The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
RELIEF ADMINISTRATION
HARRY L. HOPKINS
Federal Emergency Relief Administrator
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
OCTOBER 1933
REPORT NUMBER THREE
FEDERAL EMERGENCY
RELIEF ADMINISTRATION
HARRY L. HOPKINS
Federal Emergency Relief Administrator
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
OCTOBER 1933
FAMILY COMPOSITION
SHOWING FOR THE UNITED STATES, BY STATES,
BY URBAN AND RURAL AREAS, AND FOR PRINCIPAL
CITIES THE FAMILY COMPOSITION OF THE CASES
RECEIVING EMERGENCY RELIEF
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D. CM June 1, 1935.
Sir: I transmit herewith the third report covering the Unemployment Relief Census of October 1933. This report deals specifically
with the family composition of the cases receiving emergency relief
during the month of October 1933. The data are presented for the
United States, by States, by urban and rural areas in each State,
and for cities having a population of 250,000 or more in 1930.
The analysis was made under the general supervision of Howard
B. Myers, Assistant Director in charge of research. Thelma A.
Dries directed the tabulations; Charles F. Beach and Mildred B.
Parten served in an advisory capacity. This report was prepared
by Dorothy S. Thomas. The services of others who participated
are also acknowledged with appreciation.
Respectfully,
CORRINGTON GILL,
Assistant Administrator
Division of Research, Statistics and Finance,
Hon. HARRY L. HOPKINS,
Federal Emergency Relief Administrator.
Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subject
Introduction
Summary
Page
1
4
...
General Findings for the United States
6
Findings for the 48 States and the District of Columbia
16
Findings for the 37 Cities with a Population of 250,000 or
more in 1930
.'
28
Race Differences as Shown by Comparisons of White and Negro
Relief Cases in 15 Cities Having a Negro Population of
50,000 or more in 1930
31
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
A.
B.
C.
D.
Schedule of Unemployment Relief Census
Limitations of the Data and of the Analysis.....
Method of Analysis
List of Tables not Published..
98
100
101
114
List of Charts
Chart
1. United States—Estimated Percent of Families
for Whites and Negroes
2. United States—Estimated Percent of Families
for Urban and Rural Areas
by Type
9
by Type
11
List of Tables
Table
A. Estimated Percent of Total Families of Husband-WifeChildren and Husband-Wife-Children-Others Types, for
Whites and Negroes in Eleven Selected States and the
District of Columbia
.
B. Estimated Percent of Total Families of Woman-Children
and Non-Family Man Types (including "others") for
Whites and Negroes in Eleven Selected States and the
District of Columbia
C. Estimated Percent of Total Families Classified According to Age-Groups of Family Members for Whites and
Negroes in Eleven Selected States and the District of
Columbia
D. Estimated Percent of Total Families Containing Persons
65 Years of Age and Over for Whites and Negroes in
Eleven Selected States and the District of Columbia
E. Estimated Percent of Total Families with Female Heads
and with Female Workers Only for Whites and Negroes in
Eleven Selected States and the District of Columbia.. ..
V
17
18
22
24
26
CONTENTS
VI
UNITED STATES SUMMARY AND MAIN GEOGRAPHIC DIVISIONS
Table
Page
1. Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type
of Family, Color or Race, and Urban and Rural Areas
35
2. Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type
of Family, and Urban and Rural Areas, and by Color or
Race, Sex, and Age of Head
36
3. Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type
of Family, Presence of "Others" in Family, Color or
Race, and Urban and Rural Areas
40
4. Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Presence of Aged Persons and Children, Color or Race, and
Urban and Rural Areas
44
5. Proportion of Relief Families, October 1933, containing
(a) Aged Heads, (b) Aged Persons, and (c) Aged Persons
without Other Adults, by Color or Race, and Urban and
Rural Areas
49
6. Proportion of Relief Families, October 1933, containing
(a) Female Heads, (b) Only Females 16-64 Years of Age,
(c) Only Females 16-64 Years of Age but with Children,
by Color or Race, and Urban and Rural Areas...
—
50
.STATES
7.
Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type
of Family, Color or Race, and Urban and Rural Areas
8. Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Presence of Aged Persons and Children, Color or Race, and
Urban and Rural Areas
8A. Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Presence of Aged Persons and Children and by Presence of
Persons 16-64 Years of Age....
,
9. Proportion of Relief Families, October 1933, containing
(a) Aged Heads, (b) Aged Persons, and (c) Aged Persons
without Other Adults by Urban and Rural Areas
10. Proportion of Relief Families, October 1933, containing
(a) Female Heads, (b) Only Females 16-64 Years of Age,
and (c) Only Females 16-64 Years of Age but with Children, by Urban and Rural Areas
52
72
78
82
85
PRINCIPAL CITIES
(Population of 250,000 or more in 1930)
11.
Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type
of Family
11A. Distribution of White and Negro Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family, in Cities with 50,000
or More Negroes in 1930
88
90
CONTENTS
Table
12. Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Presence of Aged Persons and Children
12A. Distribution of White and Negro Relief Families, October
1933, by Presence of Aged Persons and Children, in Cities
with 50,000 or More Negroes in 1930
13. Proportion of Relief Families, October 1933, containing
(a) Aged Heads, (b) Aged Persons, and (c) Aged Persons
wi thout Other Adul ts
13A. Proportion of White and Negro Relief Families, October
1933, containing (a) Aged Heads, (b) Aged Persons, and
(c) Aged Persons without Other Adults, in Cities with
50,000 or More Negroes in 1930
14. Proportion of Relief Families, October 1933, containing
(a) Female Heads, (b) Only Females 16-64 Years of Age,
(c) Only Females 16-64 Years of Age but with Children...
14A. Proportion of White and Negro Relief Families, October
1933, containing (a) Female Heads, (b) Only Females
16-64 Years of Age, and (c) Only Females 16-64 Years
of Age but with Children, in Cities with 50,000 or More
Negroes in 1930
VII
Page
92
93
94
95
96
97
APPENDIX TABLES
(Appendix C)
Table
1. Comparison of Percent of Cases by Color or Race Found
in the Unemployment Relief Census, October 1933, and in
a Sample Drawn from that Census, by States for Urban and
Rural Areas
2. Comparison of Families by Size in Unemployment Relief
Census, October 1933, and in a Sample Drawn from that
Census as Shown by Percentage of Each Size, by States..
3. Number of Families in Sample of Each State with Type
of Family Unknown, by Color or Race, and Rural and Urban
Areas
4. Number of Families in Sample of Each City with 250,000
or More Population in 1930 with Type of Family Unknown,
and with Negro and White Classification for Cities with
50,000 or More Negroes in 1930
108
110
112
113
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS, OCTOBER 1933
INTRODUCTION
One of the first steps taken by the Division of Research and
Statistics of the Federal Emergency Relief Administration after its
establishment in the spring of 1933 was to organize a census of the
persons accepted as eligible for unemployment relief. This census
was nation-wide and was taken as of October 1933. Schedules
covering 3,186,181 relief cases were collected by the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration in cooperation with State and
local relief administrations. The data obtained in these schedules provided the minimum essentials for immediate relief administration and
program planning, and were analyzed to show how many persons were
involved in these relief cases, their race, sex and age, the size of
the family groups represented by the cases, the different proportions
in the several geographic divisions and States, in urban and rural
areas, in the larger cities, and in the 3,000-odd counties. The
principal results of these analyses were published in Report Number
One in May 1934 and Report Number Two in November 1934.
This, the third report, attempts a different type of analysis of
the Relief Census data. It has been prepared as a result of the
increasing interest in social security and work programs and is
directed towards problems of long-range planning rather than immediate emergency needs. So far as the data permit, it attempts an
analysis of the family composition of the relief case, and endeavors
to differentiate the various groups which will be involved in programs of rehabilitation and of relatively permanent care. This
analysis has two aspects and attempts to answer the following
questions:
(1) To what extent are these relief cases composed of normal
family groups, in regard to which the main problem of rehabilitation will be the provision of employment for the head
or other members of such families?
(2) To what extent are these relief cases composed
family groups, particularly women with dependent
where provision of employment would be only
solution and where some additional or substitutive
such as mothers' pensions, are indicated?
of broken
children,
a partial
measures,
(3) To what extent are these relief cases composed of families
or individuals whose occupational rehabilitation is extremely
improbable, due chiefly to old age, and where permanent care
needs to be provided?
1
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
2
The first aspect of this analysis was made possible by the facts
that the relief ease was the unit in which the data were assembled
and that the head of this unit and the relationship of each member
of the unit to the head were designated in the schedule. The relief
case can, therefore, be described in terms of the family composition
of the persons included in each case with the designated head as
the point of reference. The following types are readily classifiable:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Designated Head
A man
A man
A man
A woman
A man
A woman
Other Persons in Relief Case
His Wife and Their Children 1 /
His Wife
2/
His Children^/
Her Children.4/
JJ/
§/
The first two of these classes represent what is commonly called
the normal familvr the next two the broken family, and the last
two the non-family person.
A great variety of other types could have been classified in terms
of the relationship of various other persons (brothers, sisters,
parents, in-laws, grandparents, grandchildren, etc.) to the head. A too
detailed classification, however, would have been statistically
insignificant and administratively unimportant. All such persons,
therefore, were classified as a single group under each of the six
preceding types and designated simply as "others." regardless of
the degree of their relationship or lack of relationship to the
head.
The second aspect of this analysis was made possible by disregarding both the head designated in the schedule and the relationship
of the family members to the head and taking as a point of reference
the age and sex of the persons in each case. Since it may be presumed undesirable, as a matter of social policy, to permit the
employment of children under 16 years of age, and since the possibilities of reemployment for most persons 65 years of age or over
are sharply limited, an analysis in terms of three age groups, i.e.,
under 16, 16 to 64, and 65 and over, shows roughly the extent of
possible immediate occupational rehabilitation, in so far as age
1/ Also referred to in this report as husband-wife-children type.
All children of head, irrespective of age, are included.
2/ Also referred to in this report as husband-wife type.
3 / Also referred to in this report as man-children type. All children of head, irrespective of age, are included.
4 / Also referred to in this report as woman-children type.
All
children of head, irrespective of age, are included.
j£/ Also referred to in this report as non-family man type.
6/ Also referred to in this report as non-family woman type.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
3
and sex are the determining factors. Thus, cases 1 / containing
persons 65 years of age and over, but containing no persons 16 to
64 years of age, represent to a large extent a problem of permanent
care and point to the need for a system of old-age pensions. Cases
containing children under 16, where the only person in the case 16
to 64 is a female, probably represent a problem of assistance in
addition to, or as a substitute for, employment and point to the need
for a system of mothers* pensions or a more general sort of subsidy.
Cases containing both males and females 16 to 64 years of age
probably represent, in the main, a class of cases definitely rehabilitable through employment or special work programs j j / .
Although this analysis is made on the basis of the relief population as of October 1933, the proportions of cases of various types
are considered applicable to more recent relief totals. They also
provide a basis for checking the generalizations for this Census by
detailed current studies in special localities.
As explained in the section on method (pp. 101-107), the proportions
of the various types of families were estimated on the basis of a
random sample JJ/ of 207,850 schedules, selected from the 3,178,089Jt/ census schedules in such a way that each urban and rural
area in every State would be represented by a minimum of about
1.500 schedules. An additional 124,568 J / schedules were sampled
to represent the principal cities.
-1/ Case and family are used interchangeably in this report. The
analysis deals with the family composition of the relief case,
and makes no attempt to break up a case into two or more families.
2J The October census did not secure data on physical or mental
disabilities, however. Data from other studies indicate that
some of these persons of employable age are so handicapped that
they are unable to work.
-2/ See (pp. 105-106) for a discussion of the sampling procedure.
A/ Excludes 8,092 cases for which no detailed information was
available.
5 / Excludes 4,567 cases for Washington, D. C. which had been sampled
for the District of Columbia in the State analysis.
4
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
SUMMARY
The normal family predominated in the cases on emergency relief
rolls in October 1933, the most frequent type consisting of a husband, his wife and their children. One case in eight, however, was
a broken family, and one case in six a non-family person or group.
Relatively few of the normal families contained any other person
than the spouse or children of the head, although a fourth of the
broken and non-family types contained other related or unrelated
persons in their household groups.
The problems of rehabilitation and continuing care indicated by
this analysis are (1) reemployment, (2) care of the aged, and (3)
special provision for women with dependent children. About 90
percent of all of these cases include at least one person (other than
a woman needed to care for dependent children) 16 to 64 years of
age, and thus appear to involve the problem of reemployment for
one or more members of the household. For 10 percent of the cases,
however, no question of reemployment is involved. Half of these
consist of families where there are persons 65 years of age or older
with no person of employable age in the household group. The other
half involve women with dependent children under 16 years of age
with no other person of employable age in the household. It must
not be inferred, however, that this 10 percent represents the limits
of the "problem-groups" on emergency relief. An appreciable proportion of the 90 percent contain persons 65 years of age or over,
or consist of a woman head of a family with dependent children
under 16 with perhaps only one older child of employable age.
How far the employment of one member of these complicated households can be stretched to cover all their economic needs is a
question that requires further investigation. The 10 percent may
thus be taken as representing only the most serious aspect of the
problem.
Broken families and non-family persons were more typical of the
urban than of the rural emergency relief cases. The old-age problem was somewhat less severe, the woman-with-dependent-children
problem somewhat more serious, in urban than in rural areas.
The broken family was especially frequent among Negroes as compared with whites, and the problem of women with dependent children was found twice as frequently in proportion among Negroes
as among whites. The old-age problem, on the other hand, tended
to be less serious among Negroes.
There was great variation among the 48 States and the District
of Columbia, both in the family-types represented by the relief
cases and in the problems involved. Normal families represented
more than 80 percent of all cases in Kentucky, South Dakota,
Louisiana and New York, but only 35 percent of all cases in Nevada.
Broken families represented about 10 percent in North Dakota and
five other States, but only about 4 percent in Minnesota. In Nevada,
57 percent of the cases were of the non-family types; in Tennessee,
only 6 percent.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
5
The extremes of the old-age problem were found on the one hand
in the District of Columbia and Louisiana, where only 1 percent of
the cases consisted of persons 65 years of age or older and had no
persons of employable age in the household, and in Nevada and
Oregon where these cases represented 21 percent and 12 percent of
the total respectively. South Dakota represented the lower limit
of the woman-with-dependents problem with only 1 percent of its
cases consisting of a female with children under 16 and no person
of employable age in the household, and Wyoming with 13 percent
of such cases represented the upper limit.
The large cities also showed great variations, both in types of
families on relief and in rehabilitation problems. In Oakland,
89 percent of the families were of normal types; in San Francisco,
only 44 percent. In Birmingham, Atlanta, Houston and Baltimore
well over 20 percent of the families were of broken types, while
in Oakland but 5 percent were of these types. Four percent of the
families in Jersey City were of non-family types, contrasted with
46 percent in San Francisco.
Richmond and Seattle represented the lower extremes of the oldage problem; Boston and Portland, Oregon, the upper extremes.
The range was from one-half of 1 percent to 10 percent in the class
of cases containing persons 65 years of age or over, but no person
of employable age. The range for the most serious aspect of the
female-with-dependents problem, as represented by cases containing
children under 16 where the only person of employable age in the
household was a woman, was from 1 percent in Kansas City and St.
Paul to 15 percent in Birmingham.
6
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
GENERAL FINDINGS FOR THE UNITED STATES
Types of Families on Emergency Relief Roll
Most of the cases on public unemployment relief in October 1933
consisted of so-called normal families. The most numerous group
(accounting for 52 percent of the total) was the type consisting of
a man, his wife and their children. In an additional 4 percent, the
case included not only a husband, wife and children but also other
related or unrelated persons. Twelve percent of the cases consisted
of a husband and wife without any children, and an additional 2
percent, of husband and wife with other persons. Thus, some 70
percent of all the cases included a married pair, usually with
children, and relatively infrequently with any other persons in the
family group. (Table 1).
The remaining 30 percent were made up of broken families (a man
and his children or a woman and her children) and so-called "nonfamily" persons (a man or woman alone, without spouse or children,
with or without other related or unrelated persons in the household). The woman-children type accounted for 8 percent of the
total, contrasted with only 3 percent for the man-children type.
An additional 1 percent each was accounted for by these two latter
types in combination with other related or unrelated persons.
Contrasted with this broken-family group, the non-family groups
were predominately the male-head types, no less than 9 percent of
the total cases consisting of a man alone, and an additional 3 percent of a man with other related or unrelated persons \J *n his
household. The corresponding percentages for female-head types
were only 4 and 1, respectively.
Almost two-thirds of the family heads in the husband-wife-children
type of family were under 45 years of age, and more than80percent
were between the ages of 25 and 55. The proportions for the womanchildren broken family type were very similar, but contrasted
strongly with the man-children type where scarcely more than a
third of the heads were under 45 years of age. The greatest proportion of younger persons as family heads was found for the nonfamily man type, i.e., 16 percent were under 25 years of age and 31
percent under 35, whereas only 6 percent of the heads in the nonfamily woman type were under 25 and only 15 percent under 35 years
of age. In this latter type, no less than 29 percent of the heads
were 65 and over, whereas only 16 percent of the heads in the manalone type were in this age group. (Table 2).
As indicated by the type-analysis, most of the cases contained
clearly defined family groups uncomplicated by other related or
unrelated persons in the household. Only 12 percent of all cases
had "others" involved in the household, such persons being found
proportionately least frequently in the husband-wife-children
1 / Hereafter, other related or unrelated persons are usually referred
to simply as "others."
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
7
families, (8 percent of this type) and most frequently in the nonfamily man, non-family woman and man-children types, the percentages for these types being 22, 19 and 18, respectively. Most of
the families containing "others" had only one such related or unrelated person but appreciable proportions (5 percent, 4 percent and
4 percent, respectively) of the three groups just mentioned contained
two others, and in the non-family man type three others were found in
3 percent of the cases, four others in 2 percent of the cases, and
five, six, and seven others in 1 percent each. The husband-wife
type also showed a considerable range in the distribution of the
number of "others" in the family group, 8 percent containing one
other, 2 percent two others, and 1 percent each containing three
and four others, (Table 3).
Thus, the following picture of the type of family composition of
the relief case emerges: the normal family predominated, the most
frequent type being a husband, his wife and their children; one in
eight cases, however, consisted of a broken family, and one in six
cases of a non-family person or group, the woman-children type
accounting for three-fourths of the former, the man-alone type
accounting for approximately two-thirds of the latter. Relatively
few of the normal families contained any other person than the
spouse or children of the head, but almost a fifth of the broken and
non-family types contained other related or unrelated persons in
their household groups. A large proportion of the husbands in the
husband-wife-children and of the mothers in the woman-children
types of families were well below middle age, whereas over half
of the heads in the husband-wife, and man-children, and the nonfamily types were beyond middle age (i.e., 45 years or older).
Almost a third of the non-family women heads were 65 years of age
or over.
Race Differences: Negroes and the numerically less important
group of "other races" (i.e., Chinese, Filipinos, etc.) showed
striking differences in family type when compared with whites.
Eighteen percent of the Negro cases contained broken families as
contrasted with 10 percent of the whites. The family consisting
of a husband, his wife and their children 1 / accounted for only 38
percent of the Negro cases, whereas this type was found in 55 percent of the white cases. Negroes also had slightly greater proportions of husband-wife families and of all non-family types combined
than did whites. The greatest differences between the two racial
groups were the preponderance of broken families and the deficiency
of husband-wife-children families among the Negroes. The excessive
proportion of broken Negro families is accounted for almost entirely
by the woman-children type, which comprised no less than 14 percent
of all Negro cases, whereas the man-children type was found in no
more than 4 percent of the cases. (Table 1).
1/ Unless specifically stated otherwise, comparisons between types
are made in terms of the pure and mixed type combined, e.g., in
this instance, husband-wife-children and husband-wife-children"others" are combined.
8
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
Seventeen percent of the Negro families contained other related
or-unrelated persons, the corresponding percentage for whites being
9, and each of the six family types had other persons proportionately more frequently among Negroes than among whites. As
with
the whites, however, most of the Negro families with other related
or unrelated persons contained only one such person, and the same
types had larger numbers of other persons among Negroes as among
whites.
There were proportionately slightly more young Negroes than
young whites as heads of families, the percentage of family heads
under 35 years of age being 33 and 27, respectively, for the two
races. The age-distribution of heads for the two races, was, on
the whole, not greatly dissimilar. (Table 2).
The greatest difference between "other races" and whites was in
the proportion of families containing other related or unrelated
persons, i.e., 20 percent of such families among "other races" as
contrasted with 9 percent among the whites, the difference being
most apparent in the non-family man type. The distribution of
heads of "other races " by age conformed closely to that for Negroes,
and differed slightly from the whites. The distribution of the
number of "others" in families of "other races" differed somewhat
from those for both whites and Negroes, the "other races" showing
larger proportions of families containing four or more "others1'
than did either the Negroes or the whites, the difference, however,
occurring almost entirely in the two non-family types.
The pictures of the Negro and of the white relief case show
striking differences. The husband-wife-and-children type was more
typical of the white than of the Negro case; the broken family,
particularly the woman-children type, was mor£ frequent proportionately among Negroes. The Negro family groups were more heterogeneous than the white, i.e., more frequently contained relatives
other than the spouse or children of the head or an unrelated
person.
Urban-Rural Differences: The greatest difference between family
types in urban and in rural areas was in the larger proportion of
husband-wife-children families in rural areas, 56 percent rural and
50 percent urban, excluding "others" from this type, or 62 percent
rural and 54 percent urban, including "others." A corresponding
deficiency of rural families in all other types was found rather
consistently, though to a slight degree, in each of the "pure" types
except the man-children type. The deficiency was especially clear
cut in the woman-children and the non-family types. A larger proportion of the rural families contained other persons than did the
urban families, the percentages being 15 and 10 respectively, this
difference again reflecting a tendency found in both white and
Negro families, 14 percent rural and 9 percent urban for whites,
23 percent rural and 16 percent urban for Negroes. (Table 1)*
The Negro-white differences were maintained in rural as well as
urban areas and the urban-rural differences were clear cut even
after allowing for the racial factor.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
HUSBAND
IIFE
HUSBAND
1ITE
MAN
CHILDREN
WOMAN
CHILDREN
9
WOMAN
ALONE
CHILDREN
CHART I.
UNITED STATES - ESTIMATED PERCENT OF FAMILIES BY TYPE, FOR WHITES ANO NEGROES
10
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
The rural relief case, then, is pictured as more frequently containing a married pair and their children than the urban family,
and as being more heterogeneous in the sense that other persons were
found in the family group more frequently. The urban relief case
was more frequently a broken family or a non-family type than the
rural.
Problems of Rehabilitation and of Permanent Care as Indicated by
Family Composition of Cases on Emergency Relief Rolls
Instead of analyzing the relief cases according to the conventional types of normal families, broken families, and non*family
groups, these cases can be examined from the point of view of the
types of problems with respect to rehabilitation or old age and
mothers* aid pensions which they present. How frequently is there
apparently no problem other than that of reemployment, i.e., how
often do the relief cases contain persons who, barring physical and
mental disabilities, are clearly of the employable classes, whose
main responsibility when they are removed from the relief rolls
will be to take care of themselves and their immediate families?
How often are the cases, although containing persons of employable
ages J / , complicated by the dependence of children 2/, or old
people j£/, or both, where employment, except under very favorable
circumstances, can scarcely solve all of the economic difficulties
without the addition of some form of subsidy or pension? How often
is the problem found in these cases not one of reemployment, for
the most part, but of permanent care, i.e., cases of old persons
with or without dependent children?
The most favorably situated group, from the point of view of this
age and sex analysis, consists of cases where all the persons in the
household were between the ages of 16 and 64. These accounted for
no less than 28 percent of all the relief cases. Six out of ten of
these contained both males and females, three out of ten contained
males only, and the remaining one case out of ten, females only.
The problem of this group is predominately one of male reemployment. (Table 4).
Fifty-nine percent of the cases, however, contained children
under 16, and contained no person 65 years of age or older. In
this group, nine cases out of ten contained both males and females
of employable ages. Their problem, therefore, can be at least
partially solved by reemployment, but the extent to which this can
be effective will depend upon the number of dependents per employable adult.
Nine percent of the cases contained persons 65 or over and were
not further complicated by the presence of children under 16. Only
about half of this group, however, contained males or females
1 / Employable ages are defined as the ages 16-64.
2/ Children here refer to persons under 16 years of age.
3/ Persons 65 years of age or older.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
11
! RURAL
•mm
TYPES WITH OTHERS
«
HUSBAND
WIFE
HUSBAND
• IFE
MAN
CHILDREN
•OMAN
ALONE
CHILDREN
CHART 2.
UNITEO STATES - ESTIMATED PERCENT OF FAMILIES BY TYPE, FOR URBAN ANO RURAL AREAS
12
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
of employable ages. The problem here is partly one of reemployment, almost equally a problem of male and female reemployment
and partly one of subsidies or pensions for the cases containing no
employable person or those where the extent of dependence is
unusually severe.
The remaining seriously complicated group contained both children
under 16 and persons 65 years or over and represented 3 percent of
the total cases on relief. For every ten cases in this group, six
contained both males and females of employable ages, one contained
only males of employable ages, but the remaining three either contained no males of employable age (2 out of 10) or no persons at
all of employable ages (1 out of 10). A composite picture of the
old-age and female-with dependents problems represented in these
emergency relief cases can be obtained from the following summary,
derived from the basic tabulations.
The Old-Age Problem
The analysis by types indicates that in 9 percent
of all cases the designated
head of the family was 65
years of age or older.
The Female-with-Dependents Problem
The analysis by types indicates
that in 14 percent of all cases
the designated head of the family
was a female,
The percentage of all cases
containing persons 65 years
of age or older was, however, considerably higher,
amounting to 13 percent.
In 11 percent of the cases the only
person 16 to 64 years of age was a
female,
In 5 percent of all cases
there were persons 65 years
of age or older, but no persons of employable age.
In 5 percent of all cases there
were children under 16 years of
age, in families where the only
person 16 to 64 years of age was a
female.
Thus, although the old-age problem is involved to some extent in
about 1 out of every 8 relief families, it predominates in only
1 out of every 20, in which cases there are no persons of the ages
favorable to employment.
The problem of a female with dependents is apparently involved
in 1 out of every 7 cases, and is predominant in 1 out of every 20
cases, where children of dependent ages are found in families containing no person but a female in the age-groups favorable to
reemployment.
Race Differences:. The Negro cases were in one respect more
favorably situated than the white cases, 36 percent having neither
children under 16 nor persons 65 years of age or older, compared
with 27 percent for the whites. A larger proportion of the Negro
cases, however, contained females only (17 percent for Negroes
10 percent for the whites), thus making the solution of the problems
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
13
to a greater extent reemployment for both sexes among the Negroes.
(Table 4).
The cases containing children under 16, but no persons 65 or over,
were less favorably situated among Negroes,for 16 percent contained
only females of employable ages, compared with 6 percent for whites.
The group of cases containing persons 65 or over, but no children
under 16, was quite similar for both races, but the seriously complicated group where there were both children and old people offered
more of a problem among Negroes than among whites. Only four out
of ten of this group contained males and females of employable
ages, compared with 6 out of 10 among the whites. Furthermore, 3
out of 10 of the Negro cases contained employable females only,
as against 2 out of 10 for the whites.
The Old-Age Problem
Comparable Percentages forj_
Whites
Negroes
In 10 percent of
8
the cases, the
designated head
was 65 years of
age or older.
13 percent of al 1
cases contained
persons 65 years
of age or older.
In 5 percent of
all cases, there
were persons 65
years of age or
older, but no
persons 16 to
64 years of age.
12
The Female-with-Dependents Problem
Comparable Percentages for:
Whites
Negroes
In 14 percent of
22
the cases, the
designated head
was a female.
In 9 percent of
the cases, the
only persons 16
to 64 years of
age were females.
17
In 5 percent of
all cases, there
w e r e children
under 16 in families where the
only person 16 to
64 years of age
was a female.
10
Thus, the Negro relief cases were slightly more favorably
situated for rehabilitation than the whites as far as the oldage problem is concerned, but decidedly less favorably situated with
regard to the female-with-dependents problem. Among the Negroes,
1 out of every 10 cases involves a female with dependent children
with no other person of employable ages in her household, compared
with 1 such case in every 20 for whites.
Urban-Rural Differences: Rural relief
families contained
contain
children under 16 and persons 65 years of age and older more frefr
ng
quently than urban families. For example, families containi-„
children under 16 but no persons aged 65 or older were represented
14
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
in 63 percent of the rural cases, compared with 57 percent of the
urban. Similarly, the complicated class of families containing
both children under 16 and persons 65 years of age or older was
found in 5 percent of the rural cases and 2 percent of the urban.
The proportion of cases containing persons 65 years of age or older
but no children under 16 was 11 percent in rural areas and 9 percent in urban.
The least complicated type of case, that containing only persons
of employable ages, was found less frequently in rural areas than
in urban areas, 22 percent and 32 percent, respectively.
On the whole, the problems were somewhat more complicated in
rural areas. There were consistently fewer cases with persons of
employable ages in those types containing persons over 65 years
of age. The families with children, however, showed up more
favorably, in one respect, in rural areas, for 93 percent of those
containing children but no persons 65 years of age or older also
contained both males and females of employable ages, compared with
only 88 percent in urban areas.
The urban-rural differences were most apparent for Negro families,
only 26 percent of the Negro rural families having neither children
nor old people, contrasted with 40 percent of such cases among Negro
urban families
The old age problem falls consistently more heavily upon rural than
upon urban areas; the female-with-dependents problem, however, is
somewhat heavier in urban areas. The latter is particularly true
with regard to Negroes, among whom 1 in 9 cases in urban areas
represents a female with dependent children and no person of employable
age in the household, compared with 1 in 17 cases in rural areas.
age.
•
In 4 percent
4
of a l l cases,
there were 1
persons 65 I
years of age |
or older, I
but no per- I
sons 16 to I
64 years of
11 percent
12
of all cases I
contained
[
persons 65 j
years of age
or older.
I
t
t
I *H»TI
in 8 per| 9
cent of
I
the ceses,
I
the designated heed I
was 65 years
of age
I
or older.
I
TOTAL
I
I
I
1
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
i
I
I
I
I
NC«RO
9
6
%
j
1 I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
1
I
I
U R I A H Ant A*
COMPARABLE PtRCKRTAfleS
FOR:
5 I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
[
I
l
I
i
I
14
I
[
I
"
[
I
I
TOTAL
I
I
I
[
I
l
I
I
1
I
19
I
[
u
WHITE
I
I
l6
~
l
|
TOTAL
I
I
I
I
I
l
|
I
was a
female.|
|
y«ar* of »8* I
j
10
j WHITE
20
I
cases, the
only person I
I
16 to 64
I
years of age I
*es e female.
|
I
I
(
I
I
4
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
8
I
I
I
I
9
I
I
NEGRO
I
RURAL AREAS
CoilPARARLE PERCENTAGES
I
14
I 25
I
cent of
|
j
the cases,
I
the desigI
nated head
f
was a fenale
I
*
I
I
oer
WESRQ
,n
In 12 percent of the
1
I
URIAH ARIAS
I
FOR:
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
J
6
1
l
I
I
1
15
TOTAL
I
FOR:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
j
11
j
WHITE
I
COMPARAILE
THt F E M A L C - W i T N - O E P E N O e N T S P R O B L E M
In 6 percent I 6
11 I
4
I
1
of the cases
I
I
there were I
I
children
I
I
I
under 16 in
I
families
I
[
I
where the
1
I
only person I
I
I
16 to 64
I
I
I
]
I
I
I
RURAL AREA*
J
COMPARABLE PERCENTASfS
FOR:
I
I
I
I
15
I
I
I
I
I
I.
[
j
5
I
I
Jl
f
J
Tut OLO~AflE P A O R L E W
I
I
I
j
I
NEGRO
PERCENTAGES
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
16
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
FINDINGS FOR THE FORTY-EIGHT STATES AND
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Types of Families on Emergency Relief Rolls
The predominant family-type in the emergency relief cases consisted of a man, his wife, and their children. The United States
average including "others" was 56 percent for this type. This
average was equalled or exceeded in slightly less than half of the
States (23 out of 49). In all but fifteen states this type comprised
more than 50 percent of all cases. The range, however, was very
great, from 24 percent of such families in Nevada (23percent "pure"
type, 1 percent with "others") to 70 percent in Kentucky (60 percent "pure" type, 10 percent with "others"). Arkansas and Wyoming
were next lowest to Nevada, averaging close to 40 percent husbandwife-children families, and New York, North and South Dakota and
Tennessee had percentages almost as high as Kentucky (66-68 percent). The highest percentages of this type combined with "others"
were found in the Southern States—10 percent in Kentucky and
South Carolina; 9 percent in Alabama; 8 percent in Tennessee; and
7 percent in Louisiana and West Virginia.
There was less variation among States in the husband-wife types.
Taking the pure and mixed groups together, the percentages in 31
States ranged from 10 to 14, and in 15 States from 15 to 18. Only
New Mexico and North Dakota had percentages less than 10 (both of
them were 9 percent). The four States with percentages as high
as 18 were Florida, Indiana, Kansas, and Louisiana. The mixed
type was again characteristic of certain Southern States. Four
percent of all cases in Alabama and Louisiana were the husbandwife-others type.
The range for these types combined (representing the so-called
"normal" families) J / was from 80 percent or over in Kentucky, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Louisiana and New York to 35 percent in Nevada.
Broken families, particularly the woman-children type,were particularly numerous in North Carolina, Wyoming, Maryland, and New
Mexico. In each of these states, woman-children families were
found in 15 percent or more of the total cases. The lowest proportions of woman-children families (2 percent and 3 percent,
respectively) were found in Minnesota and South Dakota. There
was l i t t l e variation in the percentage of man-children families,
the range being from 2 to 5 percent only.
The so-called non-family groups ranged from 57 percent in Nevada
to 6 percent in Tennessee. There were eight States having 20 percent or more non-family man types (man alone and man with "others").
Nevada had 50 percent, Montana 24 percent, and Oregon 23 percent.
Maryland with 3 percent ranked lowest. There were 19 States with
less than 5 percent non-family woman types and only four States
with as high as 10 percent*
See (p. 2) for an analysis of the composition of these types.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
17
The families were least heterogeneous in Massachusetts and most
so in South Carolina. In the former State only 3 percent of the
families contained "others," in the latter, 25 percent. Wisconsin
ranked next lowest to Massachusetts with 4 percent. In thirtythree States, the percentage of "others" ranged from 5 percent to
14 percent.
To summarize: The general findings for the United States indicated a predominance of the normal family in the cases on emergency
relief rolls. This composite picture was reflected, with a wide
range of variation, in the 48 States and the District of Columbia.
More than four-fifths of the cases in Kentucky, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Louisiana and New York represented normal families.
Broken families reached their maximum proportion of around 20
percent in Wyoming, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Mexico.
Nevada was an extreme deviate, with 57 percent of its cases of the
non-family type and this type represented almost 30 percent of the
families in Montana and Oregon. The relief cases were least neterogeneous in Massachusetts, where only 3 percent contained "others,"
and most so in South Carolina, where the corresponding proportion
was 25 percent. (Table 7).
Race Differences: In twenty-three States and the District of
Columbia the Negro population amounted to 100,000 or more in 1930.
In eleven of these States and the District of Columbia a thoroughly
reliable racial comparison of types can probably be made, for the
sample of Negroes was in each case well over 1,000 (ranging from
1,305 in Arkansas to 2,579 in South Carolina). The most striking
and consistent difference between the whites and Negroes was in
the low percentage of husband-wife-children families found among
Negroes compared with whites. The data on this point are indicated in the following summary table.
Table A. Estimated Percent of Total Families that are HusbandWife-Children and Husband-Wife-Children-Others Types,
for Whites and Negroes in Eleven Selected States and
the District of Columbia
State
Alabama
Arkansas
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
Husband-Wife- Husband-Wife- Total HusbandChi ldren
Chi Idren-Others Wif e-Chi ldren
White Negro White Negro White Negro
61
42
44
52
58
50
63
62
55
53
50
57
40
27
34
37
36
29
46
48
36
38
43
40
8
4
1
4
4
4
7
4
6
5
11
7
10
4
1
4
4
3
7
3
5
6
9
5
69
46
45
56
62
54
70
66
61
58
61
64
50
31
35
41
40
32
53
51
41
44
52
45
18
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
For these States the range for whites, in the pure husband-wifechildren type was from 42 percent of all families to 63percent of all
families. In all but one State and the District of Columbia, the
percentage was 50 or higher. The corresponding range for Negroes
was from 27 percent to 48 percent and in all but 3 States the percentage was 40 or lower. In every State the percentage for whites
was much higher than the percentage for Negroes.
The differences for two other types are interesting, i.e, the
woman-children type and the non-family-man type. These are summarized below for each type including "others."
Table B. Estimated Percent of Total Families that are WomanChildren and Non-Family-Man Types (including "others")
for Whites and Negroes in Eleven Selected States and
the District of Columbia
Woman-Children
Non-Family Man
State
Alabama
Arkansas
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
White
Negro
White
Negro
7
9
5
7
7
10
5
12
9
15
10
11
14
9
12
7
12
21
5
21
13
20
13
18
6
17
21
16
12
14
8
4
8
5
9
8
8
21
14
20
15
12
14
2
13
8
11
10
The situation is somewhat less consistent than for the husband-wifechildren families, but there was a tendency for the Negroes to
exceed the whites in the percentage both of woman-children and of
non-family man types in most of the States.
Urban-Rural Differences: 1/ In the rural areas of 40 States, the
husband-wife-children type of family was found in 50 percent or
more of the relief cases. In urban areas, on the other hand, this
type reached 50 percent of the total in only 25 States. High rural
percentages tended to characterize the Southern States, while the
northeast and central areas attained the highest proportions for
urban areas. The woman-children type represented more than 10
percent of all cases in the urban areas in 29 States, but in the
rural areas in only 10 States. In only three States (Nevada, Texas
and Vermont) was there a greater proportion of woman-children
families among relief cases in rural areas than in urban areas.
There was a less consistent difference in the proportion of nonfamily man cases between rural and urban areas. In the urban areas
X/ In urban-rural State comparisons the District of Columbia, being
wholly urban, is omitted.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
19
of 19 States, this type represented 15 percent or more of all cases,
compared with a similar situation in the rural areas of 15 States.
(Table 7).
Although the average proportion of families containing "others"
was markedly greater for rural than for urban areas, no constant
tendency in this respect is found when the separate States are
examined* In nineteen States, the rural proportion was somewhat
greater than the urban, in twenty States somewhat less and in nine
States there were equal proportions for urban and rural areas.
To summarize these urban-rural differences by States: The
findings for the United States indicated a predominance of the
husband-wife-children type and a corresponding deficiency of
woman-children and non-family man types in rural areas as compared
with urban. This average tendency was reflected in most of the
forty-eight States.
The tendency noted for the rural cases to be more heterogeneous
than the urban (indicated by the proportion of families containing
"others"), however, was not reflected in most of the States; the
average reflected unduly the influence of the situation in certain
of the States with the largest populations.
Problems of Rehabilitation and of Permanent Care as Indicated by
Family Composition of Cases on Emergency Relief Rolls
As indicated before, the most favorably situated group from the
point of view of their probable self-sufficiency after leaving the
relief rolls is the group of families containing no children under
16 and no persons 65 years of age or older. All the members of
these families are between the ages of 16 and 64, and barring
disabilities of various sorts, probably employable. There was great
variation among States in the percentage of such families to total
relief families. The highest percentages were found in Nevada,
California and the District of Columbia, each of which had 45 percent or more of its relief families of this uncomplicated type.
In Nevada, 7 out of every 10 of the families of this, type contained
males only, more than 2 out of 10 contained both males and females
and less than 1 out of 10 females only. In California and the
District of Columbia, the situation was quite different; in the
former more than half of these families and in the latter slightly
!ess than half, contained both males and females. Although this
class of families represented only 28 percent of the relief families
for the whole of the United States sample, contrasted with the 45
percent for these two States and the District of Columbia, almost
two-thirds of the families in this group for the entire country
contained both males and females.
As stated above, the most complicated group of families, from
the point of view of the solution of their problem ot dependency,
is composed of families where there are both children under 16 and
Persons aged 65 and older. Whereas this group represented only
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
20
three percent of all the relief families in the United States, three
States showed 7 percent: Kentucky, New Mexico, and South Carolina.
In three-quarters of these Kentucky families there were both males
and females of employable ages. In South Carolina the comparable
proportion was somewhat less favorable, scarcely more than threefifths of the cases containing males and females of employable ages,
while New Mexico with but two-fifths was decidedly handicapped
in this respect.
The States ranged from 27 percent (Nevada) to 71 percent (Tennessee) in the percent of families containing children under 16,
but no persons over 65. Kentucky, with 69 percent, had proportionately almost as large a group as Tennessee. In both of these
States, however, more than 9 out of every 10 of these families
contained both males and females of employable ages. (Table 8)
Finally, as regards the group of families with old persons but
no children under 16, in 22 of the States the percentage representing
this class amounted to less than 10, and in only nine was it 15 or
greater.
Nevada with 24 percent reported the extreme and in 9
out of every 10 cases of this class there was neither a male nor
a female of employable age. (Table 8).
The following summary indicates the range of variations found by
States:
The Old-Age
Problem
The Female-with'Dependents
Problem
In 2 percent of the cases in
the District of Columbia
and 4 percent of the cases
in Louisiana, the designated
head was 65 years of age or
older. As the other extreme,
Nevada has 24 percent and
New Mexico 20 percent.
In 4 percent of the cases in South
Dakota as contrasted with 26 percent in North Carolina and 24 percent in the District of Columbia
and New Mexico, the designated head
was a female.
Three percent of all cases
in the District of Columbia
contained persons 65 years of
age or older as contrasted
with 26 percent in Nevada
and 23 percent in New Mexico.
In 4 percent of the cases in Louisiana and South Dakota, and 21 percent
in the District of Columbia and Wyoming, and 20 percent in North Carolina, the only person 16 to 64 years
of age was a female.
In 1 percent of the cases in South
Dakota and 2 percent in Louisiana
there were children under 16 in
families where the only person 16
to 64 years of age was a female. The
upper extreme was represented by
Wyoming with 13 percent and North
Carolina with 12 percent.
In 1 percent of the cases
in both the District of Columbia and Louisiana there
were persons 65 years of
age or older, but no persons 16 to 64 years of age.
The upper extreme was represented by Nevada with
21 percent and Oregon with
12 percent, and New Mexico
and New Hampshire with 11
percent each.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
21
The old-age problem was .most acutely represented in relief
cases in Nevada, Oregon and New Mexico. In the first of these
States, the proportion of cases in which persons over 65 were
involved, but where there were no persons of employable ages, was
more than 1 in 5, contrasted with 1 in 20 for the country as a
whole. The District of Columbia, at the other extreme, had only
1 such case for every 100. Wyoming and North Carolina, with
approximately 1 in 8 cases representing females with dependent
children under 16 years of age, contrasted with South Dakota where
the proportions were 1 in 100 and with the United States average
of 1 in 20 such cases.
Race Differences: As indicated above, a reliable racial comparison
can be made for eleven States and the District of Columbia. Due
to the thinning out of the data, however, a summary analysis of
only the four main age - and * sex groupings can be made for whites
and Negroes in these States, as shown in Table C. The percentages
in the last column represent the most favorably situated group from
the point of view of rehabilitation because all members are of
employable ages. The proportion of these cases was greater among
the Negroes than among the whites in all of the States except
South Carolina. For the Negroes, the percentages ranged from 20
in North Carolina to 46 percent in the District of Columbia and
Florida, and for the whites'from 16 in North Carolina to 43 percent in the District of Columbia.
The families representing the most dif f icul t rehabili tat ion problem
are those containing both children under 16 and persons aged65 and
over. In general, the Negroes had a larger proportion of families
in this group. The range for the whites extended from 1 percent
in the District of Columbia to 6 percent in Mississippi, North
Carolina and South Carolina, while for the Negroes the comparable
group ranged from less than 1 percent for the District of Columbia
to 9 percent for South Carolina.
The situation for the group of cases containing children under 16
but no persons 65 and over was as follows: The whites had, in
general, proportionately more cases than did the Negroes. This
fact obtained in all States except the District of Columbia and
South Carolina and in these the proportions for Negroes and whites
*ere identical.
No important racial difference was shown by the percentages for
families containing persons 65 years of age and over but with no
children under 16. Larger proportions occurred among the Negro
group in 7 States but in only one State (Mississippi) was the difference
marked. The District of Columbia contained the smallest proportion
of cases in the group, 1 in 25, while Arkansas had the largest,
1 in 7 cases. The comparable proportion for whites in these 2
States which also represented the extremes among the Negroes were
1
in 50 for the District of Columbia, and 1 in 5 for Arkansas.
'Less than .6 percent.
Al abama
Arkansas
O i s t r i c t of Columbia
Florida—
Georgia
M l i n o is
Louisiana
MarylandMississippi
North C a r o l i n a
South C a r o l i n a
Virginia
STATE
|
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
I
100
I
100
100
100
|
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
WNJTI
TOTAL
I
100
100
1
6
6
6
5
5
1
3
3
2
3
I
2
NlCNO
i6
I
I
kH0
5
I
7
*
*
3
3
6
3
2
7
6
9
|
WHITE
5
I
I
OVEN
0
43
51
WHITE
I
I
HERHO I
WHITE
16
TO
[
I
28
20
\
2B
46
2?
|
26
4e
11
£
44
19
3*
WESRO
WHITE
65 A N D OVER
24
|
NECRC
FAMILIES WITH
FAMILIES WITH
P E R S O R S 65 A N O
R E I T H E N CM ILORIN U N D E R 16
CHILDREN UNRER
NOR PERSONS
|
6
i
6
8
57
15
19 2
23 3
51
4
*
58
I *?
7
5
I 31
I
65
51 I
«
J
I ??
I
55
43
12
7
31
69
57
6
1
2?
68
I 66 I
8
I
3
1 21
6
3
50
10
17
21
67
62
11
I 12
I
"
60
60
8
"
I ??
| 68
| 59 |
7
|
8
| 21
|
7
NE«RO I
FAMILIES WITH
FAMILIES WITH
CHILDREN UNDER
CHILDREN UNDER
p-.sORS
16 R U T M O P E R <>«» R U T NO
65 A N D O V E R
« O N S 65 A N D
T A B L E C.
E S T I M A T E D P E R C E N T OF T O T A L F A M I L I E S C L A S S I F I E D A C C O R D I N G
A C E - G R O U P S OF F A M I L Y M C M R E R S FO* W H I T E S A N D N E O R O E S I M E L E V E N
S E L E C T E O STATES A N D THE OISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
22
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
23
The extent of the racial differences in these twelve States may
be shown more clearly in terms of the summaries of old-age and
female-with-dependents problems which follow.
The Old-Age Problem: In these selected States the Negroes are
decidedly less favorably situated than the whites in regard to the
old-age problem. The extremes are indicated in Arkansas where in 1
case in 5 among the Negroes the head of the family was a person
65 years of age or older, where 1 case in 4 contained a person 65
years of age or older and where 1 case in 8 consisted of a person
or persons 65 years of age or older with no persons of employable
age in the household. In this same State, the comparable proportions for the whites were 1 in 6, 1 in 5, and 1 in 10 respectively.
The range for the whites in this group of States extended from 1
in 33 in the District of Columbia for heads 65 years of age or over
to 1 in 6 in Arkansas while for Negroes, the comparable range was
from 1 in 50 for the District of Columbia to 1 in 5 for Arkansas
and Mississippi.
The proportion of families containing a person 65 years of age
or older varied for whites from 1 in 20 in the District of Columbia
to 1 in 5 for Arkansas. For Negroes, the percentages ranged from
1 in 33 in the District of Columbia to 1 in 4 for Arkansas and Mississippi.
The group of cases reflecting the most serious aspect of the oldage problem, i.e., cases where there were persons 65 years of age
or older but no persons of employable age, ranged for the whites
from 1 in 100 for Louisi ana to 1 in 14 in Illinois, and for Negroes,
from 1 in 100 in the District of Columbia, Louisiana and Maryland
to 1 in 8 in Arkansas. (Table D).
The Female-with-Dependents Problem: As in the case of the
previous problem, the female-with-dependents problem falls most
heavily on the Negroes. The disparity between the Negroes and
the whites is evident in all classes for all 11 States and the
District of Columbia although Louisiana showed only a slight advantage for the whites in the four groups considered.
For the white families, a female was designated as the head in
Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, and Georgia in 1 out of every 10
cases, but in Arkansas and North Carolina in 1 out of every 5
cases. For the Negro families, the same States held the low range
(less than 1 in 5 cases) while in Illinois and North Carolina 1 in
3 Negro cases was in this class.
For the families in which the only person of employable age was
a
female, the situation was very similar to that described above.
Louisiana, Alabama, Florida and Georgia represented the low
extremes for whites (less than 1 in 10) and North Carolina and
Arkansas represented the upper limit of the range (1 in 6). For
Negroes, the range was from less than 1 in 6 (Florida, Louisiana
South Carolina and Alabama) t o l in4 (District of Columbia, Illinois, and North Carolina).
The most acute cases from the standpoint of employment—the group
of
families with children under 16 in which the only person of
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
24
o 1
FAMILIES
CONTAINING
P E R S O N S 55 v t A « s OF
A G E OR O V E R A N O CONT A I N I N 6 N O F £ R S O N S 16
64 T E A R S OF A G E
Oto,* «0tatI
M O *>-• «
o
< I
Z « U *
%9
•«#• e\«n c* <*\« «* •»•« *•» oo »n «o
» 41 C « °
«.</>]
A
4
2
NEGRO
l
I
4
f
13
2
i
[
|
3
13
8
I
18
20
16
15
16
14
| 15
I
| 14
| 13
I
.!
14
9
20
5
I
3
6
I
10
4
21
2
J
J
I
8
12
13
11
5
16
3
9
5
9
|
f"<- <0 fry t£> OJ «-» Irt 0* C>* P\ O* to
7
X
«
I
I
I
WHITE
* •" *.~
I
Jul
w
- X O >•
<
•»*"»
U. CVO
10
-*
I
[
o^(Mins»«p\oio*o
*-ic\*
CM~4««,-I
7
»
|
NEGRO
o
K
«
" o «
_ o < «.
U O J K O
I
l0
U
J
I
* «
o o
l «l
w o
••
24
18
23
3
•40iA04)4ao«(l>lA«
_*r*
«4 -*
^«4^«4^,
1
IE
[
I
FAMILIES IN WHICH
THE D E S I G N A T E D
I
H E A D W A S A PERSON
55 T E A M S OF A G E OH
OVEN
I
|
ijMjiiii
MM!!!!!
i t i i i i i i i
i
i
t
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
j
i
1
J
1
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
i
I
1
1
»
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
i
i
1
»
i
I
i
1
i
i
t
«
i
|
I
i
1
i
>
(
1
i
i
|
t
1
i
i
i
1
i
»
|
i
1
i
i
i
1
i
i
1
i
1
i
l
t
1
i
i
|
i
i
i
i
!
1
m
C
t
1
i
i
i
1
<u
C
i
i
!
1
1
1
1
\
! mini
i
.
i
t
!
1
i
1
|
O 1 1 1
10-001
1
j |
«
a. e u •
V»*J
«i c -o — « « e
« " u * « » * e «oU'»
EW--0— 0-<Q«
C
« C I OTC * X £ .O d — t L.
>, VI *. •> 01
< c * «A O O — a u •> w. a w
«5 •< c l M . O - J S 5 l « >
" Less than .6 percent.
O
i
i
1
1
i
1
1
1
r
*
—
-o
e
3
—
o
U
i
i
1
)
1
1
1
1
George
Illinois
Louisiana
Maryland
M.ssissippi
North Carolina
South C a r o l i n a
Virginia
Alabama
Arkansas
D i s t r i c t of C o l u m b i a
«
5
I
f
5
5
JS
2
1
WHITE
I
tfl
w <*
* «t
o <a
m *
*
«.
m CA r»\ oo o e \ co m >«• oo OD C \
^fM
«-HH
NrtMrt
1
«
at
*si
x
o
t a i
* t-
\
5
5
9
<**
O
K
NEGRO
I
I
at vi *
- « Mi
* HI O
j
z
u.
J
TO
I
j
I
FAMILIES CONTAINING
F E N S O N S 65 T E A R S OF
AGE AND OVEN
«*x «.o
STATE
E S T I M A T E D P E R C E N T OF T O T A L F A M I L I E S C O N T A I N I N G P E R S O N S
65 Y E A R S OP A G E A N D O V E R FOI W H I T E S A N O N E G R O E S I N
E L E V E N S E L E C T E D S T A T E S A N O T H E D I S T R I C T OF C O L U M B I A
T A S L E 0.
w
*
I WHITE
« m oO
* >•
m
"" * * * rf
j O O - ^
- 4»
*
X at wi 4 « | U < 0
1
a
°">2*- 5
*° > 2 2
c
o
«
«0
0
J=
in
trt
—i
•
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
25
employable age was a female—showed consistent Negro-white differences throughout the whole group of States, with the Negroes
decidedly more unfavorably situated than the whites. For the
whites in this group the range was from 1 in 50 for Louisiana and
1 in 33 for Alabama to 1 in 10 for North Carolina. For the Negroes,
the comparable range was from 1 in 33 for Louisiana to 1 in7
for North Carolina.
Urban-Rural Differences: The urban-rural differences for the
United States as a whole, noted on page 8 v are found rather consistently when a state-by-state comparison is made. Thus, in the
rural areas of 41 States, more than 55 percent of the cases contained children under 16 but no person 65 or older, whereas so
large a proportion was found in the urban areas of only 28 States.
In only 12 of the 48 States was the proportion of these cases greater
in urban than in rural areas. (Table 8).
The class of families containing both children under 16 and
persons 65 and over represented a small proportion in both urban
and in rural areas. In the rural areas of 14 States and the urban
areas of 2 States, however, this class represented 5 percent or
more of all relief cases.
Families containing persons 65 or over, but no children under 16,
were found in 15 percent or more of all cases in the rural areas of
16 States, but to that extent in the urban areas of only 4 States.
Families containing only persons of employable age (i.e., neither
children under 16 nor persons 65 or over) were found disproportionately in urban areas. They represented 30 percent or more of
all families in the urban areas of 27 States, but attained this
percentage in the rural areas of only 5 States. In only 7 States
was the rural proportion in this class greater than the urban.
The Old-Age Problem: In the findings for the United States as
a whole, it was pointed out that the old age problem was more
acute in rural areas than in urban areas. When a state-by-state
c omparison is made, this finding is in general upheld. (Table 9).
Thus, in 15 percent or more of the families in the rural areas of
20 States, the designated head of the family was 65 years of age
or older, whereas this percentage was reached in the urban areas
of only four States. Louisiana had the lowest percent of such
heads in both rural (5 percent) and urban (3 percent) areas. New
Hampshire with 28 percent in rural areas represented the other
extreme; the comparable urban percentage for this State being 14
percent. Nevada had 27 percent in rural areas and 21 percent in
urban areas.
A similar situation was found when the proportion of cases containing persons 65 years of age or over was examined. Fifteen
Percent or more of the cases in the rural areas of 32 States, but
in the urban areas of only 15 States, contained persons in these
older age groups. Louisiana and New York represented the lowest
Proportions, both for rural and urban areas (10 percent rural, 7
Percent urban). New Hampshire (30 percent) and Nevada (29 percent)
were again at the upper extreme in rural areas, and Nevada had
the highest proportion in urban cases (23 percent).
STATI
Alabama
Arkansas
D i s t r i c t of C o l o m b i a
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North C a r o l i n a
South C a r o l i n a
Virginia
^
I
I
I
WHITI
|
[
I
19
25
26
13
19
32
7
27
24
31
20
26
I
FAMILItS IN
TNf a C » | 4 N A T I » H C A 0
M A S A reuALt
I
9
I 19
—I
16
| 10
10
16
I
6
[ 16
I 15
I 22
[ 16
| 14
I
I
I
I
E « T i M « f t o PCHCIHT
or
T O T A L F A N I I I C S W I T H FCMAII
HIAOS
I
I
I
NtSftO
WHICH
f
1
|
I
(
I
I
9
3
1
|
8
I
|
13
I
I
25
20
22
19
24
13
I
11
15
20
I
5
16
23
1
|
I
I
NlNNO
|
F A M I M M IN W H I C H
!«* •">* "«»•«
*• T0 ** r t A N t OP
A«f Wtfft MHALtS
WHITt
7
11
10
17
12
16
11
11
I
I
I
10
I
I
6
I
*
9
5
7
4
I
5
Wltltt
2
4
1
4
\
2
I
15
9
11
1
6
13
14
1
14
5
NlftNO
3
10
I FAMIIIM WITH CMIIOM*
»«••• W '» •««M
'"'
0Kiv rutsoks 16 io 6a
I
r t A A l Of A6t ilH flMUtl
AH» W l T N FlHALIttOAKINS0*1 T FOB llltll A M I N f a N O I S
IN E L C V I N StLlCtCO STA1IS AttD T*t D I S T R I C T Of C O L U M B I A
TMLI E.
9
26
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
27
The most seriously situated group of cases, i.e., those containing
persons of 65 or over, but no persons of employable ages, occurred
in 10 percent or more of the cases in the rural areas of 15 States,
but to that extent in the urban areas of only 4 States. The lowest
proportions were found in Louisiana, where this group represented
only 1 in 100 cases, both in rural and in urban areas, while the
highest proportions were found in Nevada (1 in 4 cases rural, 1 in
5 urban), New Hampshire (1 in 5 rural, 1 in 10 urban), and Oregon
(1 in 7 rural, 1 in 10 urban).
The Female-with-Dependents Problem; For the United States as
a whole, this problem attained greater prominence in urban than in
rural areas. This general situation was reflected in the urban and
rural areas of the majority of the 48 States. Thus, a female was
designated as the family head in 15 percent or more of the cases in
the urban areas of 31 States, but in the rural areas of only 13
States. The only person of employable age involved in the case
was a female in 15 percent or more of the cases in the urban areas
of 15 States, but in the rural areas of only 7. (Table 10).
Finally, the group of cases reflecting this dependency problem
most acutely, i.e., cases where there were children under 16 and
where the only persons of employable age in the family was a
female, was found in at least 1 out of every 20 cases in the
urban areas of 39 States, but in the 'rural areas of only 20 States.
The urban extremes were represented by Nevada and South Dakota
with about 1 in every 33 cases, on the one hand, and by North
Carolina and Wyoming with more than 1 in every 7 on the other.
The
comparable rural proportions for these same States were 1 in
25 for Nevada, 1 in 100 for South Dakota and 1 in 10 for North
Carolina and Wyoming.
28
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
FINDINGS FOR THE 37 CITIES WITH A POPULATION OF 250.000
OR MORE IN 1930
Types of Families on Emergency Relief Rolls
Two-thirds of the large cities were below the United States
average in their proportion of husband-wife-children families, i.e.,
less than 56 percent of their relief cases were of this type.
The husband-wife and husband-wife-children types combined, representing the so-called normal families, accounted for 50 percent or
more of all relief families in all cities except San Francisco
(44 percent). San Francisco had the lowest percent of husband-wifechildren families (31 percent), Jersey City and Louisville the
highest (74 percent and 73 percent respectively). These last two
cities (along with Providence) had the lowest proportion of husband-wife families (10 percent). Oakland, with no less than89
percent of all its relief families of the "normalft types (70percent
husband-wife-children and 19 percent husband-wife) ranked highest
in this respect. (Table 11).
All but six of the cities equalled or exceeded the United States
average in the proportion of woman-children families; man-children
families,on the other hand, were somewhat under represented. Taking
these two classes together, however, "broken families" were more
typical of large cities than of the United States generally. Birmingham, Atlanta, Houston and Baltimore, each with well over a
fifth of their cases of the broken family types, ranked highest
in this respect. Oakland, with only one family in twenty of this
type, ranked lowest.
There was an extremely large range from the lowest to the highest
percent on non-family types, from 4 percent in Jersey City to 46
percent in San Francisco. For the cities as a whole, the non-family
man type was much more frequent than the non-family woman type:
19 cities having more than 12 percent of the former and only 3
cities having more than 12 percent of the latter.
Taking the percentage of relief cases containing "others" as an
indication of the heterogeneity of the family-groups, the larger
cities were found to be more homogeneous than the average relief
family for the United States as a whole. In Boston and Oakland
there were no families containing "others,".!/ in Milwaukee 1 percent, St. Paul 2 percent, Detroit 3 percent and Minneapolis and
Rochester 4 percent. The most notable exceptions were Memphis
with 24 percent, Dallas with 22 percent and Houston with 21 percent of all families containing "others."
Thus, the relief family in the largest cities is shown to be predominately "normal," except for San Francisco. "Broken" families,
particularly the woman-children types, however, are found somewhat
J / See Limitations of the Data and of the Analysis, p. 100, for a discussion of the effect of variations in administrative procedure
in defining the case-unit.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
29
more frequently than in other areas, and reach a high proportion
in the four Southern cities of Birmingham, Atlanta, Houston and
Baltimore. Non-family types represent about half of the families
in San Francisco.
Problems of Rehabilitation and of Permanent Care as Indicated by
Family Composition of Cases on Emergency Relief Rolls
The relief cases in the large cities were considerably more
favorably situated for rehabilitation than those in other areas
generally. For the United States as a whole, 28 percent of the
relief cases contained neither children under 16 nor persons 65
years of age or over. All but 10 of the large cities had at least
28 percent of such cases", and 9 had 40 percent or more. San Francisco represented one extreme with 58 percent, Louisville the
other with 12 percent. (Table 12).
The group containing children under 16 but no persons 65 or over
varied from 34 percent in San Francisco to 80 percent in Louisville.
Slightly more than half of these cities had less than 60 percent
in this group, slightly less than half had more than 60 percent.
The group containing persons over 65 years of age, but no children under 16, varied from 3 percent of the total in Richmond and
Washington to 14 percent in Boston and Portland, Oregon.
The complicated group containing both children under 16 and persons
65 and over represented a small proportion in all cities, varying
from less than one half of 1 percent in Boston, Milwaukee and
Washington, to 4 percent in Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis,
Louisville and Memphis.
The Old-Age Problem: The city differences in incidence of the
old-age problem may be summarized as follows:
The designated head of the family was a person 65 years of age
or over in only 2 percent of all cases in Richmond and Washington,
tot in 16 percent in Buffalo. (Table 13).
In Washington 3 percent and in Richmond 5 percent of all families
contained persons 65 years of age or older. The percentage rose to
16
in Denver and Portland.
The real incidence of the old-age problem, as such, is best shown
by the proportion of families containing persons 65 years of age or
older but containing no persons of the employable ages, 16-64.
to Richmond and Seattle this class represented less than 1 in 200
cas
es; in nine other cities, about 1 in 100 and in all but 6 cities
Jess than 1 in 20. In Boston and Portland, however, it represented
1 in every 10 cases.
The Female-with-Dependents Problem: A female was designated as
the family head in only 8 percent of the cases in Oakland, but in 30
Percent of the cases in Birmingham. In 21 cities this class represented 15 percent or more of the total. (Table 14).
The only person in the family of employable age was a female in
2 Percent of the cases in St. Paul, contrasted with 24 percent of
the cases in Birmingham.
30
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
The most serious aspect of the femaie-with-dependents problem is
shown by the proportion of families containing children under 16 in
which the only family member of employable ages was a female.
For the United States as a whole, this type of case represented 1
in every 20. In 22 of the 37 principal cities, the proportion was
at least 1 in 20. The range was from 1 in 100 in Kansas City and
St. Paul to 1 in 7 in Birmingham.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
31
RACE DIFFERENCES AS SHOftN BY COMPARISONS OF WHITE AND
NEGRO RELIEF CASES IN THE 15 CITIES HAVING A NEGRO
POPULATION OF 50.000 OR MORE IN 1930
Fourteen of the cities discussed above and Richmond had a Negro
population of at least 50,000 in 1930. These cities are a favorable
group for a racial comparison of family types and rehabilitation
problems.
Two types are especially significant from the point of view of
Negro-white differences. As indicated above, they are the husband-wife-children type, in which the whites generally have larger
proportions than the Negroes, and the woman-children type, which
is usually more characteristic of the Negro relief case than of the
white.
The husband-wife-children type showed clear-cut differences between Negro and white proportions in each of the fifteen cities.
The highest proportions among the whites were in New York, 74
percent, and in Richmond, 70 percent. These two cities also had
the largest Negro proportions of this type, but the percentages
amounted only to 56 for Richmond and 52 for New York. In all of
the cities the husband-wife-children tjrpe represented at least 47
percent of the white families, but in eleven of the fifteen cities,
the proportion for Negro families fell below this percent. In
St. Louis scarcely more than a quarter, and in Chicago only a third,
of the Negro families were of the husband-wife-children type.
The woman-children family was much more characteristic or the
Negro than of the white relief case in these cities. Birmingham
with 16 percent represented the highest proportion among the
whites, but in 10 cities the Negro proportion exceeded this percent. In three of these, Atlanta, Baltimore and Houston, onequarter or more of all Negro cases were of the woman-children
type, and in three additional cities, Birmingham, Chicago and
Philadelphia, between one-quarter and one-fifth were of this type.
(Table 11).
The Negro families in these cities were more heterogeneous than
the white families, as indicated by the proportion of cases containing "others." In Atlanta, Houston and Memphis more than onequarter of all Negro relief families contained "others," and in
Birmingham, New Orleans, Chicago, Philadelphia and Richmond
between one-sixth and one-fifth. This latter proportion was reached
in only three cities for the white relief families, i.e., Memphis,
Houston and New Orleans. In two cities, the proportion for white
families was as low as 3 percent.
Problems of Rehabilitation and of Permanent Care
As found for the United States total, the Negro relief cases in
these cities were more frequently composed of employable persons
unhampered by dependent children or persons of older age levels
than were the white relief cases. In Pittsburgh and St. Louis,
32
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
more than half the Negro relief families were of this class, compared with a third of the whites in the same cities. In five other
cities, Cleveland, Washington, Chicago, New Orleans and Memphis,
between 40 and 45 percent of the Negro families had this composition, whereas only in Washington did the percent of white families
reach this level.
There was a less consistent race difference in the proportion of
families containing children under 16, but no persons aged 65 or
over. The highest percentages of total white families were for
New York with 80 percent, and Richmond with 73 percent. In both
of these cities, the Negro proportions were lower; New York, 63 percent, Richmond, 68 percent. Baltimore Negro families of this type,
on the other hand, represented 70 percent, while the white proportion
was slightly lower, 67 percent. In three cities, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Cleveland, the Negro proportion was less than 50 percent,
while the white proportion never fell to so low a percent. (Table
12 A).
In not one of the fifteen cities did the class of families containing persons over 65, but no children under 16, attain a greater
proportion than 7 percent among the Negroes, but in three cities the
white proportion was 10 percent or more, i.e., Houston, St. Louis
and Chicago.
The most complicated group of families, i.e., that containing
children under 16 and persons 65 or over, showed no significant or
consistent difference for the two racial groups and did not amount
to more than 5 percent for the Negroes or 4 percent for the whites.
The Old-Age Problem: These cities, with their large Negro populations, showed the least acute rehabilitation situation so far as
old age is a factor, and the situation was somewhat less acute for
the Negroes than for the whites.
In only 2 of these cities, Houston and St. Louis, did the proportion of white cases where the designated head was 65 or over reach 10
percent, and Houston, with 11 percent, was the only city where the
comparable Negro proportion exceeded 5 percent. (Table 13 A).
In each of these 15 cities, at least 5percent of the white families
contained persons in these older age-groups, but in five cities,
Baltimore, Detroit, New York, Pittsburgh and Washington, the proportion among Negro cases did not reach 5 percent.
In only two cities, Chicago and St. Louis, did the proportion
of white families containing persons 65 years of age or older, but
no persons of employable age, attain the United States average proportion of 1 in 20. In no city was the Negro proportion greater
than 1 in 33 and in seven of the fifteen cities it was 1 in 100 or less.
The Female-with-Dependents Problem: There was a definite and
clear-cut race difference in the problem connected with female
heads of families and female-with-dependent-children.
In St. Louis almost one-half and in Houston, Birmingham and
Atlanta over one-third of the Negro families had females designated
as the family heads. In these same cities, the comparable proportion
for whites was approximately one-fifth. (Table 14 A).
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
33
In one-fifth to one-third of the Negro families in nine of these
fifteen cities the only person of employable ages was a female, and
in only one city (New Orleans) was the proportion less than 1 in 8.
Among white families, on the other hand, the proportion exceeded 1 in
8 in 4 cities, Birmingham, Washington, St. Louis, and Memphis.
Thus, the rehabilitation problems in these cities are more largely
connected with female dependency than with old age and the femaledependency problem ordinarily represents a Negro, rather than white,
relief situation.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
1ig
.
1
H
5 -
rn"
! i
r\c*4C*\r*»
fMCMfrvr*
-*p\in*o
i
«-*«-t(r\<Nj
«-t«-i<«A<f\
-<^c*\-*
3<
ill
*<5°
"•J:
A.
i W S
; * f
I O -
•I*
»-IOJ
•
•
*"4C4
• «• 2
I tt «
*"
^^
Ifc
'M
o
s
f Is
II *~ 3 Ml * 3 x
s
< » »11
*i a:15°
MIL 1
5?
1 1
11
II ""
» HI
IS
II °
II11°"
2
i
53
*<«\«©<sj
ir>^t*»<M
er\cM^roj
0k00)0>
«4HOIO>
cor*»o>co
1
CO f * ^4 CO
ocnc<\co
U7«r>toc0
I
l*\NC\t
<MC*C»\*
fveXPW
1
io*3<5\5>
SfckSS
SlSSsT]
NNiOCO
(•\Nr-N
£££}0> j
j
o
**
11 '
*~
UJ
CMOj^fCM
X
a
11
I j
CM<HP\«-<
5*5
**"
•*
11
<M»4<r\<«g
uxoeor*
« !T *
I1 *
II
***«)
_?a
TIT
* i*
<
<*•««• tf»«0
A*
« o
X J
o —
*<5
w
o
5
1L
1
-1
i
;
s
1*1
3 •
X
X
O
1
« Hi
< M.
****-*
11•>*
*5
•N
8888
8888
r * « * «-<*•>
8888
1
vt«-i**«>« 1
b.
II **
II
i
1
* -*
8ff3
Igas" R35KT
5"* §S«'"
s si
i§&&
i l l ii"!
4
O~t~tC0
"siii""iiiil
•5
J aj
•
t
i
•
i
f
•
Ills
i i is
11 li
I
1
1 1 • •
1 » • •
• 1 I •
•
1
358*"
' o p t .
i
3
t
i
i
i
l
I!! I
M l -
Mil
i-P
s
1
IP
35
36
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TABLE 2 .
U N I T E D S T A T E * SUMMARY:
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , OCTOBER 1933* vt
TYFE OF F A M I L Y , AND URBAN ANO RURAL AREAS, AND RY COLOR OR RACE, S E X , A«O ACE OP KSAB
NUMBER OF FAMILIES
ESTiMATEO PERCENT OF FAMILIES BY A«E OF HEAO
TOTAL
ENUMERATE?!
ALL
ESTIMATED
United States
White —•
——*
—
Negro
— —
......
Other Races — . - — .
Families with Male Heads —
Husband-Wife
Husband-Wi fe-Ch i 1 dren - . . — * |
Man-Children . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-family Man — . . . . _ . —
Families with Female Heads - . . . j
Woman-Children
.......
Non-family Woman . . .
Type Unknown . . . . . . — . . . . . .
3,mf089\
2.545,500
577,300
55,300
2,691,500
439.700
1,773.800
98,900
379,000
442,100
292,200
150,000
44,500
SAMPLE
AftES]
UNDER 18] 18-24 25-34 35-V»
YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS
.850
.092
,231
,547
,042
,142
.900
,603
,397
,058
433
625
750
White
2,545,500 170,092
Families with Male Heads —
2,200,900 145,051
Husband-Wife
326,300 21.556
Husband-Wife-Children .......| 1,497.300 95.808
Man-Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75,700
5,1551
Non-family Man ..............
301.700 22.532
Families with Female Heads ....
311.200 21,880
Woman-Children ..............
208,900, 14.391
Non-family Woman
.
102.3001 7,489
Type Unknown ......
........
33.400J 3.1611
Negro — — - — - . — — — . _ _ . — .
Families with Male Heads
Husband-Wife
Husband-Wi fe-Ch i Idren
Man-Children ...............
Non-family Man ........
.
Families with Female Heads — Woman-Children
Non-family Woman -.——..-.
Type Unknown
— — — — — — .
Other Races
.
—
Families with Male Heads —
Husband-Wife
Husband-Wife-Children
Man-Children
.......
Nori-family Man . . . . . . . . . . —
Families with Female Heads
Woman-Cnildren . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-family Woman
Type Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
577^300 33.231
442,800 25.219
108.300 6,190
245,200 13.715
20.400| 1.211
69,000 M03
123.4001 7,441
4,5251
77,500
2,916
45.900
571
11.100
I
55.300
47.700
5.100
31.300
2,900,
8,4001
7,500
5,700,
1,800
1001
4,527
3.771
395
2.378,
238
760
738,
5181
2201
181
J
I
1
2
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
37
TABLE 2 .
U N I T E D STATES SUMMARY:
DISTRIBUTION
OF R E L I E F
FAMILIES,
OCTOBER
1933. B
Tm
OF F A M I L Y , A N D U R I A H A M P R U R A L A R E A S , A M P BY C O L O R
OR R A C E , S E X , AMO A G E OF H E A
NUMBER OF F A M I L I E S
TOTAL
ENUMERATED!
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
IN
ALL UNDER 18 18-211 25-3«|35-<W|15-W
YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS
YEARS
SAMPLE I ACES
2,023,132
Urban Areas
1.670,200
Families w i t h Mate Heads —
287,700
Husband-Wife
1,071,500
Husband-Wi fe-Ch i ldren
58,000
Man-Children
253.000
Non-family Man
327.200
Families w i t h Female Heads — - |
216.700
Woman-Children . . . . . . .
110,500
Non-family Woman . . . . . . . . .
25.800
Type Unknown . . . . . .
113.541
92.580
15,971
57,914
3.361
15,334
19.203
12,495
6,708
1.758
1,576,300
1.336.400
205,000
888.100
43.300
199.900
223.000
J
150,000
73.000
16.900
87.601
73.356
11.238
47.582
2.461
12.075
12.919
8.603
4,316
1.326
Negro
Families w i t h Mate Heads . . .
Husband-Wife
Husband-Wife-Children . . . .
Man-Children
,
Non-family Man
families w i t h Female Heads .
Woman-Children — . .
.
Non-family Woman . . . . . . . . .
Type Unknown
409.600
301,800
79.600
162.400
12,700
47.100
99.000
62.600
36.400
8,800
23.790
17,437
4.569
9.219
785
2,864
5.931
3.640
2,291
422
Other Races
Families with Mate Heads —
Husband-Wife
Husband-Wife-Children - —
Man-Children
Non-family Man
Families with Female Heads
Woman-Children
.......
Non-famity Woman
Type Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37.200
32.000
3.200
20.900
2.000
5,900
£.200
4,000
1.200
2.149
786
163
1,113
115
395
653
252
101
10
White
Tanilies w i t h Mate Heads —
Husband-Wife
Husband-Wife-Children
Man-Children - - . .
Non-family Man
Families w i t h Female Heads
Woman-Children . . . . . . . . . . . .
Non-famity Woman . . . . . . . . .
•Type Unknown
1
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF F A M I L I E S BY ABE OF HEAD
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TAIL* 2. UNITCO STATES SUMMARY:
DISTRIBUTION
OF RELIEF F A M I L I E S , O C T O B E R
1933, SY
T Y P E O F F A M I L Y , A N O U R B A N A N D R U R A L A R E A S , A N O B Y C O L O R O R R A C E , S E X , A N D A G E O F HEAD
NUMIER OF F A M I L I E S
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF F A M I L I E S BY AGE OF HEAD
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
t>151,957
1.021.300
152,000
702.400
40.900
126.100
114.900
75.500
39.400
18.700
94,309
81,462
12.17l[
53.986
3.242
12,063
10.855
6.938
3.917|
1,992
11
10
25
5
16
20
22
11
White
Families with Male Heads —
Husband-Wife
Husband-W i fe-Chi1dren
Man-Children — . n . _ . _ - —
Non-family Man . —
Families with Female Heads
Woman-Children
.,
Non-family Woman
....
Type Unknown .....
969.200
664,600
121.300
609.200
32,300
101,700
68,200
58,900
29.200
16.500
82,491
71,694
10.3181
48,226
2.694
10.457
8.961
5,788
3.173
1.835|
11
11
26
5
16
20
21
10
43
Negro —
.......
Families with Male Heads - .
Husband-Wife . . . .
.
Husband-Wife-Children —
Man-Children —
Non-family Man
...
Families with Female Heads
Woman-Children
...
Non-family Wor-an
,
Type Unknown .........
167.700
141,000
28.700
82.800
7.700
21,800
24,400
14,900
9,600
2,200
9.441
7.782|
1.621
4.496
426
1.239
1.510
885
625
149
Other Races . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Families with Male Heads . . .
Husband-Wife
Husband-Wife-Children —
Man-Children —
Non-fami)y Man . . . . . . . —
Families with Female Heads
Woman-Children
Non-family Woman . . . . . . . . .
Type Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18,100
15.700
2,000
10,400
900
2,500
2.300
1,700
600
2.3781
1,985
232
1,265
123
365l
345:
266;
119
8
Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Famil ies with Male Heads . . . . .
Husband-Wife
Husband-Wife-Children
,
Man-Children — —
Non-family Man . . . — .
Families with Female Heads —I
Woman-Children
Non-family Woman . . . . . . . .
Type Unknown . . . . . . .
...
ALL UNOER 18| 18-2U 25-3« 35-<W| 45-5« 55-6« 65 AND
YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS OVER
ACES! YEARS
Less than . 6 1 in t h i s class.
- ' N o cases in sample in t h i s c l a s s .
1
Less than 5 1 cases estimated.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
40
TtftiE 3 .
UNITED
STATES
SUMMARY:
DISTRIBUTION
OF
REUEI*
NUMSER
FAMILIES,
OF
OCTOBER
1933,
IT
RURAL
FAMILIES
•
•
TOTAL
ENUMERATEO
OR
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
3,178.089
2,545.500
577,300
55,300
207.850
170.092
33.231
4,527
100
100
100
100
Husband-WifeHusband-Wife-ChildrenMan-Ch i1dren
Woman-Chi l d r e n Non-family M a n — — Non-family Woman
Type U n k n o w n — — — • •
439,700
1,773.800
98,900
292.200
I
579,000
I
150,000
44,500
28.142
111.900
6,603
19.433
27.397
i
10,625
3.750
ICO
100
100
100
100
100
WhiteHusband-Wife
Husband-Wi f e - C h i 1 d r e n Man-ChildrenWoman-Ch i1dren
Non-family M a n - — Non-family Woman—
Type Unknown^
—
2.545.500
326,300
1,497,300
75,700
208.900
301.700
102,300
33,400
170.092
21.556
95,808
5.155
14.391
22,532
7.489
3.161
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
NegroH M $band-WifeHusband-Wi fe-Ch i l d r e n Man-Ch i1dren
Woman-Ch?1 dren—
Non-family M a n —
Non-family Woman
Type Unknown—
577.300
108,300
245.200
20,400
77.500
69.000
45.900
11,100
33.231
6.190
13,715
1,211
4.525
4,103
2.916
571
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Other Races
Husband-WifeHusband-Wi fe-Chi 1 d r e n Man-Ch i l d r e n
Woman-Ch i 1 d r e n — — — —
Non-family ManNon-family Woman
—
Type Unknown——.
55.300
5,100
31.300
2.900
5.700
8.400
1.800
100
4.527
395
2.378
238
518
760
220
18
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Urban Areas
—•
Husband-WifeHosband-Wife-ChildrenMan-Ch i1d ren
Woman-Chi l d r e n — - — - —
Non-family Man
—
Non-family W o m a n — —
Type Unknown—
2,023,132
287.700
1.071.500
58,000
216,600
253.000
110.500
25.800
113.541
15.971
57.914
3.361
12.495
15,334
6,708
1.759
1.576.300
205.000
868,100
43.300
150.000
199,900
73.000
16.900
87,601
11,238
47.582
2.461
8.603
12.075
4,316
United StatesWhite
NegroOther Races-
WhiteHusband-Wife
Husband-Wi f e - C h i I d r e n Man-Ch i 1 d ren—.«.
Woman-Ch i l d r e n Non-family Man-Non-family Woman———
Type Unknown-—
1
[
I
1,326
TOTAL
FAMILIES
———
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
__-———
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
————"
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TYPE OF F A M I L Y ,
PRESENCE
OF
'OTHERS'
IN F A M I L Y ,
COLOR
OR
RACE
41
or
H E A O , AKO
URBAN
AND
A HE AS
ESTIMATED
FAMILIES
Two
Mo O T H E R S "
88
90
83
80
88
92
82
86
78
81
—
—
ONE
OTHER
OTHERS
7
6
10
9
3
8
5
11
9
9
12
2
2
4
2
4
4
3
5
4
|
PERCENT
CONTAINING
THREE
OTHERS
FOUR
OTHERS
1.
1
1
2
2
•
1
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
•
•
•
1
•
1
•
2
1
—
90
89
93
83
89
80
82
6
7
5
10
7
8
11
83
84
89
77
81
77
10
10
7
13
12
•ll
14
81
83
89
70
78
57
72
9
11
7
19
12
8
10
90
90
6
7
93
84
5
10
87
8
7
11
2
2
2
3
2
5
4
FIVE
OTHERS
2
1
•
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
5
4
7
6
2
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
2
1
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
-*—™
73
11
82
4
3
3
2
5
7
7
3
3
8
•
2
•
10
7
4
2
2
1
2
I
1
3
3
4
4
2
2
1
3
2
4
3
1
•
-/
*
?
»
•
•
•
1
•
•
•
•
1
*
•
•
•
•
*
1
*
_—_-..»-«.—
*
*
*
1•
1
*
*
*
J
1
3
3
4
1
•
2
1
•
•
m
1
1
•
-
———
•
«.__..»»—-._—
"
m
•
•
*
2
1
2
1
S E V E N OR
MORE O T H E R S
-
—
5
6
4
9
7
7
11
•
•
•
1
•
•
*
•
1
"
»
*
*
•
1
*
—
•
*
*
*
*
1
21
"-———.
91
91
94
86
90
86
84
•
Srx
OTHERS
__——
^
m
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
42
TABLE 3*
UNITED STATES SUMMARY:
DISTRIBUTION
OF
RELIEF
FAMILIES,
OCTOBER
1933,
ir
Rum
N o m e * OF
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
ESTIMATED
FAMILIES
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
TOTAL
FAMILIES
(Urban Areas-Continued)
Negro
—
Husband-Wi f e
Husband-Wi fe-ChMdren
Man-Ch i 1 d ren—
————
Woman-Ch i 1 dren
Non-family Man
Non-family Woman
Type Unknown
——•
Other R a c e s — —
— ~
Husband-Wi fe
Husband-Wife-Children
Man-Ch ?1dren
Woman-Ch i1d ren
Non-family Man
Non-family Woman——
Type U n k n o w n —
-
— —
—
Ne g r o - — — —
Husband-W i fe
Husband-Wi fe-Ch i1dren
Man-Ch i1dren
Woman-Ch i 1 d r e n — —
Non-family M a n — — —
Non-family WomanType Unknown
——
._.
Other Races
Husband-W i fe
Husband-W i fe-Ch i 1 dren
Man-Ch i 1 dren
Woman-Ch i 1 dren—
Non-fami.ly Man—
—
Non-fam i 1 y W o m a n — —
Type Unknown
—.
23.790
4,569
9.219
785
3.640
2,864
2.291
422
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37.200
3.200
20.900
2,000
4.000
5,900
1.200
2.149
163
1.113
115
252
395
101
10
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1.154,957
152.000
702,400
40.900
75,500
126.100
39,400
18.700
94,309
12,171
53.986
3.242
6.938
12.063
3.917
1.992
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
969.200
121.300
609.200
32.300
58.900
101,700
29,200
16,500
82.491
10,318
48,226
2.694
5,788
10,457
3.173
1,835
9,441
1,621
4,496
426
885
1,239
625
149
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
2,378
232
1.265
123
266
365
119
8
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
—
Ru ra 1 Areas
———._»*-.
—«._.
H u s ba nd-W i fe
Husband-Wife-Children
Man-Ch i1dren
Woman-Ch i 1 d r e n — — — —
Non-fami1y Man
^Non-family Woman—
—
*Type Unknown——
—
-.
Husband-Wi fe
Husband-Wife-ChiIdren
Man-Ch lidren
Woman-Ch i 1 d rtt\
—
Non-family Man
Non-fami 1 y Woman
Type Unknown
—
409,600
79.600
162,400
12.700
62.600
47.100
36.400
8,800
-.—
«._
167,700
28.700
82.600
7,700
14,900
21,600
9.600
2,200
18.100
2,000
10,400
900
1.700
2.500
600
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TYPE of
AREAS
FAMILY,
P R E S E N C E Of
"OTHERS"
»N
FAMILY,
£STIMATEO
FAMILIE5
1
No
ONE
OTHERS
86
86
91
61
83
77
79
!
i
OTHER
3
3
9
9
7
11
13
9
10
7
22
15
9
10
86
84
90
78
83
67
76
6
10
6
13
11
12
13
87
86
91
80
66
68
78
7
9
6
12
9
12
12
78
77
85
71
72
64
12
14
9
16
17
12
17
THREE
OTHERS
l
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
6
6
* 11
2
80
64
89
68
75
57
72
Tw7~~
OTHERS
3
COLOR
4
1
2
•
1
3
3
7
5
6
3
4
2
5
3
8
6
RACE
OF
HEAC,
AND
URBAN
PERCENT
FOUR
OTHERS
1
1
•
1
2
2
4
*
J
8
5
11
1
1
1
1
2
1
5
2
1
1
Five
Six
I
OTHERS
•
•
•
•
1
•
OTHERS
1
1
2
1
1
l
-i
-/
•
1
_
5/
*
•
-/
•
J*
_/
-/
\
2
A
"
•
1
_
1/
1
1
1
1
1
•
•
*
•
2
•
*
•
_
1/
•
3
•
•
•
*
1
*
•
•
•
*
2
1 <
1
S E V E N OR
MORE O T H E R S
—
7
—
*
82
81
89
73
86
56
73
3
3
2
4
3
1
8
5
5
5
4
7
5
9
7
«
8
12
7
14
6
8
10
4
4
2
8
5
10
9
!
1
1
1
2
1
5
2
2
2
1
4
2
5
3
2
2
1
4
2
7
3
•
1
•
3
l
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
•
1
1
1
8
5
«.--..—
_/
2
1
•
1
1
j
*
1
1
*
1
3
2
?
1
_-—
1
•
*
___—
•*
1
1
4
„..»—___«-»—
1
•
_/
-/
J
4
1
3
-I
1
-/
__~—
**
' Less than ,6V in this class.
-'No families in sample in this class.
1
Less than 51 cases estimated.
•• Slight discrepancies between the percentages for families with
no "others" in this column and Table 1 are due to the adding
of rounded percentages.
ANO
C O N T A I N INS
' t
3
3
OR
43
-
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
44
TABLE
4.
UMITEO
STATES
SUMMARY:
DISTRIBUTION
NUMBER OF F A M I L I E S
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
United S t a t e s
White ~
Negro — *
Other Races - —
Urban Areas
— — — . J
White
Negro
.—.—
Other Races
Rural Areas . . . .
White
Negro — — — ,
Other Races -
OF
RELIEF
FAMILIES,
ESTIMATED
OCTOBER
1933,
PERCENT
[FAMILIES CONTAINING PERSONS OF SPECIFIED ASC-GROU»S
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
:
TOTAL
AMILIES
FAMILIES
FAMILIES
FAMILIES
FAMILIES
WITH CHILD- KITH CHILD- WITH PERSONS) WITH NEITHER
REN UNDER
CM 1 LOREn
REN UNDER 65 AND OVER
16 AND
UNDER 16
16, BUT No
BUT No
PERSONS 65 PERSONS 65
CHILDREN
NOR PEftSOMS
AND OVER
69 AND OVER
AND OVER
UNDER 16
3,178,089
2.545.500
577,300
55.300
207.850
170,092
33.231
4.527
100
100
100
100
59
60
52
65
9
10
8
7
28
27
36
23
2,023,132
1.576,300
409.600
37,200
113.540
87,601
23,7901
2,149
100
100
100
100
57
58
52
65
10
6
6
32
30
40
23
1,154,957
969.200
167,700
18,100
94.310
82.491
9,441,
2.378
100
100
100
100
63
64
55
65
11
10
12
8
22
22
26
21
it
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
PRESENCE
OF
AGED
PERSONS
ANO
C M I L C R E N , Coto« OR RACE
ESTIMATED
FAMILIES
TOTAL
CONTAINING
PERSONS
OF
45
H E A D , AND U R S A *
ANO
RU»AL
PERCENT
OF S P E C I F I E D
F A M I L I E S W I T H C H > L & » E M UNDER 16 AND
CONTA1N |N6
COMTA1Ht NG
DOTH M A L E S
MALES ONLT
ANO F E M A L E S
16 TO 6 1
16 TO 6<i
Y
E
A R S OF AGE
Y E A R S O F AGE
PERSONS
AGE-GROUPS
69
AND
OVER
CONTAINING
F E M A L E S ONLY
16 TO 6K
Y E A R S OF A G E
CONTAINING
N E I T H E R MALES
NOR F E M A L E S
15 TO 6 K
Y E A R S OF A G E
100
100
100
100
58
' 62
44
61
8
7
11
14
26
24
34
20
8
6
12
4
100
100
100
100
56
63
39
64
9
7
13
13
28
25
38
19
6
5
10
4
100
100
100
100
59
62
52
55
8
7
9
17
25
23
27
22
13
6
AREAS
9
8
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
46
TABLE
4-CONTIMUCD*
UNITCO
STATE*
SUMMARY:
DISTRIBUTION
ESTIMATE©
OF
RELIEF
FAMILIES,
OcTott*
RURAL
PERCENT
F A M I L I E S CONTAINING PERSONS OF S P E C I F I E D
AGE-CROUFS
F A M I L I E S W I T H CHILDHEW UNDER 1 6 , SUT NO PERSONS 65 ANBOVER
TOTAt
CONTAINING
•OTM MALES
CONTAINING
CONTAINING
A HO FEMALES
16 TO 6tt
MALES ONLY
16 TO 6*4
FEMALES ONLY
YEARS OF ACE
YEARS OF AGE
United S t a t e s •
White
Negro — — Other Races -
100
100
100
100
90
92
81
89
3
3
Urban Areas
100
100
100
100
88
90
78
89
3
3
100
100
100
100 1
93
89
89
—
White
Negro
.......
Other Races .
Rural Areas . . .
White
Negro . . . . . . .
Other Races -
93
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
16 TO 6a
YEARS OF AGE
8
6
16
8
10
8
19
8
S
4
8
8
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
1933,
AEEAS
IT
PRESENCE
OF
AGED PERSONS
AND C H I L D R E N ,
ESTIMATED
FAMILIES
FAMILIES
CONTAINING
WITH
Pease NS 65
C O N T A I N IMG
TOTAL
• O T H MALES
AND FEMALES
16 ro 6*1
YEARS
OF AGE
PERSONS
47
COLOR OR RACE OF HFIAD , A NO UR BAN ANO
PERCENT.
OF SPECIFIED
AND OVER,
CONTAINING
MALES ONLT
16 TO 6<i
YEARS OF AGE
A6E-6»OUFS
I U T NO C H I L D R E N
UNDE R
CONTAINING
FEMALES ONLY
16 TO 64
YEARS OF AGE
16
CONTAINING
N E I T H E R MALES
NOR FEMALES
16 TO 6o
YEARS OF AGE
100
100
100
100
16
15
19
23
17
18
13
12
21
20
17
15
46
46
46
50
100
100
100
100
14
14
19
26
19
20
14
11
21
21
25
13
45
46
45
50
100
100
100
100
.18
18
19
18
15
16
12
14
19
19
21
IB
47
47
48
50
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
48
TABLE
1933,
((-CONTINUED*
sv P R E S E N C E
UNITED STATES SUMMARY:
D I S T R I B U T I O N of R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , OCTOBER
OF A G E D P E R S O N S ANO C H I L D R E N , COLOR OR R A C E OF H E A D , AND URSAN A MO
RURAL A R E A S
ESTIMATEO PERCENT
FAMILIES CONTAINING PERSONS OF SFECIFIEO AGE-GROUFS
FAMILIES »ITH NEITHER CHILDREN UNDER 16,
CONTAINING
BOTH MALES
ANO FEMALES
NOR PERSONS 6g
YEARS OF AGE
CONTAINING
MALES ONLY
16 TO 6u
YEARS OF AGE
United States •
White
Negro
—
Other Races
100
100
100
100
61
61
62
60
27
29
21
32
Urban Areas —
White
Negro . . . . . .
Other Races <
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
59
56
62
58
28
30
20
66
67
65
63
26
27
24
30
TOTAL
16 TO 64
Rural Areas —
White
Negro . . . . . . .
Other Races .
1
* Less than .6% in this class.
-/No families in sample in this class.
33
AND OVER
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
49
Tmi
5.
UNITED STATES SUMMART:
P R O P O R T I O N OF RELIEF F A M I L I E S , O C T O I E R 1933.
CONTAIHIH« (A) A G E D H E A O S , (a) A6E0 P E R S O N S , ANO ( C ) A G E O P E R S O N S W I T H O U T OTHER A D U L T S , BY
C O L O R OR R A C E OF H E A O , ANO URIAH ANO RURAL A R E A S *
I
NUMlfft OF
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATEO PERCE NT
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
FAMILIES
IN WHICH
DESIGNATED
HEAO WAS A
PERSON 65
YEARS OF AGE
OR OVER
FAMILIES
CONTAINING
PERSONS 65
YEARS OF AGE
OR OVER
FAMILIES
CONTAINING
PERSONS 65
YEARS OF AGE
OR OVER BUT
CONTAINING
NO PERSONS
16 TO 6i
YEARS OF AGE
United States
White
Negro . . . . .
Other Races
3J 75.099
2.545.500
577.300
55.300
207.850
170.092
33.231
4.527
9
10
8
7
13
13
12
12
Urban
White
Itegro
,
Other Races
2.023,132
1.576,300
409.600
37.200
113.540
87,601
23.790
2,149
8
9
6
6
11
12
9
12
3
3
t.154,95?
969.200
167.700
18.100
94.310
82.491
9.441
2.378
11
11
14
10
15
14
19
14
5
5
7
4
!
Rural
White
Negro
Other Races
1
The t o t a l sample includes c a s e s o f "unknown family type." See appendix t a b l e
3 for number o f such c a s e s . Percentages were computed on the b a s i c o f known
types o n l y .
5
5
4
3
4
4
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
50
TABLE 6 .
U N I T E D STATES SUMMARY: PROPORTION OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , OCTOBER 1933,
COMTAINIHC ( A ) FEMALE HEADS, ( t )
ONLY FEMALES 16-64
YEARS OF A G E , ( C ) ONLY FEMALES 1 6 - 6 U YEARS
OF ACE BUT WITH C H I L D R E N , BY COLOR OR RACE OF HEAD, AND URBAN ANO RURAL AREAS l
ESTIMATEO PERCENT
NUMBER OF FAMILIES
FAMILIES
I N WHICH
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
0ESI6NATE0
HEAO WAS
A FEMALE
FAMILIES
IN WHICH
ONLY PERSON
16 TO &i
YEARS OF AGE
WAS A FEMALE
United States
White
Negro — —
Other Races
3,178,089
2,545.500
577.300
55.300
207.850
170.092
33.231
4.527
14
12
22
14
11
9
17
Urban
White
Negro — . —
Other Races
2.023,132
1.576.300
409.600
37.200
113.540
87,601
23.790
2.149
16
14
25
14
12
7
20
9
Rural — — —
White
Negro
Other Races
1*151,957
969.200
167.700
18.100
94,310
82.491
9,441
2.378
10
9
15
13
8
7
11
9
1
The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type." See appendix table
3 for number of such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis of known
types only.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
52
TABLE
7.
DisTRieuTiOM
OF R E L I E F
FAMILIES,
NUMBER
OCTOBER
OF FAMILIES
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
1 9 3 3 , er Tr*E OF FAM
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF
FAMILIES ft* TYFE
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ESTIMATED
HUSBANOWIFE
HUSBANOWlFECHILOREN
100
100
100
11
9
12
53
61
40
100
100
100
11
9
13
43
54
35
J
57
64
AlabamaV.hiteNegroOther Races-
98,648
58.000
40,500
Urban AreasWh i te
NegroOther Races-
29,470
13.100
16.300
_#
u
Rural AreasWhite
Negro
Other Races-
69,178
44.800
24,200
3,461
2.246
1.213
2
100
100
100
10
9
12
ArizonaWhite—
NegroOther Races-
20.437
10.600
1.000
8.800
4.082
2,116
205
1,761
100
100
100
100
10
13
23
5
40
40
27
42
Urban AreasWhiteNegroOther Races-
9,058
4,000
600
4.400
1,814
804
122
100
100
100
100
9
13
23
4
H
Rural Areas
White
NegroOther Races-
11,369
6.600
400
4.400
100
100
11
13
45
44
Arkansas—
WhiteNegro
—
Other RacesUrban AreasWhiteNegroOther Races-
48.331
35.200
13,100
2.268
1.312
83
873
4,828
3.520
1.305
3
18.91$
11.300
7.700
Rural AreasWhite
NegroOther Races
29,415
24,000
5,400
CaliforniaWhiteNegroOther RacesUrban A r e a s —
White
Negro
Other RacesRural A r e a s WhiteoNegrotfier Races-
2
_#
t
t
4.930
2.900
2.028
2
1,469
654
815
1.886
1.122
763
1
-/
35
23
100
7
46
100
100
100
12
11
14
38
42
27
100
100 i
100
13
12
13
33
100
100
100 i
12
10
16
I
42
45
t
2,942
2,398
542
2
118,264
100.400
6,400
11,500
3.720
3,166
141
413
100
100
100
100
16
17
20
6
101,152
85.700
6.300
9,100
2,016
1,709
125
182
100
100
100
100
16
17
19
6
44
43
36
57
17,112
14,600
200
2.300
1,704
1.457
16
231
100
100
18
20
51
50
100
a
60
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
ay,
COLOR
OR
RACE OF H E A D ,
AND
BY
53
S T A T E * FOR URSA* ANO RURAL AREAS
-
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF FAMILIES I T TYFE
BROKEN
MANCHILOREN
2
2
3
1
WAN
ALONE
WOMAN'
CHILDREN
4
8
6
11
1
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
NON-FAMILY
3
HUSIANOWlFEOTHERS
WOMAN
ALONE
3
3
5
5
3
4
2
5
4
2
5
./
-/
-/
_/
2
2
3
5
5
5
3
2
5
1
1
2
4
4
7
5
8
10
14
18
14
9
3
3
2
2
4
4
5
7
3
2
3
./
3
3
4
4
15
10
20
9
7
11
11
15
20
16
9
3
3
3
6
4
13
17
3
4
9
3
3
3
8
8
7
2
2
2
7
4
3
4
3
5
3
3
3
5
!
2
2
3
4
10
1
3
2
3
3
1
10
9
12
2
1
2
7
6
2
8
1
1
5
2
7
5
2
9
2
1
1
3
12
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
7
6
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
7
6
1
1
2
3
3
2
_/
_/
3
2
5
2
1
3
•
!
8
6
4
10
2
1
1
3
9
6
3
3
2
4
./
\
1
1
1
2
1
3
2
8
2
3
9
2
3
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
1
2
11
10
12
4
4
4
7
5
10
4
3
5
4
4
4
1
1
2
2
2
14
2
14
6
5
6
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
2
8
8
9
•
•
1
12
13
1
1
1
2
4
l
18
19
10
14
4
3
3
2.
1
3
7
6
12
17
18
10
13
7
7
10
5
7
7
10
4
i
8
7
9|
7
7
9|
8
8
7
i
1
1
2
8
10
WOMANOTHERS | OTHERS
el
8
7
10
_7
9
•
i MAN-
1
5
2
NON-FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
7
7
6
_s
3
9
2
4
4
4
5
4
BROKEN FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
WOMANMANHUSBAND*
WIFE-CHILO- 1 CHILDREN- CHILDRENREN-OTHERS
OTHERS
OTHERS
4
2
1
1
81
7
6
14
4
4
8
1
4
5
8
1
2
2
2
!
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
6
7
3
2
6
7
1
1
1
•
•
1
2
2
2
3
3
•
2
7
-s
•
-/
- 3
1
•
3
I
;
!
1
2
2
2
2
•
•
4
4
J
4
3
3
2
1
1
J
1
1
J
J
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
54
TASLE 7 .
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF RELIEF
FAMILIES,
NUMICR
OcTOSEft 1 9 3 3 ,
OF FAMILIES
TOTAL
ENUUEEATEO
TOTAL
»T TyFE OF FAtf
ESTIMATCO Pt«CE»T OF
F A M I L I E S SV TYPE
NOftMAL
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ESTIMATED
HUSSANDWlFE
HUSIA«I»WIFECHILOREII
2,eoo
3.609
2,997
112!
500
100
100
100
100
12
13
16
7
45
44
27
54
17,043
14.200
1,000
1.800
1.695
1.414
102
179
100
100
100
100
13
13
16
8
45
44
28
56
Rural AreasWh i te
NegroOtner Races-
5,772
4.800
100
100
12
13
44
43
Connect i cutWhite—
NegroOther Races-
23,961
22.600
1.400
1.914
1,583
10
321
4.245
4.052
193
100
100
100
11
11
16
56
57
41
19,302
18.100
1.200
1.920
1.796
124
100
100
100
J
11
11
16
57
4
Rural AreasWhiteNegroOther Races-
4,659
4.500
100
2.325
2.256
100
100
11
11
57
58
Delaware—
WhiteNegroOther Races-
5,862
3.800
2,100
3.496
2,335
1.163
100
100
100
42
51
26
Urban AreasWhite
NegroOther R a c e s -
4,72$
2.900
1.800
2.362
1,474
14
11
20
J
14
11
20
J
Rural AreasWhiteNegroOther Races-
1,136
S00
300
1.136
861
275
J
12,228
2.700
9,500
4.567
2,671
1,896
Colorado
WMteHegroOther RacesUrban AreasWhiteNegro*
Other Races*
22,815
19.000
1.100
Urban AreasWhite
NegroOther R a c e s -
District of ColumbiaWhite
NegroOther Races-
t
1,000
j
j
J
mi
_/
100
_/
-/
100
100
100
J
100
100
100
100
100
100
-/
13
11
16
J
16
10
18
_/
Urban AreasWhite—
NegroOther Races-
12,228
2,700
9,500
r" 16 n i d a Whit e —
NegroOther R a c e s -
102,432
53.700
48.700
Urban AreasWhite
NegroOther Races-
55,474
24.000
31.400
Rural AreasWhiteNegro
Other Races-
*6>9X
30,100
16.800
2.348
1,481
867
100
100
100
14
12
18
89,588
37.300
32.300
3.466
1,857
1,609
100
100
100
14
11
18
J
GeorgiaWhite-
-/
4,567.
2,671
1.896
J
100
100
100
5.109
2,678
2.431
J
2,761
1,197
1,564
j
42
52
26
16
10
18
34
-l
J
100
100
100
16
13
19
45
52
37
100
100
100
18
15
20
J
s
_/
-/
-I
-/ •
60
42
J
48
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
IIY, COLOR
OR
RACE
or
HEAO, AND
55
IT STATE* FOR URIAH AMO RURAL AREAS
l
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF FAMILIES SY TYFC
BROKEN
..
|
MANCHILDREN
WOMAN*
CNILOREN
2
2
4
5
2
1
4
5
9
10
8
10
9
10
8
9
10
2
2
i
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
11
11
11
12
7
8
8
7
J
7
3
3
8
J
3
12
12
12
8
8
3
3
3
3
2
J
-/
-
3
3
!
-#
4
J
WOMAN
ALONE
6
6
10
5
6
6
9
4
*
e
3
2
MAN
| ALONE
J
<
7
7
j
J
1
1
6
3
3
j |
3
3
2
5
2
1
2
10
5
11
3
6
6
6
14
20
12
J
12
11
9
11
J
4
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
9
3
3
3
4
-/
3
3
•3
5
J
-/
13
13
5
5
•5
1
10
6
16
3
3
3
8
6
10
**
14
1
1
1
2
8
7
10
4
2
6
-#
J
-/
1
1
*
2
5
1
j
11
9
11
4
1
1
1
J
2
. 2
-/
14
20
12
8
8
7
*
J
J
m
J
3
3
10
5
11
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
J
3
3
./
m
*l
5
6
5
4
8
J
2
1
4
-*
-/
1
1
2
-/
11
10
14
J
4
3
7
J
J
•
•
*
J•
*
3
i
2
4
1
3
3
-/
3
2
1
2
'•
2
1
1
2
2
-/
5
4
3
%
J
4
3
5
5
7
4
2
2
2
1
1
J
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
•
•
1
2I
1
2
5
2
1
2
4
J
10
8
9
7
12
2
4
4
4
2
2
1
3
3
3
8
6
11
2
2
2
4
12
12
J
J
•
*
1
4
4
8
J
2
2
1
1
5
NON-FAMILY
•BROKEN FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
WITH OTHERS
MANWOMAN'
C N I L O R E N - CNILDREH- MANWOMANOTHERS
OTNERS OTHERS OTHERS
6
J
J
3
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
HUSRANDHUSRAROWIFE-CHILPWlFEREN-OTHER*
OTNERS
15
16
25
7
15
16
25
6
14
16
3
3
3
NOW-FAMILY
4
2
4
3
3
11
2
6
J
J
•
I
J
1
1
4
•
1
J
1
1
J
2
J
-/
J
I
J
j
3
1
1
1
j
1
1
2
J
1
1^
J
2
2
J
3
1
1
I
1
1
2
J
1
1
2
-/
7
7
6
J
-/
1 -/
1
2
1^
1
J
9
8
10
J
2
1
2
J
2
1
2
6
6
7
2
1
2
J
2
2
1
1
2
*
•
1
_/
2
X
1
2
2
j
2
2
2
y2
5
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
J
1
1
j
4
J
1
1
-i
7
8
5
J
5
5
5
1 ^ 1
1
1
1
J
2
2
2
-/
•
•
1
J
1
1
1
J
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
56
TABLE
7.
DISTRIBUTION
OF
RELIEF
FAMILIES,
NUMBER
OCTOBER
OF FAMILIES
1933*
BY
T Y P E of FAM
"ESTIMATED" PERCENT OF
F A M I L I E S BY TYFE
TOTAL
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
FAMILIES
HUSBANO-
HOSBANO-
WlFE-
WIFE
CHILOREM
(Georg i a-Con t i nued)
Urban A r e a s — —
White
Negro-.—
Other Races
.
34,098
13.300
20.800
J
1.692
662
1.030
100
100
100
16
13
42
54
1B
J
»J
Rural A r e a s — — White
Negro
Other Races
.
35,490
23.900
11.600
J
1.774
1.195
579
100
100
100
J
13
11
17
J
54
60
40
J
Idaho
White
Negro
Other R a c e s — —
5,433
5.400
5.434
5.370
46
18
100
100
13
1
44
45
Urban A r e a s — —
WhiteNegro—--—Other R a c e s — .
2,661
2.600
2.667
2.610
46
11
100
100
14
14
:
46
47
Rural Areas White
NegroOther Races-
2,766
2.800
J
2,767
2.760
J
7
100
100
Illinois
White
N e g r o —
Other Races-
227,996
188.500
38.100
1.400
9.092
7,518
1.519
55
100
100
100
i I2
18
Urban Areas —
White
hegro———
Other Races -
192,89$
155.900
35.600
1.400
7,699
6,222
1.422
55
100
100
100
12
19
46
50
29
Rural Areas —
White
Neg r o ot her Races-
35,097
32.700
2.400
J
1.393
1,296
97
J
100
100
13
13
51
53
76,649
66.900
9,600
100
4.352
3.951
398
3
100
100
100
16
16
16
45
48
30
54,384
45.400
9,400
100
2.187
l.eio
374
3
100
100
100
16
17
16
43
46
30
Rural Areas —
White
N e g r o —
Other Races-
21,765
21.500
200
2.165
2.141
100
100
15
13
51
51
White
Neg r o Ot her Races-
>05l
,800
,000
200
4.545
4.417
109
19
100
100
100
12
12
16
60
61
46
,363
,300
900
200
2.423
2.312
94
17
100
100
12
12
58
58
683
,600
100
a
2.122
2.105
15
2
100
100
12
12
67
67
221
,600
,000
600
4,619
3.953
604
62
100
100
100
16
15
21
53
55
189
,300
,300
600
2.718
2.128
533
57
100
100
100
18
17
22
49
52
32
Indiana - WhiteNegroOther Races Urban Areas White
NegroOt her Races-
Urban A r e a s —
White
N e g r o —
Other RacesRural A r e a s - —
White
Negro——
Other RacesKansas——......
White-'—.
Negro—
Other RacesUrban A r e a s White
Negro—
Other Races..
2
13
**
12
12
J
13
43
47
50
29
i
• *—
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
ILV,
COLON
on
RACE
OF
HEAD,
AND
»Y
STATES
FOR
URBAN
A NO
57
RURAL AREAS
*•
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF F A M I L I E S SY TYPE
BROKEN
«ANCHIIOREN
j
ALONE
^
12
J
3
3
18
I
9
17
9
10
13
12
9
9
-f
22
22
2
2
2
10
9
17
13
2
2
2
11
10
17
3
3
7
7
3
3
2
2
.
./
[
5
5
5
1
1
1
J
5
5
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
-J
J
4
|
I
4
J
1
1
2
J
6
6
7
•
'
1
i
1
•
«
-/
2
2
2
-/
1
1
1
J
4
4
1
4
4
1
1
3
1
1
J
2
1
2
1
1
1-
8
3
3
1
13
5
4
9
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
3
5
5
2
2
5
1
1
3
3
1
1
10
9
8
>
-/
J
3
5
5
10
2
1
4
8
5
6
2
2
J
J
9
!
.
8
4
2
2
5
5
9
-/
|
•
|
./
1
1
-/
-/
^
J
5
5
5
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
5
5
5
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
5
5
1
1
2
J
J
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
•
•
4
4
•
1
1
2
4
1
5
4
•
1
1
2
4
4
4
1
3
5
8
8
4
10
12
1
1
5
4
4
1
3
3
6
6
9
9
1
1
5
4
4
1
1
3
3
1
1
9
8
2
2
4
4
•
_
4
io
5
6
*
1
2
J
2
1
4
J
2
1
••
9
10
'
b
5
5
14
j
1
1
1
J
WOMANOTHERS
4
10
9
15
6
NON-FAMILY
W I T H OTHERS
4
2
j
1
1
1
9
9
10
2
4
1
J
1
3
3
1
1
J
J
•
1
2 1
-
3
3
1
j
f
3
„
!
'
2
|
BROKEN F A M I L Y
W I T H OTHERS
4
9
8
15
2
-/
1
4
-/
2
2
2
3
_
»,
7
4
J
1
1
1
I
1
8
-/
8
5
4
2
6
4
8
8
1
3
3
ALONE
8
8
2
J
NORMAL F A M I L Y
W I T H OTHERS
1 WOMAN1 HUSSAND- 1 HuSIANOMANMANWlFE-CHILO- CH 1 LOREN- C H I L O R E N WlFEOTHERS
OTHERS
RE N-OTHERS
1
OTHERS
OTHERS
KAN
1 WOMAfcI CHILDREN
3
3
1
1
NON-FAMILY
5
4
3
8
j
3
3
8
8
8
1
9
1
8
|
5
|
JJ
_ «
5
1
1
•
1
5
I
4
|
1
1
•
2
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
58
TABLE
7.
DISTRIBUTION
OP R E L I E F
F A M I L I E S , . OCTOBER
NuMiEft
OF
FAMILIES
1953,
>T
TTPC
OP FAM
ESTIMATED PERCENT or
Fituuea DT Tire
TOTAL
£NUMC SATED
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ESTIMATEO
(Kansas-Cont i nued)
Rural AreasWhite
NapreOther R a c e s Kentucky
White
Negro-™
Other Races—
Urban AreasWhite
Near
Other Races—
Rural A r e a s — —
White
Negro--——Other Races—
Lou i s i a n a — — —
White
Negro————
Other R a c e s Urban Areas—-.
WhiteNegroOther R a c e s -
WIPE
HUSSAW*IPIOULMIK
HuSSANO'
19*032
18.300
700
,901
,825
71
5
100
100
14
13
58
59
98,033
437
868
569
100
100
100
10
9
16
60
62
39
91.200
7,700
J
18,340
13,100
5.200
00*543
78,000
2,500
J
1.830
1.311
519
J\
1.607
1.557
50
J
100
100
100
j
13
11
17
J
50
54
J
>l
100
100
63
64
J
76,751
41,400
35.200
100
3.827
38,766
1.930
720
1.206
4
1.897
14,500
24,200
100
2.063
1,757
7
14
10
18
55
63
46
100
100
100
16
12
19
48
56
44
100
100
100
11
10
14
62
67
51
100
100
10
10
57
57
100
100
100
• •-
Rural Areas—-White
Negro——.
Other R a c e s Ma ineWhite
.
Negro
—-.
Other R a c e s — —
37,985
26.900
11,000
100
Urban Areas-——
White
—
Negro———..
Other Races--.
4,052
4.000
2.018
2,009
7
2
100
100
10
10
58
58
4,032
4,800
1.605
1.599
4
2
100
100
10
10
56
56
300
988
100
100
100
12
10
16
57
62
Rural Areas—__
White
—
Negro——
Other Races-..
Maryland
—
White
...
Negro——*—..
Other RacesUrban AreasWhite
NegroOther R a c e s - * —
0.084
8.800
31,817
20.300
11.500
J
38,991
16,200
10.800
4,826
4.100
700
MassaehusettsWhiteNegroOther Races-
89,040
86,400
3,400
NegroOther R a c e s Rural
Areas
WhiteNegroOther Races-
551
3
3.623
3.608
11
4
31
Si
J
100
J
48
J
13
11
16
56
62
48
61
J
9
9
8
J
100
100
100
11
11
13
36 _
2,695
1.613
1.082
100
100
100
1.605
1.375
230
100
100
100
J
Rural Areas
White
Negr
Other Races-
Urban Areas
White-
1.343
J
3.598
3.476
118
4
J
%
J
48
48
04,000
80,800
3.200
,674
,609
64
1
100
100
11
11
48
49
5,782
5.600
200
,924
100
100
11
11
47
47
867
54
3
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
HI,
COLOR
OR
RACE
Of
HEAD,
1
NON-FAMILY
AND
BY
STATES
FOR
URSAN
AND
RURAL
59
AREAS
l
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF F A M I L I E S ft* TYPE
BROKEN
MANCNILOREN
1
WOMAN-
1 MAN
1 CHILDREN
8
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
6
./
3
3
1
-/
4
2
2
1
1
'
4
7
-/
1
1
3
3
./
3
•
•
WOMANCHILDRENOTHERS
1
I
1
MAN- J WOMAN1 OTHERS OTHERS
*
1
5
5
J
-/
1
1
1
J
2
2
2
J
J
1
1
1
1
4
4
J
4
4
3
10
4
-/
J
2
2
2
4
4
4
6
4
8
1
1
1
2
5
6
5
8
7
9
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
6
1
2
10
10
9
9
4
1
2
4
1
3
3
11
11
6
6
4
4
1
1
2
2
9
9
13
4
4
1
1
4
1
1
1
J
3
4
4
1
3
3
1
-/
1
4
2
1
3
i
!
NON-FAMILY
W I T H OTHERS
]
1
1
1
J
10
./
3
I
1
10
1
1
2
BROKEN F A M I L Y
W I T H OTHERS
4
2
2
4
J
1
1
|
1
3
b
-/
7
3
3
ALONE
9
9
7
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
1 HtiSlANO- i
HUSIANOMAN1
W I F E - I WIFE-CHILO- 1 CHILDREN*
OTHERS
OTHERS 1 REN-OTHERS
WOMAN
ALONE
5
1
1
J
io
4
1
i
1-
4
«/
J
4
4
-/
-/
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
6
5
6
7
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
3
3
5
8
7
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
7
3
3
1
1
1
2
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
•
2
2
^3
5
4
3
!
-/
'
•
2
1
_
1
1 J
—
13 1
—
3
14
11
19
2
3
-/
2
_/
-/
3^
_/
./
2
3./
7
&
_/
12
3
,
_
3
13
9
3
3
13
13
17
10
-/
10
5
J
1
15
12
20
3
3
3
1
-/
1
3
•
•
4
4
J
•
-/
1
J
1
|
.
1
•
1
_
3^ 1
I
1
1
|
1
1
1
1
1
a
2
2
2
m
I
1
3
2
3
3
J
./
•
J
3
1
1
1
|
•
•
1
1
|
•
2
|
12
13
10
13
13
10
12
12
-/
_/
|
1
3
.
1
1
1
2
J
1
•
1
1
2
J
J
1
I
13
1
-* 1
2
32
10
|
3
|
|
15
J
8
8 J
-
«
•
|
2 J
I
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
60
TASLE
7.
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , O C T O B E R
NUMBE* or
TOTAL
ERUMERATEO
0*
ESTIMATED
SAMPLE
1953,
• * TYFE OF FAN
ESTIMATES PERCENT OF'
FAMILIES BY TVFE
FAMILIES
TOTAL
FAMILIES
HUSSANOWlFE
HUSIAHO-
WlFECMILOMH
M J ch i gan—•
White
Negro
Other R a c e s —
152,679
138.400
13.500
600
4.474
4,156
290
28
100
100
100
13
13
16
57
58
50
Urban A r e a s - — .
White
Negro
.
O t h e r Races-.
104*200
91.100
12.700
400
2.069
1.809
252
8
100
100
100
13
12
15
58
59
50
Rural A r e a s — - White
.
Negro——
Other Races-.
40,479
47,300
800
400
2.405
2.347
38
20
100
100 1
13
13
54
55
Minnesota——-—White
Negro
.
Other Races-.
45,353
44.500
700
100
3,672
3.627
35
10
100 1
10
10
51
51
35,844
35,000
700
,100
,780
,740
35
5
100
10
10
49
50
9
9
56
56
J
11
10
13
47
55
36
11
9
V
Urban A r e a s — .
Wh i te
.
Negro——
O t h e r Races-.
**
100J
• •—.j
100
J
•*""" 1
Rural Areas
.
White
.
Negro
Other R a c e s - .
9,514
9.500
,892
,887
100 ;
100
J
M i s s i s s ippi
.
White
.
Negro———-.
Other Races-.
Urban A r e a s ™ .
Wh i te
N e g r o — — .
Other Races-.
54,559
31.200
23.300
100 \
100
i
,802
471
,330
1
6.400
7.800
837
,261
,576
100
100
100
Ruial A r e a s — - .
40,396
24.800
15.600
White
•
Negro
—
Other Races-
U.163
J
t
_/|
ioo !
J
48
27
J
,965
,210
754
1
100
100
1
11
10
13
51
57
41^
4.878
3.987
881
10
2,170
1.422
740
8
100
100
100
15
13
16
45
52
25_
100
100
100
15
14
19
40
48
24^
?SL
Missouri
.
White
.
Negro——.
Other Races-.
Urban A r e a s — .
White
Negro
—
Other Races—
57.156
41,400
15.600
200
Rurai A r e a s White
Negro—-——«
Other RacesMontana
——
White
Negro
—
IJ.550
12.800
700
2.708
2.565
141
2
100
100
100
12
12
18
59
60
41
18,882
18,600
3,755
3.697
7
51
100
100
11
11
45
45
Other RacesUrban Areas
Wh i t e
Negro
Other RacesRural A r e a s White
Negro——
Other Races—
Nebraska
White
Negro———
Other Races-
43.607
28.600
14.900
200
t
300
9*019
8.900
t
100
9*863
9.700
1,804
1.781
6
17
200
1,951
1.916
1
34
13,844
12.700
1,100
100
,077
,839
224
14
i
•—
•
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
ILY,
COLOR
OR
RACE
OF
HEAD,
AKO
B»
ESTIMATED
SROKEN
K'AhCMILORCN
STATES
1
MAN
ALOOC
7
9
6
AND
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
i 3
RURAL
AREAS
BROKEN FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
HUSBANO""OMAN 1 HUSSAND- I
*IFEWIFE-CNUDALONE
OTMERS
1 REN-OTHERS
1
1
1
4
15
URBAN
PERCENT C F F A M I L I E S BY TY*E
NON-FAMILY
<"0«ANCHILCRCK
rou
61
MAN1 WOMA NCHILDREMCMILORENCTHERS
1 OTHERS
!
NON-FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
MANOTHERS
WOMANOTHERS
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
2
5
2
8
3
1
58
4
1
1
i
11
I2
3
1
3
3
I
4
4
^
I
20
20
4
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
.
8
8
22
22
4
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
I
7
6
15
15
4
4
1
I
J
3
_/
1
1
1
1
8
7
10
6
5
6
6
4
9
2
5
2
2
3
11
9
6
7
10
10
•5
5
4
7
13
.•
5
4
6
10
9
14
9
9
10
7
5
14
2
2
2
11
11
11
10
2
15
2
2
2
8
7
15
4
4
1
!
-/
l
lr
7
7
8
15
1
-/
1
1
2
2
3
4
3
5
3
5
6
3
3
3
3
5
4
6
_/
-/
-/
2
6
6
7
6
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4 •
3
2
1
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
1
4
2
2
2
4
4
2
1
1
1
3
3 :
1
•
3
3__,
1
1
2
2
•
4
4
•
1
1
6
3
13
8
8
8
21
21
4
4
10
10
25
25
6
6
1
1
6
6
17
17
3
1
1
8
7
19
9
4
9
I
1
J
!
2
2
2
|
y
6
6
5
7
7
6
10
-/
1
1
1
1
2
J
3
•3 _ j
3
J
2
2
2
2
•
]
1
-/
a
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
62
T A B L I 7.
D I S T R I S U T I O N OF RELIEF F A M I L I E S , O C T O B E R 1933,
NUMBEN
OF FAMILIES
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
OR
ESTIMATED
INebraska-Cont'd)
Urban A r e a s —
White
NegroOther Races--
Negro—
Other RacesNevadaWhiteNegroOther Races—
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
ev
T Y P E OF FAM
TSTIMATE1TFERCENT _ OF^
FAMIUES.BT TTTE
TOTAL
FAM.LIES
HUSDANDWlFE
HuSBANDWlFECHILOREN
9,132
8.300
1,100
1.879
1,648
221
10
100
100
100
15
15
22
33
1,112
4,400
2,198
2.191
100
100
11
11
60
60
2,946
2.700
2.946
2.699
21
226
100
100
10
10
8
10
10
24
24
57
60
4
200
25
100
Urban Areas
White
Negro—— Other Races--
1,300
1*200
1.275
1.218
11
46
100
100
Rural A r e a s — —
White
NegroOther RacesNew Hampshire-—
White
NegroOther Races—
1,700
1.500
1.671
1,481
10
180
100
100
100
12
24
,030
,000
3.134
3.127
5
2
100
100
10
10
51
51
Urban AreasWhite
NegroOther Races--
3,791
3.800
100
100
10
10
54
54
Rural A r e a s — White
Negro
Other Races--
239
200
1.693
1.891
2
J
241
100
100
12
12
43
43
New Jersey
White
Negro——Other Races--
,iS2
200
100
J
105
195
910
100
100
100
J
11
10
19
J
55
59
39
Urban A r e a s — ~
White
Negro—
Other Races--.
193
800
400
J
2.862
2.303
559
J
100
100
100
J
11
9
19
J
55
59
39
Rural Areas-—
White
Negro———
Other Races-
254
,500
.800
100
100
100
New Mexico—
WhiteNeg ro — —
Other Races-
587
.000
2.243
1.892
351
J
4,524
4.129
21
374
12
11
18
J
7
8
51
54
38
J
48
48
200
t
600
Urban AreasWhite
NegroOther Races--
,185
,300
Rural Areas
White
NegroOther Races
,102
,700
New YorkWhite
Negro—
Other RacesUrban
WhiteA r e a s NegroOther R a c e s - — — — —
t
200
236
3
2
-/
100
100
22
22
100
48
2.477
2.277
16
184
100
100_
47
47
100
50
100
100
48
48
400
2,047
1.852
5
190
305, 252
276, ,900
27, 800
600
7.108
6.492
596
20
270, 7Si
244, 100
26, 3 0 0
400
5.396
4,864
524
8
• •—
100
100
100
100
12
11
18
64
65
48
100
100
1*00
11
11
18
64
66
48
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
ILY, COLOR OR RACE
OF
HEAO, ANO
»Y
63
STATE* FOR URSAN AND RURAL AREAS *
TYFE
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
BROKEN
MANCHILDREN
WOMANCNILOREN
1
1
1
8
7
19
3
3
8
_
WIFE-CHIL| OREN-OTMERS
2
2
•
•
•
NON-FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
MANOTHERS
9
8
9
9
4
4
1
1
2
2
•
•
2
2
2
2
5
4
48
50
6
5
1
1}
1
1
*
1
1
2
2
1
8
6
33
2
2
3
49
49
2
2
5
5
1
2
2
2
5
•
•
2
2
48
50
6
6
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
2
2
6
31
6
1
4
2
3
2
1 2
6
7
1
12
H
11
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
9
9
6
6
•
3
3
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
-/
-/
1
1
2
J
2
2
2
J
4
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
_/
-/
-/
5
5
2
2
4
3
J
J
J
17
16
8
8
3
3
3
-/
3
3
9
9
13
7
7
7
J
-/
10
9
14
7
7
6
-/
-/
_/
7
6
7
-f
-/
2
2
2
10
9
J
8
-/
3
-/
2
3
2
5
5
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
6
2
3
2
2
2
4
4
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
6
3
3
3
6
2
•
*
*
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
6_J
1
1
1
3
3
*
•
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
5
13
8
2
7
7
2
2
10
8
9
4
4
|
12
12
5
1
15
9
7
8
7
2
14
2
8
2
8
15
5
J
4
|
_U
2
-•
6
2
2
4
3
3
2
2
8
1
-/
1
1
1
J
2
2
13
13
14
-/
1
1
-/
1
1
4
4
3
1
1
1
_/
2
2
12
12
2
2
2
•
4
2
2
1
!
•
1
1
1
_/
2
WOMANCHILDRENOTNERS
1
1
2
2
2
—
WIFEOTHERS
BROKEN FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
MARCH ILORENOTMERS
3
2
2
_
1 HfSBANO-
WOMAN
ALONE
10
10
10
2
_
1 MAN
ALONE
2
•
2
3
WOMANOTMERS
64
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TAELE
7.
OISTRISUTION
OP R E L I E F
FAMILIES,
OCTORER
1 NUMSER OP FAMILIES
1933,
•* TYPE
OP FAM
ESTIIMTED PERCENT OP
FAILILIES SY TYPE
NORMAL
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
OR
ESTIMATED
HostANOWIPE
KuSBANOWlFECHILOREN
34,498
32.800
1,400
200
1.712
1,628
72 I
12
100
100
13
59
60
58,041
31.900
24.000
100
3,844
2.028
1.810
6
till
TOTAL
FAMILIES
9
8
9
*7
53
38
31,091
8.800
12,300
2,105
878
1,226
I
1
10
9
10
40
48
Rural AreasWhite
NegroOther Races-
34,950
23.100
11.700
100
1,739
1,150
584
5
:lil
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
lsl:
(New York-Cont'd)
Rural Areas
Wh i te
NegroOther RacesNorth C a r o l i n a —
White
NegroOther Races-
1
8
8
8
51
56
40
North DakotaWhiteNegroOtlier R a c e s -
10,020
9.900
3,329
3.296
7
26
100
100
9
4
64
65
Urban AreasWhite
NegroOther Races-
1,889
1.700
t
1.668
1.657
6
5
100
100
8
8
71
71
Rural AreasWhite
Negro———
Other Races-
8,351
8.200
1,661
1.639
1
21
100
100
9
9
63
63
14
13
18
50
53
36
14
13
16
36 .
14
14
17
55
56
41 _
13
13
15
53
55
38 _
41
43
2
100
100
155,784
120.800
34.700
300
Other R a c e s -
47,081
44,300
2,700
t
2.338
2.201 !
135)
2
-—
Urban AreasWhite
NegroOther R a c e s —
Rural AreasWhiteNegroOther RacesOregonWhite
Negro——
Other RacesUrban AreasWhite
Neg roOt h er RacesRural AreasWhite
NegroOther Races
48
52
107,237
92.600
12.300
2.100
3.094
2.618
419
57
33,434
26.100
5.900
500
100
100
14
i
1.612
1.295
291
26
100J
I4
15
74,803
66.800
6.500
1.600
!
1
1.482
1.323
128
31
4.664
4.614
22
28
100
100
100J
13
13
14
100
100 1
1*
14
41
41
13
13
38
38_
16
16
46
49
18,888
16.500
100
100
13,334
12,100
100
i
4,443
4.400
t
lis
Rural Areas
White
Oth
er R a c e s — NegroOklahoma—
Wh i teNegro——Other Races-
•••—
•
Urban A r e a s — —
White
Negro-——
5.436
4.603
826
7
3.098<
2,402
691
5
• •—
III-1 III
Other R a c e s -
303,865
165.100
37,500
300
35
:
OhioWhite
Negro—
.—
III j
Urban AreasWhit eNegroOther Races-^
33_
1
58
60
42
**il_j
2.443
2,416
15
10
• 100
100 1
2,221
2.196
f\
18'
100
100
^
**ZJ
_
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
ILY,
COLOR
OR R A C E
or
HEAO,
AND
BY
STATES
FOR
U R S A N ANO
ESTIMATED PERCENT OP F A M U . I E S
j
BROKEN
MANCHILDREN
1
1
WOMAN1 CHILDREN
1
J_
NON-FAMILY
MAN
1 ALONE
1
WOMAN
1
ALONE
1
1
65
R U R A L AREAS
l
SY TYFE
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
BROKEN FAMILY
W I T H OTHERS
HUSSAND- I
HUSSAND1 MANWlfEWIM-CHIL~
CHILORENOTHERS 1 DREN-OTMERS 1 OTHERS
WOMANCHILDRENOTHERS
NON-FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
MANOTHERS
WOMANOTHERS
1
«
2
2
6
6
3
14
13
16
4
3
3
3
3
0
1
6
6
2
2
10
10
3
3
6
6
3
3
3
8
7
13
9
3
3
3
0
4
i
|
6
j
9
j
|
3
4
|
4 1
f
8
2
2
7
10
10
3
1
9
1
2
2
2
2
1
5
1
3
2
2
2
2
6
5
2
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
3
2
3
5
1
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
•
1
1
•
*
2
2
11
U
3
3
•
2
2
1
1
2
2
13
13
15
4
3
1
1
2
4
4
3
*
•
21
7
14
14
1* !
4
4 j
8
1
1
2
3
*
•
1
1
3
2
2
3
5
1
1
J
3
1
1
6
16
8
8
9 |
11
12
2
5
4
7
7
2
5
2
2
4
6
4
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
6
1
9
3
2 |
2
2
6
8 j
21
21 j
5J
2
2
8
8
2«
24
6
6
1
7
7
12
12 |
3
2
2
3
4
•
|
3
3
6
3
7
7
10 j
3
m
3
12 j
j
1
1
5
2
1
3
3
2
8 j
14
1
3
8
6 1
4
1
1
6
1
9
4
2
2
8
5
1
10
0
1
4
5
|
5
1
|
5
3
23
4
14
j
1
5
14
3
3
4
4
5
1
12
12
4
4
10
9
4
18
16
19
3
N
1
i
2
4
5
1
5
4
|
l
J
4
4
5
|
|
1
1
|
2
2
•
I
2
1
1
j
1
-^—
1
1
,
1
j
2 j
I
2
2
j
1
|
51
2
I
2
2 1
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
66
TABLE
7.
DISTRIBUTION
OF RELIEF
FAMILIES,
NUMBER
OF
OCTOBER
1933,
BY TYPE
OF M M
• PERCENT
FAMILIES
NORMAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
OR
ESTIMATED
54
57
38
|
4.143
3.398
741
4
100
100
100
11
10
19
52
55
37
\116,589
111.600 1
4.900 j
2.314
2,216
98
100
9
9
59
60
~
— —
Neg ro
Other RacesSouth Carol m a
Wh i te
Urban Areas
Whi te
Rural
—.—
*
—
—
—
— - — —
Areas
Wh i te
Negro
Other Races
—
South Oakota
White—
Neg ro
Other Races
--——
—
Urban Areas
White
Negro
—Other R a c e s —
Rural Areas
WhiteNegro-——Other Races-
46
50
43
J
100
100
100
8
6
8
J
49
53
45
J
3.872
3.853
15
4
100
100
12
12
2,065
2,054
10
1
100
100
1.607
1,799
5
3
100
100
3.930
3.061
848
1
100
100
100
1 15
1 *6
1,611
90S
703
100
100
100
J
13
12
16
J
50
54
44
4
100
100
100
7
7
9
25,695
11.300
14.400
2.567
1.132
1,435
100
100
100
63,631
29.300
34,400
J
2.118
974
1,144
22,382
22.300
100
a
18,238
18,200
'
i
Tennessee
White
Negro—-——
Other Races-
39,312
30.800
6.500
Urban AreasWhite
NegroOther Races-
16,094
9,100
7.000
j
J
Rural Areas
WhiteNegro———
Other Races-
23,218
21.800
1.5002
9
8
9
J
10
9
11
100
100
1
*
1
45
45
573
539
33
1
4.685
2.106
2.579
2
1
18
18
570
500
4,144
4.100
*
1
60
61
100
100
1
|
11
10
2.017
1,923
90
4
89,326
40.600
48.700
J
—
59
60
45
10,114
9.600
500
a
2
f
-.——
1
-/
J
10
10
16
100
100
100
i
—
100J
-/
2.590
2.462 j
123
5
10,684
10.200
500
Rural Areas
11 1
19
Rhode IslandWhiteNegroOtlter RacesUrban Areas
WhiteNegro—Othe r Races
HuSBANOWlFECHILDREN
100 1
100
100
324,461
282.100
42.200
200
\ 207,872
170.500
37.200
200
Urban AreasWhiteNegro
Other RacesRural A r e a s * - —
White
Neg ro
Other R a c e s —
HuSBANOWiFE
6,457
5.614
839
4
\
PennsylvaniaWh i teNegroOther Races-
TOTAL
FAMILIES
->
' 2,319
2,173
145
1
**
**
» •—
• *—
100
100
100
J
• •-i-m
39
41
5
1
L
64
64
[
• •—
54
54
13
13
\
••
L
n
1 66—
1
• •—
" *~~
-—
60
64
1°
9
—
66
1
68
69
54 _
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
IIY,
COLOR
OR RACE
OF
HEAD,
AND
BY
STATES
FOR
URBAN
AND SURAL
67
A*£AS
i
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF FAMILIES BY TYPE
BROKEN
MANCHILOREN
WOMANCHILDREN
10
10
32
12
5
1
1
3
6
1
1
2
2
7
10
2
2
2
11
12
5
I*0
10
9
9
i io
'
HUSBANOHUSBANDWlFEWIFE-CHILOTNERS
|DREN-OTHERS
WOMAN
ALONE
MAN
ALONE
8
3
3
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
NON-FAMILY
1
6
i
6
6
MANCHILDRENOTHERS
NON-FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
WOMANCHILDRENOTHERS
•
6
6
BROKEN FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
MANOTHERS
WOMANOTHERS
2
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
-"
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
•
3
1
1
.
11
3
3
1
5
1 10
i
2
!
i
1
!
l
J
J
-/
l
&
8
2
2
8
l
1 4
7
8
5
8
8
7
7
2
2
l
3
3
3
5
5
20
19
1
1
3
8
8
9
J
6
c
6
J
7
8
7
J
4
4
4
4
5
i
4
2
3
-/
12
11
12
2
2
2
-/
-/
3
2
4
J
3
3
3
3
7
6
8
5
4
6
-/
6
6
6
•
_/
I
3
5
5
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
1
*
3
3
3
3
3
10
11
9
1
1
1
jt
3
5
4
3
-/
5
3r
1
1
1
4
4
5
6
6
6
3
2
4
jr
I
I
I
^
_/
2
4
7
9
6
3
-/
*
4
3
3
1
1
1
j
3
2
4
-/
_/
11
12
11
J
4
-/
J
4
4
2
2
-/
3
3
2
3
4
3
2
4
5
-/
•
•
-/
3
3
»
\
-
•
^
\
*
2
2
I
1
1
4
4
5
1
1
-/
-/
3
3
9
9
1
1
1
1
4
4
m
5
5
13
13
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
8
8
•
•
4
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
8
8
7
2
2
2
2
2
J
5
2
8
8
10
7
J
1
1
j
.
3
_ 3
2
_ 3
2
./
i
'
6
6
7
!
j
8
8
J
•
4
3
I
1
4
j
9
2
8
-/
2
2
7
3
3
-/
4
J
3
|
1
1
1
1
3
i
5
-y
4
7
7
9
'
2
2
4
-/
1
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
68
TABLE 7.
01 ST*I BUTtOM
0* RELIEF
FAMILIES,
OCTOiEU
NUMSER of
FAMILIES
TOTAL
ENUMERATE!!
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
ESTIMATES
1933,
BY Tv*E OF FAM
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF
^AMItlES BT Tv»E
TOTAL
FAMILIES
HUSBANOWlFE
HUSBAWWlPECHILOKEK
100
100
100
100
12
12
15
8
44
46
34
51
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
12
12
15
8
43
44
34
48
12
13
14
10
46
48
34
56
4.019
3.958
22
39
100
100
9
9
52
52
10,701
10,500
100
200
2.137
2,087
20
30
100
100
10
10
48
48
Rural Areas—
White
NegroOther R a c e s -
5,653
6.600
1.882
1,871
2
9
100
100
8
8
60
60
VermontWhiteNegroOther R a c e s -
2,817
2.800
2,820
2,818
2
100
100
10
10
59
59
Urban AreasWh i t e
NegroOther R a c e s Rural A r e a s — White
Negro-—-—.
Other R a c e s Virginia
White
Negro——
Other RacesUrban A r e a s —
Wh i t e
Negro-———
Other RacesRural Areas——.
White
Negro—
Other R a c e s -
1,600
1,700
1,664
1.663
1
12
12
59
59
1,157
1.200
1.156
1,155
1
J
100
100
14,983
8.200
6,700
4.603
2,821
1,779
9,627
4.300
5,300
5,356
3.900
1.400
1.925
863
1,062
J
2,678
1.958
717
37,877
37.400
300
100
Texas White
Negro—
Other R a c e s -
105,045
60,900
21,400
22,700
Urban A r e a s White
NegroOther R a c e s -
73,898
40,300
17.300
16,300
3,022
1,831
551
640
1,482
801
352
329
Rural A r e a s White
NegroOther Races—
31*117
20.700
4,200
6.300
1.540
1.030
199
311
16,35*
16,100
100
200
UtahWh i t e NegroOt her Races-———
Urban Areas
White
Negro——
Other R a c e s -
Wash i n g t o n WhiteNegro——
Other R a c e s -
Negro—
Other Races-
too
_
J
J
100
100
J
J
8
8
58
58
100
100
100
11
10
12
49
57
40
100
100
100
J
48
57
40
J
100
100
100
12
11
13
J
8
8
8
3.666
3.631
21
14
100
100
15
14
47
47
35,967
25.600
300
100
1.289
1.271
15
100
100
14
14
45
45
11,910
11,600
t
100
377
360
6
11
100
100
15
15
53
53-
J
• •*_
3
51
56
3
3
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
i t v , Coio« o« Rice
Of
He»o, nmt
»r
StATt* TOD U*a*n *«o I m u
AHEAS »
ESTIMATE!) PERCENT OF FAMILIES BY TYFE
BROKEN
MAN-
I
1
I
WOMAN-
1
3
3
2
3
10
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
10
MAN
ALONE
8
2
2
1
_
-•
*2
•
•
2
•
*
3
3
32
7
2
2
6
*6
1
1
4
4
•
•
1
1
2
5
2
2
WOMANOTHERS
1 6 1 21
32
5
9
4
1
6
5
1 1
3
10
2
2
6
2
!
[
4
1
1
[
1
4
1
*
1
1
1*
6
6
1
1
4
4
I
1
1
1
1
3
3
10
10
5
S
7
7
1
1
3
m
1
1
1
1
3
3
8
8
10
10
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
-/
•
•
./
«r»
2
2
•
•
•
.7
w
-/
-y
-/
./
J
3
3
8
8
9
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
J
-/
3
3
wS
J
-/
«/
-•
_/ ! -/
3
3
8
8
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
-/
J*
-/
-/
-/
-/
-/
3
2
6
2
2
6
7
5
1
1
1
3
2
3
5
2
1
4
3
5
1
2
2
4
2
1
2
^
3
2
3
11
9
IS
2
13
10
15
^
12
12
-/
5
3
6
3
4
1
4
2
2
4
5
j
3
5
12
2
2
3
-
|
6
6
2
2
2
1
9
|
6 1
|
17
17
|
3
5
2
z
1i
y
1
7
7
19
4
4
j
19
1
11
11
|
~^
•44 J
2
2
2
2
2
2
j
7
1
4
j
•
1
4
I
|
4
1
3
3
4
4
-/
1
1
1
7
7
9
|
32
5
!
•
1
1
|
2
2
1
1
|
3
|
9
2
1
5
3
1
1
*
-/
7
•
1
2
|
<
* *
3
1
2
1
2
—
-
1
MANOTHERS
12
13
-/
3
NON-FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
2
2
3
—
•
4
4
7
6
7
4
7
4
4
11
1
11
BROKEN FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
2
2
1
2
3
u
12
1
1 «*
2
2
2
2
4
5
4
9
5
H
5
2
7
7
10
5
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
HUSBAND- I HUSBANOI
MAN1 WOMANWIFE1 WIFE-CNILCHILOREN- [ C H I L O R E N OTHERS
|OREN-OTKERS |
1 OTHERS
WOMAN
ALONE
10
7
5
9
11
7
5
15
9
4
j
1* 1
8
1
1
NON-FAMILY
1
1
2
3
|
1
1
•
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
70
TAitc
7.
DISTRIBUTION
OF R E L I E F
FAMILIES*
OCTOBER
NUMBER OF FAMILIES
TOTAL
1 ENUMERATED
OR
ESTIMATED
West Virginia
Wh i te
Negro*—*-—
Other RacesUrban AreasWhite
Neg r o —
Other Races
Rural Areas-*
White
Negro
—Other R a c e s - —
Wisconsin—
Wh i te
Negro
—•
Other RacesUrban Areas
White
Negro———
Other RacesRural AreasWh i te
NegroOther RacesWyoningWh i teNegroOther Races-
86,3*2
80,700
5,700
sv
TYFE
O F FAM
NORMAL
TOTAL
IN
SAMPLE
TOTAL
FAMILIES
HUSSANOWlFE
HUSIANOWlFECKILDREH
100
100
100
11
11
17
55
56
35
100
100
100
J
13
13
14
33
100
100100
10
10
20
59
60
37
i
2,611
2.506
104
1
67,252
64.900
1.800
700
4.266
4,115
89
62
100
100
11
11
56
57
48,936
47.000
1,700
200
2.437
2.342
86
9
100
100
m
11
10
54
55
18,416
17.900
t
500
1,182
1.400
1,829
1.773
100
100
11
11
62
63
11
10
40
41
12
11
38
38
10
10
43
43
i
21,055
18,000
3.100
J
65,287
62,700
2,600
i
i
Urban AreasWhiteNegroOther Races-
709
700
t
Rural AreasWhite
NegroOther Races-
773
800
i
t
1933.
ESTIMATED PEMCENT OF
FAMILIES B» TYFC
*
4.714
4.303
410
1
2,103
1,797
306
j
53
1,482
1.416
23
43
709
651
22
36
773
765
1
7
_/
42
44
J
^~~
*^~
100
100
••
100
100
• •-—
100
100
••""!
**~~\
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
IIY, COLOR
OR
RACE
OF
HEAD,
ANO
BY
STATES
FOR
URBAN
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF F A M I L I E S
ttOMAN-
MAN-
MAN
CHILDREN
WOMAN
ALONE
HUSBANO-
WlFEOTHERS
1
7
7
12
7
7
14
2
2
5
10
10
13
13
12
17
5
4
6
6
10
6
5
9
2
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
16
16
3
3
2
2
8
8
18
17
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
•a
4
3
3
4
-/
4
6
_/
RURAL
HUSRANOWIFE-CHILOREN-OTHERS
BROKEN F A M I L Y
WITH OTHERS
MAMCHILOKEHOTHERS
7
7
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
6
7
•
3
1
_/
•
-/
AREAS
$y TYFE
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
NON-FAMILY
BROKE*
AND
71
WOMANCHILOREN-
0THER3
2
2
2
1
•
1
1
*
•
3
3
•
1
1
\
1
11
11
4
4
1
1
2
2
\
15
16
21
21
5
5
1
1
1
1
J
J
1
1
2
2
17
18
22
21
5
6
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
3
3
13
13
20
20
5
5
1
1
2
2
J
•
•
1
•
_
'The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type." See
appendix table 3 for number of such cases. Percentages were
computed on basis of known types only.
'Less than SI cases estimated.
'Less than .6X in this class.
"Percentage omitted because there are less than 100 cases.
•4io cases in sample in this class.
WOMANOTHERS
-/
-/
3
7
7
MANOTHERS
2
1
2
1
1
2
3
3
NON-FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
2
2
72
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TABLE 8 . D I S T R I B U T I O N OF R U I C F F A M I L I E S , OCTOBER 193?.
SY PRESENCE OF AGED PERSONS
AND C H I L D R E N , COLOR on RACE OF HEAD, AND BY STATES FOB URBAN ANO RURAL AREAS 1
ESTIMATEO PERCENT
N U M B E R O F FAMILIES]
FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES «ITH|
T O T A L CHILOREN UNDER CHILOREN UNOER| PERSONS 65
F A M I L I E S ! 16 AND PERSONS
AND OVER, BUT]
16, BUT No
No CHILOREN
69 ANO OVER
PERSONS 65
AND OVER
UNOER 16
TOTAL
ENUMERATED!
°*
ESTIMATED
Alabama——
White
Negro.......
Other Races.
98,6*3
58.000
40,600
Jrban Areas...
Rural Areas...
4.930
2.900
2.028
2
100
100
100
66
70
61
29,170
69,178
1.469
3.461
100
100
63
67
6
7
Arizona.........
White
Negro——
Other Races.
Jrban Areas—
Rural Areas...
' 20,427
10.600
1.000
8.800
4.082
2,116
205
1.761
100
100
100
100
56
49
39
66
9
12
7
9,058
11,369
1.814
2.268
100
100
53
58
Arkansas.-.—...
White—...
Negro-.j--—Other Races-
48,331
35.200
13.100
4.828
3.520
1.305
100
100
• 100
54
57
43
16
15
19
Jrban Areas...
Rural Areas—
18,916
29,415
1.836
2.942
100
100
50
56
12
19
Cal ifornia.——
White
Negro—.—
Other Races.
Urban A r e a s Rural Areas...
118,264
100.400
6.400
11.500
3.720
3.166
141
413
100
100
100
100
47
45
44
66
7
7
9
4
101,152
17,112
2.016
1.704
100
100
46
52
6
10
Colorado—
White
Negro——
Other Races.
22,815
19.000
1.100
2.800
3.609
2.997
112
500
100
100
100
100
52
51
41
64
16
16
14
13
Urban A r e a s Rural A r e a s Connecticut—...
White
Neg r o Ot her Races.
Urban Areas...
Rural A r e a s —
17,043
5,772
1.695
1.914
100
100
52
52
14
20
23,961
22.600
1.400
4.245
4.052
193
100
100
100
64
64
56
10
10
8
-j
-I
j
J
19,302
4,659
1,920
2.325
100
100
65
61
9
12
Delaware——W h i t e Negro
Other Races.
5,862
3.800
2.100
3.499
3.493
1.163
100
100
100
55
61
44
8
7
Urban Areas...
4,727
1,135
Rural A r e a s District of Col..
12,228
2.674
White
9.546
N e g r o —
Other RacesUrban Areas...
Florida
; 102,432
W h i t e 53.700
48.700
Negro..*...-'
J
Other RacesUrban A r e a s — I 55,474
Rural Areas...
46,958
2.363
1.136
100
100
54
61
7
11
4.567
2,671
1.896
6
100
100
51
51
51
3
too
2
3
*
-/
-y
4,567
100
51
5,109
2,678
2.431
100
100
100
53
58
47
2,761
2.348
100
100
«/
J
47
59
4
2
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
73
TAILC 8 . DISTRIBUTION OF RELIEF FAMILIES* OCTOBER 1 9 3 3 , BY PRESENCE OF AQEO PERSONS
ANO CKILOREN, COLO* OR RAOE OF HEAD, ANO SV STATE* FOR URIAN AND RURAL AREAS 1
NUMBER OF FAMILIES!
ESTIMATEO PERCENT
FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES WITH. FAMILIES WITHI FAMILIES WITH
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL CHILDREN UNDER CHILDREN UNOER PERSONS 65
NEITHER CHILERUMERATCO
IN
FAMILIES 16 AND PERSON*
OR
AND OVER, BUTDREN UNOER 16
16, BUT NO
SAMPLE
ESTIMATSO
NOR PERSON*
69 AND OVER
PERSON* 65
No CHILDREN
ANO OVER
UNOER 16 | 65 AND OVER
3.466
1.857
1.609
Other Races
69*88
37.300
32.300
4
-#
100
100
100
J
3
3
3
U-ban Areas Rural Areas -
34,098
35,490
1.692
1,774
100
100
2
4
l^uhit w^rmm
White
Negro*—••
Other Races
U-ban Areas .
Rural Areas -
5,433
5.400
5.433
5.370
4816
100
2,669
2,766
2.667
2,766
Ihite — - .
Negro
Other Races
22?.996
188.500
38.100
1.400
U-ban Areas .
Rural Areas .
59
65
51
J
6
6
7
J
32
26
39
J
54
63
6
6
38
27
2
2
53
54
15
15
29
29
100
100
23
55
51
16
14
33
9.092
7.518
1,519
55
100
100
100
3
2
6
53
55
43
U
12
7
192,899
35,097
7.699
1.393
100
100
3
4
n
10
16
4.352
3.951
398
100
100
100
3
3
3
55
56
51
15
16
10
Other Races
76,649
66.900
9.600
100
Urban Areas Rural Areas -
54,884
21,765
2.187
2.165
100
100
3
54
57
14
18
29
20
4.545
4,417
109
19
100
100
100
3
3
Negro . . . . .
Other Races
35,051
33,800
1.000
200
63
64
43
9
9
25
25
25
29
U-ban Areas Rural Areas -
24J68
10,683
2.423
2,122
100
100
2
61
68
9
10
28
19
Kansas — . - . . . White
Negro
Other Races
46,221
39.600
6.000
600
100
100
100
3
3.
4
56
57
47
13
13
12
28
27
37
Urban Areas .
Rural Areas .
27,189
19,032
4.619
3.953
604
62
2.718
1.901
100
100
3
3
54
59
13
13
30
25
Kentucky
..
White
Negro . . . . .
Other Races
98,883
91.200
7.700
J
3.*37
2.868
569
4
100
100
100
7
7
14
./
69
71
43
j
8
7
12
16
15
31
4
8
61
70
9
8
26
14
^
64
69
57
5
6
4
White . . . . .
Indiana
White
Iowa
i
J
199
!
1
26
33
31
44
26
27
25
36
|
3
U-ban Areas Rural Areas .
10,340
80*43
11.830
1.607
100
100
Louisiana
White
j
Negro
Other Races !
76.751
41.400
36.200
100
13.827 ;
2,063
1.757
7
100
100
100
U-ban V e t s Rural Areas'.
36.766
37,985
1.930
1.897
100
100
amine —
White
Negro . . . . .
Other Races
U-ban V e t s .
Rural Areas *
8.864
8,800
t
t
3.623
3.608
100
100
4,052
4,83J2
u
4
2.018
1.605
4
4
3
1
3
3
4
4
4
**""
100
100
I
1
!
j
58
1
™
65
65
66
64
4
4
1
1
!
j
28
22
35
4
6
35
20
14
18
18
12
tt
19
1
17
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
74
T A B L E B.
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , O C T O B E R 1933, sv P R E S E N C E OF Aaeo PERSONS
AND C H I L D R E N , COLOR OR RACE OF HEAO, AND BY S T A T E S FOR URBAN AND R U R A L A R E A S 1
ESTIMATED
NUMBER OF F A M I L I E S
PERCENT
F A M I L I E S W I T H ] F A M I L I E S * I T M | F A M I L I E S « I T H | F A M I L I E S NITH
TOTAL
NEITHER C H I L TOTAL CHILDREN UNDER CHILOREN UNDER PERSONS 65
IN
16, BUT NO
ANO OVER, BUT OREN UNDER 16
F A M I L I E S 16 AND PERSONS
SAMPLE
NOR PERSONS
PERSONS 65
NO C H I L D R E N
65 AND OVER
65 AND OVER
AND OVER
1 UNDER 16
TOTAL
ENUMERATED
OH
ESTIMATED
100
100
100
1
24
21
28
2
2
2
67
68
66
....
-*—
2
5
67
71
6
9
26
16
100
100
100
1
1
2
56
56
43
13
13
13
30
30
1,674
1,924
100
100
1
2
56
55
13
15
30
27
4.474
4.156
290
28
100
100
100
3
2
11
59
60
52
Other Races
152,679
138.400
13.500
800
15
5
Jrban A r e a s . .
Rural A r e a s . .
101,200
43,479
2,069
2.405
100
100
3
3
61
55
15
13
21
28
3,672
3.627
35
10
100
100
2
2
52
53
12
13
33
33
Other Races
45,358
44.500
700
100
Urban A r e a s . .
Rural A r e a s . .
35,844
9,5U
1.780
1.892
100
100
1
51
59
11
20
37
3
ssissippt
—
White
Negro . . . . .
Other Races
54.559
31.100
23.400
4,802
2.471
2.330
1
100
100
100
6
6
7
57
63
50
13
23
10
17
21
26
Urban A r e a s Rural A r e a s . .
14,163
40,396
2.837
1.965
100
100
4
7
51
60
12
14
32
20
57,165
41.400
15.600
200
4.878
3.987
881
10
100
100
100
2
2
54
58
42
11
13
7
33
27
3
Urban A r e a s Rural A r e a s . .
43,607
13,558
2.170
2.708
100
100
2
3
51
64
11
12
37
2D
ntana . . . . . . .
White
3.755
3,697
7
51
100
100
2
2
51
51
15
15
33
Other Races
18,882
18.600
2
300
Urban A r e a s . .
Rural A r e a s -
9.019
9,863
1.804
1.951
100
100
2
2
45
56
14
15
40
27
b r a * ka . . .
White
Negro
Other Races
13,844
12,700
1.100
100
4.077
3.839
224
14
100
100
100
3
^
11
11
8
26
24
i
60
61
48
Jrban A r e a s . .
Rural A r e a s . .
9,432
4,412
1.879
2,198
100
100
3
3
59
63
8
16
30
18
2,946
2.700
i
200
2.946
2.699
21
225
100
White
Negro
Other Races
2
2
27
26
24
24
Jrban A r e a s Rural Areas—
1,2 75
1,671
1.275
1.671
IOC
31,817
20.300
ll.SOO
j
4.300 j
2.988
1.312 |
Jrban A r e a s . .
Rural A r e a s . .
28,991
4.820
2 695 1
1.605
100
100
ssachusetts
White
Other Races
89,848
86.400
3.400
- IDO
3.598
3.476 j
118
4
Jrban A r e a s Rural A r e a s . .
04,05*
5,782
chigan . . . . . .
White . . . . .
White Negro
Other Races
.
Other Races
a
........
j
6
3
— » « - " • - • * • * » -
—.
"
42
23
1
23
32
• *_
10
T?
100
1 100
'
:
1\
35
21
27
27
21
1
26
18
48
33
-
47
1 JL.
1
1
40
450
5
.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
75
TASLE 8 . D I S T R I B U T I O N OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , OCTOSER 1935.
•» PRESENCE OF AGEO PERSONS
ANO C H I L D R E N , COLON ON RACE OF HEAD, AND I T STATES FOR URIAH AND RURAL AREAS 1
NUMSER OF FAMILIES
ENUMERATED
°"
ESTIMATED
New Hampshire'
White
Negro.—
Other Races
5,030
5.000
ESTIMATED PERCENT
FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES WITH|
CHILDREN UNOER CHILDREN UNOER] PERSONS 65
TOTAL
FAMILIES! 16 AND PERSONS
16, tur No AND OVER, «UT|
65 AND OVER
PERSONS 65
No CHILDREN
ANO OVER
UNDER 16
TOTAL
100
100
60
60
17
17
3,791
1,239
3.134
3.127
5
2
1.893
1.241
100
100
63
52
14
27
New Jersey.
WhiteNegro.
Other Races|
84,452
68,400
16.100
5.105
4.195
910
100
100
100
64
66
56
7
8
5
Urban Areas..
73,198
11,25*
2.862
2.243
100
100
65
59
7
10
100
100
61
61
15
16
Urban Areas..
Rural Areas—I
Rural Areas-
j
6,587
6.000
J
New Mexico
.
White
Negro
,
Other Races|
Urban Areas..
Rural Areas..
600
4.524
4.129
21
374
100
68
2,435
A, 102
2.477
2.047
100
100
64
12
18
New York
White......
Negro.......
Other Raced
305,252
276.900
27.800
600
7.108
6.492
596
20
100
100
100
66
67
59
6
6
270,751
31,498
5.396
1.712
100
100
67
61
6
8
56,041
31.900
24.000
100
3.844
2.028
1.810
6
100
100
100_
65
67
62
11
11
12
Urban Areas.
Rural Areas.
21,091
34,950
2.105
1.739
100
100
64
65
8
13
North Dakota—
• White
.
Negro--—J
Other Races]
10,020
9.900
100
100
67
67
11
11
100
3.329
3.296
7
26
Urban Areas..!
Rural Areas—I
1,669
8,351
1.668
1.661
100
100
75
66
12
Ohio— .—.__
White—
Negn
Othei* Races!
202,865
165.100
37.500
300
5.436
4.603
826
7
100
100
100
53
55
45
11
12
6
Urban AreasRural Areas—|
155,784
47,081
3.098
2.338
100
100
52
58
10
13
Oklahoma..
White.
Negro
Other Races!
107,237
92.800
12.300
2.100
3.094
2.618
419
57
100
100
100
61
62
53
9
9
9
Urban Areas..
Rural Areas-
32,434
78,803
1.612
1.482
100
100
52
65
Oregi
White
"
Negro
Other Races
16,666
16.500
100
100
4.664
4.614
22
28 j
100
100
45
45
17
17
Jjrban Areas.,
"ural Areas-
12,224
4,442
2,443
2.221
100
100
42
54
16
20
Urban Areas..]
Raral Areas.
North Carol i na
White.....
Other Races]
i
t
3
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
76
TABLE 8. DISTRIBUTION OF R E L K F FAMILIES, OcTOBEft 1 9 3 3 , BY PRESENCE
OP AGED PEftSONS
ANO C H I L D R E N , COLOR OR RACE O F H E A D , A N O e r S T A T E S P O D U A B A N A N D R U R A L A R E A S l
ESTIMATED
MuwaEft OF F A M I L I E S !
PERCENT
F A M I L I E S * I T H | F A M I L I E S « I T H FAMILIES WITHJ
TOTAL {CHILDREN UNDER CHI LOREN UNDER PERSONS 65
AND OVER, BUT]
16, BUT NO
F A M I L I E S 16 AND PERSONS]
No CHILOREN
PERSONS 65
65 AND OVER
UNDER 16
AND OVER
TOTAL
{ENUMERATED
Pennsylvania . . .
White
Negro .
Other Races
324,461
282.100
42.200
200
6.457
5.614
829
4
100
100
100
62
63
51
Urban Areas . Rural Areas . . .
207,872
116,539
4.143
2,314
100
100
60
64
Rhode Isfand . . . .
White
Negro . . . . . .
Other Races
10,684
10.200
500
2.590
2.462
123
5
100
100
100
65
65
54
6
6
14
Urban Areas —
Rural Areas —
10,114
570
2,017
573
100
100
66
45
6
13
South Carolina White
Negro . . . . . . . .
Other Races •
89,326
40,600
48.700
J
4,685
2.106
2,579
100
100
100
60
60
60
9
8
10
25,695
63,631
2,567
2.118
100
100
57
61
7
11
South D a k o t a - — .
White
Negro
Other Races •
22,382
22,300
100
2
3.872
3.853
15
4
100
100
Urban Areas —
Rural Areas —•
4,144
18,238
2,065
1,807
100
100
57
68
Tennessee
...
White
Negro
Other Races .
39,313
30.800
8,500
3,930
3.081
848
1
100
100
100
71
73
61
Urban Areas . . .
Rural Areas —
16,094
23,218
1.611
2,319
100
100
64
75
5
6
Texas
White
..
Neoro
Other Races •
105,045
60,700
21,600
22,700
3,022
1.831
551
640
100
100
100
100
57
56
53
66
11
12
11
8
Urban Areas —
Rural Areas —«
73,898
31J47
1.482
1.540
100
100
57
58
9
14
White
Negro
Other Races •
1§,354
16,100
100
2,00
4.019
3.958
22
39
100
100
60
60
14
14
Urban Areas —
Rural Areas —.
10,701
5,653
2.137
1,882
100
100
57
66
13
15
Vermont . . . . . . . . .
White
Negro
Other Races
2,817
2.800
2.820
2.818
2
100
100
65
65
8
8
1,660
1457
1.664
1.156
100
100
64
65
7
10
Virqinia . . . . . . ,
White
Negro - . _ . . . ,
Other Races
14,983
8.200
6,700
4,603
2.821
1.779
100
100
100
64
68
59
7
7
8
Urban Areas —
Rural Areas —
9,627
5,356
1.925
2.678
64
62
6
11
Urban Areas —
Rural Areas —
Utah
Urban Areas —
Rural Areas —
3
• •«.
100
100
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
77
TAILE 8.
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , OCTORER 1933,
ST PRESCNCE OF AGED PERSONS
AHO C H I L D R E N , COLOR OR RACE OF HEAD, AND »Y STATES FOR URSAN ANO RURAL AREAS *
NUMIER OF FAMILIES
ESTIMATED PERCENT
FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES WITH
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN UNDER PERSONS 65
TOTAL
TOTAL
NEITHER CHILTOTAL
CHILDREN UNDER
ENUMERATED
IN
16, »UT No AND OVER, RUT DREN UNDER 16
OR
SAMPLE FAMILIES 16 AND PERSONS
No CHILDREN
PERSONS 65
NOR PERSONS
ESTIMATEO
65 AND OVER
ANO OVER
65 AND OVER ,
UNDER 16
Other RacesUrban Areas—
Rural A r e a s Nest V i r g i n i a Other RacesUrban Areas
Rural Areas—..
Wiite
Other RacesUrban Areas....
Rural A r e a s -
Other Races-.
Urban Areas
Rural A r e a s —
37,877
37,400
300
100
3.666
3.631
21
14
100
100
3
3
50
50
10
11
37
37
25,967
11,910
1.289
2.377
100
100
2
3
48
55
10
12
40
29
86,342
80,700
5,700
100
100
100
3
5
6
62
64
47
9
9
9
23
22
41
i
4,714
4.303
410
1
21,055
65,287
2,103
2,611
100
100
4
6
51
66
10
9
35
19
67,352
64.900
1.800
700
4,266
4,115
89
62
100
100
1
1
58
58
10
10
31
30
48,936
18,416
2.437
1.829
100
100
1
2
56
62
35
20
1,482
1.400
1.482
1,416
23
43
709
773
100
100
2
2
55
56
8
15
14
14
100
100
1
2
55
55
12
16
31
27
*
t
709
773
1
The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type." See appendix table
3 for number of such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis of known
types only.
Less than 51 cases estimated.
* Less than .61 in this class.
"* Percentage omitted because there are less than 100 cases.
•/No cases in sample in this class.
1
29
28
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
78
TABLE
8A.
DlSTRltUTION
OF
KELIEF
FAMILIES,
OCTOtER
1 9 3 3 , BY
PRESENCE
OF AGEO
ESTtMATEO PERCENT
|
FAMILIES CONTAIHINC PERSONS OF SPECiriEO AGE GROUPS
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN UNDER 16 AND PERSONS 65
CONTAINING
BOTH MALES
AND FEMALES
16 TO 6<t
YEARS OF AGE
TOTAL
1
CONTAINING
FEMALES
ONLY
16 TO 6«
YEARS OF AGE
CONTAINING
MALES ONLY
16 TO 6 U
YEARS OF AGE
100
100
100
6
41
:
_7
100
48
i
10
100
100
55
63
11
7
100
100
53
54
8
5
100
100
100
100
100
36
41
48
55
60
19
9
11
7
33
KentuckyLou i s i anaMa ine
MarylandMassachusetts-
100
100
100
100
75
71
47
54
6
9
11
4
15
18
35
31
MichiganMinnesota—
MississippiMissouri
Montana-
100
74
8
13
100
100
48
39
6
13
P
33
Alabama-
District of ColumbiaFlo r i da
Ge o r g i a — —
—
I datai n ino is
IndianaKansas-
I
3
24
20
39
8
15
61
6
23
24
22
30
35
30
48
!
27
27
100
54
7
28
100
100
100
41
73
41
4
7
7
New York
North CarolinaNorth OakotaOhioOklahoma-
100
100
58
10
45
9
47
15
30
29
32
100
48
23
Oregon
PennsylvaniaRhode JslandSouth C a r o l i n a — South D a k o t a — - —
100
100
100
100
100
57
69
55
61
76
2
6
5
TennesseeTexasUtah—
VermontVirginia-
100
100
100
100
100
62
48
57
50
46
100
59
68
4
6
57
4
NebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew J e r s e y — New Mexico-
WashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming-—
1
100
1
100
** '
"•
!
9
2
12
9
4
10
11
18_
1
*
l
19
38
22
19
24
36
29
36
30
28
19
27
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
Fl»SO*S
AND
CHlLlffEtf
A»0
it
PftES'hCE
0*
PERSONS
i6-6«
YEARS
79
OF AGE
St
STATES1
ESTIMATE!) PERCENT
FAMILIES CCKTAINJMG PERSONS OF SPECIFIED AGE GaOl^S
AND OVER
FAMILIES
COKTAIMftS
NEITHER
NCR
1
MALES
FEMALES
16 TO
YEARS OF
TOTAL
6c
Ace
5
5
_
BOTH MALES
AND FEMALES
15 TO £u
YEARS OF ASE
100
100
100
100
100
90
36
S3
91
87
8
6
100
100
100
100
100
90
87
80
89
88
14
5
10
7
5
100
100
100
100
100
86
88
88
93
93
13
19
10
8
4
2
7
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
11
5
12
14
——^__
11
—
$
4
1
22
3
14
!
10
"
10
7
^
8 '
3
^
6
10
4
13
9
7
12
WITH
CHILQREN
UhOEff
16
SOT Nq P £ R S 0 > . 5
j
!
93
95
88
85
84
90
91
87
85
88
100
100
100
100
100
90
85
87
89
82
100
100
100
100
100
93
81
93
89
90
100
100
100
100
100
94
92
92
89
97
100
100
100
100
100
88
91
65
100
100
100
100
90
93
92
77
65
AK3 OvEB
CONTAINIKS
CChTAIhtKS
I
CCNTAIfclNC
FEMALES
MALES CKLT
ONLT
16 TO 6'4
YEARS
3
!
3
3
2
2
8
i
1
*
2
11
17
3
7
8
l
3
2
2
*
i
FEMALES
16 TO 64
OF AGE
YEARS OF AGE
.
•
-/
J
*
'
J
8
10
4
1
NOR
1 6 TO 6 1
YEARS OP ASE
4
CONTAINING
MEITHEft MALES
13
7
11
J
*
•
•
J*
11
11
10
5
J
2
5
2
2
2
2
5
J
3
J
3
3
'
9
1
12
13
m
m
3
7
7
11
13
9
8
11
11
8
14
1
6
3
16
5
J
9
6
J
3
J
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
93
2
84
3
J
*
*
-/
-V
1
6
5
8
i
1
|
5
1
!3
-/
-/
-/
m
m
2
2
2
10
6
13
_/
3
7
5
6
22
J
2
2
2
80
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TAiLE 8A.
DISTRIBUTION
OF RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTORER
ESTIMATED
1 9 3 5 , •* PRESENCE
OF AGED
PERCENT
F A M I L I E S C O N T A I N I N G PERSONS OF S P E C I F I E D ACE GROUPS
F A M I L I E S W I T H PERSONS 65
CONTAINING
BOTH MALES
AND
FEMALES
16 TO 6<l
YEARS OF AGE
AlabamaArizonaArkansas—
Cat i f o r n i a —
AND OVER BUT NO CHILDREN
CONTAINING
MALES ONLT
1 6 TO 64
YEARS OF AGE
CONTAINING
FEMALES
ONLY
16 TO 64
YEARS OF AGE
100
100
100
100
100
28
17
12
18
9
13
15
8
17
e
25
17
23
25
20
100
100
100
100
100
15
24
8
25
22
17
19
16
15
17
16
23
38
26
27
100
100
100
100
100
9
13
11
20
16
10
14
13
29
17
16
20
22
20
26
100
100
100
100
100
32
38
9
17
7
14
24
12
21
10
23
17
14
21
17
MichiganMinnesota-
100
100
100
100
100
9
11
15
11
3
45
11
10
16
19
11
14
21
23
12
N e b ra s k a — — — •
Nevada
New Hampshi reNew JerseyNew Mexico-
100
100
100
100
100
13
3
8
15
11
11
5
11
14
10
22
6
16
21
16
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Okl ahonta
100
100
100
100
100
20
11
19
14
16
26
27
12
25
20
Pennsy1 van i a
Rhode I si a n d —
South C a r o l i n a South D a k o t a - — — ~
100
1C0
100
100
100
17
19
18
30
19
20
9
17
16
13
14
21
31
15
19
100
100
100
100
100
30
13
10
9
19
19
14
10
19
15
25
24
14
23
27
100
100
100
100
16
21
11
7
14
17
15
18
22
14
37
—*—
—
Con nee 11 cut
— « . _ — — —
De 1 awa re
—
District of Columbia
Fl or i da
GeorgiaIdaho—
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Te n n e s s ee—-——*-
Texas—~——
Utah
Vermont*
V i rg i n i a — — —
Wash i n g t o n Wes t V i rg i n i a
W i scons i n
—
Wy om i ng
«--—
8
21
19
11
21
20
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
PERSONS AND
CKILOHCM
ANO
IT
PRESENCE
OF
PERSONS
16*64 Y E A R S OF
AGE
81
1Y
STATES
1
ESTIMATED PERCENT
FAMILIES CONTAINING PERSONS OF SPECIFIED AGE GROUFS
UNPEN 16
FAMILIES WITH NEITHER CHILOREN UNDER 16 NOR PERSONS 69 AND OVER
CONTAINING
BOTH MALES
ANO FEMALES
16 TO 6 i
YEARS OF AGE
CONTAINING
NEITHER HALES
NOR FEMALES
16 TO 64
YCARSOF AGE
TOTAL
34
51
58
40
62
100
100
100
100
100
76
52
61
53
51
53
35
38
34
100
100
100
100
100
60
59
46
61
64
14
39
19
37
36
28
27
30
29
24
64
53
54
32
41
100
100
100
100
100
49
55
65
71
80
41
32
23
24
15
31
20
64
41
66
100
100
100
100
100
84
75
60
75
46
10
21
29
8
35
64
54
50
66
100
100
100
100
100
77
43
65
57
44
54
86
65
49
62
100
100
100
100
100
62
25
51
64
50
34
53
52
45
51
100
100
100
100
100
72
60
57
55
62
49
41
41
100
100
100
100
100
67
56
64
63
67
27
36
27
21
30
26
50
66
49
38
100
100
100
100
100
85
61
53
58
71
7
24
34
36
16
51
40
59
48
100
100
100
100
53
65
48
41
38
27
44
47
33
34
42
CONTAINING
MALES ONLY
16 TO 61
YEARS OF AGE
33
16
48
17
23
48
29
68
30
24
26
15
15
37
VL
26
iThe total sample includes cases of "unknown family type.- See w e n d j "
table3 for rubber of such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis
of known types- only.
•Less than .6X in this class.
•'Percentage omitted because there are less than 100 cases.
No cases in sample in this class*
CONTAINING
FEMALES
ONLY
16 TO 6a
YEARS OF AGE
10
9
20
11
14
12
14
24
10
12
10
13
12
5
5
6
4
11
17
21
7
9
19
20
9
10
7
18
12
25
13
25
6
10
12
6
8
9
16
2
8
14
13
6
14
9
9
8
12
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
82
TABLE 9 .
PROPORTION OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , OCTOBER 1935,
C O N T A I N I N G ( A ) AGED HEAOS,
(B)
AGED PERSONS, AND ( C ) AGED PERSONS WITHOUT OTHER AOULTS, §T STATES FOR
URBAN AND RURAL AREAS1
ESTIMATEO PERCENT
FAMILIES IN
WHICH DESIGNATED
HEAD WAS A PERSON
69 YEARS OF AGE
OR OVER
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ENUMERATED
TOTAL
FAMILIES
Alabama —
Urban Rural •
98.648
29,470
69,178
4,930
1.469
3,461
Arizona - — . — . . - ,
Urban — . . _ — ,
Rural . . . . . . . .
20,127
9,053
11.369
4,082
1.814
2.268
8
9
13
13
13
Arkansas -<
Urban .
Rural -
48.331
18.91$
29,115
4.823
1.886
2.942
17
12
21
21
16
24
U8J264
101,152
17.112
3,720
2,016
1.704
6
6
8
8
8
12
Colorado
*Urban . . . . . . . . . . .
Rural . . » — . . . . • .
22,815
17,013
5.772
3.609
1.695
1.914
16
14
18
18
17
24
Connecticut .........
Urban
Rural - * — - — * .
23.961
19.302
4,659
4.245
1,920
2,325
10
10
11
12
12
14
Delaware — — — — . .
Urban . . . . . . . . . . .
Rural — — — —
5,862
4.727
1.135
3,499
2.363
1.136
6
5
11
11
10
16
District of Columbia
Urban . . . . . . . . . . .
12.228
12,228
4.567
4.567
2
2
3
3
102,432
55,474
46.958
5.109
2.761
2.348
6
5
7
9
8
10
Georgia —
Urban •
Rural <
69,588
34.098
35.490
3.466
1.692
1.774
6
6
6
9
9
10
Idaho . . . . .
Urban .
Rural •
5.433
2,667
2,766
5.433
2.667
2,766
14
16
12
17
19
16
9,092
7,699
1.393
10
9
17
13
12
19
California . . . .
Urban
Rural
Florida . . . . . . .
Urban — Rural
Illinois . Urban .
Rural •
227,995
192,899
35.097
FAMILIES
CONTAINING
PERSONS 65 YEARS
OF AGE OR OVER
12
9
14
Indiana —
Urban Rural -
76.649
64.884
21,765
4,352
2.187
2.165
16
14
20
18
16
23
Urban .
Rural •
35.051
24,366
10,683
4.545
2.423
2.122
3
7
9
12
11
13
Kansas . . . .
Urban •
Rural •
46,221
27,189
19,032
4.619
2.718
1.901
12
11
12
16
16
16
Kentucky -.
Urban •
Rural -
98,883
t8,340
80,543
3,437
1,830
1.607
9
9
9
15
13
16
Louisiana •
Urban .
Rural •
76,751
38,766
37,985
3.827
1.930
1.897
4
3
5
8
7
10
Maine . . . . .
Urban •
Rural •
8,884
4,052
4.832
3.623
2.018
1,605
14
12
16
17
15
19
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TAILI 9-
P R O P O R T I O N OP R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , O C T O S E R 1953,
CONTAINING
83
(A) ASED
HEAOS,
(•) A6E0 PERSONS, AND (c) AttCO PERSONS WITHOUT OTHER A0ULTS, IT STATES FOR
URBAN AND RURAL
AREAS1
ESTIMATEO PERCENT
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ENUMERATED
TOTAL
FAMILIES
FAMILIES IN
WHICH DESIGNATED
HEAD «AS A PERSON
65 VEARS OF A6E
OR OVER
FAMILIES
CONTAINING
PERSONS 65 YEARS
OF Ace OR OVER
Maryland —
Urban
Rural . . . . . .
31.81?
26,991
4,82$
4.300
2.695
1,605
7
6
10
13
Massachusetts —
Urban . . . . . .
Rural
89,8*3
8t,066
5,782
3.598
1.674
1,924
13
13
16
14
14
17
Michigan . . . . — .
Urban
Rural . . . . . .
152,629
101,200
46.429
4.474
2,069
2.405
9
8
12
17
18
16
Minnesota — — .
Urban
Rural . . . . . .
45,358
35,844
9,514
3.672
1,780
1.892
S
20
14
12
23
Mississippi
Urban
Rural — —
54,559
14,163
40,396
4.802
2.837
1.965
15
13
16
19
16
21
Missouri . . . . . . .
Urban
.
Rural
57 J 65
43,607
13,558
4,878
2.170
2,708
10
10
13
13
12
IS
Montana
Urban
Rural
18,882
9,019
9,863
3.755
1.804
1,951
14
14
15
16
15
17
Nebraska
Urban
Rural
13,844
9,432
4,412
4.077
1.879
2.198
12
9
17
14
11
19
Hevada
Urban
Rural
2,946
1,275
1,671
2.946
1.275
1.671
24
21
27
26
23
29
* w Hampshire - .
Urban
Rural
...
5,030
3,791
1,239
3.134
1.893
1.241
17
14
28
19
16
30
.
84,452
73,198
11,254
5.105
2.862
2.243
6
7
9
10
9
12
"e* Mexico
Urban .
Rural . . — .
6,587
2,485
4,102
4.524
2.477
2.047
20
15
23
18
26
305*52
270,754
34,498
7.108
5.396
1.712
6
5
7
7
7
10
torth C a r o l i n a Urban .
Rural
56,041
21,091
34,950
3.844
2.105
1.739
14
10
17
17
12
20
•terth Dakota
Urban
Rural
10,020
1,669
8,351
3.329
1.668
1.661
11
7
12
Ohio
Urban
Rural
202,865
155,784
47,081
5.436
3.093
2.333
10
9
13
13
12
17
OMthw*
Urban
Rural . . . . . .
107,237
32,434
74,803
3.094
1,612
1,482
10
9
10
12
12
12
16,666
12*24
4,442
4,664
2.443
2,221
17
15
21
20
18
24
"w Jersey
Urban
Rural - .
•»«» York
Urban
Rural
°*gon
Urban
Rural
23
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
84
TASLE 9 .
PROPORTION OF RELIEF F A M I L I E S , OCTOBER 1 9 3 3 , CONTAINING ( A ) AGED HEADS,
{ • ) ACEO PERSONS, AND ( C ) AGEO PERSONS WITHOUT OTHER AOULTS, SY STATES FOR
URBAN ANO RURAL AREAS 1
ESTIMATED
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ENUMERATED
TOTAL
FAMILIES
SAMPLE
10
9
11
Pennsylvania —«
Urban
Rural
324,461
207,872
116*589
6,457
4.143
2.314
Rhode Island —
Urban
Rural
10,681
10,114
570
2,590
2.017
573
7
7
11
South Carolina .
Urban
Rural — —
89,326
57,695
63,631
4.685
2.567
2,118
12
8
13
South Dakota —
Urban
Rural . . . . . .
22,382
4,144
18,238
3.872
2,065
1.807
Tennessee Urban .
Rural .
39,312
16,094
23,218
3.930
1,611
2.319
6
5
7
10
8
12
Texas
Urban .
Rural .
105,045
73,898
31,147
3.022
1,482
1.540
12
10
17
17
15
20
Utah
Urban Rural .
16,354
10,701
5,653
4,019
2.137
1.882
15
14
16
16
15
18
Vermont
Urban .,
Rural ..
2,817
1*660
1,157
2,820
1,664
1.156
10
8
12
12
10
15
Virginia -.—.-..
Urban
Rural - —
14,983
9,627
5,356
4.603
1,925
2,678
9
6
15
12
9
19
Washington ......
Urban ......
Rural .......
37,877
25,967
11,910
3,666
1,289
2.377
10
9
11
13
12
16
West Virginia •
Urban
Rural . . . . .
86,342
21,055
65,287
4,714
2,103
2.611
11
11
11
15
14
15
Wisconsin .
Urban .
Rural
67,352
48,936
18,416
4,266
2,437
1.829
11
9
16
12
9
18
1,482
709
773
1.482
709
773
15
13
17
16
14
18
Wyoming
Urban ...
Rural ...
PERCENT
FAMILIES IN
W H I C H OESISNATEO
FAMILIES
HEAD WAS A PERSON
CONTAiNiNS
65 YEARS OF AGE {PERSONS 65 YEARS
ON OVER
OF AGE OR O V E R
17
11
19
11
11
11
'The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type • See appendix table 3 for
number of such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis of known types only.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
85
TAIL! 1 0 . P N O P O N T I O * OP RELIEF F A M I L I E S , OcTOSEft 1 9 3 3 * COMTAIHIN« ( A ) FEMALE HEADS,
(•1 ONLY FEMALES 16-64 YEANS OP Act, AND (C) ONLY FEMALE* 16-64 YEANS OP" Act
•WT WITH CNILDIEN, SY STATES FON UNSAN AND RUNAL ANEAS*
TOTAL
TOTAL
FAMILIES FAMILIES
IN
ENUNCIATED
SAMPLE
STATE
ESTIMATED PEACENT
FAMILIES CONTAINING
FAMILIES IN WHICH FAMILIES I N WHICH CHfLOaCtt UNDEN 16
ONLY PENSON 16 TO IN WHICH ONLYPENSON
DESIGNATED HEAD
WAS A FEMALE
64 YEANS or Act
16 TO 64 YEANS Of
ACE WAS A FEMALE
WAS A FEMALE
Alabama — — . - . — .
Urban . . . . . . . . . . .
98,648
29,470
69,178
4.930
1.469
3.461
13
26
9
10
19
7
6
13
Arizona
20,427
9,058
11,369
4.082
1.814
2.268
14
17
11
11
14
8
6
8
48,331
18,916
29,415
4,828
1,886
2.942
20
21
20
18
19
17
9
10
8
118,264
101,152
17,112
3.720
2,016
1,704
12
13
7
10
11
6
22,815
17,043
5,772
3,609
1,695
1.914
18
18
18
13
13
13
23,961
19,302
4,659
4.245
1,920
2.325
16
16
12
10
11
9
Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . .
Urban . . . . . . . . . . .
5,862
4,727
1,135
3.499
2.363
1.136
18
20
10
13
14
8
District of Columbia
12,228
12,228
4.567
4.567
24
24
21
t02,432
55,474
46,958
5.109
2,761
2.348
11
16
6
10
13
6
69,588
34,098
35,490
3.466
1.692
1.774
14
21
Rural . . . . . . . . . . .
12
17
7
Idaho
Urban .
Rural . . . . . . . . . . .
5,433
2,667
2,766
5.433
2.667
2,766
15
15
15
12
12
11
227,996
192,899
35,09?
9.092
7.699
1.393
18
19
14
13
14
10
Indiana
76,649
54,884
21,765
4.352
2.187
2.165
17
18
14
13
15
9
Iowa
Urban
35,051
24,368
10,683
4.545
2.423
2.122
8
9
5
7
7
6
Kansas
.....
Urban
Rural .
.......
46,221
27,189
19,032
4.619
2.718
1.901
8
10
6
8
10
6
98,883
18,340
80,543
3.437
1.630
1.607
8
12
7
7
10
7
76,751
38,766
37,985
3.827
1.930
1.897
7
9
4
4
7
2
3.623
2.018
1.605
15
17
14
11
12
10
....—-
Urban . . . . . . . . . . .
Urban Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Illinois
Rural . . . . . . . . . . .
Urban
Rural
^wisiana
Urban . _ . . . _ _ . . .
Rural
Maine
Urban
1
8,884\
4,0521
4,832
a
a
86
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TABLE 10.
PROPORTION OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , OCTOBER 1993,
C O N T A I N I N G ( A ) FEMALE H I A O S ,
( B ) ONLY FEMALES 16-64
YEARS OF ACE, AND ( C ) ONLY FEMALES 16-64
YEARS OF AOE
BUT WITH C H I L D R E N , BY STATES FOR URBAN AND RURAL AREAS 1
ESTIMATED PERCENT
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ENUMERATED
TOTAL
FAMILIES
FAMILIES IN WHICH
OESIGNATEO HEAO
WAS A FEMALE
FAMILIES IN WHICH
ONLY PERSON 16 T O
64 YEARS OF AGE
WAS A FEMALE
Maryland •
Urban .
Rural <
31,817
26,991
i,82S
4.300
2.695
1.605
20
22
11
14
16
7
Massachusetts •
Urban
Rural «•••<
69,843
84.066
5,782
3.598
1.674
1,924
23
23
21
16
16
15
Michigan -<
Urban .
Rural •
152.629
104,200
18.129
4,474
2.069
2.405
11
12
8
8
9
Minnesota •
Urban •
Rural •
15,358
35,811
9,5U
3.672
1.780
1.892
13
13
12
Mississippi
Urban —
Rural —
54,559
11,163
40,396
4.302
2.837
1.965
19
27
16
15
22
13
Missouri -<
Urban .
Rural •
57,165
13,607
13,558
4.878
2.170
2.708
21
24
12
17
19
9
Montana —
Urban •
Rural •
18,882
9,019
9,863
3.755
1.804
1.951
14
18
10
10
12
8
Nebraska Urban .
Rural •
13,844
9,432
4,412
4,077
1,879
2.198
13
13
13
10
11
9
Nevada — Urban .
Rural
2,946
1,275
1.671
2.946
1,275
1.671
12
10
13
8
7
9
New Hampshire •
Urban
Rural
5,030
3,791
1,239
3.134
1.893
1.241
21
20
21
14
13
17
New Jersey <
Urban Rural -<
84,452
73,198
11,254
5.105
2.862
2.243
11
16
12
10
10
10
New Mexico .
Urban Rural -
6,587
2,485
4,102
4.524
2.477
2.047
24
26
23
17
19
17
New York
Urban Rural -
305,252
270,754
34,498
7,108
5.396
1.712
13
13
9
9
7
North Carol ina •
Urban — —
Rural
56,041.
21,091
34,950
3.844
2.105
1,739
26
32
23
20
23
18
North Dakota
Urban — .
Rural —
10,020
1,669
8,351
3.329
1.668
1.661
9
12
9
7
9
6
Urban
Rural
202,865
155.784
47,081
5.436
3.098
2,338
14
16
9
11
12
7
Oklahoma Urban .
Rural •
107,237
32,434
74,803
3.094
1.612
1,482
10
19
6
10
18
6
Oregon —
Urban Rural .
16,666
12.224
4.442
4.664
2.443
2,221
15
16
12
12
12
11
FAMILIES CONTAINING
CHILDREN UNDER 16
IN WHICH ONLY PERSON
16 T O 64 YEARS OF
AGE WAS A FEMALE
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
87
T A * L E 1 0 . PROPORTION OF RELIEF FAMILIES, OCTOBER 1 9 3 5 , CONTAINING ( A ) FEMALE HEADS,
(•) O N L Y F E M A L E S L6-6a Y E A R S OF A G E , AND (e) ONLY F E M A L E S 16-6*4 Y E A R S OF AGE
SOT W I T H C W M D R E N , SY S T A T E S FOR URBAN ANO RURAL A R E A S 1
ESTIMATEO PERCENT
STATE
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ENUMERATES
TOTAL
FAMILIES
FAMILIES IN «MICH
DESIGNATED HEAD
WAS A FEMALE
FAMILIES IN WHICH
ONLT PERSON \6 TO
64 YEARS OF AGE
WAS A FEMALE
Pennsylvania Urban —
Rural —
324.46*1
207,872
116,589
6.457
4.143
2.314
13
15
8
Rhode Island
Urban —
Rural -—
10,884
10,tl4
570
2.590
2,017
573
12
12
6
8
4
South Carolina .
Urban
Rural . . . —
89,326
25,695
63,631
4,685
2.567
2.118
18
25
16
12
18
10
South Dakota
Urban
Rural - - — . - - . -
22,382
4,244
18,238
3.872
2.065
1.807
4
8
3
4
7
3
Tennessee «
Urban .
Rural •
39,312
16,094
23,218
3.930
1.611
2.319
10
14
7
7
11
5
105,045
73,898
31,11?
3.022
1.482
1.540
18
20
15
16
17
15
16,354
10,701
5,653
4.019
2.137
1.882
20
20
19
12
13
10
2,817
1,660
1,157
2.820
1.664
1.156
11
10
12
9
8
9
Virginia . . .
Urban . .
Rural -.
14,983
9,627
5,356
4,603
1.925
2.678
19
21
16
15
16
13
Washington .
Urban . .
Rural . .
37,877
25,967
11,910
3.666
1.289
2,377
11
12
7
10
11
7
•est Virginia Urban
Rural
88,342
21,055
65,287
4.714
2.103
2.611
12
17
10
8
12
7
Wisconsin .
Urban .
Rural .
67,352
48,936
18,416
4,266
2.437
1.829
12
13
9
8
9
7
Wyoming . . .
Urban .
Rural .
1,482
709
773
1.482
709
773
22
25
19
21
28
16
Texas . . . . .
Urban .
Rural .
Utah .
Urban
Rural . . . . .
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Urban
Rural - . . _ . . . . -
FAMILIES CONTAINING
CHILDREN UNDER 16
IN WHICH ONLY PERSON
16 T O 64 Y E A R S OF
AGE WAS A F E M A L E
The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type.' See appendix table 3 for
number of such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis of known types only.
88
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
TABLE 1 1 .
DISTRIBUTION
OF R E L I E F
FAMILIES,
OCTOBER
1933,
•*
TYPE.
ESTiMATEO PERCENT OF
FAMILIES BY TYPE
TOTAL
. TOTAL ,
FAMILIES FAMILIES
TOTAL
ENUMERATES SAMPLE FAMILIES
Akron, O h i o — . . — ,
Atlanta, G a . . . . . . . . .
Baltimore, Md..
Birmingham, Ala......
Boston, Mass.........
Buffalo. N. Y.-..-...
Chicago, 111
Cincinnati, Ohio.-.Cleveland, Ohio—...
Columbus, Ohio......<
Dallas, Texas........
Denver, Colo........
Detroit, Mich.
Houston, Texas......
Indianapolis, Ind..
Jersey City, N.J...
Kansas City, M o . —
Los Angeles, Calif.
Louisville, Ky.-..
Memphis, Tenn.
..
Milwaukee, Wis.
Minneapolis, Minn...
Newark. N.J.
....
New Orleans, L a . —
New York. N.Y.
Oakland. Calif.
Philadelphia. Pa.—
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Portland, Oregon—.
Providence, R.I.
Richmond, V a . — "
Rochester, N.Y.....
St. Louis, Mo.
St. Paul, Minn.—*.
San Francisco, Cal.
Seattle. Wash..
Toledo, O h i o . . * . . . . .
Washington, D.C.—•
8,17$
9,498
25,183
11,764
30,631
22,227
117,097
17,425
38,520
10,782
9,14310,369
44,007
9,601
10,850
9*725
7,651
36,897
3.318
4,783
20,013
14.983
13.761
22.429
166,244
4,875
53,301
31,877
10,012
4,885
2,460
10.662
27,377
10.860
21,188
9.355
15,791
12,288
2.722
4.739
5,051
3.673
1.531
2.221
6.018
3.481
3.422
2.156
3.042
2,072
8.706
5.171
2.171
2,238
2,547
1.844
3.320
4,779
1,999
1.498
2,751
4,452
5,107
2.438
5,276
6.348
2,001
2,442
2.462
2.131
5.439
2.172
2,117
1,872
3,159
4.567
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
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
HUSBANDHUSBANDWIFE
WIFE-CNILBREN
13
12
13
13
12
13
13
14
12
16
12
12
13
10
16
.9
18
17
8
20
11
11
11
18
11
19
13
11
13
9
12
14
16
12
13
17
18
17
48
44
55
42
47
57
43
53
49
43
46
41
62
35
47
68
47
42
65
41
49
45
61
45
68
70
50
50
38
65
56
59
36
51
30
45
44
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
o* F A M I L Y ,
FOR d u e s
HAVING 250.000 on MORE POPULATION
89
I N 1930 1
ESTIMATED PERCENT OF FAMILIES BY T m
NORMAL FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
NON-FAMILY
BROKEN
MANWOMANCHILDREN CHILDREN
2
2
9
15
17
17
9
12
12
7
9
9
9
10
11
13
11
8
9
9
8
7
8
8
12
6
8
4
12
8
7
9
9
8
12
8
8
U
9
3
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
3
2
i
U
MANALONC
WOMANALONE
HuSBANOWlFEOTHERS
17
4
2
4
19
6
15
9
18
14
5
19
5
13
1
1
1
19
1
3
1
4
1
4
4
6
12
5
5
3
5
4
3
7
2
6
4
2
7
4
1
3
3
•4
4
4
4
24
28
9
"
2
4
15
26
1
3
11
15
18
34
13
13
15
l
3
3
3
5
4
6
3
2
3
10
5
8
3
5
11
3
J
1
1
2
1
2
4
2
1
3
3
1
3
1
2
7
_1/
1
4
1
J
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
»
*
1
2
1
H05BAN0-WIFEOlLORENOTHERS
3
6
2
5
•
2
3
5
2
5
7
5
1
9
7
6
5
2
8
8
•
2
3
5
3
•
6
5
4
5
5
1
2
1
1
3
4
1
BROKEN FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
NON-FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
MANCHILDREN
OTHERS
WOMANCHILOREN
OTHERS
MANOTHERS
WOMANOTHERS
1
1
1
4
1
4
1
2
1
1
3
1
•
/
1
•
•
1
1
•
1
1
•
1
1
J
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
•
1
1
3
•
1
7
•
5
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
"
=
•
1
•
•
1
1
1
1
*
•
«
/
1
•
1
•
1
-/
•
•
•
*
•
1
J
3
2
1
1
2
•
2
•
1
1
1
*
5
1
*
1
1
2
2
4
1
1
•
3
3
1
2
The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type." See appendix table 4 for
number of such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis of known types only.
•'Richmond was included in this table because of its large Negro population, although
its total population was less than 250,000 in 1930.
'Less than .65 in this class.
JNo cases in sample in this class.
I
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
*
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
•*
•
2
•
1
1
1
1
2
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
90
TABLE
HA.
DISTRIBUTION
OP WHITE
ESTIMATEO
NUMBER or F A M I L I E S
TOTAL
ENUMERATEO
OR
ESTIMATED
Atlanta-, Ca.
Wh i te
Negro
—
Baltimore, Md.
Wh i te
Negro
AND N E G R O
TOTAL
TOTAL
SAMPLE
FAMILIES
HuSBANOW I F E
4,311
5.187
PERCENT
RELIEF
FAMILIES,
OF F A M I L I E S
HUSSANS
WIFE
CH I L O R E H
OCTOBER
BY TYPE
MANCHILDREN
WOMANCHILDREN
100
100
12
11
54
35
11
19
14,552
10,£21
932
119
100
100
11
15
62
46
12
23
4.422
7.342
209
464
100
100
11
14
52
36
13
20
Chicago, M l .
White
Negro
90,578
25,375
3.604
2,576
100
100
11
20
47
29
11
17
Cleveland, Ohio
Wh i te
Negro
—
28.365
10,119
1,409
2.013
100
100
10
20
54
33
8
15
Oetroit, Mich.
White
Negro
34,618
9,168
6,884
1,822
100
100
12
20
65
47
10
17
5,474
3.383
2.736
1.691
100
100
11
8
39
30
11
16
869
914
100
100
13
25
49
36
7,938
14,421
100
100
11
21
54
40
Birmingham, Ala.
Wh i te
Negro
Houston, Tex.
Wh i te
Negro-—-—
Memphis, Tenn.
Wh i t e
Negro
New O r l e a n s , La.
Wh i te
Negro
Nevy York, N.Y.
Wh i t e
Negro
7
16
143,962
21,920
2,925
2,182
100
100
10
16
71
50
32.384
20.866
3.207
2.069
100
ICO
9
18
59
36
Pittsburgh, Pa.
White
Negro—
23.956
7.891
4,782
1.566
100
100
10
15
56
31
8
10
Richmond, Vat.**
White
Negro
1,085
1,375
1.090
1.372
100
100
11
13
64
51
7
11
15,639
11,689
3.112
2.327
100
100
14
18
45
23
10
16
2.674
9,546
2.671
1.896
100
100
11
19
47
36
5
12
Philadelphia,
Wh i t e
Negro
Pa.
—
St. Louis, Mo.
Wh i te
Negro
Washington, D.C.
Wh i t e
Negro—
91
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
1933,
BY TYPE OF F A M I L Y ,
IN CITIES
ESTIMATEO
WOMAN
ALONE
HUS6AN0WlFEOTHERS
50,000
P E R C E N T OF
OK MORE NESROES
FAMILIES
I N 1930*
•Y TYPE
NON-FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
B R O K E N FAMILY
WITH OTHERS
NORMAL F A M I L Y
WITH OTHERS
NON-FAMILY
MAN
ALONE
WITH
HUSSANOWIFECHILORENOTNERS
MAN
CHILORENOTHERS
8
1
3
4
2
5
4
8
2
4
4
1
1
2
2
5
3
4
7
2
3
7
4
17
7
4
7
1
3
3
20
11
2
1
2
J
10
4
2
•
1
WOMANCHILDRENOTHERS
MANOTHERS
1
7
1
2
1
2
1
1
3
WOMANOTHERS
4
1
2
5
1
2
m
2
"
2
1
5
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
'
1
•
«
17
8
5
9
2
5
8
10
1
1
3
1
1
3
5
1
1
4
9
8
8
1
1
2
2
3
5
1
2
2
3
2
5
5
4
1
1
1
1
5
5
1
1
•
2
6
1
1
3
•
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
4
7
1
7
3
1
1
1
2
12
22
3
1
2
5
5
:
1
8
1
I
2
3
1
2
1
2
6
5
1
1
4
4
«
16
13
6
16
1
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
2
21
13
10
12
1
1
1
1
•
"
2
2
1
2
8
10
1
9
3
2
•
3
5
The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type." See appendix tabic 4 for
number of such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis of known types only.
'Less than .68 in this class.
••Richmond is included in this table because of its large Negro population although
its total population was less than 250,000 in 1930.
-Wo cases in sample in this class.
1
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
92
TABLE
12.
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , OCTOBER 1 9 5 3 , BY PRESENCE OF AGED PERSONS
AND CHILDREN FOR C I T I E S HAVING 290,000 OR MORE POPULATION I N 1930*
ESTIMATE!
TOTAL
TOTAL
FAMILIES FAMILIES
IN
ENUMERATED
SAMFLE
PERCENT
FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES WITH] FAMILIES WITH
NEITHER CHILCKILOREN
CHILDREN
PERSONS 65
Tot At
FAMILIES UKOER 16 ANO UNDER 16, BUT AND OVER, BUT ORE* UKOER 16,
NOR PERSONS
PERSONS
No PERSONS 65 No CHILOREN
AND OVER
65 AND OVER
UNOER 16
65 AND OVER
8.175
9.498
25,182
11.764
30.631
2.722
4.739
5.051
3.673
1,531
100
100
100
100
100
1
4
2
2
54
63
68
63
47
7
5
6
5
14
38
28
25
30
39
22,227
117.097
17.425
38.520
10,782
2.221
6,018
3.481
3.422
2,156
100
100
100
100
100
1
1
2
1
63
53
60
54
51
6
9
7
5
9
30
37
31
9,143
10.369
44.007
9.601
10,850
3.042
2.072
8.706
5.171
2.171
100
100
100
100
100
1
4
4
62
49
68
56
60
5
13
5
12
11
29
35
27
28
26
6.725
7,651
36.897
3.318
4.783
2.238
2,547
1,844
3.320
4,779
100
100
100
100
100
2
2
1
4
4
74
59
44
80
53
6
7
5
49
12
36
Milwaukee. W i s . - .
20,013
Minneapolis, Minn.
14,983
Newark, N.J.
13,761
New Orleans, La.-. 22,429
New York, N.Y.
166,244
1.999
1.498
2,751
4,452
5,107
100
100
100
100
100
1
1
2
2
-
52
47
69
55
71
5
9
6
5
5
43
43
23
38
Oakland, Calif....
Philadelphia, Pa..
Pittsburgh, Pa....
Portland, Oreg.—
Providence, R.I.-.
4,875
53.301
31,900
10,012
4,885
2,438
5.276
6.348
2.001
2,442
100
100
100
100
100
1
3
1
2
62
64
56
42
3
73
5
6
6
14
6
31
27
37
42
18
Richmond, V a . * ' ~ .
Rochester, N.Y.—.
2,462
2,131
5.439
2.172
2.117
100
100
100
100
100
3
St. Paul. Minn....
San Francisco,Cal
2,460
10.662
27,377
10,860
21,183
70
62
48
50
34
Seattle, Wash.....
Toledo, Ohio.....
Washington, D.C.-
9,355
15.791
12,228
1,872
3.159
4,567
100
• 100
100
2
1
Akron, O h i o — —
Baltimore* M d . . —
Birmingham, Ala.—
Buffalo, N.Y
Cincinnati, OhioCleveland, O h i o Columbus, Ohio—Dallas, T e x . . . . . . .
Denver, Colo.——..
Indianapolis, Ind.
Jersey City. N.J..
Kansas City, Mo.—
Los Angeles.Calif.
Louisville. Ky.—
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
•
52
48
61
40
37
19
32
4
7
23
24
3
1
!
6
9
U
7
32
s
38
41
46
10
3
42
38
58
. .
*The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type. - See appendix table 4 for number of
such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis of known types only.
,*Uss than .61 in this class.
"Richmond is included in this table because of its large Negro population although i t s total
population was less than 250,000 in 1930.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
93
TAILS 1 2 A . O l S T N t t U t l O N OF WHITE ANO N E S N O RELIEF F A M I L I E S , OCTOICN 1 9 3 3 , ST
PRESENCE OF Atto PERSONS AND C H I L D R E N , I N C I T I E S WITH 90,000
on MORE NEGROES I N 1930*
ESTIMATCO
INUMSER OF FAMILIES!
TOTAL
FAMILIES
TOTAL
|EMUMERATEO|
OR
lESTIMATEO
FAMILIES WITH
CHILOREN
UNDER 16, ANO
PERSONS 65
ANO OVER
PERCENT
FAMILIES WITH FAMILIES WITH
CNILOREN
PERSONS 65 ANO
UNDER 16, SUT OVER, RUT NO
No PERSONS 65
CNILOREN
AND OVEN
UNOER 16
Atlanta, Ga.
White — —
Negro — . .
4,300
5.200
2.152
2,587
100
100
60
66
Baltimore. Md.
White — - .
Negro — —
14.600
10,600
2.932
2.119
100
100
67
70
4,400
7,300
2,209
1.464
100
100
64
62
Chicago, ttl.
White
Negro
90,600
25.400
3.604
2,576
100
100
54
SO
Cleveland, Ohio
White
Negro
*
28,400
10.100
1,409
2.013
100
100
57
47
5
4
Detroit, Mich.
White
Negro
34.600
9.200
6.884
1.822
100
100
63
3
Houston, Tex.
White
Negro .....
5.500
3.400
2,736
1,691
100
100
53
62
12
6
Memphis, Tenn.
White
Negro — —
1,900
2.900
1,867
2,912
100
100
59
50
6
7
New Orleans,- La.
7.900
White
14,400
Negro
1.597
2,873
100
100
60
52
6
4
New York. N.Y.
144,000
White
Negro ..... 21,900
2,925
2.182
100
100
80
63
5
Philadelphia,*.
White - —
Negro
32,400
20,900
3.207
2,069
100
100
57
7
4
Pittsburgh, Pa.
24,000
White
7,900
Negro - - —
4.782
1.566
100
100
61
42
3
Richmond, V a . "
White
Negro .....
1.100
1.400
1,090
1.372
100
100
St. Louis, Mo.
White
Negro
15,600
11,700
3.112
2,327
100
100
52
41
Washington, D.C
White
Negro . . . . .
2,700
9,500
2.671
1.896
100
100
51
51
Birmingham, Ala,
White
Negro
5
3
6
4
2
11
6
The total sample Includes cases of "unknown family type." See appendix table
4 for number of such eases. Percentages were computed on the basis -of known
types only.
Less than . 6 * in this class.
Richmond is included in this table because of its large Negro population a l though i t s total population was less than 250,000 in 1930.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
94
TAGLE 1 3 .
PROPORTION OP R E H E P F A M I L I E S , OCTOSER 1 9 3 3 ,
CONTAINING ( A ) AGEO KEAOS, ( • )
AGEO P E R S O N S , ANO ( C ) AGEO P E R S O N S . » I T N O U T OTHER A D U L T S , POG C I T I E S HAVING 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 OR
MORE POPULATION IN 1930 *
ESTIMATEO PERCENT
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ENUMERATED
FAMILIES
IN WHICH
OGSIGNATEO
HEAO WAS A
PERSON 65
YEARS OP AGE
OR OVER
TOTAL
FAMILIES
IN. SAMPLE
FAMILIES
CONTAINING
PERSONS 65
YEARS OP AGE
OR OVER
FAMILIES
CONTAINING
PERSONS 65
YEARS OP AGE
OR OVER GUT
CONTAINING
NO PERSONS
16 TO 64
YEARS OF AGE
Akron, Ohio
A t l a n t a , Ga.
Baltimore, M d . — —
Birmingham, A l a . —
Boston, Mass-———
B u f f a l o , N.Y.
Chicago, 1 1 1 . — Cleveland, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
8,175
9,498
25,182
11,764
30,631
22,227
117,097
17,425
38,520
10,782
2,722
4,739
5,051
3,673
1.531 '
2.221
6.018
3.481
3.422
2.156
7
5
6
5
14
16
8
6
5
8
8
9
7
8
14
8
10
9
6
11
9
D a l l a s ; Texas
Denver, C o l o . — —
D e t r o i t , Mich.
Houston, Texas-——
Indianapolis, I n d . Jersey C i t y , N . J . —
Kansas C i t y , Mo.
Los Angeles, C a l i f s
L o u i s v i l l e , Ky.——Memphis, T e n n . — —
9,143
10,369
44,007
9,601
10,850
6,725
7,651
36,897
3,318
1,783
3.042
2,072
8.706
5.171
2,171
2,238
2,547
1,844
3.320
4.779
4
13
5
12
10
6
5
5
4
5
Milwaukee, Wis.
Minneapolis, M i n n . -
20,013
6
9
6
4
6
6
6
14
5
2
5
8
11
6
6
9
2
New
Orleans,
New York,
H.Y.L a . —
Oakland, C a l i f .
Philadelphia, Pa.—
Pittsburgh. Pa.
Portland, O r e g o n Providence. R . I . - —
166,244
4,875
53,301
31,877
10,012
4,885
1.999
1.498
2,751
4.452
5.107
2.438
5.276
6.348
2.001
2.442
Richmond, V a . * *
Rochester, H.Y.
St.Lou i s . Mo
S t . Paul, Minn.
San Francisco,Calif. —
S e a t t l e , Wash.
Toledo, Oh i o ~ — —
Washington, D . C . - —
2,460
10,662
27,377
10,860
21,188
9,355
15,791
12,228
2,462
2.131
5.439
2,172
2.117
1.872
3.159
4.567
Hmw»rit
news i n ,
N . w1 . -™•'
. i .—- —
- -—
n
3
'
i
r
15
15
7
9
7 .
8
10
6
10
8
7
7
6
8
7
16
9
5
7
10
12
8
10
11
3
• • Richmond is included in this table because of i t s large Negro population
although i t s total population was less than AO.000'in 1930.
* Less than t 6f in this class.
x
The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type." See appendix
table 4 for number of such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis
of known types only.
4
1
3
3
10
3
5
3
3
4
1
9
2
4
4
2
2
1
2
1
'3
6
3
1
1
3
3
2
10
1
-
3
5
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
95
TAILS 13A.
P R O P O R T I O N OF W H I T E AND Niefto R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , O C T O D E R 1933, C O N T A I N I N G -(A)
ASED H E A D S , (t) A G E D P E R S O N S , AND -(C) A G E D P E R S O N S W I T H O U T O T H E R A O U L T S , IN C I T I E S W I T H
90,000 OR MORE N E G R O E S IN 1930 &
ESTIMATED PERCENT
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ENUMERATED
Atlanta
White
N e g r o — — —
Baltimore
White
NegroBirmingham
WhiteNegro—
TOTAL
FAMILIES
IN SAMPLE
4,311
5,187
2,152
2.587
14.552
10,631
2.932
2.119
4.422
7.342
2,209
1.464
Chicago
WhiteNegro—-—
90,578
25,375
3.604
2.576
Cleveland
White
Negro——
28,365
10,119
1.409
2,013
Detroit
White
Negro
34,618
9.168
6,884
1.882
5,474
3,383
2.736
1,691
1.869
2,914
1,867
2.912
7,938
14,421
1.597
2.873
143,962
21,920
2,925
2.182
32,384
20,866
3,207
2.069
23,956
7,891
4,782
1.566
1,085
1,375
1,090
1.372
St. Louis
WhiteNegro—-
15,639
11.689
3.112
2.327
Washington
White
Negro—-
2,674
9,546
2,671
1.896
New York
White
Negro——
Philadelphia
White
NegroPittsburgh
WhiteNegro—
Richmond**
WhiteNegro—
FAMILIES
IN WHICH
DESIGNATED
HEAD WAS A
PERSON 65
YEARS OP AGE
OR OVER
FAMILIES
CONTAINING
PERSONS 65
YEARS OP AGE
OR OVER
10
4
11
7
12
11
15
12
10
11
10
6
10
5
12
7
' Richmond is included in this table because of its large Negro population
although its total population was less than 250,000 in 1930.
1
Less than .6* in this class.
1
The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type." See appendix
table 4 for number of such cases. Percentages were computed on the basis
of known types only.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
96
T A S L E 14.
P R O P O R T I O N OF R E L I E F F A M I L I E S , O C T O R E R
1933,
CONTAINING
( A ) F E M A L E HEARS,
(•) O N L Y F E M A L E S 16-64 Y E A R S OF A G E , ( C ) O N L Y F E M A L E S 16-64 Y E A R S OF A G E R U T W I T H C H I L O R E N , FOR C I T I E S H A V I N G 250,000 OR M O R E P O P U L A T I O N IN 1930 1
ESTIMATED PERCENT
FAMILIES
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ENUMERATED
TOTAL
FAMILIES
IN SAMPLE
I N WHICH
DESIGNATED
HEAD WAS
A FEMALE
FAMILIES
IN WHICH
ONLY PERSON
16 TO 6a
YEARS OF AGE
WAS A FEMALE
Akron, Ohio—
——
Atlanta, Ga.
Baltimore. Md.
Birmingham, A l a . — Boston, Mass.
Buffalo, H.Y.
Chicago, 111.Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
8*175
9,498
25,182
11,764
30,631
22,227
117,097
17,125
38,520
10,782
2,722
739
5.051
3.673
1.531
2.221
6,018
3.481
3.422
2,156
14
26
23
30
21
19
21
12
16
16
10
20
16
24
14
13
15
10
12
11
Da 11 as. TexasOenver, Colo.
-•
Oetroit, Mich.
Houston, Texas
Indianapolis, Ind.—
Jersey City, K.J.
Kansas City, M o . — — «
Los Angeles, Calif.—
Louisville, Ky.
Memphis, Tenn.
9,143
10,369
44,007
9,601
10,850
6,725
7,651
36,897
3,318
4,783
3.042
2,072
8,706
5,171
.2,171
2,238
2,547
1,844
3.320
4,779
15
20
14
26
19
11
22
14
11
14
14
14
11
9
17
6
Milwaukee, Wis.
Minneapolis, M i n n . —
Newark, N.J.
New Orleans, La.
New York, K.Y
Oakland, Calif.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Portland, O r e . — — — «
Providence, R . I . — —
20,013
14,983
13,761 .
22,429
166,244
4,875
53,301
31,877
10,012
4,885
1,,999
1,.498
2.,751
4,.452
5,,107
2..438
5,,276
6,348
2,001
2.442
13
13
19
11
13
8
22
16
14
13
Richmond, V a . "
Rochester, H.Y.
St. Louis, M o . — — — St. Paul, Minn
San Francisco, Calif,
Seattle, Wash.
Toledo, Ohio
Washington, D. C.
2,460
10,662
27,377
10,860
21,188
9,355
15,791
12,228
2.462
2,131
5,439
2,172
2,117
1,872
3.159
4,567
13
11
26
14
17
16
16
24
3
10
9
13
9
9
13
8
10
6
15
10
11
4
10
8
21
2
14
3
12
21
Richmond is included in this table because of its large Negro
Population although itstotal population was less than 250.000
The total sample includes cases of "unknown family type.* See
appendix table 4 for number of such cases. Percentages were
computed on the basis of known types only.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
97
TAILE 14A. PROPORTION OF WHITE AND NEGRO RELIEF FAMILIES. OCTOBER 1933, CONTAINING (A)
FEMALE HEAOS, (•) ONLY FEMALES 16-64 YEARS OF ACE, AND (C) ONLY FEMALES 16-64 YEARS OF
Ass BUT WITH CHILDREN, IN CITIES.WITH 50,000 OR MORE NEGROES IH 19301
ESTIMATED PERCENT
N.aro—
Bir
"S?i
ChiC
TOTAL
FAMILIES
IN SAMPLE
FAMILIES
IN WHICH
DESIGNATED
HEAO WAS
A FEMALE
FAMILIES
IN WHICH
ONLY PERSON
16 TO 64
YEARS OF AGE
WAS A FEMALE
4,311
5,187
2,152
2,587
16
34
11
27
14,552
10,621
2,932
2,119
18
30
11
23
2,209
1.464
21
36
16
28
90,578
25,375
3.604
2.576
18
32
12 .
25
28,365
10,119
1.409
2.013
11
29
6
23
34,618
9,168
6.884
1.822
12
22
9
19
5,474
3,383
2.736
1,691
20
37
7
15
1,869
2,914
1.667
2,912
15
13
13
13
7,938
14,421
1,597
2.873
10
11
7
9
143,962
21,920
2,925
2,182
. 11
28
8
21
32,384
20,866
3,207
2,069
17
30
10
22
23,956
7,891
4,782
1.566
13
24
8
16
1,085
1,375
1.090
1.372
9
17
6
13
15,639
11,689
3.H2
2.327
18
47
13
32
2,674
9,546
2.671
1.896
16
26
13
23
4,422
7,342 •
5g?j—
cuv
TOTAL
FAMILIES
ENUMERATED
ib
Houston^
"'"lliis:::
Philadelphia
White—
Negro.
Richmond**
8U
si-
Richmond is included in t h i s t a b l e because of i t s U r g e Negro
population although i t s t o t a l population was less than 250,000
in 1930.
The t o t a l sample includes cases of "unknown family t y ^ e . " See
appendix t a b l e 4 for number of such cases.
Percentages were
computed on the basis of known types only.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
98
APPENDIX A
Face of Schedule
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ADMINISTRATION
HARRY L HOPKINS. AOMINISTMTOR
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
OCTOBER
1933
This Frfcedole I* le be lined oat In M l for every •nempUymeiit relief case (family, fceneheld, or resident • " ; f J £ ° 2 L ? 7 3 $
receiving fit her work relief or direct relief or both from pablic fundi (Federal. SUte. or loc»l) daring the month of O c t o b e r J »
Do not All out for transient cases, for cases receiving relief from pticat* fund* only, or for person* receiving w w • » • • • •
orphans' pensions, mother*' aid. otd-nfo relief, aid to the blind, or almshouse relief. Use a separate achedue for eaea
family (household), aad Cor each resident non-family person.
niAO CAurvixv THC ocrixiTioNs rniMTco OM w e sac* or THIS SCMKOULI
, Name of thc agency giving relief to the c a s e 2. Full name and street address of head of family, or of resident non-family person:
Name
(If >n tdwUflciiies
. Address -,
tttt»btt'i'i^b7'itilkii^uti^My^hvui.'^9CMS
snmbif'niif'ntiatd UutttA of sams. «Bd «ddf»M*Bi"ty t» oaltwl)
3. Place of residence of family, or of non-family person:
(5) County..
(«) SUte...
(e) Location within county (make entry for one of the following):
(1) If living within limits of any city, village, or other Incorporated place, enter nam* of such place below:
(2) If not living within limits of any city, village, or other Incorporated place, check fy) here
D
ft. Color of head of family, or of non-family person (check ( f ) one of the following):
1. White Q
3. Mexican Q
6. Japanese D
2. Negro D
<- Chinese D
6. Indian
Q
7. Filipino
ft.
D
Other
&zn
"~
ft. Relationship, sex, nod age of each person In family, or of resident non-family person, who received relief during October 103*
(Enter the head of the family on line 1, followed by the other members, such *s "wife", "son", "grand-daugbt*r .eit.
In the event that the relationship cannot be determined, enter the first name of the person. Leave no unused lines
between names. If the schedule is filled out for a non-family person, enter first name on line i . use a acparaie scneoule for each family and for each resident non-family person.)
^
MLATlONSfltr TO M A D
OF FAMILY
(U M I •rtitthte. fur I n t asstt *f PWMS)
MALES FEMALF.»T
Actiartwi At* IS ytirt
(for tkikl
(far rtilkl
nsijrrl y*»t
enter-t*>
MAKE WO ENTRIES IM T B » « COLUMNS
NUMBS*
FVMALE1
Under I y e a r , . — . 1 through ft y e a r s - .
ft through 13 years14 and 15 y t * m _
1ft and 17 years.—.
18 through 24 year*.
25 through 34 yi
35 through 44 years.
45 through 54 years.
56 through 54 years.J..
65 years and over.
15 I
...—*
—
1
L
....J
H W-UM
atgssturasrlsitkiJssrpsiMall
AT TMt KNO OP EACH PAY FOBWAKD ALL COW f LET ED ECHEDULE9 TO OFFICE DETONATED BT VOttt STATE BnJsW apa|naW«*T©*
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
99
Back of Schedule
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
This census is designed to provide information which is essential to the proper
administration of relief during the coming year. It is of the utmost importance
that all information called for be entered completely and accurately. Information regarding individual families or persons will be held strictly confidential.
DEFINITIONS
Family or household,—A family or household is a group of related or unrelated
persons living together at one address, who are receiving relief and who are
considered as one "case" by the agency giving the relief.
Resident nonfamily person.—A resident nonfamily person is any individual
receiving relief, not included in a family or household as defined above, who has
lived in the State for 1 year or more.
Transient case.—A transient case is a nonfamily person or a family that has
lived in the State for less than 1 year. Do notfillout a schedule for transient
cases.
100
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
APPEND^ B
Limitations of the Data and of the Analysis
In the section on Method of Analysis (pp. 101-107) there is a detailed
description and evaluation of this analysis of the family composition of the cases on emergency relief rolls in October 1933. At
this point it is necessary merely to mention a few of the outstanding
factors which limit the type of generalizations that can be made*
1. This is an analysis of the family composition of the relief
case and not necessarily of the whole household or family group of
persons on relief. The case-unit was determined according to local
practice and undoubtedly varied from one locality to another. It is,
of course, highly probable that the relief family itself also varied
greatly from one locality to another. In this report, however, £a§fi
and family or household cannot be separated and it is impossible to
determine to what extent the differences reflect real differences
in family composition, or mere differences in local practices in
defining the case-unit. This point is of less importance administratively than scientifically. The relief administration is concerned
with the case as a unit and is interested in the amount of local
variation, irrespective of its cause. From the research standpoint,
however, it introduces serious limitations. It invalidates any comparison, for example, with the non-relief family because of the
possibility of differences in the definition of the family unit
2. The number of cases on emergency relief varies from one locality
to another depending upon the extent to which other state, local
and private means of handling certain types of cases have been
effectively developed. This point has particular significance with
regard to the proportion of old-age and female-with-dependentchildren cases on emergency relief. Part of the variation in these
proportions is undoubtedly due to local variations in the development and effective administration of various forms of old age and
mothers' aid pensions or subsidies.
3. This analysis was made on the basis of data collected for the
Unemployment Relief Census. In planning this Census no provision
was made for an analysis of family composition. This analysis,
therefore, is a by-product of the Census and does not derive from
its original plan. It is not surprising, therefore, to find inadequacies in the data themselves for the purpose at hand. Especially
serious was the variation in defining the head of the family, which,
as explained in detail on page 102 has introduced a spurious element
into the definition,of family-types.
Granting these various limitations, however, this analysis presents
the most complete picture possible, at the present time, of the
family composition of relief cases in the United States.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
101
APPENDIX C
Method of Analysis 1 /
Of the 3,186,181 schedules received in the October 1933 Unemployment Relief Census, 3,178,089 contained sufficient detail to make
possible an analysis of the size of family, color or race of head,
and the age of the persons in the relief families, for various
geographical units. Previously published reports have shown this
detail for geographic divisions, States, and counties by urban and
rural areas in each division, State, or county, and by principal
cities. These same schedules have been used for the further analysis
described in this report, i.e., the analysis of the composition of
the relief case in terms of family types and of certain of the social
problems involved.
Definition of Types
In making this analysis several arbitrary decisions were necessary. One schedule represented a single relief case. All the persons involved in a single case were classed as a single family type.
Types were determined on the basis of the relationship of family
members to the head designated in the schedule.
Foster or adopted children were thrown into the same class as own
children. Children, unless otherwise specified, were defined by
relationship to head and not in terms of their ages. All persons,
except the wife or children of the head, were classed as "others."
On this basis six "pure" types were determined:
(1) Husband-wife
(2) Husband*wife-children
(3) Woman-children
(4) Man-children
(5) Non-family man (man alone)
(6) Non-family woman (woman alone)
and six mixed types:
(7) Husband-wife-others
(8) Husband-wife-children-others
(9) Woman-children-others
(10) Man-chi ldren-others
(11) Non-family man-others
(12) Non-family woman-others
These types require further explanation. The type was determined by the head designated in the schedule. The six "pure" types
are clear-cut. "Children" refers always to the own or foster children of the head. These children are defined in terms of relationship to the head, not by age. Thus a family consisting of a man
of 60 (no spouse in household) designated as head of the family, and his
1/ For a description of the method of collecting data, see Unemployment Relief Census, Report Number One, pp. 19-20, or Report
Number Two, p. 10.
102
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
son of 40, is classified under the "man-children" type, just as a
man of 22 with a son 1 year old is similarly classified.
The six mixed types are more heterogeneous. In types (7), (8),
(9) and (10), for instance, "others" can represent sons-in-law,
grand-children, nieces, nephews, sisters, brothers, mother, father,
etc., of the head, but never includes his own or foster children.
Types (11) and (12) are the least homogeneous. This is due to the
fact that, in constructing types, it was necessary to accept the
statement made on the schedule as to the identity of the family
head, for the relationship of all other members of the family had
been expressed only with reference to this designated head and not
with reference to each other. In some states there was a tendency
to designate as head of the family that person who applied for
relief on behalf of his or her household. Thus, a boy of 18 applying
for relief on behalf of his mother, aged38, father, aged 40, sisters,
aged 2, 4, 10, brothers, aged 3, 6, 7, 13, grandfather, aged 63,
would be designated as head of this household. Although such a
family contains a husband, wife, and (presumably) their children,
it must be classified as a "man-others" type, for no member of the
household was a spouse or child of the person designated as head*
Similarly, a number of "man-others" and "woman-others" families
were presumably broken families (e.g., a young man applying for
relief for his mother, brothers and sisters), but could not be so
classified without changing the heads designated on the schedules.
Because of the difficulty of interpreting certain of the tables
relating to types without a more detailed knowledge of these heterogeneous classes, the following summary analysis of certain factors
involved in these types is presented.
The extent to which the family types are composed of families
containing children under 16 years of age can be shown by an analysis of the three "pure" and three mixed types containing the children
of the head. As previously indicated, children are defined in the
type-analysis in terms of relationship rather than of age. The overlapping of the two classifications, relationship and age, is shown
in the following summary for the United States:
Type Containing
Children of head,
(with or without "others")
Husband-Wife-Children
Man-Children
Woman-Children
Total
Tvoe
100
100
100
Estimated Percent
Some or all
Children under 16
89
67
69
All Children
"ver 16 11
33
31
Thus, there were some children under 16 in about 9 out of 10 families
of the husband-wife-children type, and in about 7 out of 10 of the
man-children and woman-children types.
By definition, three types can contain no children, i.e M husbandwife, non-family man and non-family woman, unless the head himself
(or his spouse) is under 16 years of age. This happens in less than
1 percent of these cases. These three types, however, when "others"
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
103
are involved can, by definition, contain children under 16, although not the own or foster children of the designated head.
The extent to which this occurs is indicated in the following
summary for the United States:
Family Type
Husband-Wife-Others
Non-Family Man-Others
Non-Family Woman-Others
Estimated Percent
Containing
Total Children under 16 Containing
Type but not Children no Children
of Designated Head under 16
100
39
61
100
33
67
100
38
62
These percentages are surprisingly high, from one-third to two-fifths
of all such cases actually containing children of the age-groups under
16. This suggests that the designation of "head" in these schedules
may have been on a quite arbitrary basis and may not have taken into
account the person normally responsible, economically, for these
children. Further evidence on this point is indicated by the following summary showing the extent to which the parents of the
designated head are involved in certain types of families. These
percentages are again surprisingly high, especially for the nonfamily man-others type, where two-thirds of the cases contained one
or both parents of the head and about one-half contained only the
mother of the head.
Estimated
Contain- ContainFamily Type
"Total ing
inff
Type Father
Only
and
Father
Mother of Head
.
of Head
Husband-Wife-Others
100
4
4
Non-Family Man-Others
100
15
4
Non-Family Woman-Others 100
4
2
Percent
Contain- Contain
ing
ing
Only
One or
Mother
Both
of Head Parents
of Head
15
23
47
66
20
26
The preceding tables indicate the range of uncertainty in the
definition of types. The 11 percent of the husband-wife-children
type in which all children were over 16 would have been class i"fie4
as non-family-man-(or woman)-others, if the head had been shifted
from the parent to one of the adult children. Similarly, 33 percent
of the man-children and 31 percent of the woman-children cases might
have been classified as non-family man (or woman)-others. Conversely,
4 percent of the husband-wife-others families would have been classified as husband-wife-children (with or without "others") if the parent
had been designated head and 4 percent would have been classified
as man-children and 15 percent as woman-children (both of the latter
vith or without "others," depending upon the detailed composition).
104
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
The most striking variation would have occurred in the non-family
man-others class, if the parent had been designated as head. Over
half of these cases would then have become broken families rather
than non-family groups and 15 percent would have become normal
families.
The necessity for accepting the head as designated on the schedules
has been mentioned previously. The fact that a certain artificiality
results cannot be overlooked, however. The net result for the United
States data is probably a slight overestimate of the non-family
groups, and a slight underestimate of the broken families, especially the woman-children type. That local practices in regard to
the designation of head may cause some variation in the degree of
over- and under-emphasis for local areas is probable, but the data
are too scanty to permit a reliable state-by-state comparison.
Definition of Age-Problem Classes
Partly because of this unreliability inherent in the definition
of types and partly because of the possibility of bringing rehabilitat ion problems into stronger emphasis, these cases were further
analyzed without regard to conventionalized family types, each case
being classified according to the ages of the persons comprising it.
This analysis led to the determination of certain age-problem classes, i.e., those containing persons 65 years of age or over, those
containing children under 16, those containing neither old persons
nor children, each in turn sub-divided according to whether or not
it contained persons of the intermediate age-groups (16-64) of either
or both sexes. In this analysis, children, as specified, were defined
as "under sixteen years of age," and relationship to head was disregarded. These types were as follows:
1. Families with children under 16 and persons 65 and over:
(a) Containing both males and females 16-64 years of age
(b) Containing males only 16-64 years of age
(c) Containing females only 16-64 years of age
(d) Containing neither males nor females 16-64 years of age
2. Famil ies with children under 16 but no person 65 and overt
(a) Containing both males and females 16-64 years of age
(b) Containing males only 16-64 years of age
(c) Containing females only 16-64 years of age
(d) Containing neither males nor females 16-64 years of age
3. Families with persons 65 and over but no children under 16:
(a) Containing both males and females 16-64 years of age
(b) Containing males only 16-64 years of age
(c) Containing females only 16-64 years of age
(d) Containing neither males nor females 16-64 years of age
4. Families with neither children under 16 nor persons 65 and over:
(a) Containing both males and females 16-64 years of age
(b) Containing males only 16-64 years of age
(c) Containing females only 16-64 years of age
By cutting across this classification, as is done in Tables 4 and 8,
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
105
the rehabilitation problems are brought into focus, e.g., 1 (d) and
3 (d) represent the most extreme form of the old-age problem, 1 (c)
and 2(c) the most extreme form of the female-with-dependent children
problem, etc.
_Selection of Cases by Sampling
It was not considered necessary to analyze every one of the
3,178,089 schedules available from the Relief Census, provided a
sample truly representative of these three million odd cases could
be obtained. Assurance that no selective factors would enter into
this sample could be obtained if it could be drawn in such a way
that all cases had equal chances of being represented. It has often
been demonstrated that a purely random selection fulfills these
conditions and this was attempted as a basis for the family composition analysis. The schedules had been arranged serially in portfolios, according to rural and urban areas as in each county in the
United States. It was decided to draw a large enough sample to
give a minimum of 1,500 schedules each for the urban and the rural
portions of each State. The approximate ratio that would produce
such a minimum was then determined. For example, 24,368 urban
and 10,683 rural schedules had been obtained from the Census for
Iowa. One out of every ten urban schedules would give about 2,437
schedules, well above our minimum, and one out of every five rural
schedules would give about 2,137, also a satisfactory number.
Ideally, the portfolios should have been sampled consecutively, so
that if three cases were left over in the first urban portfolio, the
first case selected from the second urban portfolio would have been
the seventh. Since many clerks were needed for the sampling, this
was not always practicable, and the selection was made from the
beginning of every portfolio, the schedules left over at the end of
each being sampled separately. Because of the crudity of this
method, the exact number expected in the sample was not always
obtained. Thus in Iowa, instead of the expected 2,437 urban schedules, 2,423 were obtained, and instead of the expected 2,137 ru'ral
schedules, 2,122 were obtained. The actual size of the sampl-e
obtained for each class is indicated in each table.
The total sample obtained for the United States comprised 207,850
schedules, or about 6£ percent of all the schedules obtained in the
Unemployment Relief Census.
If each of the State urban or rural samples could be considered
representative of the tirea from which it was drawn, a representative
picture of a larger area, combining several smaller areas, could be
built up multiplying each small area by a number representing the
actual sampling ratio and adding the products. Thus, for the State
of Iowa, dividing the urban schedules obtained by sampling into the
urban schedules obtained in the Census gives a sampling ratio of
10.057 (instead of the even 10 expected). Similarly, the sampling
ratio for rural areas was 5.0344 (instead of the even 5 expected).
The number of each rural racial group (Negroes, whites, other races)
106
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
for the State is found by multiplying the urban Negroes in the sample
by 10.057, the rural Negroes in the sample by 5.0344, and adding the
two products. The same method was used for the other two racial
groups. Precisely the same method was used to obtain the number of
cases of any type for the whole State. The United States total was
built up by adding the State totals.
The sampling for the large cities analyzed in this report was the
same, in principle, as for the States. For 23 of the 38 cities
(all cities with populations of 250,000 or more in 1930 and all
cities having a Negro population of 50,000 or more in 1930) a ratio
was computed for the whole city and the city totals were constructed
by multiplying the sample by this ratio. For fifteen of the cities,
a white-Negro comparison was considered desirable because of the
large number of resident Negroes. In order to obtain a sufficiently
large sample of both Negroes and whites in these cities, separate
sampling ratios were used for Negroes and for whites, and the total
was built up by applying these ratios to each racial group, summing
the products and adding in the number (usually very small) of cases
of "other races." A total of 129,135 schedules was obtained in the
sample for principal cities±/ of which 43,177 whites and 31,469
Negroes were from the 15 cities having a Negro population of 50,000
or more in 1930.
Certain tests of the representativeness of the sample obtained
can readily be made. The following tables bear on this point. The
first of these shows the percent of whites, Negroes, and other races
found in the total Unemployment Relief Census for each State and
for urban and rural areas in each State, compared with the percent
of each racial group in the sample for each State and each urban
and rural area. The second shows the number of families consisting
of one person, two persons, etc., up to seven or more persons by
States and urban and rural areas in each State for the total Census
compared with the sample. It is clear that the sample was very
similar to the Census in respect to color or race and size of familyOne test of the statistical significance of the difference between
the percentages of the sample and the Census is obtained by comparing
the difference with its standard deviation. If the difference is less
than twice its standard deviation, it may be assumed that the sample
was reasonably representative of the Census. If, however, the difference is greater than three times its standard deviation, it indicates that the sample probably over- or under-represented the
particular class concerned. Except for a very slight excess of one
person cases in Kentucky, there were no definitely significant
differences in size. No other differences between proportions
exceeded the limits permitted in a random sample. 2/
^
1/ Washington, D.C. is included both in United States and city
totals.
2/ Unpublished tables.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
107
Estimate of Totals and of Percentages
Since it is highly improbable that the number in any type or
racial class derived for any area by applying a ratio to the sample
is precisely what would have resulted from an analysis of every case
in the Census, all data except State totals, totals for urban and
rural areas within each State, city totals and totals for whites and
Negroes for the 15 selected cities, are given as estimates and are
presented in a form where they are accurate to the hundreds only.
Thus, for Iowa the total number of urban whites obtained by applying
the urban ratio to the sample was 23,251 and the total number of
urban Negroes was 945. It is almost certain that the last digit in
each of these figures would differ-from the last digit if the whole
Census had been analyzed, and highly probable that the next to the
last digit would also differ from the "true" Census figure. It is
therefore, actually more precise to express both of these figures
correct to the nearest hundred than to express them with the last
two digits. Urban whites were therefore estimated as 23,300 and
urban Negroes as 900. Half of the cases in which the last digits
were exactly 50 were raised to the next hundred, half lowered by
applying the arbitrary rule that 50's in "odd" hundreds should be
raised, all in "even" hundreds lowered, e.g., 150 and 250 were both
estimated as 200.
Percentages were computed on the basis of the actual sample
rather than on the basis of the estimated totals. Percentages were
rounded to the nearest whole percent, e.g., 2.68 percent was estimated as 3 percent, 2.45 as 2 percent. The same rule noted above
was applied for percentages ending exactly in .50. No percentages
were computed for any class where the total number of cases obtained
in the sample for that class was less than 100.
Type of family could not be determined in 3,750 of the State
schedules and in 589 of the city schedules because relationship to
the head had not been recorded for one or more individuals in the
family, j y According to the procedure generally followed these
"unknowns" were excluded from the base before computing percentage's.
The number of such cases excluded from the various samples is shown
in Tables 3 (States) and 4 (cities) of this Appendix.
Because of the greater usefulness of percentage estimates than
of estimates of the actual number of these cases in October 1933,
no detailed data tables are published in this report. The tables
listed in Appendix D are available in the Division of Research,
Statistics and Finance, Federal Emergency Relief Administration,
in Washington.
1/ See p. 100 o n Limitations of the Data and of the Analysis.
108
Arrtntu T » m 1 .
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
or Mi At P o m - t * t i r
COM*
STATS* f O i tlRSAt
TOTAL
PIRCIMT
WNITS
ClMSSS S A M P L S
Unittd StatesAlabaaa
Arizona
—
Arkansas
—
California —
53.2
94.2
65.0
22.0
52.4
16.3
41.1
5.0
27.0
5.4
4.6
5.8
35.0
78.0
47.6
53.6
96.8
82.7
87.3
96.6
46.3
.9
16.1
12.6
3.2
46.4
.8
16.7
12.6
2.9
80.0
58.8
51.8
72.9
84.9
Colorado — —
Connecticut
Delaware <
District of Col.
Florida
—
—
84.3
93.4
65.0
21.9
52.8
Gaorgia Idaho
Illinois
Indiana Iowa
—
53.7
98.8
Kansas
Kentucky Louisiana •
Maine
Maryland -
85.5
91.6
54.2
99.5
63.4
85.6
92.2
53.9
99.8
63.8
13.3
8.4
45.6
.3
36.6
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
—
Mississippi —
Missouri
96.7
90.3
98.2
57.2
71.9
96.2
90.7
98.2
57.0
72.5
U
Montana Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
—
97.9
91.1
91.5
99.6
80.8
98.5
91.5
91.6
99.9
81.0
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota —
Ohio
90.2
90.0
55.8
98.5
82.0
91.0
90.7
56.9
98.8
81.4
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania —<
Rhode Island —»
South Carolina •
86.2
98.9
86.6
94.9
45.3
86.6
98.9
86.9
95.3
45.4
South Dakota
Tennessee
—
Texas
•• •• •
Utah
Veraont
99.7
78.8
58.0
96.2
99.8
99.5
78.4
57.8
98.3
99.9
11.5
.6
13.3
5.0
54.7
.2
21.2
20.4
.5
.2
Virginia
Washington
—
Vest Virginia
Wisconsin
—
Wyoaing • — —
54.4
98.5
93.0
96.3
95.6
54.9
98.8
93.4
96.3
95.5
45.6
1.1
7.0
2.4
1.5
PIACIMT
Omit iACtt
Csasss SAMFLII CtMSSS SAMPLI
18.2
41.3
4.9
26.7
5.3
4.1
6.6
35.0
78.1
47.2
80.0
56.7
51.8
73.2
84.9
87.2
96.2
PiactMT
Ntsso
1.5
42.8
27.8
.5
8.5
.8
•3
19.1
.8
9.7
43-9
.1
17.9
l
tt
45.9
.3
36.2
3.8
8.8
1.6
42.9
27.2
1.6
9.8
11.6
:«
.2
.6
1.2
™2
.2
.1
.5
.3
.2
8.1
.7
.1
19.0
1.6
.4
7.7
.1
.1
.4
9.1
42.9
.1
18.5
9.0
11.
2 »:i
20.6
.6
.1
45.0
.9
6.6
2.6
1.6
.3
.3
1.4
.1
2.3
.5
.1
.1
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
ANO R U R A L
AREAS
Census, O C T O S E R
URBAN
SAMPLE
77,8
44.5
44.3
59.5
84.8
83.4
93*5
62.4
56.8
78.3
71.6
37.3
99.6
59.9
19.8
28.5
61.6
.5
40.6
19.6
28.4
62.5
96.1
87.4
97.8
44.4
65.5
3.3
3.S
12.2
2.0
55.6
34.1
98.7
87.7
95.6
99.9
80.5
12.6
2.0
54.7
34.7
.8
12.3
1.0
-3
19.6
91.9
90.1
41.7
99.3
77.5
.3
SAMPLE
1.8
1.8
49.4
.1
9.3
49.0
.1
9.0
9.9
10.6
.3
.7
.2
.8
.4
.7
.1
.7
1.9
2.1
__
~T
.2
.1
40.1
A SAMPLE
..4
.2
.1
.4
.1
.4
.3
DRAWN
FROM
THAT
PEJTCENT
NESRO
SAMPLE
CENSUS
SAMPLE
CENSUS
83.7
64.5
57.9
81.8
85.5
83.9
64.9
57.8
81.5
85.5
14.7
35.5
3.6
18.2
1.6
14.6
35.0
3.7
18.4
.9
36.5
82.6
97.0
75.8
82.7
97.0
75.8
.6
3-0
24.2
.5
3-0
24.2
64.2
63.1
1.1
.7
95.8
96.2
70.7
99.7
85.5
96.0
96.9
70.8
99.6
85.7
97.6
97.4
99.6
61.4
94.2
97.0
97.6
99.7
61.6
94.7
VI
29.0
.2
14.3
2.8
1.6
38.4
5.2
.6
9.7
58.2
.4
22.3
8.8
.'2
7.4
.1
~T
~~T
90.6
95.2
65.5
98.3
93.9
90.5
95.1
66.1
98.7
94.1
88.6
98.9
95.2
93.5
45.9
89.3
98.9
95.8
94.1
46.0
8.6
.3
4.2
5.8
34.0
99.8
93.7
66.4
99.3
99.8
99.6
93.7
66.9
99.4
99.9
.3
6.3
12.9
.1
.1
72.7
99.1
95.7
96.6
99.0
73.1
99.3
96.0
96.9
99.0
99.5
56.4
54.0
97.7
99.9
.5
42.8
23.4
.7
.2
.5
43.6
23.8
.9
.1
44.8
98.6
85.4
96.1
SI.8
55.9
1.4
15.2
55.2
1.2
14.6
3.5
3.1
22.1
1.7
22.2
1.4
.2
•5
5.1
.4
5.1
16.8
32*6
99.7
88.6
99.6
84.4
.2
I2T9"
^To"
97.7
99.4
88.5
99.4
84.1
1.6
.4
.1
.2
1.6
3sTe~ 3675"
32.2
67.8
99.7
93.4
98.6
99.2
.9
.5
3.5
1.4'
.4
.1
.1
SY
PERCENT
OTHER RACES
CENSUS
.9
.5
3.5
a
CENSUS,
AREAS
PERCENT
WHITE
.3
11.8
.9
.1
19.5
18.1
.6
17.9
4.5
55.9
3.3
3.0
CENSUS
56.6
39.1
97.9
80.8
82.6
95.4
IN
RURAL
PERCENT
OTHER RACES
HEfiftO
CENSUS[SAMPLE
ANO
AREAS
PERCENT
PERCENT
WHITE
1933,
109
15.6
0.2
4.2
33.6
6.1
27.
2.2
.3
10.8
.2
.1
9.1
.8
.4
1.7
5^8
26.8
.3
4.0
.2
0.1
2.7
.8
.1
-.2
20.3
.5
.1
.1
.6
"IT
.9
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
110
APPENDIX
TABLE
2.
COMPARISON
OF F A M I L I E S
SY
Sizt
IN U N E M P L O Y M E N T
ONE
PINION
RELIEF
C E N S U S . OCTO
Two
PENSONS
STATES
CENSUS
SAMPLE
CENSUS
SAMPLE
13.1
5.8
16.9
14.9
22.2
13.1
5.6
17.0
15.0
21.5
17.5
15.0
15.9
20.0
22.2
17.5
15.0
15.7
19.7
22.3
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida —
21.7
11.8
14.1
24.4
15.2
21.2
11.7
14.1
24.4
15*2
18.0
15.4
20.7
24.3
21.9
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana Iowa — —
12.1
20.8
17.4
12.4
9.0
12.1
20.8
17.4
12.6
9.0
18.4
16.2
20.5
23.6
22.0
18.4
17.9
19.6
21.8
17.5
6.8
12.8
6.1
20.9
13-4
18.0
14.8
18.7
-20.8
12.8
17.7
14.0
19.4
United StatesAlabama — —
Arizona — —
Arkansas — —
California —
10.8
Kansas
Kentucky Louisiana
Maine
Maryland -
3.3
19.6
18.0
19.7
22.2
16.4
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota — — Mississippi
Missouri — — -
22.9
11.8
23.7
11.9
17.1
22.9
12.2
24.0
12.2
16.7
16.2
18.2
14.9
17.4
21.7
16.4
17.5
14.5
16.9
22.1
Montana Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
25.2
12.8
53.9
17.6
11.4
25.2
12.8
53.9
17.3
10.7
16.1
18.4
14.2
15.2
16.7
16.1
16.8
14.2
15.2
16-. 8
New Mexico •
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota —
Ohio
15.1
8.0
10.8
11.3
16.2
14.7
7.8
10.4
11.5
16.8
14.9
17.0
14.5
11.2
19.6
14.9
16.5
15.4
11.0
19.7
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania —
Rhode Island —
South Carolina
10.8
26.0
12.6
10.0
9.9
12.1
26.2
13.0
9.5
9.4
18.4
20.4
15.2
16.0
14.6
18.4
19.8
15.4
15.3
14.9
South Dakota ~Tennessee — — Texas
—
—
Utah
——-.
Vermont —
8.4
2.7
13.0
17.7
11.9
8.9
2.8
12.7
17.2
12.0
13.7
13-1
17.3
14.7
14.7
13-5
12.7
16.4
14.2
14.5
Virginia
Washington — —
West Virginia Wisconsin — — •
Wyoming
— —
8.4
19.2
9.8
19.1
25.3
8.0
19.8
9.5
19.4
25.3
16.3
20.5
14.3
15.5
17.7
16.8
20.8
14.5
15.3
17.6
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
M * 1933,
STATES
AMP IN A SAMPLE DRAIN FROM TNAT CENSUS
AS
SHOWN
111
IT PERCENTASE OP EACH Size,
^^ss=ss
TNRCC
PERSONS
FOUR
PERSONS
FIVE
PERSONS
CENSUS
SAMPLE
CENSUS
SAMPLE
CENSUS
SAMPLE
17.7
17.7
14.9
18.0
19.1
17.6
J17.3
14.7
18.7
19.1
16.1
16.3
14.8
15.4
14.9
16.3
16.2
15.2
16.2
15.0
12.3
13.7
11.6
11.6
12.3
14.5
11.6
11.7
9.2
9.1
16.3
16.3
18.3
18.8
19.0
16.4
14.5
18.0
19.2
18.8
14.4
16.1
16.2
13.4
15.2
14.5
16.9
16.6
13.6
15.1
10.9
13-3
11.4
10.8
13.5
11.7
7.9
7.3
10.6
10.6
18.8
16.6
18.1
17.4
19.3
17.8
16.6
18.1
16.7
19.4
15.8
13.5
15.8
15.1
17.2
15.8
13-6
15.0
15.6
18.1
11.8
11.7
11.2
11.4
12.8
11.9
11.6
11.4
10.7
13.1
19.7
17.1
19.9
14.1
19.8
19.6
17.9
20.4
14.2
19.9
16.8
16.8
17.6
14.1
17.8
16.5
17.1
16.6
14.3
17.7
11.8
14.2
.12.9
12.1
13-0
11.7
15.3
12.9
12.3
11.5
15.2
18.0
15.8
16."9
17.8
15.4
16.4
15.8
17.0
17.4
14.2
16.6
14.8
15.3
14.8
14.1
17.4
14.2
16.1
15.3
10.9
12.9
11.0
12.1
10.6
15.2
17.3
14.9
16.6
14.1
15.8
13.8
16.8
9.7
9.8
9.4
9.1
14.7
17.6
13.7
18.1
13.6
16.9
14.7
20.4
15.1
14.5
17.3
14.8
20.0
15.0
14.8
16.9
18.5
16.8
16.2
15.9
16.3
SIX
CENSUS
PERSONS
SAMPLE
S E V E N OR
MORE
PERSONS
CENSUS
SAMPLE
9.9
7.4
5.8
14.6
21.0
16.4
11.5
7.0
14.5
21.4
16.0
11.4
7-3
7.i2
7.8
9.5
7.1
4.4
6.9
11.016.6
12.5
6.9
10.9
11.3
18.4
11.7
6.8
11.4
8.5
7.9
7.4
8.2
9.1
8.4
7.7
7.8
8.5
8.7
14.6
11.6
10.5
13.7
15.1
14.4
11.6
10.5
13.8
15.3
8.4
12.1
23.5
16.3
21.3
16.2
8.7
8.6
10.5
10.0
9.4
8.3
5.3
2:1
6.9
5.0
8.1
9.0
9.2
11.8
22.9
16.0
21.4
15.8
11.2
12.9
10.9
11.7
10.4
7.8
9.0
7.5
9.1
7.3
8.2
8.5
7.8
9.0
7.5
12.8
13.5
12.?
17.3
10.7
11.8
13.1
12.7
17.0
10.4
10.4
12.4
10.4
12.0
5.2
5.4
14.7
17.4
10.9
13.3
10.9
13.0
7.4
8.6
3.1
9.6
9.3
8.2
9.0
3.0
9.5
9.5
11.6
14.7
4.5
18.4
14.8
11.4
13.9
4.7
18.7
14.6
14.8
19.5
14.5
15.3
15.2
14.7
19.8
15.4
16.3
16.3
11.3
13.7
12.9
13.8
11.4
11.5
14.2
12.1
13.7
11.8
10.3
18.9
12.5
21.3
23.5
12.4
19.*
12.3
21.0
23.6
11.7
18.5
16.5
15.8
16.9
16.9
16.6
14.5
15.7
16.0
15.4
15.5
14.6
15.8
16.3
15.0
12.7
12.4
9.3
9.8
13.0
13.2
12.6
13-2
14.0
12.3
13.9
7.3
17.8
18.9
21.2
14.3
7.1
17.8
17.7
21.6
17.5
16.9
17.6
15.7
16.2
17.2
17.0
16.1
16.0
16.2
17.5
17.5
16.4
15.1
14.7
15.7
17.5
17.2
15.1
14.8
14.4
15.1
12.6
12.0
11.7
18.1
22.7
13.9
15.7
19.5
18.0
22.7
14.1
15.7
19.4
17.2
19.1
16.6
16.9
14.1
17.0
18.0
17.1
17.1
14.2
16.2
16.4
15.6
15.5
13.1
16.5
16.3
15.9
15.4
13.1
13-1
10.6
13.0
11.7
11.1
19.3
1 7.5
20.5
13.3
1 12.4
19.1
7.6
20.7
13.2
12.3
11.3
9.3
10.4
10.3
10.1
9.4
11.2
8.9
9.3
10.9
10.4
10.6
7.9
9.2
7.0
9.1
5.7
9.5
8.7
6.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
10.2
16.2
15.0
12.3
11.8
11.7
10.4
12.0
10.5
12.3
9.2
9.1
9.3
13.4
10.0
12.4
11.6
11.1
9.5
6.7
11.3
10.2
8.0
6.3
9.8
10.0
11.3
9.2
7.5
lO.t)
8.0
6-3
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
112
AFPENOIX
OF
TASLE 3.
COMPARISON OF NuMSEft OF FAMILIES
FAMILY UNKNOWN,
ST
13750
14
526
1
yss I
571
4I
151
4
274
1.4
172
154
12
1
44
95
21
29
249
14
15
216
249
Georgia—
Idaho
Illinois——•
Indiana
——
Iowa*——»...»»•.<
17
385
6
616
40
6
548
40
Kansas——<
Kentucky—
Louisiana——Maine
..—.
Maryland—**—.'
61
29
23
**97
7
"97
6
MassachusettsMichigan—
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri—.....
9
11
5
43
11
9
10
5
22
10
Montana
..—
Nebraska
Nevada———
New HampshireNew J e r s e y —
14
47
7
45
39
14
46
6
45
38
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina..
North D a k o t a Ohio.
22
24
24
168
33
19
9
8
168
22
15
16
4
1
74
3
5I
54
Oklahoma—
Oregon—
PennsylvaniaRhode I s l a n d South CarolinaSouth Dakota
Tennessee—
Texas...........
Utah
Vermont*-.......
46
14
132
42
13
58
399
30
9
3
18
398
24
4
Virginia.—
Washington......
West V i r g i n i a Wisconsin-.-....
Wyoning——
6
20
1-65
6
60
2
20
161
6
59
3
1326
158 I
422
1
116
3
5
18
154
5I
118
1
312 ,
13 !
1
118
1
250
13
34
12 1
27
6
11
95 I
9
62
10
...
1£92
6
10
252
1
1J335
6
6
9
154
187
12
267
5
27
17 I
21
1
5I
4
7
1
22
1
4
13
1
4
18
6
15
37
4
17
5
15
36
15 i
21
10
4
*
16
12
6
1
41
8
4
23
11
73
4
21
10
28
213
9
6
212
3
1
1
2
53
2
2
51
2
7
1
"i
4I
8
267
5
298
27
27
17
*38
6
5
4
4
13
21
10 I
10
10
29
1
30
2
10
29
1
30
2
7
7
127
17
7
127
•14
"15 I
3'
9
"i
2
217
1
"~19
"~38
7.
18
EACH $TATf WITH T Y F I
I TOTAL | WHITE |
I TOTAL) WHITE I
3161
3
2
375
1
Colorado——
Connecticut—
Delaware——
District of Col
Florida
OF
COLOR OR RACC OF HEAO, AND URIAH AND RURAL AREAS
| T O T A L | WHITE | TOTAL
United S t a t e s Alabama—
Arizona—
Arkansas—
California
•
IN SAMPLE
3
2
1
45
59
5
21
3
30
186
21
186
21
5
23
A
3
3
16
16
18
112
4
2
18
110
4
52
52 I
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
113
MflMttX TAttl W
C O M M A S t S O N or Nsust* or F*yiiits I N S A M P I S or E A C H C I T T W I T H 290,000
" " W I T•»
TT
Or PFAMIIT
UNKNOWN,
ANt
WITH
"ittflo AMO ™W N I T S ' C I A S '
on Moss •oretnTioe IN "
1930
H T
TM
M or
AMILT U
NKNOWN, A
NS W
ITH l
SIMCATION
res C m c s W I T H 50,000 OR Moti Niesots IN 1930
TOTAL
Total
Akron, Ohio
—
Atlanta, Ga. * Baltimore, Md.*
Birmingham, Ala.
WHITS
Nieso
190
U3
4
2
12
1
154
95
--
5"
Boston, Mats. — •
Buffalo. H, V. Chicago, 111.* —
Cincinnati,. Ohio •
Cleveland, Ohio'
Columbus. Ohio •
Dallas, Texas •
Oenvor, Colo. — —
Dotroit, Mich.* —
Houston, Toxas* —
Indianapolis, Ind.
Jersey City, N. J.
Kansas City, Mo. —
Los Angelas, Calif.
Louisville, Xy. —-«
Memphis, Tenn.*
Milwaukee, Wis. —
Minneapolis, Minn.
Newark, N. J.
New Orleans, La.*
—
New York, N. Y.*
Oakland, Calif
Philadelphia, Pa.*
Pittsburgh. Pa.*
Portland, Ore. Providence, R. I.
Richmond, Va.' *
Rochester, H.Y. St. Louis, Mo.* St. Paul, Minn. San Francisco, Calif.
Seattle, Wash.
Toledo, Ohio —
Washington, 0. C *
* A Negro-white comparison was made for these citits.
114
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
APPENDIX D
List of Tables not Published
DATA
United States Summary
Table
15 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family,
Color or Race, and Urban and Rural Areas
16 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family,
Age-Groups of Children, and Urban and Rural Areas, and by
Color or Race, Sex, and Age of Head
17 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family,
Number of "Oth? -/• in Family, Color or Race, and Urban and
Rural Areas
18 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Age-Groups of
Family Members, Color or Race, and Urban and Rural Areas
States
19 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family,
Color or Race, and Urban and Rural Areas
20 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family,
Age-Groups of Children, and Urban and Rural Areas, and by
Color, or Race, Sex, and Age of Head
21 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family,
Number of "Others" in Family, Color or Race, and Urban and
Rural Areas
22 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Age-Groups of
Family Members, Color or Race, and Urban and Rural Areas
Principal Cities
(Population of'250,000 or More in 1930)
23 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family
and Color or Race
24 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family
and Age-Groups of Children, and by Color or Race, Sex, and
Age of Head
25 Number of White and of Negro Relief Families, October 1933,
by Type of Family and Age-Groups of Children and by Sex and
Age of Head, for Cities with 50,000 or More Negroes in 1930
26 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of Family,
Number of "Others'* in Family, and Color or Race
27 Number of White and of Negro Relief Families, October 193d,
by Type of Family, and Number of "Others" in Family, f<*
Cities with 50,000 or More Negroes in 1930
f
28 Number of Relief Families, October 1933, by Age-Groups ol
Family Members and Color or Race
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CENSUS
115
PERCENT
United States Summary
Table
29 Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Age of
Children, Color or Race, and Urban and Rural Areas
States
30 Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Color or
Race, Age, and Sex of Head, and Urban and Rural Areas
31 Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of
Family, Number of "Others" in Family, Color or Race, and
Urban and Rural Areas
32 Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Presence of
Aged Persons and Children, by Presence of Persons 16*64 Years
of Age, and by Color or Race, and Urban and Rural Areas
33 Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Age of
Children, Sex of Head, and Urban and Rural Areas
Principal Cities
(Population of 250,000 or More in 1930)
34 Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of
Family, and Sex and Age of Head
35 Distribution of White and Negro Relief Families, October
1933, by Type of Family, and Sex and Age of Head, in Cities
with 50,000 or More Negroes in 1930
36 Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Type of
Family and Number of "Others" in Family
37 Distribution of White and Negro Relief Families, October
1933, by Type of Family and Number of "Others" in Family, in
Cities with 50,000 or More Negroes in 1930
38 Distribution of Relief Families, October 1933, by Age of
Children and Sex of Head
39 Distribution of White and Negro Relief Families, October
1933, by Age of Children and Sex of Head, in Cities with
50,000 or More Negroes in 1930
@FedFRASER