The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION
Division of Social Research
A SURVEY OF THE TRANSIENT AND
HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
September 1935 and September 1936
,, l10CUMENTS COLLEGTtON
THE .UNfVER-S1T)'. 't6RMY
U NEP.SITY Of CM fFORHl1'. SAN DIEGO
LA JOLLA. CAUfORNIA
111~i1~r1ri1r1111!1i111111Illli' lillill11111111
3 1822 01936 4884
•
TR-I2
DiQi zed uY
Cooglc
•
WO R K S
P ROG R E S S
A OM I N I S T R A T I O N
Harry L. Hopkins, Administrator
Corrington Gill, Assistant Administrator
Howard B. Myers, Director
Division of Social Research
R E S E
A R C H
BULL ET I
N
A SURVEY OF. THE TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION
IN 12 CITIES
September 1935 and September 1936
Prepared by
M. Starr Northrop
Malcolm J.
Brown
Katherine Gordon
under the supervision of
John N. Webb
Coordinator of Urban Research
Washington
1937
Digitized by
Google
This report is one of a series covering aspects
of the migratory labor problem, as requested of
various governmental agencies by the Secretary
of Labor to assist her in responding to Senate
Resolution 298, '74th Congress, Second Session.
Digitized by
Google
CONTENTS
Introduction...........................................
Summary................................................
Chapter I. Liquidation of the FERA Transient Program..
Summary of the September 1935 survey of
conditions following the closing of
transient bureau intake............
The decline of the transient bureau case
load...............................
Reasons for closing cases after the stoppage of intake.....................
Voluntary separatio~s..................
Transfer to WPA or other Federal project
Secured employment.....................
Return of transients to care of relatives
or friends.........................
Transfer of unemployable cases to resident relief rolls.................
II. Changes in the size of the transient and
homeless population................
Changes in the size of the needy transient
and homeless population in relief
agencies...........................
Changes at FERA transient bureaus......
Changes at State and local agencies....
Changes at private agencies............
Changes in the size of the needy transient and homeless group outside
relief agencies....................
Illegal train riders...................
The shelterless population.............
Unmet needs of the transient and homeless
group..............................
Arrests for vagrancy...................
Panhandling and begging................
Testimony of local observers...........
Testimony of transients................
III. Changes in the composition of the transient
and homeless population............
Proportion of unattached and family cases
Page
vii
xi
1
iii
Digitized by
Google
1
3
5
6
7
8
8
8
9
11
11
11
13
15
15
17
19
19
20
20
21
25
25
iv
CONTENTS
Page
IV.
Proportion of transient and homeless cases
Age... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proportion of men and women..............
Agencies extending relief to the transient
and homeless population............
The intake policies of the relief agencies
Intake policies at public agencies.....
Intake policies at private agencies....
Missions. • . . . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . •
Other agencies. . . . . . • • . . . • • . . . . . . . • . .
Agency care..............................
Nature of care.........................
Quality of care. . . . . • . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . •
Equipment..............................
34
34
35
35
Funds..................................
35
City-wide coordination of transient and
homeless relief activities.........
Central application bureaus............
Interagency agreements.................
Plans for the care of the transient and
homeless population................
Planned changes in intake policy.......
Planned changes in equipment and facil1t1es .....•••••......•..•.......•..
Requests for additional money..........
V. Conditions affecting the stabilization of
the transient and homeless in September 1936..... . • • . . . . . • • • • • . • • • • .
Community attitudes......................
Eligibility for resident relief..........
Eligibility for Works Program employment.
Eligibility for Social Security benefits.
Private employment.......................
Appendix A. Supplementary tables.......................
B. Schedules..................................
26
27
28
31
31
31
32
32
33
36
36
36
37
37
37
37
39
39
40
41
42
43
47
51
TEXT TABLES
Table 1.
2.
3.
Midmonthly census of cases under care in transient bureaus, total United States, May 1935
through December 1936. . • . . • • . • . • • . • • • • • • • • •
Disposition of Transient Division cases, total
United States, October 1935 through September
1936 • ■ ■ • ■ ■■■■■■■ I ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■• ■■■• ■■
Summary of 24-hour census of transient and
homeless cases under care at principal agencies in 12 cities, September 1935 and September 1936. • . • • • . • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • . • • . . • • • • •
Digitized by
Google
4
6
9
CONTENTS
V
TEXT TABLES-Continued
Page
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
24-hour census of transient and homeless cases
under care at FERA transient bureaus, at
other public agencies, and at private agencies in 12 cities, September 1935 and September 1936. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary of 24-hour census of transient and
homeless cases at FERA transient bureaus in
12 cities, September 1935 and September 1936
24-hour census of tran:,ient and homeless cases
(excluding service only cases) under care
at public agencies, other than FERA transient bureaus, in 12 cities, according to
city, September 1935 and September 1936.. ..
24-hour census of transient and homeless cases
(excluding service only cases) under care
at private agencies in 12 cities, according
to city, September 1935 and September 1936.
Illegal train riders, or trespassers removed
from trains, prevented from getting on trains,
or ejected from railroad premises during
August and September, 1935 and 1936,.......
Unattached and family cases under care in 12
cities, September 1935 and September 1936,,
Residence status of transient and homeless
cases under care in 11 States, September
1935, and 12 cities, September 1936........
Age of unattached transient and homeless persons and heads of family groups, September
1935 and September 1936....... ... ....•.....
Sex of unattached transient and homeless persons and heads of family groups, September
1935 and September 1936....................
24-hour census of transient and homeless cases
at private agencies in 12 cities, by type
of agency, September 1936..................
Agency care available to transient and homeless
cases in 12 cities, September 1936.........
10
11
12
14
15
25
27
28
29
33
35
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES
(Appendix)
Table 1.
New and reopened cases accepted for care at
transient bureaus, total United States, May
1935 through October 1936..................
Digitized by
Google
47
vi
CONTENTS
SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES-Continued
Page
2.
3.
4.
Cases closed at transient bureaus, total United
States, May 1935 through October 1936......
24-hour census of transient and homeless cases
(excluding service only cases) under care
at the principal agencies in 12 cities, according to city, September 1935 and September
1936 ........... :...........................
24-hour census of transient and homeless cases
under care at FERA transient bureaus in 12
cities, according to city, September 1935
and September 1936. . . . • • . . • . . . . . . . • • • . • . • • .
Digitized by
Google
47
48
48
INTRODUCTION
As part of the survey of the needs of laborers migrating
across State lines, in accordance with Senate Resolution 298, 1
the Secretary of Labor requested the Works Progress Administration to repeat in September 1936 a survey of the transient and
homeless population that was made in a number of cities during
the latter part of September 1935, The report which follows
presents and compares the findings of the two surveys. Although
the emphasis throughout is on the findings of the Septemb~r
1936 survey, the report is primarily a comparison of conditions
that existed at the time transient bureaus stopped intake with
conditions 1 year later.
It may be helpful to review briefly the situation at the time
of the original survey in September 1935, On Septen1ber 20,
1935, intake at transient bureaus was closed as a part of the
general shift from direct and work relief under the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration to a works program in accordance
with the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. 2 For about
25 months, .August 1933 to September 1935, transient reltef had
been an integral part of the general program of emergency relief administered under the provisions of the Federal Emergency
Relief Act of May 1933. During most of this period, State
Transient Relief Programs were operated in 47 States and the
District of Columbia. As administered under these State programs, transient relief was essentially direct relief, and
therefore was included among those activities from which employable cases were to be transferred to the Works Program.
In planning this survey, it was recognized that the problem
of the inter-State transient, particularly with respect to
local relief conditions, could not be separated from that of
the entire relief group technically known as the transient
relief population. Directly or indirectly, the entire needy
homeless population-inter-State and intra-State transients
1senate Reso1ut1on 298, 7-'th Congress, 2d session, agreed to June 15, 1gacs.
•Resolved, That the secretary ot Labor ls hereby 11.uthorlzed and directed
to study, survey, and lnvestlgate the social and economic needs or laborers
migrating across State lines, obtaining all tacts possible in relation
thereto Which would not only be or public interest but which would aid
the Congress and the States in enacting remedial 1eg1Slat1on. The Secretary or Labor shall report to the Senate, with reco11111endations tor 1eg1slatlon. •
2Pubuc ileso1ut1on - No. 11, 7-'th Congress, approved April e, 1g35.
vii
Digitized by
Google
viii
INTRODUCTION
and local homeless persons-was involved. 3 Therefore,thesurvey of September 1935 included all publ,ic and private agencies
that had facilities for the care of transient and homeiess
persons •in the cities selected for study.
As shown by the summary of the September 1935 findings I see
chapter I) there was no immediate indication that the closing
of transient bureau intake would create a serious situation in
any of the survey-cities, although it was the opinion of observers in some of the cities that local facilities might prove
insufficient to care for all applicants.
The second survey, made 1 year later, provided a basis for
comparison between the numbers and conditions of transient and
homeless persons in September 1935 and September 1936. In addition, the second survey had a particular bearing on the investigation conducted by the Department of Labor in accordance
with Senate Resolution 298. Specifically, the objectives of
the September 1936 survey were ( 11 to determine the size and
composi t.ion of the transient and homeless population in selected
cities, 121 to survey existing facilities for their care, (3)
to compare conditions in September 1936 with those immediately
following the closing of transient bureau intake in September
1935, and (41 to report on community attitudes towards the
transient and homeless problem and on future plans for the care
of this group.
The procedures followed in making the two surveys were practically identical, except that in September 1935 there wete 18
cities included while in September 1936 the survey included
only 12 cities.• In both years the WPA Di vision of Social
Research appointed local supervisors in each city to assemble
and report the following types of information: (ll descriptive
material for each public or private agency extending care to
transient and homeless persons, provided the agency had facilities
3 Dur1ng the operation or the Transient Program the three t:,pes or cases
were defined as follows:
Inter-State transients-persons who had not been 1n the State tor 12
continuous months at time or application ror relief.
Intra-State transients-persons who had been 1n the State tor 12 months
or longer but who were not residents or the community.
Locai hOtJeZess-persons who were residents or the community but were
Without a home.
•The 18 c1ties1n the 1935 survey were Atlanta, Baltersrteld, C&11t., Boston,
Burraio, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Fla., Kansas
City, Mo., Los Angeles, Memphis, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Philadelphia,
Portland, Oreg., San Francisco, and Washington, D. C.
The 12 c1 ties 1n the 1936 survey were Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Jacksonville,
Fla., Kansas CltY, Mo., Los Angeles, Memphis, Minneapolis, New Orleans,
Philadelphia, Portland, Oreg., and Washington, D. C.
In selecting these cl ties, use was made or inrormation that had been derived rrom previous studies on the size and nature or the transient population in different parts or the country. As a result, It 1s believed
that the observations 1n these ci t1 es represent a ra1r cross section or
conditions 1n the country as a Whole.
Digitized by
Google
INTRODUCTION
ix
for 10 or more persons; (2) statistical data on amount of care
given by each agency, including a 24-hour census of persons
under care; (3) digests of interviews with officials of various
public and private organizations and with transient and homeless
persons who had received relief at FERA transient bureaus; and
(4) a summary report on the local transient and homeless relief
situation. Copies of the schedules used in the 1936 survey
appear in appendix B of this report. The study represents, for
the most part, a digest of the information contained in these
schedules and field reports.
Two limitations of the statistical data in this report should
be noted.
The first arises from the unavoidable confusion
between transient and local homeless cases. The distinctions
maintained by the Federal transient bureaus between inter-State
(Federal) transients, intra-State (State) transients, and local
homeless have not been observed by local agencies since the
termination of the FERA Transient Program; and hence it is
impossible to segregate the inter-State transient group, or to
consider the facilities and conditions governing their welfare
apart from the general problem of relief to homeless persons.
This circumstance precludes direct comparisons with most of the
data collected during the operation of the Transient Program,
and prevents complete differentiation of the strictly interState aspects of the problem.
A second limitation arises from the inadequacy of the records
kept by private agencies of the mission type. Many of the shelters operated by missions keep only a rough count of meals and
lodgings given to transient and homeless persons, and make no
record of individual applications. Data for the two 24-hour
censuses were derived from actual counts of cases in every
agency, but much of the other statistical information involves
estimates from some of the reporting agencies.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
Two surveys of the transie_nt and homeless population in selected cities-the first made immediately after the closing of
intake at FERA transient bureaus in September 1935 and the second made 1 year later-show that there has been a marked decline
in the size of this group. This decline began prior to the
Closing of transient bureau intake and continued throughout the
year following.
The stoppage of intake did not mean the abrupt closing of the
transient bureaus throughout the country. The majority of the
States were given final grants during October 1935 for the purpose of liquidating the program and for continuing relief as
long as possible to cases under care, pending their absorption
into the Works Program or private employment, their return to
place of legal settlement, or their closings for other reasons.
Reductions in case loads were accomplished gradually, with
abandonment of individual State programs staggered over aperiod of about 18 months. During that time a substantial number of new and reopened cases were accepted for care. In fact,
the aggregate case load involved in the final liquidation of
the Transient Program was almost twice the number of cases under care in the country as a whole on the day intake was suspended.
Reasons for closing cases under care at transient bureaus
during the 12 months following the closing of intake were reported monthly to the FERA Division of Transient Activities.
These reports show that in the country as a whole 43· percent
of the cases were closed because of voluntary withdrawal; 21
percent, because of transfer to WPA or other Federal project;
14 percent, because of employment secured; 12 percent, because
of transfer to general relief; 2 percent, because of the assumption of responsibility by relatives or friends; and 8 percent, for miscellaneous reasons.
In the 12 cities surveyed a striking decrease in the number
of transient and homeless cases under care was found in the results of two 24-hour censuses taken in September 1935 and September 1936. The returns from these two censuses show that the
number of transient and homeless cases under care in all public
and private agencies dropped from ·about 37,000 in September
1935 to slightly less than 15,000 in September 1936.
About half of this decline was the result of the closing of
cases under care at transient bureaus; the remainder resulted
xi
Digitized by
Google
xii
SUMMARY
from a decrease of more than half in the case loads at public
agencies other than transient bureaus. In contrast, transient
and homeless cases at private agencies in the 12 cities increased from 6,809 in September 1935 to 7,224 in September 1936,
an increase of 6 percent.
This increase at private agencies serves as a warning against
drawing the conclusion that the transient and homeless problem
has diminished directly in proportion to the number of cases
receiving care at all agencies. The growth of the private agency case load indicates that the decreases at public agencies
had not resulted entirely from decreasing need, but have resulted in part, at least, from the restrictions public agencies
place upon the intake of needy cases,
Because of these restrictions and the increase in the private
agency case load, additional facts were needed to show whether
the number of persons on the road or homeless in the cities,
but outside the agencies, had increased or decreased during the
year following the closing of transient bureau intake. The
facts which are summarized below concern the volume of illegal
train riding, the change in the size of the shelterless population in jungles, parks, etc. , the prevalence of begging and
panhandling, the number of arrests for vagrancy, and the observations of agency and city officials on the number of transient
and homeless persons outside of public and private agencies.
a. Between August 1935 and August 1936 the number of illegal
train riders, trespassers, etc. , decreased 36 percent on all
railroads in the United States, and 32 percent on selected railroads in the 10 of the 12 survey-cities for which data could
be obtained.
b. Evidence from the 12 cities indicates that the shelterless population increased only slightly during the year following the close of transient bureau intake. Jungles were found
in only 5 of the 12 cities, and in only 2 of the cities was
there a reported increase in the number of persons sleeping in
parks and vacant buildings.
c. In the majority of the 12 survey-cities, arrests for vagrancy either increased slightly or remained the same during
the year after the closing of intake at transient bureaus.
d. There was little agreement between the number of arrests
for vagrancy and the prevalence of panhandling and begging. To
a large extent this was the result of an absence of uniform
policy on the part of police, who were strict or lenient according to local conditions and attitudes. In a majority of
the cities panhandling and begging were of fairly connnon occurrence, and only four cities reported that there had been a decrease between September 1935 and September 1936.
e. According to the opinion of local observers the transient
and homeless problem was not serious in two cities-Kansas City,
Digitized by
Google
SUMMARY
xiii
Mo., and Memphis; in three cities-Atlanta, Philadelphia, and
Portland, Oreg .-local observers felt that the problem was only
moderately acute; the opinions in six cities-Chicago, Denver,
Jacksonville, Fla., Minneapolis, New Orleans, and Washington,
D. C.-reflected unsatisfactory transient and homeless programs; and in one city-Los Angeles-local opinion was not sufficiently definite to permit classification.
The decline in the size of the needy transient and homeless
population during the year following the closing of transient
bureau intake was accompanied by changes in the personal characteristics of this group. In brief, these changes were (ll a
decrease in the proportion of family cases as compared to the
unattached; ( 21 a decrease in the proportion of inter-State
transients as compared to the resident homeless; (3) an increase
in the proportion of older persons; and (4) an increase in the
proportion of women.
Changes in the composition of the transient and homeless population receiving care in the 12 cities during September 1936
were the result, in part, of the intake policies of public and
private agencies. Local homeless persons, transient families,
and lone women were given care by public agencies in most of
the cities, but transient men, particularly employables, were
either refused care or accepted on an overnight basis only. In
view of the fact that employable men made up the bulk of the
transient population during the operation of transient bureaus,
their exclusion had a marked effect on the composition of public agency case loads.
Unlike the public agencies, the private agencies in the 12
cities were accepting all types of needy transient and homeless
cases to the limit of their resources. Although some private
agencies requested applicants to pay a small amount whenever
possible, and others accepted only special cases (e.g., juveniles, families, etc. l, there was much less restriction as Ito
type of case and length of stay than was found at public agencies.
Both public and private agencies in the 12 cities reported
that their funds were insufficient to meet the transient and
homeless problem adequately. This was the basic difficulty in
September 1936, and was responsible for restricted intake policy, unused equipment, and inadequate care.
Extensive interviews were conducted with social agencies and
city officials in the 12 cities for the purpose of disclosing
local attitudes. About half of the persons i~terviewed had a
definitely antagonistic attitude towards the transient and homeless population. This attitude appears to have limited the
factors favorable to the stabilization of the transient and
homeless population in September 1936, whether these factors
were eligibility for resident relief, employment on the Works
Program, or employment in private industry.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
A SURVEY OF THE TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION
IN 12 CITIES
SEPTEMBER 1935 AND SEPTEMBER 1936
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
Chapter I
LIQUIDATION OF THE FERA TRANSIENT"PROGRAM
The September 1936 survey of the transient and homeless population confirmed the indication found in the 1935 survey that
the transient relief population would continue to decline in
number. This decline had, in fact, already begun prior to the
close of transient bureau intake. It may be well to summarize
the findings of the first survey in order to make this point
clear.
SUMMARY OF THE SEPTEKBE1l 193~ SURVEY OF CONDITIONS
FOLLOWING THE CLOSING OF TRANSIENT BUREAU INTAKE
The number of transients under care in transient
bureaus and the number of applications for relief
in the 18 study-cities declined before, as well as
during, the 10 days immediately following the closing of transient bureau intake on September 20,
1935. There was also a slight decline in the number of homeless cases (principally resident homeless l under care in public relief agencies other
than transient bureaus. These declines were partially offset by an increase in the number of transient and homeless cases cared for by private relief
agencies. This increase would probably have been
greater had private agencies not been limited both
as to facilities and finances.
Not only did the number of transients under care
decline .after the closing of transient bureau intake, but there was also the following subsidiary
evidence of a decrease in the total number of persons on the road: Ill No general increase in the
shelterless population was noted. (2) There was no
innnediate evidence of a return of the "j 11ngle. n
131 Mobility, as reflected by the volume of illegal
train ridinf, showed no tendency to increase.
The decline i,.n the transient and homeless population, however, was in part due to the difficulty
in providing care in localities where the facilities
available for transient relief after the closing of
intake were inadequate to care for all applicants,
'-
1
Digitized by
Google
2
TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
even though the number of transients was declining.
Furthermore, public relief agencies other than transient bureaus were often limited by law to the care
of resident homeless persons, because of provisions
that local funds should not be spent on the relief
of nonresidents. Consequently, the problem of caring for new applicants was left, in many communities, primarily to private agencies whose facilities
were often too limited to provide for all transients
who applied.
Largely for this reason, most of the cities studied were concerned as to how the problem of transient relief would be met during the winter. Actually an immediate shortage of facilities occurred
in but few of them during the 10 days following
the closing of transient bureau intake. Certain
connnuni ties were affected adversely by the seasonal
movement of transients. For example, the problem
in Atlanta and Jacksonville, Fla., was influenced
by southward migrations into Florida and the Gulf
Region, which created a demand for shelter that
exceeded the capacities of private agencies.
A shortage of facilities also existed in Chicago
and Philadelphia practically from the day the transient bureau stopped intake. The situation in these
large metropolitan areas seemed to be attributable
less to any increase in the number of transients
than to a scarcity of facilities for the care of
such cases in private agencies. On the other hand,
several cities, particularly Boston, Detroit, Kansas City, Mo., and Minneapolis, had public or private agency facilities available to meet the increased demand and, therefore, anticipated no great
difficulty in caring for needy nonresidents.
The effect that seasonal employment has on the
problem of transient relief was particularly marked
in the reports from Bakersfield, Calif., Buffalo,
Fort Worth, Minneapolis, Portland, Oreg. , and San
Francisco. This effect alternately increases and
decreases the intensity of the problem, depending
upon weather conditions and the demands for seasonal labor by such industries as agriculture, fishing, and lake shipping.
It seemed apparent fran this study that the importance of establishing an adequate service for
needy nonresidents had been rather widely recognized as a result of the FERA Transient Program.
Although it was doubtful that many communities would
Digitized by
Google
LIQUIDATION OF THE FERA TRANSIENT PROGRAM
3
be able to maintain the standards of the transient
bureaus, there was evidence that a majority were
giving careful consideration to enlargement of their
transient relief service.
THE DECLINE OF THE TRANSIENT BUREAU CASE LOAD
The conditions reviewed above existed at the beginning of a
transition period during which responsibility for the provision
of direct relief to needy nonresidents was gradually shifted
back to local public and private agencies. This shift involved,
over a period of months, the closing of transient cases under
care at the time intake was suspended; and it also involved
adjustments to a changed situation on the part of local agencies and the nonresident needy.
Regular reports received by the FERA Division of Transient
Activities afford nation-wide data on a part of the transition
process-the gradual liquidation of the FERA Transient Program.
Since this process was perhaps the most important factor of
change in the administration of transient relief since September 1935, it is described here in some detail. The effects of
the discontinuance of the FERA Transient Program on local agencies and on the needy homeless population are discussed in
chapters II and III.
The stoppage of intake did not, of course, mean the abrupt
closing of the transient bureaus. The majority of the States
were given final grants during October 1935 for the purpose of
liquidating and for continuing relief to cases already under
care, pending their absorption into the Works Program.or private employment, their return to place of legal settlement, or
their closings for other reasons. These final grants were sufficient in a few States to permit the continuance of transient
relief on a reduced scale for more than 18 months after the discontinuance of Federal support. At the close of 1936, 9 States
were still extending relief from these final grants to a combined case load of 4,308 unattached persons and 1,847 family
groups. 1 However, comparison of these figures with the total
of 125,843 unattached persons and 28,691 family groups reported
under care in transient bureaus the day after the close of intake on September 20, 1935, indicates that liquidation was substantially complete by the end of 1936.
Reductions in case load were accomplished gradually, with
abandonment of individual State programs staggered over the
1As indicated by reports to the Division or Transient Activities, FERA Form
302. These States were Arizona, Arkansas, California, Kentuck)', Minnesota,
Hlssouri, Nebraska, W&shington, and Wisconsin.
Digitized by
Google
TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
4
entire 13-month period. 2 Net declines in the national case
load from May 15, 1935, to December 16, 1936, are clearly shown
by the midmonthly census figures of cases receiving care in
transient bureaus from special eamarked funds 3 (see table ll.
These data alone, however, fail to give an accurate picture of
the final liquidation process, because they do not disclose the
substantial number of cases accepted after the fonnal close of
intake. This continued acceptance of reopened cases into the
Table 1---1,fllMONTHLY CENSUS OF CASES UNDER CARE IN TRANSIENT BUREAUS, TOTAL UNITED STATES,
MAY 1935 THROUGH DECEMBER 1936
Year and Mondi
Total Casesa
Unattached Personsb
Fami I y Groups
1935
May
June
July
August
September 16
September 21<
October
November
December
191,114
181,077
173,706
166,947
158,529
153,843
144,246
138,439
132,463
128,020
37,271
36,831
35,267
34,484
30,509
154,534
117,837
93,231
54,978
125,843
96,066
79,889
47,300
28,691
21,771
13,342
7,678
21,488
16,274
12,103
9,542
7,842
6,018
16,054
12,193
9,380
7,574
6,304
4,859
5,434
4,061
2,7'2:j
1,968
1,538
1,159
4,489
4,475
4,038
3,517
3,496
3,018
2,978
3,320
4,3'.)8
972
979
1,020
1,016
1,325
1,847
1936
January
February
March
Apri I
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
3,994
4,645
6,155
4 1nc1udes cases transferred between other transient centers or camps.
b I ncludea local homeless.
c,. special census was taken on 5epteniber 21, 19J5, the day innediate1; following the closing of intake.
Source:
Reports tr.i the FERA Division of Transient Activities,
transient case load and registration of new cases in some localities modified to a marked degree the effects of the closing of
transient bureau intake. A few States facing emergency situations were granted pemission to continue intake of new cases
on a restricted basis until their final grants of transient
funds were exhausted. Continued acceptance of health cases at
specially equipped camps, such as those at Hot Springs, Ark. ,
and Nogales, Ariz., was also authorized.
Data on monthly intake at transient bureaus, as reported to
the Division of Transient Activities, show that the aggregate
2 r1nal monthll' reports to the DlvlSlon or Transient Actlvltles lndlcate
that State programs were terminated as follows: three ln November 11136:
three ln December 11135: !lve ln J&nuar:v 11136; tour ln February; three ln
March; tour ln Aprll: rour lnM~: one lnJune; tour ln Jul;v: two ln August;
three ln September; one 1n October: and two ln November. In nlne States,
transient bureaus were stlll operatlna ln December 11136.
3translent cases cared tor rrom general rellet funds are not included.
Digitized by
Google
LIQUIDATION OF THE FERA TRANSIENT PROGRAM
5
case load involved in the final liquidation of the Transient
Program has been not far from twice the number of cases reported
under care on the day after intake was suspended. Continued
intake brought new and reopened cases totalling approximately
145,000 4 under care during the 12 months beginning October 1,
1935 ( see appendix table 1). The reduction of the load in transient bureaus to 4,038 cases by September 1936 thus involved
the closing of approximately 260,000 cases, 6 inclusive of transfers, during the year (see appendix table 2),
REASONS FOR CLOSING CASES AFTER THE STOPPAGE OF
INTAKE
The data on closings of transient cases indicate that liquidation proceeded at an accelerated rate after September 20, 1935,
with voluntary separations as the largest single factor in the
decline of case loads.
Closings were reported to the Division of Transient Activities
under seven main headings (see table 2): Ill responsibility
assumed by relatives or friends;.(2l secured employment; (3) left
of own accord; (4) died; (5) transferred to general relief; (6l
miscellaneous; and (7) transferred to other transient center or
camp. 6 Although the States were not required to report separately on closings caused by the assignment of transients to Works
Program employment, a number of States did so voluntarily and
the data, ~hough incomplete, are included in table 2, Return
to legal settlement was not included as a cause of closing, but
a report was made each month of the number of closings involving
transportation to place of legal settlement.
This classification of reasons for closing cases is not wholly
satisfactory because the categories used are somewhat indefinite
and not mutually exclusive. Thus, a case reported by one transient bureau as closed because of transfer to another bureau,
still remains in the case load for final disposition. Nevertheless, the data ( table 21 afford a rough picture of what happened
to the transient cases under care on September 20, 1935, and
those admitted subsequently, and inaicate the relative importance of the different reasons for closing cases in liquidating
the program. Of cases leaving transient bureaus during the
year ending September 30, 1936, exclusive of transfers to other
transient centers, 43 percent left of their own accord without
4 Includes possible duplications rrom cases reg1Stersd more than once or
transferred rrom one bureau to another, but does not include cases accepted
between September 20 and October 1, 1935.
6 1ncludes possible duplications rrom cases closed more than once or transferred rrom one bureau to another, but does not include cases closed between September 20 and October 1, 1936.
6The transfer or cases to other centers or camps ls excluded rrom the ro1low1ng discussion and tabulations, since such cases remained in the national
case load ror r1nal dlsposltlon.
Digitized by
Google
6 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
announcing their plans; 14 percent secured employment; 21 percent were transferred to WPA or other Federal project; 7 12
percent were transferred to general relief; 2 percent were placed
Table 2~DISl'OSITION OF TRANSIENT DIVISION CASES, TOTAL UNITED STATES,
OCTOBER 1935 THROtnt SEPTDIIER 1936
Reasons for Closing
Month and Year
Total N... ber
of Closing.a
Ninber
Percent
Responsi-
Left
bi I ity
Secured
of
Assuned by E°"loyOwn
Relatives
nent
Accord
or Frietas
Died
WPA or
Other
Federlll
rrojeetb
Trans-ferred
Miscelto
laneous
Genion1I
ReHef
Percent Dtstrtbut ton
Total, 12 ..,nths
1935
October
November
llecenber
236,280
100.0
2.5
13.0
42.9
0.2
20.9
12.1
7.6
50,655
45,993
54,530
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.9
2.6
0.9
11.4
11.0
17.2
52.2
30.0
23.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
1. 7
21.7
43.1
8.8
12.9
6.3
8.1
6.4
2.7
26,401
10,574
10,979
10,370
9,651
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1.5
1.9
2.4
1.5
1.9
0.3
15. 7
14.2
9.0
10.4
20.9
40.5
52.3
66.0
69.3
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
29.5
13.6
3.0
2.3
2.5
28.0
8.0
8.6
6.2
2.9
4.6
9.7
13.5
12.7
8.2
5,741
4,579
3,951
2,856
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1. 7
2.3
2.0
1.4
13.0
10.9
9.6
12.8
56.9
43.6
55.2
60.9
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
2.3
4.2
3-3
4.6
1.5
26.5
15.0
Z.4
8.9
10.3
10.2
13.2
1936
January
February
March
Apri I
May
June
July
August
September
~JCcludH clotll191 lnw-olvlng the tra .. rer of cuH Nt:wHn other traNl••t centers or caa,a since theH c.... .--INCi 111
the ,.,10,.1 cue load ror flt11.I dl1po1ltlon.
bThe data on caMI c101ed' to IPA or other federal project: ere lnc-,lele Neane • - StatH did noi re,on such cloalngs
Npa.r&hly.
6ource:
•
.. port to the flH Division of Tra,.lent Act lvlt IH.
in the care of relatives or friends; and 0.2 percent died. The
remaining 8 percent of the cases were closed for miscellaneous
reasons. A brief discussion of the more significant of these
classifications follows.
Voluntary Separations.
About two-fifths of the cases closed during the liquidation
process left the transient bureaus of their own accord without
indicating their plans. The proportion of voluntary separations
was lowest in the months of December 1935 and January 1936, when
transfers to Works Program employment were at a peak. Presumably,
some of the cases not reporting their reasonsfordeparture had
found jobs in private industry, or had returned to the care of
relatives or friends or to their place of legal settlement.
Others had apparently returned to the road despite warnings that
they could expect to be neither admitted to other transient
7 rnasmuch as WPA closings were not reported separately by all States, it is
probable that many such cases were class Hied as having secured employment,
so that the tigure 21 percent represents an understatement or this liquidation !actor.
Digitized by
Google
LIQUIDATION OF THE FERA TRANSIENT PROGRAM
7
bureaus nor assigned to Works Program employment anywhere other
than at the place of original certification.
Transfer to WPA or Other Federal Project.
The total number of transient cases absorbed by the Works Program cannot be accurately determined, since most localities do
not distinguish the employment records of certified transients
from those of resident eligibles after assignments have been made
to work projects. The partial 8 data on closings to Works Program
employment (table 2) suggest that assignments to work projects
were small in number during the month immediately following the
close of transient bureau intake, but picked up in November and
December 1935.
Eligibility of transient cases for assignment to work projects
had been assured by a WPA administrative order issued June 28,
1935. This order stated that, "In general, the same principles
governing the removal from the relief rolls and transfer to the
Works Program of persons eligible for employment shall apply to
nonresidents receivine- transient relief as obtained for persons
on the local relief rolls." The requirement of May relief status
for Works Program eligibility was specifically modified in this
order to permit certification of transient cases registering not
later than July 15, 1935.
A review of transient bureau cases in 17 cities immediately
after the close of intake showed that less than three-fifths of
those originally certified as eligible for Works Program employment were still under care in the bureaus where they were certified. 9 The continued migration of transients after certification
can be attributed in part to the inherent restlessness which was
always characteristic of the more mobile individuals in the transient relief population; but it was probably due also to impatience at the delay i"n assignments to work projects.
A subsequent order, dated September 28, 1935, authorized certification of all employable transients under care at the close
of intake on September 20, provided they remained under care
during the 2 weeks immediately following. C~rtified transients
who remained in the place where certification had been made were
assigned to locally sponsored projects, to projects of other
Federal agencies (especially in locations where local relief
labor was not available), and to WPA camp projects. Approximately 190 of the camps, located in 41 States, were active in
8 WPA closings were not reported separately bT all States, and 1 t ls probable that many auch cases were classltled as havlng secured emplo1111ent.
9 The maximum perlod or tlme elapsing between the date or the memorandum
regarding cert1t1cat1on (June 28) and the date or closing intake was 12
weelts; but, because or the time required to establish the cert1t1cat1on
procedure, it ls probable that the time between certltlcatJon and closing
did not average more than 8 weeks.
Digitized by
Google
8
TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
March 1936, employing 40,000 men, most of whom were formerly
unattached transient and homeless relief cases. 10
Secured Employment.
Among the cases who left the transient bureaus of their own
accord, doubtless many subsequently secured jobs. In addition
to them, approximately one case in each seven at the transient
bureaus was closed from the case load directly because of having
secured employment. This reason for closing cases was third
in importance.
Return of Transients to Care of Relatives or Friends.
The transfer of responsibility to relatives and friends did
not play a large part in the final liquidation of the Transient
Program. Less than 3 percent of the total closings resulted
from relatives and friends assuming responsibility for transient
cases.
Transfer of Unemployable Cases to Resident Relief Rolls.
Unemployables in the transient case load were relatively few
in number, 11 but they constituted a problem out of proportion
to their number during the liquidation of the program. Federal
policy, as announced at the advent of the Works Program, called
for the ultimate transfer of such cases to local relief rolls
either in the community of legal settlement or of last registration for transient bureau care. Negotiations for the return
of unemployables with verifiable legal residences were pushed
during the summer of 1935,. so that most of those remaining in
the case load after the close of intake had no legal settlement
status. With the exhaustion of final grants and the closing of
transient bureaus, many of the States provided for the transfer
of unemployable cases to the general relief rolls, and granted
them legal residence for relief purposes.
10 ror 1nromat1on concerning WPA work camps, see Report on Progress ot the
Works Program, D1v1s1on or Research, Stat1st1cs, and Records, Works Progress Adm1n1strat1on, August 16, 1936, pp. 28 tr.
11 sample studies conducted b:, the D1v1s1on ot Social Research, Wo.rks Progress A<1m1n1strat1on, 1nd1cated that about 10 percent or the heads or ramn:,
groups and a.bout e percent or the unattached tra.ns1ents were totall:, unemPlo:,able. See Webb, John N., The Tra.ns1ent Unemplo:,ed, Research Monograph
III, D1 v1s1on ot Social Research, Works Progress A<lm1n1Strat1o n, Washington,
D. c., Karch 1938, pp. <t.3 tt.; and Webb, John N. and Br:,an, Jack Y., K1grant
Families, Research Bulletin TR-10, D1v1a1on or Social Research, Works
Progress A<1m1n1strat1on, washington, D.C., Janua.r:, 1936, pp. 6 rt.
Digitized by
Google
Chapter II
CHANGES IN THE SIZE OF THE TRANSIENT
AND HOMELESS POPULATION
The preceding account of the liquidation of the case load of
the transient bureaus, and of the disposition that was made of
the cases under care after the close of intake, suggests that
the needy transient and homeless population must have shrunk
considerably during that time. Among the transient cases under
care throughout the country, more than one-third were closed
because they had secured employment in private industry or in
the Works Program ( see table 2 l, In addition, many of the cases
who left the transient bureaus of their own accord, amounting
to two-fifths of all closings, probably obtained similar employment.
A striking net decrease in the number of transient and homeless cases under care at all relief agencies, both public and
private, further suggests a rapid decline in the urgency of the
needy transient and home~ess problem during the year following
the close of intake at transient bureaus. On the basis of two
24-hour censuses in 12 selected cities-the first census made
1 week after intake closed in September 1935, and the second
made l year later-the transient and homeless cases under care
at all agencies declined 61 percent; the number of cases under
care dropped from about 37,000 to slightly less than 15,000,
Table 3 summarizes the result of the two censuses.
Tab 1e 3-SLM,tARY OF 24-HOUR CENSUS OF TRANS I ENT ANO HOMELESS CASES
UNDER CARE AT PRINCIPAL AGENCIES IN 12 CITIES,•
SEPTEMBER 1935 ANO SEPTEMBER 1936
Month and Year
Unattached Persons
All Cases
FMiily Groups
September 1935
September 1936
37,424
14,911
2B, 520
13. 424
8,904
1,487
Percent change
-61
-53
-83
3
see
appendix table, for detailed city figures.
Some of the 12 survey-cities experienced only relatively slight
decreases in the number of needy transient and homeless persons
under care during the year following the close of intake, while
others were practically enabled to eliminate transient and homeless relief. Cases under care at Memphis and Jacksonville, Fla.,
decreased95 and91 percent respectively; but in Kansas City, Mo.,
9
Digitized by
Google
10 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
and Atlanta, at the other extreme, the decrease was only 26
and 37 percent (see appendix table 31. The explanation of the
marked variations among the cities requires an examination of
individual city differences not relevant to the general decline
in cases under care. More significant at this point is the fact
that, despite the variations, all cities without exception reported net dee reases .
It must be borne in mind that these decreases directly apply only to the transient and homeless cases recetutne care.
Obviously, such data provide an imperfect index to changes in
transiency and homelessness. A considerable decrease in the
number of persons receiving care does not necessarily indicate
a proportionate decrease in the number of those in need. The
decrease noted may., in fact, be the result of any one of three
factors: (1) a shrinkage of facilities for caring for transient and homeless persons; (21 changed intake policies at the
agencies giving care, restricting the number of persons to whom
care is offered; or (31 an actual decrease in the number of
Table 4-24-HOUR CENSUS OF TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS CASES UNDER CARE AT FERA TRANSIENT BUREAUS,
AT OTHER PUBLIC NiENCIES, AND AT PRIVATE AGENCIES IN 12 CITIES,
SEPTEMBER 1935 AND SEPTEMBER 1936
24-Hour Census of Cases Under Care
Type of Agency
Sept,..ber 1935
Total
Unattached
Sept~er 1936
F11nily
Total
Unattached
Fanily
All agenc i es
37,424
28,520
8,904
14,911
13,424
1,487
FERA transient bureaus
12,242
8,559
3,683
88
Other 4>ub'l i c agencies
18,373
6,809
13. 712
6,249
4,661
7,599
55
6,586
33
1,013
560
7,224
6,783
441
100
Private agencies
Parcanl Dtalrlbullon
All agencies
100
100
100
100
100
FERA transient bureaus
33
30
42
1
•
2
Other public agencies
49
52
51
49
68
Private agencies
18
48
22
6
48
51
30
needy cases. In order to isolate the effects of each of these
factors, it is necessary to consider in detail the circumstances
attendant upon the decrease shown in the 24-hour censuses.
In 1935, the transient and homeless cases enumerated in the
l~ci ty census were under care at one of the three following
types of agencies:
(ll The FERA transient bureaus, after the close of intake.
(2) Other public agencies, usually connected with city or
county departments of public welfare.
(3) Private agencies,such as the Salvation Army, missions,
or Travelers Aid. These agencies were sometimes partially supported by public funds, but were privately managed.
Digitized by
Google
CHANGES IN SIZE
11
Between September 1935 and September 1936, the distribution
of the total transient and homeless case load among these three
types of agencies shifted decidedly. The nature of the changes
is summarized in table 4.
In September 1935 the transient bureaus in the 12 cities were
caring for one-third(33 percent) of the transient and homeless
group, principally inter-State transients; local public agencies
had a little less than one-half (49 percent) of the load, principally local homeless; while private agencies were caring for less
than one-fifth 118 percent). In contrast, the greatly decreased
case load in September 1936 was divided approximately equally
between the local public agencies and the private agencies.
CHANGES IN THE SIZE OF THE NEEDY TRANSIENT
AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN RELIEF AGENCIES
Changes at FERA Transient Bureaus.
The data of table 4 show that the most important contribution
to the decrease was the liquidation of the case load at the
transient bureaus. This liquidation ns virtually completed
by September 1936 (see table 5).
Tab! e ~Sl.ll,NARY OF 24--tlOUR CENSUS OF TRANSIENT ANO H<MELESS CASES
AT FERA TRANSIENT llJREAUS IN 12 CITIES,•
SEPTEMBER 1935 ANO SEPTEMBER 1936
Month and Year
All Cases
Unat tach~ Persons
fan! ly Groups
September 1935
12,242
8,559
3,683
September 1936
88
55
33
asee appendix t.aDle II for detailed city flgurea.
In September 1935 over 12,000 cases were under care at these
bureaus; whereas, at the time of the census of 1936, only the
Denver bureau, with 88 cases, was still operating. Subsequent
reports show that this bureau closed October 31, 1936, so that
at the time of the writing of this report the liquidation of
the transient bureaus in the 12 cities studied was complete. 1
It seems logical to suppose that the reasons for closing transient bureau cases in the 12 survey-cities correspond roughly
to those operative in the country as a whole (see pp. 5-8).
Changes at State and Local Agencies.
In the 12 cities surveyed, the number of transient and homeless cases under care in all agencies declined about 23,000
1.b indicated in chapter I, the closing
or the transient bureaus did not
necessarily involve the closing or all cases under care since many or them
were transferred to local relief or to Works Program e111Ployment. See pp, &-6.
Digitized by
Google
12 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
between the time of the 2 censuses. The liquidation of the FERA
Transient Program accounts for only slightly more than half of
this decrease. The remainder resulted from a decrease of more
than half in the case loads of public agencies other than transient bureaus. The changes in the case loads of these agencies
between September 1935 and September 1936 are shown in table 6.
Table 6-24-HOUR CENSUS OF TRANSIENT ANO HOAELESS CASES IEXCWDING SERVICE ONLY CASES)
UNDER CARE AT PUBLIC AGENCIES, OTHER THAN FERA TRANSIENT
BUREAUS, IN 12 CITIES, ACCORDING TO CITY,
SEPTEMBER 1935 AND SEPTEMBER 1936
24-Hour Census of Cases Under Care
Cities
Total
All cities
Atlanta
Chicago
Denver
Jacksonvi I le, Fla.
Kansas City, Mo.
Los Angel es
Memphis
Minneapolis
New Orleans
Philadelphia
Port I and, Oreg.
W.shington, D. C.
Unattached
Percent Change
September 1936
September 1935
Fomily
Unattached
Total
Fa,ni ly
Total
F,rnily
-52
-88
--4
-BO
+4
-100
-100
-76
-95
-100
18,373
13,712
4,661
7,599
6,586
1,798
3,379
254
289
1,627
2,530
67
53
171
849
187
1,569
711
79
1,569
508
70
203
9
-
-13
-79
-69
-100
4,033
895
3,138
771
250
521
-81
-72
-83
619
5,621
11
1.901
303
165
543
5,621
76
-
-
2,629
-
181
-100
-53
-100
1,114
462
1,110
379
4
-100
-50
-100
-41
+52
-100
2,810
83
71
-
-
11
1,897
303
165
236
-
-4
-
-
-
-
-
1,013
Unattached
-59
-
83
12
-
-50
-
--41
+25
-57
-
-
Insofar as these agencies dealt with the transient and homeless needy, their primary function was to administer direct
relief to resident homeless persons. The most important except ion was Los Angeles, where the case load in September 1935
was made up chiefly of inter-State migrant families taken over
from the transient bureaus and subsequently assigned to WPA jobs.
In a few cities, local public agencies established very restricted
transient programs after the closing of the FERA transient
bureaus (see pp. 31-32); in the main, however, their transient
and homeless case loads in both 1935 and 1936 were made up of
homeless persons. Thus, the decrease noted in table 6 reflects
chiefly a decrease in the size of the homeless group under care.
In some cities this decrease in cases under care doubtless
represents a shortage of facilities and money, rather than a
decrease in need. This was especially true of Chicago, which
showed a decline from 3, 379 cases in 1935 to 711 in 1936; and
on a somewhat smaller scale, of Memphis, which liquidated its
homeless population during the year; and of Jacksonville, Fla.,
and Philadelphia.
However, in other cities where cases under care at local public agencies decreased, there was a real decline in the need
of the transient and homeless group. The local public agencies
in Minneapolis, for example, showed a decline from 5,621 cases
in the 24-hour census of September 1935 to 2,810 cases in
Digitized by
Google
CHANGES IN SIZE
13
September 1936, and this decline appeared to be attributable
mainly to the fact that large numbers of the homeless cases in
Minneapolis secured private employment or were certified for
the Works Program at some time during the year after the transient bureaus closed.
The family cases under care at the State and local public agencies showed a much larger proportionate decline than the unattached (see table 61. Most of the decline in family cases is
attributable to Los Angeles, where certification for the Works
Program accounted for a decrease of about 2,600 family cases.
It is true that public agencies in three cities !Minneapolis,
Portland,- Oreg., and Washington, D. C. l reported family cases
under care in September 1936 and none in September 1935, but
family cases declined in most of the cities.
Changes at Private Agencies.
The general policy of State and local relief agencies is to
accept resident homeless cases for care, and to reject applicants who have no legal residence in the community where they
apply. But private orga~zations, such as Travelers Aid, the
Salvation Army, Volunteers of America, and missions do not ordinarily insist that applicants for relief be residents of the
community. For this reason, private agencies were the principal source of what little assistance transients received prior
to the establishment of the FERA Transient Program in 1933,
For the same reason, the case loads of private agencies began
to increase immediately after transient bureaus closed intake
on September 20, 1935. Because of lack of funds, most of the
private agencies were unable to expand their facilities or, in
some instances,to operate existing facilities to capacity; yet
at the same time that the number of transient and homeless relief cases in transient bureaus and other public agencies was
decreasing, the case load of private agencies was increasing.
During the year following the September 1935 survey.the case
loads of the private agencies increased further. In the 12
survey-cities, the private agencies had 6,009 transient and homeless cases on their rolls in September 1935, and 7,224 cases a
year later. The total number of cases increased 6 percent; and
unattached cases increased 9 percent. Family groups, however,
decreased 21 percent (see table 71.
The increase in September 1936, shown in table 7, serves as
a warning against drawing the conclusion that the transient and
homeless problem has diminished directly in proportion to the
number of cases receiving care at a.l l agencies. The growth of
the case load at private agencies indicates that the decreases
at the public agencies were not a result of declining needs
alone; iartly, at least, they resulted from the restrictions that
•
Digitized by
Google
14 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
public agencies placed upon intake of needy cases for care.
Private agencies,which had few restrictions as to type of cases
accepted,were naturally the recipients of cases unacceptable to
the public agencies; and such cases, as table 7 reveals, were
numerous enough to have increased the private agency case loads
of the 12 cities between the 2 survey-dates.
Table 7-24-HOIJR CENSUS OF TRANSIENT AND HCMELESS CASES (EXCLUDING SERVICE ONLY CASES) UNDER
CARE AT PRIVATE AGENCIES IN 12 CITIES, ACCORDING TO CITY,
SEPTEMBER 1935 ANO SEPTEMBER 1936
24-Hour Census of Cases Under Care
Cities
Septsnber 1935
Total
Unattached
All cities
6,809
Atlanta
Chicago
117
847
382
27
1,112
1,370
Denver
Jacksonvi I le. Fla.
Kansas City, Mo.
Los Angeles
M~his
Minneapolis
New Orleans'
Philadelphia
Port I and, Oreg.
Washington, D. C.
76
186
447
1,147
389
709
Septsnber 1936·
Percent Change
F~ily
Total
Unattached
6,249
560
7,224
6,783
441
~
+9
-21
107
773
267
209
1,129
211
66
1,532
1,666
189
1,029
202
54
1,509
1,557
20
100
9
12
23
109
+79
+33
-45
+17
+33
-24
+100
+35
-92
1,068
q31
10
74
115
4
44
139
+38
+22
+41
+26
-48
-22
59
154
405
0
1,146
378
638
17
32
42
1
11
71
Bl
97
477
t64
531
761
63
94
447
439
506
694
18
3
23
.
Total
30
25
25
67
•
Unattached
Fa,nily
F~ily
•
+7
+7
-48
+7
-<50
+37
+1
-39
+10
-<52
+34
+10
•
•
•
•
...,•
-29
•,ercentage not caaputed because ot ..all nuaber-1 IAVolved.
The increased load of the private agencies is probably made
up largely of nonresidents who, since the close of intake at the
transient bureaus,have experienced greater difficulty than the
local homeless in securing public aid. The local homeless are
ordinarily legal residents of the communities in which they
live, and accordingly have a legal claim for relief from the
State or local public agencies. Inter-State transients have no
such claim. Except in special cases they are denied relief at
the public agencies,and accepted only at the private agencies.
In general, the data on the relief loads of public and private agencies indicate that the transient relief problem has
declined in importance during the year following the stoppage
of transient bureau intake. However, in view of the inadequacy
of private agency care for transient and homeless persons in
most communities, and of the perennial shortage of funds at
private agencies, the reasonable supposition would be that the
case loads of the private agencies should have increased more
than they actually did, if the agencies had been able to accept
all cases applying for relief. Indeed,there is good reason for
believing that many of the private agencies were not able to
meet the demands made upon them a year after intake closed at
the transient bureaus. Data justifying this conclusion are
presented in a later section of the report (see pp. 34-36).
Digitized by
Go gle
CHANGES IN SIZE
15
The evidence, then, that the size of the needy transient and
homeless population under agency care had declined l year after
the closing of intake · at transient bureaus cannot of itself
support the conclusions that the total problem of transiency
and homelessness had declined proportionately. Additional facts
are needed to show whether the number of persons on the road or
homeless in the cities, but outside the agencies, had increased
or decreased during the year. The evidence available from the
12-ci ty survey covers the following subjects: the volume of
illegal train riding; the increase or decrease in the size of the
shelterless population in jungles, parks, etc.; begging and
panhandling; the amount of vagrancy; and observations of agency and city officials on the number of transient persons outside the public and private agencies.
CHANGES IN THE SIZE OF THE NEEDY TRANSIENT AND
HOMELESS GROUP OUTSIDE RELIEF AGENCIES
Illegal Train Riders,
Data on the change in the number of illegal train riders leave
little doubt that the total transient and homeless population,
as well as that part of it receiving care, did decline substantially between September 1935 and September 1936. Earlier studies
Table B-ILLEGAL TRAIN RIIJERS, OR TRESPASSERS REJ,()VEO FROM TRAINS, PREVENTED FRO.l GETTING
ON TRAINS, OR f.JECTED FRO.l RAILROAD PREMISES DURING
AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, 1935 AND 19%
Number of 111 egal Riders, Trespassers. etc.
Month and Year
All Rai I roads•
(Uni ted States Totals)
Selected Railroads
(in the Study-Ci ties)
,lugust 1935
,lu~ust 1936
Percent change
651,418
416,462
-36
63, 174b
43, 154•
-32
Sept.,.ber 1935
September 19%
Percent change
509,461
353,607
18,984°
12,046°
-37
-31
8 Jncludes total figures for 62 railroads 'lfhich reported data for all the rt0nthl concerned.
bhpresents the divisional reports of ,o railrMds In 10 or the study-cities.
eRepresents the divisional reports of 19 railroads in ti or the study-cities.
Source: ProcHdings or sixteenth AMuaJ Meeting, Protective Section or the Association of A111trican Railroads, Nay 20-21,
1t,1, pp. 59-60, and 1upple11entary releases.
have established the fact that the method of travel most frequently used by unattached transients is the freight train. For
example, in February 1935, 61 percent of the unattached transients reported that they used this means of transportation in
coming to the city of registration. 2 Thus, observations and
2 see Webb, John N., Transients in January and February 1935, Research Bulletin TR-4, Division or Research, Statistics, and Finance, Federal Emergency Relier Ac1m1n1strat1on, Washington, D. C., April 1936, p. 4.
Digitized by
Google
16 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
data reported by special railway police should be of value in
determining relative changes in the volume of transiency after
the closing of intake at FERA transient bureaus. The available
data for August and September of 1935 and 1936 are summarized
in the preceding table.
The absolute figures presented in table 8 must not be thought
of as representing the size of the transient population in either
the United States as a whole or in the 12 cities. This caution
is necessary both because of an indeterminate number of transients omitted, and of much more importance, the duplications resulting from counting the same individual several times. On the
other hand, the changes in the number of illegal riders, trespassers, etc., do reflect trends in the size and in the mobility
of the total transient and homeless population.
Between August 1935 and August 1936 the number of illegal train
riders, trespassers, etc., decreased 36 percent on all railroads
in the United States, and 32 percent on selected railroads in 10
of the 12 study-cities. A similar comparison of September figures
shows a decline of 31 percent for all railroads and 37 percent
for those in 8 of the 12 study-cities. Insofar as these figures
permit conclusions, it may be said that the sizeof the transient
and homeless population on the road decreased about one-third
during the year following the closing of intake at transient
bureaus. The decreases reported for the study-cities, taken as
a group, followed very closely those for all railroads in the
United States.
Among the 12cities studied, 3-Kansas City, Mo., Minneapolis,
and New Orleans-showed especially marked decreases. In Minneapolis, the police of six railroads all reported decreases; in
both Kansas City, Mo. , and New Orleans, the police of five of the
six lines reported decreases, and those of the sixth reported no
change. Illegal riding in Portland, Oreg. , declined moderately.
In Chicago, where data on illegal train riding is especially
significant because of the importance of this city as a railroad
center in transcontinental travel, the combined reports of 10
railroads showed a decrease of 23 percent for September 1936 as
compared with September 1935. The railroad police in Atlanta
observed that illegal train riders had decreased slightly; and
in Denver one railroad estimated a decrease of 15 percent, while
two other lines noticed no change.
In Los Angeles and Memphis the reports on illegal train riding
were contradictory in that both increases and decreases were
reported by the police of different railroads. Information is
not available as to the number of illegal riders and persons
ejectedfromtrains and railroad property in Jacksonville, Fla.,
and Washington, D. C. However, the police of railroads entering
Jacksonville, Fla., did report that there had been a substantial
increase in the number of arrests for robbing freight cars and
Digitized by
Google
17
CHANGES IN SIZE
illegal riding during the months immediately following the close
of transient bureau intake, and that the number of such arrests
had remained consistently high throughout the first 9 months of
1936,. In Philadelphia alone of the 12 cities a considerable
increase in illegal train riding was noted by railroad police.
The police of thre.e railroads reported increases ranging from
13 to ro percent.
Thus, there was evidence of a decrease in illegal train riding
in all butlof the 12 cities. It is important that the general
decrease was registered at a time when the policy of giving
inter-State transients overnight care and an invitation to move
on was being revived. Naturally the return of the 11 passing-on 11
policy would tend to increase mobility and, likewise, the number
of illegal train riders. It is reasonable to conclude, then,
that although the number of illegal train riders per month decreased on an average of about ro percent between August 1935
and September 1936-, the actual size of the transient and homeless
population must have decreased somewhat more than ro percent
during the same period.
The Shelterless Population.
Further evidence of a decline in the size of the transient
and homeless population during the year following the closing
of transient bureau intake is found in reports from the 12
survey-cities on the size of the shelterless population.
Representing as it does the group of transient and homeless
persons not receiving agency care, the shelterless population
would be expected to decline only when agency care was fairly
adequate for existing needs or when there was an actual decline
in the total number of needy persons. Thus, if the cases closed
by the transient bureaus during the liquidation process had
continued in large numbers to need assistance, there would have
been a substantial increase in the size of the shelterless
population. Actually, the reports from the 12 cities show that
there was only a slight increase in the size of the shel'terless
population between September 1935 and September 1936.
Before the initiation of the FERA Transient Program in 1933,
there were persistent reports of a large shelterless population.
Men, boys, and even women were observed sleeping in jungles,
freight cars, unoccupied buildings, and parks. Evidence of the
great numbers of destitute persons in the shelterless population
was presented in the public hearings on the various relief bills
introduced in Congress between December 1929 and March 1933.
The following testimony from the hearings is typical:
In one small part of Pittsburgh a war veteran, his
wife, and their 4-month old baby were found by the
H4805 0-37-3
Digitized by
Google
18
TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
police who at that time counted 478 men and 17
women sleeping in the same park. 3
A census taken in 765 cities by the Committee on Care of
Transient and Homeless on March 22, 1933, revealed a total of
IDl,596 transient and homeless persons, of whom 11,000 were in
jails and police stations, 15,000 in shantytowns, and 18,000
in jungles, boxcars, etc. 4
During the operation of the Transient Program the size of the
shelterless population declined sharply. Transient bureaus
housed those who formerly had slept in the parks, vacant buildings, and police stations; and jungles were either abandoned,
or broken up by the police. In Atlanta, for example, a special
agent of the Southern Railway stated: "During 1935 when the
transient bureau was in full swing, jungles were practically
extinct because it was the policy of the railway police to
'shake down' the jungles several times a week and send the men
to the transient bureau."
During the year following the close of intake at the transient
bureaus, the shelterless population appeared once again, but on
a much smaller scale than before. In September 1936, therewere
jungles in only 5 of the 12 survey-cities, and the number of
persons found to be living·in them was small. The largest jungle
population was reported in Portland, Oreg., where there were 4
jungles with a total population of about 100 persons. There
were also four jungles in Minneapolis, but at the time of inspection two were uninhabited and only eight persons were in the
others. _There were 2 jungles in Kansas City, Mo. , and 1 each
in Atlanta and Memphis, but none contained more than 20 persons.
In the other seven cities, the police had prevented the return
of jungles. The survey supervisor in Jacksonville, Fla., reported: "These jungles were considered a menace, and the railroad police, by constant watchfulness, have prevented them from
springing up again." Likewise, franChicago comes the report:
"During 1933 and 1934 a few jungles were in operation, but because of a number of thefts and two fatalities occurring in
these, theywere broken up by the police and have not been permitted to form again." In Denver the situation was summarized
as follows: "Jungles are prohibited in the Denver district and
when started they are immediately broken up by the police, railway agents, or sect ion gangs."
The shelterless population sleeping in parks, old buildings,
etc., did not appear to have increased greatly. In two of the
3unemployment Reller Hearings Before a Subcommittee or the committee on
Manufactures, u. s. Senate, 72d Congress, s. 174 alld s. 262, December 28,
1931-January 9, 1932, p. 196.
4Report or the census or Transient and Homeless tor March 22, 1933, Committee
on Care or Transient and Homeless, June 1, 1933, table 2, p.3.
Digitized by
Google
CHANGES IN SIZE
19
study-cities, however, an increase was reported. In Philadelphia an increased number of persons were observed sleeping
in parks and vacant buildings and in Chicago the police reported
the same condition.
It appears, therefore, that the shelterles~ population not
receiving care from relief agencies at the time of the 24-hour
census in September 1936 was relatively small. Accordingly,
the decreased case loads of all agencies considered togetiter
represent largely a decreased transient and homeless population.
Despite the evidence of a general decline in number of transient and homeless persons it is nevertheless true that a shelterless population was in existence in September 1936. The
fact that it was not a large group in all of .the survey-cities
is conditioned by the equally important fact that in some cities
it was large enough to constitute a problem.
UNMET NEEDS OF THE TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS GROUP
Unfortunately, the agencies included in the survey kept no
records of the cases which applied for relief and were refused;
and without such data, there is no way of measuring accurately
the increase or decrease in the number of needy applicants who
were refused relief. However, information on arrests for vagrancy, on begging and panhandling, and the testimony of observers regarding the numbers of needy transient and homeless
persons may serve as a substitute for data on the actual numbers
refused care at the various relief agencies.
Arrests for Vagrancy.
Although arrests for vagrancy depend upon the attitude of
the police in the individual cities, there is a relationship
between vagrancy and the transient and homeless problem. This
relationship may be illustrated by the following: Among 1.he
total of 1,656 persons arrested and convicted for vagrancy in
Los Angeles during January 1936, 85 percent had been in the
county less than 1 year and 73 percent had been in the State
less than 1 year. 6
Accordingly, an increase in arrests for vagrancy would probably indicate either an increase in the number of transient or
homeless persons, or a lack of facilities for their care. Since
it is fairly certain that there was not an increase in the total
transient and homeless population between September 1935 and
September 1936, an increase in vagrancy would reveal the increase in unmet needs.
6 See Report on In<llgent Allen Transients, Los Angeles Police Department,
Karch 11, 1936.
Digitized by
Google
ID TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
In the majority of the 12 survey-cities, arrests for vagrancy
either increased or remained the same during the year following
the close of intake at the transient bureaus. In Jacksonville,
Fla., Memphis, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Portland, Oreg., and
Washington, D. C., the police reported in September 1936 that
the number of arrests for vagrancy had increased during the
year. In Atlanta, Kansas City,Mo., and Los Angeles, the police
had observed little or no change. In view of the evidence
pointing towards a decrease in the number of transient and
homeless persons on the road, the general persistence of vagrancy in these cities would seem to reflect the difficulty
that transient and homeless persons face in securing relief
from social agencies.
Panhandling and Begging.
In the 12 cities, there was little agreement between the
number of arrests for vagrancy and the prevalence of panhandling
and begging. There was no uniform attitude on the part of
police towards either vagrancy or panhandling; the police were
strict or lenient according to local conditions and attitudes.
To illustrate, panhandling and begging increased markedly in
Jacksonville, Fla., and some months prior to September 1936
the Mayor issued the following statement: "As a humane measure,
law enforcement officials are to practice tolerancy and, when
possible, ignore those individuals resorting to the act of
street begging." In Memphis, on the other hand, a concerted
police drive against transients had caused an increase in arrests
for vagrancy and a decrease in panhandling.
Information on panhandling and be!fging, like the data on
arrests for vagrancy, throws some light on the extent of unmet
needs among the transient and homeless population. In a majority of the 12 cities panhandling and begging were of fairly
common occurrence in September 1936, and had actually decreased
in only 4 cities-Chicago, Denver, Memphis, and Philadelphia.
Atlanta, Kansas City, Mo., Los Angeles, and Washington, D. C.,
reported little or no change during the year fallowing the
close of intake at the transient bureaus. And in New Orleans
and Fortland, Oreg., as well as Jacksonville, Fla., panhandling
and begging were reported to be increasing.
Testimony of Local Observers.
The interviewers in the 12 cities obtained opinions from over
150 persons regarding the seriousness of the transient and
homeless problem in their localities. Among these persons were
officials of public and private agencies, public officials,
heads of civic organizations, and other persons in a position
Digitized by
Google
21
CHANGES IN SIZE
to observe conditions. There was some difference of opinion
among these observers; divergencies occurred either because the
observers were discussing different phases of the problem or
because of differences in their points of view.
Generally
speaking, however, local opinions were in accord with other
findings of the survey. For the purposes of summary, the opinions of local observers permit the cities to be classified as
follows: (ll those in which the problem was not regarded as
serious;<2J those in which it was regarded as moderately acute;
and (3) those in which, according to local observers, a serious
transient and homeless problem seemed to exist.
There was one city, Kansas City, Mo., in which local op1n1on
held that the transient and homeless problem was not serious.
Typical of witnesses in this city are one private agency official who reported that there had been few requests for aid
since the closing of the transient bureaus, and another who
remarked that there had been "a great let-down in transiency"
in his COlllillUnity.
From the opinions given in four cities-Atlanta, Los Angeles,
Philadelphia, and Portland, Oreg.-it appears that the local
problem was only moderately acute. According to an official
of the Travelers Aid Society in Atlanta, for example, the current number of transients could be cared for by the agencies in
operation at that time; and a public agency official thought
that the problem of transiency had not been as acute during
the past year as had been anticipated. The head of the Philadelphia Community Fund observed that transiency in his city
was not a great problem, and in Portland, Oreg., similar reports
were given.
In seven cities-Chicago, Denver, Jacksonville, Fla., Memphis,
Minneapolis, New Orleans, and Washington, D. C.-the most reliable opinions reflected unsatisfactory transient and homeless
programs. The following are typical of the testimony: The
director of the New Orleans Community Chest reported, "Facilities for the care of transients are almost entirely inadequate."
An official of Travelers Aid was of the opinion that unattached
adults and family cases had little chance of obtaining relief
in Chicago, and probably resorted to flop houses if they possibly could. The opinion of a Department of Public Welfare
transient intake worker in Denver was: "The present system of
caring for transients is inhuman, inadequate, and unsatisfactory
in every respect."
Testimony of Transients.
In addition to the opinions discussed above, interviews were
conducted with over 100 transients in the survey-cities. From
them it is possible to gain first-hand information concerning
Digitized by
Google
22
TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
the most recent experiences of persons on the road, and their
success in obtaining relief since the time transient bureaus
closed intake. The details of these interviews were extremely
varied, but in general the experiences which were reporteEI
showed the inadequacy of transient and homeless relief in some
of the 12 cities. A typical interview, obtained in Jacksonville,
Fla., on September 25, 1936, is quoted in its entirety.
Interviewer's note:
This transient youth comes
from a marginal Jewish family of New York City. His
migration covers a period of approximately 2 years,
during which time he had been in a number of transient camps. After nearly 11 months in the transient boys' camp at Ocala, Fla., he secured WFA employment November 14, 1935, on the Florida ship
canal project. In May 1936 this work ended. From
this point he began a series of wanderings that had
carried him west to San Antonio, Tex.; north to
Cincinnati; and east to Richmond, Va. The following
information is given as told by the transient.
Leaving Ocala, I went to New Orleans hoping to
ship out on a fruit steamer, but I found it necessary to be a member of the Union, and, not having
the required $15, I was out of ·1uck.
I headed for Dallas with the intention of getting something to do at the Texas Centennial, but
I was refused everywhere I applied because I did
not have 6 months' residence in that city.
Learning that opportunity was more abundant in
Houston, I next went there, though I did not get a
job. A relief agency, known as the City Bureau for
Transients, gave me a week's meal ticket in exchange
for 24 hours' work in its dining room. There were
lots of men there, but every one of us had to provide his own place to sleep, which generally turned
out to be the city park. This agency would not
give more than a week's care to anyone,so after my
time was up I started for the oil fields of Texas,
hoping to get something to do.
At San Antonio I was picked up on a vagrancy
charge of railroad trespassing, and the next morning
the Judge lined us up-some 15 or 20-and gave us
all the same sentence-15 days' hard work on a pea
farm operated by the city. When released, I decided
to get out of Texas at once, and railroaded it back
to New Orleans, staying overnight and going on to
Louisville, Ky.
Digitized by
Google
CHANGES IN SIZE
23
There were lots of men riding the train, and it
was easier for us to stay on than to try ana make
our way in the small towns. Whenever we could, we
panhandled on the streets and hit the back doors.
But police pressure was so great that we had to keep
At Louisville I spent 2 days at the
on moving.
Sally. They would not permit us to stay longer.
While there, I tried to get on one of the W.l:'A projects, but even though I had an identification card
they told me that I was not a resident and they
could not help me.
I left there and went to Cincinnati, where I
found some kind of a transient bureau, also operated
by the city; but here again I ran into the same old
story, 'Sorry, unless you can prove that you are a
resident we can give you only overnight care. 1 By
this time, I was getting pretty much disgusted with
things, but, having no place to stay, I was forced
to take to the road again.
At Charlestown, W. Va., I was again picked up as
a vag and given 21 days in the county jail. It was
my first experience of this kind-that is, being
confined to a jail. They made me work about the
building. When discharged, I struck out for Richmond, Va., where the Travelers Aid Society sent me
out to the city produce farm. Living accommodations
were satisfactory, and I would have been content
to have stayed indefinitely, but they also had a
maximum stay limit, which was 2 weeks. We were required to work 8 hours a day in the field in return
for meals and lodging and tobacco-no clothing or
cash was given.
I left Richmond planning to return to the Ocala
Boys' Camp, but I got no farther than Sava.nnah; Ga.,
before I was again arrested as a vagrant. This
time they jolted me for 10 days at the city's convict farm.
When they turned meloose, I set out immediately
for Jacksonville, and shortly after arrival I learned
that the boys' camp had been closed. Sick and tired
of the road, J made the rounds of the relief agencies, trying to get some assistance, but was unsuccessful. I panhandled on the streets for a few
days and got by pretty well. The cops didn't bother
me, and people were rather cheerful about giving.
However, I didn't like this way of getting by, and
so when I learned that newsboy$ were needed by a
local newspaper I went around and applied. They
Digitized by
Google
24 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
put me on, and for the next month and a half I sold
papers on the streets. I was unable to realize anything more than the price of a flop and a couple of
cheap meals each day on this job.
At present I have a job as assistant cook in a
small restaurant,which allows me my room and board
for my services.
Digitized by
Google
Chapter
m
CHANGES IN THE COMPOSITION OF THE TRANSIENT
AND HOMELESS POPULATION
The decline in the size of the needy transient and homeless
population during the year following the closing of transient
bureau intake was accompanied by changes in the personal characteristics of this group. In brief, these changes were ( ll a
decrease in the proportion of family cases as compared to the
unattached; ( 2) a decrease in the proportion of transients as
compared to the resident homeless; (3) an increase in the proportion of older persons; and (4) an increase in the proportion
of women.
PROPORTION OF UNATTACHED AND FAMILY CASES
Returns from the two 24-hour censuses of cases under care
in the 12 survey-cities show that there was a smaller proportion
of migrant family groups on September 24, 1936, than on September 27, 1935. The relation between unattached and family group
cases on the two census dates is presented in table 9 below.
Table 9-UNATTACHED AND FAMILY CASES UNDER CARE IN 12 CITIES,
SEPTEMBER 1935 AND SEPTEMBER 1936
Total
Type of Case
Type of A.gency and Date of Census
Number
Percent
Unattached
Family
37,424
12,242
18,373
6,809
100
100
100
100
76
70
75
92
30
25
8
14,911
100
90
10
7,687
7,224
100
100
86
14
6
Septenber 27, 1935
All agencies
Transient bureau
Other pub I i c agencies
Private agencies
24
Septenber 24, 1936
Al l agencies
Public agencies
Private agencies
94
Immediately after the closing of transient bureau intake about
one-quarter of the cases under ca.re in all agencies in the 12
cities were families and the remainder were unattached. One
year later (September 24, 1936) family cases represented only
one-tenth of the total. The more rapid decline in the proportion
25
Digitized by
Google
26 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
of family cases must have been the result either of a restricted
intake policy towards families or of a change in the composition
of the transient and homeless population. Because relief agencies are much more liberal in their intake policies towards
family cases than towards unattached cases, the more than proportionate decline could mean only a change in the total transient and homeless population.
The principal reasons for the more rapid decline in the proportion of family groups than of unattached cases appear to be
clear. During the liquidation of the Transient Program, the
transfer of the more stable families to the resident telief
rolls was a frequent occurrence. The heads of migrant family
groups were better qualified than the unattached in terms of
skill and experience for private employment. 1 In some, if not
all, cities there was a tendency for family heads to be more
successful than unattached persons in securing WPA assignments.
Finally, ,the closing of the transient bureaus was more likely
to act as a deterrent to the migration of family groups than
of unattached cases, because of the hardships of travel and the
uncertainties of obtaining assistance.
PROPORTION OF TRANSIE.NT AND HOMELESS CASES
A second important change in the transient and homeless population 1 year after the closing of transient bureau intake was
the decline in the proportion of -inter-State cases, and the
corresponding increase in the proportion of intra-State and
local homeless cases. Comparisons are particularly difficult
in this instance because the transient bureau distinctions of
inter-State (Federal), intra-State (State), and local homeless
(residents l were not recorded by most of the J>Ublic and private
agencies.
In the comparison which follows, data on composition at the
time of closing transient bureau intake are based upon the transient bureau census of September 21, 1935, for 11 States 2 which
had regularly accepted inter-State, intra-State, and local homeless cases. Data on the composition 1 year later were obtained
1see Webb, John N., The Transient Unemployed, Research Monograph III, Division ot Social Research, Works PrQgress Administration, Washington, D. C,,
Karch 1i36, pp. 47 and 50-61,
2 The States were CaUtornia, norida, IlUnois, Indiana, 1Centuck7, Michigan,
Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. These were the
most important or the States giving care to local homeless and intra-State
transients as well as inter-State transients. In a tew or the remaining
States, occasional assistance was given to intra-State and local homeless
cases at transient bureaus, but the number or such cases was negligible
in comparison with the number in the 11 States listed above. It should
be no~ed that 6 or the 11 States contained 1 or the 12 survey-cities.
Digitized by
Google
CHANGES IN COMPOSITION
by asking each of the agencies in the 12 survey-cities of September 1936 to estimate what proportion of its case load was
nonresidents. A comparison of the composition of the transient
and homeless population follows:
Table 10-RESIOENCE STATUS OF TRANSIENT AND HO~ELESS CASES UNDER CARE IN 11 STATES,
SEPTEMBER 1935, AND 12 CITIES, SEPTEMBER 1936
Residence Status
Al 1 cases
11 States
September 21,
1935
61,838
12 Cities-Sept'"1lber 24, 1936
Al I
Agencies
Pub] i c
Agencies
Agencies
14,911
7,687
7,224
Private
Percent. Dtatrtoutton
All cases
100
100
100
100
Inter-State
56
Intra-State and local homeless
44
27
53
20
14
70
16
41
36
23
-
Not ascertai nab) e
This rather remarkable decrease in the proportion of interState transients may be attributable in part to a more rapid
decline in the t-ransient than in the homeless population. It
is probable, however, that a more important cause of the change
is the increased reluctance on the part of existing agencies
to accept nonresident cases. Table 10 presents evidence that
inter-State transients were largely dependent for care on the
private agencies (missions, Salvation Anny, etc. I while intraState transients and local homeless cases-many of whom were
unemployable-made up the bulk of the public agencies (municipal
lodging houses, etc. I load.
AGE
During the operation of the FERA Transient Program youth was
a characteristic of transients, and local homeless persons were
a distinctly older group. 3 In the present study it was not
always possible to separate the transients from the homeless;
and accordingly, it is impossible to arrive at completely accurate conclusions concerning the age of transients as compared
with homeless persons. It is nevertheless clear that in September 1936 the total transient and homeless group was older than
the group at the transient bureaus.
Examination of table 11 shows that the cases under care at
the private agencies tended to be considerably younger than
those at the public agencies. The age distribution of cases
at private agencies in September 1936 was more like that for
unattached persons and heads of families at transient bureaus
3 see The Transient Uneap107ed, op. cit., pp. 28-2i.
Digitized by
Google
28
TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
in September 1935. Since it is known that transients were
younger than the homeless, these age data furnish additional
evidence that the case loads of private agencies were composed
primarily of transients; and the older age of unattached persons
at public agencies reflects the preponderance of local homeless.
To account further for the more advanced age of both unattached
and heads of families at public agencies, it may be recalled
that many transient bureaus transferred their unemployable cases,
many of whom were in the older age brackets, to general relief
rolls upon final liquidation.
Table 11-AGE OF UNATTilCHED TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS PERSONS AND HEADS OF FAMILY GRO.JPS,
SEPTEMBER 1935 AND SEPTEMBER 1936
(Percent Distribution)
Family Type and Age
Unattached
Under 16 yean
16-24 years
25-44 years
Sept8nber
1935
12 Cities-September 24, 1936
30,
All
Public
Private
Agencies
Agencies
Agencies
100•
100
100
100
•
15
2
12
1
5
35
33
38
100
45 years or over
50
53
26
6e
Heads of f,rnilies
100•
100
100
Under 16 years
16-24 years
25-44 years
45 years or over
-
-
13
65
22
48
5
39
42
56
10
-
3
18
41
20
63
17
•Less than o.5 percent.
8 Distribution based on FUA Transient Division ouarterly Census lteport of
.,,us Individuals Under care at Transient
lureaus In 11 States (accepting local homeless and intra-State transients as well as inter-State tra,isients) on Sept9'1ber
For the identity ot the 11 States, see footl'Ote 2, p. 26.
,o, 19)5.
boistribution based on a sample of 5,'89 •igrant farail ies under care during Septelllber 19)5. See lllebb, John 11., and Bryan,
Jack Y., Migrant Fa11ilies {II), Research Bulletin Tlt-1l, Division of Social ltesearch, works ,rogres~ ... - 1 .. istration,
wa•hlngton. D,
c., April
:n.
19)6.
Public agency case loads in September 1936 were also older
than the cases under care in transient bureaus in September 1935.
This difference appears to be the result of three factors: Cll
the higher proportion of local homeless persons receiving care
in September 1936; ( 2) the presence at the agencies surveyed of
many unemployable cases formerly at transient bureaus but ineligible for Works Program certification; and (3) the policy of
many agencies to accept only unemployable and other special cases.
PROPORTION OF MEN AND WOMEN
During the operation of the FERA Transient Program, women
constituted a relatively small proportion of the cases receiving
care. This small proportion was particularly marked among unattached transients,ofwhom not morethan3 percent were women.
Although more women were heads of transient family groups, the
proportion seldom exceeded 15 percent. The relatively small
number of women at the transient bureaus reflected the difficulties and hardships attending their migration. 4
4 see Transient Unemployed, op, cit., pp. 31
rr.
Digitized by
Google
CHANGES IN COMPOSITION
29
Surprisingly, 1 year after the closing of transient bureau
intake the proportion of women, both unattached and heads of
family groups, 'had increased. Table 12 below compares the sex
composition of transient and ho.meless persons in September 1935
with the composition l year later.
Table 12-SEX OF UNATTACHED TRANSIENT AND Ho.tELESS PERSONS AND HEADS OF FAMILY GROUPS,
SEPTEMBER 1935 AND SEPTEMBER 1936
Family Type and Sex
Unattached
Male
Female
HeadS of families
Male
Female
September 30,
1935
12 Cities-September 24, 1936
Al 1
A.gene i es
Public
Private
Agencies
Agencies
100•
100
100
100
97
3
92
8
96
B8
12
100•
100
86
14.
61
39
100
68
32
4
100
52
48
aDlstriDution based on FERA Transient Division Quarterly Census Report of Individuals Under Car• at Transient lureaus
in 11 States, on Septeniber )0, 1935.
For the identity of the 11 States aee footnote, 2, p. 26,
bOistribt:tlon based on a supla or 5Jl,89 mi<1rant families under cara during S.pteniber 19)5.
see Migrant F11111illes (11),op.cit
Among unattached persons the proportion of women increased
from 3 percent in 11 States on September 30, 1935, to 8 percent
at agencies in the 12 cities in September 1936. The corresponding increase among heads of families was from 14 percent
to 39 percent. At private agencies in the 12 cities the increases were even more marked.
In spite of the general increase in the proportion of women
under care, it does not necessarily follow that the transient
and homeless population included a higher proportion of women
in September 1936 than it had a year before. It is not reasonable to suppose that, with transient bureaus closed, an increasing number of lone.women or women with families would have
begun migration.
Changed intake policies at the relief agencies account for
the changed composition. In September 1936 both public and
private agencies, because of demands in excess of their funds
and facilities, accepted only the more distressed cases. Unattached women and women with families, including unmarried
mothers, were usually accepted for care in preference to less
urgent cases. On the other hand, employable men, whether unattached or with families, were frequently refused care or were
accepted for overnight care only. Thus, although the ratio of
women among the transient and homeless group receiving care had
increased, the explanation lies not in their increased importance within the total group, but rather in the exclusion of
employable men from the program of many agencies.
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
Chapter :rv
AGENCIES EXTENDING RELIEF TO THE TRANSIENT
AND HOMELESS POPULATION
THE INTAKE POLICIES OF THE RELIEF AGENCIES
The explanation for many of the changes that have been described in the preceding chapters is to be found in the administration of the agencies extending relief to the transient and
homeless population. The shift of the transient and homeless
relief burden from public to private agencies after September
1935, for example, or the decreased size of the group and the
accompanying changes in age, sex, and family composition are to
be accounted for, at least in part, on the basis of changed facilities and intake policies at the social agencies.
Intake Policies at Public Agencies.
In .four of the survey-cities, Jacksonville, Fla., Kansas City,
Mo., Memphis, and New Orleans, the public agencies did not have
programs for either transient or homeless persons in September
1936; in these cities, needy transient and homeless cases were
accepted only at private agencies. In the remaining cities,
al though the public agencies were often providing for the needy
homeless and f_or emergency transient cases, employable nonresident men were refused care in most instances. Among the eight
cities 1 with public agency programs, not one failed to make
some sort of provision for transient families, transient women,
and local homeless persons. On the other hand, thepubliG agencies in these cities had either barred inter-State transient
men or limited their care.
In Philadelphia, the only public relief available to unattached male transients consisted of lodging in precinct police
stat ions. The Chicago public agencies refused care to una ttached employable males. The same condition existed in Los
Angeles, except for one public agency which accepted transient
juveniles (under 18 I; and in Portland, Oreg., except that transient men were allowed to sleep on the floor of the shower-room
1These cities were Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, K1nneapol1s, Philadelphia, Portland, Oreg., and Washington, D. C. It should be noted that
1n a number or cl t1es throughout the country there were unexpended balances
ot FERA grants tor transient re11et. This tact influenced the intake policiesot public agencies directly, and or private agencies indirectly through
referral or cases on a contract basis.
31
Digitized by
Google
32 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
at the city jail. At the public agencies in Atlanta and Denver
care was given to employable transient men, but for 24 hours
only. In Minneapolis, employable cases were referred to a private agency. The public agencies in the remaining city, Washington, D. C., were carrying on a fairly comprehensive program
for transient men, but lack of funds was limiting the .number
that could be given care.
The significance of the restrictions against employable inter-State men at the public relief agencies is that, during the
operation of the transient bureaus, employable men made up a
substantial majority of the total case load at all times. Naturally, their exclusion from public agencies after the close of
intake resulted in changes in both the size and the composition
of the case loads. The intake policies of the public agencies
are largely responsible for: ( ll the shifting of the transient
and homeless relief burden to the private agencies whose intake
policies are less restricted, and ( 2) the greater proportion
of transient families, transient women, and older persons-in
comparison with younger unattached men-at the public agencies.
Intake Policies at Private Agencies.
Unlike the public agencies, the private agencies in ~he 12
cities were accepting all types of needy cases to the limit of
their resources. Only a very few private agencies definitely
limited the types of cases they accepted. At some of the private agencies, however, special factors, such as the collection
of a small fee whenever possible, operated more
or less indi-
rectly to create restrictions.
l!isstons. Private agencies of the mission type generally
accepted wit bout quest ion all needy transient and homeless
cases who applied for care. They required applicants to be
sober and to attend the religious services, and about one-fourth
of the missions, especially those hard pressed for funds, made
a small charge of 10 to 15 cents for a bed or meal whenever the
applicant was able to pay. Otherwise they accepted cases up
to the limit that their funds would allow.
Missions were lenient in regard to length of stay. Typical
interviewers' reports on missions state: "Free food and shelter are given as long as the case is deserving." "The transient may remain indefinitely, provided he is sober and not
unruly." "The Mission seldom asks a man to leave, because the
longer he is around, the more chance of converting him."
The basic policy of the missions is "salvation first." "The
first consideration," says one report, "is to save the man's
soul. If he refuses to have his soul saved, it is the opinion
of the agency that he isn 1 t worthy of assistance." But "the
men resent having to be saved before they can be fed." Undoubtedly this policy, together with the otherwise unsatisfactory
Digitized by
Google
AGENCIES EXTENDING RELIEF
33
care at these shelters, 2 tended to make the missions a place
of last resort. Accordingly, the number of cases under care at
missions in the 12 cities during September 1936 (see table 13)
indicates that many transient and homeless persons had failed
in their effort to obtain relief elsewhere.
Table 13-24-HOUR CENSUS OF TRANSIENT AND HO,IELESS CASES AT PRIVATE /IGENCIES
IN 12 CI Tl ES, BY TYPE OF AGENCY, SEPTEMBER 1936
Total Cases
Unattached Persons
Femi ly G'roups
Total
7,224
441
Missions
Other private agencies
3,720
3,504
6,783
3,669
3,114
Type of Private Agency-
51
390
Percent Dtstrtbutton
Total
Missions
Other private agencies
100
51
49
100
54
46
100
12
88
In September 1936 one-half ( 51 percent l of the cases receiving
care at private agencies were at missions. 3 Practically all
of these cases were unattached men. Because of the missions'
liberality to transients ineligible for relief at public agencies, it is clear that a large part of the men in the missions
were inter-State transients, alt hough in many instances these
agencies themselves kept no records of the residence status of
their cases.
Other Agencies. Private agencies other than those of the mission type were somewhat less lenient towards the transient and
homeless group. In some instances, the restrictions upon intake
and length of stay resulted from interagency referral and contract agreements. In Atlanta, for example, the Salvation Army
had contracted to take cases referred from the Transiency Program of the Department of Public Welfare, which was providing
for only 24-hour care to able-bodied transient men. Regardless
of its policy in other cities, the Salvation Army in Atlanta,
as a result of the contract agreement, was operating principally
on the restricted basis of the Transiency Program. The largest
mission in Atlanta, however, did not have a contract with the
Transiency Program, and was accordingly not restricting care to
24 hours.
Some private agencies made a policy of charging for care whenever possihle.
It was pointed out above that about one-fourth
of the missions followed this practice. Among the other private agencies 4 slightly over one-fifth ( 21 percent) reported
2 see the dlscusslon on pp. 34-36.
3Among the 137 private agencies 1n the 12 study-cltles, 32 were or the m1ss1on type.
4Agenc1es whlch gave no rree care were excluded rrom thls study.
144805 0-37-4
Digitized by
Google
34 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
the same practice. The fact that applicants were expected to
pay probablykept the case loads of some agencies at a minimum.
Needy cases without funds hesitated to apply; while those who
could earn or panhandle enough money to pay for their care preferred the independence of eating in cheap restaurants and
sleeping in flophouses to the restrictions of shelter life.
Still other private agencies definitely limited the types of
cases they accepted for care. Most Travelers Aid Societies were
accepting only transient families, juveniles, and cases presenting urgent social problems, although they sometimes gave
temporary care to other types of cases pending referral to another agency. The exclusion of employable men limited their
scope to such an extent that only 4 percent of the cases under
care at private agencies during the 24-hour census in September
1936 were found at Travelers Aid Societies.
A second group of private agencies accepted only problem cases,
such as unmarried mothers, delinquent women, or dependent or
delinquent children: After the closing of the transient bureaus
they became an important source of relief for transient women,
and runaway boy~ and girls. This group of agencies reported 7
percent of the private agency case load.
In summary, private agencies were more liberal in their intake policies than were public agencies. It is true that over
one-fifth of all private agencies requested applicants to pay
a small amount whenever possible; and that a small group of
agencies, accounting for about 11 percent of the private agency
case load, accepted only special cases. But private agencies
of the mission type, which were caring for over half of the
private agency case load, had virtually no administrative restrictions as to either intake or length of stay.
AGENCY CARE
Nature of' Care.
Excluding agencies with facilities for the care of less than
10 persons, a total of 159 agencies 1137 private and 22 public I
gave some kind of relief to the transient and homeless population in the 12 cities in September 1936. Data on the nature of
care given, i.e., meals, lodging, case work, and clothing,were
available for each of the 159 agencies and are presented in
table 14.
About nine-tenths 189 percent I of the agencies were providing
meals; while nearly as large a proportion (85 percent) were
furnishing lodging. A cross-tabulation revealed that 80 percent
were providing both meals and lodging. Clothing was given by
76 percent of the agencies, but less than one-half 146 percent)
were providing case work.
Digitized by
Google
AGENCIES EXTENDING RELIEF
35
Table 14-AGENCY CARE AVAILABLE TO TRANSIENT AND Ho.4ELESS CASES IN 12 CITIES,
SEPTEMBER 1936
Nature of Care
A11 Ag enc i es
Nllllber
All agencies
Public Agencies
Percent
Number
Private Agencies
Percent
N1X11ber
-
91
85
44
80
159
-
22
-
137
141
135
73
121
89
85
46
76
17
18
14
t
t
t
t
124
116
60
100
Percent
Agencies providing:
Meal s8
Lodging•
Case v.ork
Clothing
11
t Percentages
not cOfflputed Decause or smal I nu111bers i nvolv~.
8 tnc1udes agencies •hich provided outdoor relief and contract care.
Quality of' Care.
These figures are somewhat misleading, in that they do not show
that a meal may consist of sinkers and coffee, that a Zo~t~ may
consist of a mat on the floor, and that c lothtnt may consist of
an occasional secondhand garment. Of course,some private agencies were offering adequate care. Likewise, the public agencies
operating a transient and homeless program ordinarily provided
satisfactory care; it must be remembered, however, that only
about half of the cases were receiving care at public agencies.
Equipment.
It was impossible to measure precisely how much physical equipment for the care of the transient and homeless group was available in the 12 cities. For example, information on the capacity
of many agencies was reported in terms of funds available,
rather than equipment; and at the agencies in which applicants
were permitted to sleep on the floor when all available beds
were filled, the reports on equipment were confused by the fact
that capacity could be expanded to meet emergencies.
Despite these difficulties, it was nevertheless clear to observers in the 12 survey-cities that physical equipment for the
care of transient and homeless cases was not lacking. Moreover, in those cities in which consistent data could be obtained,
physical capacity exceeded the case loads under care. For example, at 6 agencies in Atlanta, there was equipment for 2,188
cases, but only 1,744 cases under care. In Chicago, where the
transient and homeless problem was acute, 11 of the 14 shelters
whose reports appeared to be reliable were operating at less
than three-quarters capacity. In Denver, where the problem was
also acute, one agency had stored 2)0 beds for lack of money to
operate them.
Funds.
Both public and private agencies reported funds insufficient
to meet the transient and homeless problem adequately. This
Digitized by
Google
36
TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
was the basic difficulty in meeting the transient and homeless
problem in September 1936, and was responsible fort he restricted
intake policies, the unused equipment, and the generally inadequate care provided by the agencies.
CITY-WIDE COORDINATION OF TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS
RELIEF ACTIVITIES
In September 1935 the existence of transient committees was
reported in a number of the survey-cities. These commit tees,
usually sponsored by Councils of Social Agencies and composed
of persons familiar with local transient problems, were organized in order to work out and put into effect local programs
to replace those of the transient bureaus. By September 1936
the committees in four of the cities, Atlanta, Jacksonville,
Fla., New Orleans, and Washington, D. C., 5 had recommended that
central application bureaus be established. In other cities,
Atlanta, 8 Denver, Kansas City, Mo., Los Angeles, and Memphis,
either upon a committee recommendation or by mutual consent,
one agency had been designated as a clearing house for all transient cases, and cooperating agencies had agreed to accept referrals to the limit of their facilities. It is interesting to
note the extent to which such plans were actually operating at
the time the September 1936 survey was made.·
Central Application Bureaus.
In September 193S Jacksonville, Fla., was the only one of the 12
cities in which a· central application bureau had been set up.
As stated above, recommendations for others had been made, but,
in the majority of cities, lack of funds had prevented the plan
from progressing-beyond the committee report stage. The State
Boar<l of Social Welfare established and was maintaining the
Central Application Bureau in Jacksonville, Fla. It was giving
no relief, but was acting solely as a referral and service
agency.
Interagency Agreements.
The need for cooperation in meeting the transient problem was
recognized in some of the cities. In three cities, Atlanta,
Denver, and Los Angeles, a public agency was chosen to act as
a central appl~cation bureau for all cases, and in two cities,
5The translent commlttee 1n one other cltY was about to recommend the establlshment ot a central appllcatlon bureau, but requested that lts plans
be kept contldentlal.
8s1nce theplan tor a central appllcatlon bureau ln Atlanta never materlallzed, thls cltY can also be lncluded ln thls group.
Digitized by
Google
AGENCIES EXTENDING RELIEF
37
Kansas City, Mo., and Memphis, a private agency was selected
to act in this capacity. With each of these agencies as a nucleus, a well-organized interagency plan was to be developed.
However, no such plan was operating in September 1936.
PLANS FOR THE CARE OF THE TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS
POPULATION
Planned Changes in Intake Policy.
Despite the obvious limitations of existing intake policies,
no fundamental changes were contemplated by either public or
private agencies in most of the study-cities. In eight of the
cities, no changes of any sort were planned; and those projected
in the other four cities were as often contrary to the interests
of the transient and homeless group as not. In Chicago and Los
Angeles only, the relief administrations were attempting to work
out programs that would permit them to give at least a small
amount of help to employable transient men. On the other hand,
public agencies for the local homeless in Philadelphia were
planning to discontinue all care about November 1, 1936; and in
Denver, the largest agency was planning to reduce its transient
care from two meals a day and a bed to one meal and a place to
sleep on the floor.
Planned Changes in Equipment and Facilities.
Private agencies planned additions to existing equipment for
the care of transients and the homeless in 6 of the 12 cities.
The total effect of these changes was likely to be small,however, since the aggregate of the new additions was to have increased capacity by less than 300 cases.
Typical instances of the changes contemplated will show how
little they were to affect the total transient and homeless
problem. In Los Angeles, a mission was planning to open a home
outside the city to provide for 25 boys between the ages of 16
and 22. In Chicago, 2private agencies with a combined capacity
of 80 cases were planning to expand to a combined capacity of
170 cases-. In Philadelphia, a mission which had been giving
only food to 135 persons was planning to provide beds and other
care as well.
Requests for Additional Money.
In view of the almost universal shortage of funds to handle
properly the needs of the transient and homeless population, it
might be thought that a large number of the agencies would have
been campaigning for increases in their budgets. As a matter
of fact, however, very few agencies were planning to ask for
more money. It will be recalled that observers reported serious
Digitized by
Google
38 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
unmet needs in seven cities: Chicago, Denver, Jacksonville,
Fla., Memphis, Minneapolis, New Orleans, and Washington, D. C.
But in only four of these seven· cities-Denver, Jacksonville,
Fla., Memphis, and New Orleans-were agencies requesting additional money from the local Community Chest.
Digitized by
Google
Chapter V
CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE STABILIZATION OF THE
TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS IN SEPTEMBER 1936
COKKUNITY ATTITUDES
Among the conditions affecting the stabilization of the needy
transient and homeless population, community attitudes are of
basic importance. These attitudes are rarely sympathetic. The
resident population has a tendency to look with disfavor on the
needy nonresidents in their connuni ties, particularly during
periods of depression. Although this tendency was modified
somewhat during the operation of the transient bureaus, it was
again apparent in September 1936, as extensive interviews within
the 12 survey-cities reveal.
About half of the persons interviewed in September 1936 showed
a definitely antagonistic attitude towards the transient and
homeless group. For example, a private agency official stated:
"Transients are chronic bums and always will be; they have a
wanderlust, so let them wander." An interviewer reported this
statement by a police official: "Only those shiftless or lazy
ones were st ill on the road * * * those were just 'bums',
and nothing could probably be done for them." Business men,
civic organization officials, municipal and railway police, and
public and private agency officials-all expressed animosity
towards transient and homeless persons.
In nearly all of the 12 cities a few people were beginning
to think of the "cure" for transiency in terms of cutting off
all assistance, and thus forcing needy nonresidents to go elsewhere. "It is a mistake to care for them, 11 said one private
agency official, "the problem could tie eliminated if care were
discontinued." In Denver, this view received official approval.
The Rocky Mountain News, of September 30, 1936, quotes the Denver manager of health and charities as follows: "Professional
bums and hoboes, as well as needy transients, had better stay
out of Denver. They had better stay out of here as they won't
get much consideration in the !uture.r
Some persons, however, did believe that relief for transient
and homeless persons should be an essential part of a wellplanned relief program. They stated that the transient problem
is inter-State in essence, and that Federal assistance is necessary.
39
Digitized by
Google
40
TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
In any case, it was certain that the attitudes which were reported in September 1936 reflected a lack of local funds to
provide adequately for the transient and homeless population,
a condition that has been chronic in the past. Under the circumstances it is scarcely to be expected that local relief agencies, either public or priv'lte, will become more liberal towards transient and homeless persons in the future.
ELIGIBILITY FOR RESIDENT RELIEF
The eligibility for resident relief of transient and homeless persons measures to some extent the likelihood of their
stabilization in communities where at present they represent
an excluded group. During the liquidation of the transient
bureaus many nonresident cases were transferred to local relief rolls. 1 This procedure might indicate that communities
had become resigned to the acceptance of responsibility for
cases on the basis of need rather than on the basis of residence. However, the residence requirements for local relief
in the 12 study-cities during September 1936 did not support
this contention. In general, the agencies i.n the 12 cities
were defining residence in accordance with the legal settlement laws of their respect.ive States. 2 Moreover, there was not
a single instance where residence for relief purposes could be
acquired in less than l year in the county or State. 3 Los Angeles was the only city in which the residence requirement for
relief (1 year in the State) was less stringent than the statutory provisions o! the State legal settlement law (3 years in
the State and l year in the county).
It is true that in some cities the residence requirements
were being waived in special cases. For example, family cases
which had no verifiable legal residence and which involved the
care of small children, unattached women, or persons who were
ill were sometimes accepted even though they did not meet the
residence requirements.
However, waiving residence requirements for transient and homeless cases was the exception rather
than the rule.
Some communities, indeed, were practicing various methods of
avoiding responsibility for the return of their own residents.
This evasion of responsibility was constantly adding to the
group of permanent wanderers who had no legal settlement status
anywhere. Often relief authorities would refuse to pay the
!are for return. of cases from some other State, even though
1see the discussion on page a.
'1.rhe District or Col11111bia, Georgia, and Louisiana had no statutory provisions tor the acquisition or legal settlement.
3one citY (Portland, Oreg.) required more than a year•s residence, namely,
3 years in the State and 1 year 1n the county.
Digitized by
Google
CONDITIONS AFFECTING STABILIZATION
41
there was no uncertainty of residence status involved. Again,
they would refuse to authorize the return of cases requiring
special care." Extensions of time would not be granted for
cases where illness or other conditions beyond control prevented
return to place of legal settlement before settlement was lost. 6
Sometimes letters requesting certification for return of resi'dents would simply be ignored over a period of months until
the case had been away long enough to lose residence, whereupon notification of loss of residence would be sent to the
agency seeking to return the case. 8
In September 1936, the great majority of States required that
applicants for relief have at least 1 year's residence in the
county or State; otherwise they were considered ineligible for
local relief. Accordingly, nonresidents in need had recourse
only to such public and private agencies as were described in
chapter IV. The way in which those agencies administered relief made it extremely difficult for transients to stay in one
connnuni ty long enough to fulfill the 1 year settlement requirement of most States. The policy toward transients applying
for relief at either public or private agencies in the 12 cities
was to treat them as if they had stopped temporarily on their
way elsewhere. Xhey were given limited, strictly temporary
care, and "passed on" as soon as possible.
Mobility, thus
enforced, made it difficult for transients to acquire legal
settlement status and be absorbed on resident relief rolls.
ELIGIBILITY FOR WORKS PROGRAM EMPLOYMENT
Employment of transient and homeless persons on the Works
Program offers another possibility of stabilizing the group.
Various administrative orders and bulletins issued between May
22, 1935, and September 28, 1935, provided that employable cases
which received care from Federal transient bureaus should be
certified for employment on the Works Program. 7 There was some
4 From a letter to an agency which had requested authorization return ot a
case: •we have secured permission tor Hrs. K 1 s return to s---, on the
condition that she will not need hospitalization when she getsbere.• (She
bad been given a great deal ot hospital care Just be tore leaving s--- and
had gone to c---, which was requeating that she be returned tor her heal th.)
6 one cl ty reports:
•The State or recently, ln two cases, verUled
residence and then retused to accept the tamlly when unavoidable delay
(illness and contlneaent) prevented return before settlement was lost;
* * *• At the present time there are two cases ot pregnant women who
cannot be returned, by dOctors• orders, until after the birth of the child.
E.xtens1on of settlement status has been refused.•
6 •A letter sent to Y--, August 1e, regarding atamny, was answered November 20, when the Y--- rellet ottlcials pointed out that the family had
lost residence October 16, Several follow-up letters had been sent between August and October.•
7 FERA Bulletin No. 7 and Aclmin!strative Memoranda, coded series, A 84,
Bupp. A 84, A 90, A 94, and A 104,
Digitized by
Google
42 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
evidence of community oppos1t1on to the assignment of nonresidents to locally sponsored projects where projects in operation
were insufficient in number and size to absorb all resident
eligibles. However, reports from the 12 study-cities indicate
that, in general, nonresident cases were certified and assigned
to work projects without favor or prejudice.
Since that time very few transient and homeless cases have been·
certified for the Works Program. During September 1936, in 8 of
the 12 survey-cities no transient persons were being certified.
In the other four cities 8 minor exceptions were made. For instance, in -Jacksonville unattaGh~d men and families who at any
time had had transient case numbers in the State of Florida, and
who could present a reasonable demonstration of need, were eligible for certification. Also eligible were those cases without legal residence who could prove conclusively that they had good reason to remain in jacksonville, Fla. From April to September 119361,
52 certifications were made on this basis. In Los Angeles a few
nonresident families and unattached women were being accepted for
direct relief, and, if employable, were in turn being certified
for work projects. Agencies in Minneapolis were certifying State
homeless persons who had no legal residence and inter-State transients who had been under care at transient bureaus or camps when
Federal funds were withdrawn. In Portland, Oreg., a few transient and homeless persons were being certified for the Works
Program, but only when all other plans for a case had failed.
ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
The Federal Social Security Act and social legislation in the
States provide benefits for which transient and homeless persons
might be eligible, depending upon their ability to meet the residence and employment requirements imposed by the various laws.
With respect to unemployment compensation, acts already have
been passed 9 in 35 States and the District of Columoia. The
minimum requirements for benefits, as defined by these acts,
range from 13 to 36 weeks of covered 10 employment (or a corresponding amount of earnings) within the $tate during the year
prior to application. These requirements suggest that many
tran~ient and homeless persons will be ineligible for unemployment compensation. 11 Some will not be able to show even the
8 These cities were Jacksonville, Fla., Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Portland, Oreg.
9Analysis ot State UnemploYD1ent Compensation Laws, Januar7 1, 1937, Social
SecurltY Board, Washington, D. C., 1937.
1?oenerally excludes the following: agricultural employment, do■est1c service in private homes, self-employment, employment in nonproUt organizations, and employment in tirms which engage less than eight persons.
11 The date on which unemployment compensation beneUts beco■e payable is
dependent upon the various State acts. Wisconsin is the only State in
which paY111ents are being made at present.
Digitized by
Google
CONDITIONS
AFFECTING STABILIZATION
43
m1n1mum amount, i.e., 13 to 26 weeks of covered employment during the previous year; while others, especially migrato.y-casual workers, will have had the required amount of employment,
but not enough in any one State to entitle them to compensation.
This last difficulty may be eliminated, however, if States adopt
the reciprocal agreements now under consideration.
Other phases of social security, namely, State old age assistance, Federal old age annuities, widows' or mothers' pensions,
and blind assistance, offer possibilities of aiding some portion
of the unemployable transient and homeless population. However,
as in the case of unemployment compensation, it is doubtful
whether a sizable number of transient and homeless persons would
be eligible for such benefits. For instance, in the majority
of States eligibility for old age assistance is dependent upon
residence in that State during 5 of the 9 years prior to application, and continuous for the year immediately preceding application. 12 Similar residence requirements are written into
the State Blind Assistance Acts, although in most cases provision is inade for persons who lost their sight while legal res idents of that State. 13 Further, aid to dependent children
through widows' or mot hers' pens ions is usually contingent upon
residence in the State for a period of 1 or 2 years. 14 No Federal old age annuities will be paid until January 1, 1940, and
then only to persons 65 years of age who have been previously
employed in covered industries. However, the absence of residence requirements in the act makes it possible for nonresidents
eventually to receive such annuities.
In general, it appears that very few transient and homeless
persons will be eligible for social security benefits. Because
of residence requirements, most of the transient and homeless
populat:i,on will not qualify for State old age assistance, blind
assistance, and aid to dependent children. With respect to unemployment compensation and Federal old age annuities, nonresidents will be eligible to participate insofar as they are successful in obtaining private employment in covered industries.
PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
Employment in private industry offers another possibility of
stabilizing transient and homeless persons. Immediate prospects
12Lowe, Robert c. and Starr, Dlgeet or Old Age !ssletance Lawe or the Several States and Terrltorlee as or September 1, 1936, Dlv1S1on or Social
Research, Works Progress Admln1stratlon, Washington, D. C., 1936.
i 3 Lowe, Robert C. and Starr, Digest or Bllnd !sslstance Laws or the Several
States and Terrl tories ae or September 1, 1936, Dlv1e1on or Social
R\Search, works Progress Adm1n1strat1on, Washington, D. c., 1936.
14Lowe, Robert C. and Starr, Digest or State and Terrltorlal Laws Granting
Ald to Dependent Children in Their Own Homes as or September 1, 1936,
D1vision or Social Research, Works ?rogress Administrat1on, Washington,
D.
c.,
1936.
Digitized by
Google
44 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
for private employment are somewhat more difficult to measure
than are eligibility for relief, social security benefits, and
Works Program employment; but information concerning U.S.E.S. 15
activities and the attitudes of private employers toward nonresidents may indicate the extent of opportunity for the transient
and homeless group in private industry.
During September 1936, nonresidents were being registered for
private employment at all U.S.E.S. offices in the 12 surveycities. In one city (Jacksonville,Fla.l the registration cards
of nonresidents were being placed in the inactive file until
such time as those persons acquired a local residence. In
another city (Philadelphia) the policy was to discourage nonresident registrations and suggest a return to home communities.
With these two exceptions, transients were being registered fot
private employment on the same basis as local residents.
When it came to actual placement, however, additional restrict ions appeared. In two cities !Denver and Philadelphia) officials of U.S.E.S. offices stated that no transients were being
placed in private employment;while in Chicago and Kansas City,
Mo., it was reported that preference was being given to resident persons. These restrictions do not reflect the policies
of the U.S.E.S., but rather community and employer attitudes.
For example, the employment offices in Denver, Jacksonville,
Fla., and Kansas City, Mo., had been informed by employers that
only local persons would be considered for jobs. In the majority of cities, however, transients were being accepted for private employment either upon referral from U.S.E.S. o:f:fices or
upon direct application. Thus, the absorption of transient and
homeless persons through private employment was dependent to a
large extent upon the continued improvement of economic conditions.
The conditions affecting the stabilization of the transient
and homeless population in September 1936 can be summarized as
follows:
( 11 There were practically no impending changes in relief
.programs for the group.
( 21 Few transient and homeless persons were being accepted
for resident relief or Works Program employment.
( 31 The majority of the transient and homeless population
could not meet the requirements for social security benefits.
(4) Private employment opportunities were limited by community and employer antagonism towards nonresidents.
15un1 ted States Employment Service, including State Employment Services and
National Reemployment Service.
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX A
Supplementary Tables
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX A
47
Tab I e 1-NEW AND REOPENED CASES ACCEPTED FOR CARE AT TRANS I ENT BUREAUS,
TOTAL UN I TED STATES, MAY 1935 THROUGH OCTOBER 1936
Total Cases
Unat tacheci Persons8
Femi 1y Groups
May
364,228
June
350,891
349,386
324,896
171,;l85
348,105
334,426
331,105
307,423
160,731
16,123
16,465
18,281
17,473
10,654
26,142
27,913
1,204
1,778
2,046
Year and Month
1935
July
August
September
27,346
29,691
19,592
October
November
December
•
January
11,113
8,363
7,602
7,389
7,826
February
March
Apri I
May
6,012
3.183
3,695
2,990°
3,938°
June
July
ilogust
September
October
-
/1S'I'
1936
9,732
7,184
6,998
6,828
7,494
1,381
1,179
604
561
332
308
386
5,704
2,797
3,329
2, 597b
3,427°
366
39i
511•
•1ncludH local l'l01Nle11.
bitreli111inar1, subject to revision.
Sol.l"ce: Reports to the FERA Division or Transient Activities. lncludH cases transferred between other transient centers
or cups.
Table 2-CASES CLOSED AT TRANSIENT BUREAUS, TOTAL UNITED STATES,
MAY 1935 THROUGH OCTOBER 1936
Year and Month
Total Cases
Unattached Persons•
Ferni ly Groups
373,6lll
364,470
355,249
334,209
194,344
356,876
346,605
336,061
316,237
176,055
16,743
17.865
19,188
17,972
18,289
58,628
54,172
58,040
48,350
46,633
52,747
10,278
7,539
5,293
28,403
11,761
11,539
10,578
10,122
25,059
10,107
9,523
9,270
9,485
1935
May
June
July
Auyust
September
October
November
December
1936
January
February
March
Apri 1
May
June
July
August
6,785
4,666
4,131
September
2,994°
October
3,8%'
a,nclu.des local flolNleH.
0
,reli ■inary, subject to revision.
So1.rce: ltepcrt• to the FERA Division of Transient Activities.
or caps.
6,301
4,175
3. 753
2,680°
3,319'
3,344,
1,654
2,016
1,306
637
484
491
378
314•
517'
1ncludeacases transferred between otMr transient centers
Digitized by
Google
48 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
Tab 1e 3-24-HOUR CENSUS OF TRANS I ENT AND HOMELESS CASES (EXCLUDING SERVI CE ONLY C ASESJ
UNDER CARE AT THE ~RINCIPAL AGENCIES IN 12 CITIES, ACCORDING TO CITY,
SEPTEMBER 1935 AND SEPTEMBER 1936
24--Hour Census of Cases Under Care
Ci ties
September 1935
All cities
Atlanta
Chicago
Denver
Jacksonvi 11 e, Fl a.
Kansas City, Mo.
Los Angeles
Memphis
Minneapolis
New Orleans
Philadelphia
Port land,_ Oreg.
Washington. D. C.
September 1936
Percent Change
Total
Unattached
Family
Total
Unattached
Family
Total
Unattached
Family
37,424
28,520
8,904
14,911
13,424
1,487
-61
-53
-83
2,829
5,572
2,764
714
2,059
5,403
2,246
4,096
1,264
474
1. 743
2,126
583
1,476
1,500
240
316
3.277
1,778
1,840
378
1,758
1,537
327
66
54
-37
-67
-86
-91
1,532
2,437
1,509
1,807
20
303
51
12
23
630
-55
-22
-62
-74
-89
-13
-1~
-97
-79
-97
-95
-93
-81
1,493
5,927
1.931
3,948
1,770
3,014
1,328
5,792
1,571
3,694
1.622
2,564
165
135
360
254
148
450
81
2.907
477
1,578
993
844
63
2,723
447
1,549
885
765
18
184
30
-95
-61
-75
-60
-44
-72
-95
-53
-72
-58
-45
-70
-89
+36
-92
-26
29
108
79
-ll9
-27
-82
Table 4-24-HOUR CENSUS OF TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS CASES UNDER CARE AT FERA
TRANSIENT BUREAUS IN 12 CITIES, ACCORDING TO CITY,
SEPTEMBER 1935 AND SEPTEMBER 1936
24-Hou r Census of Cases ·Under Care
Cities
All Cities
Atlanta
Chicago
Denver
Jacksonvi I le, Fla.
Kansas City, Mo.
Los Angeles
Memphis
Minneaix>l is
New Orleans
Philadelphia
Portland, Oreg.
Washington, D. C.
September 1936
September 1935
Total
Unattached
Family
Total
12,242
8,559
3,683
88
55
914
1,346
2,128
398
947
512
793
930
402
675
272
b
b
b
798
120
1,473
900
1,078
2,140
726
1,155
651
941
1,761
72
103
318
249
137
379
88
-
55
-
398
17
.
553
1,198
Unattached
-
•rhe case l01id (unattached w0111n and fa11lly groups) of the FERA Transient Bureau was taken
the Ouval County EH on Juh 31, 1935.
Family
33
33
-
-
over by the Transient Unit of
bAd11inistrative responsibility for tN entire case load or the FERA Transient Bureau was taken over b)' the LACH and SERA
on August n. 1935,
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX B
Schedules
144805 0-37-5
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
51
APPENDIX B
Social Research Division
llllS-13~
W. P.A.
()perat ing Schedule
A SURVEY OF THE CURRENT TRANSIENT ANO HOMELESS PROBLEM
Section I.
General lnfornation
1. Name of Agency· _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.
3- Type of Agency:
Public (
J Private (
Address __=c-~-,Tj--~,.~,...
-,T1---,~,~1t~,>~-~,.~,.~,~.,~
4. Source of Funds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
5. Manie a.nd position of person interviewed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
6. Capacity per dieffl: (a) lndividuals _ _ (b) Meels _ _ (cJ Beds _ _ _ 7. Date Schedule C0111pleted _ _ _ __
8. Have there been changes in capacity since Sept. 1935? Yes I
capacities:
J No I
J
If so, 1isl in order:
(aJ Pnwious
M!als _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Beds _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (bJ Oates of changes _ _ _ _ _ _ __
9. What percentage of accepted cases are referred frOffl a central intake or registration bureau? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I
10. Type or types of cases accepted for care:
Fet■Sles
I
J
la} Transient families I } (b) Unattached transients:
(cJ Local ho,oeless unattached (
J
~.eles (
(dJ Prevailing type !Specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
11. Does agency care for persons of any particular color, nativity, age, religious or social group? Yes ( ) No ( }
If so, specify_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
12. Is all relief free to all clients? Yes (
13. Nature of care extended:
le) Clothing (
J
(aJ Meels:
(d) Service (
)
J No (
1 per day (
(eJ Case Work
14. Average length of present relief period:
J
If not, explain _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2 per day (
J
J 3 per day (
J
(bJ Lodging (
J
lfJ c.._nt on quality and •-leteness of care _ __
(a} For unattached persons _ _ days
(b} For family cases _ _ days
15. (aJ What percentage of accepted cases are out.-of-St&te transients? _ _ _ I
(bJ Specify the area from which the 1111jority of these cases come _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
16. Disposition of cases (Explain fully) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
17. Agency•s opinions, attitudes, or criticisms regarding the transient problem (Explain fullyJ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
18. ~gency's plans and outlook for the future (Explain fully) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
19. Interviewer's Conrnents _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Digitized by
Google
52 TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS POPULATION IN 12 CITIES
.DRS-1308
Social Research Division
W. P.A.
Operating Schedule
A SURVEY OF THE CURRENT TRANSIENT AND HOMELESS PROBLEM
Section
n.
Daily Average Care Given to Transient and Homeless Cases September 1935
Through September 1936
N11111e of Agency_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
No.
Line Year Servings
No. and
Month Air
illaY
(al
(bl
1
2
1935
Sept,
Oct.
Nov.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
C
Meals
Free Paid
ldl
(el
Number of Cases
Referred to
Ref used Care
Given Care
Beds
Other Agencies (Without Referra 11
UnatUnatUnatFree Paid tAr'-t Family t,,,-tw-1 Family t.,o,-h,,,i
Fam if y
lfl
lgl
(hi
u,
(ii
(11
lkl
(1111
Dec.
1936
Jan.
Feb,
Mar.
Apr.
May
11
June
July
12
13
Seot.
Section
m.
10
n~
Care Given
Aug,
24-Hour Census of Transients and Homeless Persons Under
Care
Date (hour, month, day) From,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T o · - - - - - - - - - - - - , - - -
Line
No.
lal
1
2
3
4
Age
lbl
Under 16
16-24
25-44
Unat tac heel Persons
Male
F-le
lcl
ldl
Heads of Fami 1ies
Male
lei
F-le
lfl
Other· Miemt>ers of Fami 1ies
Male
F-le
lal
lhl
45 and over
Total
5
(All Aaesl
I.U80f•0 II- '" - - · I I U T . .
m. Clff1CI I ltff
Digitized by
Google
APPENDIX C
Chart
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
Digitized by
Google
