State and each county, city.•own. school district, drainage, irrigation or conservancy

c -t t c . P ubK • nt *i tut ton and administrative board em-

> ? y ng ^foremen in any ex trabaxerdous occupation,

arc “ *e*nre*i of National Guard.

Farm or ranch labor, domestic servants, and casual

employees.

Nume<>cal exception does not apply to stnx - •

turai work 10 feet above ground. Voluntary 1

as to farm labor, domestic service and where f

less than 4 ar t em ployed 4 a 0 0

NOTE State Courta vary in decisions whathtr m ir n u n nur-bor c ' pa-Ten* muat ba in S at* .

•S«« 'Bae aeiiens."

1 Compensation laws are cleap'iad as eomaulaory or elective A sorrouiaerv 'aw raquiraa every amployar to accept

t* a act ana p ry the compet-tabon apae-f ad. An a< active act is o"* - a - on the amployar hat tha option of aitharacceding or rajacting the act. but in c u r h» r*;ac:a it. ha lotas tha C urs ma ry eemm on law defenses (attumad

risk of tha employee. nagi gene* of fallow servants and co ntrib uto r -apgen ea l. In moat Stats* worker* inarcaptad or aad udad employment* may ba brought under coverage z‘ the act through volunury action of tha

tm oijya r. In other Stataa. etch action of tha amployar mutt M ep-cu—ad in oy the em ploy***.

’ A po '/in g to private employmenta only. Tha a ac w o n a for p ub ic amp-cymanti are given under "Employmanta

Cover ed -Fub lie ."

’ Volunteer fireman deemed to b * receiving wage* that would tacure -\a«-m um banafit.

'N on -p ro fit charitable, fraternal, cultural or religious corporations o r associations aadudad.

* Huabenda and wive* regularly employed by their aoouta* on full time baaia. at acacifiad ra t* of pay and

apecified houra of employment are eligible for c om pe- ia to n banal.ri uniat* aad udad by employers'

workman'* compensation iniuranct by indorsement.

‘ Mambara of non-profit organ.rations and d ubt while ran darng aerric* ambulance tarvica dawned

employee* earning S 300 a month; volunteer firemen deemed to earn $600 per m onth.

'Specifically excluded from coverage are handicaoped In sheltered workshop programs under

department of public welfare.
CHART 11 □ COVERAGE OF LAWS □ January 1, 1975 (c o nt inue d)

JU RISD ICTION

EMPLOY ME NTS COVER ED*

EX CEPTIONS’ SPECIAL COVERAGE PR OV ISIONS * PR IVAT E PUBLIC

NEW Y OR K Compulsory as to enwrwote d emo.'ovments and employments ^amrg 7 or 

more employees. Includes rewsccy* under 18 and provides penal •■*!.*’

! Ccmou socy as to any employment by the State and any 

; emc«cyment t y a subdivision of the State when engaged 

' m hazardous occupations enumerated. Voluntary as to 

mun ooaf corporations in nonhazardous employments. 

< u r * » r f.-emen. ambulance services, and volunteer 

[ social workers.

Elective as to farm labor if payroll during prior year 

was less than $12 00: volunteer workers: and domestic workers not employed by some employer at least 40 hours per week.

Executive officers of corpo ration other than religious, charitable, veteran or educational are 

covered. Public school teachers covered m 

districts not in cities of more than one million 

population. Covers school aides.

NORTH CAROLIN A Elective as to employments io wh<n

5 or more employees art regu<arty 

employed.’ ’

Ccmpuisory as to public employments end public end

I cuau-P uoK corporations except elective officials and 

cemam Bremen. Elective officials, municipal auxiliary

1 pooa and Unc n County deputy sheriffs.

Farm labor, domestic servants, sawmills and logging 

operators having le u than 10 employees, and railroad 

employees and if operate less than 60 days in con* 

secutive 6 month period. Railroad employee!.

Voluntary as to casual employees, farm labor, 

domestic servants, and employees having leu 

than 5 employees, b ut 1 or more employees 

engaged in ionizing radiation work.

NO RT H DA KO TA Compulsory as to all hazardous 

employments.*

Comouieory as to all public employments. Farm labor, domestic servants, casual workers, illegal 

enterprises or occupations, executives unless performing duties performed by employee.

Voluntary as to nonhezirdous and excluded employments.

OHIO Compulsory as :o all employments 

regularly having 1 cr more employees.

Cor-pu*eory as to State. county, city, township,

: incorporated nliage and school district.*

Includes casual and domestic workers with

wages of $5 0 or more from or»e employer in any 3 month period.

OK LA HO MA Compulsory as to hazardous emoicyments having 2 Qr more Aorkmen. Comouieory as to State, county, city, or municipality A*-er. employ.ng workmen in hazardous employments 

• excect wr»tre ecu«v»lent schemes are in force.

Agriculture, horticulture, dairy and stock raising, and railroads engaged in interstate commerce.

If insured, presumed to be hazardous.

OREGON Compulsory as to all em oc ye n c*

1 or more.

Comcxjieory as to State, departments, city or town 

(except those hwmg over 200,0 00 population) and 

ctner poirtietf supervisions.

Domestics, casual, interstate transportation, sole 

proprietors, corporate officers & certain charitable or relief work.

Voluntary as to excepted employments.

Covers volunteer trainees in State Schools for 

Deaf & Blind and clients in the Voc. Rehab.Div. Partners operating equipm ent for hire 

may elect coverage.

PEN NSY LV ANIA Compulsory as to all employ marts. * Comcu-Hory as to ail public employments. Includes 

*ch.rraeer firemen & members of ambulance corps.*

Domestic servants, industrial homework and casual 

employees.

Voluntary as to casua*. and domestic serivee.* *

PUERTO RICO Compulsory as to a*i am oc ym ero. ! Ccmcu>sory »i to all public employments with or 

without salary.

Casual and domestic workers. Sole proprietors and their famines when 

supervising or engaging in manual labor in 

their business or farm.

RHODE ISLA ND Compulsory as to a»* emc«oymen«» 

having 4 or mors »~xJ - , *»S. ’ in c employers in hazaroc-js X C jM t ms.

Comcmsc*-/ as to t re state, elective as to cities or

X AWS.

Agriculture, domestic service. Voluntary as to agriculture, domestic service 

and employers of le» than 4 employees, 

except those in hazardous occupations.

SOUTH CAR OLINA Elective as to all m e ;v —-e^ts --v. 'g

4 or more regular er~z*o*ees *

I

Comcu-scry as to v I 3uo*< emo'eyments except e ectve xx : ?CQc-n-_-ve 3 “ de ls. Covers state andSarcroi Guard.

Casual employees, persons engaged in selling agricultural products, farm labor, railroads, expreu 

companies. State and county fair associations.

-

Voluntary as to excluded employments. Act 

shall not apply to employer vsnose annual pay* 

roll is less than S3.000 regard'ess o* number 

of employees.
* • 4

SOUTH DAKOTA Compulsory ae to >;•' e—©*c ym em .* Comouisory s tp ail pub l.c employments end volunteer

nc*<m en ■meeecf eestot elected or appointed officials.

Firemen xcvarac. Subdivisions of state may elect to

cover encted end acoo»ntoe o*ficieU. 9

Casual employees. Farm labor end domestic servantsif employed more than 20 hours in any week or more

than 6 weeks in any 13 week period.

Voluntary as to farm labor and domeeticservice.

TENNESSEE Compulsory as to a ' e— o c y - n m

hiving 5 or mere r r o c v w a *

VbKjntery ae co State and political subdivision. Farm labor, domestic servants, casual employees and

employees of interstate common earners.*

Voluntary as to em plcyeo of 1«s than 5.

TE XA S Elective as tb > tms«cv—er»a

1 or more Zcr-c u sorv se

to motor oue spmse<“«eu*

Cor-cu scry as tc k x -o h j o* State Highway Department. O -n re s and z.t:ee may provide compensation

*c* er-c~cyeet by secants acts 1’

F»rm end ranch labor, domestic servants, railways

used as common carriers, end employees not in usualcourse of employer's business.

Cities, towns and villages m r / provide

compensation fp r th«ir employees.

Elective as to exetudeo employees.

UT AH

 1

So<~<ouiw<y n ‘ e tttj

Manns 1 at m art •

CerFO-iusTy a to » i sub.-c r rp lo v n —nt». I*n r> labor, dontmic w rv m a and c ii u il amployam. Voluntary as to farm la bo r, and domestic

service. Farmers end sde prop rie tor* devoting full time to the”- business may electcoverage.

VERMONT Compulsory as to ai< e *x c v marts *or

gem having 1 or more em oc yeas.*’

Como*, eory as to State Deoerrment of Highways.

E ec“ ve m to tpw**s. senooi districts, fire districts, and

yil ages. e*ceot eecr-ve p*f»c»eis. National Guard as

state *m c- os* s. s^d ferett fire fighters.*

Catual em plo ym . S u it Trm ure r, S u t. Auditor and

Cprtuniuionar may award comp«nution htcartain

a m Of ttata ampioytm. Amateur tyxxtt excluded.

Covers forme rrw ith annual p ayroll overs t x x x l

V IR G IN IA Compulsory as to emp-Cr marts ng

3 or more employees. < i* mere ' i —-

employees or S15.0CC ‘ • “val

elective for executive o^-oe^v.

Comcu^acay m 1 1 Puttie employments exceptad— * stn rv e b^ cen and employees elected or

sbPC-ntec 'or pt* -i -» :errrv includes judges and

c'e*ci X< ’-ran.!® m e domestic relations courts, and

34 t- Ct courts.

Casual employees, horticultural and farm laborers,

domestic servants, employees of steam railroadssnd employments not in usual course of employers

trade, business or occupation.

Forest wardens. C»vil 0» ?s nw Cc*ot endNational Guard covered fcv statute. Volun ­tary as to employers o? less then 3 . farm

labor end domesucs.

WAS HING TO N Compulscry as to ell r 'O - c y n r o . ’

!

Come*, ecmr as to f a S it e . county and municipality

or o re * tax.ng t i r e : when engaged in extra

henro cua wo **. .** ess other provision is made for

•r.u-ec emo»oytes.

Oomastics, casual, railroad, or unpaid workers in

eleemosynary institutione. end child under 18 on afamily farm.

-

Covers apprentices rggiirered with

Apprentices*.? Course**

WEST V IR G IN IA Compulsory u to I t 1

!

C crx u spr/ is “ • State and ell governmental

agr*< as y deceit—e~ ti. except elective or appointive

i O<f <-l.s.

Firm labor of 5 o r le u end domestic servants. Voluntary cove»rje*--.' ro t more V»en 3

casual employee* for IQ oay i K an y calender

quarter.

4 -

Cn

NO TE- State Cou nt .a*y •« decisions w ts r.* r “ -umoe r o» p en crs mw r be n S it e .

’ See ’ Exceptions."

* Compensation laws a»e c'atsified asCo.mp« sC-r zr A cty-xu scrv rw reo. -es eve r/ employer to accept

the ect and pay tha compensation specifies - • fa c t • • tct -s o m o cn the r -d c y » * hjs the option o f either

accepting or rejecting the act. but in cate he •» acts I: he osee the C u ru -e ry common aw defenses (assumed risk

of the employee, negi^ence of fallow se*. irt s sr- je e^:- b utpry r.rj. ge~ce . ’n —os: States workers in excepted

or excluded employments may be brought .* xe* bc»e*eg« o* t*e set -.•*omjT’ v > -.f :ir y action of the employer.

In other Starrs, such set on o! the employer — - i t be ccncv-—ed in by —e emp*o, we.

* App'ym g to private employments only. Th e tree s: b*s pv&(< e rp .c y—enn l ' t given under "Em ployments

Covered -hub * •€.**

’ Provides donbie amount of compe nu to n i* employed know ingly in N a tio n o* education lew.

4 Extends to road commissioner and selectmen enoaged in highway construchcn.

’ Executives end officers o f corporations included if workmen’s compensation inew’ /e c * pu x^ es ed but may

excluded. Compulsory for all employees for radiation.

* Exceot firemen and policemen m cities w ith pension funds. M pension U less, difference .-.- l be paid

’ State of Texas now provides for self insurance coverage for th»University of Te<2s» Texas A end M

Co’iege Systems and the State Highway Department.

’ Executive officers of corporations may be covered by insurance policy b ut r ot counted as x-p lo y ess

ta make employer subject to act.

9 Volunteer firemen and volunteer workmen of political subdivisions deemed to be rec eding wages

entitling them to maximum benefits. Students in vocational work program co rered as em ployees

Of school district.

••Com pulso ry for farm labor if one employee earns $15 0 or more or works 70 or mere tfiys in one ye ar.
C H A R T II □ C O V E R A G E O F L A W S □ J a n u ar y 1, 1 9 7 5 ( c o nti n u e d) J U RI S DI C TI O N E M P L O Y M E N T S C O V E R E D ’ E X C E P TI O N S * S P E CI A L C O V E R A G E P R O V I S I O N S • P RI V A T E P U B LI C WI S C O N SI N C o m p ul s or y a s i o ail e m pl o y m e nt s l a v c e pt f a r m l a b or) if p ai d w a g at of S S C O or m a n i n a n y c al e n d ar c u art ar l o r s er vi c es i n t h a st at e. C o m p ul s or y as t o f ar m a n wit h 6 or m o r a e m pi o y o s a. C o m p ul s or y a s t o a H s m pl o y a a a a n d m e m b er s ol v ol u nt e er fir e d a p art m a nt s o r l e g all y or g a ni s e d r e s c u e s q ua d s. D o m e sti c s er v a nt s e n d e m pl o y e e* n ot i n u s ual c o urs e of e m pl o y er' s b u si n es s. V ol u nt er y e* t o e x cl u d e d e m pl o y m e n t s M a y c o v er v ol u nt e er w or k er s W Y O MI N G C o m p ul s or y a s t o s n u m ar at s d “ a atr a- h a a ar d o ut* o c c u p a n o n s c o n d u ct e d l o r B ai n.' C o m p ul s or y a s t o St ar s, c o u nt y a n d m u ni ci p al c or p or a­ ti o n s w h a n a n g a ga d i n " a x tr a h ai ar d o u s " w or k e x c e pt s h eriff s, c o n st a bl e s or t h air d e p uti s e, v ol u nt e er flr a m a n a n d a n u m ar a s a d l a w e nf o r c e m e nt offi c er s. D o m e sti c s er va nts. El e cti v e at i o r a n c h, f ar m, a gri c ult ur al, h orti c ult ur al a n d st o c k r ai si n g e m pl o y m e nt s e m pl o y m g o n e or m or s. F E D E R A L E M P L O Y E E S' C O M P E N S A TI O N A C T All ci vil e m pl o y e e s i n cl u di n g e m pl o y e e* of a dt o b y o e m e d i n*t m m e nt e h d e * e n d p er s o n* p erf or mi n g • ct h riti e * of c h nli a n e m pl o y e e * b ur n ot pe e d t h e rjf or. L O N G S H O R E M E N A N O H A R B O R W O R K E R' S A C T All U. S. m ari d m a a m pl o y m a n t. i n cl u d­ i n g l o n g s h or m g, h ar b or w or X xi g, dii p- b uil di n g or s hi p r a p air. Offi c er * a n d e m pl o y e e * of t h e U 4 - o r e n y St at e or f or ei g n g o v er n m e nt s er e n ot c o w r e d. or r e p airi n g v as sals of l a sa t h a n I S s o ns. (• > A L S S R T A C o m p ul s or y a s t o all e m pl o > m a n at li st a d I n S c h a d ul s 1. C o m p ul s o r y a s t o pr o vi n ci al e m pl o y e e s a s li st a d S c h e d ul e II. F ar m l a b or, d o m e sti c s er v a nt s, o u t w o r k er s,* a n d c a s ual e m pl o y er s. V ol u n t ar y a s t o t er m er s a n d lii d u a ol o s n e e u n d er S c h e d ui m 1 o r II. B R I TI S H C O L U M BI A C o m p ul s or y e* t o ell e m pl o y m e n t li st e d i n P ert 1. C o m p ul s o r y a s t o all pr o vi n ci al a n d m u ni ci p al s m pl o y a a a. al s o v ol u nt e er a m b ul a n c e dri v er s a n d att e n d a nt s. O u t w or k er s,’ c ert ai n m e m b er s o < e m pl o y er' s f a mil y, s m pl o y a a a ol A m eri c a n c o ntr a ct or s a n g a g a d i n U S. G o u a m m a nt pr oj e ct s. V ol u nt ar y a s I o all u n a n u m ar ot a d e m pl o y m a nt a a n d t o t ail- e m pl o y e d ri Rv u hi de. B o ar d m a y al s o c o v er u n p ai d v o h m e ear w or k er s f or p u bli c w elf a r e a n d p er s o n a M A NI T O B A C o m p ul s or y a s t o all e m pl o y m e nt s li st a d i n P art 1.* C o m p ut e or y a e t o e U pr o vi n ci al e n d m u ni ci p el e m pl o y m e nt s F ar m l a b or, d o m e sti c s er v a nt s, o ut w or k er s, of f l e a n o f c o r p or ati o n s, r e si d e nt m e m b er s of e m pl o y er' s f w nil y. V ol u n t ar y a e t o f e m e l a b o r, c er p o m e* oifi c er* ^ r e u d e nt m e ^ n b e F* of * ^ n pf ^ ^^ er * f arrrit y, d o ^ ne e^fe * e ^ y e nt* e n d u n e ^ nr me m e e d e m pl o y m e n t s
NEW FO UNDLA ND Compulsory as “0 em de ym erta

listed in Fart

Elect* >* as to x > < emp»oyments. except firemen

end poicemen wro are e<duoed.

Casual employees, ou t workers.* and executive

officers and directors of corporations.

Voluntary a* to unenumerated employments,

a

NOVA SCOT IA CoH»pullorr s» X M

I'Jttd in Part I.

Elective as to > ie *< m oev m er its except firemen

and pci came** w**o are excluded.

F » m labor, domtnic. out w ork m .1 and casual

amployaas.

Voluntary as to (arm and domasne labor.

O NTARIO Compulsory ■ to >. m c o - e r t s

listed in Scnecvree i sod II.

Compubory to all provincial and municipal employments. *u o vohmtaer firemen. D om ett* servants, out workers? executive officer of corporation. Voluntary as to unenumereted employments.

PRINC E EDWAR D

ISLA ND

Compulsory as to em oo vT woplisted. Fan I.

Compuhcvy except 4br o ty . town, or municipal

pci.ee ene r -y -« n . *o *« e end firemen may be

coverec :v acc*-cation.

Casual employees, out workers? police, firemen,

farm laborers, domestic servants, members offamily under seventeen.

Vo luniary a* to unenumerated emp loyment*.

QUEBEC Compulsory u ~ S*l ♦'-‘Ocrvments

listed in Sc**-cues ' i - t il.

Compulsory *s to t»t prevnctal and municipal

empicv—en-3 ,n nctsmes covered in Schedules I and I I.

Farm labor. domestic servants, out workers?

and casual employees.

Voluntary a* to unenumerated employmer. TV

SA SK AT CH EW AN Compu.'icry ts a a.* ~“X>cyme rTi

listed »n Fam I.

Compulsory as ’0 s»* provincial and municipal employments. -nehjoes vo*v-T»er Bremen. Farm labor, domestic servants, out workers? and casual employees. Voluntary ae to farm and d om est* labor and unenumerated employments.

CANADIA N

GOVERNMENT

EM PLOY EES’ AC T

Emo*cyee» r * L c v m re m oeperrmeno,

in Coracs arc & 3*c.

Crown corporato rs. 0»v da . commissions, etc.. Claims are determined by provincial Boards.

Benefits same a* private employees m same

province.

CANADIA N

MERCHANTSEAM EN'S ACT

Er -p'OVW f * CrN ew n .-S9« »n d

d>ipi. * aafmae.

-

Riots , appranticad pilots and fiifcsrman. No compemation payable if entitled under

Government Employees Compensation Act

or any provincial workmen's compensation act.

• Compensation I»A1 are de e d e d as ccmpu<so*y b* Pecnve A compulsory ’**» rw ry employer to accept

the act and pay the compenaeribn io ec*e d. An rec~r.e act is one m /w <h —e emo«ov«r haa the option ot either

accepting or rejecting the act but • rsse r e t i a r a - “e loses the cus :omry common law defenses (asturned riskof the employee. neg« jence o! ‘ r o w te*’*e * t anc ; s^trfeutsry negi pence*, m m a r iu-isc<t»ons workers in

excepted or excluded em oloy mer-j —ay se s re ^p-: . ’'pe r ccve^ge o* — a ac~. —rougn voluntary action of the

employer. In other junsidcSons. sue- ac .en of •„-« employer m u r be ec«cu»-ee •» by the pnpioyeet.

• Applying to private em ploy men t c ri v * * e exca c-x ne for pub»< employments are yven under

"Emp loym ent* Covered—Fubi*.**

* Outworker is one to whom articles are given for cleaning, repair, etc. in hie home.

4 By separate enactment. Act is made applicable to employees at Military. A ir end Naval bases snd pvbMc

works outside th» United States; employees of welfare and m orale service* lo r Armed Forces outside the

United States: end employees of non-appropriated funds (ship's service. FX 't. etc J w ith in *<xl ou tude th e

United States.

’ Applies to persons engaged in industry o f fishing, whaling or sealing.

*L t. Gov.4n-Council may be regulation include any industry w ithin Fart I.
Appendix 3

E D IT IO N

FRATERNAL

FOLIK

NATIONAL LODGE

T H E O N L Y N A T I O N A L

P O L IC E O R G A N I Z A T I O N

A S U R V E Y O F

o o

S A L A R I E S A IM O W O R K I N G C O N D I T I O N S O F T H E

P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T S IN T H E U M S T E D S T A T E S

P u b ii a h a d M a r c h 1 5 , 1 S 7 5

• 4 4 t
W H A T -

is the Fraternal Order of Police?

The Frat erna l O rde r of Police is an org aniz atio n o f Police Officers, inco rpora ted in the State of Pen nsy lva nia un der the Non-P rofit Corporati on 

Law. Its name an d insign ia is regi ster ed in the U nite d St ates Patent Office 

in Washin gto n, D.C. Its membe rshi p is rest rict ed to full-t ime Law Enforce ment Officers of all ranks who are emp loye d by Federal, Stato or local 

gove rnm ent.

The Fraternal Order o f Police is composed of:

(1 ) Nat ion al Lodg e—ma de up of dele gate s from nil 9ubord lnntn Lodges 

asse mbl ed in Bien nial Conference; mana ged by a iluiinl id UbeclulH 

betwe en Conferen ces.

(2) Sta te Lodges—formed wh en there are three o r hit mt Lodges (it i| s| ullil 

com pos ed of del ega tes from all sub ord inat e Lodg es asselii hled III il|nuole| 

or Annua l Conferences; managed by a Board of Directors Ixitwenti ( lOliforences.

(3) Subordin ate Lodges—formed at the roqunst of ten nr more iiieii.tlielR id 

a Law Enforcem ent Agency; managed by a Board of Directors olnclnd bom 

among the mem bers ann ually, or biennia lly. Al the presold Ullin, lliu 

Ord er is com pos ed of approx imately 1111,011(1 titniillihr* III 011(1 siilmi d|iln |o 

Lodges in 39 Stale s. Ther e are Slain Lodges.

I

Our su bor din ate Lodges aro ope rate d on duos recolved from thei r ineitibors ot a rale pres crib ed by thoir own By-Laws. Stale Lodges and tho 

National Lodge are operate d on Per Capita Tax paid by the sub ord inate 

Lodges on the basis of their mem bers hip.

All act ions of tho Bo ard of Directors of the Na tiona l Lodgo are repol'lnfl Io 

the sub ord inate Lodg es in the form of m inutes, w hic h incl ude flnnilcinl 

repo rts of money roceivod and mone y spent. Tho finan cial affairs of the 

National Lodgo are aud ited by a Certif ied Publ ic Acc ountant .
150

WHAT

does the National Lodge do?

(1) Provides the means whereby the Order is introduc ed to Police 

Officers.

(2) Provides an Income Tax Exemption to each subordinate Lodge so that 

all its revenue may be used for Lodge programs.

(3) Provides Human Rights and Law Enforcement Study. A policeman 

must make split-second decisions. But it is often hard to resolve questions 

of in dividual rights vs. righ ts of the public. The F.O.P. is studyir g the 

problem in co-operation and in conjunctio n with the U.S. Attorney 

General's office. Purpose, to aid in formulating a uniform national policy 

of procedure.

(4) Through its National Legislative Committee promotes, in the Na- ion’s 

Capitol, legislation beneficial to all Police Officers and is the watchdog for 

detrimental legislation. It has been successful, so far, in keeping out of 

Social Security those Policemen with adequate retirement systems who 

do not want Social Security. The Committee was mainly responsible for 

thn National Legislation that allows a Police pensioner, under the age of 

115, a retirement credit of $1, 524 , plus $762 for his wife if filing a joint

return. Also, sponsored Police Survivorship Bill that provides pension *

benefits for police officers killed or injured while apprehend ing persons 

suspoctod of committing or attempting to commit a crime against the 

United States.

Obtainod tho approval of the U.S. Postmaster General for the issuance of *

Law lit Order Commomorativo Stamp honoring policemen.

(5) Publishes an Annual Survey of tho Salaries and Working Condi'ions 

of Police Departments. It has become the principal reference book on 

Pollen snlnries and has enab led our Lodges to socuro higher salaricf and 

Improve their working conditio ns.

(6) Issues a quarterly publicati on which is mailed direct to the homos of 

each of its inombors throughout tho country. This provides a medium for

z

 tho exchange of ideas and acquaints the membership with the progress of 

their fellow members.

(7) Compiles and publishes data on subjects that affect the welfare of 

Pol ice Officers, such as integration of Police and Fire Departments, Social 

Security for Policemen, Citizen Police Review Boards, etc.

(0) Provides Group Life Insurance and u Family Supplemental Hospitalization Plan at roduced rates for members.
Pop ulation over 1,000,000

Amo unt (t ) life insurance

contributed by employer

Chicago, Ill_______________ $6, 000

Detroit, Mich _____________ 0

Los Angeles, Calif__________ 0

Amount (f ) life insurance contributed by employer

New York, N.Y ___________ $15, 000

Philadelphia, Pa___________ 7, 000

Population over 500,000 to 1,000,000

Amoun t (f ) life insurance contributed by employer

Atlanta, Ga _______________________

Boston, Mass______________ _____

Cleveland, Ohio____________ $0

Columbus, Ohio........................ $10, 000

Dallas, Tex ________________ 5, 000

Denver, Col............................... 0

Honolulu, Hawaii__________________

Houston, Te x______________ 7, 000

Jacksonville, Fl a___________ 2, 000

Kansas City, Mo __________ 5, 000

Amount <t) life insurance contributed by employer

Memphis, Te nn _____ _______ $10, 000

Milwaukee, Wis____________ 11, 000

Phoenix, Ariz______________ 4, 000

St. Louis, Mo.................. 10, 000

San Antonio, Tex__________________

San Diego, Calif___________ 1, 000

San Francisco, Calif.................. ........... ..

Seattle, Wash _____________________

Washington, D.C................... - 0

Pop ulation over 250,000 to 500,000

Amoun t ($) life insurance contributed by employer

Akron, Ohio_______________ $2, 000

Albuquerque, N .M ..................................

Austin, Tex_______________ 5, 000

Cincinnati, Ohio____________ 1, 000

El Paso, Tex______________ 6, 000

Fort Worth, Tex___________ 10, 000

Jersey City, N .J___________ 5, 000

Las Vegas, Ne v____________ 6, 000

Long Beach, Calif__________ 0

Louisville, Ky....... .............. 2, 000

Miami, Fla ________________ 20, 000

Minneapolis, Minn_________ 5, 000

Amount ($) life insurance contributed by employer

Newark, N .J ___ __________ $5, 000

Norfolk, Va _______________ 0

Oklahom a City, Okla_______ 2, 500

Omaha, Ne br______________ 0

Portland, Oreg_____________ 3, 000

Rochester, N.Y ____________ 2, 500

San Jose, Calif_____________ _____ Tampa, Fla_____________ 12, 500

Tucson, Ariz_______________ _____

Nashville, Tenn____________________

Warren, Mic h______________ 12, 500

Wichita, Ka ns_____________ 3, 000

Pop ulation 100,000 to 250,000

Amoun t ($) life insurance contributed by employer

Albany, N.Y_______________ 0

Alexandria, V a. ____ _________$11, 000

Allentown, Pa______________ 6, 000

Anaheim, Calif_____________ 15, 000

Baton Rouge, La______ 8, 000

Berkeley, Calif_____________ 2, 500

Canton, Ohio______________ 5, 000

Cedar Rapids, la ___________ 5, 000

Charlotte, N.C_____________ _____

Chattano oga, Tenn___________ 4, 000

Chesapeake, Va____________ 0

Columbus, Ga _____________ 10, 000

Corpus Christi, Tex__________ 2, 000

Dayton, Ohio________________ 6, 000

Des Moines, Iow a____________ 2, 000

Duluth, Minn_______________ 5, 000

Durham, N.C........ ........................... .......

Flint, Mich.... ................ 7, 500

Fo rt Wayne, In d____ _______ 10, 000

Fremont, Calif_____________ 5, 000

Fresno, Calif_______________ 1, 500

Gary, In d___________ 16, 000

Grand Rapids, Mic h________ 15, 000

Greensboro, N.C ___________ 12, 500

Hammond, In d_____________ 10, 000

Hialeah, Fl a__________ _______ _____

Huntsville, Ala______________ 15, 000

Amount ($) life insurance contributed by employer

Kansas City, Ka ns_________ 0

Lansing, Mich---------------------- $50, 000

Lexington-Faye tte Co., Ky— 2, 000

Lincoln, Neb_______________ 5, 000

Little Rock. Ark ................. 0

Livonia, Mich_____________ 15, 000

Macon, G a .. .......................................... ..

Mobile, Ala_______________ 5, 000

Montgomery, Ala__________ 2, 500

New Bedford, Mass__________ 1, 000

New Haven, Conn__________ 0

Newport News, Va_________ _____

Parma, Ohio_______________ 0

Paterson, N .J ______________ _____

Peoria, Ill_________________ 5, 000

Portsmouth, Va____________ _____

Providence, R .I ____________ 5, 000

Raleigh, N.C . ...................... 5,0 00

Richm ond, Va --------------------

Riverside, Calif____________ 0

Rockford, Il l________________ 2, 000

San Bernardino, Calif_________ 1, 000

Savanna h, Ga_____________ _____

Scottsdale, Ariz______________ 5, 000

Scranton, Pa_______________ 10, 000

South Bend, In d-------------------- 2, 000

Springfield, Mo ____________ 0
152

Pop ul at io n 100,000 to 250,000—C on tin ue d

Amount (,) life insurance

contributed by employer

Stockton, Calif_____________ _____

Syracuse, N.Y _____________ $10, 500

Topeka, Kans______________ _____

Torrance, Calif_____________ _____

Waco, Tex________________ 3, 500

Am oun t (t ) life insurance

contributed by employer

Winston-Salem, N.C________ $2, 000

Worchester, Ma ss__________ 2, 000

Yonkers, N.Y ....... ........... ....... 5,00 0

Youngstown, Ohio__________ 5, 000

Pop ul at io n 50,00 0 to 100,000

Amount ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Abington, Pa_______________ $15, 000

Albilene, Tex______________ 5, 000

Alameda, Calif_____________ 15, 000

Altoona, Pa_________ 15, 000

Arlington, Tex_______ 15, 000

Arlington Heights, Ill_______ _____

Appleton, Wise____________ 6, 500

Arvada, Colo______________ _____

Asheville, N.C_____________ 5, 000

Atlantic City, N.J__________ _____

Aurora, Colo______________ 6,000

Aurora, Ill __________________ 5, 000

Bakersfield, Calif___________ 10, 000

Bayonne, N.J______ 10, 000

Berwyn, Ill________________ 10, 000

Billings, Mon t_______________ 5, 000

Binghamton, N.Y __________ 0

Boulder, Colo______________ 12, 000

Bristol, Conn________________ 4, 000

Buena Park, Calif____________ 7, 500

Cham paign, Ill _____________ _____

Charleston, S.C ____________ 0

Charleston, W. Va__________ 10, 000

Chester, Pa ............................ 10,000

Chicopee, Mass____________ _____

Chula Vista, Calif.................... 3, 000

Clea rwater, Fl a____________ 20, 000

Clifton, N .J .......... ....... ........... 10,000

Concord, Calif_____________ _____

Cos ta Mesa, Calif__________ 20, 000

Council Bluffs, Iow a________ 5, 000

Cranston, R .I______________ 4, 000

Downey, Calif _______ 4, 000

Dubuque, Iow a____________ 5, 437

Ea st Hartford, Conn_________ 10, 000

Ea st Lansing, Mich_________ _____

Ea st Orange, N .J___________ 0

Ea st Point, Ga _____________ 24, 000

Edison Township, N .J ______ _____

Elgin, Ill— _____ 1, 000

El Mon te, Calif____________ 2, 000

Euclid, Ohio_______________ 3, 000

Evanston, Il l______________ _____

Ev ere tt, Wash_____________ 0

Fairfield, Calif_____________ 0

Fairfield, Con n_____________ 10, 000

Fo rt Collins, Colo__________ _____

Framingham, Mass_________ 2, 000

Gadsden, Ala______________ 6, 000

Gainsville, Fla_____________ 20, 000

Galveston, Tex____________ 19, 000

Glendale, Ariz _____________ _____

Grand Prairie, Tex_________ 3, 000

Greece, N.Y ............... 10, 000

Greeley, C olo ............... 5, 000

Greenville, S.C_____________ 11, 000

Amoun t ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Greenwich, Conn___________ $5, 000

Hamilton, Ohio____________ 7, 000

Harrisburg, P a_____________ 10, 000

Hayward, Calif____________ 0

Hun tington, W. V a_________ 5, 000

Inglewood, Calif___________ 5, 000

Irvin gton, N .J _____________ 10, 000

Kenosha, Wis_____________ ________

Kettering, Ohio____________ 4, 000

La Crosse, Wis____________ _____

Lafayette, La______________ 10, 000

Lake Charles, L a___________ 0

Lancaster, P a______________ 13, 000

Laredo, Tex_______________ 10, 000

Lawrence, M as s....................... 2,000

Lawton, Okla_______________ 5, 000

Lima, Ohio__________________ 2, 000

Lorain, Ohio_______________ 10, 000

Lowell, Mass________________ 1, 000

Lynn, Mass_________________ 2, 000

Manchester, N.H ___________ 0

Mansfield, Ohio______________ 5, 000

Meridian, Miss_____________ 0

Mesa, Ariz______ _____ ____ _____

Mesquite, Te x_______________ 8, 000

Miami Beach, Fla__________ 20, 000

Midland, Te x_______________ 6, 000

Milford, Co nn_____________ _____

Modesto, Calif______________ 2, 000

Monroe, La_________________ 3, 000

Montebello, Calif___________ 10, 000

Monterey Park, Calif________ 3, 000

Mountain View, Calif_______ _____

Mount Vernon, N.Y________ _____

Muncie, In d_______________ 0

Newport Beach, Calif________ 7, 500

Norman, Okla_____________ 10, 000

N. Little Rock, Ark________ 0

Norwalk, Conn_____________ 0

Oak Lawn, Ill_____________ 10, 000

Oak Park, Ill________________ 3, 000

Odessa, Te x_______________ 4, 000

Ontario, Calif........ ................ 5,000

Orange, Calif_____ _____ 3,000

Oshkosh, Wis ______________ _____

Owensboro, Ky________ __________ _

Oxnard, Calif______________ 5, 000

Palo Alto, Calif____________ _____

Pasadena , Tex_____________ 7, 000

Passaic, N .J _______________ 1, 000

Paw tucket, R .I ____________ 0

Penn Hills Township, Pa ____ _____

Pensacola, Fla_____________ 4, 000

Pomona, Calif_____________ 5, 000

Pontiac, Mich_____________ 30, 000

Port Arthur, Tex___________ 5, 000
Pop ulat ion 50.000 to 100,000—Co ntinue d

Amount ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Provo, U ta h_______________ $2, 000

Pueblo, Colo_______________ 0

Racine, Wis_______________ 3, 000

Reading, Pa_______________ 10, 000

Reno, Ne v________________ 0

Roanoke, Va_______________ 5, 300

Rochester, Minn___________ 10, 000

Roseville, Mich____________ 20, 000

Royal Oak, Mich __________ 20, 000

St. Clair Shores, Mich______ _____

St. Joseph, Mo_____________ 2, 000

Salem, Oreg_______________ 10, 000

Salinas, Calif______________ _____

San Angelo, Te x___________ 1, 000

San Leandro, Calif_________ _____

San Mateo, Calif___________ 2, 000

San ta Barbara, Calif________ 10, 000

San ta Clara, Calif__________ _____

San ta Monica, Calif________ 14, 000

Schenectady, N.Y __________ 0

Sioux City, Iow a___________ 5, 000

Sioux Falls, S.D .... ............ 11, 000

Amount if ) life insurance contributed by employer

Skokie, Ill_______ $10, 000

South Gate , Calif__________ 3, 000

Spa rtan sburg, S.C__________ 2, 500

Tempe, Ariz _______________ 5, 000

Unio n City, N .J ___________ 2, 000

Vallejc, Calif______________ 0

Ventura, Cal if_____________ 7, 000

Vineland, N .J______________ _____

Waltham, Ma ss_______ 2, 000

Warren, Ohio______________ 10, 000

Warwick, R .I ______________ 0

West Allis, Wis____________ _____

West Covina, Calif_________ 5, 000

West Palm Beach., Fla ______ 7, 500

Weymouth, Mass__________ 2, 000

Whittie r, Calif_____________ 0

Wichita Falls, Tex__________ 10, 000

Wilkes-Barre, Pa ___________ 10, COO

Wilmington, Del___________ 30, 000

Wyoming, Mich____________ 12, 000

York, Pa __________________ 10, 000

Population 25,000 to 50,000

Am ount (S ) life insurance contributed by employer

Aberdeen, S. Dak __________ $3, 000

Allen Park, Mic h____________ 15, 000

Alton, Ill __________________ 2, 000

Ames, Iow a_________________ 10, 000

Anchorage, Alaska__________ _____

Anniston, Ala______________ _____

Arcadia, Calif______________ 1, 000

Ashland, K y_______________ 1, 000

Ashtabula, Ohio____________ 0

Attleboro, Mass____________ 2, 000

Auburn, Ala_______________ 1, 500

Auburn, Maine_____________ 0

Auburn, N.Y ______________ 0

Baldwin Park, Calif________ 3, 000

Bangor, Maine_____________ _____

Barberton, O h io ............ ......... 12, 000

Bartlesville, Okla___________ 4, 000

Belleville, Ill.. ____ ________ 7, 500

Belleville, N .J ______________ 0

Bellingham, Wash__________ 0

Belmont, Mass_____________ 1, 000

Bergenfield, N .J____________ 0

Bessamer, Ala______________ 3, 000

Bethel Park, Pa ____________ 22, 000

Beverly, Mass_____________ 2, 000

Big Spring, Tex____________ 2, 000

Birmingham, Mich_________ 12, 000

Bloomington, In d__________ 3, 000

Bossier City, La____________ 5, 000

Bowling Green, Ky _________ 8, 000

Bremerton, Wash___________ 0

Brookfield, Wis____________ 10, 000

Brooklyn Ctr., Mi nn________ 5, 000

Burlington, Vt_____________ 12, 000

Burlington, Iow a___________ 1, 000

Butte, Mo nt_______________ 1, 000

Calumet City, Ill ___________ 20, 000

Carbondale, Ill _____________ 0

Amount ($) life insurance contributed by employer

Casper, Wyo________________$10, 000

Cedar Falls, Iowa __________ 2, 500

Chelsea, Ma ss_____________ 1, 000

Chillicothe, Ohio___________ 2, 000

Clarksville, Tenn___________ 7, 500

Clovis, N. Mex_____ _____ 10, 000

Columbus, In d____ ________ 8, 000

Columbus, Miss____________ 3, 000

Columbus City, In d------------- 7, 000

Concord, N .H _____________ 0

Coon Rapids, Minn ________ 5, 000

Coral Gables, Fl a....... ............. 3, 000

Corona, Calif______________ _____

Covina, Cal if______________ 10, 000

Culver City , Calif__________ 10, 000

Cumberla nd, Md _____________ 2, 000

Cumberland, R .I ._ _________ 10, 000

Danvers, Mass_____________ 1, 000

Danville, Il l_______________ 2, 000

Danville, Va_______________ 5, 000

Decatur, Ala_______________ 1, 000

Delray Beach, Fla__________ 10, 000

Denton, Tex_______________ 10, 000

Dolton, Il l. ................................ 10, 000

Dothan, Ala_________________ 5, 000

East Chicago, In d____ _____ 15, 000

East Cleveland, Ohio----------- 0

East Detroit, Mic h-------------- 10, 000

East Providence, R .I ----------- --------

Easton, Pa________________ 10, 000

El Centro, Calif_____________ 2, 500

Elk har t, In d________________ 2, 500

Elmwood Park, Ill__________ 0

Enfield, Conn______________ 10, 000

Englewood, Colo___________ 11, 000

Escondido, Calif-------------------- 2, 000

Evergreen Park, Ill___________ 7, 000

Fairborn, Ohio_______________ 5. 0 0 0
L54

Population 25,000 to 50,000—Continued

Amount ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Fairlawn, N .J_______________ $10, 000

Fairmont, W. Va........ ............. 10, 000

Farm ington, N. Mex________ 5, 000

Find lay, Ohio______________ 0

Fitchburg, Mass___________ 2, 000

Fond du Lac, Wis__________ _____

Fo rt Dodge, Iow a__________ 0

Fo rt Myers, Fla____________ 10, 000

Fo rt Pierce, Fla_____ ______ 1, 500

Freeport, Il l__________ 2, 000

Galesburg, Ill______________ 10, 000

Gardena, Calif_____________ _____

Garden City, Mic h_________ 10, 000

Garden City, N.Y__________ 20, 000

Garfield Heights, Ohio______ 0

Gladstone, Mo_____________ 3, 000

Glen Cove, N.Y _______ 0

Glendora, Calif____________ 2, 000

Goldsboro, N.C____________ _____

Grand Forks, N. Dak_______ 0

Grand Island, Neb_________ 3, 000

Grand Jet., Colo___________ _____

Gra nite City, Il l___________ 2, 000

Gulfport, Miss_____________ 5, 000

Hagerstown, M d___________ 2, 000

Hal tom City, Tex__________ 3, 000

Harlingen, Tex_.____________ 1, 000

Harvey, Ill________________ 3, 000

Hattiesburg, Miss__________ _____

Haverhill, Mass____________ 2, 000

Hazleton, Pa ______________ 15, 000

Hempstea d, N.Y ___________ 0

Highland, In d_____________ 5, 000

Highland Park, Ill __________ 0

Hobar t, In d_______________ 10, 000

Hoboken, N.J______________ 0

Holland, M ic h, ____ ________ 1,334

Holyoke, Mass_____________ 2, 000

Ho t Springs, Ark___________ 5, 00C

Hu ntington Park, Calif_____ 5, 000

Ida ho Falls, Ida ho__________ 0

Iowa City, Iow a___________ _____

Jackson, Mich_____________ 15, 000

Jack son, Tenn_____________ 1, 000

Jacksonville, N.C___________ 0

Jamestown, N.Y ___________ 20, 000

John stow n, Pa _____________ 15, 000

Joplin, Mo ________________ 3, 000

Kearny, N .J _______ _____ 4,00 0

Kenmore, N.Y_____________ 0

Ken t, Ohio________________ 10, 000

Key West, Fla_____________ $300

Killeen, Tex_________________ 1, 000

King sport, Te nn _____________ 6, 000

Kingsville, Tex_____________ 0

Kirkwood, Mo_____________ 0

Lack awanna, N. Y__________ 25, 000

Lafaye tte, In d_____________ 0

Lake Worth, Fl a_____________ 2, 000

Lancaster, Ohio____________ 5, 000

Lansing, Ill________________ 10, 000

Las Cruces, N. Mex________ 0

Lawrence, Kans____________ 1, 500

Leavenworth, Ka ____________ 2, 000

Amount if ) life insurance

contributed by employer

Lewiston, Idaho_____________ $10, 000

Lexington, Mass___________ 2, 000

Linden, N .J_______________ 12, 500

Littleton, Colo_____________ _____

Lombard, Ill_______________ 15, 000

Long Branch, N .J __________ 1, 000

Longmont, Colo____________ _____

Lynwood, Calif______________ 3, 000

Madison Hts ., Mich________ 10, 000

Ma nhattan Beach, Calif_____ _____

Man kato , Minn____________ 10, 000

Maple Heights, Ohio_________ 3, 000

Marion, Ohio________________ 2, 500

Marlborough, Mass__________ 2, 000

Marple Township, Pa _______ 20, 000

Marshalltown, Iow a__________ 5, 000

Mason City, Iow a___________ 5, 000

Massillon, Ohio____________ _____

Mayfield Heights, Ohio_____ 0

Maywood, Il l______________ 8, 000

Medford, Oreg_____________ 10, 000

Melbourne, Fla ____________ 5, 000

Merced, Calif______________ 5, 000

Methuen, M a s s .. ._________ _____

Middletown, Ohio__________ 5, 000

Midland, Mich_____________ _____

Millcreek, Township, Pa ____ 5, 000

Milton, Mass______________ _____

Minot, N. Dak ____________ 5, 000

Mishawaka, In d____________ 10, 000

Moline, Ill __________ 0

Monroeville, Pa ____________ 50, 000

Monrovia, Calif____________ 0

Monterey , Calif____________ 2, 000

Moorhead, Minn___________ 5, 000

Morgantown, W. Va________ 0

Morton Grove, Ill__________ 5, 000

Moundsville, W. V a________ 1, 000

Mount Prosp ect, Il l_________ 10, 000

Murfreesboro, Te nn________ _____

Muskegon, Mi ch___________ 6, 000

Napa , Calif_________________ 14, 000

Naperville, Ill_______________ 10, 000

Nash ua, N.H ______________ 2,000

National City, Calif________ 2, 000

Naugatuck , Conn__________ _____

Needham, Mass_____________ 2, 000

New Albany, In d____________ 5, 000

Newark, Ohio______________ 10, 000

Newburgh, N. Y____________ 30, 000

New Castle, Pa____________ 10, 000

New Iberia, La ____________ 0

New London, Con n__________ 5, 000

Newport, R .I ______________ _____

Normal, Ill ________________ 5, 000

Northa mpton, Mass________ 1, 000

No rth Chicago, Ill__________ 2, 000

No rth Kingstown, R .I ______ 10, 000

No rth Las Vegas, Ne v______ 10, 000

No rth Miami, Fl a__________ 2, 000

North Miami Beach, Fla____ 5, 000

No rth Providence, R .I ______ _____

No rth Tonawanda, N.Y_____ 10, 000

Norwich, Con n_____________ 6, 000

Norwood, Ohio____________ 20, 000
Population 25,000 to 50,000—Continued

Amo unt (f) life insurance

contributed by employer

Amount ($) life insurance contributed by employer

Oak Park, Mich____________ $20, 000

Oak Ridge, Ten n___________ 5, 000

Ocala, Fla...... ................................... .......

Olympia, Wash____________ _____

Orange, Tex........ ..................... 10,000

Ottumwa, Iow a____________ _____

Pacific, Calif___ ____ _______ 8, 000

Palatine, Il l_______________ 10, 000

Panam a City, Fl a__________ 0

Paramus, N.J_____________ ______

Parkersburg, W. Va_________ 5, 000

Park Forest, Ill....... ......... ........ 15, 000

Park Ridge, Ill_____ ________ 5, 000

Parma Hgts., Ohio_________ _____

Peabody, Mass_____________ _____

Pennsauken, N .J___________ 0

Perth Amboy, N .J__________ 0

Peta luma, Calif____________ 2, 000

Petersburg, Va_____________ _____

Pittsburg , C a l i f ____ ______ 5, 000

Plainfield, N .J _____________ 4, 000

Pocatello, Idaho____________ _____

Pompano Beach, Fl a________ _____

Ponca City, Okla___________ 1, 000

Port Huron, Mich__________ _____

Pottstown, Pa _____________ 10, 000

Prichard, Ala______________ 0

Rahway, N .J ______________ 5, 000

Randolph, Mass____________ 1, 000

Rapid City, S. Dak_________ 3, 000

Rayto n, Mo_________________ 5, 000

Renton, Wash_______________ 8, 500

Rialto, Calif______________ ______

Richardson, Tex________ _________ _

Richland, Wash _____________ 9, 000

Richmond, In d____________ 1, 000

Ridgewood, N.J____________ 0

Rock Hill, S.C......................... 1, 000

Rome, Ga_________________ 56%

Rome, N.Y _________________ 4, 000

Roswell, N. Mex_____________ 6, 000

St. Charles, Mo____________ 14, 000

St. Cloud, Minn...... .......... 10, 000

Salina, Kans________________ 4, 000

San Bruno, Calif___________ 4, 000

San Luis Obispo, Calif______ 10, 000

San ta Cruz, Calif____________ 5, 000

San ta Maria, Calif_________ 8, 000

Sarasota, Fla______________ 2, 000

Saugus, Mass______________ 2, 000

Seaside, Calif______________ 6, 000

Selma, Ala________________

Shawnee, Okla_____________

Sherman, T e x .. ........... ...........

Saint Euclid, Ohio---------------

South Holland, Ill__________

Sta te College, Pa .......... ...........

Steubenville, Ohio---------------

Stillwater, Okla____________

Stratford, Con n........................

Tau nton, Mass-------------------

Teaneck, N .J ----- ------- --------

Temple, Tex________ _____ _

Texas City, Tex_____ _____ _

Univ. City, Mo........................

Upland, Calif--------- ------- —

Upper Moreland Township,

Urbana , Ill------------------------

Vacaville, Calif____________

Vancouver, Wash__________

Victoria, Tex______________

Villa Park, Ill ______________

Wallingford, Conn---------------

Warminster, Pa____________

Watertown, Mass__________

Watertown, N.Y ___________

Wayne, Pa ________________

Webster Groves, Mo________

Weirton, W. Va____________

Westfield, Mass____________

Westfield, N .J _____________

Westminister, Colo_________

West Warwick, R .I_________

Wethersfield, Conn_________

Wheaton, I l l . _____________

Wheeling, W. Va___________

Whitehall, Ohio____________

Wilkinsburg, Pa _________

Williamsport, Pa ___________

Wilm ette, Ill_______________

Wilmington, N.C___________

Winona, Minn_____________

Winter Park, Fla___________

Woodland, Calif____________

Woonsocket, R .I ___________

Wyandotte, Mich__________

Xenia, Ohio_______________

Yakima, Wash.... ............. .......

Ypsilanti, Mich____________

Yuma, Ariz________________

$2, 000 

” 6

5, 000 

7, 500

5," 666 

3, ooo 

5, 000 

"3,666

25, 800 

2, 000

3, 900

4, 000

3, 000

’ 2~666

0

20, 000

io," 666

1, ooo

io "666

8, ooo 

io, ooo 

io, ooo 

10, ooo 

5, 000 

30, 000 

7, 500

0

10, ooo

1, ooo

20, 000 

10, ooo 

10, ooo 

3, 000 

10, ooo

Population 10,000 to 25,000

Amount ($) life insurance contributed by employer

Aberdeen, Wash____________ $5, 000

Ada, Okla_________________ _____

Adrian, M ic h........................... 10,000

Albemarle, N.C____________ _____

Albert Lea, Minn__________ 2, 000

Albion, Mich______________ 10, 000

Alice, Tex........ .................. 2,000

Alpen v, M ich______________ 10,000

Amherst, Ohio_____________ 2, 000

Andalusia, Ala. ................... 2,000

Amoun t ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Ardmore, Okla_____________ $3, 000

Arkansas City, Kans________ 0

Artesia, N. Mex____________ _____

Aston Township, Pa ________ 17, 500

Astoria, Oreg______________ 10, 000

Atchison, Kan s____________ 0

Athens, Ohio______________ 10, 000

Auburn, Wa sh_______________ 5, 000

Augusta, Maine____________ _____

Barre, Vt._______ _________ 5,000
156

Pop ul at io n 10,000 to 25,000— Co ntinue d

Amount (<) life insurance

contributed by employer

Barrington, R .I ____________ $5, 000

Barstow, Calif_____________ 10, 000

Bay City, Tex_____________ 1, 000

Bay Village, Ohio__________ 10, 000

Beacon, N. Y______________ 0

Beatrice, Ne br_____________ 0

Beaver Dam, Wis__________ 0

Beaver Falls, Pa___________ 10, 000

Beckley, W. V a____________ 15, 000

Bedford, In d_______________ 0

Bedford. Ohio______________ _____

Bellwood, Ill________________ 10, 000

Belvidere, Ill______________ 5, 000

Bend, Oreg--- ----------------- 13, 000

Bento n, Ark_______________ 2, 000

Benton Harbor, Mich_______ 7, 500

Berkley, Mic h______________ 16, 000

Berlin, N .H _______________ 5,00 0

Bethlehem Township, Pa ____ 13, 000

Bexley, Ohio_______________ 5, 000

Bloomsburg, Pa ____________ 35, 000

Bluefield, W. Va___________ 2, 500

Bogalusa, La______________ 2, 500

Boone, Iowa_______________ 1, 000

Borger, Tex_______________ 0

Bou nd Brook, N .J _________ 5, 000

Bowling Green, Ohio_______ 10, 000

Boyn ton Beach, Fl a________ 2, 500

Bradenton, Fl a____________ 0

Brainerd, Minn____________ 5, 000

Brawley, Calif_____________ 2, 000

Bristol, R .I ________________ 5, 000

Bristol, Va________________ _____

Brookfield, Ill ______________ 10, 000

Brookings, S. Dak--------------- 1, 000

Brooklyn, Ohio_____________ 0

Brownwood, Tex ___________ 2, 000

Bucyrus, Ohio_____________ 0

Butler, Pa ________ 5,00 0

Cahokia, Il l_________________ 2, 000

Cambridge, Md--------------------- 1, 000

Cambridge, Ohio_____________ 4, 000

Campbell, Ohio--------------------- 5, 000

Canonsburg, Pa ____________ 10, 000

Canton, Il l__________________ 5, 000

Carbondale, Pa____________ 10, 000

Carlisle, Pa ________________ _____

Carnegie, Pa________________ 2, 500

Carpentersville, Ill_________ 10, 000

Casa Grande, Ariz__________ 4, 000

Cedar Grove, N .J __________ 0

Center Line, Mich__________ 20, 000

Cham bersburg, Pa __________ 8, 000

Cha nute, Kan s.............. 0

Charles City, Iow a-------------- --------

Chickasha, Okla____________ 0

Chico, Calif_______________ 2, 000

Chino, Calif_________________ 6, 000

Claremont, N.H _____________ 3, 000

Clayton, Mo ______________ 12, 000

Cleburne, Tex_______________ 5, 000

Cleveland, Miss____________ 0

Cleveland, Tenn___________ 0

Cliffside Park, N .J_________ 0

Clinton, Mass_______________ 2, 000

Amoun t (#) life insurance

contributed by employer

Coal Township, Pa-------------- 0

Collinsville, Ill_____________ $3, 000

Colton, Calif---------------------- 2, 000

Columbia, Pa--------------------- 0

Columbia, Tenn------------------ --------

Columbus, Nebr-------------------- 5, 000

Conneaut, Ohio------------------ 0

Connersville, In d---------------- 10, 000

Coventry, R .I -------------------- 3, 000

Covington, Va----------------------- 2, 000

Crowley, La----------------------- 0

Cudahy, Wis----------- -------- - ------

Darby, P a------------------------- 15, 000

Deerfield, Il l______________ 8, 000

Delano, Calif--------------------- 3, 000

Delaware, Ohio------------------- 5, 000

Del Rio, Tex ______________ 2, 000

Denison, Tex---------- 10, 000

Depew, N.Y _______________ 20, 000

Derby, Conn....... ..................... 2,00 0

Dixon, Ill_________________ 7, 000

Dormont, Pa---------------------- 27, 000

Dover, Ohio_______________ 4, 000

Duncan, Okla_____________ 3, 000

Durango, Colo-------------------- --------

Duran t, Okla______________ 3, 000

Dyersburg, Te nn ----------------- 1, 000

East Grand Rapids, Mich----- 15, 000

Eastlake , Ohio_____________ 5, 000

East Liverpool, Ohio------------ 2, 000

East Moline, I ll.. .................. 2,00 0

Ecorse, Mich_________ ____ 10,000

Edinburg, Tex------------- 5, 000

Elizabeth City, N.C ------------- 1, 000

Ellwood City, Pa___________ 12, 000

Elmwood Park, N .J ________ _____

El Segundo, Calif......... ................... .......

Emmaus, Pa _______________ 12, 000

End icott, N.Y -------------------- 0

Fairbanks, Alaska___________ 10, 000

Fairfield, Ala_______________ 10, 000

Falls Church, V a._------ ------- --------

Far ibault, Minn____________ 3, 000

Fergus Falls, Minn_________ 5, 000

Floral Park, N.Y ____________ 15, 000

Fon tana, Calif_____________ _____

Forest Park, Il l____________ 5, 000

Fort Thomas, Ky---------------- 2, 000

Ft. Walton, Beach, Fla _____ 20, 000

Fostoria, Ohio_____________ 3, 000

Frankfort, In d_____________ 0

Frankfort, Ky_____________ 5, 000

Franklin, Pa _______________ 10, 000

Frederick, Md_____________ 2, 000

Fredericksburg, Va -------------- --------

Fremont, Ohio_____________ 0

Fulton, Mo________________ 2, 000

Gainesville, Ga ------------------- 7, 500

Gainesville, Tex____________ 2, 000

Galena Park, Tex__________ 0

Gallup, N. Mex____________ 1, 000

Garden City, Ka ns_________ _____

Girard, Ohio_______________ 2, 000

Glassboro, N .J_____________ 2, 000

Glen Ellyn, Ill.............. ........... 15,000
157

Popttla M v* 10,000 to 25,000 —C ontinued

Amount (i) life insurance

contributed by employer

Glens Falls, N.Y .................................... ..

Gloucester City, N .J_________ $1, 000

Golden Valley, Minn _______ 384

Grand Haven, Mich__________ 4, 000

Grants Pass, Oreg___________ 10, 000

Greeneville, Te nn __________ 0

Greenfield, In d______________ 10, 000

Greensburg, In d___________ 0

Greenville, Ohio_____________ 2, 000

Greenville, Tex____________ 10, 000

Griffin, Ga________________ 10, 000

Grosse Pointe Woods, M ic h.. 10, 000

Guthrie, Okla______________ 0

Hanford, Calif_______________ 8, 000

Hannibal, Mo______________ 0

Harper Woods, Mich_______ 10, 000

Harrison, N .J_______________ 2, 000

Hastings, Ne br_____________ 0

Hays, Kans________________ 0

Hazard, K y_________________ 2, 000

Helena, Mont______________ 0

Henderson, Ky ______________ 2, 000

Hermosa Beach, Calif_______ 18, 000

Hickory, N.C_______ ____ . . 2, 000

Highland Parkwa y, Tex _____ 4, 500

Homewood, Ala____________ 10, 000

Homewood, Ill _______________ 8, 000

Hopewell, Va______________ 19, 000

Hopkins, Minn______________ 5, 000

Hopkinsville, Ky___________ 0

Hornell, N.Y ______________ 0

Huntin gton, In d_____________ 2, 000

Huntsville, Tex______________ 6, 000

Huro n, S. Da k___ •___________ 2, 500

Hurst, Tex__________________ 5, 000

Independence, Kan s................................

Jacksonville, Ark___________ _____

Jacksonville Beach, Fl a_____ 6, 000

Jea nne tte, Pa ______________ 10, 000

Jennings, Mo ______________ 0

John son City, N .Y _________ 20, 000

Kalispell, M on t____________ 0

Kearney, Ne br_____________ 10, 000

Kingston, Pa________________ 1, 000

Laconia, N.H ______________ _____

Lake Forest, Ill____________ 5, 000

Lamesa, Tex_______________ 5, 000

Lansdale, Pa _______________ 20, 000

Lansdowne, Pa ________. ___ 10, 000

LaPorte, In d______________ 5, 000

Laramie, Wy o_____________ 0

Latrobe, Pa_______________ _____

Lauderhill, Fla.... ............... ..... 5, 000

Laurel, Miss____ '.__________ _____

Lebanon, Tenn______________ 5, 000

Levelland, Tex______________ 2, 000

Lexington, N.C______________ 2, 000

Lincolnwood, II1__.................... 2, 000

Lock Haven, Pa ____________ 13, 000

Logan, Uta h........ ................ 10, 000

Logansport, In d____________ 0

Lwr. Burrell, Pa___________ 10, 000

Lower Southam pton Township, Pa _________________ 20, 000

Lufkin, Tex_________________ 3, 000

Amount (<) life insurance

contributed by employer

Lyndhurst, N .J------------------- --------

Lyndhurst, Ohio___________ 0

Madera, Calif______________ $5, 000

Madison, In d______________ 2, 000

Madison, N.J______________ _____

Mamaroneck, N.Y -------------- 10, 000

Mandan, N. Dak___________ 0

Manville, N.J______________ _____

Maplewood, Mo_____________ 4, 000

Marblehead, Mass------------------ 2, 000

Marietta, Ohio_____________ 0

Markham , Ill______________ 10, 000

Marquette , Mich------------------- 5, 000

Martinsburg, W. Va— ........... 0

Martin’s Ferry, Ohio------------

Martinsville, Va____________ _____

Massena, N .Y . ....................... 10,000

Mayfield, Ky______________ 0

McAlester, Okla___________ 2, 000

McComb, Miss____________ 0

Menasha, Wis_____________ _____

Menominee, Mich__________ 0

Middlesboro, Ky ___________ 0

Middlesex, N .J_____________ 2, 000

Middletown, N.Y __________ 20, 000

Millbrae, Calif_____________ _____

Milledgeville, Ga___________ _____

Mill Valley, Calif...................... 5, 000

Mineral Wells, Tex _________ 2, 000

Mission, Tex_______________ 2, 000

Mitchell, S. D ak ...................... 3,00 0

Moberly, Mo______________ 0

Montclair, Calif_____________ 10, 000

Morristown, N .J ----------------- --------

Morristown, Ten n. ................... ...........

Mountain Brook, Ala_______ 10, 000

Mt. Pleasan t, Mich_________ _____

Mt. Vernon, Ohio__________ 2, 000

Mundelein, Il l_____________ 0

Munster, In d______________ 5, 000

Musc atine, Iow a___________ 5, 000

Muskegon Heights, Mich------ 8, 000

Nanticoke, Pa_____________ 1, 000

Naples, Fla________________ 2, 000

Natchez, Miss_____________ 2, 000

Nede rland, Tex____________ 9, 000

Newark, Del_______________ 2, 500

Newark, N.Y ______________ 20, 000

New Smy rna Beach, Fl a------- 5, 000

Newton, Iow a_____________ 5, 000

New Ulm, M ina___________ 5, 000

Niles, M ich............................... 8, 000

Norfolk, Ne br_____________ 5, 000

Norridge, Ill _______________ 10, 000

North College Hill, Ohio------- 0

No rth Providence, R .I ______ 0

No rth Versailles, Pa ________ 35, 000

Norwalk, Ohio_____________ 0

Oil City, P a . . ........................... 5,000

Olean, N.Y ________________ _____

Oneida, N.Y _______________ 0

Oneonta, N.Y _____________ 20, 000

Opelika, Ala_______________ 3, 000

Oregon, Ohio---------------------- --------

61-3 56 0 - 75 - 11
158

Population 10,000 to 25,000—Continued

Amount (t ) life insurance

contributed by employer

Ossining, N.Y _____________ 0

Ottawa , Kans______________ 0

Overland, Mo______________ 0

Owatonna, Minn.................... .. $1, 000

Owosso, M ich______________ 10, 000

Pacific Grove, Calif_________ 0

Painesville, Ohio___________ 0

Palestine, Tex_____________ 1, 000

Palisades Pk., N.J_________ 0

Palm Beach, Fl a___________ _____

Palm Sprgs., Calif__________ 15, 000

Palmer Twp., Pa ___________ 18, 000

Pampa, Tex________ 2, 500

Paris, Tenn.............. 5, 000

Pasco, Wash_______________ 2, 500

Pembroke Pines, Fla .............. 20, 000

Pendleton , O re g..................... 5, 000

Peru, Ill .............. ............. 0

Peru, In d................................. 0

Phillipsburg, N .J___________ 0

Pierre, S.D ak..................... 2, 000

Plattsb urg h, N.Y __________ 0

Plymouth, Pa ______________ _____

Popular Bluff, Mo__________ 0

Portage, In d_______________ 0

Port Angeles, Wash _________ 0

Port Chester, N.Y__________ 10, 000

Portsmouth, N.H ____________ 5, 000

Portsmouth, O h io .. .......................3, 000

Prairie Village, Kans________ _____

Prescott, Ariz.............................. 7, 000

Presque Isle, Maine________ _____

Pulaski, Va________________

Pullm an, Wash__________ . 10, 000

Puyallup, Wash...... ............. __ 5, 000

Randolph, N .J____ _____ 8, 000

Ranto ul, Ill_______________ 5, 000

Rav enna, Ohio_____________ 5, 000

Reading, Mass_____________ 1, 000

Reading, Ohio______ 5, 000

Red Bank, Te nn ___________ 3, 000

Red Wing, Min n___________ 5, 000

Richmond Heights, Mo _____ _____

Riverdale, Il l..................... 5, 000

Riv er Edge, N .J ___________ 0

River Forest, Ill___________ 5, 000

Riv er Rouge. Mich_________ 25, 000

Riviera Beach, Fla_________ 10, 000

Robbinsdale, Minn_________ 35, 000

Rochester, N.H ............ ..... ............. .......

Rock Springs, Wyo_________ 0

Rocky River, Ohio_________ 0

Rolla, Mo_________________ 10, 000

Rolling Meadows, Ill_______ 10, 000

Roselle Park, N .J __________ _____

Roseville, Calif____________ 0

Rutland, V t_______________ 8, 000

Rye, N.Y .................................. ...........

Saddle Brook, N .J __________ 25, 000

St. Albans, W. Va__________ 0

St. Joseph, Mich..... ................ 5, 000

Salem, Ohio_______________ 2, 000

Salisbury Township, Pa _____ 25, 000

San Fernando, Calif. ______ _____

Sanford, F la .. ........................... 25,000

Amo unt (t ) life insurance

contributed by employer

Sanford, N.C______________ _____

Santa Paula, Calif__________ 0

Sapulpa, Okla......................... .. ...........

Saratoga Springs, N .Y . ........ $3,000

Scarsdale, N.Y ____________ _____

Scottsbluff, Nebr___________ 2, 000

Secaucus, N .J ________________ ____

Seguin, Tex ........... ................... 5,000

Seymour, In d______________ 0

Shamokin, Pa______________ 2, 000

Sheffield, A la .. ........................ 2,00 0

Shelbyville, In d____________ 5, 000

Sheridan, Wyo_____________ 0

Sidney, Ohio______________ 6, 500

Sikeston, Mo ______________ _____

Smyrna, Ga _______________ 5, 000

Somerville, N .J ____________ _____

Southbridge, Ma ss___________ 5, 000

South Charleston, W. Va____ 10, 000

South Kingstown, R .I ______ 15, 000

South Milwaukee, Wis______ 10, 000

South Orange, N .J _________ 0

South Pasadena, Calif________ 3, 000

South Plainfield, N .J _______ 0

South St. Paul, Mi nn_______ 5, 000

South San Francisco, Calif___ 5, 000

South Whitehall Township,

Pa ................................... ....... 20,000

Springdale, Ark____________ 0

Statesville, N.C____________ 2, 000

Sterling, Colo______________ 1, 000

Stevens Point, Wis_________ _____

Stow, Ohio________________ _____

Struthers, Ohio____________ 5, 000

Summit, Ill ________________ 10, 000

Sunbury, Pa _______________ 5, 000

Swampscott, Mass__________ 2, 000

Sylvania, Ohio________ 5, 000

Takoma Park, M d_________ _____

Tam arac, Fla______________ 15, 000

The Dallas, Oreg___________ 10, 000

Thomasville, N.C__________ 1, 000

Tiffin, Ohio________________ 0

Trac y, Calif_______________ 5, 000

Tre nton, Mic h_____________ 8, 000

Trin idad , Colo_____________ 0

Troy, Ala_________________ 1, 500

Troy, Ohio________________ 8, 000

Tulare, Calif_______________ 2, 000

Tullahoma, Tenn___________ 5, 000

Union, S.C ________________ _____

Van Wert, Ohio____________ 4, 000

Vermilion, Ohio____________ 5, 000

Vermillion, S. Dak__________ 3, 000

Vernon, Tex_______________ 7, 000

Verona, N .J _______________ _____

Vienna, Va ________________ _____

Virginia, Minn_____________ 4, 000

Wabash, In d_______________ 0

Wadsworth, Ohi o. ._________ 10, 000

Warren, Pa _______________- 20, 000

Warrensville Heights, Ohio__ 5, 00D

Wa shingtor, In d___________ 2, 000

Watertown, S. D a k .. _______ 1, 000

Waterville, Me_____________ . . . —
159

Population 10,000 to 25,000—Co ntin ued

Amount ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Amou nt (t ) life insurance

contributed by employer

Watervliet. N.Y ....................... $5,000

Wayne, Mich______________ 12, 000

Wenatchee, Wash___________ 5, 000

Weslaco, Lex_______________ 2, 000

Westbrook, Maine__________ 0

Westchester, Ill____________ 10, 000

Western Springs, Ill— .............. 5, 000

West Lafa yette, In d__________ 2, 000

Westlake, Ohio_____________ 0

Whitehall Township, Pa _____ 10, 000

White Settlement, Tex------------ 2, 000

Wickliffe, Ohio_______ ____ _ $10, 000

Willmar, Min n_____________ 0

Willoughby, Ohio__________ 5, 000

Willowick, Ohio____________ _____

Wilmington, Ohio__________ 20, 000

Winchester, Va_____________ _____

Winfield, Kans_____________ 10, 000

Winter Haven, Fl a_________ 10, 000

Wooster, Ohio_____________ 0

Yeadon, Pa________________ 25, 000

Zion, Ill___________________ 0

Pop ulation under 10,000

Am ount ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Amount (S) life insurance

contributed by employer

Arnold, Pa_____ ____________$10, 000

Ashland, Wis______________ 9, 000

Bangor, Pa ________________ 10, 000

Bath , Pa __________________ 30, 000

Bay Harbor Island, Fl a_____ 20, 000

Beaver, Pa________________ 20, 000

Bedford, Va_______________ 3, 000

Bellevue, Ohio_____________ 5, 000

Bellevue, Pa _______________ 30, 000

Birdsboro. Pa ______________ 10, 000

Bluffton, In d______________ 2, 000

Bratenahl, Ohio____________ 0

Brazil, In d________________ _____

Cairo, Ill__________________ _____

Carey, Ohio............... ............... 0

Cata sauqua, Pa ____________ 10, 000

Chickasaw, Ala____________ _____

Clifton Forge, Va___________ 1, 000

Coldwater, Mich___________ 5, 000

Colonial Beach, V a. _............... 0

Coopersburg, Pa___________ 0

Coplay, Pa________________ 6, 000

Decatur, In d________________ 4, 000

Delphos, Ohio_____________ 0

Devils Lake, N. Dak _______ _____

Edgewater, Fla____________ 15, 000

Fountain Hill, Pa__________ 7, 500

Fredericksburg, Pa_________ 0

Fremont, Mich________ 2,000

Greencastle, In d___________ 6, 000

Hales Corner, Wis__________ 13, 000

Hellertown, Pa _____________ 15, 000

Hillsboro, Ohio_____________ 0

Hopkinton, N.H ___________ 10, 000

Hudson, N.Y ______________ 0

Ironwood, Mich____________ 0

Jackson, Ohio______________ 0

Jasper, In d________________ 1, 000

Jersey Shore, Pa___________ 35, 000

Keyser, W. Va_____________ 0

Kermit, Tex_______________ 4, 000

Lawrenceburg, In d_________ 0

Mah anoy City, Pa_________ $2, 000

Merchantville, N .J -------------- 10, 000

Middletown, Pa____________ 50, 000

Monticello, In d____________ _____

Mt. Carmel, Pa____________ 3, 000

Mt. Penn, Pa ________ 10, 000

Nazareth , Pa______________ 12, 000

Noblesville, In d____________ 10, 000

Northa mpton, Pa __________ 5, 000

North Braddock, Pa ________ 7, 500

Palmerton, Pa _____________ 10, 000

Park Ridge, N .J ___________ 10, 000

Pen Argyl, Pa_____________ 0

Pittston, P a ._ .............. ........... ...........

Port Clinton, Ohio_________ 2, 000

Portland, In d______________ 2, 000

Princeton, In d-------------------- 2, 000

Pryor, Ok la_______________ 3, 000

Rochester, P a............... ........... 22,0 00

St. Marys, Ohio____________ 0

San Marino, Calif--------------- --------

Sayre, Pa___________________ 2, 000

Seminole, Okla_____________ 0

Shadyside, Ohio____________ 0

Sharpsville, P a_____________ 14, 000

Shelbyville, Ill---------------------- 3, 000

Shenandoah, Pa____________ 15, 000

Slatington, Pa-------------------- 10, 000

Tallassee, Ala----------------------- 3, 000

Tipton, In d-------------------------- 5, 000

Twinsburg, Ohio----------------- 0

Urbana, Ohio______________ _____

Vinita, Okla----------------------- 4, 000

Walnutport, Pa........................................

Wapakoneta, Ohio_________ 2, 000

Wellsville, Ohio------------------ 1, 000

West Frankfort, Ill ,................ 10, 000

West Reading, P a__________ 10, 000

Wildwood, N .J ------------------- --------

Wind Gap, P a ................. ....... 5,00 0

Wyomissing, P a___________ 10, 000

State police and highw ay patrol miscellaneous

Am oun t ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Alaska S tate Police...... ........... $2, 000

California Highway P a tr o l. .. . 5, 000

Colorado State Pa tro l_______ _____

Connecticut Sta te Police____ _____

Amount ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Florida Highw ay Pa tro l_____ $10, 000

Georgia State Pa tro l------------ 0

Idah o State Police_________ 10, 000

Illinois Sta te Police-------------
160

State police and highway patrol miscellaneous—Continued

Amount (t ) life insurance

contributed by employer

Indiana Sta te Police________ $10, 000

Iowa State Police_____ ____ 5, 000

Maine State Police. ................................

Maryland State Police______ 0

Michigan State Police..................... .......

Minnesota S tate Police........... 5, 000

Mississippi Highway Patrol__ _____

Missouri Sta te Highway

Pa tro l.............. 0

Nevada Highway Pa tro l____ _____

New Hampshire State Pol ice.. 0

New Mexico State Police____ 25,000

New York State Police........... 0

Amoun t (t ) life insurance

contributed by employer

North Carolina Highway Patrol 0

North Dakota State Police__ 0

Oklahoma Highway Patro l__ $12, 000

Oregon State Police________ 10, 000

Pennsylvania State Police ......................

Tennessee State Police_____ _______ _

Texas State Police___________ 6, 000

Ut ah Highway Pa tro l............. 10, 000

Verm ont State Police_________ 8, 000

Washington State Patro l____ 0

West Virginia Sta te Police___ 14, 000

Wisconsin S tate Police______ 0

Wyoming Highway P atr o l. .. . 0

Miscellaneous

Amou nt (S ) life insurance

contributed by employer

Annapolis, M d. Special Police. 0

Anne Arundel, MJ . County

Police__________________ $2, 000

Baltimore, Md. Campus Police _____

Clayton Co., Ga. County

Police__________________ 6, 000

Clayton Co., Mo. County

Police__________________ 10, 000

Crown Point, Ind. Sheriff’s

Office________ _______ _ 15,000

Davidson, Tenn., County

Police......................... ........... ...........

Philadelphia, Pa. Federal

Police__________________ 10, 000

Hilo, Hawaii County Police__ _____

Indian R iver Co., Fla. Sheriff’s

O ff ic e. ..______ _________ 10,000

Kingman, Ariz. Sheriff’s Office. 5, 000 

La Plata, Md. Sheriff’s Office. 5, 000

Amount ($) life insurance

contributed by employer

Louisville, Ky. County Police. $2, 000 

Mays Landing, N.J . Sheriff’s

Office___________________ 0

Newport, R.I. Department of 

Defense

Phoenix, Ariz. Sheriff’s Office. 16, 666 

Pinellas Co., Fla. County

Police__________________ 1, 000

Prince Georges, Md. Sheriff’s

De partm ent_____________ _____

Riley Co., Kans. County

Police__________________ _____

Sarasota, Fla. Sheriff’s Office. 10, 000 

Shelbyville, Ind. Sheriff’s

Office___________________ 15, 000

Topeka, Kans. Cap. Sec. Patrol _____

Towson, Md. Sheriff’s Office. 0

Washington, D.C. Capito l 0
• 4

F R A T E R N A L O R D E R O F P O L I C E

J7/,r O n f. j W at t,

Founded May 14, 1915 

in Pitts bu rg h, Pa.

P o fi ce O rg a n iz a ti o n

C hartered in Pennsylva nia

November 17, 1915

Pr eam ble to t h e C on st itution

We, the police officers of the United Stales and of the several 

states and political subdivisions thereof, as Representatives and Delega tes of State and Subordinate Lodges, do here by associate the Lodges we represent and the members thereof together for the following purposes:

To support and defend the Constitution of the United States, 

to inculcate loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America; to promote and foster the enforcement of law and order; to improve the individual proficiency of our members in the 

performance oi their duties; to enco urag e social, char itable and educational activities among policemen; to advocate and strive 

for uniform application of the civil service merit system for 

appointment an d promotion; to create a tradition of esprit de 

corps insuring fidelity to duty under all conditions and circumstances; to cultivate a spirit of fraternalism and mutual helpfulness among our members and the people we serve; to increase the efficiency of the police profession and thus more firmly to establish the confidence of the public in the service dedicated to the protection of life and property. Article II — Section 2 o r th e Const itut ion The Fraternal Order of Police is strictly non-sectarian, a nd shall have no affiliation, directly or indirectly, with any labor union, congress, federation or committee of like nature, or political action committee, or similar organization by whatever name known. ihe Fraternal Order of Police shall not strike or by concerted action cause a cessation of the performance of the Police duties, or induce other members or lodges to do likewise. The penalty for such action by any member, or subordiate lodge, shall be immediate expulsion from the Fraternal Order of Police. 05
President

JOHN J. HARRING TON

C l " ! h u ll . I’l .' ll li s i Iv illli u

I’nsl President 

JACK DUIJEK

.SIi i iLi t lh- ij: hls . <»!••■»

Vice President

ROBERT H. (l’AT) STARK

hiiln nuip id N . Im lh iini

Secretarv

WILLIAM R. BANNIST ER

F li n l. Michigan

Treasurer

RICHA RD J. FARA GHER

Cl evela nd. Ohio

Conductor

RICHARD A. SIM MONS

K ollirio n*. M ar ylan d

G u a r d

BOBBY G. (BOB) BRYANT

Mon tgom ery. A lobo mo

Natio na l Ilo adquurtcrs

G-31 36 VV. PASADENA AVENUE 

FLINT. MICHIGAN 4 8 5 0 4

Board of Trustees

GIL BERT E BOLLINGER 

Chairman

Hixson, Tennessee

JAMBS JACKSON 

lucksunvilln. Alubaitui

VA NC E M. BIN GAMAN 

Phoenix. Arizona 

MATTHEW W. IXJN OVA N Wilmington, Dvluwurv

BERNARD Mil.STEIN 

Miami IIih iiIi. Florida

W II.LI E M. CLEM EN TS 

Mucun. GeorgiYt*

JOSEPH L. VK RT UN O 

Melrose Purk. Illin ois

JOSEPH N. NO VO TN YGEORGE M EI.IO N , JR

I .on is villa, Kentucky

ANTHONY I). POI.ITOMetairie, Ixmisiuna

ANDY J. BE AL L

Lanham. Maryland

VINCE NT J ROCCHIOSaganatv. Michigan

CHARLES R. HARRIS

Independence. Missouri

EARL A MOHATT

Omaha. Nebraska

EA RL F. DEAN

Duller, New lerscyTO NY HE RN AN DE Z

Albuquerque. New Mexico

CHA RL IE L. HAR TIS

Charlotte. North Carolina

ROBERT L GEORGE

Magadan. Ohio

KENN ETH A. NA SH

Oklahoma City. Oklahoma

ALFR ED YOBBI

Pittsburgh. Pennsylvania

RAYMOND PE ZZUL LO

Providence. Rhode Island

DAVID I*. GREEN

Sioux Fails. South DakotaG CAR LT ON BAIRDCharlottesville, Virginia

EDWAR D L. WEI I II. JR

Wheeling. West Virginia

JOHN HEN DERSON. FEDERAL LODGERidley Park. Pennsylvania

05t o

* • 9
163

App endix 4

I nt er na tion al Assoc iatio n of F ir e F ight er s

56 TH A NNUA L F IR E D E PA R T M E N T W O R K IN G C O N D IT IO N S SU R V EY IN T H E 

U N IT E D STA TES AN D CA NA DA (P A R T 2)

Ja nu ar y 1975

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

acc

A.C.

A. D. & D.

aft

am

ann

attend

ch

comp

D.C.

D.l.

disc

ea

emg

est

fam

F.C.

furn

grs

ngts

hr

inc

immed

legit

Iv

max

mbr

med

min

mo

nec

OD

opt

par

accumulate 

Accidental Death

Accidental Death & Dismemberment

after

morning

annual

attendance

chief

compensatory 

Dental Coverage 

Disability Insurance 

discretion 

each

emergency

estimate

fam ily

Family Coverage 

furnished 

ross 

eights 

hour 

increase 

immediate 

legitimate 

leave 

maximum 

member 

medical 

minimum 

month 

necessary 

off-duty 

option 

partially

per permission

perf perfect

pers personnel

pm afternoon

qtrly quarterly

reg regular

ref relative

resp respectively

rt rate

sal salary

seq sequence

sh shift

St Saint

str straight

SV service

twp township

uni unlimited

vac vacation

wkly weekly

wks weeks

w/o without

wrk work

y year (salaries only)

yr year (work ing conditions)

Symbols

@ after

t cent

$ dollar

= equal

/ per

+ plus

X times

Life insurance

Amount

Cost to 

city 

(percent)

Alabama:

Andalusia............ ........ $1,000............................ 100

Auburn................ 50

Birm ingham ........ 100

Fairfield _______ ........ $10,000....................... 100

Gadsden.............. ____$7,000........................... 100

Huntsville_____ ........$10,000.................. . . . 100

Mobile.......................... $5,000............ . .......... 100

Montgomery____ ........$2,500............................ 100

Selma............................

Sheffield............... ........$2,000........................... 100

Tuscaloosa....................$5,000........................ 100

Alaska:

Anchorage............ ------ Annual salary to

highest thousand.

. . . . $10,000........................

100

Fairbanks.............. 100

Arizona:

Bisbee................... . . . . $2,000................

Flagstaff................ . . . . $6,000____ _______ 100

Glendale................ . . . . $1,000 over gross 

inc.

100

Mesa...................... . . . . $10,000 to 20 ,0 00 .... 100

Phoenix................. . . . . $4,000.................. 100

Tempe.................. . . . . $5,000....................... .. 100

Tucson.......................... Equal to 1 yr sal ar y. . 75

Yuma.............................Annual salary............... 100

Life insurance

Cost to

Amount

city

(percent)

Arkansas:

Hot Sp rings.............. .. $2,000............... ........ 100

Malvern____ _____ .. $1,000............... ........ 100

Pine Bluff................. .. $1,500.............. ........ 100

Russellville_______ .. $2,000........... .. ........ 100

Texarkana................ .. $2.000...............

California:

Alam eda............... .. $7,000............... ........ 0

Alhambra..................

Ava lon____ ____ _ .. $5,000.............. ........ 100

Belmont.................... ... $12,000............. ........ 100

Benicia.......................

Berkeley................... .. $1,000............

Brisbane....................... $14,000............. ........ 100

B urlin gam e............... $5,000............... ........ 100

California fo re str y.. .

Cam pbe ll...................... $10,000.............. ........ 100

Chula Vista................. . $3,000................ ........ 100

Claremont____ ____ . $12,000.............. ........ 75

Clovis.................... .. . $5,000............ 100

Contra Costa County. . $2,500................ 67

Coronado....................

Culver City.................. . $10,000............... 100

Dale C ity .....................

Eureka........................ . $5,000.................____ 100

Fontana.......................
164

Life insurance

Amount

Cost to 

city 

(percent)

California:

Fremont............ ........... $5,000____________ 100

Fresno........................... $1,500......................... 100

Garden Grove_______ Annual salary______ 100

Half Moon Bay______ $14,000 to $2 8,00 0... >00

Hemet_____________

Kern County.................

LaHabra_____ ______ $11,000___________ 100

Liv erm ore .................. $1,000................. .. 100

Los A ltos...................... 1 ^ tim es annual 

salary.

100

Los Angeles________

Los Angeles Coun ty... $2,000................. .. 100

Madera____________ $2,500................. .. 100

Marin County..........

M a ry sville .. ........... . $8,000........... .............. 100

Merced____________ $5,000......................... 100

Merced C ounty ..........

M illb ra e .. .......... ......... Annual salary to 100

high thousand.

Modesto____________ $2,000......................... 100

Morro Bay__________ $2,500........................ 0

Mountain View______ Annual salary______ 100

Newark____________ $2,000......................... 100

Oakland____ ____ _

Orange_____ ____ _ $2,000____________ 100

Oxnard_____________ $5,000......................... 100

Palos Verdes Estates.. $5,000_____________

Petaluma______ ____ $2,000................... .. 100

Pie dm on t.. .............

Pleasanton_________ 100

Richmond.....................

$10,000...................

Sacram en to ... ........... $2,500............. ............ 100

Salinas___________

San Bernardino............ $1,000____________ 100

San Diego........... .........

San Francisco_______

San Jose___________ $5,000____ _______ 100

San Mateo__________ $10,000__________ 100

San Rafael_________

Santa Barbara............_

$5,000......... ................ 100

Santa Clara_________ $10,000____ ______ 100

Santa Cruz........ ...........

Santa Monica...............

Santa Rosa......... ......... $ 5 ,0 0 0 ........ . . . 100

South Gate_________ $3,000____ ________

Spring Valley................

Stanford___________

Stockton.......................

Torrance............. .........

Union City.......... .......... $10,000___________ 100

University of California $5,000____ _______ 100

Vernon____________ $1 0, 00 0. .................... 100

V a lle jo .. ......................

Watsonville..................

W h it tie r.. ...................

Woodside Fire............. 100

Colorado:

$14,000 to $2 8,00 0...

Bancroft........................ $10,000....................... 100

Boulder............ ............ $12,000___________ 33 H

Canon City.................... $4,000......................... 100

Cherry Hills________ . $10,000............. . . . . 100

Colorado Spring s____ times annual 

salary.

50

Denver........................

Englewood........... . . $11,000______ ____ 100

Fort Collins________ . Equal annual sa lary.. 50

Greeley....................... . $5,000____________ 100

Leadville__________ . $2,000_____ ______ 100

Longmont................... . $13,000..................... .. 100

Pueblo........................

Thornton.......................l j i times annual 100

Life insurance

Cost to 

city

Amount (percent)

ndugdiu m ... . . . . . . . . <i v,v vv -----------------

New Britain.................. $5,000.— ................. 100

New London.................................. ........... .............................

Norwich...................... .. $12 ,000...................... 100

Stratford....................... $5,000......................... 100

Torring ton____ _____ $5,00 0.— ................... 100

Wallingford...................$12,000......................... 100

Waterbury.....................$4,000...........................

West Ha rtfo rd.............. $21,000.......................... 100

West Haven____ ____ $5 ,0 0 0 .. ...................... 100

W es tp or t..................... $5,000.— ................... 100

Willima ntic................... $7 ,5 00 ....................... 100

Delaware: W ilm ingt on ... $30,000....................... 100

District of Columbia____ 2d thousand above 66?5

salary.

West Adams County...............................................................

Connecticut:

East Haven......... ........ $5,000.......................... 100

Ha rtfo rd.............. ........ $20,000. . . . . . . . . . 100

Meriden_______ ........ $4,000 . . . ............. 100

Milfor d................ ____ Annual salary............... 100

salary.

Florida:

Boynton Beach............ $25,000................. 100

Clearwater................ .. . 1 percent of base ___

Cocoa Beach............

pay.

. $23,000___________ 100

Conway--------------------- 100

Coral Gables________. $20,000___________ 100

Dade City.................... . $5,000____________ 100

Dade County...... .........

Dav ie.. ........ .............. $20,000____ ______ 100

Daytona Beach______ . $20,000_____ _____ 100

Deerfield Beach------ .. $6,000 ....................... 100

Delray Beach----------- . $10,000____ ______ 100

Fort Lauderdale____ . 4 times annual 94

Fort Myers________

salary plus 

$20,000.

. $20,000....................... 100

Gainesville_________ . $20,000___________ 50

Hollywood_________ . $20,000____ ______ 100

Homestead_________ . $5 ,0 00................ . 100

Jacksonville________ $22,000____ ______ 100

Kissimmee_________ . $5,000____ _______ 100

Lake City----------------- . $2,000 100

Lakeland____ _____ . $31,000.............................

Lake Worth________ . $20,000......... . ........... 100

Lauderhill......... ......... . $2,500____ _______ 100

Miami.......................... 80

Miami Springs......... . . $2 ,0 00.............. 100

Naples....... .............. . $2,000......... . ............. 100

Newport Richey____ . $3,000 100

New Smyrna Be ach.. . $10 ,000................... .. 100

North Miami Be ach.. . 2.5 times year pay... 100

North Naples_______ $26,000______ . . 100

Oakland Park............. . $20,000................... 100

Orlando___________ . $5,000_____ ______ 100

Pampano Beach____ . $20 ,000.................. 100

Reedy Creek_______ . Annual salary............ 100

St. Petersburg______ . $10,000...................... 50

St. Petersburg Beach. . $5,00 0.____ ______ 100

Tallahassee________ . $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 .. .. .............. 0

Tam pa____________ . $15,000___________ 100

Tarpon Springs.......... . $5,000................ . 100

Vero Beach________ . $ 8 ,0 0 0 .. .. ................ 100

West Palm Beach___ . $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 ............ 100

Winter Park................ . $7, 000 to $10, 000. 100

Georgia:

A tl a n ta .. ................... . Varies according 100

DeKalb County..........

year salary.

.. Up to $20,000............ 60

Marietta__________ .. Varies according 100

Waycross....................

year salary.

.. $1,000........ . ........... .. 50

Hawaii............................ .. $20,000..................... 100

Idaho:

Boise....... ........... — 100

Coeur D'Alene_____ . $1,500.................... . 100

Idaho Falls________ 100

Kellog____________ .. $2,000............ ........... 100

Lewiston........ ........... . $5,000____ ______ . 100

Pocatello__________ . $3,000____________ 100

Twin Falls.................... $2,000........ . 100

Whitney___________.. $1,000.......... . ........... 100
Life insurance

Amoun t

Illin ois :

Alton.................................$2,0 00....................

Aurora.................................................................

Berwyn............................. $10,0 00................

Bloomington......................................................

Cairo....................................................................

Carbondale.........................................................

Champaign......................$2 ,0 00 .....................

Chicago............................ $ 6,0 00 ....................

Chicago Heights...............................................

Danville ........................... $2,00 0.....................

Decatu r............................$5,0 00 ....................

DeKalb................................................................

Dixon................................$ 7 ,0 0 0 .............

East Alton.......................$ 5,00 0...............

East Mo line.....................$ 1 ,0 0 0 ................

East Peo ria..................... $5 ,000 ...............

Edwardsville...................$ 3,0 00......... ..........

E lg in .............................$1,000...............

Franklin Pa rk.................$5,000...............

Granite City.................... $2,000 to $5,000.

Harrisburg..........................................................

Herrin..................................................................

Jacksonville.......................................................

Jo lie t................................ $1 0, 00 0...................

Kankakee........................$2 ,0 00 .....................

Kewanee..........................$5 ,0 00 ......................

LaGrange.........................$30,0 00..................

Lockport.......................... $8 ,0 00 ...................

Marion.................................................................

Mattoon........................... $5 ,000 ...................

Northbro ok..................... Nearest $1,000

salary.

North Maine ...................$1 0,00 0...................

Ottawa..................................................................

Paris................................. $1 ,000 ...................

Peoria...............................$ 1,00 0..................... .

Quincy..........

Islan d.

$1 ,500.

Rock I $3 ,000 .

Springfield...................... $1 5,00 0.

Sterling............................ $3 ,000 ..............................

University of Illino is, annual salary.........

Urbana.

Waukegan........................$5,000 ..............................

W in net ka ....................................................................

Ind iana:

Alexa ndria.......................$1 0,000............................ .

Anderson.........................$2 0,00 0............................ .

Bra zil................................$ 10 ,000 .............................

Clay Tow nship...............$ 10 ,000 ............................

Columbus........................ $7 ,000 ............................

Connersville....................$ 2,00 0..............................

Elkhart.............................$1 5,000............................

Elwood...........................................................................

Evansville........................ $20,00 0...........................

Frankfo rt........................... ...........................................

Gary.................................. 1J^ times annual

salary.

Goshen...........................................................................

Hamm ond....................... $ i0 ,0 00............................

Hob art.............................. $1 0,00 0............................

Indianapolis.................... $2 ,000 ............................

Kendallv ille...................................................................

Kokomo............................$10 ,00 0............................

Lafaye tte......................... $10,000............................

Laporte.............................$5 ,000...............................

Logansport....................................................................

M arion............................ $ 3 ,0 0 0 .. ..........................

Michigan Ci ty.................$5 ,000 to $ 10 ,0 0 0 .. ..

Mis haw aka......................$10,00 0...............................

Monticello.....................................................................

Muncie...........................................................................

Peru..................................$ 5,000...............................

Portage.............................$1 0,000............................

Richmond........................ .............................................

Seymour........................... $3 ,000............................

Shelbyville...................... $5,000...............................

South Bend__________ $2,000...............................

Speedway........................ $5,000............................

Tip ton ............................... $5,000..............................

Vin cenn es...................................................................

165

Cost to

city

(perce nt)

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

90

100

100

50

100

100

100

66J4

100

99

100

100

100

0

100

0

100

100

100

100

100

100

75

100

100

100

100

100

100

0

100

99

100

100

100

Life insurance

Amount

Indiana:

Warren Township......................................................

Washington Town ship. $20 ,00 0..........................

West Lafayette_______$5,00 0_______________

Iowa :

Am es ................................$10,0 00_______ _____ _

Boone...............................$ 1,0 00_______________

Burlington ...................................................................

Cedar Falls.....................$2,000...............................

Cedar Rapids..................$1 0,0 00.............................

Charles C ity .................$ 5 ,0 0 0 ... .......................

Council B lu ff s.. ............$ 5,0 00.............................

Daven port........................$10,00 0............................

Dubuque..........................$ 6,0 00...............................

Fort Dodge..................................................................

Fort Mad ison......... ............................................... ..

Iowa Ci ty.........................$ 1,0 00..............................

Keo kuk.............................$5 ,000...............................

Ma rio n..............................$ 5,0 00......... ...................

Ma rsh alltow n________ $5,0 00......... ................. ..

Mason City......................$5,000...............................

Muscatin e___________ $5,000_______________

Newton ______ ______ _ $5,000______________

Oelw ein .........................................................................

Oskaloosa.....................................................................

Sioux Ci ty........................$5 ,0 00.............................

Waterloo ..........................$10,000.............................

Kansas:

Arkansas Ci ty................ $6,000________ _____ _

Coffeyville.......................$ 12,00 0............................

Eldorado........................................................................

Great Bend............... $5,0 00....... ................. ..

Hays..................................$15,00 0.............................

Kansas Ci ty.................... $40,000............................

Law rence.........................$5,000 to $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .. ..

Ma nhattan.......................$2 0,0 00.............................

New ton................... .. $2,0 00.— ...................

Pra irie Villag e..............................................................

Salina.............................................................................. Topeka.............................$30 ,00 0.............................

Wic hita............................. $5,000 to $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 .. ..

Kentucky:

Henderson.......................$3 ,00 0..............................

Hopkinsville..................................................................

Lou isville.......................................................................

Owensboro.........................$12,000 to 1 8 ,0 0 0 .. ..

Paducah........................... $12,4 00............................

Shiv ely ............................ $15,0 00............................

Somerse t.......................................................................

Louisiana:

Ab be ville .........................$2,0 00...............................

Baton Rouge...................$ 1 3 ,0 0 0 .. .......................

Bogalusa..........................$2 ,50 0...............................

Cro wle y..........................................................................

Eunice...............................$2,0 00...............................

Hamm ond ......................................................................

H o u m a .. .........................$ 3 ,0 0 0 .........................

Kenne r............................. $2,00 0............. .................

La fayette.........................$10,000.............................

Lake Charles..................$5,00 0...............................

M in den...........................$ 6,0 00..............................

Monroe...........................................................................

New Ib er ia......................$3,0 00_______________

Pine ville .........................................................................

St. Bernard .....................$2,00 0...............................

Sco tla nd ville -B an ks ... $8,00 0............................

Shre veport ..................................................................

Su lphu r............................ $5,00 0...............................

Maine:

Augusta............................$7,500...............................

Bidd eford........................$1,0 00...............................

Br ew er_________ _____ $7,000_______________

Ga rdine r...........................$9,000...............................

Old Orchard Beach___ Sa lary...............................

Old Town .........................$2,0 00...............................

Roc klan d......................................................................

Rum ford---------------- -------- - ---------------------------------

Saco.................................................................................

Sanford...............................................

South Portland.............. $10,000.

Waterville ......................................... .

Cost to

(per ce nt )

100

100

100

100

100

0

100

100

50

100

100

100

100

100

100

0

85

50

100

100

100

85

100

100

100

100

100

25

100

100

50

50

100

100

50

50

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

72.3

100

50

0

100

60
166

Life insurance Life insurance

Amoun t

Cost to 

city 

(p erc ent) Amou nt

Cost to 

city 

(p erc ent)

Mar yland: Mas sachusetts:

Ann apo lis ........................ $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 .. . ______ 100 See ko nk ........... ............. . $ 10 ,0 0 0.. ......................

An ne Aru nd el Cou nt y. $2 ,000______________ 100 Sha ro n................ ...........

B altim ore _____ ______ $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .................... 100 Som erv ille__________ . $2,000............................ 100

Ba ltimor e Co un ty____ $10,000______ ______ Sou thbr idge _________ . $2,000............................ 0

Baltimore,^Washington Springfie ld ______ _. . $2 to $4,00 0______ 50

Inte rn ationa l Stone na m................. .... . $2 ,000_____________ 50

A irp ort. Sudbury ____________ . $2,00 0_____________ 100

Cum ber land................... $2 ,000_____________ 100 Sw am ps co tt_________ . $2,00 0_____ ________ 0

Prince Georges Co unty. 5 0xm o. sa lar y 100 Tewks bur y_________

+ 2 0 X yr sa lary. Wak efield___________ . $ 2 ,0 0 0 ... _________ 50

Salis bury ____________ W altham ____________ . $2,000___________ _ 50

Ma ssachusetts: Wa re_______________

A bin gto n____________ $2,000_____________ 50 W at er town__________ . $ 2 ,0 0 0 ....________ 50

Acto n................................ $2,000 50 W ay land . _____ . . $4,000 50

Agawa m_____________ $2,000_____________ 50 Wes tfield ___________ . $2,000_____________ 100

A m e sbu ry ...................... $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 100 W es tpor t____ _______ . $2,000____________ 50

Am her st _____________ $2,00 0............................ 75 West Springfield ____ . $ 2 ,0 0 0 ... ................ 50

And ove r...................... $2,000_____________ 50 Wes tw ood__________ . $2 ,000 _____________ 50

Ashl an d.................. ........ $3,000............................ 100 Weywo od...................... . $2 ,000 ......... ................. 50

A th ol............... ................. $2,000........................... 75 W hitm an___________ . $2 ,000 ______________

B ed fo rd ........................... $2,000..................... .. W ilb ra ham __________ . $2 ,000 _____________ 50

Bellingh am ..................... $2,000........................... 50 W ilm in g to n ................. . $2 ,000 ........................... 50

Bel m on t........................... $ 2 , 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 W in ch es te r_________ . $2 ,000 ........................... 50

Bev erly ............................ $3,00 0............................ 50 W or ce st er __________ . $2,00 0........................... 100

Boa rne......... ................. $2 ,000.............. ............. 100 Yar m out h___________ . $2 ,0 00 _____ _______ 100

Bro ck to n......................... $2,00 0....................... 75 Michiga n:

Bro ok lin e____ _______ $2,00 0..................... .. 90 A drian ........................... . $10,000......................... 100

Ca mbridge ___________ Alle n P ark __________ . $15,0 00____________ 100

Can ton.................. .......... $10,0 00.......................... 50 Alp ena_____________ . $1 0,000____________ 100

Cente rv ille -O ste rv ille .. $2,000_____________ 50 An n A rb or____ _____ . $1 9,000......... ............... 100

Che lm sfor d_____ _____ $2,000........................... 50 An n Arb or Tow nsh ip . . $1 0,000.................. 100

Ch ico pee.......... ............... $4,00 0_____ ________ 50 Battle C re ek. _____ . $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 .................... 100

Conco rd........................... $2,00 0............................ 100 Ba ttle Cree k $1 0,00 0......................... 100

Ded ha m_____________ $2,00 0............................ 50 Tow ns hip.

Duxb ury _____________ $2,000_____________ 75 Bentcn Harb or ____ . $7 5,00 ........................... 100

Eve re tt............................. $2,000............................ Bento n Townsh ip ___ . $10,00 0____________ 100

Fall River ........................ $2,000_____________ Big Ra pids__________ . $2,0 00_____________ 100

Fra mingh am _________ $2,000_____________ 50 Birm ingham ________ . $ 20,0 00.____ _______

Glouces ter....................... $2,000............................ 75 Blackm an T ow nship .. . $10,0 00........................ 100

Harw ich........................... $ 2 ,0 0 0 .. ___________ 50 Ce nte r Lin e_________ . 20,00 0 db l in d ............ 100

H a v e r h ill ..................... $2 ,000_____________ 50 Clinton Township ___ . $10 ,0 0 0............ .......... 100

Holb ro ok ......................... $2,000............................ 50 Co mm erce Tow nsh ip . . $1 0,0 00_____ ______ _

Holyo ke ........................... $4,000............................ 50 Dear bo rn ....................... . $1 1, 00 0____________ 100

Ho pe da le____ _______ $10,000......................... 100 De arborn Heig ht s___ . $1 0,0 00............. .......... 100

Hu dson ............................ $20,0 00____________ D e tr o it_____________ . $17,500......................... 50

Ip sw ic h............................ East D e tr o it .. _____ . $10 ,00 0_______ _____ 100

Kings ton.......................... $2 ,000_____________ 50 Ecorse______________ . $10,0 00......................... 100

La wre nc e........................ $2,000_____________ 100 Em mett T o w n s h ip .._ . $10,000____________ 100

Leo m in st er ................. $2,000.......................... 75 Escanaba___________ . $ 5 ,0 0 0 ... .................. 100

Le xingto n................. .. $2 ,000_____________ 50 Fe rndale____________ . $18,0 00____________ 100

Ludlo w ______________ $2,000.............. ............. 50 F li n t_______________ . $10 ,000____________ 100

Lynn............................. $2,000........................... 100 Fraser............................ . $10,0 00____________ 100

M ald en ............. ............... $2,00 0_____ ________ 75 Garden C ity_________ . $1 0,0 00......... ............... 100

M ar bleh ea d___ ______ $2,000............................ 75 Grand R a pid s.. ........... . $15,000____________ 100

M arlb oro ......................... Grosse Point F arm s.. . $ 1 0 , 0 0 0 . . . . .. . . . . . 100

May nar d.......................... $ 2 , 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Grosse Pointe P a rk .. ... $ 1 3 ,0 0 0 .. .......... .. 100

M edfo rd ........................... $2,000______________ 50 Hampton___________ . $5,000_____________ 100

Melrose ........................... H a m tr a m c k .. ............. _ $5,000_____________ 100

M ilfo rd ........................ $2,000............................ 50 Ha rrison Tow nship .. . $10,0 00.____ ______ 100

M il to n ........................... .. $2,000_____ ________ 50 Hazel Par k_________ . $20,000____________ 100

Nee dh am ______ _____ $2,000............ 50 Holland _____________ . $5 ,000_____________ 100

New Bed fo rd ________ $2 ,000_____________ 50 In kste r_____________ . $15,000____________ 100

Newbury port............. .. $2,0 00.. . . . . . 75 Io nia _______________ . $5 ,000_____________ 100

Northam pto n________ $2,000__________ _ 50 Iron Mou ntain______ . $2,000_____________ 100

North And over ............ $2,000.......................... 35 Ironw oo d___________

No rth A ttle boro ............. $2,000............................ 100 Ja ck so n......................... . $50,000 to $5,000 100

North Reading ........... $ 2 ,0 0 0 .. ___________ 50 de clining.

Norwoo d_____________ $2,000_____________ 50 Ka lam azoo_________ . $15,000____________ 100

Peabody_____________ $2 ,000_____________ 99 Kings fo rd ___________

Pem br ok e_____ ______ $2 ,000 ....................... 50 Lincoln P ar k________ . $7 ,0 00 _____________ 100

Plym outh $2,000 .......................... 99 Livonia . . . . _____ . $1 9,00 0t o $ 27 ,0 0 0 .. . 100

Ran do lph........................ $3,00 0............................ 50 Ma dison He ights____ . $10,00 0____________ 100

Re ading________ _____ $2 ,000___________ 50 M ary sville __________ . $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .. .................. 100

Roc kla nd ......................... $2,000 double 100 M elvin dale_________ . $1 0,000......................... 100

inde m nity . Men om inee _________ . $2,00 0_____________ 100

Salem _______________ $ 2 ,0 0 0 ............ ........... 65 Meridan T o w n s h ip .. . . Salary to high 100

San dwich........... ............. $2 ,000 _____________ 98 tho usands.

Saugus ..

S cituate .

$2,000. 100 M id la nd........................... $10,000 tr 11,000

pd up.
Life insurance

Amount

167

Cost to 

city 

(percent)

Life insurance

Amount

Cost to 

city 

(perc ent

Michigan: New Ham pshire:

Monroe__________ .. $12,500....................... 100 Ber lin ....................... . . . $5,000........................ 100

Mount Clemens____ .. $15,000___________ 100 Clarem ont............... . . . $2,000........................ 100

Muskegon................. . . $8,000......................... 100 Co ncord.................

Plymouth____ . . . .. $15,000___________ 100 Dover___________ . . . $2,000......... . ............. 100

Pontiac..................... .. $20,000...................... 100 Manchester______

Portage__________ .. $5 ,0 00 .................... 60 Portsm outh.............

Port Huron________ .. Equal to base p a y .. . 100 New Jersey:

Redford Township. .. $20,000.................... .. 100 Camden_________

River Rouge_______ .. $25,000.................... 100 Elizabe th................. . . . $11,500___________ 100

Roseville__________ .. $15,000____ ______ 100 Hackensack............

Royal Oak_________.. $20,000.................. .. 100 Harrison................... . . . $2,500............. . ......... 100

Saginaw__________ .. $10,000.................... 6634 Irv ington ................ . . . 3 H times salary........ 0

S t Clair Shores____ .. $10,000 to 20, 00 0. ... 100 Jersey City.............. . . . $5,000........... ............. 100

St. Joseph_________

Shelby to wns hip___

. $10,000______ ____ 100 Newark.................... . . . $5,000____________ 100

.. $3,000 to $2 0,00 0.... 100 Northfield............... . . . 3J4 times salary______

Southfield..................... $20,000...................... 100 West New Y o rk .. ..

Southgate_________ .. $15,000...................... 100 Woodbridge______ . . . $6,000......................... 100

Sterling Heights____ .. $20,000................. 100 New Mexico:

Traverse City ______ . $2,000______ _____ 100 Albuquerque.......... . . . $6,000 to $2 6, 00 0. ... 100

Westland........... ......... . $1 5,0 00 .................. . 100 Raton....... ...............

Wyandotte. .......... .. . $10,000____ ______ 100 Carlsbad.................. . . . $5,000......................... 50

Ypsilanti Township..... $20,000....................... 100 New York:

Minnesota:

Au stin................... . . . . $4 ,0 00 ...

Coon Rapids_____ . . . . $10,000..

Duluth .................. . . . . $2 ,0 00 ...

Edina___________. . . . $5 ,0 00 ...

Fariba ult________ . . . . $3 ,0 00 ...

Fridley.................. . . . . $10,0 00..

Manka to.. _________ 1 yrs pay.

Minneapolis_____ . . . . $5 ,0 00 ...

Owatonna_______ . . . . $1 ,0 00 ...

Red Wing_______ . . . . $2 ,0 00 ...

Rochester_______ . . . . $10,0 00..

St. Cloud________ . . . . $10,0 00..

St. Louis Park____ . . . $5,0 00...

St. Paul_________ . . . . $5 ,0 00 ...

South St. Paul......... . . . $5 ,0 00...

West St. Paul......... . . . . $13,000..

lississippi:

Hattiesburg______ . . . . $10,000

Jackson_________ . . . . $10,000

Laurel.....................

Natchez_________ . . . $2,000

’ upelo__________ . . . $7,000

100

100

100

100

60

100

0

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

0

50

50

Missouri:

Columbia................................................................

Florissant................................................................

Grandview.....................$10,000

Jefferson City .........................................................

Rolla..............................$10,000

St. Joseph......................$2,000

St. Louis........................ Sal. + near thous....

Sedalia.............................$10,000

Springfield.....................$22,000

Montana:

Anaconda...................... $20,000

Billings..........................$5,000

Bozeman................................................................

Great Falls..............................................................

Havre.............................$2, 000

Helena....................................................................

Missoula.................................................................

Nebraska:

Be atrice ........................$5,000

Columbus......................$5,000

Fremont........................ $10,000

Grand Island.................$3, 000

Hastings.........................$2, 000

Lincoln.......................... $10,000

McCook......................... $3,000...........................

Omaha....................................................................

Sco ttsbluff.....................$2,000...........................

York...............................$5,000...........................

Nevada:

Carson C it y .................$10 ,000 .......................

Henderson.....................$5,000...........................

Las Vegas......................$10,000...........................

North Las Vegas...........$10,000.........................

Sparks...........................$10,000.........................

100

50

100

100

100

100

0

100 

100 

66 34 

100 

0

6634

100

100

100

100

100

100

60

Batavia.

Binghamton................................................

Brig hton......................................................

Buffalo...........................$5,000..................

Canandaigua.................$50,000................

Dun kirk ......................... $3,000..................

Eastchester.................................................

E lm ir a..........................$5,000..................

End icott......................................................

Fairview......................................................

Garden C ity...................$50,000.................

Gloversville................................................ .

G re en ville ................................................. .

Hartsdale.....................................................

Hornell.........................................................

Ithaca...........................................................

Jamestown.................................................

Johnson City...............................................

Johnstown.....................$10,000.................

Kenmore....................... $20,000.................

Kingston......................................................

Larchmont.....................$20,000.................

Lockpo rt........................$20,000.................

Mamaroneck.................$10,000.................

Massena.......................................................

Mount Vernon............................................

New burgh..................... $5,000...................

New York C it y ..........................................

North Tonawanda........ $10,000.................

Norwich.........................$5,000...................

Pelham Manor.............. $5,000.................

Port Chester................. $10,000..................

Rochester........ .............$2,500..................

Rome.............................$6,000...................

Rye................................. $10,000..............

Saratoga Sprin gs.......... $3,000.................

Scarsdale......................................................

Schenectady.................................................

Sc otia...........................................................

Syracuse....................... $15,000.................

Tonawanda......... .........................................

Utica..............................................................

Watertown....................................................

Wa terv liet.....................$5,000....................

White Plains................. $15,000..................

Yonkers.........................$5,000....................

North Carclin a:

C h a rlo tt e .. ................. $8,000 to 50,000.

Goldsbcro......................Years s a la ry .. ..

Raleigh.......................... $1 2,50 0...............

Salisbury.......................Yr salary...............

North Dakota:

Fargo.............................................................

Grand Fork................... $3,000....................

Mino t........... ................. $5,000_________

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

50

100

100

100

100

0

100

60

100

100

100

100
Life insurance

Am ou nt

168

Life ins urance

Co st to 

city 

(p erc ent) Am oun t

Cost to 

city 

(p erc ent)

Ohio :

A kro n..................................$2 ,000............................

A lli ance............................$5,000..............................

Ash ta bu la.......................... $2 ,000............................

Ath ens ................................$7 ,500 ............................

Avon Lak e.........................$ 5,000............................

Bay V ill age......................$10,000............................

Bedfo rd ............................$5,000..............................

Bel lefo nt ain e.................. $2,000..............................

Be rea................................ $3,000..............................

Boardm an Tow nship ...................................................

Bow lin g Green...............$ 10,00 0............................

Bro oklyn..........................................................................

Ca mbridge .......................$4,000..............................

Ca nton ..............................$5 ,00 0..............................

C hillic oth e....................... $2,00 0..............................

Cin cinna ti........................ $1,00 0..............................

Cleve land ........................................................................

Cleveland Heigh ts........................................................

Clin to n Tow nship .........................................................

Colu m bus .......................$10,000............................

Cuyahoga Heigh ts........................................................

Day ton..............................$5,000..............................

Defiance_____________ $4,000 _______ _____

De lawa re..........................$5,000..............................

Do ver................................$4,000..............................

East Liverp ool................$10,000.............................

E lyria ................................................................................

E uc lid ................................$6,000 ..............................

Fairborn ...........................$5,000...............................

Fa irv ie w P ark ................................................................

Fos toria ............................$3,00 0...............................

Fra nklin Townsh ip .......................................................

G alie n...............................................................................

Garfie ld Heig ht s............................................................

G irard ............................... $2,00 0..............................

Gra nd view H e ig h ts .... $10 ,000..........................

G re envill e.......................... $2,00 0............................

H a m ilto n ..........................$7,000...............................

Independence................................................................

Ir o n to n .............................................................................

Ja ck so n T o w n s h ip .... $10,000..........................

K ettering..........................$4,000 ...............................

Lake wood .......................................................................

La nc as ter......................... $5,000 afte r 5 y r.........

Lib e rt y Township ......... $3,00 0...............................

Lim a..................................$3,000...............................

Lyndhurs t......................................................................

M arietta.........................................................................

M arion..............................$2,0 00..............................

Marion Tow nship .......................................................

M id dle bu rg Heig ht s...................................................

Mou nt Ver no n................ $2,0 00..............................

Newark .............................$10,0 00...........................

New Phi ladelphia ..........$12,0 00...........................

N iles..................................$ 3,0 00..............................

North O lm ste d.............................................................

North R id geville..........................................................

No rth Roy alton............................................................

N orw alk..........................................................................

No rw ich T o w n s h ip .... $1 0, 00 0.........................

Norw ood...... ...................$ 18 ,0 00...........................

Ottawa H ills ..................................................................

Paine sv ille.....................................................................

Piq ua ................................ $5 ,0 00 ..............................

Por tsm ou th ..................... $ 3 ,0 0 0 .........................

Ravenna............................$5,0 00.............................

Richm ond H e ig h ts .... $5 ,0 00 ...........................

Rocky River ...................................................................

St. B ern ard .....................$10,0 00............................

Salem ................................$2,0 00..............................

San du sk y____________ $1 0,000 double

in de m m ity .

Sa ybrook Tow nship ...................................................

Sh ak er Heigh ts..............$7,50 0 to $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .. .

Sh effield La ke ..............................................................

Solon ...............................................................................

Spr ingfie ld .......................$ 8 ,0 0 0 .. ..........................

Ste ube nville .................................................................

Struth ers ......................... $ 5 ,0 0 0 .. ..........................

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

50

100

100

100

40

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Ohio:

T iffin .............................................................................

Toledo.............................. $5,000...............................

To ro nto.............................$6,00 0. ....... .....................

Tro y......................... : . . . $8,000.............................

Unive rsity H e ig h ts .... $5,000............................

Up per A rlin g to n ............$ 10,00 0............................

War ren..............................$10,000............................

W arrens ville H e ig h ts .. $5,000............................

W es tla ke ......................................................................

W hitehall.........................$5 ,00 0...............................

Woo ste r........................................................................

Xen ia ................................ $10,0 00..........................

Yo un gstown .....................$5,000...............................

Zan es ville ....................................................................

Okla homa:

Bris to w.........................................................................

Clare mor e........................$4,000...............................

Ed monds......................................................................

La wton______________ $5,00 0________ ______

McA lester........................$2,00 0...............................

Oklahom a C ity...............$ 5 ,0 0 0 .. .. .......................

Tu lsa.................................$ 12,000 .............................

Warr Ac res......................$25,000 on , $2,000

off.

Oregon:

Ash la nd............................$10,0 00............................

Bea ve rto n........................$10,0 00............................

Be nd ..................................$10,000 on 3,000 off..

Ca nby................................$10,0 00............................

D is tr ic t No. 56 ................$1 0,0 00............................

Eugene.............................$ 2 0 ,0 0 0 .. .......................

Hillsb oro .......................... $5,00 0..............................

La Grande ........................$2 0 ,0 0 0 ........................

Lake Oswego..................$10,000............................

Lebano n........................... $30 ,00 0............................

M edfo rd ...........................$ 10,00 0............................

M ilw aukie ....................... $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .. .......................

Oaklodg e......................... $10,0 00............................

Ontar io.............................$ 10 ,0 0 0 .. ..................... .

Oregon C ity.....................$10,0 00...........................

P o rtl a n d ...................... $3,000........ ................... .

Roseburg......................... $10,0 00...........................

Salem ................................$10,0 00...........................

Spr ingfie ld .......................$10,00 0.......................... .

The Da lle s.......................$10,000...........................

W in st on- Dillard ..............$1 0 ,0 0 0 .. .....................

Pe nn sy lva nia:

A liq uip pa.........................$10,00 0..........................

Allegh en y Co un ty..........$17,00 0..........................

A lle nto w n........................$6 ,000......................... ..

Bethleh em .................. .. $8,0 00....... .................

Bradd oc k.........................$ 1 0 ,0 0 0 .. .....................

Bra df ord ..........................$ 10,00 0..........................

B risto l.............................. $10,000..........................

Carbond ale ...............................................................

Ca rn eg ie..........................$ 15 ,000 ..........................

Che ster ............................$ 15 ,000 ..........................

Conn ells ville ...................$5,000............................

C orry..........................................................................

Easto n..............................$ 10,00 0..........................

Erie....................................$5,000............................

Gre en ville ........................$34 000..........................

H a n o v e r.... .................. $7 ,500........ ...................

Hanov er to w n s h ip .... $1,000 per $1,000 

earned.

H arris burg ................................................................

Ha zle ton ...........................$15,00 0..........................

Hom es tead ......................$15,000 to $3 0,0 00. .

Jo hn stow n.......................$1 5,000..........................

La nc aster.........................$9,000............................

Lebanon...........................$ 10,00 0..........................

McK eesport.....................$7,5 00............................

McKees Rocks................$13,00 0..........................

New Ca stle__________ $12,5 00.— ................

Oil C ity.............................$5 ,000............................

Phila delp hia ............ $7 ,000 .........................

Re ad ing_____________ $10,000---------------------

Sha ro n..............................$7,50 0............................

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

0

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

0

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100
169

Life insurance

Cost to

Amount

city

(percent)

Pennsylvania:

Sprmgettsbury $5,000............... ........ 100

Township.

Swissvale.................... . $10,000............. ........ 100

Warren........................ . $20,010............. ........ 100

Washington................ . $1! ,00)...................... 100

Yo rk............................ . $10,000...................... 100

Rhode Island:

Johnston..................... . $2,000.......... ........ 100

Middletown................

Portsmouth................. . $ 1 ,0 0 0 .. .. ................ 100

North Kingstown___ . $10,000.............. ........ 100

North Providence___ . $2,500................ ........ 100

South Carolina: Easley.

South Dakota Sioux ....................

Falls.

Tennessee:

Clarksville.................... $7,500...............................................

Jackson..........................................................................

Kingsport................ . . . $10,000............... 100

Kn oxville................ . . . $ 4 ,0 0 0 .. .. ........ 100

Memp his................. . . . $15,000........... 60

Na shv ille................. . . . 2 times annual 

salary.

50

Oak Ridge............... . . . $5,000 double 

individual.

100

Texas:

Ab ilene ................ . . . $2,000..................... 100

Am arillo .................. . . . $3,000..................... 100

Austin...................... . . . $7,000..................... 100

Baytown.................... .. $7,000......................... 100

Beaumont__________ _____________

Brownsville................. $2,000................. 100

Carrollton ................ . . . $5,000......................... 100

Corpus Ch risti........ . . . $12,000....................... 50

Dallas.................. .. . . . $5,000......................... 100

Del Rio.................... .. . . $2,000................. 100

Denison.................... . .. $10,000....................... 100

El Paso__________ . .. $6,000................. 100

Farmers B ra nch....... $16,000................... 100

Fort Worth...... ............ $10,000....................... 75

Garland........................ $10,000....................... 100

Greenville......... .......... $7,500......................... 100

Houston.................. . .. $10,000...................... 100

Port of Houston.......

Irv ing........................ .. $10,000....................... 50

Kingsville_______ .... $1,000......................... 100

Lubbock....................

Mesquite.................. ... $10,0-'0....................... 100

Odessa......................... $2,500......................... 100

Orange___________... $10,000____ ______ 100

Palestine........... .......... $2,000......................... 100

Pantex...................... ... $12,000....................... 100

Pla in vie w .................. $10,000...................... 100

Plano........................ ... $5,000........................ 100

San Antonio............. ... $12,000.................. .. 100

Texarkana................... $2,000.................... 100

Texas C ity ................... $2,000.................. 50

Waco......................... ... $3,500......................... 100

Wichita Falls............ ... $3,000......................... 0

Utah:

Logan........................ .. $10,000....................... 100

Murray......................... $6,000......................... 100

Ogden........................ .. $2,000......................... 75

Provo......................... .. $10,000...................... 100

Salt Lake City.......... .. $3,000......................... 100

Salt Lake C ounty ... .. $6 to $11,000............. 80.8

Verm ont:

Montp elier................ .. $1,000 ea. $1,000 

salary.

100

Rutland..................... . . $10,000....................... 100

Virgin ia:

Alexandria................ .. Based on salary........ 50

Life insurance

Amoun t

Cost to 

city 

(percent)

Washington:

Aberdeen.................. . . $5,000........................ 100

Anacortes.................

Belling ham ............... . . $5 ,0 00...................... 100

Burien....................... . . $5,000........................ 100

Centralia................... .. $5,000........................ 50

Chehalis.................... .. $2,000......................... 0

Clark County............

Ellensburg................ .. $7,500......................... 100

Kelso___ ________ .. $2,000....................... 100

Lakewood Center___

Longview.................. .. $5,000......................... 0

Montesano...............

Moses Lake_______

Mountlake Terrace..

.. $10,000................ .........

Olympia.....................

Parkland...................

Pasco......................... .. Ann salary ................ 100

Pierce C ounty..........

Puy allup..................... $5,000......................... 100

Renton...................... ... $8,500......................... 100

Seattle........................

Sea-Tac A irp or t........... 2 X annual sa la ry ... 100

Shelton......................... $2,000......................... 100

Shoreline...................... $5 to $10,000............. 0

Snomish County........ .. $8,000............... ......... 100

Spokane........................ $3,000 c ity, $5,000 

union.

100

Spokane Airp ort.......... $5,000......................... 0

Ta co ma.....................

Toppenish..................

.. $10,000......... ........... .. 50

Tu kw ila...................... . $10,000....................... 100

Vancouver.................. . $4,000......................... 100

Wenatchee________ . $5,000......................... 100

White Center..............

West Virginia:

Bec kley......................... $10,000................... 100

Bluefield_____ ____ .. $2,000 to $4,000____ 100

Charleston............ . . $5,000......................... 100

Cla rks burg................. . $10,000....................... 100

Huntington--------------- . $5,000......................... 100

Morgantown.............. . $50,000....................... 100

Moundsville________ . $3,000....................... 100

Parkersburg............... . $5,000......................... luo

Princeton.................... . $1,000......................... 100

South Charlesto n.... . $10,000....................... 100

Weirton..........................$1,000........................... 100

Wheeling.......................$10,000.............................................

Fairfax......................................................................................

Henrico County.......................................................................

New port News............. $8,500........................... 50

No rfo lk.....................................................................................

Roanoke.........................2 times salary.............. 50

Salem........................................................................................

An tigo........................ .. $10,000....................... 32

Appleton.................... .. $10,000....................... 100

Ash land.................... . . $8,000....................... 100

Baraboo....................

Be loit........................

.. $4,000......................... 100

Beloit T ow nsh ip ..... .. $12,000........... . ......... 100

De Pere.................... ... $10,000....................... 32

Eau Claire................ ... $10,000 to $15 ,000... 50

Greendale.................... $1,000 near sala ry ... 100

Greenfield................. .. $12,000....................... 100

Kaukauna— ............. $l,0 00/salary............. 100

Kenosha....................... $l,0 00/salary............. 100

Madison....................

Manitowoc............ ..

... 2 years salary............

.. $7,000...............................

100

Marinette_________ .. $10,000....................... 100

Marshfield________... $l,0 00/sa lary............. 20

Menasha................... .. $10,000....................... 100

Milwaukee................... times annual 60

salary.

Oak Creek................

Oshkosh....................

Rice Lake.................. .. $2,000......................... 100

Sheboygan................

South M ilw au ke e. ..

.. . $l,0 00/sa lary...................

. . $10,000....................... 100

Superior....................

Two Rivers............... .. $11,000....................... 100

Wausau..................... .. Depends on wage 60

and age.

West Allis................. .. $1.000/salary.............. 50

West Bend................ .. $l,000/salary.............. 100
170

Life insurance Life insurance

Cost to

city

Amount (pe rcent)

Cost to

city

Amount (perce nt)

Wisconsin:

West Mi lwaukee_____

Whitefish Bay................

Wisconsin Rapids..........

Wyoming:

Casper..............................

Cheyenne........................

Sheridan..........................

$13,000..........................

$13,000..........................

$l,0 00 /sal ar y...............

$5 ,000 ............................

$9,000............................

Pennsylvania:

100 Carli le Barracks............................................................................

50 Frankford Arsenal____ $2,000 above sal ary .. 60

32 Indiantown Gap Mil. $20,00 0 ......................... 33J<

Res.

100 Letterkenny Army .................................................................

50 Depot.

. . . Virginia: Wallops Isla nd. $16,000 to $20,000.........................

U.S. FEDERALS

California: . .

Camp Pendleton............$1,000 an nual sa lary. 35

Edwards AFB.................$1 0,000 ............................ 0

Hunters Point N S Y D .. $20,000 to $10.0 00...........................

San Diego F- 33.............$l,000 /$ l,000 sa lary. 0

Colorado: Lowry AF B........................................................................

Georgia: Valdosta...........................................................................—

Idaho: Mountain Home Varies..................................................-

AFB.

Indian a: Grissom ABF.......................................................................

Ma ine: . . . .

Brunswick NAS.............$2,000 over s a la ry .. . 33 K

Portsmouth N S Y D ... . $2,000 over s a la ry .. . 3 3 K

Massachusetts:

Fort Devens................................................................ 50

Westover AFB..................................................................................

Mississippi: Keesler Based on salary................................

AFB.

Misso uri: Grandview.

Nebraska: OmahaOffutt AFB

. . . $2 0, 00 0.

IND USTRIALS

Kentucky: Kenton Co........................................................................

Airp. Bd.

Minn esota: New

Brighton...........................$5,000 L, 7,500 AD . . 100

North Dakota: N eko m a.................................................................

CA NA DIAN LOCALS

Alberta :

Calgary.............................2 times salary..............

Edmonton........................ Municipal plan--------

Let hbridge.....................Municipal pla n.........

Medicine H a t ..............Municipal plan.........

Red De er...................................................................

St. Albe rt..................................................................

British Columbia:

British Columbia

Unive rs ity ...........................................................

Burnab y...........................2 times salary..............

Campbell River..............I K tim es s a la ry .. ..

Coquitla m___________ $15,000 plus A.D . &

50

100

100

50

<

9
Appendix 5

Compiled by

IAFF

Research Department

INTE RN ATIONA L ASSOCIA TIO N OF

FIRE FIGHTERS, AFL CIO CLC

1750 N e w a rk Avenue. N W • Washington. DC 2 0 0 0 6
The Research Department has conducted a survey of fire fighter 

pension systems in the United States and Canada. Rather than preparing a voluminous report on all the legal terminology of each system, it was considered preferable to divide the study into 22 major 

categories which deal exclusively with service, disability, and survivors benefits of the fire fighter.

The great majority of fire fighters are covered by systems that 

generate a benefit of at least 50% of the final average salary after 

the completion of 25 years service. Although there are some systems which allow retirements at a younger age with fewer years 

service, these usually subject the member to a reduced benefit.

Comparison of Benefits

Retirement systems utilize a wide variety of final average salary 

formulas for computation which creates problems in making comparisons. For example, we may develop criteria for age 50 and 25 

years of service, and assume an 8% salary progression rate with 

the member receiving a $15,000 salary for his last year prior to retirement, and the pension formula was 50% of the final average 

salary of the 5 highest years. The resulting pension would be computed as follows:

Annual Sal. 5 yrs. Prior to Ret.............................$10,747

Annual Sal. 4 yrs. Prior to Ret............................ 11,681

Annual Sal. 3 yrs. Prior to Ret............................ 12,696

Annual Sal. 2 yrs. Prior to Ret............................ 13,800

Annual Sal. 1 yr. Prior to Ret............................ 15,000

Final Average Salar y..........................$12,784

As can be seen, there would much improvement by simply changing 

this type of formula to one that uses (for the basis of computation) 

the salary at the date of retirement.

Escalation of Pensions

Those who begin retirement today start off with a larger share of 

their wages than those who began retirement 10 years ago. In spite 

of the obvious improvements, effective methods have not been developed in all systems that would protect the fire fighter or his survivor against inflation without an adjustment to maintain purchasing 

power.

Many fire fighters are covered by escalator clauses which rely on 

the Consumer Price Index and are adjusted quarterly or annually. 

Other systems use the salary attached to the rank of the retiree. 

This formula allows the retiree to receive a percentage of any pay 

increase secured by the local union. One of the advantages of this 

formula is that a retiree can remain an active member of the local 

and exert his influence in securing wage adjustments. A disadvantage of this formula is that the local union must face total costs of 

collective bargaining agreements which includes the retiree’s increase.

* 4 ♦ 4
61-356 0 - 75

Probably the best example of a progressive system that not only is 

adjustable for the cost of living but also is flexible in raising the 

standard of living, is demonstrated by the contents of the United 

States Civil Service Act which provides coverage for over 2 million 

retired and disabled federal employees, both civilian and military 

personnel.

The Civil Service Retirement Act provides for the following: "Each 

month the Commission shall determine the percent change in the 

price index. Effective the first day of the third month that begins 

after the price index change equals a rise of at least 3 percent for 

3 consecutive months over the price index for the base month, each 

annuity payable from the Fund having a commencing date not later 

than that effective date shall be increased by 1 percent plus the 

percent rise in the price index (calculated on the highest level of the 

price index during the 3 consecutive months) adjusted to the nearest 1/10 of 1 percent."

Rates of Contribution

The rates of contribution of the fire fighters range generally in the 

5-6% category, while the employer has no pattern of financial responsibility.

Many of the systems are allowed to operate with little or no employer contribution until the accrued liability has reached tremendous proportions. At that point the employer institutes a crash program to support either a “ financially sound" or "actuarially sound”

pension program. The result of this is severe criticism of the socalled "liberal” pension system, or the fire fighters being forced to 

fund the "accrued liab ility” of the employer through loss of wages 

and benefits.

In private industry the great majority of programs are non-contributory as far as the employee is concerned. In the past the fact that 

public systems are generally contributory meant that most of the 

superior benefits gained under the municipal plans are provided for 

from the employees’ own funds. However, we now find private plans 

in contention with the public plans as to benefits and in some cases 

the private plans surpass the protection and benefits of the plans 

offered fire fighters.

The trend is towards non-contributory pension systems. The fire 

fighters must make every effort to initiate programs that will result w 

in contribution reduction or elimination as in the private sector.

I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and compliment 

Mr. Jack Jessop, Director of the IAFF Canadian Regional Office for 

his survey assistance in Canada. I would also like to thank Mr. Mike 

Smith, IAFF Labor Relations Consultant, for his assistance in the 

compilation of the enclosed information. I also thank Local Unions, 

and State and Provincial Associations for their tremenous help and 

cooperation.

WALT LAMBERT, Director 

Research Department
TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

A..........................................Average

Act. Det.............................. Actuarily Determined

Ann......................................Annuity

Bent.....................................Benefits

Comp...................................Compensation

Co ntrib................................ContributionC.P.I.................................... Consumer Price IndexC.P.P................................... Canadian Pension Plan

Def.......................................Deferred

Dis.......................................Disability

Elig......................................Eligibility

F..........................................FinalF.F.......................................Fire FighterInt........................................Interest

L.......................................... Local Plan

Lv........................................ Leave

Min......................................Minimum

Mo.......................................Month

Q.P.P...................................Quebec Pension Plan

Rank ................................Salary attached to rank

t—*

Reduc................................. Reduced

Ret...................................... Retirement

S..........................................SalarySr........................................ ServiceS.S.......................................Social SecuritySt........................................ State Plan

Yr........................................Year

v
175

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF DUTY DEATH

ALABAMA

B irm in gha m 45% o f P e n s io n 

c h i l d $ 1 0 .0 0

25% F .A .S . 

c h i l d 15% F .A .S .

45% o f P e n s io n 

c h i l d $ 1 0 .0 0

M o b il e $1 00 p e r mo. $1 00 p e r mo. $1 00 p e r mo.

Sel m a $ 1 0 ,0 0 0

S h e f f i e l d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0

T u s c a lo o s a 25% F .A .S . 

c h i l d 15% F .A .S .

25% F .A .S . 

c h i l d 15%

25% F .A .S . 

c h i l d 15% F .A .S .

ALASKA

A nchora ge 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S .

ARIZONA

P h o en ix 66.6 66% o f P e n s io n 

c h i l d .166 5% o f 

P e n s io n

66 .6 66 % o f P e n s io n 

c h i l d .1 66 5% o f 

P e n s io n

66 .6 66% o f P e n s io n 

c h i l d .1 66 5% o f 

P e n s io n

ARKANSAS

S t a t e P la n

A ll C i t i e s

$ 1 2 5 .0 0 p e r mo. 

c h i l d $3 5 p e r mo.

$ 1 2 5 .0 0 p e r mo 

c h i l d $3 5 p e r mo.

$ 1 2 5 .0 0 p e r mo. 

c h i l d $3 5 p e r mo.

CALIFORNIA

B o n it a - - S u n n y sid e Same a s r e t i r e e o r 

lum p sum

50% F .A .S . 

widow @ 2 c h i l d 

67 .6 66 % F .A .S . 

wido w @ 3 c h i l d

75% F .A .S .

1 mo. s a l . X y r . 

s r .

B ak e rs F ie ld

\

O p ti o n s p lu s $5 00 50% F .A .S . 

wido w ® 1 c h i I d 

62 .5 % F .A .S 

wi dow @ 2 c h i l d

70% F .A .S . 

wido w @ 3 c h i l d

75% F .A .S .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . 

p lu s 1 mo. s a l . X 

y r . s r .- - m a x .

6 y r s .

2
176

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

CALIFORNIA ( C o n t.)

C o n tr a C o s ta 3 o p tio n s

D aly C it y R e tu rn c o n t r i b . $ 4 ,0 0 0 + c o n t r i b . $ 4 ,0 0 0 + c o n t r i b .

E u re k a 507. F .A .S . u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e

50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e

50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e

F re m ont $5 00 1 mo. s a l . X y r . 

s r . * c o n t r i b .

1 mo. s a l . X y r . 

s r . ♦ c o n t r i b .

F re sn o 66 .6 66 % o f P e n s io n 50% F .A .S .

Hay ward 50% o f P e n s io n 50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e

1 mo . s a l . X y r . s r . 

m ax. 6 y r .

H o l l i s t e r O p ti o n s * $5 00 50% F .A .S . 

wi dow @ 1 c h i l d 

62 .5 % F .A .S . 

wido w @ 2 c h i l d

70% F .A .S . 

wido w @ 3 c h i l d

75% F .A .S .

1 mo. s a l . X y r . 

max . 6 y r .

Lo ng B ea ch O p ti o n s 50% F .A .S . u n t i l no 

c h i l d o r ag e 65

1 mo . s a l . X y r . 

A f te r 10 y r . s r . 

33.3 33% F .A .S .

Lo s A lt o s O p ti o n s 50% C o n tr ib . + 1 mo. 

s a l . X y r . s r . 

m ax . 6 y r .

Lo s A n g ele s 50% F .A .S . t o 55% 

F .A .S .

50% F .A .S . to 55% 

F .A .S .

A f te r 5 y r . s r .

40% F .A .S .

Lo s A n g ele s Co. Same a s r e t i r e e 50% o f s a l . i f 

v i o l e n t d e a th +

1 c h i l d 25%

2 c h i l d 40%

3 o r m or e 50%

60% o f P e n s io n 

v e s te d

4
177

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

CALIFORNIA (C o n t. )

M od es to $90-$ 2 5 0 p e r mo. 

d ep en d s on nu m be r o 

d e p e n d e n ts

$ 9 0 -$ 2 5 0 p e r mo. 

d e p e n d s on nu m be r 

o f d e p e n d e n ts

1 mo. s a l . X y r . 

s r . max . 6 y r .

O n ta r io Same a s r e t i r e e 

u n t i l r e m a r r ia g e o r 

c h i ld r e n a g e 18

50% o f A .S . ( l a s t

3 y r . ) u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e

6 mo. s a l . + 

r e t u r n o f c o n t r i b .

P a sad en a 60% o f P e n s io n 50% A .S . ( h ig h e s t

3 y r . )

R e tu rn c o n t r i b .

R ed din g Widow o r c h i l d $9 0 

wi dow + 1 c h i l d 

$ 1 8 0 .0 0

wido w + 2 c h i l d 

$2 50 p e r mo.

50% o f s a l . i f 

v i o l e n t d e a th 

wido w @ 1 c h i l d

62 .5 %

wido w @ 2 c h i l d

70%

widow @ 3 c h i l d

75%

C o n tr ib . + 1 mo. 

s a l . X y r . s r . 

m ax . 6 y r .

Red wood C it y 50% o f P e n s io n 

u n t i l r e m a r r ia g e

50% a v e r , o f 3 

h ig h e s t y r . i f sh e 

d i e s o r r e m a r r ie s 

r e v e r t s to c h i l d 

u n t i l a g e 18

R ef und o f c o n t r i b .

+ 6 mo. s a l .

S acra m en to 50% o f P e n s io n 50% F .A .S . C o n tr ib .

A f te r 10 y r . s r .

50% o f n o n -d u ty 

d i s a b i l i t y fo rm u la 

A f te r ag e 50 .5 o f 

s e r v i c e r e t i r e m e n t 

fo rm u la

S a li n a s 50% o f s a l . u n t i 1 

r e m a r r ia g e

C o n tr ib . + 6 mo. 

s a l .

Sa n B e rn a rd in o O p ti o n a l a t 

r e t ir e m e n t

50% F .A .S .

Sa n D ie go 25% F .A .S . 25% F .A .S . + s t a t e 

c o m p .( in c lu d e s 

$ 2 8 ,0 0 0 )

C o n tr ib . + 6 mo . 

s a l .

A f te r 10 y r . s r . 

33 .3 33 % F .A .S .

Sa n F ra n c is c o 75% o f P e n s io n 100% u n t i 1 t ime 

me mb er w o u ld h av e 

b een e l i g . f o r r e t . 

55% a f t e r

C o n tr ib . + 1 mo. 

s a l . A f te r 10 y r . 

s r . 33.3 33% F .A .S .

6
178

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF DUTY DEATH

CALIFORNIA ( C o n t.)

; J

San J o s e 37 .5 % o f s a l . ♦ 25% 

f o r 1 c h i l d

12 .5% f o r 2 -3 c h i l d 

ma x. 75% s a l .

37 .5 % o f s a l . ♦ 257 

f o r 1 c h i l d

12 .5% f o r 2 -3 

c h i ld max . 75% o f 

s a l .

37% o f P e n s io n +

25% f o r 1 c h i l d

12 .5% f o r 2 -3 

c h i l d max . 757. o f 

s a l .

S a n ta B a rb a ra 60% o f P e n s io n 1007. F .A .S . 2% F .A .S . X y r . sr .

S a n ta C la r a $ 9 0 .0 0 u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e 

widow + 1 c h i l d 

$1 80

widow + 2 o r mor e 

c h i l d $250

C o n tr ib . + 6 mo. 

s a l .

S a n ta C la r a Co. B as ed on o p ti o n s 507. u n t i l widow 

r e m a r r ie s o r c h i l d 

ag e 18

R ef und o f c o n t r i b .

+ 1 mo . s a l . X y r . 

s r . max 6 y r .

S a n ta C ru z B as ed on o p ti o n s 50% u n t i l widow 

r e m a r r ie s

I f d e a th by 

v io l e n c e - widow +

1 c h i l d 62.5 7. 

widow + 2 c h i l d

70% wido w + 3 o r 

m or e c h i l d 75%

C o n tr ib + 1 mo.

S to c to n O p ti o n 507. o f F .A .S . $9 0 - widow + 1 

c h i l d $1 80 - 

wi dow + 2 c h i l d 

$2 50 - widow + 3 

o r m or e c h i l d

T o rra n c e $1 80 p e r mo. +

 50% 

o f P e n s io n

507. o f F .A .S . C o n tr ib . * 6 mo. 

s a l .

U ni on C it y $400 + an y te m p, 

a n n . b e n i f i t s 

d e p e n d in g on r e t . 

o p tio n

wido w @ 1 c h i l d 

62 .5 % F .A .S . 

wi dow @ 2 c h i Id

70% F .A .S . 

widow @ 3 o r m or e 

c h i l d 75% F .A .S .

C o n tr ib . * 6 mo.

West S acra m en to $ 6 0 0 .0 0 $ 2 3 ,5 0 0 + c o n t r i b . $ 6 0 0 .0 0

W h i tti e r $ 4 0 0 .0 0 507. F .A .S . 

i f v i o l e n t d e a th 

wido w @ 1 c h i l d 

62 .5 % F .A .S . 

wi dow @ 2 c h i l d

70% F .A .S . 

wido w @ 3 o r m or e 

c h i l d 75% F .A .S .

C o n tr ib . + 6 mo.

8
179

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

COLORADO

B o u ld e r 3 3 .3 3 3 % o f 1 s t c l a s 

F . F . p a y a t t im e o f 

r e t . ♦ $30 p e r m o. 

f o r c h i l d

3 3 .3 3 3 % o f 1 s t . 

c l a s s F . F . p a y a t 

t im e o f d e a t h ♦

$3 0 p e r mo. f o r 

c h i l d

Sa me a s l i n e o f 

d u t y d e a t h

C anon C i ty $ 1 0 0 ♦ 3 3 .3 3 3 % o f 

m o. s a l . ♦ $ 30 p e r 

m o. f o r c h i l d

$ 1 0 0 + 3 3 .3 3 3 % o f 

m o. s a l . * $ 30 p e r 

m o. f o r c h i l d

$ 1 0 0 + 3 3 .3 3 3 % o f 

m o. s a l . + $ 3 0 p e r 

mo. f o r c h i l d

E n g le w o o d 3 3 .3 3 3 % o f 1 s t c l a s 

F . F . p a y + $ 30 p e r 

c h i l d n o t t o e x c e e d 

n o r m a l r e t .

3 3 .3 3 3 % o f 1 s t 

c l a s s F .F . p a y ♦ 

$30 p e r c h i Id n o t 

t o e x c e e d n o rm a l 

r e t .

3 3 .3 3 3 % o f 1 s t 

c l a s s F .F . p a y + 

$30 p e r c h i l d n o t 

t o e x c e e d n o rm a l

r e t .

L akew ood 3 3 .3 3 3 % 1 s t c l a s s 

F . F . p a y + $ 30 p e r 

c h i l d

3 3 .3 3 3 % 1 s t c l a s s 

F .F . p a y + $ 30 p e r 

c h i l d

3 3 .3 3 3 % 1 s t c l a s s 

F .F . p a y + $30 p e r 

c h i l d

L i t t l e t o n 3 3 .3 3 3 % 1 s t c l a s s 

F . F . p a y +

 $ 3 0 p e r 

c h i l d

3 3 .3 3 3 % 1 s t c l a s s 

F .F . p a y + $ 30 p e r 

c h i l d

3 3 .3 3 3 % 1 s t c l a s s 

F .F . p a y * $ 3 0 p e r 

c h i l d

CONNECTICUT

D a n b u ry 50 % o f P e n s io n 50% F .A .S . 2% F .A .S . X y r . s r .

G re e n w ic h 25% o f S a l a r y 50% o f S a l a r y

H a r t f o r d 50% o f P e n s io n 100% o f S a l a r y 25% F .A .S .

M e rid e n 25% o f S a l a r y 50% o f S a l a r y u n t i l 

r e t . a g e t h e n 25%

25% o f S a l a r y

M id d le to w n 50% o f S a l a r y 50% o f S a l a r y * 

c a s h p a y m e n t

50% o f S a l a r y 

a f t e r 10 y r . s r .

New B r i t a i n 25% o f S a l a r y + 1% 

p e r y r . o v e r 25 y r . 

s r .

25% o f S a l a r y * 1% 

p e r y r . o v e r 25 y r . 

s r .

A f t e r 10 y r . s r .

25% o f S a l a r y + 1% 

p e r y r . o v e r 25 y r . 

s r .

N o rw alk 50% o f a v e r , l a s t 2 

y r . s a l .

50% a v e r , l a s t 2 

y r . s a l .

50% a v e r , l a s t 2 

y r . s a l .

S t r a t f o r d 50% o f P e n s io n 50% o f S a l a r y A f t e r 10 y r . s r .

25% o f s a l .

10
180

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PRO V.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

CONNECTICUT ( C o n t.)

W ate rb u ry 257. o f s a l . 25% o f s a l . 25% o f s a l .

W e stp o rt Same as r e t i r e e 66 .6 667. o f s a l . Max. 50% o f s a l . 

D e te rm in e d by 

b o a rd

DISTRIC T OF COLUMBIA

W ash in gto n Widows - - g r e a t e r 

am t. o f $ 4 ,3 8 5 o r

40% s a l . a t ti m e o f 

d e a th

C h il d - - s m a l le s t 

am t. o f $9 96 o r 

$ 2 ,9 8 8 d iv id e d by 

nu mbe r o f c h i l d r e n

Widows - - g r e a t e r 

am t. $ 4 ,3 8 5 o r

40% s a l . a t ti m e o f 

d e a th

C h il d - - s m a l le s t 

am t. o f $9 96 o r 

$ 2 ,9 8 8 d iv id e d by 

nu m be r o f c h i l d r e n 

+ $ 5 0 ,0 0 0

Widows - - g r e a t e r 

am t. $ 4 ,3 8 5 o r

40% s a l . a t ti m e of 

d e a th

C h il d - - s m a l le s t 

am t. o f $9 96 o r 

$ 2 ,9 8 8 d iv id e d by 

num be r o f c h i ld r e n

DELAWARE

W il m in gto n 50% o f P e n s io n A f te r 15 y r . s r .

50% o f P e n s io n 

e n t i t l e d to

A f te r 15 y r . s r .

50% o f P e n s io n 

e n t i t l e d to

FLORIDA

C le a r w a te r 25% ma x. P e n s io n + 

7. 5% e a ch c h i l d to 

50% ma x. t o t a l

50% s a l . + 7. 5% 

ea ch c h i l d max .

60%

2.5% F .A .S . X y r . 

s r . + 7. 5% F .A .S . 

e a c h c h i l d ma x.

50%

Da de Co . B e n i f i t s d e c r e a s e on 

s e l e c t i o n o f 4 

o p tio n s

50% s a l . u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e

R ef und c o n t r i b .

F t. L a u d e rd a le V a r ie s a c c o r d in g 

ra n k 6 pay g ra g e 

$ 2 0 ,0 0 0 s t a t e 

c o v e ra g e

H oi ly w ood 50% o f P e n s io n 507. s a l . 25% s a l .

J a c k s o n v i1 le 66 .6 66 % o f P e n s io n 

♦ $15 e a ch c h i l d

66 .6 66 % s a l . +

$1 5 ea ch c h i l d

La ke W or th 50% o f P e n s io n u n t i 

r e m a r r ia g e

507. s a l .

M elb o u rn e C o n t r i b . - - a f t e r 10 

y r . s r . n o rm al r e t

C o n t r i b . - - a f t e r 10 

y r . s r . n orm al r e t ,

12
181

MUNICIPALITY—STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

FLO RIDA ( C o n t . )

w

M ia m i V a r i e t y o f o p t i o n s 

i n c l u d i n g 40% t o 

w id ow w i t h o u t c o s t 

t o r e t i r e e

50% F .A .S . C o n t r i b . * 6 mo. 

s a l . - - p a i d f o r s ic k 

l v . 4 a c c u m u l a t e d 

t im e

♦

M ia m i B each 50% o f P e n s i o n ♦ 

$ 1 0 0 p e r m o. p e r 

c h i l d

F u l l P e n s io n 1 y r . 

50% t h e r e a f t e r ♦ 

$ 1 0 0 p e r c h i l d 

u n t i l a g e 21 

m in . $ 3 2 5 mo.

50% o f P e n s io n ♦ 

$ 1 0 0 p e r m o. p e r 

c h i Id

M ia m i S p r in g s A f t e r 10 y r . s r .

1.5 % s a l . X y r . s r .

P a lm B e a c h A i r p o r t B e n e f i t s d e c r e a s e 

o n s e l e c t i o n o f 

o p t i o n s

50% s a l . C o n t r i b . - - a f t e r 10 

y r . s r .

b e n e f i t s c o m p u te d

S t . P e t e r s b u r g 25% s a l . + 7.5 % 

e a c h c h i l d m ax .

50%

30% h i g h e s t p a y 

g r a d e c l a s s + 7 .5 % 

e a c h c h i l d m ax.

60%

25% s a l + 7 .5 % 

e a c h c h i l d m ax.

50%

Ta m pa 65% o f P e n s io n 65% o f P e n s io n A f t e r 10 y r . s r .

65% o f P e n s io n

GEORGIA

At l a n t a 50% o f P e n s io n 1 y r . s a l . ♦ 4 8 .7 5 ? 

o f 3 h i g h e s t y r . 

s r . A .S . o r 4 8 .7 5 % 

o f 1 s t c l a s s F .F . 

s a l .

50% a m t. F .F . 

w o u ld h a v e 

r e c e i v e d f o r n o n ­

d u t y d i s i b i l i t y 

h a d h e r e t i r e d o n 

d a t e o f d e a t h

HAWAII

H o n o lu lu

( A ls o c o u n t i e s o f 

K a u a i - H a w a ii - M a u i )

S e v e r a l o p t i o n s R e t u r n c o n t r i b . + 

i n t e r e s t a n d mo. 

P e n s io n o f 50% o f 

h i s a v e r , f i n a l 

co m p , u n t i l s p o u s e 

r e m a r r i e s o r d i e s

I f n o s p o u s e 

b e n e f i t s to 

c h i l d r e n

I f e m p lo y e e w as 

e l i g . f o r s r . p e n ­

s i o n a t t im e o f 

d e a t h s p o u s e may 

e l e c t t o r e c e i v e

50% o f p e n s i o n f o r 

l i f e i n l i e u a b o v e

R e tu r n c o n t r i b . ♦ 

i n t e r e s t a n d c a s h 

p a y m e n t o f 50% o f 

a n n u a l s a l . i f h e 

h a s 1 -1 0 y r . s r .

A ls o a d d i t i o n a l 

c a s h p a y m e n t o f

5% o f a n n u a l s a l . 

p e r y r . s r . o v e r

1C y r . m ax. 100%

I f e m p lo y e e w as 

e l i g . f o r s r . p e n ­

s i o n a t tim e o f 

d e a t h s p o u s e may 

e l e c t t o r e c e i v e

50% p e n s io n f o r

l i f e i n l i e u a b o v e
182

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF DUTY DEATH

IDAHO

S t a t e P la n A ll C i t i e s R e t ir e e s P e n s io n 50% a s F .F . in 

s t a t e

A f te r 5 y r . s r .

2% a s F .F . in 

s t a t e X y r . s r . 

m ax . 50%

ILLI NO IS

S t a t e P la n A ll C i t i e s 

E x cep t C hic ag o

Wido 407 . F .A .S . 

c h i l d 8% F .A .S .

12% e a c h c h i l d i f 

m o th er d ie s

Widow 40% F .A .S . 

c h i l d 8% F .A .S .

12% e a ch c h i l d i f 

m o th er d ie s

Widow 40% F .A .S . 

c h i l d 8% F .A .S .

12% ea ch c h i l d i f 

m o th er d ie s

C h ic ag o Widow: a m t. n o t le s s 

th a n $1 50 p e r mo. as 

d e t . a t ti m e o f r e t . 

i n F .F . A c c t. f o r

an n .

.5 o rp h a n 10% F .A .S . 

f u l l o rp h a n 15% 

F .A .S .

75% F .A .S . Am t. n o t l e s s th a n 

$1 50 p e r mo. 

p r o v id e d by c o n t r i l 

c o n t r i b . f o r a n n . 

p u rp o s e s

INDIANA

S t a t e Law A ll C it ie s $600

wido w 30% F .A .S . 

c h i l d 10% F .A .S .

C it y p ay s $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 

C h il d re n a s s u r e d 

e d u c a tio n 

wi dow 30% F .A .S . 

c h i l d 10% F .A .S .

Widow 30% F .A .S . 

C h il d 10% F .A .S .

IOWA

S t a t e P la n A ll C i t i e s 50% o f P e n s io n 

m in . $7 5 

c h i l d $2 0

50% F .A .S . 

c h i l d ♦ $20 + 

a n n . a c c u m u la ti o n

25% F .A .S . 

m in . $75

KANSAS

K an sas C it y .5 mo. s a l . * 75% 

o f P e n s io n

50% F .A .S . 6 10% 

ea c h c h i l d 

m ax . 75%

A f te r 5 y r . s r .

.5 mo. s a l . +

2% F .A .S . X y r . 

s r .

16
183

MUNICIPALITY—STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children,

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION, LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

KENTUCKY

C o v in g to n 1.5 % h i g h e s t 3 y r . 

s r . A .S . X y r . s r .

1 c h i l d a d d .5%

2 c h i l d a d d .2 57. 

m ax . 50%

50% s a l . ♦ 10% f o r 

c h i l d m ax. 70%

1.5 % A .S . ( h i g h e s t 

3 y r . s r . ) X y r . 

s r . 1 c h i l d a d d .5 

2 c h i l d a d d .2 5% 

m ax. 50%

L e x i n g to n 1 .5 % A .S . ( h i g h e s t

3 y r . s r . ) X y r . s r

1 c h i l d a d d .5%

2 c h i l d a d d .2 5% 

m ax . 50%

50% s a l . +1 0% f o r 

c h i l d m ax . 70%

1.5 % A .S . ( h i g h e s t 

3 y r . s r . , X y r . 

s r . 1 c h i l d a d d . 5 

2 c h i l d a d d .2 5% 

m ax . 50%

L o u i s v l l i e R e t i r e e s b e n e f i t s 100% F .A .S . 100 % F .A .S .

M u rr a y

P a d u c a h

W id ow : 50% s a l . 

C h i l d : $ 2 4 p e r mo.

50% F .A .S .

W idow : 50% s a l . 

C h i l d : $ 24 p e r mo.

W idow : 50% F .A .S . 

C h i l d : 10%

W idow : 50% s a l . 

C h i l d : $24 p e r mo.

LOUIS IANA

B o g a lu s a 6 6 .6 6 6 % o f P e n s io n 

n o t t o e x c e e d $200 

m ax . $ 3 0 0 - -w id o w & 

c h i l d r e n

6 6 .6 6 6 % o f P e n s io n 

n o t t o e x c e e d $ 2 0 0 

m ax . $ 3 0 0 - -w id o w 6 

c h i l d r e n

L e s s t h a n 10 y r . 

s r . $ 1 0 0 ♦ $ 25 p e r 

c h i l d u p $ 2 0 0 m ax. 

1 1 -2 0 y r . s r .

$ 2 0 0 + $25 p e r 

c h i l d n o t e x c e e d 

$ 300

L a k e C h a r le s R e t i r e e b e n e f i t s 

u n t i l c h i l d r e n a g e

18 y r . -----50% o f

P e n s io n a f t e r 

m in . $ 2 0 0

R e t i r e e b e n e f i t s 

u n t i l c h i l d r e n a g e

18 y r . -----50% o f

P e n s io n a f t e r 

m in . $200

R e t i r e e b e n e f i t s 

u n t i l c h i l d r e n a g e 

18 y r . - — 50% o f 

P e n s io n a f t e r 

m in . $200

New I b e r i a R e t i r e e b e n e f i t s 

u n t i l c h i l d r e n a g e

18 y r . -----5 0% o f

P e n s io n a f t e r

R e t i r e e b e n e f i t s 

u n t i l c h i l d r e n a g e

18 y r . -----50 % o f

P e n s io n a f t e r

R e t i r e e b e n e f i t s 

u n t i l c h i l d r e n a g e

18 y r . -----50% o f

P e n s io n a f t e r

New O r l e a n s "f id ow : $ 2 0 0 p e r mo. 

C h i l d : $75 p e r mo.

50% s a l . + $ 7 5 f o r 

c h i I d

W id ow : $ 2 0 0 p e r mo. 

C h i l d : $ 75 p e r m o.

Q u a c h i t a P a r i s h W idow : $ 2 0 0 p e r mo. W id ow : $ 200 p e r mo. W idow : $ 2 0 0 p e r mo.

u n t i l r e m a r r i a g e 

C h i l d : $ 15 p e r m o.

u n t i l r e m a r r i a g e 

C h i l d : $ 15 p e r mo.

u n t i l r e m a r r i a g e 

C h i l d : $15 p e r m o.

m ax . 6 6 .6 6 6 % s a l . m ax. 6 6 .6 6 6 % s a l . m ax. 6 6 .6 6 6 % s a l .

S h r e v e p o r t i/ id o w : 50% s t a r t i n g W id ow : 50% s a a r t i n g W idow :50% s t a r t i n g

s a l . C h i l d : 17% s a l . C h i l d : 17% s a l . C h i l d : 17%

n a x . 85 % s t a r t i n g m ax. 85% s t a r t i n g m ax. 85% s t a r t i n g

s a l . s a l . s a l .

18
184

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children) '

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

MAINE

B at h 9 ?

9

MARYLAND

A n n a p o li s ? la n P e n d in g P la n P en d in g P la n P en d in g

B a l tim o r e - - F ir e F ig h te r s 37 .5 % o f P e n s io n 100% s a l . A f te r 2 y r . s r .

25% s a l .

C um berl an d Lind er o p ti o n s An n. b ase d on A ccum ula te d

b e n e f i c i a r y r e c e iv e s c o n t r i b . ♦ i n t e r e s t c o n t r i b . W ith

n o n th ly pay m en t f o r 

l i f e o r lump sum to 

507. o f a v e r , f i n a l 

co mp.

an d P e n s io n to 

66 .6 66 % o f a v e r , 

f i n a l co mp.

i n t e r e s t + lump 

sum am t. to 50% o f 

a v e r , f i n a l comp.

MASSACHUSETTS

S t a t e P la n 66 .6 66 % o f P e n s io n 100% o f pa y to 

wi dow w h ile a t a 

f i r e p r o c e e d in g to 

an d co m in g fr om an 

a la r m . O th e rw is e 

72% o f pa y f o r 

wi dow + $3 12 ea ch 

c h il d +

 t o t a l 

em p lo y ee c o n t r i b .

A f te r ag e 55 F .A .S . 

X a g e f a c t o r X y r . 

s r . p r i o r to ag e

55 - sa me fo rm u la = 

ag e f a c t o r = o p t io n

C

MICHIGAN

S t a t e P la n O p ti o n 1 - re d u c e d Widow & c h i l d r e n W.C .

( M u n i c i p a l i t i e s C over ed P e n s io n to r e t i r e e w i l l r e c e iv e same

by P A -3 4 5 -- —M .E .R .S .)

F o ll o w in g M u n ic ip a litie s 

No t C o v ere d by PA-345

same a m t. to widow 

O p ti o n 2 - F u ll 

P e n s io n t o r e t i r e e 

50% P e n s io n to 

wi dow

am t. a s t h a t w h ic h 

h a s b een p a id u n d e r 

W.C.

(M .E .R .S .)

A d ri an

A lp en a

Ann A rb o r O p ti o n 1 w h ic h i s a 

re d u c e d P e n s io n to 

p r o v id e f o r d e p e n ­

d e n t Am t. b a s e d on 

ag e o f em p lo y ee 6 

h i s d e p e n d e n t

2.75 % F .A .S . X y r . 

s r . 10 y r . s r . 

w aiv ed * W.C.

A f te r 10 y r . s r . 

s r . r e t . fo rm u la 

re d u c e d 20%

2 t
*

MUN IC IP ALITY —ST AT E/PR OV.

MICHIGAN (C o n t. )

Bay C it y

Bir mingham

Ca di 1 la c

Ga rden C ity

H ig hla nd Pa rk

L iv o n ia

M ary sv il le

M er id ia n

P o n ti a c

185

SURV IVOR S BENEFITS FORM UL A (W id ow & Ch ildren)

SERVICE DEATH

(W HILE O N PE NSIO N) LINE OF DU TY DEAT H OFF DUTY DEATH

50% o f Pensi on Widow: 33.33 3% of 

f i n a l comp. 

C h il d re n : 25% ea ch 

o f f in a l com p. + 

r e t . c o n tr ib .

Widow: 33.333 % 

F.A .C .

C h il d re n : 25% F.A

A fte r 20 y r. s r . 

sam e as r e t i r e e 

p r io r to 20 y r. s r . 

re fu n d o f c o n tr ib

O p ti o n a l - member 

mus t ta k e a re d u c. 

P en sio n to cover 

widow

33.33 3% F. A.C . 

C h il d : 25% F. A .C .

Widow: 50% earn ed 

Pensi on (25% m in .)

1 c h ild : 15% o f 

Pen si on

2 o r more: 25% 

ea ch o f max. 

Pen si on ba se

Refun d of c o n tr ib . 

+ in te r e s t

Red uc . Pen si on

Red uc . b e n e f its i f 

o p ti o n s e le c te d 

p r io r to r e t .

Widow re c e iv e s th e 

d if f e r e n c e be tw ee n 

acc um ula te d c o n tr ib . 

an d a g g re g a te am t. 

o f s t r a i g h t l i f e 

P en sio n paym en ts

50% o f Pen si on

50% r e t i r e e Pen si on 

i f o v e r 55 - 10% 

fo r c h il d re n

A ft e r 20 y r . s r . 

same as r e t i r e e 

p r io r to 20 y r . s r 

re fu n d o f c o n tr ib .

S u rv iv o rs g e t 

re d u c . P ensio n as 

i f man r e t i r e d da y 

b e fo re d e a th an d 

e le c te d to ta k e a 

re d u c. P ensi on

Same as r e g u la r 

r e t . o r 33.33 3% o f 

f i n a l s a l . to 

widow u n t i l re m arria g e o r d e a th 

.1% to c h il d re n 

Pensi on c o n tr ib . 

re tu rn e d

W.C. - P ensi on 

eq u al to W.C. a t 

e x p ira tio n o f W.C.

50% F.A .S .

A ft e r 20 s r . s r . 

same as r e t i r e e 

p r io r to 20 y r. s r 

re fu nd of c o n tr ib .

S u rv iv o rs g e t 

re d u c. Pensi on as 

i f man r e t i r e d da y 

b e fo re d e ath and 

e le c te d to ta k e a 

re d u c. Pensi on

A ft e r e l i g . fo r 

r e t . - - 33. 333% o f 

F. A.C . -- .1%

F. A.C . to c h ild 

P r io r to r e t . e lig . 

re tu rn of c o n tr ib .

A ft e r 10 y r . s r . 

50% F.A .S .

50% F.A .S .

1 y r. s a l . in cash 

+ 50% F.A .S .

1.75% F.A .S . X y r . 

s r . u n t i l c h il d re n 

ag e 18 wid ow 's 

P ensi on c e a se s a t 

ag e 55
186

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

MICHIGAN ( C o n t.)

Wayne O p ti o n - re d u c . r e t . 

a llo w a n c e

66 .6 66 % F .A .C . ♦

25% F .A .C . f o r 

c h i l d r e n

2% F .A .S . X y r . s r . 

m in . 15% F .A .S .

MISSOURI

C olu m bia Widow : 66.6 66% o f 

P e n s io n

Widow: 50% o f h ig h ­

e s t a v e r . s a l . 

C h ild r e n : m o n th ly 

b e n e f i t s e q u a l to 

S .S . b e n e f i t s had 

em plo yee been c o v ­

e r e d by S .S .

Widow 6 c h i ld r e n 

m o n th ly b e n e f i t s 

e q u a l to S .S . 

b e n e f i t s had 

em p lo y ee b ee n c o v ­

e r e d by S .S .

G ra ndvie w R em ain d er o f 

c o n t r i b . re fu n d e d

R ef und c o n t r i b . +

1% i n t e r e s t

R e tu rn o f c o n t r i b .

+ 1% p e r y r . 

i n t e r e s t

In d e p en d e n ce R em ain d er o f 

c o n t r i b . re fu n d e d

2 y r . b a s e s a l . +

c o n t r i b . re fu n d e d

K an sa s C it y Wid ow: 25% s a l . 

C h ild r e n : $2 5 p e r 

mo.

Widow: 25% s a l . 

C h ild r e n : $2 5 p e r 

mo .

Widow: 25% s a l . 

C h ild r e n : $2 5 p e r 

mo.

S p r i n g f i e l d Widow : 50% s a l . 

C h ild r e n : 10% s a l . 

max . 70%

L ess th a n 5 y r . s r .

25% s a l .

o v e r 5 y r . s r .

50% s a l .

L e ss th a n 5 y r . s r .

25% s a l .

o v e r 5 y r . s r .

50% s a l .

MONTANA

S t a t e P la n L o c a ll y 

C o n tr o lle d

G re a t F a ll s 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S .

M is so u la 50% F .A .S . A f te r 6 mo. s r .

50% F .A .S .

A f te r 6 mo. s r .

50% F .A .S .

24
187

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

MUNICIPALITY—STATE/PROV. SERVICE DEATH

(WHILE O N PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

MINNESOTA

A lb e rt Lea

A u st in

C lo quet

Colum bia H eig hts

D ulu th

307. 1 st c la s s F.F . 

ad d 107. f o r c h il d 

max. 50%

50% 1st c la s s F.F .

$ 1 0 0 -- w it h c h il d re n 

$150

40% 1st c la s s F.F . 

s a l . w it h c h ild add 

5% max. 507.

30% 1 st c la s s F .F . 

add 107. fo r c h ild 

max. 50%

50% 1 st c la s s F .F .

$1 0 0 -- w it h c h ild r e r 

$150

40% 1 st c la s s F.F . 

s a l . w it h c h ild add 

57.

$5,0 00 + W.C.

307. 1 st c la s s F.F . 

ad d 10% fo r c h il d 

max. 50%

50% 1 st c la s s F.F .

$ 1 0 0-- w it h c h il d re r 

$150

40% s a l.- - w it h 

c h ild ad d 5% 

max . 50%

F a rib a u lt $ 1 0 0 -- ls t c h ild $20 

o th e r c h ild r e n $10 

m ax .$175

$ 1 0 0 -- ls t c h ild $20 

o th e r c h il d re n $10 

m ax .$175 

$3,0 00 l i f e in s .

$ 1 0 0 -- 1 st c h ild $20 

o th e r c h il d re n $10 

m ax .$17 5

M in nea polis

Mooreh ead

Red Wing

21 /4 0 1 st c la s s F. F 

s a l . ---- c h ild 8/4 0

$75 p er mo. o r 50% 

earn ed P en sio n a t 

d a te o f d e a th

$ 1 0 0 --c h il d $25 

max. $150

Same as W.C. Same as W.C.

R ic h fie ld 40% 1st c la s s F.F . 

s a l . - - c h i l d 5% 

ma x. 50%

$75 p e r mo. o r 507. 

earn ed P ensio n a t 

d a te o f d e ath

$ 1 0 0 --c h il d $25 

max. $150

m in . 5 y r. s r .

40% 1st c la s s F.F . 

s a l . - - c h i l d 5% 

max . 50%

$75 p e r mo. o r 50% 

earn ed P ensi on a t 

d a te o f d eath

$ 1 0 0 -- c h il d $25 

max. $150 

min. 5 y r. s r .

40% 1 st c la s s F.F . 

s a l — c h ild 5% 

max. 50%

R o ch este r

S t. Lou is Pa rk

Widow: 18 u n its 

C h il d re n : 6 u n its 

max. 36 u n its 

U n it = l/ 7 5 1 st c la s s 

F .F . s a l .

Widow: 40% 1 st 

c la s s F .F . s a l . 

C h il d re n : 5% 

max. 50%

Widow: 18 u n its 

C h il d re n : 6 u n its 

max. 36 u n its 

U n it = l/ 7 5 1 st c la ss 

F.F . s a l .

Widow: 40% 1s t 

c la s s F.F . s a l .

C h il d re n : 5% 

max . 50%

Widow: 18 u n its 

C h il d re n : 6 u n its 

max. 36 u n its 

U n it = l/ 7 5 1 st c la s i 

F .F . s a l .

Widow: 40% 1st 

c la s s F.F . s a l. 

C h il d re n : 5% 

max. 507.

26
188

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow 4 Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF DUTY DEATH

MINNESOTA ( C o n t.)

So . S t. P au l Wid ow: 27% 1 s t . 

c l a s s F .F . s a l . 

C h ild r e n : 5% 

max. 50%

Widow: 27% 1 s t 

c l a s s F .F . s a l . 

C h ild r e n : 5% 

m ax . 50%

Widow: 27% 1 s t 

c l a s s F .F . s a l . 

C h ild r e n : 5% 

m ax . 50%

*

We st S t. P au l Wid ow: 30% s a l . 

C h ild r e n : 5% s a l . 

max . 40%

Wid ow: 30% s a l .

C h il d r e n : 5% s a l . 

max . 40%

Wid ow: 30% s a l . 

C h ild r e n : 5% s a l . 

m ax . 40% •

Winon a Wid ow: 18 u n i t s 

C h ild r e n : 6 u n i t s 

u n i t = l / 8 5 1 s t c l a s s 

F .F . s a l .

Widow : 18 u n i t s 

C h ild r e n : 6 u n i t s 

u n it = l /8 5 1 s t c l a s s 

F .F . s a l .

Widow : 18 u n i t s 

C h ild r e n : 6 u n i t s 

u n i t = l / 8 5 1 s t c la s s 

F .F . s a l .

M IS SIS SIP PI

B ilo x i 50% s a l . - - 2 0 y r . s r . 

66 .6 66 % s a l . - - 3 0 y r . 

s r .

50% s a l . $1 00 p e r mo. o r

1 /4 0 b a s e pay X 

y r . s r .

J a c k s o n Same a s r e t i r e e 50% s a l . - - m o r e th a n 

20 y r . s r . n o rm al 

r e t . fo rm u la

1 /4 0 F .A .S . X y r . 

s r .

L a u re l Same a s r e t i r e e 

u n t i l r e m a r r ia g e

50% s a l . 5 y r . s r . - 5 /4 0 

s a l . 6 y r . s r . -

6 /4 0 s a l . 

m ax . 50% s a l .

NEVADA

C la rk C ounty O p ti o n s e l e c t e d by 

r e t i r e e o r widow a t 

ag e 60 50% s a l . 3 

h ig h y r . l a s t 10 y r . 

s r . o r $1 25 p e r mo. 

w h ic h e v e r i s le s s

A f te r 2 y r . s r .

$1 00 p e r m o. -w id ow 

$7 5 p e r c h i l d

A f te r 10 y r . s r . 

$1 00 p e r m o. -w id ow 

$7 5 p e r c h i l d

Las V eg as P r i o r to r e t . man 

m us t s e l e c t o p ti o n 

e l s e wido w r e c e iv e s 

n o th in g e x c e p t 

u n u sed c o n t r i b . o f 

r e t . p la n . I f o p tio n 

i s s e l e c t e d wi dow 

r e c e iv e s r e d u c . 

a l lo tm e n t f o r l i f e

A f te r 20 y r . s r . - 

r e g . s r . r e t . - l e s s 

20 y r . s r . - wi dow 

g e t s m o n th ly 

a llo w a n c e o f $1 00 

an d c h i l d r e n $75 

p e r mo. ( m ax . o f 3)

A f te r 20 y r . s r . - 

r e g . s r . r e t . - l e s s 

20 y r . s r . - widow 

g e t s mo. a ll o w a n c e 

o f $1 00 an d 

c h i l d r e n $7 5 p e r 

mo . (m ax . o f 3 )

<

7

28
189

SU RV IVOR S BENEFITS FO RM UL A (W id ow & Ch ildren)

M UNIC IP ALIT Y-S TATE/P ROV. SERVICE DEAT H

(W HILE O N PENSIO N) LIN E OF DU TY DEATH OFF DUTY DEATH

NEVADA ( C o n t.)

Reno P r i o r to r e t . man 

m ust s e l e c t o p ti o n 

e l s e widow r e c e iv e s 

n o th in g e x c e p t 

u n u sed c o n t r i b . o f 

r e t . p l a n . I f o p ti o n 

i s s e l e c t e d wido w 

r e c e iv e s r e d u c . 

a l lo tm e n t f o r l i f e

R e g u la r s r . r e t . 

o r $1 00 p e r mo. to 

widow $7 5 p e r mo. 

ea c h c h i l d up to 

max . $3 10

R e g u la r s r . r e t . o r 

$1 00 p e r mo. to 

widow $7 5 p e r mo. 

ea ch c h i l d up to 

ma x. $3 10

NEW JERSEY

S t a t e P la n A ll C i t i e s 25% to 50% o f 

P e n s io n w it h c h i l d ­

r e n u n d e r ag e 18 

u n le s s r e t a r d e d 

p lu s 50% o f l a s t y r 

s a l . i f o v e r ag e 55

50% s a l . u n t i l 

r e m a r r ie d + 3 .5 

ti m e s l a s t y r . s a l 

(lum p su m)

3 .5 ti m e s l a s t y r . 

s a l . + a l l P e n s io n 

c o n t r i b .

NEW MEXICO

S t a t e P la n A ll C i t i e s D ep en ds on o p tio n 

s e l e c t e d by r e t i r e e

T o ta l c o n t r i b . + 

widow r e c e i v e s 

33 .3 33 % f i n a l s a l 

a s an n .

c h i l d r e n 25% o f 

f i n a l mo . s a l . 

u n t i l r e m a r r ia g e 

max . $3 00

A f te r 5 y r . s r . 

50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e

I

61-356 0 - 75 - 13

30
*D

z

□

<

£

M►-<

£

E

eQd

cu oo w

o *o •

J3-S g

C\| U-l 

o «• c C — 0) 

- 5

—I u X 3

—• «1 + ~i o V O <0 I-

—I —I « K

mCM

O p tio nO p tio nO p tio n

O p tio n

O p tio n

1 / 2 - ---- G u a r a n te e d r e t u r n o f c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o r e t i r e e o r s u r v i v o r . B e f o re r e t i r e m e n t - b e n e ­

0 -----------No o p t i o n . Maximum r e t i r e m e n t b e n e f i t s a l l t o r e t i r e e . No p a y m e n ts t o a n y s u r v i v o r s .

f i c i a r y ma y e l e c t e i t h e r a n a n n u i t y o r lu m p sum p a y m e n t - f u l l p e n s io n t o r e t i r e e .

1 -----------R e tu r n o f a l l c o n t r i b u t i o n s p l u s r e s e r v e by t h e e m p lo y e r t o t h e b e n e f i c i a r y b e f o r e

r e t i r e m e n t e l i g i b i l i t y .

3 - - - R e d u c e d p e n s io n t o r e t i r e e - 50% p e n s io n t o s u r v i v o r .

2 -----------R e d u c e d p e n s io n t o r e t i r e e - so m e p e n s io n t o s u r v i v o r s .

■- J C II I U -H u

O XJ c I (J > c CO W

1/ Q. 0/ —• £ iJ i/l <0 D 'H (3 o m U u u oo

I X X «0 Q co > -4 z a

u-/eO

o

x:

cCO

CQ0/to

u

3 2

□

1

u

x

2

Ui3u

X

O4o

2.
-• o 

28

X X —• • 4J (Q M *H X CM 0) -O *J <U <U E col —< <3 CX

•eM tM >~i

(0« 2 g Q. ~4

0 cm

0) M c i-j —< JZ o o .~ «

*-> uu 3 <3

u. iJ o </> O □ O «j >- . M-| CM E E 4-» —• C W 0>

m o>

E Ul w <3 • M

3 u> 

E -H V O - h E

.c u Q) 3 W (U o c c

CM efl > , XJ

o .n «3 >»

O —• Vi

o Xi O »- h- O

*j O »-• * *-» »u T5 . a, <3 o> a, c —< um E 3 <U

</> —» (3 *H 0) M c u p u -fm *a

?3

m a 6 c

3 OJ * j

O ption 1 /2 ---- G uar an te ed re tu r n o f c o n trib u tio n s to r e t i r e e o r s u rv iv o r. B ef or e re ti r e m e n t - ben e­ O ption 0 ---------No o p ti o n . Maximum re ti re m e n t b e n e f its a l l to r e t i r e e . No pa ym en ts to any s u rv iv o rs . f i c i a r y may e le c t e i t h e r an a n n u it y o r lump sum paym ent - f u l l p ensi on to r e t i r e e . O ption 1--------- R et urn of a l l c o n tr ib u tio n s p lu s re s e rv e by th e em pl oy er to th e b e n e f ic ia r y b e fo re re ti re m e n t e l i g i b i l i t y .

O ption 3--------- Reduc ed pen si o n to r e t i r e e - 50% p e n si o n to s u rv iv o r. O ption 2--------- Reduced p ensi on to r e t i r e e - some pen si o n to s u rv iv o rs .
MUNICIPALITY—STATE/PROV.

NORTH CA RO LI NA

R a l e ig h

NORTH DAKOTA

F a rg o

OHIO

S t a t e P l a n A ll C i t i e s

OKLAHOMA

O k la h o m a C ity

T u l s a

PE NNSY LV ANIA

A1 l e n to w n

192

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Child ren)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

B a se d o n o p t i o n

1 . c o n t i n u e d r a w in g 

sa m e a m t.

2 . lu m p su m * 

i n t e r e s t

: 3 . r e d u c . r a t e f o r 

l i f e

A m t. e q u a l t o co mp, 

e a r n e d i n t h e y r . 

p r e c e d i n g d e a t h 

m ax . $ 1 5 ,0 0 0

60% o f P e n s io n T w ic e t h e m o n th ly 

s a l . 1 s t c l a s s

F . F . + 60% s a l .

T w ic e t h e m o n th ly 

s a l . 1 s t c l a s s

F .F . + 60% s a l .

Wid ow $135

C h i ld $45

Wido w $13 5

C h i ld $45

Widow $13 5

C h i ld $45

Sa me a s r e t i r e e 

u n t i l r e m a r r i a g e

Sa m e a s r e t i r e e 

u n t i l r e m a r r i a g e

1 /4 0 F .A .S . X y r .

s r .

Sa me a s P e n s io n 

u n l e s s w id ow 

r e m a r r i e s t h e n 

c h i l d r e n g e t f u l l 

p e n s io n u n t i l 18 y r 

( g i r l s ) (2 1 y r . 

b o y s ) I f p h y s i c a l l y 

o r m e n t a l l y r e ­

t a r d e d p e n s io n c o n ­

t i n u e s

Sa m e a s P e n s io n 

u n l e s s w id ow 

r e m a r r i e s t h e n 

c h i l d r e n g e t f u l l 

p e n s i o n u n t i l 18 

y r . ( g i r l s ) (2 1 y r . 

b o y s ) I f p h y s i c a l l y 

o r m e n t a l l y r e ­

t a r d e d p e n s i o n c o n 

t i n u e s

Sa me a s n o n - d u ty 

d i s a b i l i t y r e t . 

a n d r e s t r i c t i o n s 

o f s r . d e a t h

Sa me a s r e t i r e e 50% F .A .S .

36
193

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF DUTY DEATH

PENNSYLVANIA ( C o n t.)

A lt o o n a Same a s r e t i r e e 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S .

B eth le hem 50% o f P e n s io n 50% o f P e n s io n

B u tle r $4 0 p e r mo . i f no 

wido w $10 p e r c h i k 

up to $4 0

None

C a rn e g ie Wid ow: $7 5 p e r mo. 

C h ild : $2 5 p e r mo.

Wid ow: $75 p e r mo. 

C h ild : $2 5 p e r mo.

Wid ow: $7 5 p e r mo. 

C h ild : $2 5 p e r mo.

E a sto n 50% s a l . 50% s a l . 50% s a l .

E r ie 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S .

F a r r e l l 50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

wi dow r e m a r r ie s

50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

wi dow r e m a r r ie s

W.C. + $ 1 3 ,2 5 0 

l i f e i n s .

H a r r is b u r g 50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

wido w r e m a r r ie s

50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

wi dow r e m a r r ie s

50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

widow r e m a r r ie s

H a z le to n 50% F .A .S . 1 /4 0 F .A .S . X y r .

s r .

1 /4 0 F .A .S . X y r .

s r .

H om es te ad R e tu rn o f c o n t r i b . R e tu rn o f c o n t r i b . R e tu rn o f c o n t r i b .

Jo h n st o w n 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S .

L a n c a s te r 50% F .A .S . 

u n t i l r e m a r r ia g e

50% F .A .S . u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e - - c o m p , 

f o r c h i l d

A f te r 20 y r . s r . 

r e t u r n c o n t r i b .

38>
MUNICIPALITY—STATE/PROV.

PENNSYLVANIA ( C o n t.)

M cK ee sp ort

New C a s tl e

P h ila d e lp h i a

P i t t s b u r g h

S h aro n

S w is s v a le

W iIk e s -B a rre

Wi lk in s b u r g

York

194

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF DUTY DEATH

507. F .A .S . 50% F .A .S . $2 50 + c o n t r i b .

50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S .

50% o f P e n s io n 60% F .A .S . + 10% 

p e r c h i l d ma x.

80% o f F .A .S . + 

r e fu n d o f c o n t r i b .

Mus t h av e 10 y r . 

s r . P e n s io n b ased 

on ag e o f F .F . 6 

b e n e f i c i a r y . P en ­

s io n co m pute d a s 

i f F .F . r e t . day 

p r e c e d in g d e a th

50% o f P e n s io n 50% o f P e n s io n ♦

$39 a wk . s t a t e 

co mp. S t a t e co mp, 

in c r e a s e s to $46 

a wk. f o r 2 c h i l ­

d re n $6 0 a wk. 

f o r o v e r 3 

c h i ld r e n

50% F .A .S .

50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S .

None None Non e

50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S . L ess th a n 20 y r . 

s r . r e fu n d 

c o n t r i b .

50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S . 50% F .A .S .

40
195

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Child ren)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

RHODE ISLAND

C e n t r a l F a l l s Non e $ 5 ,0 0 0 s a l . ♦ 

$ 5 ,0 0 0 i n s .

$ 5 ,0 0 0 g r o u p i n s .

C r a n s to n N one Non e Non e

J o h n s to n 120 m o n th s P e n s io n 

+ o p t i o n s

50% F .A .S . + 10% 

p e r c h i l d u p t o 

m ax . 70% F .A .S .

A f t e r 3 y r . s r .

30% i n c r e a s e d by 

1.5 % e a c h y r . t o 

m ax. 50%

w id ow a g e 55 u n l e s s 

m in o r c h i l d r e n th e n 

m ax . o f 60%

N a r r a g a n s e t t 1 . 5 m o n th ly 

p e n s io n i n s t a l l m e n t s 

+ $ 3 0 0 o r

2 . T o t a l c o n t r i b . 

m ad e l e s s a m t. o f 

p e n s i o n r e c e i v e d 

w h i c h e v e r g r e a t e r

50% F .A .S . T o t a l c o n t r i b . 

m ad e t o b e n e f i c i ­

a r y + $ 2 5 0 f o r 

e a c h y r . s r . 

m in . $ 1 ,0 0 0 

m ax . $ 5 ,0 0 0

N e w p o rt 6 6 .6 6 6 % o f P e n s io n 6 6 .6 6 6 % o f p r o ­

r a t e d ( t o 25 y r . ) 

p e n s io n

6 6 .6 6 6 % o f p r o ­

r a t e d ( t o 25 y r . ) 

p e n s io n

P o r ts m o u th N one Non e Non e

S m i t h f i e l d $ 5 ,0 0 0 + 30% F .A .S . 

c h i l d 10%

T o t a l c o n t r i b . +

50% F .A .S . + 10% 

f o r e a c h c h i l d

W es t W arw ic k S u r v i v o r o p t i o n s $ 1 ,8 0 0 + $ 6 0 0 f o r 

c h i l d

Non e

W o o n so ck e t

SOUTH CAROLINA

R ock H i l l Sa m e a s r e t i r e e 2% F .A .S . X y r . s r .

+ W .C. 1 y r . s a l .

* c h i l d r e n f r e e 

c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n

2% F .A .S . X y r . s r .

+ W .C .

A

SOUTH DAKOTA

A b e rd e e n

4 2 t
196

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

TENNESSEE

J o h n so n C it y R em ain d er o f 

c o n t r i b . n o t p a id 

in P e n s io n

R ef un d c o n t r i b . R ef und c o n t r i b .

Me mp his Same a s r e t i r e e 

u n t i l r e m a r r ia g e

50% F .A .S . A f te r 15 y r . s r . 

r e t u r n c o n t r i b . 

a f t e r 16 y r . s r .

50% F .A .S . ( l a s t

12 mo. o r 5 y r . 

s r . )

N a s h v ilie 4 o p ti o n s w it h am t. 

A ct. D e t.

$ 5 0 ,0 0 0 h a z a rd o u s 

d u ty pa ym en t 75% 

o f am t. by w h ic h 

a d i s a b i l i t y 

p e n s io n e x c e e d s

S .S . b e n e f i t s

Ref und c o n t r i b .

+ S .S .

TEXAS

A b il e n e 33 .3 33 % F .A .S . 

ma x. $2 40 p e r mo.

33 .3 33 % F .A .S . 

max . $2 40 p e r mo.

33 .3 33 % F .A .S . 

max . $24 0 p e r mo.

A m ari 1 lo 66 .6 66 % o f P e n s io n 

u n t i l r e m a r r ia g e 

m in . $1 50 p e r mo. 

i f sh e d i e s ea ch 

c h i l d g e t s $4 0 p e r 

mo . (m ax . $1 20 p e r 

mo . )

P e r c e n ta g e F .A .S .

X y r . s r . p e n s io n 

w i l l be co m pute d 

a s i f he c o n tin u e d 

s r . u n t i l S .S . an d 

c o m p le te d 20 y r . 

s r .

5% o f on d u ty 

a llo w a n c e p e r y r . 

o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n 

in fu n d (m ax . 20 

y r . ) w it h m in . o f 

$5 0 p e r mo. I f 

wido w d ie s ea ch 

c h i l d g e t s $40 p e r 

mo . (m ax . $1 20 p e r 

mo . )

Bea um on t 33.3 33% F .A .S . 

wido w $2 0 p e r mo . 

to e a c h c h i l d

33 .3 33 % F .A .S . 

max . s r . p e n s io n

5% F .A .S . X y r . sr. 

max . $1 50 p e r mo. 

e a c h c h i l d $2 0 p e r 

mo .

C orp us C h r i s t i Same a s r e t i r e e 

no w id o w --e a c h c h ild 

r e c e iv e s $ 4 9 .7 1

Same a s r e t i r e e 

no w id o w -e ach c h ile 

r e c e iv e s $49 .7 1

Same a s r e t i r e e 

no w id o w -e ach c h ild 

r e c e iv e s $49.7 1

El P aso 66.6 66% o f P e n s io n 

u n t i l y o u n g e s t c h ild 

i s ag e 17 th e n 50% 

o f p e n s io n to wi dow

66 .6 66 % o f P e n s io n 

u n t i l y o u n g e s t c h ild 

i s ag e 17 th e n 50% 

o f p e n s io n to wi dow

66. 66 6% o f P e n sio n 

u n t i l y o u n g e s t c h il d 

i s ag e 17 th e n 50% 

o f p e n s io n to widow

F arm ers B ra nc h None None None

44
197

SURV IVOR S BENEFITS FORM UL A (W id ow & Ch ild ren)

MUNIC IP ALIT Y-S TATE/P RO V. SER VICE DEATH

(W HILE O N PENSIO N) LIN E OF DUTY DEATH OF F-DU TY DEA TH

TEXAS ( C o n t . )

H o u s to n

T

T

Wido w r e c e i v e s sa m e 

a s m em ber u n t i l 

r e m a r r i a g e .

C h i l d r e n r e c e i v e 

sa m e a m t. Widow 

w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n 

c a n n o t r e c e i v e m o re 

t h a n 50% p a y o f 

F .F . $ 4 1 4 .5 0 m ax.

Wido w r e c e i v e s 

sa m e a s m em ber 

u n t i l r e m a r r i a g e 

C h i l d r e n r e c e i v e 

sa m e a m t. Wido w 

w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n 

c a n n o t r e c e i v e m or e 

t h a n 50% p a y o f 

F .F . $ 4 1 4 .5 0 m ax .

Wido w r e c e i v e s 

sa m e a s m em ber 

u n t i l r e m a r r i a g e . 

C h i l d r e n r e c e i v e 

sa m e a m t . Widow 

w i t h o u t c h i l d r e n 

c a n n o t r e c e i v e mo re 

t h a n 50% p a y o f 

F .F . $ 4 1 4 .5 0 m ax .

I r v i n g 3 3 .3 3 3 % F .A .S . 3 3 .3 3 3 % F .A .S . 3 3 .3 3 3 % F .A .S .

M id la n d 3 3 .3 3 3 % F .A .S .

$ 4 0 1 s t c h i l d $20 

e a c h a d d i t i o n a l 

c h i l d

3 3 .3 3 3 % F .A .S .

$ 4 0 1 s t c h i l d $ 20 

e a c h a d d i t i o n a l 

c h i I d

3 3 .3 3 3 % F .A .S .

$40 1 s t c h i l d $20 

e a c h a d d i t i o n a l 

c h i l d

O d e s s a 6 6 .6 6 6 % o f P e n s io n 

+

 $ 40 p e r e a c h c h il d

6 6 .6 6 6 % o f P e n s io n 

+ $40 e a c h c h i l d

6 6 .6 6 6 % o f P e n s io n 

+ $ 4 0 e a c h c h i l d

S an A n to n io

VIR G IN IA

F a i r f a x C o. Non e $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 l i f e i n s . 

p r o v i d e d by c o u n ty 

+ c o n t r i b .

R e tu r n c o n t r i b .

WEST V IR G IN IA

S t a t e P l a n A ll C i t i e s 30% A .S . ( h i g h 5 y r 

s r . ) + 15% A .S . 

( h i g h 5 y r . s r . ) to 

c h i l d r e n

W id ow : 30% F .A .S 

u p t o 20 y r . s r . 

a f t e r 20 y r . s r . 

30% A .S . ( 5 h i g h 

y r . s r . )

W idow : a f t e r 5 y r . 

s r . 30% F .A .S . + 

15% F .A .S . t o 

c h i l d r e n

WASHINGTON

S t a t e P l a n A ll C i t i e s 50% F .A .S . + 5% 

e a c h c h i l d

50% F .A .S . + 5% 

e a c h c h i l d

50% F .A .S . + 5% 

e a c h c h i l d

46
198

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

WISCONSIN

S t a t e P la n A ll C i t i e s 

E xcep t M ilw au ke e

3 o p tio n s

1. S t r a i g h t l i f e 

a n n u ity

2. L if e a n n . w ith

18 0 g u a r a n te e d 

m o n th ly p ay m en ts

3 . J o i n t s u r v i v o r ­

s h ip a n n . w h ere 

w if e r e c e iv e s 75% 

o f p e n s io n

33 .3 33 % s a l . u n t i l 

r e m a r r ia g e $15 

p e r mo. p e r c h i l d

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

i n t e r e s t e a rn e d

M ilw au kee Widow: 70% o f P en ­

s io n + $1 15 p e r mo. 

u n t i l y o u n g e s t 

c h i l d i s ag e 18 an d 

a g a in a f t e r widow is 

ag e 6 2 . C h ild r e n 

$1 15 p e r mo.

60% A .S . + $115 

p e r mo. f o r w if e * 

$1 15 p e r mo . f o r 

c h i ld r e n

R e tu rn o f c o n t r i b .

♦ $1 15 p e r mo. f o r 

wi dow + $1 15 p e r „ 

mo. f o r c h i l d r e n

48
M UNIC IP ALIT Y-S TATE/P ROV.

*

1

ALBERTA

Cal gar y

Edmonton

L eth b ri d g e

M ed ic in e Hat

Red De er

BRITISH COLUMBIA

P ro v in c ia l P la n A ll 

C itie s

199

SU RV IVOR S BENEFITS FO RM UL A (W id ow & Ch ild ren)

SERVICE DEATH

(W HILE O N PENSIO N) LINE OF DU TY DEATH OF F-DU TY DEATH

Widow re c e iv e s 55% 

o f p ensi on C .P .P .

J o i n t s u rv iv o rs 

p e n sio n c h o ic e , 

C .P .P .

J o i n t s u rv iv o rs 

p e n sio n choic e 

C .P .P .

J o i n t s u rv iv o rs 

p e n sio n choic e 

C .P .P .

J o i n t s u rv iv o rs 

p e n sio n choic e 

C .P .P .

P e n sio n er makes 

c h o ic e of pla n an d 

may d e cid e wh at type 

o f p ro te c ti o n he 

w is hes fo r h is 

dep en d en ts + C.P P.

R ec ei ve f u l l s a l . 

o f F .F . u n t i l d a te 

o f no rm al r e t . th a i 

55% o f no rm al 

p en si o n ♦ C .P .P .

F u ll s a la ry u n t i l 

h is no rm al r e t . 

ag e

A ft er 10 y r. s r . 

j o in t s u rv iv o rs 

pen si o n W.C. & 

C .P .P .

F u ll s a l . u n t i l 

no rm al r e t . ag e

F u l1 s a l . u n t i l 

no rm al r e t . ag e

Dep en ding on s r . 

C .P .P .

A ft e r 10 y r . s r . 

j o in t s u rv iv o rs 

pen si o n C .P .P .

A ft e r 10 y r. s r . 

j o in t s u rv iv o rs 

pensi on C .P .P .

A ft e r 10 y r . s r . 

j o in t s u rv iv o rs 

pensi on C .P .P .

A ft e r 10 y r. s r . 

j o in t s u rv iv o rs 

pensi on C .P .P .

A ft e r 10 y r. s r . 

50% o f wha t he 

would ha ve g o t a t 

ag e 55 +

 c r e d it 

fo r th e numb er of 

y r . he co u ld ha ve 

wo rked to ag e 55 

X th e re m ain in g 

50% + W.C. & C.P.P.

A ft e r 10 y r. s r . 

50% o f wh at he 

wo uld ha ve got a t 

ag e 55 ♦ c r e d it 

fo r th e numb er of 

y r. he could ha ve 

wo rke d to ag e 55 

X th e re m ain in g 

50% + W.C. & C.P.P.

t

S

50
200

MUNICIPALITY—STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

MANITOBA

F o rt G arr y 60 m o n th ly pay m en ts 

an d C .P .P .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

i n t e r e s t W.C. 6 

C .P .P .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

i n t e r e s t 6 C .P .P .

P o r ta g e La P r a i r i e C .P .P . 1 y r . s a l . * W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

1 y r . s a l . + C .P .P .

S t. B o n if a c e C .P .P . W.C. an d C .P .P . C .P .P .

S t. Ja m es M in. o f 60 mo. 

p e n s io n p ay m en ts & 

C .P .P .

R ef und c o n t r i b . * 

i n t e r e s t + W.C. 6 

C .P .P .

R ef und c o n t r i b . + 

i n t e r e s t 6 C .P .P .

S t. V ita l G u a ra n te e o f 60 mo. 

p e n s io n p ay m en ts 6 

C .P .P .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

i n t e r e s t + W.C. 6 

C .P .P .

R e tu rn o f c o n t r i b .

+ i n t e r e s t 6 C .P .P .

W in nip eg 507. p e n s io n 6 C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n + W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

A f te r 30 y r . s r .

50% p e n s io n . L ess 

th a n 30 y r . s r . 

r e t u r n c o n t r i b . + 

C .P .P .

NEWFOUNDLAND

S t. J o h n 's 50% p e n s io n 6 C .P .P . W.C. 6 C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n 6 C .P .P .

NEW BRUNSWICK

M on cton P e n s io n g u a r a n te e d

5 y r . + C .P .P .

W.C. & C .P .P . R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

3% i n t e r e s t an d 

C .P .P .

S t . Jo h n 507. p e n s io n 6 C .P .P . 607. F .A .S . & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n 6 C .P .P .

5
201

MUNICIPALITY-STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

NOVA SCOTIA

D art m o u th 50% p e n s io n & C .P .P 50% p e n s io n ♦ W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n & C .P .P

H a lif a x

T ru ro

507. p e n s io n + 107. 

f o r c h i l d r e n u p to 

a max . o f 4 + C .P .P

C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n + 10% 

f o r c h i l d r e n up to 

a ma x. o f 4 + W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

W.C. & C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n & C .P .P

C .P .P .

ONTARIO

Th e f o llo w in g C i t i e s 

h av e th e same p la n

B a r r ie

Bra m pt on

C o ll in g w o o d

D un da s

F o rt F r a n c is

G a lt

G uel ph

H am il to n

K in g s to n

K ir k la n d

K itc h e n e r

M is s is s a u g a

N ia g a ra F a ll s

O a k v i1 le

Oshaw a

S c a rb o ro u g h

S udbury

T h o ro ld

T h u n d er Bay

W ellan d

W hitby

50% p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n + W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n & C .P .P .

Cha tam 50% p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n + W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

0% p e n s io n & C .P .P ,

Deep R iv e r 507. p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n + W.C. 5 

an d C .P .P .

0% p e n s io n & C .P .P .

E a st Yo rk >0% p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n + W.C. 5 

an d C .P .P .

0% p e n s io n & C .P .P .

54
MUNICIPALITY—STATE/PROV

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

ONTARIO ( C o n t.)

Lon do n 50% p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n + W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n & C .P .P .

N o rt h York 507. p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n ♦ W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n & C .P .P .

O tt a w a 50% p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n ♦ 10% 

e a ch c h i l d ma x.

75% e a rn e d p e n s io n 

+ W.C. & C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n * 10% 

ea ch c h i l d max .

75% e a rn e d p e n s io n 

+ W.C. & C .P .P .

Pem bro ke 50% p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n +

 W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n C .P .P .

Richm on d H ill 50% p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n + W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n & C .P .P

S t. C a th a r in e s 50% p en sic n & C .P .E 50% p e n s io n +

 W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n 4« C .P .P

T o ro n to 50% p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n & g r a n t 

fr o m c i t y e q u i v a le r t 

t o W.C. S. C .P .P . 

( a d d i t i o n a l g r a n t s 

s u b j e c t to C o u n cil 's 

a p p r o v a l)

A f te r 15 y r . s r .

50% p e n s io n an d 

C .P .P .

W a ll a c e b u rg 50% p e n s io n & C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n * W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n C .P .P

W a te rl o o 50% p e n s io n C .P .P . 50% p e n s io n ♦ W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

50% p e n s io n & C .P .P
203

MUNICIPALITY- STATE/PROV.

SURVIVORS BENEFITS FORMULA (Widow & Children)

SERVICE DEATH 

(WHILE ON PENSION) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OFF-DUTY DEATH

QUEBEC

A rv id a Q .P .P . W.C. an d Q .P .P . Q .P .P .

B aie Comeau Q .P .P . W.C. an d Q .P .P . Q .P .P .

J o l i e t t e 50% p e n s io n & Q .P .P W.C. an d Q .P .P . Q .P .P .

L a c h in e W.C. a n d .Q .P .P . R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

Q .P .P .

L a s a lle 10 y r . g u a r a n te e 

Q .P .P .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

W.C. an d Q .P .P .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

Q .P .P .

M o n tr e a l an d M o n tr e a l 

C h ie fs

50% p e n s io n & Q .P .P . 50% p e n s io n + an 

am t. a p p ro v e d by 

th e c i t y

Q .P .P . an d W.C. 

m in . 75% o f 

d e c e a s e d s a l .

50% p e n s io n a f t e r 

10 y r . s r . Q .P .P .

Mo unt Roy al 50% p e n s io n & Q .P .P . 50% A .S . ( l a s t 10 

y r . s r . )

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

Q .P .P .

O u tr em o n t $ 1 2 ,0 0 0 i n s . an d 

Q .P .P .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

W.C. an d Q .P .P .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

Q .P .P .

S h e rb ro o k e P e n s io n g u a r a n te e d

5 y r . an d Q .P .P .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . * 

i n t e r e s t + W.C. 

an d Q .P .P .

R e tu rn c o n t r i b . + 

i n t e r e s t ♦ Q .P .P .

SASKATCHEWAN

Moose Ja w 4 y r . g u a r a n te e + 

C .P .P .

R e tu rn e m p lo y e e 's 

c o n t r i b . w ith 3% 

i n t e r e s t an d r e ­

t u r n o f e m p lo y e r 's 

c o n t r i b . + W.C. 

an d C .P .P .

R e tu rn e m p lo y e e 's 

c o n t r i b . w ith 3% 

i n t e r e s t an d r e ­

tu r n o f e m p lo y e r 's 

c o n t r i b . + C .P .P .

58
MUNIC IP ALIT Y-S TATE/P RO V.

SASKATCHEWAN (C o n t. )

P rin c e A lb ert

Reg in a

S ask at oon

S w if t C urr ent

204

SURVIVO RS BENEFITS FO RM ULA (W id ow & Ch ild ren)

SER VICE DEATH

(W HILE O N PENSIO N) LINE OF DUTY DEATH OF F-DU TY DEATH

5- 10 y r . g u a ra n te e 

o r l a s t s u r v iv o r 's 

c la u se

’50% pen si o n & C .P .P .

W.C. and C .P .P .

50% pen si o n + 20% 

fo r ea ch c h il d to 

max. F .F . e l i g . 

p ensi on * W.C. an d 

C .P .P .

P e rc e n ta g e o f 

pen si o n g u a ra n te e +

C .P .P .

Based on B oard 's 

a p p ro v a l, o p ti o n o f 

3 ways

1. Lump sum pay ment

2. Paym ent by 

in s ta lm e n t

3. S e le c ti o n o f 

p u rc h a se o f an n.

C .P .P .

W.C. an d C .P .P .

W.C. and C .P .P .

5- 10 y r. g u a ra n te e 

o r la s t s u r v iv o r 's 

c la u se and C .P .P .

A ft e r 20 y r. s r . 

507. F .F . pensi on 

♦ 20% fo r ea ch 

c h ild up to 75% 

o f F .F . e lig . 

pensi on and C .P .P .

P erc en ta g e of 

pensi on g u a ra n te e 

+ C .P .P .

C .P .P .

1V #

60