Full text of Care of Children in Day Nurseries : Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields—Annual Report for the Registration Area for the Year 1930, Separate from Publication No. 209

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. N. DOAK, Secretary

C H IL D R E N ’ S BUREAU
GRACE ABBOTT, Chief

CARE OF CHILDREN
IN DAY NURSERIES
By GLENN STEELE

Separate from Publication No. 209

Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields—
Annual Report for the Registration Area for the year 1930

l i b r a r y

Agricultural &Mechanical Col!«*«
College Station feus.
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1932

FOR

SALE

BY TH E

o Z . 'l

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(_> 5 'S c.

S U P E R IN T E N D E N T

OF

D O C U M E N T S , W A S H IN G T O N , D . C .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

C A R E O F C H IL D R E N IN D A Y N U R S E R IE S

Important contributions to the published data relating to day
nurseries have been made since the 1929 annual summary of service
in this field was issued by the Joint Committee for the Registration of
Social Statistics.1 Committees of the White House Conference,
dealing with the education of the infant and preschool child and with
the socially handicapped, have made public their findings of study
and survey in the day-nursery field. The National Federation of
Day Nurseries has issued a manual prepared by its standards com­
mittee, and also has presented, as the result of a research program, a
report entitled “ Day Nurseries in a Changing World.” These and
other publications of 1930 and 1931 provide information on a wide
range of subjects pertaining to day-nursery practice and present the
modem thought of specialists in the field.
The Day Nursery Manual defines the purpose of the nursery in
broad terms as “ the day care of such children of working mothers as
can not receive care in their own homes by an adequate substitute;
and under certain conditions, the care of other children who need this
service usually on a temporary basis.”
The White House Conference in its report on nursery education
defines the purpose of the day nursery as “ refief of unsatisfactory
economic or unwholesome social conditions in the home,” and de­
scribes the group under care as “ children whose mothers under the
pressure of economic necessity must be gainfully employed. The
mothers of these children can contribute only a small part of the
money needed to operate institutions.” Alike in the common basic
principle stated, each definition adds a supplemental proviso of signifi­
cance. The Day Nursery Manual points out that children are
sometimes accepted for care owing to reasons other than the gainful
employment of the mother.
A FORM OF RELIEF

The White House Conference committee classified day-nursery
service definitely as one of relief to dependent families. As will be
seen later from figures submitted for this report, a considerable number
of children attending day nurseries are cared for free of charge. For
others fees are paid, but the difference between the amounts charged
and the actual cost of care represents an outlay for financial relief.
The data for 19.30 on day-nursery service were assembled by the
Children's Bureau from 32 of the 38 metropolitan districts in the
registration area for social statistics. The extent of service in the
reporting cities varied widely and apparently was little affected by
factors of population or industrial composition. One of the reports
made for the White House Conference discussed what it termed the
“ accidental factors” in day-nursery development as follows:
Day nurseries, in common with other institutions for children, are often
influenced in their establishment by accidental factors not always connected with
1 Representing the local community research committee of the University of Chicago, cooperating with
the National Association of Community Chests and Councils. This work was taken over by the Children's
Bureau, July 1, 1930.

111560— 32


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1

2

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

known need for their service. This fact is borne out by such data as the following:
Detroit, with a population of 1,570,000, has 7 day nurseries, while Philadelphia,
with a population of 1,951,000, has 42 day nurseries; Milwaukee, with 578,000
population, has 2 nurseries, and San Francisco, with 634,000 population, has 12
nurseries; other equally striking examples could be cited. Although differences
in the number of employed mothers might readily account for some of the varia­
tions in the number of nurseries in cities of nearly the same population, it by no
means accounts for the entire discrepancy in these figures.2
LOCAL VARIATIONS IN NUMBER SERVED

Statistics on the extent of service in 1930, secured from day nurseries
in registration cities, illustrate even more clearly than the number of
nurseries this feature in development. Day nurseries in Denver, an
area of nearly 300,000 population, reported 70,065 days’ care given
during 1930; day nurseries in Kansas City (M o.) with nearly 400,000
population, reported 70,318 days’ care provided in 1930; and in the
Detroit area, with more than one and a half million inhabitants, the
days’ care given by day nurseries was reported as only 58,653 for the
year.
The extent of gainful employment of women in registration cities
can not be gauged generally until the United States Bureau of the
Census completes its report on occupational statistics collected in
1930. Such figures were available for consideration in this report for
only a few registration areas. Those for Des Moines and Wichita,
two areas somewhat similar in size and composition, afford an inter­
esting comparison. With a population of 142,559, Des Moines is
somewhat larger than Wichita, which had 111,110 inhabitants ac­
cording to the census of 1930. Of the 22,475 married women 15 to
44 years of age in Des Moines, 19.2 per cent were gainfully employed.
Corresponding figures for Wichita showed there were 18,999 married
women 15 to 44 years of age, of whom 18.9 per cent were in industry.
The actual number of married women of child-bearing age at work
was 4,310 and 3,594, respectively, in Des Moines and Wichita. This
is a reduction of population to the group of women in each city from
which most of the day-nursery clientele would be drawn, although it
is not known how many of the women had children nor how many
were earning enough to make assistance in the form of day-nursery
care unnecessary.
Service figures show that the day nursery in Wichita, where fewer
women were within the group, provided 12,902 days’ care during 1930,
whereas the day nursery in Des Moines furnished but 2,822 days’ care
within the year.
COMPARISON OF SERVICES IN DIFFERENT CITIES

To compute the rate of nursery service for each city the average
number of days’ care furnished per month has been related to the
number of children in the city under 15 years of age. In Table 1 the
rates on this basis have been arranged to show the rank of cities as
to the amount of day nursery service given. The number of day
nurseries in each of 31 metropolitan areas and, the number reporting
the service are also indicated in this table.
1A Survey of Day Nurseries, p. 38. White House Conference on Child Health and Protection, Sec. IV,
The Handicapped— C 1, Socially Handicapped. Washington, 1931.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3

CARE OF C HILDREN IN DAY NURSERIES

T a b l e 1.— Number o f day nurseries from which reports were requested, number from

which reports were received and tabulated, average monthly number o f days’ care
given, and rate per 1,000 population under 15 years o f age in 31 specified metro­
politan areas during 1930
Number of day
nurseries from
which—
Metropolitan area

Reports
Reports were re­
were re­ ceived
quested and tab­
ulated

Average monthly num­
ber of days’ care given

Number

Total— 31 areas

149

132

109,908

New Haven________
Denver____________
Lancaster....... ...........
Sioux City_________
Berkeley____ ____ _
Kansas City (M o.)--The Oranges________
Newark____________
Cincinnati_________
Bridgeport.............. .
Columbus__________
St. Paul........ ............
W ichita..-_________
Springfield (Mass.). Hartford.....................
Cleveland__________
Indianapolis________
Richmond__________
St. Louis___________
M inneapolis........... .
New Orleans.—.........
Louisville..-............ .
Omaha________ ____
Springfield (Ohio)___
Buffalo____________
Canton____________
Detroit.......................
Des Moines________
Dayton......................
Akron____ ____ ____
Chicago.____ _______

2
5
1
2
1
7
5
7
12
2
5
2
1
2
2
4
3
3
8
7
5
2
1
1
5
1
7
1
1
1
43

2
5
1
2
l
7
4
7
11
2
5
2
1
2
2
4
3
3
8
7
5
2
1
1
5
1
7
1
1
1
28

4,154
5,839
1,425
1,687
1,348
5,860
2,225
6,248
7,211
2,409
3,538
2,875
1,075
1,610
1,921
8, 771
2,867
1,784
6,241
2,727
2,856
1,500
1,036
269
3,068
397
4,888
235
386
426
23,032

Rate per
1,000 popu­
lation un­
der 15 years
of age1
(2)
93.3
91.0
89.5
77.7
71.8
71.4
59.6
52.8
52.5
46.9
40.2
39.8
39.0
36. 7
31.9
28.9
28.0
27.8
26. 2
24.6
21.8
20.1
19.3
15.4
15.0
12.4
10.5
6.7
6.5
5.2
(s)

1 Population under 15 according to 1930 census.
* Not computed because reports for Chicago were less than 80 per cent complete.

All the day nurseries listed in 28 metropolitan areas furnished
reports. Cincinnati and the Oranges each omitted the report of one
day nursery. Chicago was the only city from which reporting was
not fairly complete, only 28 of its 43 day nurseries being represented.
However, the volume of service reported for Chicago was so great in
comparison with that of other cities that it added weight to the
material presented and was accordingly included.
The average number of days’ care provided monthly by the 132
institutions reporting was about 110,000. As this figure is an under­
statement of service in the 31 areas, owing to the omission of reports
from 17 day nurseries, it has not been used to calculate a rate of
service per child population in all cities combined, nor has such a
rate been calculated for Chicago. However, the average number of
days’ care given monthly per 1,000 population under 15 years of age
is shown for each of 30 areas.
Rates range from 5.2 in Akron to 93.3 in New Haven, with inter­
mediate cities showing considerable variation in the volume of service,
as measured. One month’s continuous service to a child would be

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

represented by about 26 days’ care. In St. Louis, for instance,
where the rate was 26.2, the average monthly service supplied was
equivalent to the monthly care of one child among every 1,000 children
in the city who were under 15 years of age.
TREND OF DAY NURSERY SERVICE

Recent discussion as to whether the need for day nurseries is in­
creasing or declining has lent much interest to figures which show
what actual trends in service have been. The number of days’ care
given in 1929 and in 1930 are compared in Table 2, the figures repre­
senting such nurseries in each area as reported for the 2-year period.
T a b l e 2. — Number o f days' care given by day nurseries 1 in 1929 and 1930 and per­

centage o f increase or decrease in days' care given in 1930 as compared with 1929
in 27 specified metropolitan areas
Number of days’ care given by
day nurseries

Number of days’ care given by
day nurseries
Metropolitan area

In 1930

Per cent
of in­
crease (+ )
or de­
crease (—)

T o t a 1—2 7
Areas......... 1,110,055 1,076,312

-3 .0

Indianapolis______
Kansas City (M o).

5,109
28,906
36,819
4,759
146,998
86,532
105,245
42,460
4,629
70,065
2,822
58i653

—28.8
-10.9
-3 .8
—20.8
-4 .1
-3 .6
—1.0
+4.6
-5 0.4
+8.3
—11.5
+7.7

Louisville....... ........
Minneapolis______
Newark. ________
New Orleans______
Omaha___________
The Oranges______
Richmond________
Sioux City________
Springfield (Ohio)..
St. Louis_________
St. Paul__________
Wichita...................

Metropolitan area
In 1929

Dayton__________
Detroit___________

7,180
32,445
38,286
6,012
153,215
89,778
106,346
40,579
9,341
64,718
3,187
54,463

In 1929

45,994
74,087
15,657
21,204
31,086
69,644
39,903
13,418
20,397
24,221
22,054
3,673
78,492
27,950
16,725

Per cent
of in­
In 1930 crease (+ )
or de­
crease (—)
34,401
70,318
17,105
17,999
32,728
74,975
34,274
12,433
21,910
21,402
20.243
3,224
74,896
34,505
12,902

-2 5.2
-5 .1
+9.2
-15.1
+5.3
+7.7
-14.1
-7 .3
+7.4
-1 1 .6
-8 .2
-1 2.2
-4 .6
+23.5
-2 2.9

1 All

day nurseries reporting comparable figures for the 2 years.
J Reports for Chicago were less than 80 per cent complete.

Combined statistics reported from 27 areas show that the amount
of care given in 1930 was slightly less (3 per cent) than that provided
in the preceding year. Decreases were recorded for 19 of the cities
and increases for 8. Akron, Dayton, and Indianapolis reduced their
services by 25 per cent or more. The greatest increase (23.5 per
cent) in day-nursery service from 1929 to 1930 was reported by St.
Paul.
Without conjecture as to reasons for the actual changes in various
communities, mention may be made of current conditions which have
greatly influenced the day-nursery movement as a whole.
Aside from the economic depression, these influences are discussed
in a report of the research program carried on by the National Federa­
tion of Day Nurseries during 1930 and 1931, as follows:
Everyone who has given any thought to the place of day nurseries in modern
programs for improving social conditions realizes that changes have occurred
which vitally affect both the needs which nurseries were created to meet and the
approved methods of meeting such needs. In the first place, mothers’ aid laws
have made at least partial provision for keeping in their own homes thousands
of mothers of the type who used to need nursery care for their children; while

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CARE OF CHILDREN IN DAY NURSERIES

5

on the other hand the increasing influx of married women into industry is dem­
onstrated by each new census. In the second place, the rapid development in
recent years of a wide variety of social services provides a much greater choice
of solutions for the family problems underlying applications for nursery care. In
the third place, recent progress in standards of health work and preschool educa­
tion have necessitated radical adjustments in equipment, program, and personnel
which have greatly increased the cost of nursery care and complicated the ad­
ministrative problems with which nursery boards of managers must deal.3

In view of newer forms of aid which have made home care for
children possible and especially in view of the economic depression
which curtailed employment of both men and women in 1930 and
1931, a stationary or declining service would not be unexpected.
However, the influence of the depression can not be classed as one
entirely conducive to lowered day-nursery attendance, as is evidenced
by the experience of St. Paul. Among the findings made from a
study of St. Paul nurseries, the following were reported:
Of the short-time placements, 39.5 per cent were recommended where, because
of inadequate income or unemployment of the father, it seemed desirable for the
mother to become the wage earner. In 97.2 per cent of the placements, where
the mother worked as a substitute for her husband’s unemployment, they were
for this short-time period. The fact that 71.6 per cent of these short-time
placements were in 1930 or 1931 bears proof of the part the local nurseries have
borne in the present unemployment crisis.4

St. Paul was one of the few registration cities in which service was
expanded from 1929 to 1930. It may be that in other cities the
unemployment of father, lowered wages, debts, and the inability of
family agencies to meet needs adequately have sent some mothers
into temporary employment when it was to be had. General curtail­
ment of business has necessarily resulted in the discharge of other
women from gainful employment. These two counteracting influ­
ences on day-nursery attendance lend interest to a measure of the
service based on families aided rather than days’ care given to
children. To trace the trend of service to families, the 1930 statistics
have been supplemented by returns for 1931. Table 3 shows for the
2-year period the aggregate number of families served each month
by day nurseries in 26 metropolitan areas.
T able

3.— Number of fam ilies having children on the register of day nurseries in
26 metropolitan areas ° during each month o f 1980 and 19S1

Month

Number of families
having children
on the register of
day nurseries
1930

January..............................
February............ ...............
March...................................
April__________________
M ay...................................... ...
June......................................

3,336
3,230
3)333
3,466
3)496
3,519

Month

1931
3,101
3,054
3,052
3,144
3,177
3,320

Number of families
having children
on the register of
day nurseries
1930

July

December_____________ ____

3,364
3,002
3,422
3,372
3,235
3,157

1931
3,229
2,751
3,091
3,093
2,942
2,825

t> a ^ }

aǮPei?s reporting comparable figures for the two years, as follows: Akron, Berkeley, Bridgeport,
Bunalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Denver, Des Moines, Hartford, Indianapolis, Kansas
City (M o.), Lancaster, Louisville, Newark. New Haven, New Orleans, Omaha, the Oranges, Richmond,
St. Paul, Sioux City, Springfield (HI.), Springfield (Mass.), Wichita.
s Hart, Helen: Day Nurseries in a Changing World, p. 5. New York, 1931.
4 Woll, Margaret: Functional Relationship between the Family Agencies and Day Nurseries in St. Paul.
Day Nursery Bulletin [published by the National Federation of Day Nurseries (Inc.), New York], vol. 8,
No. 4 (January, 1932).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

6

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

In all areas combined 3,336 families were served in January, 1930.
By June the number had increased to 3,519. A recession in summer
service reduced the figures to about 3,000 in August. Most nurseries
are open during the entire year, but a few close during the summer,
usually in August. The September service to 3,422 families repre­
sented a sharp advance, but thereafter, during October, November,
and December, the trend was downward. In December, 1930, there
were 179 fewer families with children in day nurseries than in the
preceding January.
Service in the year 1931 followed a somewhat similar trend with a
June peak and an August depression, but the number of families
served in each month of 1931 was less than the number on daynursery rolls in the corresponding month of 1930. The trend of these
figures is portrayed in the accompanying chart.
F a m il ie s

h a v in g c h il d r e n on t h e m o n t h l y r e g is t e r o f d a y n u r s e r ie s

DURING 1930 AND 1931

4,000

<0 3,500

Si
'I
¡3

I 3,000
©

P
É
o
z

2,500

0
Jan- Feb- M ac Apr M ^ June. July Au£. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec

Because each family represents a home, usually one where want has
thrust a mother into industry, who can compete only in the lowwage group, this illustration based on family data is interesting.
However, as an actual measure of the quantity of service given by
day nurseries, the use of statistics on families is less effective than
the use of data on days’ care, since the latter deals both with the
number of children in attendance and the duration of their care.
Detailed figures on the extent of such service for the 2-year period
will not be available until the completion of the report for 1931.
INCREASED SERVICE IN SOM E CITIES

The chart, based on figures shown in Table 3, p. 5, presents a
general picture for 26 of the registration cities. Canton, Chicago,
Minneapolis, Detroit, Springfield (Ohio), and St. Louis were not
included because comparable figures were not available. Situations
varied widely in each of the areas which were included in the consolida­
tion. A comparison of the average number of families having chil­
dren under care monthly in 1930 and in 1931 revealed that there was

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

7

CA.RE OF CHILDREN IN DAY NURSERIES

an increase in the 1931 service in Akron, Berkeley, Bridgeport, New
Haven, Omaha, and Springfield (Mass.). The remaining 20 cities
reported fewer homes served on the average in 1931 than in 1930.
However, in the following cities the decrease in the average number
of families served monthly was 10 or less: Des Moines, Indianapolis,
Kansas City (M o.), Lancaster, the Oranges, Richmond, St. Paul,
Sioux City, and Springfield (111.). According to the average monthly
figures, day-nursery service to families in 1931 fell considerably below
that of 1930 in Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton,
Denver, Hartford, Louisville, Newark, New Orleans, and Wichita.
(See Table 4.)
T

able

4.— Average monthly number o f fam ilies having children in day nurseries

during 19S0 and 1931 in 26 specified metropolitan areas
Average monthly number of
families having children in
day nurseries
Metropolitan area

Per cent
of in­
crease
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)

Average monthly number of
families having children in
day nurseries
Metropolitan area

In 1930

In 1931

Total—26 areas.

3,328

3,065

-7 .9

Kansas City (M o.).

Akron____________
Berkeley_________
Bridgeport............
Buffalo............... .....
Cincinnati..............
Cleveland________
Columbus...............
Dayton__________
Denver __________
Des Moines....... .
Hartford..................
Indianapolis.........

19
66
100
156
343
365
157
39
221
17
97
138

25
67
108
121
314
304
145
22
197
16
82
134

(l)
+1.5
+8.0
—22.4
-8 .5
—16.7
-7 .6
0)
-1 0.9
(«)
-1 5.5
-2 .9

Springfield (111.)....
Springfield (Mass.).
Wichita__________

In 1930

In 1931

259
26
90
270
188
172
53
171
58
89
61
31
73
69

258
16
72
251
213
150
59
166
57
85
52
27
74
50

Per cent
of in­
crease
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)
-0 .4
«
—20.0
—7.0
+13.3
-1 2 .8
+11.3
—2.9
—1.7
—4.5
—14.8
(0
+1.4
-2 7.5

1 Per cent not shown because average number of families in 1930 was less than 50.

APPLICATIONS

Twenty-seven areas reported on the number of applications re­
ceived during 1930, the aggregate figures showing that 12,195 re­
quests for the day care of children were made, an average number of
about 1,000 a month. The registration reports do not give figures on
the number of these rejected and the reasons therefor. The annual
number of applications and the annual number of enrollments during
1930 were 12,195 and 8,545, respectively, in the 27 areas.
These figures can not be closely related, however, as some of the
enrollments of 1930 may represent applications made in 1929, and
some of the applications of 1930 may have been carried to 1931 for
action. There is a further difficulty in comparing applications
and enrollments. The enrollments include recurrent cases, but it is
possible that reapplications for children coming for care at different
times during the year are not always uniformly included or excluded
in the enumeration of applications.
Their exclusion may account for day-nursery reports which showed
many more children received for care than those for whom applica­
tion was made. One city reported 98 applications received and 191

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

8

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

children enrolled during 1930; another city 49 applications received
and 113 children enrolled.
. Table 5 shows the distribution of children in day nurseries accord­
ing to school and preschool groups.
**• Average number o f children on the register o f day nurseries on the first
o f the month and average number and percentage who were preschool and school
children m SO specified metropolitan areas during 19S0

Average number of children on the register of day
nurseries on the first of the month
Metropolitan area

Preschool

School

Total
Number Per cent Number Per cent
Total—30 areas.........................
Akron....... ....................
Berkeley...........................
Bridgeport..............................
Buffalo.........................
Canton...............................
Cincinnati......................
Cleveland......................
Columbus__________
Dayton.............................
Denver______________
Des Moines...... ...........
Detroit........................
Hartford.......................
Indianapolis__________
Kansas City (M o.)_______
Lancaster........................
Louisville__________
Newark...... ...........
New Haven________
New Orleans
Omaha.......................
The Oranges.........................
Richmond...............
Sioux City__________
Springfield (111.)...............................
Springfield (Mass.)............
Springfield (Ohio).......................
St. L ou is................ .
St. Paul.............................
Wichita___________
month

5,413

‘ 2,549
0

96
130
236
444
578
241
52
336
19
331
132
191
310
47
104
410
245
212
62
238
94
46
88
13
367
143
93

0 '

Uv

0)

14
54
29
119
12
202
365
136
13
204
11
146

47.1
0

0

0

74

156
0

46
158

0

119

24
44

0

v)
V)

6
85

56.3
22.3
50.4
45.5
63.1
56.4
25.0
60.7
44.1
22.7
38.7
49.7
44.2
38.5
29.4
43.9
21.0
46.6
70.4
60.6
50.0

0)
59.4
15.1

for-areas in whlch the average number of children on the register on the first of the

As calculated from the average enrollment on the first day of each
month in 1930, the proportion of school children nearly equaled the
proportion of preschool children according to combined statistics for
30 areas.
Fifty per cent or more of the children under day-nursery care were
m the school group in 11 areas—Akron, Berkeley, Buffalo, Cleveland,
Columbus, Denver, Des Moines, Richmond, Sioux City, Springfield
(Mass.), and St. Paul. In the remaining 19 cities preschool children
predominated in number, with Bridgeport, Dayton, Hartford,
Omaha, and Wichita having the largest proportion (75 per cent or
more) of the younger children in attendance.
M AXIM UM AGE OF ACCEPTANCE

The policies of nurseries over the country as to the acceptance of
school children vary greatly, according to the Day Nursery Manual,
which states:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

9

CARE OF CHILDREN IN DAY NURSERIES

Some accept children only through 6 years of age; some through 8 years;
some through 10, 12, and 13 years; some have a higher maximum age of accept­
ance for girls than for boys; some accept children over 8 only if they are nursery
graduates or have younger brothers and sisters enrolled.

The need of supervision for older school children has no doubt
influenced some institutions to extend the age limit beyond that
generally set up. The manual discusses the problem as follows:
The day nursery, historically speaking, has been designed and equipped to
serve children of preschool age or up to the age of 8 years. Children over the
age of 8 have been admitted only because no other community provision was
available for them and because, inadequately as many nurseries were equipped
to handle the problem, such care as they have been able to give has been judged
better than no care at all.

Free care was extended to more than one-fourth of the children in
day nurseries during 1930, according to the average monthly statistics
for 28 areas presented in Table 6.
T

6 . — Average monthly number o f children on the register o f day nurseries and
average monthly number and percentage o f children fo r whom some fees were paid
and fo r whom no fees were paid in 28 specified metropolitan areas during 1980

able

Average monthly number of children on the regis­
ter of day nurseries
For whom some
fees were paid

Metropolitan area

For whom no fees
were paid

Total
Number
Total—28 areas.....................................................

5,383

3,912

Akron............................................................................
Berkeley.........................................................................
Bridgeport...... ...............................................................
Buffalo____________ ____ ______ __________________
Canton............................................................................
Cincinnati__________________ ____________________
Cleveland.............. ........................................................
Columbus.................................................................. —
Dayton.................................................. ........................
Des Moines....................................................................
Detroit.............................................................. ............
Hartford..................... ............................................... .
Indianapolis.................................................... ..............
Kansas City (M o.).................................. .........- ..........
Lancaster____ _______________ ___________________
Louisville.......................................................................
Newark...... ..................................................................
New Haven_____________________________________
New Orleans..................... ............................................
Omaha............................................................................
The Oranges____ ____ _____ ______________________
Richmond............ ..................................... —................
Sioux City......................................................................
Springfield (H I.)............................. .............................
Springfield (Mass.)........................................................
Springfield (Ohio)..........................................................
St. Paul............................................ .............................
Wichita______________________________ ___________

31
113
152
272
34
509
634
273
56
24
381
160
216
387
63
129
446
277
232
72
257
103
112
55
102
18
163
112

18
55
117
222
26
334
528
230
38
20
231
148
178
149
60
118
397
224
195
61
198
86
87
2
96
9
42
43

Per cent Number
72.7
«

48.7
77.0
81.6
(l)
65.6
83.3
84.2
67.9
60.6
92.5
82.4
38.5
95.2
91.5
89.0
80.9
84.1
84.7
77.0
83.5
77.7
3.6
94.1
C1)
25.8
38.4

Per cent

1,471
13
58
35
50
8
175
106
43
18
4
150
12
38
238
3
11
49
53
37
11
59
17
25
53
6
9
121
69

27.3
0)

51.3
23.0
18.4
'*<*>
34.4
16.7
15.8
32.1
0
39.4
7.5
17.6
61.5
4.8
8.5
11.0
19.1
15.9
15.3
23.0
16.5
22.3
96.4
5.9
C1)
74.2
61.6

1 Per cent not shown for areas in which the average monthly number of children on the register was less
than SO.

Berkeley, Kansas City (M o.), Springfield (1 1 1 .S t. Paul, and
Wichita were areas in which more than half of the children were
given care without charge. Springfield (111.) reported the largest
proportion (96.4 per cent) of children for whom no fees were paid.
Day nurseries in Hartford, Lancaster, Louisville, and Springfield

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

10

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

(Mass.) had the highest measure of paid service, fees being received
for more than 90 per cent of the children under care.
That fees paid are in nowise commensurate with cost of service is
indicated by the following figures from the Day Nursery Manual:
Day-nursery care of a satisfactory custodial type' (without full-time trained
teacher service and without skilled case-work service) in the metropolitan centers
costs about $1 a day per child, or $26 a month. The fees paid by parents range
from 5 to 25 cents a day. In rare cases as much as 50 cents a day is charged.
PERSONNEL

An average of 738 workers were on the staffs of 133 day nurseries
in 32 areas, as is indicated in Table 7. Although statistics for Chicago
are incomplete, this city led all others in the average number of
persons (159) employed in this field. Chicago is the largest of the
registration cities. Detroit, next in size, had an average of only 26
employees. Cleveland, lower in population rating, had three times
the number of workers reported for Detroit.
T a b l e 7.— Number o f day nurseries reporting and average monthly number o f

workers on the staff, o f children on the register, and o f days' care given in 32
specified metropolitan areas during 1930

Metropolitan area

Total—32 areas__________________ ________ _
Akron................ .......... ......................
Berkeley......... .......................................
Bridgeport...............................................................
Buffalo__ ___________________________
C an ton ..____ ____ ____ __________ .
Chicago 2............... ................................ ........................
Cincinnati...... .........................................
Cleveland____________________ _________ ________ . . .
Columbus.... ................ ................. .................................
Dayton______ ____________________ _______ _______
Denver_____________________________ .
Des Moines................. .......................................
Detroit_______________________________
Hartford...................................................................
Indianapolis______ ____ _______ ____ _
Kansas City (M o.)....................................................
Lancaster_____________ ____________ .
Louisville____________________ . .
Minneapolis............................... ..........
Newark.....................................
New Haven_______________________
New Orleans____________________
Omaha..................................................
The Oranges................... ...............
Richmond______________ _ .
Sioux C ity______________________
Springfield (111.)........... ..........................
Springfield (M a ss.)........................ .
Springfield (Ohio)................................
St. Louis..........................................................
St. Paul_____ _______ ______ ______ __
Wichita....... ..................................................

Average
Average
Number of Average
monthly
monthly
day
monthly number
of number of
nurseries number of children
on days’ care
reporting
workers the register
given
133

738

1
1
2
5
1
28
U
4
5
1
5
1
7
2
3
7
1
2
7
7
2
5
1
4
3
2
1
2
1
8
2
' 1

4
7
17
35
6
159

31
113
152
272
34
1,648

426
1,348
2,409
3,068
'397
23,032

79
25
4
28
1
26
12
17
25
3
9
14
46
26
22
5
23
12
11
3
12
2
38
19
5

634
273
56
388
24
381
160
216
387
63
129

8,771
3' 538
'386
5,839
235
4,888
1)921
2)867
5)860
1)425
l ) 500
2)727
6)248
4,154
2,856
l)036
2)225
1)784
1,687
(8)
1,610
'269
6,241
2,875
1)075

1Not computed.
2 Reports for Chicago were less than 80 i>er cent complete.
* Not computed because reporting on this item was incomplete»


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

(9

(»)

(l)

446
277
232
72
257
103
112
55
102
18
429
163
112

CARE OF CHILDREN IN DAY NURSERIES

11

Day nurseries in their reports for 1930 were requested to include
in the staff count “ all persons assisting in the work of the nursery.”
Thus the counts included not only professionah workers and other
attendants but cooks, janitors, and those engaged in maintenance of
the institutions. Although it is important to know the total number
of employees required to operate establishments, a division of the
staff count into those engaged in child training and those engaged in
maintenance is highly desirable and has been requested in the reports
for 1932. This information will be necessary before calculations can
be made of the loads carried per professional worker.
In other respects extended and improved reporting of day-nursery
service is needed, as may be illustrated by the fact that an annual
count of the different children under care during 1930 was not obtained.
In fact, nurseries were not requested to submit reports which would
yield this information, owing to a doubt as to whether they could
separate réadmissions of a former calendar year from those for 1930.
To secure a count of different children under care, réadmissions within
the year of reporting must be eliminated in calculation.
Both the White House Conference and the Day Nursery Manual
have recommended methods of record keeping for day nurseries which
will give needed basic data of importance. The adoption of these
recommendations by day nurseries and adaptation of the bureau's
reporting system to cover further information as it becomes available
should result in more comprehensive statistics.
o


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. N. DOAK, Secretary

C H IL D R E N ’S BUREAU
GRACE ABBOTT. Chief

CARE OF DEPENDENT AND
NEGLECTED CHILDREN
By GLENN STEELE

Separate from Publication N o. 209

Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields—
Annual Report for the Registration Area for the Year 1930

LIBRARY
Agricultural & Mechanical College of le m
College Station. Ietas.
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1932


‘d 'S c.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONTENTS

Census of children in foster homes and in institutions__________________
Case work for dependent and neglected children_________________ 20
Juvenile-detention hom es.__ ;______________
~


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1
QQ


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Care o f Dependent and Neglected Children
C E N SU S O F C H IL D R E N IN F O S T E R H O M E S A N D IN
IN S T IT U T IO N S

One of the important purposes of the collection of social statistics
from representative metropolitan areas has been to bring together
data on the extent of child dependency. In every area various forms
of relief exist to alleviate the condition of needy children. Services
by which these children were assisted without removal from the home,
such as family welfare, mothers’ aid, and care in day nurseries, have
been discussed in other sections of the annual report for 1930 on
Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields.
•
Present analysis deals primarily with children deprived of care
n* then- own homes because of poverty or neglect. A census of such
children in foster homes and in institutions constituted the first
section of the monthly report requested in 1930 from child-caring
agencies. _A second section of the monthly report was submitted by
child-placing and protective agencies engaged in case work for
dependent and neglected children. In that section, however, the
data on investigations, cases under care, and financial aid pertain to
dependent children remaining in their homes as well as to those
removed to institutions and foster homes.
REPORTING ON CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOM ES

All important agencies that supervised children in foster homes in
the following 23 cities reported the census of those under care:
Akron, Berkeley, Buffalo, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton,
Detroit, Duluth, Grand Rapids, Harrisburg, Kansas City (Mo.),
Lancaster, Louisville, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Sharon, SpringSpringfield (Mass.), St. Louis, St. Paul, Washington, and
Wichita.
Partial returns were received from 12 other metropolitan areas of
the 38 participating in the registration project, but at least one
important agency in each of these areas failed to make returns or did
not report on the required basis showing resident children under
care. Indianapolis, Springfield (Ohio), and Sioux City were the only
areas from which no reports were received. Of these, Sioux City was
not requested to report, owing to the negligible number of children
under care in foster homes.
REPORTING ON CHILDREN IN INSTITUTIONS

F or the census of children in institutions, 25 of the 38 registration
areas made returns in 1930 sufficiently complete to give representa­
tive figures showing the number of children receiving this type of
care. These include the areas listed as reporting foster-home care
with the exception of St. Louis and Washington, and with the addi­
tion of Bridgeport, Columbus, Des Moines, and Richmond.
1

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Partial returns were received from 11 other metropolitan areas.
St. Louis and Indianapolis were the only two registration cities which
did not attempt to report on this type of care.
STATISTICS RELATE TO RESIDENT CHILDREN

The plan of reporting the census of dependent and neglected chil­
dren under care outside their own homes as prepared by the Joint
Committee for the Registration of Social Statistics 1 set a somewhat
difficult task for child-placing agencies and institutions because _of
the requirements in regard to reporting legal residence. Agencies
supervising children in foster homes were requested to report in
addition to the total children under care “ the count of those chil­
dren who, when taken under care, had legal residence within the
metropolitan area.” It was this count that was used in tabulation.
Institutions requested to report were those that served each metro­
politan area— not necessarily those located within its confines. Insti­
tutions in a given area serving only children resident in the area
faced no difficulties in reporting. Those also serving children from
outside the area were requested to report for each item of inquiry
the pertinent number of resident children, nonresident children, and
total children under care, but only the statistics relating to resident
children were tabulated.
.
Some reports for the census of children in institutions were made
by child-placing agencies. For instance, child-placing agencies in
Akron connected with sectarian institutions in Cleveland, Columbus,
and Cincinnati reported on the Akron children under care in such
institutions.
,
The situation in St. Paul and Minneapolis illustrates a feature ot
reporting from institutions in areas where there is much intercity
service. When a Minneapolis institution served both cities, two
reports were submitted. The report for Minneapolis gave the total
child population of the institution and also the number of Minneapolis
children in the institution, and that submitted for St. Paul gave the
total population and also the number of St. Paul children. There
was no duplication in the figures tabulated when only residents ol
each place were included.
, ^
The plan was to secure, so far as possible, a census ol children Irom
a, given area who were in institutions located in the home area or
elsewhere.2 Obviously, this is a much more difficult type of report­
ing than that which would furnish institutional statistics per se.
Many of the institutions serve nonresidents and have records which
show place of residence for each child under care, but their compila­
tions are made for administrative purposes and reports usually are
based on total population figures. The monthly statistics requested,
therefore, require the preparation of additional detail, and from the
point of view of these institutions the residential figures used in
registration statistics do not represent the full volume of their work.
For some institutions a further reduction in the statistics of service
was required because delinquents or groups other than dependent
children were under care.
i Representing the local community research committee of the University of
the National Association of Community Chests and Councils. This work was taken over by the Chu
dren’s Bureau July 1,1930.
2 State institutions were not fully covered.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3

CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS

RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT GROUPS

To show the proportion of all children under care in foster homes
and in institutions who were included in the tabulation because of
area residence or excluded because of nonresidence, Table 1 has been
prepared. Twenty metropolitan areas that furnished the requisite
information are represented. The percentages are based on the aver­
age number of children under care on the 1st day of the month.
T

1.— Percentage o f average number o f dependent and neglected children in
foster homes and in institutions on the 1st day o f the month during 19S0 who, when
placed under care, were resident or nonresident in 20 specified metropolitan areas

able

Dependent and neglected children
under care
Metropolitan area

Per cent in foster Per cent in institu­
homes who were— tions who were—
Resident Nonresi­
Resident Nonresi­
dent
dent

Akron....................
Berkeley_________
Buflalo.................. .
Canton.............. .
Cincinnati..............
Cleveland________
Dayton...................
Detroit..................
Duluth______ ____
Grand Rapids........
Harrisburg.............
Kansas City (Mo.).
Lancaster...............
Louisville..!______
Minneapolis______
New Orleans_____
Springfield (111.)__
Springfield (Mass.).
St. Paul............... .
Wichita__________

83.6
36.2
96.2
73.3
90.2
100.0
79.6
94.7
93.9
55.4
100.0
99.6
75.6
100.0
79.6
49.5
91.7
0)
64.0
31.3

16.4
63.8
3.8
26.7
9.8
20.4
5.3
6.1
44.6
.4
24.4
20.4
50.5
8.3
«

36.0
68.7

91.3
0)
88.9
51.9
71.4
74. 2
96.0
98.2
84.7
91.3
100.0
99.6
46.4
73.8
53.7
66.2
41.7
33.6
51.5
92.5

8.7
(0

11.1
48.1
28.6
25 8
4.0
1.8
15.3
8.7

.4
53.6
26.2
46.3
33.8
58.3
66.4
48.5
7.5

1 Not reported.

Cleveland, Harrisburg, and Louisville were the only areas where all
agencies reporting on children in foster homes gave exclusive service
to residents. From Wichita, where less than one-third of the children
reported in foster homes were residents, one report was from an
agency serving the State. The number of Kansas children served
were given as a total in this report, and less than one-fifth of the total
were Wichita residents. For the most part other child-placing agen­
cies in Wichita served resident children, but the figures on State
service were largely reflected in the combined figures for the area.
The proportion of nonresident children cared for in institutions was
as high as two-thirds in one area— Springfield (Mass.). The inclusion
of reports from two sectarian institutions not located in Springfield
but having a small proportion of Springfield children in their popula­
tions accounts for the comparatively small percentage of cases from
Springfield.
In Akron, Dayton, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Harrisburg, Kansas
City (M o.), and Wichita the resident children included in the census
for institutions were 90 per cent or more of those under the care of
the reporting agencies.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

4

It will be seen from the foregoing discussion that only segments of
the child populations served by certain agencies and institutions are
used to establish for each metropolitan area a census of dependent or
neglected children who were resident within the area.
The failure to secure representative reporting from 15 cities for the
foster-home census and from 13 cities for the institutional census
was due, no doubt, in large measure to the difficulty some agencies
experienced in segregating the residential statistics.
COMBINED STATISTICS FOR FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS

Because a few metropolitan areas were able to report the census of
resident children in institutions but not that of resident children m
foster homes, or vice versa, combined statistics giving a picture oi the
extent of both types of care in 1929 and 1930 are complete only ior the
21 metropolitan areas listed in Table 2. Census information re­
ported from 11 additional areas, which is partly complete, is pre­
sented in Table 3. Although this table does not furnish statistics m
full for both types of service in any area, it provides information sub­
mitted by the" 106 agencies in these areas that were able to fulfill the
requirements of reporting.
In the 21 areas from which reportmg was complete there were
21,494 children under care on December 31, 1930. _ (Table 2.) Oi
these, 11,038 were in foster homes and 10,456 in institutions.
T a b l e 2 .— Number o f dependent and neglected children,from 21 specified metropolitan

areas who were in foster homes and in institutions December 81, 1929, and Decem­
ber 81, 1980, and percentage o f increase or decrease
Dependent and neglected children under care

Metropolitan area

In institutions

In foster homes

Total

Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
of in­
of in­
of in­
crease
Dec.
31,
Dec.
31,
crease
Dec. 31, Dec. 31, crease Dec. 31, Dec. 31,
1930
(+
) or
1929
1930
(+
)
or
1929
1930
(+
)
or
1929
decrease
decrease
decrease
(
-)
(
)
(-)

Total—21 areas . . 20,162
Akron ------- ------------Berkeley------------------Buffalo______________
Canton______________
Cincinnati___________
Cleveland___________
Dayton______________
Detroit_________ ____
Duluth______________
Grand Rapids_______
Harrisburg__________
Kansas City (M o.)----Lancaster-----------------Louisville------ ----------Minneapolis______--New Orleans_________
Sharon______________
Springfield (111.)--------Springfield (Mass.) —
St. Paul____________
Wichita____________

482
128
2,746
368
1,737
3,244
530
3,928
227
200
358
1, 217
129
1,031
1,079
980
33
272
412
786
275

21,494
525
126
2,846
334
1,760
3,498
565
4,216
283
221
371
1,257
151
1,203
1,179
1,030
38
277
476
847
291

+6.6
+8.9
-1 .6
+3.6
-9 .2
+1.3
+7.8
+6.6
+7.3
+24.7
+10.5
+3.6
+3.3
+17.1
+16.7
+9.3
+5.1
0
+1.8
+15.5
+7.8
+5.8

10,062
163
87
1,255
232
738
2,072
184
2,526
117
40
209
294
100
259
762
50
17
103
292
494
68

11,038
183
81
1,333
204
707
2,374
196
2,746
127
55
202
336
114
337
868
53
19
92
355
559
97

1 Not computed because number of children was less than 50.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

+9.7
+12.3
-6 .9
+6.2
-12.1
-4 .2
+14.6
+6.5
+8.7
+8.5
(0
-3 .3
+14.3
+14.0
+30.1
+13.9
+6.0
(>)
-1 0.7
+21.6
+13.2
+42.6

10,100
319
41
1,491
136
999
1,172
346
1,402
110
160
149
923
29
772
317
930
16
169
120
292
207

10,456
342
45
1,513
130
1,053
1,124
369
1,470
156
166
169
921
37
866
311
977
19
185
121
288
194

+3.5
+7.2
0
+1.5
-4 .4
+5.4
-4 .1
+6.6
+4.9
+41.8
+3.8
+13.4
-0 .2
0)
+12.2
-1 .9
+5.1
0)
+9.5
+0.8
-1 .4
-6 .3

CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS

5

A comparison of the enumerations on December 31, 1929, and on
December 31, 1930, shows, on the whole, an expansion of service both
in foster homes and in institutions. On December 31,1930, there were
7 per cent more dependent and neglected children under care outside
their own homes than on December 31, 1929. The foster-home serv­
ice showed a greater increase than the institutional service, the rates
of increase being 10 per cent for foster homes and 4 per cent for
institutions.
There was an increase in the number of children in foster homes in
16 areas and a decrease in 5. The number of children in institutions
increased in 15 areas and decreased in 6. Canton was the only com­
munity where there was a decrease in both types of care. In all other
metropolitan areas where a reduction in the number of children in
institutions occurred, there was an increase in the number of children
under care in foster homes.
Further evidence of the upward swing in foster-home and in in­
stitutional service from 1929 to 1930 appears in Table 3, which pre­
sents incomplete returns from 11 areas. The combined statistics
reported by 106 agencies show that there were 7 per cent more chil­
dren in foster homes and 3 per cent more in institutions on December
31, 1930, than on the corresponding date in 1929.
T a b l e 3.— Number o f dependent and neglected children from 11 specified metropol­

itan areas from which reports o f one or more important agencies were not received
who were in foster homes and in institutions December 31, 1929, and December 31,
1930, and percentage of increase or decrease
Dependent and neglected children under care
Total
Metropolitan area

In foster homes

In institutions

Per cent
Per cent
Per cent
of in­
of in­
of in­
Dec. 31, Dec. 31, crease Dec. 31, Dec. 31 crease Dec.31, Dec. 31, crease
1929
1930
1929
(+ ) or
1930
1929
1930
(+ ) or
(+ ) or
decrease
decrease
decrease
(-)
(-)
(-)

Total—11 areas. . 9,324
9,702
Bridgeport___________
295
351
Chicago____ _________ 4,158
4,355
Columbus__________
908
954
Denver________
970
878
Des Moines _____
64
71
Hartford_____________
470
497
Newark__________
471
491
New Haven........ ........
193
198
Omaha_____
242
263
Richmond___________
333
361
Washington_________ 21,220 1 1,283

+4.1
+19.0
+4.7
+5.1
-9 .5
+10.9
+5.7
+4.2
+2.6
+8.7
+8.4
+5.2

3,460
120
1,412
224
160
13
247
192
81
48
49
914

3,694
151
1,576
232
136
8
266
203
66
52
63
941

+6.8
+25.8
+11.6
+3.6
-1 5.0
(s)
+7.7
+5.7
-18.5
(2)
(2)
+3.0

5,864
2 175
2,746
2 684
'810
2 51
223
279
112
194
2 284
306

6,008
2 200
2,779
2 722
742
2 63
231
288
132
211
2 298
342

+2.5
+14.3
+1.2
+5.6
-8 .4
+23.5
+3.6
+3.2
+17.9
+8.8
+4.9
+11.8

1 Includes reports from all important agencies.
2 Not computed because number of children was less than 50.

INDICATIONS FOR 1931

Much interest has been manifested in the developments during
1931 in the children’s field. The preliminary returns available indi­
cate that the upward trend in foster-home service during 1930 con­
tinued in 1931.
Enumerations of the children in foster homes on December 31,
1931, received from four large cities, when compared with similar
data for December 31, 1930, showed percentages of increase in foster­
home service as follows: Buffalo, 28 per cent; Cleveland, 24 per cent;
Louisville, 33 per cent; and New Orleans, 25 per cent. In two other
129814— 32------- 2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

6

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

large cities, Detroit and Minneapolis, the number of children in
foster homes on December 31, 1931, was slightly less than the number
receiving this type of care December 31, 1930, a decrease of 5 per cent
and 3 per cent, respectively.
Comparable figures which are available on institutional care for
December 31 of 1930 and of 1931 indicate that changes in this type
of care were slight, with increases in some areas and decreases in
others. Complete returns for 1931 will be necessary before a definite
appraisal for the registration area can be made.
It is recognized that a preferable method of comparing the services
of one year with those of another would be on the basis of the volume
of annual service measured by the days’ care given. This measure
could not be used in the presentation of combined statistics for both
types of care because it was not available for foster-home service
except as related to the group of children who were in boarding homes.
MONTHLY TRENDS OF SERVICE

To trace the trend of both types of service through the months of
1930, the number of children under care in foster homes and in insti­
tutions on the 1st day of each month is shown in Table 4.
T a b l e 4.— Number of dependent and neglected children from 18 metropolitan areas 1

who were in foster homes and in institutions on the 1st day o f each month during
1930

Month

January..
February.
March__
April.......
M ay____
June____

Dependent and neg­
lected c h ild r e n
under care on 1st
day of month—
In foster
homes

In insti­
tutions

9,435
9,550
9,628
9,646
9,794
9,886

9,675
9,832
9,922
9,965
9.991
10,051

Month

Dependent and negle c t e d children
under care on 1st
day of month—
In foster
homes

July...................................... August....... .............................
September..... .........................
October _______________ ___
November_________ ______
December_______ ____ _____ _

9,951
10,089
10,038
10,186
10, 258
10,351

In insti­
tutions
9,817
9,884
9,887
9,959
10,026
10,042

1 Akron, Berkeley, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, Detroit, Duluth, Grand Rapids, Harrisburg,
Kansas City (M o.), Lancaster, Louisville, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Sharon, St. Paul, Wichita.

An illustration of these figures, which were combined from the
reports of 18 metropolitan areas, appears on page 7. The curve
representing the trend of child care in foster homes shows a steady
increase in the enumeration month by month from January to August.
On the 1st of September there was a decline in the number of children
under care concurrent with the release of some children from farm
and vacation homes. By October 1, however, there were more chil­
dren in foster homes than on the 1st day of any summer month, and
the trend continued upward until the last enumeration for the year,
made on December 1.
The number of children under care in institutions increased month
by month from January 1 to June 1. The much lower enumeration
for July reflects the large number of discharges made in June. Sepa­
rations which were due to the placement of children in farm or vaca­
tion homes for the summer cause the curve representing institutional
service to decline as that representing foster-home care rises. An
even greater decrease in institutional population due to this seasonal

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS

N u m b e r o f d e p e n d e n t a n d n e g l e c t e d c h il d r e n fr o m is m e t r o p o l it a n a r e a s
WHO WERE IN FOSTER HOMES AND IN INSTITUTIONS ON THE 1ST DAY OF EACH
MONTH DURING 1930

Number
under
care-

1930


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

7

8

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

movement to foster homes would have been evidenced had it not
been for a counter movement increasing the institutional intake
during the summer. In Detroit this was caused by the acceptance
for temporary care of health-problem children.
. . .
Following the July enumeration the number of children m institu­
tions increased month by month until December 1, but by that
date the child population, 10,042, was not quite equal to the peak
population, 10,051, recorded on June 1.
. . .
. ,
The chart illustrates an interesting change within the year m the
distribution of service between the two types of care. The enumera­
tion on the first day of 1930 disclosed more children in institutions
than in foster homes (9,675 and 9,435, respectively). This situation
continued through June. The summer months would be expected
to bring some reversal of these conditions, but the enumerations made
in the fall and early winter show that the lead in foster-home service
commenced in the summer continued, and by December 1 there were
10,351 children in foster homes as compared with 10,042 children in
institutions. For the period between the first and last enumerations
charted, 916 more children were admitted to foster homes than were
discharged. Corresponding figures for institutions showed an excess
of 367 admissions over discharges.
These gains in each group when added to the number under care
on January 1 give the populations as of December 1 and show foster­
home care as the predominant type of service on that date.
EXTENT OF EACH TYPE OF SERVICE

To show the distribution of resident children in each community
under foster-home and under institutional care, the enumeration as
of December 31, 1930, has been given in Table 5.
T a b l e 5.— Number and percentage o f dependent and neglected^ children from 21

specified metropolitan areas who were in foster homes and in institutions Decem­
ber 31, 1930
Dependent and neglected children under care
Dec. 31, 1930
Metropolitan area

In foster homes
Total

Total—21 areas.
Akron____________
Berkeley.................Buffalo___________
Canton________ ——
Cincinnati________
Cleveland------------Dayton................... Detroit------ ------Duluth............ ........
Grand Rapids------Harrisburg-........... Kansas City (M o.).
Lancaster................
Louisville................
Minneapolis______
New Orleans--------Sharon___________
Springfield (111.) —
Springfield (Mass.).
St. Paul..................
Wichita...................

21,494
525
126
2,846
334
1,760
3,498
565
4,216
283
221

11,038
183
81
1,333
204
707
2,374
196
2,746
127
55

371
1,257
151
1,203
1,179
1,030
38
277
476
847
291

1 Per cent not shown because number of children was less than 50.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

In institutions

Number Per cent Number

202

336
114
337
868

53
19
92
355
559
97

Per cent

51.4

10,456

48.6

34.9
64.3
46.8
61.1
40.2
67.9
34.7
65.1
44.9
24.9
54.4
26.7
75.5
28.0
73.6
5.1
(9
33.2
74.6

342
' 45
1, 513
130
1,053
1,124
369
1,470
156
166
169
921
37
866
311
977
19
185

65.1
35.7
53.2
38.9
59.8
32.1
65.3
34.9
55.1
75.1
45.6
73.3
24.5
72.0
26.4
94.9

66.0

33.3

121

288
194

0

66.8

25.4
34.0
66.7

CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS

9

It was found that in the 21 metropolitan areas represented 51 per
cent of the resident children under care were in foster homes and 49
per cent were in institutions on the last day of 1930. However, in 11
of the 21 areas there were more children in institutions than in foster
homes, the proportion of children so placed ranging from 53 per cent
in Buffalo to 95 per cent in New Orleans. In nine communities the
majority of children were in foster homes. This type of care was
used most widely in Lancaster, Springfield (Mass.), and Minneapolis.
In Sharon the same number of children were receiving each type of
care on December 31. The bar diagram on page 10 illustrates the
predominant method of care which prevailed in each area at the end
of 1930.
ANNUAL MEASURE OF CHILD DEPENDENCY

The actual number of children served annually is difficult to deter­
mine from the reports of institutions and child-placing agencies.
Counts free from duplication are important to show the extent of
child dependency reached by these services and to establish rates by
which comparisons of community situations may be made.
Owing to the shifting of children from foster homes to institutions
and vice versa, some children may be enumerated as inmates both
of institutions and of foster homes during the course of a year. Others
may be moved back and forth from their own homes to institutions
several times during a year as family exigencies arise, or the moves
may be between their own homes and foster homes. Upon each
reappearance for care the child is enumerated again under intake.
The method of reporting devised to eliminate recurrent cases per­
mitted the calculation of an unduplicated annual total for the com­
bined group under care in institutions and foster homes in each com­
munity but did not yield an unduplicated count of the different children
under each separate type of care during 1930. Statistics for this com­
bined group from 16 metropolitan areas have been given in Table 6.
T a b l e 6 .— Number o f agencies from which reports were requested, number from which

reports were received and tabulated, and number o f dependent and neglected children
from, 16 specified metropolitan areas who were in foster homes and institutions
during 1930 and rate per 10,000 population under 21 years o f age

Number of agencies
from which —
Metropolitan area
Reports
were requested

Reports
were received
and
tabulated

Dependent and neg­
lected children in
foster homes and in­
stitutions during 1930

Number

Rate per
10,000 population under 21 years
of age

Total—16 areas.

168

156

23,055

117.4

Canton.......................

6
17
15
20
6
22
18
14
4
2
4
4
19
3
3
1

6
17
15
19
5
22
18
14
4
2
4
4
19
3
3
1

744
4,638
1,552
2,805
531
5,329
1,897
1,183
384
207
754
787
1,266
478
453
47

174.2
164.8
147.4
144.7
135.6
124.4
121.1
116.7
100.5
93.0
91.4
72.6
68.8
63.5
57.0
19.6

Buffalo___________

Louisville__________
Cincinnati.................
Wichita____________
Cleveland..................
Minneapolis________
St. Paul.....................
Duluth____________
Lancaster__________
Dayton......................
Akron______________
New Orleans..............
Harrisburg......... ......
Grand Rapids..........
Sharon__________ _


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

10

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

P er cen ta g e

of

dependent

and

neglected

c h il d r e n

who

w ere

in

fo ster

HOMES AND IN INSTITUTIONS ON DECEMBER 31, 1930
percent
in insti­
tutions

100

21 a r e a « ....51.+!
L a n c a s te r .... 755
3prm^field,MûSs74.6

'///////////////mm4 6 .6
77777777m

Cleveland...... .67.9

wzzzzzm
wzzzzzzzzm^

S t.P au l........... 66.0

m zzzzm m

Mi n neap o Iis .,. 73.6

D etroit ......... .65.1 '
B erk eley. . . . 6+3
Canton

.. 61.1

H a rrisb u rg.. .5+.+
S h a ro n ..........50.0
B u f f a l o .......... +6.8

D u lu th .......... .4+9
Cincinnati — 40.2
A k r o n ............ 34.9

.« ■

m ninnm *»
7zzznzzm m
m nm nnm ™
w nunm m m
w m nm m m m ™
357

w nnn

unnmnnnnnm™

’/ / // / / / ////////////////A™

7r/////////////////777777?\ ,5,

W ic-h ita ..........33.3

' I l l l l l Ì//III////IIIU//ÌTK
ZZZZZ2ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ3 M.T

Springfield, 111.333

TnzzzzM zzznznzzzzzm «.

Louisville....... 28.0

Y77777l///////////////////m 78.0

D a yton ............ 347

Kansas City Mo2£-7
Grand 'Rapids..249
New O rleans. ..5-1


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

mzzzzM zzzzzzznzzzzzzm™
T M U zm im m znzznzzm «.

CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS

11

About 23,000 dependent and neglected children in these areas were
at some time during the year either in foster homes or in institutions.
Duration of care may have been for the entire year or any portion of it.
In all areas combined an average of 117 children per 10,000 popula­
tion under 21 years of age received assistance, but community rates
varied widely, being as low as 20 and as high as 174, the respective
rates for Sharon and Canton.
To what extent home care for dependent children through the
medium of mothers’ aid and public or private family relief reduced
the number of children removed from their homes and hence lowered
these rates of service in any community is an important matter for
query. Information on care in the home that was gathered through
the 1930 study of social statistics related to the number of families
served by mothers’ aid and outdoor relief. The number of dependent
children involved was not reported.
The Children’s Bureau has requested reports on mothers’ aid for
1931 which will show the number of children aided and will permit
in future reports a comparison of the number of dependent children
receiving home care through mothers’ aid with the number under
care away from home. However, no attempt has yet been made under
the social-registration plan to ascertain the number of children who
are beneficiaries of family welfare and relief agencies.
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CARE

Only 13 per cent of the children in institutions on December 31,
1930, were in those maintained by public support, according to reports
of 25 metropolitan areas, and in only seven of these areas were public
institutions utilized to care for dependent children. (Table 7.) The
statistics omit some dependent children in State schools or other
State institutions not located in the reporting cities, as well as some
children in national and regional homes maintained by private agen­
cies. However, they are sufficiently complete to show that the care
of children in institutions lies largely in private hands.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

12

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T a b l e 7.— Number and -percentage o f dependent and neglected children from 25

specified metropolitan areas who were in public and in private institutions Decem­
ber 31, 1930
Dependent and neglected children in institutions,
Dec. 31,1930
In public institu­
tions

Metropolitan area

Number
Total—25 areas.
Akron........................
Berkeley...... ..........
Bridgeport..............
Buffalo____________
Canton__________w.
Cincinnati_________
Cleveland.............. —
Columbus_________
Dayton____________
Des Moines________
Detroit____________
Duluth......................
Grand Rapids______
Harrisburg................
Kansas City (M o .)..
Lancaster__________
Louisville--..............
Minneapolis_______
New Orleans.-.........
Richmond_________
Sharon.....................
Springfield (111.)-----Springfield (Mass.)-.
St. Paul___________
Wichita...... ..............

11, 739
342
45
200
1 513
’ 130
1,053
1 124
722
369
63
1 470
156
166
169
921
37
866
311
977
298
19
185
121
288
194

In private institu­
tions

Per cent Number

1,513

12.9

256

74.9

16

8.0

71

54.6

502
241

69.5
65.3

342

39.5

85

28.5

10,226
86
45
184
1,513
59
1,053
1,124
220
128
63
1,470
156
166
169
921
37
524
311
977
213
19
185
121
288
194

Portent
87.1
25.1
100.0
92.0
100.0
45.4
100.0
100.0
30.5
34; 7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
60.5
100.0
100.0
71.5
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Fifty-eight per cent of the children in foster homes on December 31,
1930, were under the care of private agencies. This finding relates to
a group of 22 cities, in 12 of which both public and private agencies
supervised children in foster homes and in 10 of which there was
private supervision only.
(Table 8.) In Akron, omitted from
Table 8, foster-home care was provided by a joint public and private
agency.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS
T

13

8 . — Number and percentage o f dependent and neglected children from 22
specified metropolitan areas who were in foster homes under the care o f public and
o f private agencies December SI, 1930

able

Dependent and neglected children in foster homes
Dec. 31,1930
Metropolitan area

Under care of pub­ Under care of pri­
lic agencies
vate agencies
Total
Number Per cent Number

Total—22 areas.

12,953

Berkeley________ ___
Buffalo_____________
Canton..................... .
Cincinnati__________
Cleveland__________
Dayton...................... .
Detroit_____________
Duluth_____________
Grand Rapids............
Harrisburg_________
Kansas City (M o .)...
Lancaster___________
Louisville____ ____ _
Minneapolis________
New Orleans_______
Sharon_____________
Springfield (111.)_____
Springfield (M ass.)...
St. Louis___________
St. Paul____________
Washington____ ____
Wichita____________

81
1,333
204
707
2,374
196
2,746
127
55

5,384

41.6

1,133
49

85.0
24.0

1,082
60

45.6
30.6

—ÏÔÏ

79.5

285
227

84.6
26.2

251
881
263
890

70.7
76.1
47.0
94.6

202

336
114
337
868
53
19
92
355
1,157
559
941
97

48.2

Per cent

7,569

58.4

81
200
155
707
1,292
136
2,746
26
55
202
174
114
52
641
53
19
92
104
276
296
51
97

100.0
15.0
76.0
100.0
54.4
69.4
100.0
20.5
100.0
100.0
51.8
100.0
15.4
73.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
29.3
23.9
53.0
5.4
100.0

STATISTICS RELATING TO FOSTER HOM ES

Comparison has previously been made between the number of
children in foster homes at the close of 1929 and of 1930 in 21 areas
that reported statistics for foster homes and for institutions. (Table
2.) In the slightly different group of cities shown in Table 8 it was
found that 9 per cent more children were under foster-home care on
December 31, 1930, than on the corresponding date in 1929. The
number of public wards in foster homes had increased 38 per cent,
according to comparative data on this basis.
Statistics for Cleveland accounted for the sharp advance in public
care. Public service was inaugurated in Cleveland in June, 1930,
and a number of children in foster homes were transferred from
private to public charge. When Cleveland is omitted from the
group, it is still found that the growth of public service was some­
what more pronounced than that of private service, the increase from
December 31, 1929, to December 31, 1930, being at a rate of 10 per
cent for public agencies and of 6 per cent for private agencies.
RATES OF SERVICE IN FOSTER HOM ES

To show representative figures for the number of children in foster
homes in 1930, an average of those under care on the 1st day of the
month is given in Table 9. In the 20 areas which reported these
data, 11,078 children, or 36 per 10,000 population under 21 years of
age, were in foster homes. The rates are, of course, higher for those
cities where a system of foster-home care had been extensively
129814— 32------ 3

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

14

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

developed. Thus in Minneapolis, Cleveland, and St. Paul, where
the rates were slightly above 50 and were higher than those for other
cities, foster-home care was the prevailing type of care given outside
the home to dependent and neglected children. In the cities such as
Grand Rapids and New Orleans, where foster-home care was repre­
sented by extremely low rates, institutions were used largely in pro­
viding for children deprived of their homes.
T a b l e 9.— Number o f agencies from which reports were requested, number from

which reports were received and tabulated, average number o f dependent and
neglected children from 20 specified metropolitan areas who were in foster homes
on the 1st day o f the month during 1930, and rate per 10,000 population under 21
years o f age

Number of agencies
from which—

Average number of de­
pendent and neg­
lected children in
foster homes on 1st
day of month

Metropolitan area
Reports
were re­
quested

Reports
were re­
ceived and
tabulated

Number

Rate per
10,000 popu­
lation un­
der 21 years
of age

Total—20 areas............................ - ..........- ..............

78

75

11,078

36.1

Minneapolis____ ____ - .....................................................
Cleveland_____________________________ ______ _____
St. Paul_________ ____ _____________ _____ __________
Lancaster_____________________________ ______ ______
Buffalo____________________________________________
D e tro it.................................. ....................- .............. ......
Cincinnati_____________________________ ______ _____
Springfield (111.)---------- ------------------------------------------Duluth _____________________ _____________________
St. Louis...------ -------------- --------------------------------------Berkeley............ ....................................................—........
Harrisburg.......... ..............................................................
Louisville__________________ -. -----------------------------Kansas City (M o.)— .........— ..................... ...................
Dayton------ --------------------------------- ----------------------- —
Wichita-------------- -------- ------------------------------------------Akron-------------------------------------------------------------------Sharon___________ ____ - ---------------------------------------Grand Rapids_______________________________ ____ —
New Orleans....... ............ .......................... ...... .........
-

10
5
7
2
4
7

10
4
7
2
4
6
3
1
3
4
2
2
2
8

828
2,226
520
108
1,280
2,678
691
99
123
1,078
87
211
293
306
193
82
173
19
36
47

52.9
52.0
51.3
48.5
45.5
42.5
35.6
34.0
32.2
31.6
31.5
28.0
27.8
25.7
23.4
20.9
16.0
7.9
4.5
2.6

3

1

3

4
2
2
2
8

3

3

5
4
1

4
4
1

2

2

3

3

TYPE OF FOSTER-H OM E CARE

Board was paid for the majority of children in foster homes, as may
be seen from the findings in Table 10, which relate to 22 metropolitan
areas. About 72 per cent of the children under care were in boarding
homes, 19 per cent in free foster homes, and 6 per cent were selfsupporting but under supervision. Duluth, Sharon, Springfield (111.),
and Wichita were the only areas where the proportion of children in
free homes equaled or exceeded the proportion of children in boarding
homes. Free foster homes may be utilized more frequently in areas
where funds for boarding-home care are limited. Akron and Louis­
ville had the highest percentage of children in foster homes who were
self-supporting.
The proportion of children living with their mothers in wage homes
was not shown separately in Table 10, as only 1 per cent of all children
in foster homes were in the group. A maternity home reporting from


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS

15

Wichita, however, supervised a considerable number of children who
received this form of care, and its reports account for the rather large
proportion of children in Wichita classified as “ under other tvoe of
care.”
T a b l e 10.— Percentage 1 o f dependent and neglected children from 22 specified

metropolitan areas who were in free foster homes, in hoarding homes, self-supporting •
or receiving other types o f care during 1980

Percentage1of dependent and neglected
children in foster homes who were—
Metropolitan area
In free
foster
homes
Total—22 areas_____ _
Akron___________ ____
Berkeley......................
B u ffalo..................
Canton________
Cincinnati___________
Cleveland....... .................
Dayton______ ________
D etroit..____ _____
Duluth______________
Grand Rapids ..................
Harrisburg___________
Kansas City (M o.) ...........
Lancaster____________
Louisville________
Minneapolis _________
New Orleans...............
Sharon................. .........
Springfield (111.)__________
St. Louis_____________
St. Paul........................
Washington..........
Wichita.........................

In board­ Self-sup­
ing
porting
homes

18.7

71.7

16.9

75.2

1»
7.8

Under
other
type of
care

in n

26.1
11.6
64.5
32.3

45.0
65.5

30.4
15.4
19.6
29.5
80.8
46.9

2.2 ------- 3.1

65.9
13.8
46.8

4.6

6.4

6.3

39.9
14.8

? um]?er of children under care on the last day of the month during 1930, except for
canton and Washington, for which percentages were based on children under care on Dec. 31, 1930.
E X P A N S IO N IN B O A R D IN G -H O M E S E R V IC E

Evidence from agencies in 16 metropolitan areas presented in
Table 11 shows that the number of days’ care provided in boarding
homes increased 12 per cent from 1929 to 1930. There was a general
expansion in this type of service, except in Grand Rapids and Harris­
burg, and both public and private agencies in all other areas listed
provided more care in boarding homes during 1930 than during 1929.
Information on days’ care given in free foster homes and in foster
homes of other types was not requested in 1930, so that a calculation
on the extent of foster-home care as a whole can not be made through
the measurement of days’ care.
It is the purpose to develop reporting so that this useful measure­
ment will be available. Revision in reporting is also needed to show
first admissions to foster homes within a calendar year as distinguished
from réadmissions. This information will make possible an annual
count of the number of different children in foster homes, with rates
per population and rates of turnover based thereon.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

16

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T a b l e 11.— Number o f days’ care provided dependent and neglected children from

16 specified metropolitan areas who were in boarding homes during 1929 and 1930
and percentage o f increase or decrease in 1930 as compared with 1929
Days’ care provided dependent and
neglected children in boarding
homes
Metropolitan area and type of supervision
Per cent of
increase
(+ ) or de­
crease (—)

1929

1930

2,018,651

2,256,053

+ 11.8

729,950
1,288, 701

818,992
1,437,061

+ 12.2

349,180
319,958
29,222

402,210
364,389
37,821

+15.2
+13.9
+29.4

Dayton.. J............ ...
Public agency . .
Private agencies.

43,314
3,659
39,655

49,960
7,140
42,820

+15.3
+95.1
+ 8.0

Kansas City (M o .)...
Public agency___
Private agencies >.

62,158
46,021
16,137

73,121
54,746
18,375

+17.6
+19.0
+13.9

Louisville________
Public agency.
, Private agency.

56,524
35,495
21,029

68,426
47,367
21,059

+ 21.1

Minneapolis............

Public agency..
Private agencies.

174,300
64,340
109,960

198,690
67,739
130,951

+14.0
+5.3
+19.1

St. L ou is.............. .
Public agency...
Private agencies.

302,434
223,503
78,931

316,712
230,197
86, 515

+4.7
+3.0
+9.6

St. P a u l..— . .........
Public agency..
Private agencies.

76,062
36,974
39,088

90,151
47,414
42,737

+18.5
+28.2
+9.3

36,224
123.690
689.691
11,473
49,820
18, 361
9,365

37,743
161,854
745,215
9,159
49,485
24,453
11,549
875
16, 450

+4.2
+30.9
+ 8.1

Total—16 areas______
Supervision by—
Public agencies.
Private agencies.

+11.5

SU P E R V ISIO N B Y PU BLIC AN D B Y P R IV A T E A G EN C IES

BuffalO.-i_________i................- ........... .....................................
Public agency.....................................................................
Private agencies_________ ____________,.......... ...............

+33.4
+ 0.1

SU P E R V ISIO N B Y P R IV A T E A G E N C IE S O N LY

Canton 1........ .
Cincinnati___
D etroit..____
Grand Rapids.
Harrisburg___
Lancaster____
New Orleans..
Sharon______
Springfield (111.)

16,055

-

20.2

-0 .7
+33.2
+23.3
+2.5

1 Excludes figures of 1 or more agencies which did not report in 1929.

STATISTICS RELATING TO INSTITUTIONS

Rates on two bases have been presentéd to show the extent of
institutional service to children in proportion to the number of minors
in each area. Table 12 gives rates based on a representative enumera­
tion of children in institutions during 1930, obtained by calculating
an average for the 1st day of the month. In the 22 metropolitan
areas from which monthly reports were received the average number
of children in institutions on the 1st day of the month was 11,149, a
rate of 37 children per 10,000 population under 21 years of age.
Kansas City and Louisville were the areas with the highest rates, 77.5
and 77.2, respectively. Cleveland had the largest number of institu
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS

17

tions from which, reports were received (19), although nearly as many
institutions reported from Cincinnati and New Orleans (18 and 17
respectively).
T

12.— Number o f institutions from which reports were requested, number
Jrom which reports were received, and tabulated, average number o f dependent and
neglected children from 22 specified metropolitan areas who were in institutions 1
on the 1st day o f the month during 1930, and rate per 10,000 population under 21
years o f age

able

Number of institutions
from which—

Average number of
dependent and neg­
lected children in
institutions i on 1st
day of month

Metropolitan area
Reports
were re­
quested

Reports
were re­
ceived and
tabulated

Number

Rate per
10,000 pop­
ulation un­
der 21 years
of age

Total—22 areas.

179

175

11,149

36.8

Kansas City (M o.)...
Louisville__________
Columbus..................
Buffalo_____________
Cincinnati..________
New Orleans........... .
W ichita....................
Dayton......................
Duluth_____________
Richmond__________
Akron__________
St. P aul....................
Cleveland_______ . __
Bridgeport..................
Detroit_____________
Grand Rapids...........
Harrisburg...............
Minneapolis________
Berkeley____________
Lancaster................... .
Des Moines_________
Sharon______________

12
14
9
13
19
17
4
2
3

12

921
813
695
1,547
1,017
943
195
354
134
294
341
293
.1,187
183
1,455
168
155
310
41
31
56
16

77.5
77.2
56.8
55.0
52.4
51.3
49.8
42.9
35.1
32.2
31.5
28.9
27.7
25.3
23.1
21.1

8

3
10
19
6
15
2
2

13
4
1
2
1

14
8
13
18
17
4
2

3
7
3
10
19
6

14
2

2
13
4
1

2
1

20.6

19.8
14.8
13.9
11.3
6.7

of private agendesCllil<irei1 in State public scbools>other state institutions, or in national or regional homes

A more exact measure of the volume of institutional service during
1930 in the various areas is based on the number of days’ care provided
for children in institutions. The information in Table 13 relates to a
group of cities slightly different from that shown in Table 12. In the
23 areas represented in Table 13 nearly 4,000,000 days’ care was given
to children in the institutions, of which more than 3,500,000 was
provided by private institutions.
In the 23 areas an average of 1,304 days’ care was given per 1,000
population under 21 years of age. In St. Paul, the city at mid-point,
1,053 days’ care was provided per 1,000 resident minors, an annual
service equivalent to about 1 day’s care to each child in the city.
The areas which appear in both tables have the same relative ranks
when rated in accordance either with the average number of children
under care on the 1st day of the month or with the number of days’
care provided annually.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

18

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T a b l e 13.— Number o f institutions from which reports were requested, number

from which reports were received and tubulated, number o f days cure given to
dependent and neglected children from 23 specified metropolitan areas who were
in institutions 1 during 1930, and rate per 1,000 population under 21 years o f age

Number of institutions
from which—

Days’ care given to de­
pendent and neglect­
ed children in insti­
tutions during 19301

Metropolitan area
Reports
were re­
quested

Total—23 areas----------------- ------------------------------

fit Paul

............................................... - ...........

Reports
were re­
ceived and
tabulated

Total

Rate per
1,000 popu­
lation under
21 years
of age

179

176

3,929,545

1,304.2

12
14
13
19
17
4
2
3
8
3
5
10
19
6
15
4
2
2
13
4
1
2
1

12
14
13
18
17
4
2
3
7
3
5
10
19
6
14
4
2
2
13
4
1
2
1

339,503
299,985
569,031
371,518
343,668
72,302
129,771
50,211
107,879
124,458
47,357
106,714
432,815
67,003
532,916
50,065
61,511
57,286
113,340
15,326
11,396
19,678
5,812

2,856.5
2,848.9
2,021.3
1,915.9
1,867.8
1,846.3
1,572.6
1,314.1
1,180.4
1,148. 5
1,108.6
1,052.5
1,010.4
927.3
846.6
824.5
774.0
760.6
723.7
554.8
512.0
397.5
242.6

1 Not including children in State public schools, other State institutions, or in national or regional homes
of private agencies.

Data previously presented under combined statistics of institutions
and foster homes showed that there were 4 per cent more children in
institutions on December 31, 1930, than on December 31, 1929, in 21
of the registration cities. When based on the measure of the number
of days’ care provided throughout each year, the increase in service
from 1929 to 1930 is indicated as very slight. Data on this base given
in Table 14 are available, however, for only 18 areas. The total of
3,670,521 days’ care provided in institutions in these areas during 1930
exceeded the service of 1929 by only 11,319 days’ care, an increase of
less than 1 per cent. The volume of service in public institutions
increased by 4 per cent from 1929 to 1930, and service in private insti­
tutions was slightly reduced.
Harrisburg had the highest rate of increase recorded for any city
(12 per cent), and the greatest decrease in service was that shown for
Minneapolis (9 per cent).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CHILDREN IN FOSTER HOMES AND INSTITUTIONS

19

Æ
}
o f days care provided dependent and neglected children from
la specified metropolitan areas who were m institutions during 1929 and 1930
and percentage o f increase or decrease in 1930 as compared with 1929

Days’ care provided dependent and
neglected children in institutions
Metropolitan area and type of Institution
In 1929

Total—18 areas__

In 1930

3; 670» 521

+0.3

3,342,372

3,340,510

+ 4.2
—0.1

129,443

124,458
88,675
35,783

-3 .9
+2.6
—16.9

822

—4.5
”~9.1
—3.2

...

Public institutions.......
Private institutions

Per cent of
increase (+ )
or de­
crease (—)

PU BL IC AN D P R IV A T E IN STITUTIO NS

Akron....... _.
Public institution - Private institutions...

...........'*
..............

Bridgeport i ___
Public institution......
Private institutions.......

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

Dayton..............
Public institution........
Private institution... .

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

Louisville_____
Public institution__
Private institutions .
Richmond_____
Public institution. .
Private institutions___

43,047

2o,

129,771
49,756

48,581

+6.2
+12.1
—2.4

299,985

—1.4
+0.9
-2 .9

74,469

107,879
32, 474
75,405

+2.6
+5.7
+1.3

550,750

569,031

+3.3
—0.8
—3.6
+5.1
—4.1
+11.6
+1.3
—4.0
—8.5
—3.6
+3.3
+2.8
—1.2

.................
105,190

.........”

P R IV A T E IN STITUTIO N S O N LY

Buffalo.................
Cincinnati.......
Cleveland i______
Detroit i_____
Grand Rapids......
Harrisburg........
Kansas City (M o .)...
Lancaster______
Minneapolis.......
New Orleans___
Sharon.................
St. P au l...........
Wichita________

......... ........
______—
_____
.............. ..........
.....................
____ _______
" ----.............................

522, 216

11» 871

57,286
339,503
11,396

5,628

5,812

1 Excludes figures of 1 or more institutions which did not report in 1929.

To compare the service of the two years, information on days’ care
is preferred to information on the number of children cared for, as it
provides for a consideration of the duration of care, a factor not
accounted for when enumerations are used. In some instances areas
having more children under care on December 31, 1930, than on
December 31, 1929, had nevertheless curtailed the volume of service
somewhat m 1930. This may be illustrated by the figures for Cin<“
• T
shows that 54 more children were in institutions
at the end of 1930 than at the end of 1929 in Cincinnati, yet the
number of days care given in 1930 was slightly less than the number
provided in 1929. (Table 14.)


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

C A SE W O R K F O R D E P E N D E N T A N D N E G L E C T E D
C H IL D R E N

In addition to reporting the census of dependent and neglected
children removed from their homes, child-carmg agencies were asked
to submit information on their case-work activities and expenditures
during 1930 for children who were under care either away from home
or at home.
_
.
The group of agencies which reported case-work service was neces­
sarily somewhat different from the group which reported the census
of children under care. As only agencies which placed children in
foster homes or supervised children in their own homes were asked
to report, a large number of institutions that reported for the census
did not submit reports on case work. However, all children s aid
organizations that reported the census of children m foster homes
were requested to report their case-work activities. In addition, a
few protective societies not engaged in child placing reported case
W°Detailed data were requested on applications and complaints, cases
under care, board paid and relief given, and the source of funds
expended for the support of dependent and neglected children.
APPLICATIONS AND COMPLAINTS

Some agencies that submitted information on case work were not
expected to report on applications and complaints, either because their
programs did not include investigations or because their practice was
to report all cases in the process of investigation as under care
Forty-four children’s agencies in 17 metropolitan areas submitted the
data on this subject presented in Table 1.
T a b l e 1.— Number o f applications and complaints handled by case-work agencies

for dependent and neglected children from 17 specified metropolitan areas during
1980
Applications and complaints
Metropolitan area

Total—17 areas..................

W ichital......................................

20

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Total

37,555
331
3,537
11,417
9,456
1,229
159
723
393
2,099
2,691
730
38
312
1,612
1,229
1,303
296

Pending Received
Dec. 31, during
year
1929

Disposed of during year
Total

Accepted Other dis­
for care positions

36,797

705

36,850

28
38
138
97
60
14
1
24
37
10
1
8
23
40
25
150
11

322
303
3,387
3,499
11,319
11,279
9,393
9,359
1,146
1,169
142
145
710
722
357
369
2,053
2,062
2,691
2,681
730
729
26
30
288
289
1,560
1,572
1,216 .
1,204
1,172
1,153
1
¿85
285

Pending
Dec. 31,
1930

15,979

20,818

758

167
2,258
4,009
2,819
383
92
316
65
1,242
1,958
694

155
1,129
7,310
6,574
763

9
150
98
63
83
17
13
36
46

108
531
746
442
142

180
1,029
470

24
52
13
131

143

11

394
292
811
36

12

CASE WORK FOR DEPENDENT AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN

21

Of the 37,555 applications and complaints relating to children
which were handled during 1930, 36,797 were disposed of and only
758 were carried forward for action in 1931. Less than one-half (43
per cent) of the applications and complaints disposed of involved
children accepted for care. On the basis of families there were 17,530
applications and complaints disposed of, 42 per cent of which
subsequently became cases under care.
The proportion of children’s cases disposed of by acceptance was
very much higher in some cities than in others, ranging from 18 per
cent m Harrisburg to 95 per cent in Omaha. In each community
the proportion of cases received for care is influenced by the type of
work which leading agencies conduct, as may be exemplified by the
situation m Omaha. The agency which reported the major volume
ot case work m that city gave a specialized service on behalf of
children suffering from cruelty, abuse, or neglect. Complaints to
protective societies when found valid usually receive immediate case­
work attention, and every effort is made to adjust conditions in the
home. Such a procedure results in a much larger proportion of
acceptances than would be made from applications for long-term
care. Different policies in regard to handling applications and
different practices m the process of disposition may also be reflected
m high or low rates of acceptance.
CHILDREN UNDER CARE

Sixty-five children’s agencies in 20 areas supplied the information
on the number of children under care which has been summarized in
I able 2.
Number o f children cared fo r by case-work agencies fo r dependent and
neglected children from 20 specified metropolitan areas during 1930

T a b l e 2.

Metropolitan area

Total
Children received for care
number
during year
Children
of
under
care
Never
Under
under Dec. 31,
before
care
1929
Total
care dur
under prior to
ing year
care
1930

Total—20 areasAkron.................. .
Berkeley_________
Canton__ ________
Cincinnati-............
D ay ton ..________
Des Moines_______
Duluth........... ........
Grand Rapids____
Harrisburg_______
Kansas City (M o.).
Lancaster________
Minneapolis...........
New Orleans______
Omaha_____ _____
Sharon....................
Springfield (111.)___
Springfield (Mass.).
St. Louis__________
St. Paul____ _____
Wichita...................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Recur­ Children Children
released
rent
under
from
cases
care
care
during
Dec.
31,
during
year
1930
year

30,100

15,668

14,432

11,334

3,098

1,174

13,290

16,810

466
274
045
502
041
246
088
618
378
927
151
501
288
755
46
346
900
973
294
261

225
190
401
2,373
675
148
703
272
320
733
114
3,194
2,498
179
33
244
267
1,440
1,572
87

241
84
644
4,129
366
98
385
346
58
1,194
37
2,307
1,790
576
13
102
633
533
722
174

205
73
542
2,954
334
93
376
325
49
1,149
37
1,593
1,437
335
13
88
422
479
690
140

36
11
102
1,175
32
5
9
21
9
45

23

244

55
341
25
5
16
41
7
26
1
234
168
118

222
110
398
3,200
297
73
344
310
70
1,082
30
2,772
1,857
583

173
744
30»
308
846
121
2, 729
2,431
172

4
27
26
16
41

100
638
404
647
145

246
262
1,569
1,647
116

714
353
241
14
211
54
32
34
'

164
6 47

3,302
744

22

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

A total of 30,100 children were under the supervision of these
agencies during the course of the year. Of these, 15,668 were chil­
dren whose care was continued from 1929, and 14,432 were children
received for care during 1930. The annual intake for the year
reported by each agency is exclusive of cases recurrent during the
vear. Agencies have shown marked improvement in making the
segregation of recurrent cases which is essential to show the number
of different children served within a calendar year. This informa­
tion was complete for only 12 areas in 1929 as compared with 20 areas
in 1930.
.
.
, .,
While the number of different children under care m each city given
in column 1 of Table 2 is free from duplication so far as each agency
is concerned, if children were served by more than one agency in a
city, some duplication resulted in the city consolidation of agency
statistics
Of the 30,100 children aided during the year, agencies were able to
discontinue the care of 13,290, leaving a case load of 16,810 on
December 31, 1930. On that date 1,142 more children were receiving
case-work attention in the 20 areas combined than at the close
of 1929, an increase of 7 per cent. Case loads expanded m 14 areas
and decreased in 6 areas. The decreases were negligible except m
Berkeley and in Minneapolis where the number of children receiving
case-work service declined by 14 and 15 per cent, respectively, from
December 31, 1929, to December 31, 1930.
The children and the families dealt with by case-working agencies
constituted two groups which were not strictly related to each other
when statistics were combined for city totals. Some agencies dealt
with children but had no case-work contacts with their families, with
the result that children were reported as under care without corre­
sponding reports on their families. This caused the elimination of
some agencies from the tabulation of family data.
In the metropolitan areas listed in Table 2, exclusive of Harrisburg
and Duluth, agencies whose service for children included case work
for their families reported 8,225 families under care December 31,
1929, as compared with 8,890 families under care December 31, 1930,
an increase of 8 per cent. According to the enumerations on these
dates an expansion in family case work was indicated m 15 of the
18 communities.
TURNOVER IN CHILDREN’ S CASES

When the total number of children under care throughout the year
in a given area is much larger than the average number servedon the
1st day of the month, a high rate of turnover is indicated, lable 3
gives a measurement of turnover in children’s cases for 19 metro­
politan areas.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CASE WORK FOR DEPENDENT AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN

23

Comparison o f total number o f different children under care during 1930
and average number under care on the 1st day o f the month by case-work agencies
fo r dependent and neglected children from 19 specified metropolitan areas

T a b l e 3.

Ratio of
total
number
of children under care
during
1930 to
average
number
under
care on
1st day
of month

Total
number
of differ­
ent chil­
dren un­
der care
during
1930

Average
number
of children under care
on 1st
day of
month

Total—19 areas. .

29,055

16,160

179.8

Lancaster_________

Akron_____ _________
Berkeley____________
Cincinnati__________
D ayton.____ ________
Des Moines...............
D uluth............... ........
Grand Rapids_______
Harrisburg__________
Kansas City (M o.)___

466
274
6,502
1,041
246
1,088
618
378
1,927

244
186
2,875
709
159
739
272
315
796

191.0
147.3
226.2
146.8
154.7
147.2
227.2
120.0
242.1

New Orleans______
Omaha_________
Sharon____________
Springfield (111.)........
Springfield (Mass.)_.
St. Louis....................
St. Paul_________
Wichita______

Metropolitan area

Metropolitan area

Total
number
of differ­
ent chil­
dren un­
der care
during
1930

151
5,501
4,288
755
46
346
900
1, 973
2,294
261

Ratio of
total
number
Average of chil­
number dren un­
of chil­ der care
dren un­ during
der care 1930 to
on 1st average
day of number
month
under
care on
1st day
of month
120
3,248
2,455
172
34
254
350
1,487
1,637
108

125.8
169.4
174.7
439.0
135.3
136.2
257.1
132.7
140.1
241.7

The ratio of the number of children served in 1930 to the average
number under care on the 1st of the month was lowest in Harrisburg
and highest in Omaha. As has been explained previously, one of
the agencies reporting from Omaha gave protective care to neglected
children. Its services did not include supervision of children in foster
homes or institutions. This type of care, usually short in duration,
is concomitant with rapid turnover and accounts for the higher ratio
revealed for Omaha. Other areas from which protective agencies
engaged in case work but not in child placing reported were Cincin­
nati, Kansas City (M o.), and Springfield (Mass.). These are all
communities in which turnover during 1930 is indicated as having
been relatively high.
Figures for St. Louis are an amalgamation from reports of four
representative child-caring agencies, of which one was public and
one sectarian. All four supervised children in foster homes, but
had no children under supervision in institutions. From the rather
low rate of turnover it is evident that children were kept under care
longer in St. Louis than in most of the other cities. Only Lancaster
and Harrisburg, each represented by one agency, had rates lower
than St. Louis.
EXPENDITURES FOR BOARD AND RELIEF

A total of $2,521,541 was expended for the board and relief of depend­
ent children during 1930 by child-placing agencies in 23 areas. Of
the 70 agencies which gave information on this subject, only 10 were
institutions. In accordance with instructions the institutions reported
only such sums as they expended for the support of children main­
tained elsewhere than in their own establishments. Other child­
placing agencies reported their expenditures for the care of children
who were either in institutions or in foster homes, and also some
payments made for home relief. It should be understood that, with

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

24

the exception, of the board payments to institutions made by these
agencies, the reported expenditures do not cover those for institutional
maintenance.
S O U R C E O F FU N DS

The money expended came from three main sources: Tax funds,
funds of private agencies received through contributions and income
on endowments, and payments made to child-caring agencies by
parents, relatives, and others. The total expenditure of $2,521,541
for board and relief is distributed in Table 4 according to these
sources.
T a b l e 4.— Amount and source of money expended during 1980 for board and other-

relief by public and by private case-work agencies for dependent and neglected
children from 28 specified metropolitan areas
Expenditures during 19E0 for board and other relief

Received from
tax funds

Metropolitan area and type of agency

Received from
private funds of
agencies

Received from
other sources

Total
Amount

Per
cent

Amount

Per
cent

Amount

Per
cent

Total—23 areas................... - ........ $2, 521, 541 $1,460,517

57.9

$623,026

24.7

$437,998

17.4

923, 230
537, 287

95 2
34.8

621,412
1, 614

40.2
22.7

46, 263
386, 242
5.493

4.8
25.0
77.3

33,622
1, 614
32, 008

78.9
22.7
90.1

9,013
5,493
3,520

21.1
77.3
9.9

969,493
Public agencies-------------------- -----1, 544,941
Private agencies--------------------- 7.107
Public and private (joint agency) ~
PU BLIC AND P R IV A T E A G EN C IES

Public and private (joint agency)..
Private agencies......................... -

42, 635
7.107
35, 528

Buffalo..........................- ..................... Public agency------ ------------- ------Private agencies------ --------------- —

613,723
574, 588
39,135

Canton------ ------ ----------------- ----------Public agency— .............. .............
Private agencies------------------------

22, 602
965
21,637

C leveland..............- ................... -- --Public agency--------------------------Private agencies.............................

354,248
134,928
219,320

133.102
133.102

Dayton---------------- ------------------------Public agency---------- --------- ------Private agencies.............................

48,212
11,188
37,024

D u lu th ........................................ ........
Public agency--------------------------Private agencies.............. - ........

22,774

3.7

16,361

2.7

22,774

58.2

16,361

41.8

9,608

42.5

9,608

44.4

12, 994
965
12,029

57.5
100.0
55.6

37.6
98.6

173,963

49.1

173,963

79.3

47,183
1,826
45,357

13.3
1.4
20.7

10,902
8,288
2,614

22.6
74.1
7.1

12, 507

25.9

12,507

33.8

24,803
2,900
21,903

51.4
25.9
59.2

8,412
8,394
18

60
60

.7
.7

11

.1

11

61.1

8,341
8,334
7

99.2
99.3
38.9

Kansas City (M o .)......... .....................
Public ag en cy .................... ..
Private agencies...................... ----

48,721
34,481
14,240

32, 609
31,649
960

66.9
91.8
6.7

8,558

17.6

8,558

60.1

7,554
2,832
4,722

15.5
8.2
33.2

Minneapolis-------------- -------------------Public agency--------- -— - - - ........
Private agencies.............................

158, 566
28,792
129,774

42,440

26.8
100.0
10.5

51,830

32.7

64,296

40.5

51,830

39.9

64,296

49.5

19.2

31', 429
8,735
22, 694

16.3
6.6
38.1

41, 726
20,671
21,055

49.6
47.8
51.4

574, 588

13,648

93.6
100.0

St. Louis-------------------- -------- - ........—
Public agency---------- -------- - ........
Private agencies...——.............. .

192,567
132,934
59,633

124.199
124.199

64.5
93.4

36,939
36,939

61.9

St. Paul...............................*■...... .........
Public a g e n cy ..................... U - a:
Private agencies.........................—

84,163
43,223
40,940

22, 552
22,552

26.8
52.2

19,885

23.6

19,885

48.6


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CASE WORK FOR DEPENDENT AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN
T

25

4 . — Amount and source o f money expended during 1980 fo r board and other
relief by 'public and by private case-work agencies fo r dependent and neglected
children from 23 specified metropolitan areas— Continued

able

Expenditures during 1930 for board and other relief
Received from
tax funds

Metropolitan area and type of agency

Received from
private funds of
agencies

Received from
other sources

Total
Amount

Per
cent

$23,996
65,232

94.0
43.9

380,094

61.9

28,472
9,448

66.2
49.2

8, 644
6,179

59.6
17.8

Amount

Per
cent

$1,539
35, 726
10,443
143, 779
5,641
9,870
7,626
3,702
223
556
4, 745
18,962
10, 517

6.0
24.0
97.4
23.4
48.9
24.7
39.7
25.5
100.0
93.8
32.7
54.8
80.0

Amount

Per
cent

P R IV A T E A G E N C IE S ONL Y

B erkeley............
Cincinnati-............
Des Moines______
Detroit...................
Grand Rapids____
Harrisburg.............
Lancaster________
New Orleans_____
Omaha__________
Sharon......... ..........
Springfield (131.)-—
Springfield (Mass.)
Wichita..................

$25,535
148, 563
10,722
614, 526
11, 542
40,003
19,188
14, 531
223
593
14,493
34,630
13,143

$47, 605
279
90,653
5,901
3,661
2,114
10,829

32.0
2.6
14.8
51.1
9.2
11.0
74.5

37
1,104
9,489
2,626

6.2
7.6
27.4
20.0

The sum derived from taxation ($1,460,517) amounted to 58 per
cent of the total. Private agencies contributed from their own
resources $623,026, or 25 per cent of the entire board and relief bill;
and $437,998, or 17 per cent of the total, was supplied by relatives,
friends, and others. It should be noted that the latter sum repre­
sents the payments by parents and others that pass through the
hands of child-placing agencies, and is exclusive of payments from
this group which may be made direct to foster homes or institutions.
Of the public funds, $923,230 was disbursed by public agencies
and $537,287 through private agencies. Therefore less than twothirds of the public funds expended for the board and relief of chil­
dren in these areas was administered by public agencies. Most of
the public support received by private agencies was given in areas
where no public child-placing agencies had been established.
The sums available to private agencies were substantially aug­
mented not only by public subsidy but also by funds which the
agencies were able to collect from relatives and others. One-fourth of
the expenditures made by private agencies for board and relief
($386,242) was obtained from those interested in the children, but
only a small portion (5 per cent) of the cost for board met by public
agencies was defrayed by such receipts. Thus, although funds from
tax sources exceeded those from private contributions, private
agencies expended more than $1,500,000 as compared with an
expenditure of slightly less than $1,000,000 made by public agencies.
In 13 of the 23 areas included in the analysis there were only
private child-caring agencies. In four of these, Berkeley, Detroit,
Harrisburg, and Springfield (111.), the major expense of children’s
board and relief was met by public funds administered by private
agencies. In Des Moines, Grand Rapids, New Orleans, Omaha,
Sharon, and Wichita no public support was given to the private
agencies. In Grand Rapids and New Orleans the major portion of
the amounts disbursed came from relatives and other natural sources.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

26

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Of the 10 areas in which both public and private agencies were
caring for children, public funds met the major portion of expense in
Buffalo, Kansas City, and St. Louis. Akron was the only area in
which more than 50 per cent of all expenditures was paid from the
funds of private agencies, although in Cleveland nearly one-half (49
per cent) of the money paid for board and relief was supplied from
this source. In other areas of this group the share contributed by
relatives, friends, and other persons was surprisingly large, ranging
from 41 per cent in Minneapolis to 99 per cent in Duluth.
Of the 10 areas in which there were public child-placing agencies
reporting, public funds were allotted to private agencies for dis­
tribution in only 3— Dayton, Kansas, and Minneapolis. In the first
two cities the sums were small. In Minneapolis, of $42,440 in public
funds expended for this purpose the public agency admimstered
$28,792 and the private agencies $13,648.
T Y P E OF E X P E N D IT U R E

The total expenditure for 1930 of more than $2,500,000 made by
child-placing agencies for board and relief was used chiefly for the
maintenance of children in foster homes. Table 5 shows that of the
expenditures of children’s agencies about three-fourths, $1,862,199,
were made for this purpose, and in Canton, Cleveland, Dayton,
Duluth, Kansas City (M o.), Lancaster, and Omaha from 90 to 100
per cent of the total expenditures were for foster-home care.
T a b l e 5 .— E x p e n d itu r es f o r board i n fo s te r hom es and i n in stitu tio n s a n d f o r other
re lie f d u rin g 1 9 3 0 b y pu b lic a n d b y private ca se-w o rk a gencies f o r d ep en d en t and
neglected children f r o m 2 3 sp ecified m etrop olita n areas

Expenditures during 1930 for board and for other relief
Board
Other relief

Metropolitan area and type of agency

In foster homes

Total

In institutions
Per
tent

Amount

Per
cent

Amount

Per
cent

Amount

Total—23 areas............................. $2,521,541 $1,862,199

73.9

$406,246

16.1

$253,096

10.0

585,189
1,269,903
7.107

60.4
82.2
100.0

301,226
105,020

31.1
6.8

83,078
170,018

8.6
11.0

669,493
Public agencies------ ---------------Private agencies...........- --------------- 1, 544,941
7.107
Public and private (joint agency) —
PU BLIC AN D P R IV A T E A G EN C IES

A k ron ............... ....................................
Public and private (joint agency) —
Private agencies...............................

42,635
7.107
35,528

17,152
7.107
10,045

40.2
100.0
28.3

21,600

50.7

3,883

9.1

21,600

60.8

3,883

10.9

Buffalo________ _______ - ............. ........
Public agency..................................
Private agencies...................- .........

613, 723
574, 588
39,135

265, 335
235,008
30,327

43.2
40.9
77.5

301,365
300,637
728

49.1
52.3
1.9

47,023
38,943
8,080

7.7
6.8
20.6

602

20,790
965
19,825

100. 0

92 0

1,812

8.0

91.6

1,812

8.4

19,094
15,871
3,223

5.4
11.8
1.5

22

,

9

RÍÍ

21, 637

Private agencies-------------------------- !


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

354,248
134,928
2Ì9,320

333, 411
119,057
214; 354

94.1
88.2
97.7

.5

1,743
Ï, 743

1

-8

CASE WORK FOR DEPENDENT AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN

27

T a b l e 5.— Expenditures for board in foster homes and in institutions and for other

relief during 1980 by public and by private case-work agencies for dependent and
neglected children from 23 specified metropolitan areas— Continued
Expenditures during 1930 for board and for other relief
Board
Other relief

Metropolitan area and type of agency
Total

In foster homes

In institutions

Amount

Per
cent

Amount

$48,212
11,188
37,024

$47,534
11,188
36, 346

98.6
100.0
98.2

8,412
8,394
18

8,081
8,074
7

96.1
96.2

48,721
34,481
14, 240

44, 421
34^ 481
9^940

91. 2
100.0
69.8

Minneapolis.........
Public agency
____ ____
Private agencies_____ ____ _______

1.58, 566
28, 792
129, 774

138, 728
28, 792
IO9; 936

87.5
100.0
84.7

St. Louis________
Public agen cy.................... ...
Private agencies._____ ________

192, £67
132,934
59,633

170, 745
116, 779
53; 966

St. Paul................
Public agen cy____________
Private agencies.......................

84,163
43, 223
40,940

25,535
148,563
10, 722
614, 526
11,542
40,003
19, 188
14, 531
223
593
14,493
34, 630
13,143

Per
cent

Amount

$576

1.2

$102

576

1.6

102

.3

320
320

3.8
3. 8

11

.1

Per
cent

PU BL IC AND P R IV A T E A G E N C IE S— COn.

Dayton....................................
Public agency.............. ...........
Private agencies..........................
Duluth__________
Public agen cy____________
Private agencies..____ ___________
Kansas City (M o.)......................
Public agency.............. ...............
Piivate agencies.................

(l)

11

0.2

(0

4,300

8.8

4, 300

30 2
4 .8

12,258

7.7

7,580

12,258

9.4

7,580

5 .8

88.7
87.8
90.5

112

.1

1 1 .3

12 2

112

.2

21, 710
10 100
5,555

62, 021
30,845
31,176

73.7
71.4
76.2

6,628
269
6,359

7.9
.6
15.5

15, 514
12,109
3,405

18.4
28.0
8.3

13,330
107. 380
9, 524
512, 665
9,308
31,275
17 675
9,147
223
523
11,841
21,449
9,641

52.2
72.3
88.8
83 4
80.6
78.2
92 1
62.9
100 0
88.2
81.7
61.9
73.4

2,783
31,601
1,137
1,477
1,877
6,031

10.9
21.3
10.6
.2
16.3
15.1

9,422
9,582
61
100,384
357
2,697

36.9
6.4
.6
16.3
3.1
6.7

4,643

32.0

’ 74 I

5.1

24
700
11, 371

4.0
4.8
32.8

46
1,952
1,810
3,502

7.8
13.5
5.2
26.6

9 .3

P R IV A T E A G EN C IES O N LY

Berkeley...........
Cincinnati............
Des Moines .
Detroit..............
Grand Rapids .
Harrisburg____
Lancaster..........
New Orleans. .
Omaha______
Sharon...............
Springfield (111.).............. ......
Springfield (Mass.)____________
Wichita_____

___

1 Not computed because total expenditure was less than $100.

Board paid to institutions ($406,246 in the 23 areas) amounted to
only 16 per cent of the total expenditures. Akron and Buffalo were
the only areas in which more money for board was paid to institutions
than to foster homes. In Akron child-placing agencies paid board
for children in institutions in other parts of the State.
The sum of $253,096 (10 per cent of the total expenditures in 23
areas) was paid for clotiling and other incidental needs of children
in foster homes and also for the relief of children living at home.
Of this amount more than $100,000 was expended in Detroit. Chil­
dren’s agencies allotted more than 10 per cent of their total expendi­
ture for board and relief in this way in six cities— Berkeley, Detroit,
Springfield (111.), St. Louis, St. Paul, and Wichita.
Only a small portion (7 per cent) of the expenditures by private
children’s agencies was paid to institutions for board while public

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

28

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

departments expended 31 per cent of their funds for this type of care.
However, almost the entire institutional board bill of the public
agencies ($301,226) was paid in Buffalo, where the expenditure was
$300,637. In Canton, Cleveland, Dayton, Duluth, Kansas City,
Minneapolis, St. Louis, and St. Paul, where public child-caring agencies
had children under direct care, either no money or a negligible amount
was expended by them for the support of children in institutions.
In 10 metropolitan areas from which returns were not complete,
private agencies reported their expenditures for board and relief of
dependent children, as shown in Table 6. The amount expended by
these agencies during 1930 was about $500,000, of which 82 per cent
was for foster-home care.
T a b l e 6 . — Expenditures for board in foster homes and in institutions and for other

relief by private case-work agencies for dependent and neglected children from 10
specified metropolitan areas from which reports o f 1 or more important agencies
were not received for 1980
Expenditures during 1930 for board and for other relief
Board
Other relief

Metropolitan area
Total

Total—10 areas______________
Bridgeport________________________
Chicago__________________________
Denver___________________________
Hartford............................................. Louisville ------ -------- ------------------Newark__________________________
The Oranges----------- ---------------------Richmond.......... ................ ................
Washington--------- ------------------------Wilkes-Barre___________ ____ _____

$500,123
26,757
282,808
36,313
58,066
18,104
39,897
13,816
10,056
2,520
11,786

In foster homes

In institutions

Amount

$44,906

9.0

$47,425

9.5

6,030
8,340
11,424
15,519
94
1,783
1,384

22.5
2.9
31.5
26.7
.5
4.5
10.0

554
30,254
2,833
4,050
1,628
1,136
2,384

2.1
10.7
7.8
7.0
9.0
2.8
17.3

332

13.2

784
3,802

31.1
32.3

Per
cent

Amount

$407,792

81.5

20,173
244,214
22.056
38,497
16,382
36,978
10,048
10.056
1,404
7,984

75.4
86.4
60.7
66.3
90.5
92.7
72.7
100.0
55.7
67.7

Per
cent

Per
cent

Amount

This brings the total reported expenditures for the board and relief
of dependent children in 33 areas to $3,021,664, a sum short of the
actual amount spent owing to the omission of disbursements by 10
public agencies and 15 private agencies in the 10 areas.
AVERAGE M O N TH LY PA YM E N T FOR BOARD

To show the average monthly amount of board paid per child,
calculations based upon the reports from 18 areas for December, 1930,
are given in Table 7. The board for 5,671 children in foster homes
during that month was met by an average payment of $19.70 per
child. For board in institutions paid for 1,854 children, the average
monthlv payment per child was $18.06. Payments by public agencies
were about the same for care in foster homes and in institutions,
averaging per child $19.19 and $18.78, respectively. Private agencies
paid more for board in foster homes than in institutions, the average
December payment per child amounting to $20.30 and $15.32,
respectively.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

29

CASE WORK FOR DEPENDENT AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN

T a b l®. 7-

Number o f children boarded in foster homes and in institutions by
public and by private case-work agencies for dependent and neglected children
jrom la specified metropolitan areas and average amount paid fo r board ver
child for December, 1930
y

Dependent and neglected children boarded
during December, 1930—

Metropolitan area and type of agency

Total—18 areas____________________

In foster homes

Number

Average
amount
paid per
child

In institutions

Number

Average
amount
paid per
child

5,671

$19.70

1,854

$18.06

3,084
2,587

19.19
20.30

1,471
383

18.78
15.32

Buffalo.................................
Public_____ ________
Private............. j ...............IIIIIIIIIIIIII

1,231
1,083
148

19.72
20.03
17.44

1,474
1,469
5

18.81
18.78
0)

Cleveland___________________
Public..________________ m i l l '
Private.................
111111.11'

1,802
896
906

20.86
21.30
20.42

2

0

2

0

Dayton.........................................
Public_______________ IIIIIIIIIII
P riv a te ............... ‘__ Z__ IIZIIIIIZIIZZZ!

170
37
133

23.29
19.09
24 46

Duluth.................................
Public..................... ...... m m i i .............
P rivate.......................... IIIIIIIIIIIIIII!

43
42
1

12.68
12. 81
0

Kansas City (M o.)............. ........
Public......... ..............................
Private............................... I.IIIIIIIIIIII

216
165
51

18.48
18.67
17.89

St. Louis_____________ ______
Public______ ___________I . I l l ' l l
Private.............................IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

970
726
244

15.34
14.96
16.49

2

(0

2

0

St. Paul.................................
Public_____ _______ __________
P riv a te .........................
IHI

267
135
132

22.31
23.78
20.81

47
2
45

0

56
366
89
136
91
32
3
4
53
90
52

20.21
22.85
17.55
22.91
18.35
25. 73
0
0
18.94
20.41
17. 12

12
152
5
31

Public________________ _______
Private............................11111111?
PU BLIC AN D P R IV A T E A G EN C IES

11.02
10.66

P R IV A T E A G EN C IES O N LY

Berkeley........................ ........ ..............
Cincinnati...................................... 1.1111111
Grand Rapids____ _____________ .11.1111'
Harrisburg..................................... ............ ’
Lancaster____________
.1111111
.New Orleans.._____ ________________I
Omaha............................ ........IIIIIII
Sharon___________ _________
Springfield (111.)____ __________
Springfield (M ass.)...........................
Wichita_______________ ____

0

59
1
1
68

18.42
19.56
13.37
7.01

0
0

14.53

1 Not computed because number of children was less than 10.

In areas where there were 50 or more children under foster-home
care, the average payment for board per child during December
ranged from $15.34 in St. Louis to $23.29 in Dayton. As it can
not be assumed that every child received a full month’s care during
December, the average amount paid in any area during this month
may be somewhat less than the average cost for a full month’s care.
Average payments of public agencies for board in foster homes
exceeded those of private agencies in Buffalo, Cleveland, Kansas
City, and St. Paul, but the reverse was true in Dayton and St. Louis.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

30

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

In 6 of the 18 metropolitan areas the reporting agencies boarded
no children in institutions during December, and in 8 others fewer
than 50 children received this type of care. Average payments for
board per child during December in the remaining areas were as
follows: Cincinnati, $19.56; New Orleans, $7.01; Springfield (Mass.),
$14.53; and Buffalo, $18.81. In this group of cities the average board
payments to institutions were lower than those made to foster homes.
Except in Buffalo, the institutional care was provided by private
agencies. The average amount of board paid per child by the public
department in Buffalo ($18.78) determined the average amount paid
by public agencies in the 18 areas, because practically all the pubhc
service of this type was given in Buffalo.
STAFFS AND CASE LOADS

The average monthly number of workers giving professional care
to children, of children’s cases under care per worker, and of children’s
cases worked on per worker, reported by public and private agencies
in 18 areas, are given in Table 8. All case workers and their imme­
diate supervisors were included in the count of workers.
T a b l e 8 . — Average monthly number of professional workers in public and in private

case-work agencies for dependent and neglected children from 18 specified metro­
politan areas and of cases o f children under care per worker during 1980

Metropolitan area and type of agency

Average
monthly
number
of profes­
sional
workers

Average m on th ly
number of cases
under care per
worker
Worked
on during
month

Total

P U B L IC A G E N C IE S

15
5
3
8
11

173
103
261
136
87

3

47

4
2
33
35
8
4
1
3
5
1
14
2

32
89
60
93
30
47
81
101
64
106
191
115
106
88
81
28
71
39

0)

82
106
70
46

P U B L IC A N D P R I V A T E A G E N C Y

37

P R IV A T E A G E N C IE S

(?)
Springfield (Mass.),

1 Not reported.

3
5
16
10
3

30
0)
(*)

65
27
41
38
63
36
65
102
98
8
45
56
25
36
34

s Less than 1.

The average monthly number of cases under care per professional
worker as computed for private agencies ranged from 28 in St. Louis
to 191 in New Orleans. On the whole, public departments faced a

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CASE WORK FOR DEPENDENT AND NEGLECTED CHILDREN

31

heavier volume of work in proportion to their staffs than did the pri­
vate agencies. In five areas from which public departments reported,
the average number of cases under care per worker in a month varied
from 87 in St. Paul to 261 in Duluth.
According to the average number of cases worked on monthly per
worker the heaviest load for public departments was fairly similar to
that for private agencies— 106 for the public department in Duluth
and 102 for private agencies in New Orleans. In Duluth the public
department, with one professional worker, did the major amount of
case work for dependent children in the city. In New Orleans one
of the private agencies did case work for a number of children’s
institutions. The heavy load of this agency accounts for the rela­
tively high average found for the city.
In Standards for Institutions Caring for Dependent Children,
adopted provisionally by the board of directors of the Child Welfare
League of America in 1931, it is pointed out that in foster-home
supervision case loads vary with the territory covered, transportation
facilities, types of children cared for, the amount and kind of foster­
home care provided, and similar factors. These standards state:
The number of investigations of applications for care made per month by
person devoting full time to such work should not exceed 15 [families]. * * *
If the institution makes use of foster homes, the number of children in these homes
supervised by one visitor giving full time to supervision should not exceed 65,
and should ordinarily be not more than 40 to 50. Smaller case loads than these
are desirable and are essential when full time is not devoted to the services
specified, when unusual distances or territory with poor transportation facilities
are covered, or when children with specially difficult problems are supervised.1

It is of interest that the loads carried by all public agencies exceeded
the maximum load of 65 cases mentioned in the standards and that
loads faced by private agencies in 12 of the 18 areas equaled or ex­
ceeded this maximum. Protective societies not having children under
placement reported from Omaha and Cincinnati, and their high case
loads are reflected in the combined agency statistics for those cities.
The registration reports for 1930 did not yield data on applications
which would permit a comparison of applications worked on per person
devoting full time to such work. Applications investigated by each
agency were reported only in relation to the agency’s entire profes­
sional staff. Monthly attention to applications represents a con­
siderable volume of the work faced by the professional personnel.
Figures for 1930 pertaining to 15 areas, where progress on applica­
tions was reported, showed that 94 per cent of 2,199 applications open
m an average month of 1930 were under investigation. In all but 4
of the 15 areas more than 90 per cent of the applications and complaints
open in an average month were “ worked on.”
The proportion of cases under care receiving monthly service is
shown for 18 areas in Table 9. Des Moines agencies reported monthly
attention to every child under care, and from 80 to 90 per cent of the
cases under care m Akron, Dayton, Omaha, and Wichita were worked
on in an average month. The lowest rate (41 per cent) of monthly
case contacts was reported from Duluth, where it has been shown the
public department had a heavy case load.
‘ standards for Institutions Caring for Dependent Children, p. 25. Child Welfare League of America
•Inc.), New York, February, 1932.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

32

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T a b l e 9.— Average monthly number and percentage worked on o f cases of children

from 18 specified metropolitan areas who were under care o f case-work agencies for
dependent and neglected children during 1980
Cases of dependent
and neglected chil­
dren under care

Cases of dependent
and neglected chil­
dren under care
Metropolitan area

Total—18 areas.
Akron____________
Cincinnati________
Dayton____ ____
Des M oines..........
Duluth___________
Grand Rapids.........
Harrisburg-----------Kansas City (M o.).

Metropolitan area
Average
number
per
month

Per cent
worked
on

17,210

67.4

266
,247
742
168
772
304
320

85.7
69.7
82.9
100.0
41.4
61.6
55.7
85.5

Lancaster-------------Minneapolis---------New Orleans.........
O m a h a ...............
Sharon................. .
Springfield (111.)----Springfield (M asso­
si. Louis......... ........
St. Paul...................
Wichita__________

A verage
number
per
month
123
3,460
2,619
230
35
263
405
1,534
1,698
126

Per cent
worked
on

62.0
82.2
53.4
85.5

(*)51.2
69.5
61.7
51.9
88.7

1 Not computed because average number of cases under care per month was less than 50.

As has been pointed out in the section of the annual report dealing
with mothers’ aid, the evaluation of supervision in children s cases by
statistical methods is not satisfactory because it rests upon case
counts which throw no light upon the character o r quahty o f ^ m c e .
According to standards of child placing of the Child Welfare
League of America, the quality of the visits is more important than
their frequency, but “ children of preschool age should be seen at
least every month, and babies at least every two weeks, and more
frequently if the children are in poor physical condition or have other
special difficulties.” 2 Less frequent contacts may be needed m other
cases, but the standards recommend that at least four visits a year
bv qualified staff members be made to homes of every type.
Obviously the maintenance of standards depends upon adequate
staff equipment. In the majority of areas there was no increase irom
1929 to 1930 in the number of professional workers on the stalls ol
child-placing agencies, although an increased number ol children
W0I*6 08/16(1 for.
• i
•
Figures for 1930 indicate that the effect of the economic depression
in the children’s field was not so immediate nor so severe as m the
family-welfare field because every effort was made to extend reliei
without breaking up family groups. Nevertheless, it seems apparent
that bv the end of 1930 children’s agencies were beginning to leel the
menace to case-work standards brought about by the expansion ol
case loads without a corresponding increase m personnel.___________

1929.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

J U V E N IL E -D E T E N T IO N H O M E S

Juvemle-detention homes were among the institutions requested to
report in 1930 for the census of children under care away from their
homes. Although detention homes give temporary care to dependent
children and to those neglected by their parents as well as to children
charged with delinquency, the statistics have been shown separately
rather than in combination with the statistics of institutions serving
only the dependent and neglected child.
Complete reports were received and tabulated from 15 metro­
politan areas which maintained detention homes in 1930. The plan
of preparing statistics relating solely to resident children of the
metropolitan areas was followed with two exceptions. The figures
shown for Chicago and Detroit represent the children cared for in
the detention homes of Cook County, 111., and Wayne County, Mich.
T a b l e 1.— Number o f children cared for in juvenile-detention homes in 15 specified

metropolitan areas during 1980
Children cared for in juvenile-detention
homes
Metropolitan area

Total—15 areas.
Bridgeport1...............
Buffalo____________
Chicago____________
Cincinnati...............
Cleveland................
Dayton____________
Detroit_____ _______
Grand Rapids...........
Kansas City (M o .)..
Louisville__________
New Orleans_______
Omaha__________ . . .
Richmond____ ____ _
Springfield (111.)........
Wichita____________

Under
care
Dec. 31,
1929

Admitted
during
year

988

28,494

28,617

865

6
238
13
105
12
264
53
7
53
19
39
96
25
59

25
537
9,229
1,485
3,178
647
6,920
690
1,154
1,593
926
482
1,295
35
298

25
531
9,243
1,489
3,178
655
6,971
661
1,156
1,602
924
469
1, 372
37
304

11
224
9
105
4
213
82
5
44
21
52
19
23
53

Dis­
charged
during
year

Under
care
Dec. 31,
1930

i Detention home opened in November, 1930.

Summarized in Table 1, the statistics from detention homes show
that 28,494 children were admitted to these institutions in 1930.
There is some duplication in the annual count because réadmissions
were not eliminated. Fewer children were under care at the close of
1930 than at the close of 1929— 865 as compared with 988.
Reports on days’ care given in 1929 and in 1930 available from 12
areas indicate a decrease in service from 1929 to 1930 in Buffalo,
Cincinnati, Dayton, Detroit, Louisville, Richmond, and Springfield
33


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

34

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

(111.). The service of 1930 exceeded that of 1929 in Cleveland, Grand
Rapids, New Orleans, Omaha, and Wichita. In all areas combined
the days’ care to children in detention homes dropped from 286,380
in 1929, to 272,751 in 1930, a decrease of 5 per cent.
T a b l e 2.— Number o f days’ care given in juvenile-detention homes in 1929 and 1980

to children from 12 specified metropolitan areas and percentage o f increase or
decrease in days’ care given in 1930 as compared with 1929
Days’ care given in juveniledetention homes

Metropolitan area
1929i

1930

286,380

272,751

- 4 .8

6,231
6,549
42,482
3,793
116,203
24,126
20,925
8,252
16,147
14,013
9,562
18,097

5,370
6,400
47,541
3, 245
101,019
28,037
17,410
8,593
16,372
10,095
8,335
20,334

-1 3 .8
-2 .3
+11.9
-1 4 .4
-13.1
+16.2
-1 6 .8
+4.1
+1.4
-2 8 .0
—12.8
+12.4

1 Registration of Social Statistics for the Year 1929, Table 6ac—29, p. 123.

o


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Per cent
of in­
crease
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

^ L IB R A R Y
Agricultural &Mechanical Conn-*
Coltele Station, lenas.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

UNITED STATES DEPARTM ENT OF LABOR
W. N. DOAK, Secretary

C H IL D R E N ’ S BUREAU
GRACE ABBOTT. Chief

FAMILY W ELFARE
SUM M ARY OF EXPENDITURES FOR RELIEF
GENERAL FAM ILY WELFARE AND RELIEF
MOTHERS’ AID
VETERANS’ AID
By GLENN STEELE

Separate from Publication No. 209

Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields—
Annual Report for the Registration Area for the Year 1930

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1932

For tale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Price 15 cents


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

CONTENTS
Page

_
Summary o f expenditures for relief_______________________________
General family welfare and relief______________________ I ___III'III
Mothers’ aid___________________________________________
Veterans’ aid_____________________________________________
Appendix A.— Population and districts included in each of the 38 specified
metropolitan areasreporting during 1930______________________________
Appendix B.— General tables________________________________________________
Appendix C.— Cost of family relief in 100 cities, 1929 and 1930___I___II_

m


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

\
8

26
®0
45
47
53


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Family Welfare
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES FOR RELIEF
Through the cooperation o f community chests and councils and
family-welfare agencies, reports covering activities in the field of
family welfare during the calendar year 1930 were received by the
Children’s Bureau from 38 metropolitan areas, representing 19 States
and the District o f Columbia.
The collection o f these data was begun by the bureau July 1,
1930, when it assumed the work o f the Joint Committee for the
Registration o f Social Statistics.1 Reporting to the bureau was thus
commenced in a year o f unprecedented demand upon the staffs and
resources o f organizations responsible for the care o f families in need.
Under the circumstances, requests for continued and improved report­
ing met with exceptionally fine response from the agencies engaged
in relief work. O f the 345 agencies requested to submit monthly
reports, with the objective o f obtaining complete statistics for each
o f the 38 participating cities, 319 (92 per cent) furnished either
monthly or annual reports.
These reports have been classified according to the three types of
service in the family-welfare field—general family welfare and
relief; mothers’ aid from public funds, usually given to support the
children o f widows; and aid to veterans and tneir families, exclusive
o f all Federal provision.
An analysis o f the statistics for each service is presented in sepa­
rate sections o f the report, but the data on relief expenditures are
combined to show for 1930 the extent and sources o f relief for
the entire family-welfare field.
A general summary of relief reports given in Table I (p. 47)
also shows the status o f reporting in the 38 cities which form the
registration area. Only three cities failed to report the major volume
o f general family relief; reports on mothers’ aid are lacking for only
two cities; and from every city relief was reported by agencies
serving the ex-soldier.
The apportionment o f the 1930 relief funds to the three types o f
service is shown in Table 1 for the 33 cities submitting satisfactory
reports in all sections o f the family-welfare field.
1 R epresenting the local comm unity research committee o f the University o f Chicago,
cooperating with the N ational Association o f Community Chests and Councils.

1


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

i

2

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T a b l e 1.— A m ou n t and p er cent distribu tion o f exp en d itu re fo r each ty p e o f
r e lie f in th e fa m ily-w elfa re field in 88 m etropolitan areas during 1980
Expenditure for relief
Type of relief
Amount

Per cent
distribution

$26,673,684

100.0

20,566,765
4,991,161
1,015,758

77.4
18.8
3.8

1 Including aid for the blind.

The reported expenditure for all types o f service in 33 cities was
$26,573,684. Incomplete returns from the 5 additional partici­
pating cities bring this total to $27,566,341. This sum still falls
short o f the actual cost o f family relief in the registration area,
owing to the omission of disbursements by 26 agencies that failed
to report. It may be estimated, however, that the entire relief bill
for the area in 1930 was about $28,000,000. This represents relief
expenditures in the family-welfare field for an urban population o f
15,994,308 in the 38 districts.
The relative importance o f each type o f service in the familywelfare field as indicated by the table on aggregate expenditures for
1930 holds true, city by city, with few variations. In each city
general family relief absorbed the bulk of the funds. In all but
three cities disbursements by mothers’ aid departments were second
in amount. New Orleans, however, gave no public support to
children through mothers’ aid legislation, and Buffalo and Springfield (Mass.) furnished more funds for veterans’ relief than for
mothers’ aid.
. . .
_
Relief in the three services is given on quite different plans. The
largest proportion o f general family relief is temporary and o f an
emergency character, although relief to families on regular allowance
may extend over a considerable length o f time. A id for the blind,
also classed with general family relief, is in the form o f continuing
grants. Mothers’ aid, provided by special legislation, is usually re­
lief which continues over long periods. Relief to veterans and their
families, as reported under the registration, includes both temporary
relief to meet emergencies and pensions or allowances o f longer
duration.
PER C A P IT A E X P E N D IT U R E S FOR R E L IE F

The per capita cost o f all forms o f material relief in the familywelfare field during 1930 has been calculated for each o f 31 com­
munities and is shown in Table 2. The figures for population and
expenditures cover what is termed the “ metropolitan area” o f each
city. This represents the field o f operations of the majority o f
social agencies, usually more extensive than that bounded by city
limits.
.
The selection o f the area has presented problems in those cities
where different agencies have varying ranges o f activity, such as
the county for mothers’ aid departments, and a much more restricted
district for leading private relief agencies. Local supervisors o f

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3

SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES FOR RELIEF

registration have Considered the fields o f all community social serv­
ice in determining the proper areas for reporting and have instructed
those family agencies which give 20 per cent or more o f their serv­
ice outside the defined metropolitan areas to report only such activi­
ties as come within the prescribed limits.
It will be seen that service boundaries may be difficult to outline
with precision, yet the validity o f intercity comparisons of per cap­
ita costs and other rates based on population depends on the exacti­
tude with which the areas o f service and the areas o f population
coincide. I f, in any community, relief activities have extended be­
yond the area for which population is shown, per capita cost will be
overstated. Conversely, there would be an understatement o f per
capita cost if the metropolitan area chosen extended beyond the
limits o f representative relief operations.
Thus, although metropolitan areas have been determined with
every effort to relate service and population properly, it is recognized
that a uniform reporting unit would be desirable to insure compar­
able statistics. However, as social work, with the exception o f that
done by public agencies, is not usually encompassed by uniform
political boundaries, metropolitan areas can not be set up arbitrarily
for all communities on either the city or the county basis.
Cincinnati, Columbus, Denver, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and St.
Paul reported statistics o f counties. The city only was the area of
reporting for Chicago, Des Moines. Duluth, Kansas City, Louisville,
Newark, New Haven, Omaha, Sioux City, Springfield (O hio),
Washington (D. C .), and Wichita. The metropolitan area o f each
o f the remaining cities .embraced the city and environs, as specified
in the description o f metropolitan areas in Appendix A (p. 45).
An inspection o f per capita costs, when ranked by amount, as in
Table 2, shows Detroit with the largest outlay of relief per capita,
$5.97. This merely adds to an accumulation o f evidence 2 indicating
extensive relief operations in Detroit during 1930 because o f
unemployment.
T able

2.—Per capita expenditure fo r all types o f relief in the fam ily-w elfare
field in 81 specified m etropolitan areas during 1980

Metropolitan area

Detroit.................... ................. ..............
Springfield, Mass.®.......... ...... ................
Buffalo_____________ ______ ______
Hartford........................ ..........................
Canton®..................................................
Bridgeport................................................
D a y ton ........................ ..........................
Berkeley..................................... ............
Cleveland...................... .........................
Indianapolis...... .....................................
New Haven®_____ ______ __________
St. Paul....................................................
Des Moines.............................................
Springfield, Dl.»......... ........................... .
Akron............. ........................................
Cincinnati_____ ____ __ , ...............

Per capita
expendi­
ture

Metropolitan area

Per capita
expendi­
ture

$5.97
3.25
2.83
2.33
1.93
1.84
1.82
1.72
1.58
1.54
1.54
1.54
1.50
1.25
1.19
1.15

° Expenditure not reported by 1 agency.

$1.13
1.11
1.08
1.08
1.07
1.06
1.02
.92
.75
.73
.67
.55
.54
.46
.13

1Expenditure not reported by 2 agencies.

2 Unemployment in the United States, 1 930 and 1931. Monthly Labor Review (U . S.
Department of Labor, Bureau o f Labor Statistics), April, 1931, pp. 3 5 -4 1 .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Comparatively large expenditures for veterans’ relief account in
part for the relatively high per capita costs o f Springfield (Mass.)
and Buffalo.
New Orleans, at the bottom o f the list, reports its relief costs at
only 13 cents per capita.3 It was the only city in the registration area
in which the public provided no relief whatever in the family-welfare
field.
The next lowest per capita cost is shown for Harrisburg. Since
Harrisburg reported for an area o f two entire counties and part of
a third, it is possible that the low cost reported there was due to a
thin spread ox relief over the tricounty area rather than to less need
for relief than that experienced by other cities. Complete returns
from Canton, Columbus, New Haven, Springfield (Mass.), and
Wichita, in each o f which one agency did not report, and from
Springfield (111.), in which two agencies did not report, would have
increased slightly the per capita costs for these cities but would not
have changed their relative positions appreciably.
While these rates per capita are o f value in comparing community
experiences, they should not be interpreted as representing per capita
costs in full for the three family-welfare services, because the expend­
itures used in calculating the rates were for material relief given
in 1930, exclusive o f administrative costs and wages paid in lieu of
relief.
PUBLIC AN D P R IV A TE RELIEF

Interest in the extent and need o f public support for dependents
was focused sharply on the family-welfare field during 1930, when
conditions called for greatly increased expenditures to alleviate suf­
fering. The increases in both public and private relief as shown by
the registration are discussed later in the section on general family
welfare and relief, since agencies serving that field bore the brunt o f
the emergency-relief burden.
While mothers’ aid was not appreciably affected by the economic
situation, it is a public obligation o f importance and has been con­
sidered here with general family relief and veterans’ aid to show
the sources o f funds supplied for relief in the entire family welfare
field.
It was found that about three-fourths o f the relief funds given for
the three types o f service came from the public treasury. This find­
ing holds true for the two previous years o f registration as well as
for 1930, although calculations for 1930 were for an expanding regis­
tration area. The percentage for 1930 was based on aggregate ex­
penditures for 31 cities, in each o f which the methods o f meeting the
relief bill varied, as is shown by the following table:
3 A report of the relief given by one large church organization in New Orleans during
1930 was received too late for tabulation. Inclusion of this relief would have resulted
in a calculation of per capita expenditures for New Orleans higher than that shown but
still below that o f other cities.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES FOR RELIEF

5

T able 3.— P ercen ta g e o f exp en d itu re fo r all ty p e s o f r e lie f in th e fa m ily-w elfa re
field b y public and b y p riva te agencies in 81 specified m etropolitan areas
during 1980

Per cent of expenditure
for relief—
Metropolitan area

Per cent of expenditure
for relief-'Metropolitan area

By public
agencies

By private
agencies

31 areas_____________

76.2

23.8

Detroit____________ ____
Berkeley 1______________
Buffalo__________ ______
Grand Rapids_____ _____
Columbus_______ _____ _
Springfield, Mass_______
Springfield, 111__________
Wichita__ __
Indianapolis____________
Bridgeport_____________
St. Paul....... ...... ... _ . . .
Denver____________ ____
Sioux City______________
Minneapolis._____ ______
Hartford________________

97.9
94. 4
87.4
87.3
86.9
85. 4
82.6
77.6
77.0
76.4
75.7
69.2
68.1
67.6
67.6

2.1
5.6
12. 6
12.7
13.1
14. 6
17.4
22. 4
23.0
23. 6
24.3
30.8
31.9
32.4
32.4

By public By private
agencies
agencies

Omaha_________________

Dayton.............................

66.7
65.0
63.8
62. 2
59.9
54.5
53.9
42.8
39.5
36.4
35.6
35. 2
31.1
27.8
27.1

33.3

35.0
36.2
37.8
40.1
45.5
46.1
57.2
60.5
63.6
64.4
64.8
68.9
72.2
72.9
100.0

1In Berkeley all public funds for relief were expended by a private agency.

Disbursements in Detroit, accounting for more than one-half of
all public expenditures in the 31 cities, sent the share o f public relief
for the area (76 per cent) above that shown for the majority of
cities. However, in the majority o f cities the public agencies fur­
nished 67 per cent or more o f all relief, and in 22 o f the 31 cities more
relief was given through public than through private organizations.
Private relief included expenditures for specialized services, such
as those given by societies for the blind and agencies aiding the aged
in their own homes, but the bulk was provided to maintain impov­
erished families.
The purposes for which public moneys for relief were spent in 31
cities are shown in Table 4. Although the data are for a limited
area, they afford an interesting index of the distribution o f public
disbursements. Only expenditures for the support of individuals
and families outside institutions are included.
T able 4.— A m ou n t a/nd p er cent d istribu tion o f public exp en d itu re fo r each ty p e
o f r e lie f in the fa m ily-w elfa re field in 81 m etropolitan areas and in the sam e
areas exclu sive o f D e tr o it during 1930
Expenditure for relief by public agencies

Type of relief

31 metropolitan areas

Amount

Total______________________ _____
General family relief1__________________________
Mothers’ a i d ______________________________
Aid for the blind_________________________ ____ _
X eterans’ relief................_......... ............ ......
1 Excluding aid for the blind.

81192— 32------- 2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

$19,717,345
13,031,413
4,806,156
1,089,648
790,128.

Per cent
distribu­
tion

30 metropolitan areas
(exclusive of Detroit)

Amount

Per cent
distribu­
tion

100.0

$9,788,374

100.0

66.1
24.4
5. 5
4.0

4,305,515
3,603, 083
1,089,648
790,128

.44.0
36.8
11.1
8.1

6

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 193 0

In spite o f increasing legislation for public pensions to the aged,
relief through this medium was reported for 1930 from only one city
o f the area (Berkeley), and because the amount expended was less
than 1 per cent o f all public relief it was not classified separately in
the foregoing table. Five other cities (Denver, Louisville, Minneap­
olis, St. Paul, and Duluth) were in States, which prior to 1930, had
D

is t r ib u t io n o f p u b l ic e x p e n d it u r e fo r ea ch t y p e o f r e l ie f in

THE FAMILY-WELFARE FIELD DURING 1930

Motkers*
aid

General

fam ily

relief
General

family
relief

31 metro­
politan

areas

D etroit

enacted legislation to assist the aged; but in Colorado and Minne­
sota no pensions were paid in 1930, and in Kentucky the pension
system had not become effective in Louisville. Reporting on relief
under old-age pensions will be expanded in 1931 owing to further
State legislation affecting cities in the area, including an act in
New York under which old-age pensions are mandatory.4
4 Operation of Public Old Age Pension Systems in the United States, 1930.
Labor Review, June, 1931, pp. 1 -1 4 .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Monthly

SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURES FOR RELIEF

7

The distribution o f public relief funds in the family-welfare
field during 1930 has been shown in the accompanying chart for 31
cities including Detroit, and also for 30 cities with Detroit omitted.
W ith Detroit in the picture (bar 1), general family relief, not in­
cluding aid for the blind, absorbed 66 per cent o f the public funds,
and mothers’ aid accounted for 24 per cent.
The average experience o f 30 cities, exclusive o f Detroit, as shown
in bar 2, gives a different picture. For these cities general family
relief dropped below the amount provided by the public for all
other forms o f aid but still remained the largest item of public
expense— 44 per cent, compared with 37 per cent fo r mothers’ aid,
11 per cent for the blind, and 8 per cent for veterans’ relief.
Among the cities included in the composite picture o f the appor­
tionment o f public relief, Canton, Cleveland,® Kansas City (M o.),
Lancaster, and New Orleans had no public departments giving gen­
eral family relief other than that provided for the blind. New
Orleans was the only city without provision for mothers’ aid. Public
aid for the blind was not reported as effective in 11 o f the 31 cities,
and in 18 cities veterans were not receiving relief from public funds,
other than Federal. Thus, in respect to the application o f public
benefits as well as to the public share in relief programs, procedures
o f cities to meet relief problems varied widely. Such conclusions
as have been reached regarding aggregate relief expenditures for
the area must not be judged as typical of practice in a single com­
munity. However, by combining figures for a number o f cities on
financial assistance for family welfare during 1930, the following
conclusions are reached with regard to actual expenditures o f about
$26,000,000:
1. The major portion (77 per cent) was given for general
family relief, including relief for the blind.
2. Nearly 20 per cent provided mothers’ aid.
3. A small share (4 per cent) was for veterans’ relief,
supplemental to Federal aid.
4. Per capita expenditures for relief amounted to between
one and two dollars in the majority o f cities.
5. Public taxes provided 76 per cent o f the money, and 24
per cent came from private contribution.
6. O f all public relief, 66 per cent was for general family
relief (exclusive o f aid for the blind), 24 per cent for
mothers’ aid, 6 per cent for aid for the blind, and 4 per
cent for veterans’ relief.
« In Cleveland public funds for relief, allotted to a private agency, become available

July 1, 1931.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

GENERAL FAM ILY W E LFARE AND RELIEF
Under the registration of social statistics the field of family welfare includes three classes of service, as outlined in the foregoing
summary o f expenditures for relief. The analysis presented in this
section relates only to the service given by private case-working
agencies and public departments o f outdoor relief, designated as
“ general family welfare and relief.” Mothers’ aid and veterans’ aid,
also classed as family-welfare measures, will be discussed in subse­
quent sections o f the report.
In all, 245 agencies in the 38 registration cities were requested to
report their activities during 1930 in the field o f general family wel­
fare and relief. The Children’s Bureau received and tabulated re­
ports from 218 o f these agencies in 35 cities— all the cities in the
registration area except Duluth, Sharon, and Springfield (O hio).
Not all agencies could supply every item of information requested
under the registration plan. These deficiencies in reporting prevent
a clear-cut tabulation on all subjects for a uniform number of cities
and account for the variation in the number o f cities included in
tabulations o f different subject matters.
For family societies and welfare departments, 1930 was a year o f
outstanding effort. Functioning to care for those families in mis­
fortune that must seek service or relief in normal times, their pro­
grams were all but buried in 1930 under added and urgent demands
to provide the necessities o f life for the jobless and their families.
Information on relief assembled through the registration service in
1929 presaged the increased responsibility family-welfare organiza­
tions were to meet in the following year. The annual report for
1929 states:
Relief expenditures during the summer o f 1929 did not fall to the level that
might have been expected. They were the forerunner of mounting expenditures
during the fall and winter o f 1929 that not only denote a period of need of
major proportions but also reflect the struggle of the agencies to rise to meet
the need. * * * Enough data have been received to show clearly that the
upward sweep registered in December, 1929, continued on.1
TREND OF RELIEF

To illustrate the continuous trend o f expenditures during the
months o f 1929 and 1930, statistics are available for 32 cities in the
registration area. In addition, it is possible to compare the rise in
relief in this group o f registration cities with the rise in a group of
cities outside the registration area.
This comparison is afforded by a compilation o f relief statistics
made by the Children’s Bureau at the request o f the President’s
Emergency Committee for Employment. For this summary, relief
1 Griffith, A. R., Helen R. Jeter, and A. W. M cM illen : R egistration o f Social Statistics
fo r the Y ear 1 9 2 9 ; a [planographed] report submitted to the join t comm ittee o f the
A ssociation o f Community Chests and Councils and the local comm unity research com ­
mittee o f the U niversity o f Chicago, Oct. 1, 1930, p. 12.

8

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

GENERAL FAMILY WELFARE AND RELIEF

9

reports from cities within the registration area were supplemented
by returns from cities o f 50,000 or more population throughout the
country, secured through the courtesy o f the Russell Sage Founda­
tion, community chests, and relief agencies. An analysis of the cost
o f family relief in 100 cities for 1929 and 1930, based on these reports
and published in the Monthly Labor Review o f April, 1931, is
reprinted in Appendix C (p. 53).
The reports so consolidated have now been regrouped in order
that a comparison may be made between the trends o f expenditures
in the registration area and in other cities. Since all but 4 of the 32
metropolitan districts in the registration area reporting the trend
o f expenditures were o f more than 100,000 population, the group
outside the registration area selected for comparison is composed of
34 cities o f the 100,000 population class.
The course o f relief expenditures for both groups is traced in
the accompanying chart. An additional curve has been entered
on the chart to show the trend o f relief in the registration area when
Detroit is eliminated from the calculations.
The figures on which the illustration is based, as given in Table I I I,
(p. 49), do not include the entire volume o f relief expenditures, as
reports could be used only from those agencies able to give an account
o f disbursements by months for the biennial period. Sums expended
by agencies which did not exist in 1929, but were created in 1930 to
dispense emergency relief, have been included. Public aid for the
blind, which was included with family-relief expenditures in regis­
tration statistics for 1929, has necessarily been so included in 1930
to make comparisons valid. For the purpose o f appraising relief
in relation to economic conditions, the elimination o f aid for the
blind would be preferable; but since, as has been previously shown,
public relief for the blind is only about 6 per cent of all public relief,
its inclusion does not materially affect the trend.
When the curve in this chart which represents the registration
cities including Detroit is compared with the curve for nonregis­
tration cities, a general similarity o f contour is observed for the
first nine months o f 1929, with expenditures in the registration cities
at a lower level than expenditures for the other group. Early in the
fall o f 1929, relief in the registration cities began to mount more
rapidly than in the nonregistration cities, passing the disbursements
o f the latter by December and rising sharply above them to reach a
peak in March, 1930. A fter the ensuing seasonal recession, the up­
turn o f relief in the registration cities to meet the winter needs of
1930 was again more marked for registration than for nonregistra­
tion cities.
The effect o f the extended scale o f relief operations in Detroit is
seen when the curve for all registration cities is compared with the
curve representing registration cities exclusive o f Detroit. The up­
turn o f relief in the later months o f 1930 is much less pronounced for
the registration group when Detroit is omitted. The relief curve for
the latter group o f cities also ascends less sharply to reach the peak o f
December, 1930, than the curve for nonregistration cities. A ll three
curves, however, give striking evidence o f the increasing financial
burden borne by large American cities in their efforts to care for
the needy during 1930.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T«EA« oyQ« o ^ v o^

AK%™ gÌR^

CITIES DURING 1929 AND 1930 1
Thousands
3,500
3,250
3,000

E-xpendîture f o r re lie f

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 193 0


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

IP

■o
<
1929

*

1 For areas included see Tablé II I (p. 4 9 ) .

Oct.

Z

June

Apr

250

11

GENERAL FAMILY WELFABE AND BELIEF

A number o f these cities, in addition to providing direct relief,
have created work for the unemployed. Though of a different char­
acter from straight relief, wages paid for “ made work ” and given
in lieu o f relief are an important factor in the relief situation. For
the most part made-work or 44wage-relief 55 programs were not in­
augurated prior to October, 1930, and they are not represented in
the figures given in this report. Among the registration cities,
Berkeley, Bridgeport, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, Hart­
ford, Louisville, New Haven, New Orleans,' St. Louis, and Springfield (111.) supplemented -relief measures with made-work programs
during the winter o f 1930-31.
While the trends show the upward swing o f relief for urban areas
as a whole, the advance has been much more pronounced in some
cities than in others. The percentage o f change in 1930 expenditures,
as compared with those o f 1929, is shown for each o f 32 cities in
the registration area in Table 1.
T a b l e 1.— P ercen ta g e o f in crease o r decrease in exp en d itu re fo r general fa m ily
r e lie f in 3 2 specified m etropolita n a r e a s 1 during 1930 as com pared w ith 1929

Metropolitan area

Detroit_________
Grand Bapids__
Canton_________
Dayton____ ____
Newark...............
Akron__________
Bridgeport______
Cleveland_______
Columbus______
Lancaster_______
Springfield, Mass.
Hartford________
New Haven_____
Buffalo_________
Chicago................
Minneapolis_____

Per cent of
increase (+ )
or decrease
(—) in ex­
penditure
for relief
+376.3
+161.7
+150.8
+144.3
+124.7
+119.6
+104.2
+99.8
+94.1
+80.5
+80.1
+73.2
+64.6
+58.7
+54.2
+40.5

Metropolitan area

Cincinnati______
Springfield, 111...
Washington.........
Harrisburg...___
Wichita________
Louisville______
Des Moines_____
St. Paul............
Kansas City, M o
St. Louis_______
Richmond______
Omaha.................
New Orleans.......
Wilkes-Barre____
Sioux City______
Denver_________

Per cent of
increase (+ )
or decrease
(—) in ex­
penditure
for relief
+39.1
+35.4
+33.8
+33.7
+28.3
+25.3
+ 20.0
+14.6
+13.8
+13.6
+12.7
+10.5
+ 10.2
+0.4
-

6.6

- 9 .5

1All agencies reporting comparable figures for the 2 years.

In all but two cities the relief bill for 1930 was in excess o f that
for 1929. Fifteen cities increased relief by more than 50 per cent,
the advances ranging from 54= per cent in Chicago to 376 per cent
in Detroit. In 15 other cities the advance in relief was less than
50 per cent.
COST OF M A TE RIAL R ELIEF PER CAPITA

The per capita expenditures for family relief during 1930 in 33
cities are arrayed by amount in Table 2. The figures relate to
material relief exclusive o f administrative expenses incurred.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

12

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 193 0

T able 2 .— T otal and p er capita expen d itu re fo r general fa m ily r e lie f in 83
specified m etropolitan areas during 1980

Expenditure for
relief

Expenditure for
relief
Metropolitan area

Metropolitan area
Total

$8,929,194
466,350
461,291
1,433,296
274,079
635,435
353,863
162,743
561,259
106,241
179,302
Cleveland__________________ 1,220,606
81,347
Springfield, 111.2------------------265,552
153,377
130,720
Des Moines---------------- ------ 263,968
St. Paul____________________
i

Per
capita
$5.26
2.73
2.01
1.92
1.50
1.50
1. 47
1.43
1.27
1.17
1.10
1.05
.99
.94
.94
.92
.92

Expenditure not reported by 1 agency.

Total

W ichita1___________________
Denver___ 1......... .................
Cincinnati--------------- ----------Minneapolis________________
Columbus.................... ...........
Kansas City, M o___________
Sioux City_______ __________
Grand Rapids____________ -Louisville--------------- -----------Richmond__________________
St. Louis--------- ------------------Om aha.............. ........ ..........
Harrisburg------ ------------------New Orleans--------------------- -

$88,249
2,480,644
210,414
405,905
302,232
223,209
238,831
45,556
116,217
165,529
32,657
119,250
521,289
84,136
53,143
58,865

Per
capita
$0.79
.73
.73
.69
.65
.62
.60
.58
.56
.54
.50
.50
. 50
. 39
.26.12

2 Expenditure not reported by 2 agencies.

In 21 areas the relief given to distressed families represented an
expenditure o f less than $1 per inhabitant; in 9 areas the amount per
capita ranged from $1 to $2; and the amount was in excess o f $2
for only 3 cities—Detroit, Springfield (Mass.), and Hartford. Per
capita expenditures for material relief are slightly understated for
Springfield (Mass.), Canton, the Oranges, Springfield (111.), New
Haven, and Wichita owing to the omission of some reports, but
expenditures by all important agencies in these cities are included
in Table 2.
RELIEF EXPENDITURES BY PUBLIC AND PRIV A TE AGENCIES

Much interest has been manifested in the share o f responsibility
for family care assumed by public departments— State, county, and
city. It has been shown in the summary o f expenditures for general
family relief, mothers’ aid, and service to veterans and their
families, that 76 per cent of the funds disbursed in 1930 in 31 regis­
tration cities came from the public treasury. When general family
relief alone is considered, by the omission of aid for the blind as
well as mothers’ aid and veterans’ relief, data available for 34 cities
show that 68 per cent o f the financial aid given in 1930 was pro­
vided by public agencies. The situation in each city with regard to
the proportion of public and private expenditures for general family
relief, excluding aid for the blind, is shown in Table 3.
To ascertain the distribution o f the burden o f public and private
relief in each city the amounts expended by public agencies were
compared with the amounts expended by private agencies. How­
ever, since some public funds were given to private agencies for dis­
bursement, adjustment o f the figures was made for cities where a
considerable proportion o f the relief funds o f private agencies came


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

13

GENERAL FAMILY WELFARE AND RELIEF

from the public treasury. In Berkeley practically all financial aid
for the poor, although disbursed by a private agency, was from pub­
lic funds, the amount thus contributed in 1930 being classed with
expenditures by public departments. In Columbus, where there was
a joint relationship between a public department and one o f the
important private agencies, the joint expenditures were classified by
the amounts received from taxes and from private subscription and
were credited accordingly as expenditures o f public and private
agencies. In Akron a similar situation existed, and the same method
o f classification was applied. Public subsidies for relief reported
by private agencies in some other cities were usually o f minor im­
portance and were not segregated. However, in Cincinnati the share
o f public relief would have been 17 per cent instead o f 12 per cent,
and in Louisville 26 per cent instead o f 13 per cent if public expendi­
tures by private agencies had been classed with the expenditures o f
the public departments.
T able 3.— P ercen ta g e o f exp en d itu re fo r general fa m ily r e l i e f 1 iby public and
b y p rivate agencies in 34 specified m etropolitan areas during 1930
Per cent of expenditure
for relief—
Metropolitan area

Per cent of expenditure
for relief—
Metropolitan area

By public
agencies

By private
agencies

34 areas................... .........

68.2

31.8

Detroit..- _____________
Berkeley2.............. ...........
Springfield, Mass.......... .
Grand Rapids__________
Buffalo_____ _____ ______
Newark____ ____________
Bridgeport.-.............. ......
Wichita..............................
Indianapolis____________
Columbus______________
The Oranges____________
Hartford............. ...............
St. Paul________________
Denver________ ______
New Haven____________
Springfield, 111__________

97.7
95. 4
85.0
82.4
81.4
81.1
77.0
76.8
76.7
69.3
69.0
62.5
59.6
50.2
48.7
46.9

2.3
4.6
15.0
17.6
18.6
18.9
23.0
23.2
23.3
30. 7
31.0
37.5
40.4
49.8
51.3
53.1

1 Excluding aid for the blind.

By public By private
agencies
agencies

Akron__________________

44 9
40.1
äti fi
34 7
32 7
31 9
22. 2
21 ft
13 ft
11 3
2 .1
1.3

59 ! 9

ft7 3
78 4
87 ft
$8 2
97 9
98* 7
lftft 0
100 ft
lftft ft
lftft ft
lftft ft
100.0

3 All public funds for relief were expended by a private agency.

It is interesting to note that in 6 o f the 34 cities— Canton, Cleve­
land, Kansas City, Lancaster, New Orleans, and Washington—there
were no public departments providing general family relief. In
the remaining cities public and private agencies shared the respon­
sibility o f caring for the poor. In 20 of the 34 cities private agencies
shouldered the major share of the relief expense. Nevertheless,
when an accounting is made o f the aggregate amount o f expendi­
tures for all the cities combined, it is found that public agencies pro­
vided about two-thirds and private agencies about one-third of the
money given in 1930 to aid families in distress.
In the aggregate, public departments o f the registration area in­
creased their relief grants to a sum 176 per cent larger than that
81192—32----- 3


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

a

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

14

given in the preceding year. (Table 4.) Private agencies raised
and distributed 51 per cent more money in 1930 than in 1929. The
increase in public expenditures is sharply reduced when Detroit is
omitted from the calculations. However, with Detroit eliminated
from the group, it is still found that the increase in relief in 1930
from public sources (61 per cent) was greater than the increase in
private relief (50 per cent).
The evidence in Table 4 is based on reports o f those «public and
private agencies in 32 cities which could give information on relief
grants for both 1929 and 1930.
T a b u : 4.— A m ou n t exp en d ed and percen tage o f increase in exp en d itu res fo r
general fa m ily r e l i e f 1 by public and b y p rivate agencies in 32 m etropolitan
a r e a s 2 and in the sam e areas exclu sive o f D etr o it during 1930 as com pared
w ith 1929
Expenditure for relief—

Metropolitan areas

1929

31 areas (exclusive of Detroit)------

i including aid for the blind.

B y private agencies

By public agencies
1930

$5,100,939 $14,068,865
5,342,967
3,322,617

1 All

Per cent
of increase
175.8
60.8

1929

1930

$4,033,418
3,937,183

$6,104, 881
5,901,585

Per cent
of increase
51.4
49.9

agencies reporting comparable figures for the 2 years.

In cities which relied upon private philanthrophy to supply the
major amount needed for the poor, the changes in expenditures of
private agencies in 1930 compared with 1929 varied from a decrease
in Sioux City to an increase of 262 per cent in Canton, Ohio. In
cities where family care is a responsibility assumed largely by the
public, increases in public expenditures were in some places moder­
ate and in other places marked. An advance in public relief of 327
per cent reported by Hartford was greater than for any other regis­
tration city except Detroit. In Buffalo, Wichita, and St. Paul,
where public exceeded private relief, the expenditures o f public de­
partments increased respectively 70, 34, and 26 per cent.
The foregoing data on family-relief expenditures assembled
through the registration service show that situations in American
cities in 1930 varied greatly in regard to the extent and source of
relief.
When the figures for all cities are fused, the composite picture
shows a sharp upward swing o f relief in 1930, a public contribution
which provided about two-thirds of all general family relief, and
increases in 1930 expenditures which were more pronounced for
public than for private agencies. Group findings for the registra­
tion area in 1930 were greatly influenced by the extended scale of
public-relief operations in Detroit.
FAM ILIES AIDED

In reports on family welfare for 1930 received by the Children’s
Bureau, information on expenditure for relief was more complete

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

GENERAL FAMILY WELFARE AND RELIEF

15

than information as to the number o f families aided and to the
care given. Cities for which family data are shown in the following
tables, therefore, are represented by those agencies able to report
the requisite information. I f the available statistics for any city
were not fairly representative of the community as a whole, the city
was omitted.
O f the problems confronted in the attempt to obtain comparable
statistics in the family-welfare field, none has been more difficult
than that o f securing a uniform classification and count of cases.
During the first two years of the registration service, 1928 and 1929,
under the auspices of the joint committee for the registration of
social statistics, a case was defined as “ a family or individual for
whom the agency attempts a service and keeps a separate record.”
Cases were separated under two broad classifications, “ major
cases ” and “ minor cases.” Under the definitions then used a major
case was “ one in which the agency after investigation makes a so­
cial diagnosis and institutes a plan of treatment,” and a minor case
was “ one in which the agency does not accept complete responsi­
bility for social diagnosis and treatment.” After two years’ experi­
ence in collecting case statistics under these definitions, the com­
mittee decided the differentiation called for was not being made with
sufficient uniformity to give valid and comparable statistics.
Therefore, beginning with 1930, although the definition of a case
was unchanged, the classification of major-care cases and minor-care
cases was discontinued by the joint committee. Agencies were in­
structed instead to classify their cases by those “ under care ” and
those receiving “ incidental service.”
Under this plan, also adopted by the Family Welfare Association
o f America and the Russell Sage Foundation, a “ case under care ”
is defined as a family or individual for which the organization as­
sumes responsibility for instituting some study and treatment, and
an “ incidental-service case” represents a family or individual for
which the organization attempts some incidental or indirect service
but assumes no responsibility for instituting study and treatment.
To assist the agencies in determining which cases should be classed
as “ incidental service,” the monthly reports in 1930 called for a
count o f such cases subdivided by the following services: Advice
or referral only, reports on closed cases, investigations made for
out-of-town agencies, out-of-town inquiries forwarded, investiga­
tions made for local agencies, not-found cases, special seasonal-service
cases, and other incidental service.
.
The purpose o f separating cases o f such incidental significance
from all cases recorded by social agencies was to have in “ cases
under care ” a count of the number o f families in each community
for which agencies were assuming some responsibility. In spite of
the clarification o f definitions to secure this result, the perplexing
problem o f duplication in the count remained when agency reports
were combined for city totals. These duplications are caused by
transfer o f cases between agencies and by the practice o f haying
more than one agency deal with the same family. Thus the families
may be counted more than once in city totals secured through the
consolidation o f agency reports.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

16

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 193 0

Combinations o f all cases reported as under care and as incidental
have not been made as a rule owing to the element of duplication.
Moreover, since the purpose in the main has been to effect a separa­
tion o f cases under care from those receiving incidental service, the
addition o f the two groups is not essential except to indicate the
numerical importance o f incidental-service cases in relation to case
loads.
Selected agencies in 23 cities reported an average monthly count
for 1930 of 92,335 active cases (under care and incidental), of which
22 per cent received incidental service. Thus attention to the latter
group constitutes a considerable volume of the work performed by
agencies.
From the nature of incidental-service cases heretofore described,
it is evident that service rather than relief was the predominant
factor o f aid in these cases. O f relief expenditures by representative
agencies in 32 cities, amounting to $20,118,028 in 1930, only 2 per
cent was for incidental-service cases.
About four-fifths of all families supervised in the under-care group
were given relief. This finding is based upon the average number
o f active cases under care per month reported by selected agencies
in 24 cities. On this basis, 59,409 families, or 79 per cent o f the 75,343
families served, received relief. Public departments, caring for
44,401 o f those iamilies, gave relief to 92 per cent o f those for whom
they assumed responsibility, and in 12 o f the 24 cities the public
departments reported that 100 per cent o f their active cases under
care were relief cases. Private agencies serving 30,942 o f the fam i­
lies provided relief and service to 61 per cent, and service only, to
39 per cent.
.
.
.
. .
Owing to the change in classification o f cases, statistics tor 1929
and 1930 can not be compared to show whether a larger proportion of
active cases under care received relief in 1930 than in the pre­
ceding year. Findings in respect to “ major-care cases ” in 1929 and
« under-care cases ” in 1930 both indicate that public departments de­
voted most o f their efforts to aiding families in financial distress.
The private agencies, in addition to their relief service, assumed the
chief responsibility in assisting families whose needs were other than
economic.
It has been noted that statistics regarding cases are not com­
parable for 1929 and 1930. However, the 1930 statistics showing the
open-case load on the first day of the year as carried over from
December 31, 1929, may be compared to the open-case load on
December 31, 1930. Only cases under care are represented, and the
data in Table 5 are limited to reports o f those agencies in each city
which could give counts o f these cases for the first and the last day
o f the year.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

GENERAL FAMILY WELFARE AND RELIEF

17

T able 5.— C om parison o f n u m ber o f cases u n der care o f agencies fo r general
fa m ily w elfa re and r elie f in 24 specified m etropolita n areas, carried fo rw a rd
D ec em b er 81, 1929, and D ec e m b er 31, 1 9 8 0 1
Cases under care carried forward

Metropolitan area
Dec. 31,
1929

Dec. 31,
1930

Increase (+ ) or de­
crease (—)
Number

Total—24 areas.........................................................

60,379

Detroit 8._ ...................................... ..................................
Canton8__________________________________ _______ _
Grand Rapids.....................................................................
Dayton................................................................................
The Oranges8.....................................................................
Lancaster___ ______ _____________________ ______ ____
Cleveland................................... - ......................................
Buffalo........ .......................................................................
W ichita8____ _____ _______ __________________ ______
Springfield, Mass.8....................................................... .
Akron................................ ................................... ...........
Kansas City, M o ___________________________________
Hartford___________________________________________
Berkeley_________ ____ _______ _____________________
Richmond______ _____ __ __________________________
Minneapolis______________________________ _____ ___
Omaha........ ................. ........................ ........... ................
Des Moines...................................................... - ................
Louisville__________________________________________
New Orleans___________ _____ _____ ______ _________ _
Newark........................................... ...................................
St. Paul...............................................................................
St. Louis___________________________________________
Sioux City.........................................................................

13,240
631
957
2,736
665
442
5,057
3,958
368
1,016
2,690
1,696
1,600
379
1,002
1,096
988
1,237
1,589
718
1,452
1, 574
4,467
821

1 All agencies reporting figures for both dates.
8 Number not reported by 2 agencies.

Per cent

108,239

+57,860

+114.8

46,476
2,107
2,549
5,697
1,378
896
9,807
7,634
701
1,833
4, 717
2,973
2,662
616
1,447
1,576
1,415
1,764
2,216
867
1,731
1,751
4,747
679

+33,236
+1,476
+1,592
+2, 961
+713
+454
+4,750
+3,676
+333
+817
+2,027
+1, 277
+1,062
+237
+445
+480
+427
+527
+627
+149
+279
+177
+280
-142

+251.0
+233.9
+166.4
+108.2
+107.2
+102.7
+93.9
+92.9
+90.5
+80.4
+75.4
+75.3
+66.4
+62.5
+44.4
+43.8
+43.2
+42.6
+39.5
+20.8
+19.2
+11.2
+6.3
-1 7 .3

8 Number not reported by 1 agency.

Family-welfare agencies in all cities combined were caring for
57,860 more cases on the last day o f 1930 than on the last day o f
1929. This rise o f 115 per cent in the case count relates to both re­
lief and service cases, but it is in accord with the rise o f relief shown
in the chart on page 10. Much larger case loads were reported at the
end o f 1930 than at the end o f 1929 by all communities except Sioux
City, where there was a decrease, and St. Louis, where the increase
was but 6 per cent.
DEPENDENCY RATES

One o f the most desirable and most difficult findings to obtain
from the reports o f family agencies is a measure of the dependency
element in urban populations which is cared for by community
resources.
To show the extent o f family dependency in each area and to
establish rates per population comparable for different areas, it is
essential that all agencies in each district report the number of
families dealt with, using uniform methods in making the count.
Such reporting must, therefore, be more complete than that re­
quired to show changes or trends o f family dependency or relief
which may be based on statistics o f certain important agencies
representing different communities. Furthermore, the - count of


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

18

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 193 0

families in each city should be free from duplication in order to
give reliable rates o f dependency.
In the first two years o f the registration service attempts were
made to present this useful information from the reports o f familywelfare agencies. It was disclosed that the rates based on the num­
ber o f different families cared for during the entire year 1929 were
deficient because major and minor cases could not be combined with
accuracy and because duplication o f cases was much more pro­
nounced in the annual figures than in the average monthly figures.
Wichita, with 111 different families cared for per 1,000 o f
its population, according to the report for 1929, had the highest
rate for any city in the area. This rate appeared to be excessive,
and in a subsequent study o f statistics for Wichita made by the com­
munity chest it was found that duplication in the count o f families
was one o f the factors tending to distort the statistics for that city.
In lieu o f an annual count, the average number o f dependent families
dealt with monthly may be determined on several different bases.
AH cases under care, active cases under care, relief cases under care,
and incidental-service cases are the subjects of the several counts
received in monthly reports from family-welfare agencies and are
summarized in Table IV (p. 50).
From the standpoint o f reliability it is believed that rates based on
the average number o f families receiving relief monthly during 1930
offer the best measure o f family dependency for intercity compari­
son. It is true that financial dependency alone is represented— only
a part o f the total load which family agencies are carrying—but
statistics on-families receiving relief may be given with confidence
that the effect o f duplications m the count is minimized, even though
relief cases under care and incidental-service cases are combined.
This is illustrated by the practice in Detroit in 1930, where the prin­
cipal public agency provided relief and other agencies sometimes
gave case-work service to the same families. Such families were
counted as relief cases under care in the reports of the public agency,
and in the reports o f the other agencies these families were counted
as incidental cases receiving service only.
In this instance, when agency reports were combined for a com­
munity total, there was no duplication in relief cases since these
appear as such in the report o f the public agency only. However,
in a count o f all cases, both under care and incidental, secured for
the city by a consolidation of agency reports, these families would
be included twice. In other instances there may be still some dupli­
cation in city counts o f relief cases, but at present no method has
been generally established whereby community counts entirely free
from duplication can be secured.
An interesting study made by the community chest and social
agencies in St. Paul in 1930 and issued by the family division, St.
Paul Welfare Council, describes a method used to secure an undupli­
cated census o f dependent families, as follow s:
Monthly all agencies submitted lists of their active relief cases. * * *
These names were then carded and filed in the chest office and cleared against
each other. All new names were sent to the central registration bureau for
clearance, after which relief expenditures were listed on the master file. Only
after this performance had been repeated 12 times could tabulations be made.
All of this work was done by all agencies as a function over and above
regular duties for the purpose of showing the basic value in a central relief


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

GENERAL FAMILY WELFARE AND RELIEF

19

index and statistical service for all agencies in the city. So clear has it become
that sound procedure in handling dependency rests upon accurate knowledge
as to its scope, cost, and causes, that for the year 1931 a much more extended
effort is being provided jointly by the board of public welfare and the chest.3

A ll families receiving relief, whether under care or receiving
incidental service, are included in the calculations for 26 areas given
in Table 6.
T a b l e 6.— N u m b er o f general fa m ily w elfa re and relie f agencies fr o m w hich
rep orts w ere req uested, n u m ber fr o m w h ich rep orts w e r e r ec eived and tabu­
lated, average n u m ber p er m o n th o f fa m ilies receivin g relief, and ra te per
10,000 population in 26 specified m etropolitan areas during 1930
Number of agencies
from which—

Average n u m b e r per
month of families re­
ceiving relief

Metropolitan area
Reports
were re­
quested
Total—26 areas................................
Detroit......................... ..............
Newark..____________
Dayton....... ....................
Des Moines________ _
St. Paul______ _______
Wichita______________
Springfield, Mass...................
Canton____ ________
Buffalo.......................
Hartford...........................
Akron............................
Denver_____ _______
Minneapolis________
Lancaster____________
Sioux City........................
Springfield, 111.......................
Omaha.......................
The Oranges....... ..........
Kansas City, M o.............
Berkeley..........................
Richmond__________
Grand Rapids_________
Cleveland...........................
Cincinnati__ ____ ______
St. Louis________________
New Orleans_________

Reports
were re­
ceived and
tabulated

Number

Rate per
10,000 popu­
lation

171

159

59,079

58.8

11
6
6
10
8
6
6
6
10
6
6
6
7
2
7
6
6
7
9
2
4
5
6
10
9
5

9
6
6
10
8
4
5
5
10
6
6
6
7
2
5
4
6
6
9
2
4
5
6
9
8
5

21,079
3; 759
1¡893
1,031
1,849
710
1,085
'718
4,651
1,419
1,704
1,565
2’ 516
'302
362
360
891
661
1,605
351
918
740
3,947
L986
2,559
'418

124.1
85.0
78.6
72.3
64.5
63.9
63.4
63.0
62.3
61.8
60.6
54.4
53.8
46.6
45.7
43.7
41.6
40.6
40.2
38.7
38.4
35.5
33.9
33.7
24.8
8.5

The number o f family agencies in each city and the number whose
reports were included in the tabulation have been given for use in
interpreting the figures. The figures for Detroit, Wichita, Springfield (Mass.), Canton, Sioux City, Springfield (111.), the Oranges,
Cincinnati, St. Louis, and New Orleans are understated, but the
omissions except for New Orleans are slight, as returns from all
important agencies in other cities were secured.
In an urban population of about 10,000,000 covering metropolitan
areas o f 26 cities, an average of about 59,000 families were given ma­
terial relief monthly during 1930, or 59 families per 10,000 population.
Detroit and Newark aided the most families and St. Louis and
New Orleans the fewest in proportion to their populations. In Des
Moines, where a relatively large number o f families were aided
(72 per 10,000 population), relief per case was low (Table 7). In
2 Clevenger, L o u is e : On Uneasy Street in the Year 1930.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

St. Paul W elfare Council.

20

SOCIAL, STATISTICS, 19 3 0

comparing Cincinnati and Cleveland, both with an average number
o f 34 families per 10,000 population receiving relief monthly, it
should be noted that reports were not received from one agency in
the former city. I f reports from Cincinnati had been complete, the
number o f families would have been slightly higher for that city
than for Cleveland.
AM OUNT OF MONTHLY RELIEF PER CASE

To show relief per case it was considered advisable to exclude
public aid for the blind and the beneficiaries thereunder from the
calculations. Table 7 then relates chiefly to general home relief and
gives for 30 cities the average amount of monthly relief per case
for both the under-care and the incidental-service group.
T a b l e 7.— A v er a g e m o n th ly exp en d itu re fo r r e l i e f 1 p er ca se fo r cases under
care and ca ses receivin g incidental service b y agencies fo r general fa m ily
w elfa re and relie f * in SO specified m etropolita n areas during 1980
Average monthly ex­
penditure for relief
per case

Average monthly ex­
penditure for relief
per case
Metropolitan area

Metropolitan area
Cases re­
Cases under ceiving in­
cidental
care
service

30 areas.......................... .

$23.83

$4.47

Springfield, Mass..... ........
Detroit_________ _______
Buffalo...................... ........
Hartford............................
Cleveland---------------- ----Berkeley............................
The Oranges........ ............
Washington.............. ........
Cincinnati.......................
Canton............ ..................
Dayton..............-...........
St. Louis_______________
Newark.............................
Chicago..............................

37.94
36.70
28.17
27.37
27.21
24.37
23.88
21.57
19.68
18.48
16.94
16.39
16.15
15.07

4.25
9.19
1.01
9.30
2.78
4.97
.92
3.71
3.78
4.73
5.04
1.92
1.09
5.82

1 Excluding aid for the blind.

St. Paul........................ .

Cases re­
Cases under ceiving in­
cidental
care
service
$14. 39
14.21
13.71
13.38
13. 33
13.32
12.52
12.28
11.88
10.53
10.48
10.28
9.84
9.13
8.89
7.91

$6.10
8.42
5.04
2.61
.52
2.60
2.32
2.60
L 82
5.25
4.08
2.34
4. 75
2.83
.81
4. 97

J Including all agencies from which basic data were complete.

Families under care received an average of more than $20 per
month in only 8 cities; in 18 cities the average amount paid monthly
was from $10 to $20; and in Sioux City, Lancaster, Columbus, and
Omaha relief on the average was less than $10 per month per family.
Relief in incidental cases never averaged more than $10 per month,
and in most cities was less than $5 a month. For all cities combined
the average payment per month was $23.83 to cases under care and
$4.47 to incidental-service cases.
A comparison o f monthly public and private expenditures per
relief case under care is shown for 27 cities in Table 8. Akron,
Berkeley, and Columbus are omitted from this table because in these
cities public and private relief funds are amalgamated. O f the 9
cities where relief per case is shown for private agencies only, Canton,
Cleveland, Kansas City (M o.), Lancaster, New Orleans, and Wash­
ington had no public departments in 1930 providing general family
relief exclusive of aid to the blind; and public departments in Louis
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

G EN ER AL F A M IL Y

W ELFARE

AND

21

R E L IE F

ville, Richmond, and St. Louis did not give relief to cases under care
although they furnished such incidental relief as fuel or clothing.
T a b l e 8.— A v er a g e m o n th ly expen d itu re fo r relief p er case under c a r e 1 given
by public and b y p riva te agencies fo r general fa m ily w elfa re and r e l i e f 2 in 21
specified m etropolitan areas during 1980
Average monthly ex­
penditure for relief
per case under care—
Metropolitan area

Average monthly ex­
penditure for relief
per case under care—
Metropolitan area

By public
agencies

By private
agencies

27 areas...................... ........

$26. 77

$20.24

Springfield, Mass_______
Detroit_________________
Hartford_____ __________
Buffalo_______________
Cincinnati.........................

40.81
36. 97
31.85
28.58
27.01
23.38
15.65
14.61
14.26
14. 00
13.96
13.68
10.94

26.75
26.77
22.10
26.47
19.38
25. 09
19.16
9.54
8.92
5. 64
13.50
10.40
16.09

Newark__ _____ ________
Wichita................ ............
Springfield, 111__________
Denver.-...........- ...............
St. Paul.............. ...............

1 Excluding aid for the blind.

B y public B y private
agencies
agencies

Dayton-...........................

$9.09
8.31
7.96
6.84
5.87

$31.84
17.24
10.84
21. 38
9.69
18.48
27. 21
12. 28
9.13
14.21
13.32
14.39
16.39
21.57

2Including all agencies from which basic date were complete.

In the aggregate, relief per case under care paid by public depart­
ments was higher than that given by private agencies, $26.77 as
compared with $20.24. However, with Detroit eliminated from the
calculations the reverse is true. Aggregate figures for other cities
show private expenditures as $20.07 per family and public grants
as $17.41 per family when the average amount o f monthly relief per
case under care is computed.
There was no outstanding evidence from community statistics that
money as a general rule was more liberally expended by either the
public or the private agencies. In 18 cities where relief from both
sources was given, the average monthly grant o f private agencies
exceeded the public grant in 8 cities, and in 10 cities the reverse was
true.
An interesting parallel may be drawn between Buffalo, where
public relief predominated, and Cleveland, where all relief was
from private sources. It so happened that the public agencies
in Buffalo gave relief to about the same average number o f families
under care monthly during 1930 as did the private agencies in Cleve­
land, 3,368 families in the former city as compared with 3,524 in the
latter. The calculation o f the average amount o f monthly relief
given per family was $28.58 for Buffalo and $27.21 for Cleveland.
Two cities in which much less relief per case was provided offer
another comparison o f public and private expenditures. In Newark,
relief being chiefly from public sources, an average o f 2,400 families
under care were each given an average of $15.65 per month from
public funds, and in St. Louis, where all relief to cases under care
except to the blind was given by private agencies, an average o f
1,803 families received an average grant o f $16.39 per family each
month.
81192— 32-


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

22

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 193 0

Other comparisons could be made showing wide variations in relief
per case as paid by public and private agencies, but those given are
o f value as demonstrating that the average grants of both public and
private agencies were found in some instances to be quite similar
when intercity comparisons were made.
REFUNDS AN D REPAYM ENTS

Relief per case was calculated upon agency disbursements without
regard to refunds and repayments which are sometimes made by those
assisted. The registration reports show the amount o f refunds
received from clients by each agency monthly. Obviously the
refunds can not be subtracted from the expenditures of the month
as they may be returns for disbursements of preceding months or
years. On the whole these returns are negligible, as is shown by the
fact that refunds in 1930 were less than 1 per cent o f relief expendi­
tures in 25 cities. Richmond and Wichita, each reporting refunds
as 6 per cent o f disbursements in 1930, had the largest proportionate
returns.
IN ACTIVE CASES

In 24 cities a representative number o f agencies were able to divide
their cases under care monthly by those “ worked on ” and “ not
worked on.” These returns supplied figures upon which to compute,
on the average monthly basis, the proportion o f inactive cases among
those under care.
The majority o f the public departments in these cities reported
either no inactive cases or very few. Relief cases formed the preponderent load o f cases carried by public departments. Private
agencies, striving to maintain case-work principles and yet to func­
tion swiftly and efficiently to meet the stress o f 1930, recorded that
one-fourth o f their average number o f cases under care per month
were inactive within the month. This means either that private
agencies could not keep abreast o f their work monthly or else that
their inactive cases included a considerable number awaiting further
developments or other cases which should have been closed.
In Dayton, Detroit, Newark, Sioux City, and Washington private
agencies reported from 36 to 46 per cent o f their average monthly
number o f under-care cases as inactive. In the remainder of the 24
cities the proportion o f inactive cases for the average month ranged
from 8 per cent in Chicago to 35 per cent in St. Paul.
CASE LOADS

Obviously, monthly attention to all cases under care can not be
given if agencies are regularly understaffed or when emergency
loads must be carried by staffs normally adequate.
To show the ratio o f cases to professional workers in 1930, statistics
o f a major agency in each o f 35 cities, rather than statistics o f city
agencies in combination, are presented in Table 9. This selection
has been made because the size of staff was usually not reported for
all agencies within a city, the public agencies frequently omitting
information about personnel.
The staff count used to give the calculations in Table 9 was that of
all paid professional workers, including supervisors. The case counts

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

GENERAL

F A M IL Y

W ELFARE

AND

23

R E L IE F

used were those o f active cases under care and incidental-service
cases. With these counts cases per professional worker have been
computed on the average monthly base.
The American Association o f Social Workers finds that “ estimates
by executives and supervisors on the case load that an experienced
visitor can carry adequately varied from 30 to 40 active major-care
cases a month.” 8
It is interesting to compare the statistics in column 2, Table 9, with
this standard, although its specifications relate to major-care cases
and visitors, while the registration statistics relate to cases under
care and case workers including supervisors.
T a b l e S .— M o n th ly avera ges o f nu m ber o f p rofession a l w orkers, o f a ctive ca ses
under ca re p er p rofession a l w orker, and o f ca ses rec eivin g incidental service
p er p rofession a l w o r k e r in a rep resen ta tive agency fo r general fa m ily w elfa re
and r e l i e f 1 in 8 5 specified m etropolita n areas during 1980

Metropolitan area

Average
number
of pro­
fessional
workers
per
month

Type of agency

Detroit........... .............................
Springfield, Mass_____ ____ ____
Buffalo__ 1................................. .
Grand Rapids................................
Berkeley........................... ..........._ Private (expending public funds)
D ayton..........................................
Lancaster........................ .............
Denver...........................................
Akron..................... .......................
Wichita______________________
Canton............. .............................
Columbus.....................................
Des Moines....................................
The Oranges......... .......................
Harrisburg.....................................
Indianapolis___________________
Sioux City......................................
New Haven................. ..................
Hartford.........................................
Washington...................... ............
St. Louis____________ __________
Cincinnati_____________________
Cleveland_____________________
Louisville............ ...... ....................
Omaha__________ _____________
Richmond_____________________
Wilkes-Barre.._________ _______
Bridgeport____ _____ ___________
St. Paul......................................
Springfield, 111..............................
New Orleans................... ..............
Kansas City, M o_______ _______
Newark........................................
Chicago..........................................
Minneapolis............................... .

Average
number
of active
cases
under care
monthly
per pro­
fessional
worker

105
6
26
7
5
18
5
13
20

8
10
22
9
7
7
29
2

11
13
22

42
42
120
24
14
18
7
5
21
5
11
38
26
80
33

1 Cases o f aid fo r the blind included only in Berkeley and Denver.

195
128
108
105

Average
number
of cases
receiving
incidental
service
monthly
per pro­
fessional
worker

(>)

88

87
77
76
75
65
65
63
58
56
54
51
49
47
46
42
39
37
37
36
36
35
35
32
32
31
30
28
27
26
26

33
5
60
9
9
8
9
2
19
10
5
14
4
9
14
44
4
7
8
21
6

13
12
11
3
17
8
10
21
10
14
9
34
19

2 Not reported.

Fifteen private agencies representing the following cities had an
average number o f active cases under care monthly per worker of
less than 40: St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Louisville, Omaha,
Richmond, Wilkes-Barre, Bridgeport, St. Paul, Springfield (111.),
Odencrantz, Louise C. : The Social W orker, p. 38.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

New York, 1929.

24

SOCIAL, STATISTICS, 193 0

New Orleans, Kansas City (M o.), Newark, Chicago, and Minne­
apolis.
Active case loads per professional worker o f 40 to 60 monthly were
reported by the representative agencies in Des Moines, the Oranges,
Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Sioux City, New Haven, Hartford, and
Washington.
Agencies in 12 cities had active case loads in excess of 60 per
worker. The 5 public agencies representing Detroit, Springfield
(Mass.), Buffalo, Grand Rapids, and Denver came within this group.
Included also were the private agency in Berkeley, which expended
funds chiefly public, and agencies in Akron and Columbus, which
are classed as public-private, owing to cooperative activities.
Differences in the character o f work that public and private
agencies are required to perform account in some instances for the
higher case loads carried by public departments. Relief for the
blind is frequently administered without the aid o f professional
workers or with so little that calculations o f cases per professional
worker are far from the norm.
In Table 9 public relief for the blind was included in the calcula­
tions for only Berkeley and Denver. I f this relief is eliminated
and it is assumed that the attention o f the professional staff was
devoted entirely to other cases, the average monthly load o f 88 active
cases under care for the Berkeley agency is reduced to 82 and that
for the Denver department becomes 65 instead o f 76.
Although the data for public departments are not so compre­
hensive as could be desired, available evidence indicates that the
professional-staff membership o f the public department was smaller
than that required to maintain standard case-work principles. This
finding is true for the public departments representing cities in
Table 9, and also for some other public departments for which infor­
mation for 1930 was secured. In Chicago the average number of
active cases under care monthly per worker for a leading public
agency was 266, a case load in excess o f that shown even for the
Detroit Department o f Public Welfare.
Another method o f computing under-care cases per worker is by
counting all cases, both active and inactive. On this basis all but four
of the agencies whose active case loads appear in Table 9 recorded
more than 40 cases, active and inactive, per professional worker for
the average month o f 1930, and for 18 agencies there were more than
60 cases per professional worker. The addition of inactive cases, how­
ever, gives rather inconclusive results upon which to make intercity
comparisons for the following reasons. In some organizations inac­
tive cases are held open as needing future attention which in other
organizations would be speedily closed. A prompt clearance of
closed cases is made by some agencies, and others continue in their
monthly counts cases held for closing. Therefore, the number of
cases per worker computed on the total count does not reflect uni­
formly the volume of work of each agency.
The average number o f incidental-service cases carried per pro­
fessional worker monthly is shown in column 3. In this calculation
the total number o f incidental-service cases o f all types was counted
for each agency and related to the professional case-working staff.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

GENERAL FAMILY WELFARE AND RELIEF

25

It is possible that not all o f the work required in connection with
incidental service is performed by case workers. The reports from
the public department representing Grand Rapids showed that a
monthly average o f about 180 applicants for employment were
given physical examinations during 1980. This type o f incidental
service accounts for the relatively high case load shown. I f these
cases were not included, the average monthly load o f incidentalservice cases per professional case worker would be 34 instead of
60 for the Grand Rapids agency.
Various factors may account for the differences disclosed ill the
case loads shown for 35 organizations. The results lay a foundation
for study as to the uniformity o f case counts and whether case loads
truly represent differences between agencies. On the face of the fig­
ures, it seems evident that a number o f the organizations did not
have the requisite staff equipment to cope with the excessive demands
o f 1930.

\


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MOTHERS’ AID
Mothers’ aid, also called widows’ pensions, was classified as a
family-welfare measure and included in the family-welfare field
under the plan developed by the joint committee for the registration
o f social statistics. The annual report o f the committee for 1928
states: “ The question that arises in relation to their work (mothers’
aid departments) is whether they are primarily family-welfare
agencies or whether they would more properly be classified as childwelfare departments.” 1 The committee’s decision was to include
mothers’ aid in the general field o f family welfare in reports for 1928
and 1929, and it is so included by the Children’s Bureau for 1930,
with full recognition that both family welfare and mothers’ aid are
child-welfare measures of importance.
Relief in the form o f mothers’ aid, as provided by special legisla­
tive enactment, is usually given for long periods to keep children
at home and under the mother’s care in families impoverished
through the death or disability o f the father. The principle of
mothers’ aid legislation and its provisions and extent are described
in a Children’s Bureau publication, Public A id to Mothers with
Dependent Children.2
The following analysis is based on reports for 1930 received by the
Children’s Bureau from mothers’ aid departments in 35 metropolitan
areas. A few areas were served by more than 1 department, so that
in all there were 42 departments in the registration area, o f which 38
reported. Financial data were reported more completely than other
data requested, with the result that, although the 1930 expenditures
for mothers’ aid can be shown for 35 cities, more detailed findings
relate to smaller groups, as is indicated in each table.
The summary o f expenditures on family-welfare relief has shown
that mothers’ aid is an important part o f public provision for neces­
sitous families, although its cost in 1930 was secondary to public
expenditures for general family relief. The amount paid during
1930 h i grants by mothers’ aid departments in 35 metropolitan areas
was $5,120,348. The disbursement in each area is shown in the
tabular summary o f expenditures in the family-welfare field.
(Table I, p. 47.) A comparison o f the 1930 grants with those for
1929 is shown in the following table for 25 cities which reported the
information for both years.

4 3 6 l0Cal C° mmUnity research committee o f the
* Children’s Bureau Publication No. 162, by Emma O. Lundberg. Washington 1928

26


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

27

MOTHERS* AID

T a b l e 1.— E xp en d itu re fo r r e lie f "by m o th ers’ aid departm ents in 25 specified
m etropolitan areas during 1929 1 and 1930
Expenditure for relief

Expenditure for relief
Metropolitan
area

19291

1930

Total—25 areas. $4,295,484 $4,498,839
Lousi ville............
38,736
48,160
W ilkes-Barre.....
56,662
Omaha_________
Canton...............
37,486
20,624
Kansas City, M o.
82,742
Grand Rapids__
Detroit_________ 1,062,971
18,620
Springfield, 111__
42,359
Bridgeport—.......
Buffalo_________
298,491
56,835
Des Moines....... .
466,725
Cleveland............

60,137
65,890
73,977
44,400
24,124
96,611
1,203,073
20,924
46,293
320,044
60,883
497,662

Per cent
of in­
crease (+ )
or de­
crease (—)
+4.7
+55.2
+36.8
+30.6
+18.4
+17.0
+16.8
+13.2
+12.4
+9.3
+7.2
+7.1
+6.6

Metropolitan
area

19291

St. Paul............... $163,626
62,717
59,316
Akron__________
240,696
Cincinnati______
199, 505
Minneapolis____
D en ver........... .
101,024
Sharon_________
12,050
32,670
Sioux City______
Chicago________ 1,063,396
Lancaster......... .
15,629
Harrisburg..........
40,125
14,081
Wichita________
60,238
St. L ouis............

1930

$171,733
64,761
60,000
240,119
198,934
99,835
11,770
31,709
1,005,068
14.758
37,481
11,895
36.758

Per cent
of in­
crease (+ )
or de­
crease (—)
+ 5 .0
+ 3.3
+ 1.2
-.2
-.3
- 1 .2
-2 .3
-2 .9
- 5 .5
- 5 .6
-6 .6
-1 5 .5
-3 9 .0

i Registration of Social Statistics for the Year 1929, Table la-29, p. 3. Amount for Bridgeport revised.

The amounts spent for aid annually, as here shown, were obtained
by the addition of monthly payments to mothers as reported under
the registration plan and do not represent annual appropriations.
In 15 o f the 25 metropolitan areas, grants for 1930 exceeded those
for 1929. (Table 1.) Decreased expenditures were reported for
10 cities, but in 5 o f these— Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Denver, Sharon,
and Sioux City—the decreases were so slight that expenditures for
both years may be considered as having been upon practically the
same scale.
The decrease in St. Louis o f 39 per cent was due to an uneven
distribution o f allowance funds available for the fiscal year ended
March 31,1930. Liberal payments from April to December, 1929—
the earlier part o f the fiscal year—had so absorbed the funds that
expenditures necessarily were curtailed during that part o f the
fiscal year coming in 1930.
In Chicago a preliminary cut in appropriations for the fiscal
year ended November 30, 1930, affected expenditures during the first
"seven months o f 1930, and for that period it was reported that
“ emphasis was placed on the reducing and staying o f pensions to
bring the pay roll under the appropriations.” Although the cut
was offset by an additional appropriation in July, 1930, which per­
mitted increased expenditures during the last four months o f the
fiscal year, disbursements combined for all months o f the calendar
year i930 fell somewhat below the annual allowance to mothers
paid in 1929.
O f the increases in grants to mothers for 1930 the most marked
was in Louisville, where mothers’ aid was not established until 1928.
In 1929 progress was made in investigating applications and granting
pensions, but the entire amount available for aid which accrued
under the levy for 1929 was not expended that year. The rapid
growth o f the service in 1930 is indicated by the fact that 55 per cent


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

28

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

more money was spent in that year than in the preceding one for
maintaining dependent children in their homes.
When the grants are combined for the 25 metropolitan areas, ex­
penditures for 1930 are shown to be 5 per cent above those for 1929.
While either expenditures or cases may be used to trace the trend
o f mothers’ aid, statistics for a series o f years are essential to show
the growth and development o f the movement. Fluctuations in
monthly expenditures are not significant. The same may be said of
case loads, as is noted from the following statement in the 1928
report (p. 112) on the Registration o f Social Statistics:
The fluctuations in case loads of mothers’ pension departments are not marked
and can not be attributed to seasonal needs. The number of cases these de­
partments can accept is definitely limited by the funds appropriated.

In certain cities there may have been changes during the year
such as those in Chicago, illustrated above, where a period o f re­
trenchment was followed by one o f expansion; but on the whole
mothers’ aid expenditures take an even course for the year or the
biennium o f appropriation.
PER CAPITA EXPEN DITU RE FOR RELIEF

By relating the expenditures for mothers’ aid to population, a
measure is provided by which community experiences may be com­
pared, but the per capita costs shown in Table 2 should not be used
as a gage o f the actual community charge per person for this type
o f aid because administrative expenses are not considered.
T a b l e 2.— P e r capita expen d itu re far relie f b y m others' aid departm ents in 85
specified m etropolitan areas during 1980

Metropolitan area

fit Pani

Wilkes-Barre...------- -----------------------

Per capita
expendi­
ture for
relief
$0.99
.71
.60
.52
.50
.46
.43
.43
.43
.43
.41
.40
.39
.39
.35
.35
.30
.29

Per capita
expendi­
ture for
relief

Metropolitan area

Springfield, 111__________

_________

Springfield, Ohio________ _____ _____
Washington------ ------------- ------------- -Sharon______________ _________ _____
Springfield, Mass____ ______________
Harrisburg___ _________ _________ . . .
Wichita____ ________________________
Kansas City, M o .,-------------------------Richmond___________
___________
St. Louis___________ _________ ____
Indianapolis________________________

$0.27
.25
.25
.25
.24
.24
.23
.22
.21
.20
.20
.19
. 11
.06
.04
.04
.04

Information on the extent o f need for mothers’ aid in each urban
area is not available. The amount each pays to keep dependent
children in their homes depends largely on the State legislation under
which it operates, the appropriation available, and the administra­
tive policies pursued. Thus multiple factors determine the rate of
city costs. In a general way, some interesting deductions may be


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

m o t h e r s ’ a id

29

drawn when per capita costs are related to the amount o f aid per case
(Table 3) and to the number o f families aided per 10,000 popula­
tion (Table 4). B y comparing Des Moines with Minneapolis, both
having a per capita expenditure o f 43 cents, an illustration is given
o f wide difference in procedure under the same rate o f expenditure.
In Des Moines the average amount o f relief per case was relatively
low and the number o f families aided relatively high in relation to
other cities; in Minneapolis relief per case was much higher than in
Des Moines, but less than one-half the number of families per 10,000
population received aid.
As would be expected when the grants and the number o f families
benefited were both relatively large, as in Detroit, the per capita
cost o f the aid was correspondingly high. Chicago, with a per
capita expenditure just above the median, had a relatively high
standard o f aid but cared for fewer families per 10,000 population
than the majority o f other cities for which the information was
reported. St. Louisj spending only 4 cents per capita, maintained
a fair standard of aid but extended it to fewer families per 10,000
population than any other city for which calculations were made.
A VE RA G E MONTHLY PAYM EN T PER FAM ILY

To show the average monthly grant to each family the reports
from mothers’ aid departments for December, 1930, were used in
Table 3. Calculations for this purpose could have been made for
any month or for an average month, but December was selected as
giving the most recent representation for 1930 o f relief per case.
As has been mentioned, legislative provisions are important factors
affecting the amount o f mothers’ aid given to each family. There­
fore, as a guide to interpretation, the ages o f the children eligible
and the limitation o f grants as specified by law have been shown in
Table 3 for the States in which the 30 metropolitan areas discussed
are located.
It will be noted that the limitation o f grants as given applies to the
maximum amount a family with three children may receive. The
number o f children receiving aid and the average number per family
can not be shown in relation to relief per case in December for the
various cities, as the information was not reported in 1930. The
Children’s Bureau has amended the report cards for 1931 to show
this interesting and valuable information. Therefore, in considering
Table 3, it should be remembered that the average December pay­
ment in each area does not necessarily apply to an average family
with three children. The monthly payment per family as shown
by the December average may be slightly below the average
monthly allowance per family because all families may not have
been upon the pay roll for the entire month. The inclusion in the
calculations o f grants terminating or commencing at midmonth,
for instance, would reduce the average monthly payment.
81192— 32-------5


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

30

SOCIAL. STATISTICS, 19 3 0

T able 3.— A v er a g e gra nt p er fa m ily fo r m oth ers' aid fo r D ecem b er, 19S0, in SO
specified m etropolitan areas in 16 S tates, and age and allowance provisions
o f th e m others' aid la w s o f th ese S ta tes

Provisions of State laws for mothers’ aid as to—
State and metropolitan area

California...... .........
Berkeley__________
Colorado____________
Denver__________
Connecticut...................
Hartford___________
Illinois____________
Chicago...... ......................
Springfield_____________. . .
Iowa_____________ _
Des Moines________
Sioux City............. ........
Kansas................... ...........
Wichita______________
Kentucky____________
Louisville________ _____ _
Massachusetts.._____ _
Springfield............................
Michigan!______ _______
Detroit_______________ _
Grand Rapids________ _
Minnesota.........................
Duluth..............................
Minneapolis.................. ............
St. Paul................................
Missouri » _________
Kansas City.........................
St. Louis_____________ .
Nebraska...................................
Omaha____________
New York._______ ___________
Buffalo_______________
Ohio___________________
Canton......... ........... ........
Cincinnati____________
Cleveland____________
Columbus________________
Dayton............... .................
Springfield...... ............................
Pennsylvania................... .........
Harrisburg............................
Lancaster_______________
Sharon_________________
Wilkes-Barre____________
Virginia.........................................
Richmond______________ _

Average
grant per
family for
December,
1930

Ages under
Maximum allowance per month for 3 which chil­
children
dren were
eligible
$60...........

$44.83
44.80

$56 to $64 i

50.78
52.84
30.25
18.40
17.59

$55 K

.

$32.50
$50

16
.

«14

72.28

24.08
42.11
35.78
59.11
32.06
47.26
49.81
34.49
33.69
22.18

14
»14

53.37

41.05
43.58
37.29

16
16

.

16.64

61.62
36.68

16
18

$60.66 -

17

$50................

16

$32................
$51.75 » ___
$30............

16

Not to exceed cost of institutional care.
$55.......

$40...................

34.38
36.47
37.88
40.38
33.24

716

16

16

1Depends on ages of children.
Special provisions in Illinois apply to counties of more than 300,000 population.
• May be continued to 16 if child is in school with satisfactory record.
• M ay be continued to 16 if child is required by law to attend school.
• State provisions are not given for Missouri because Kansas City and St. Louis operate under special
3

O ru lIlaQ C G S .

• May be increased with consent of comptroller.
• M ay be continued to 18 if child is not eligible for an employment certificate.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MOTHERS

A TT)

31

As shown by the December figures, Springfield (Mass.), made the
most liberal provision for care per case. However, aid was extended
to only 47 families in 1930. (Table 4.) Springfield operates under
a law which provides that aid adequate to fulfill the needs o f each
family may be given. Other cities operating under a similar legal
provision were Denver, Louisville, and Richmond. Like Springfield,
the first two o f these cities made higher average monthly payments
than the majority o f other cities, but in Richmond the December
payment per family ($33) fell below the median ($37). The size
o f payments u suited to need ” will necessarily vary in accordance
with the cost o f living in each community, standards of relief, and
resources o f the family.
Interesting variations are noted for cities in Ohio covered by the
same State legislation. The average December grant ranged from
about $22 in Springfield to about $50 in Cleveland. In Missouri
there was a considerable difference in the average amount of relief
given in December by St. Louis ($42) and by Kansas City ($24).
This disparity may be partially accounted for by legislation which
permits a larger allowance for St. Louis than for Kansas City. In
Illinois also, there is a difference in the amount o f the allowance
permitted by law for Chicago and for Springfield. The Kansas and
Iowa cities gave less relief per case than was provided elsewhere in
the registration area.
In Denver children may receive support until they are 18 years of
age, in the Michigan cities until they are 17, in most other cities until
they become 16. In St. Louis and Wichita only children under 14
are eligible for aid.
NUMBER OF FAM ILIES RECEIVING CURRENT GRANTS

A summary o f the mothers’ aid cases accepted and under care
during 1930 in 29 metropolitan districts is given in Table V (p. 51).
In all there were 10,618 awards effective in the area, as represented*
by these districts. O f these, 2,662 families were taken under care in
1930, and 7,956 were families continued on the rolls from the previous
year. A t the close o f 1930 there were 935 more families on the rolls
than at the close o f 1929.
As has been shown in the report on general family relief, ratios
on various bases may be calculated to show in proportion to popu­
lation the number o f dependents receiving care in any field o f service.
For mothers’ aid two forms o f ratios have been selected to give an
index o f the extent o f care to families, and appear in the following


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

32

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1 930

T a b l e 4.— A v er a g e nu m ber p er m o n th o f fa m ilies receivin g m others' aid and
total n u m ber o f different fa m ilies receivin g m others' aid during th e yea r, w ith
ra tes p er 10,000 population, in 21 specified m etropolita n areas during 1930

Average number per
month of families re­
ceiving mothers’ aid
Metropolitan area
Number

Duluth_________
Sioux C ity______
Des Moines_____
St. Paul_________
Canton_________
Detroit__________
Berkeley________
Grand Rapids___
Omaha__________
Minneapolis_____
Springfield, 111___
Cincinnati______
Cleveland_______
Dayton_____ ____
Denver_________
Buffalo..................
Wilkes-Barre____
Lancaster_______
Chicago_________
Sharon__________
Harrisburg____ . ..
Hartford________
Louisville...____
Springfield, Mass.
Kansas City, M o.
Richmond_______
St. Louis________

203
166
276
386
116
1,687
86
198
177
381
64
430
841
165
193
472
138
33
1,606
26
88
88
101
39
84
25
91

Rate per
10,000
population
20.0
19.7
19.4
13.5
10.2
9.9
9.5
9.5
8.3
8.1
7.8
7.3
7.2
6.8
6.7
6.3
6.1
0.1
4.8
4.8
4.4
3.8
3.3
2.3
2.1
1.0
.9

Total number of differ­
ent families receiving
mothers’ aid during
the year

Total

256
180
361
470
138
2,212
108
281
314
506
81
486
1,059
192
237
560
157
35
2,074
27
93
106
118
47
91
29
153

Rate per
10,000
population
25.2
22.7
25.8
16.4
12.1
13.0
11.9
13.5
14.7
10.8
9.8
8.2
9.1
8.0
8.2
7.5
6.9
5.4
6.1
5.0
4.6
4.6
3.8
2.7
2.3
1.2
1.5

The average number of families receiving mothers’ aid per
month is used in the first form o f ratio. This is slightly different
from the average number o f families under care per month, since
some courts or departments carry on their monthly rolls families
which receive service but do not receive grants within the month.
When relief cases for what may be termed an 44average month ”
are calculated per 10,000 population, it is found that the spread o f
mothers aid service in 1930 was widest in Duluth, Sioux City, and
Des Moines, and most limited in St. Louis, Richmond, Kansas City
(M o.), and Springfield (Mass.).
J
The total number o f families under the care of mothers’ aid de­
partments in 1930 per 10,000 population gives the second form o f
ratio. This annual figure gives a higher count o f families than that
shown for an average month because all families served during the
year are included, regardless of the length o f time under care or
monthly pay status. There may be a slight duplication i f any fami­
lies were dropped and subsequently reinstated within the year. How­
ever, this count gives a close approximation o f the number o f differ6nt families in each, area on the rolls during 1930* When the number
per 10,000 population is calculated on this base, the table shows that
the rank o f cities by extent o f service per population is not appre­
ciably different from that attained by using the average number
o f relief cases per month as an index. Thus Duluth, Sioux City,
and Des Moines are still at the top o f the list, although Duluth

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MOTHEES7 AID

33

and Des Moines exchange places. Likewise it is shown by the sec­
ond as well as the first method of calculation, that Richmond, St.
Louis, Kansas City (M o.), and Springfield (Mass.), aided the
fewest families per population.
Omaha has a much higher rank when the annual count of cases
under care is considered, rather than the count of cases receiving
relief during an average month. An inspection of the Omaha re­
ports discloses that the court carries a considerable number o f cases
as open current grants each month, which nevertheless are not cases
classed as receiving payment within the month. Thus the exclusion
o f these cases under “ average number per month of families
receiving mothers’ aid ” reduces the rate of service to population.
The foregoing discussion o f relief per family ana of families
aided in relation to population makes clear some significant differ­
ences in the administration of relief for dependent children in their
homes. In some areas a thin spread o f relief reached a relatively
large number of families, and in other areas a higher standard o f
relief was given to relatively few families. Other varied practices
prevailed in the effort to make both ends meet.
It should be clear that the extent of mothers’ aid in proportion
to the population of each area covered does not indicate the require­
ment for aid o f this type but merely shows the amount o f care in
each area that was given in 1930 under the legal limitations and
with the funds provided.
APPLICATION S FOR MOTHERS’ AID

Some evidence that requirements were not fulfilled is furnished
by data on applications. In 28 cities which reported such informa­
tion the number o f applications handled during the year was 7,931.
About one-fourth o f these (2,035) had not been acted oh by the close
o f 1930. (Table V I, p. 52.) Although completed investigations
o f these applications would result in the rejection o f some by reason
o f ineligibility, it may be estimated that more than half o f these
applicants represented eligible families in need o f aid who were
kept waiting. Combined figures for those cities which reported the
disposition of their applications in 1930 showed that 44 per cent
o f all applications were rejected.
A lack o f uniformity in interpreting the term “ application ”
was disclosed by the tabulation of the 1930 reports. It was
found that some departments kept an account o f all mothers who
sought assistance, and, although some o f these women may have
been referred to other agencies or found ineligible without investi­
gation, they were included in the total count o f applications. Other
departments followed a practice, which should be standardized, o f
not including applications of women who were found at the prelim­
inary interview to be ineligible as recipients o f aid.
Two cities showed an entire clearance o f applications at the close
o f the year 1929 and again in December, 1930. This absence of the
normal carry-over of cases leads to the inference that where funds
were already fully obligated, new applications may not have been
accepted.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

A . u
Dy
^ U'il& ^ schaniMlColbp>>nt r„
College Station

34

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

SUPERVISION
Continued oversight in order that the welfare of the children may
be protected and the aid adjusted to meet changing conditions is
regarded as necessary in the administration o f mothers’ aid. The
amount o f oversight necessary to meet each family situation varies,
and its evaluation by statistical method is not satisfactory because
the count o f cases served throws no light on the character or quality
o f the service. Under the registration plan the instructions for
mothers’ aid departments call for a count each month o f “ those
cases that, in addition to the monthly payment, receive also some
supervision or investigation from the court or department.” Thus
the count is not limited to those families which were visited. As
there is always room for difference in interpreting what should be
counted as families “ receiving case work,” close comparisons can not
be made.
O f the 29 cities which were able to supply information on super­
vision, the following 8 reported that every family receiving relief
during each month also received supervision: Buffalo, Canton, Chi­
cago, Cincinnati, Columbus, Harrisburg, Minneapolis, and Kichmond. In Sioux City and Wichita no case work was attempted.
A ll other cities reported a monthly service o f supervision, although
it was not extensive enough to provide monthly attention to every
family.
CASE LOADS
Irrespective o f the frequency of contact, the number o f families
on allowance monthly indicates the load o f these cases to be served
by professional workers. In addition, the task o f investigating ap­
plications monthly must be measured in the case loads carried by
mothers’ aid departments. Therefore, for the purpose of calcu­
lating the case load per worker, average monthly counts were used
o f families on allowance and o f families whose applications were
worked on. The latter count was used in preference to that o f all
open applications, since departments do not follow a uniform
practice in the treatment of applications. In some offices applica­
tions may be closed promptly, but in others they are filed and held
open for long periods without attention because o f limitation of
funds.
Average monthly figures have been used in Table 5 to show for
25 metropolitan areas the size o f staff in each, including both paid
case workers and supervisors, and the case load carried per worker
when families receiving aid and families being investigated are
considered. This table also shows the average monthly number
o f allowance families receiving case service per worker. Thus
comparisons may be made between the average number o f allow­
ance cases carried per professional worker (column 2) and the
number given attention per professional worker (column 4).


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

m o th ers’

35

Aro

T able 5.— M onthly averages o f number o f professional tvorkers, o f case load,

and o f num ber o f families receiving grants and case service per profes­
sional w ork er in mothers' aid departments in 25 specified m etropolitan
areas during 1980
Case load

Average
monthly
number
of
Average
Average
Average
families
number of monthly
monthly
receiving
number of number of
profes­
applica­ grants and
sional
families
case serv­
receiving
workers
tions
ice per
per month grants per
worked
profes­
profes­
on per pro­
sional
sional
fessional
worker
worker
worker

Metropolitan area

Cincinnati.................................................... :__________

Wilkes-Barre___________________________

__________

.............................. - ....................................................................... - .............

1
2
1
2
2
20
5
3
1
1
2
27
3
7
17
2
2
9
2
13
3
1
1
4
2

1 Case service given by 2 agencies, 1 of which did not report.

198
138
116
90
88
85
79
68
67
64
63
59
59
56
50
46
44
42
41
37
28
26
25
25
21

33
7
7
19
12
8
10
6
0

0

13
5
12
7
10
7
4
4
6
9
5
5
2
5
4

51
82
116
45
27
53
0
0

38
34
35
59
36
45
40
46
43
42
34
37
23
19
25
25
16

2 Not reported.

Intercity comparisons show so wide a variance in the average
number o f allowance cases given attention monthly per staff mem­
ber that differences in the intensity o f case work are indicated.
Heavy loads, such as are shown for Canton and Des Moines, must
signify a restricted service to at least some o f the families served.
Moreover, a different construction may be placed on the meaning
o f “ case work ” whereby some departments omit and others include
in their count similar cases. Professional workers in mothers’ aid
departments frequently have various responsibilities other than those
in connection with family supervision. It is often difficult to allocate
the amount o f time given to case-work service; in some cities the
small number o f cases served per professional worker may result
from an overestimate of the time devoted to this service.
It is hoped that one o f the results o f registration will be greater
uniformity in interpretation o f terms in social work. Statistical
measurements o f such complex units as “ ca,se services” are im­
perfect, but they can be made more accurate with general acceptance
o f careful definitions. In the meantime, comparisons such as the
foregoing are valuable if only to disclose differences in procedure
and the need for uniform reporting.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

VETERAN S’ AID
Veterans’ aid, as reported under the registration of social statis­
tics, covers family relief and service, exclusive o f institutional care,
given by private agencies and public departments o f State and local
governments to soldiers, sailors, war veterans, and their families.
The service reported is apart from, and merely supplemental to,
the vast and varied provisions made for the veteran by the United
States Government. The net disbursements of the United States
Veterans’ Bureau alone for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1930, were
$452,150,622. About 90 per cent was expended for direct service to
the veteran in the way of hospitalization, compensation, insurance,
and other purposes.1
Supplemental service for veterans was reported to the Chil­
dren’s Bureau by 71 agencies in the 38 cities which formed the reg­
istration area. Among the 54 private agencies reporting, there were
34 chapters o f the American Red Cross, 11 American Legion posts,
and 9 other private organizations serving the soldier. The private
agencies gave family-welfare service to both the soldier and the ex­
soldier and in addition a specialized service by means of which the
veteran was assisted in the preparation and prosecution o f claims
for Federal aid. In 14 cities of the area there were also 17 public
departments which reported their activities during 1930 in behalf
o f the veteran.
The total expenditure for relief given by both private and public
agencies was $1,036,272 for the year.2 In the majority o f the cities
the funds were supplied by private agencies. Nevertheless, owing
to relatively large public expenditures in a few cities, 77 per cent
o f the total supplementary relief reported came from taxes. .
In the following 24 communities all soldiers’ relief reported was
given by private agencies: Berkeley, Bridgeport, Denver, Detroit,
Duluth, Grand Rapids, Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Lan­
caster, Louisville, Minneapolis, Newark, New Haven, New Orleans,
the Oranges, Richmond, Sharon, Springfield (111.), St. Louis, St.
Paul, Washington, Wichita, and Wilkes-Barre. However, in Bridge­
port, New Haven, and Omaha the American Legion administered
State funds.
A ll expenditures for veterans in Sioux City and nearly all o f them
in Buffalo came from public funds. In other cities where both public
departments and private agencies were serving the veteran, public
expenditures overshadowed those o f private agencies. This was the
case in Akron, Canton, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus,
Dayton, Des Moines, Hartford, Omaha, Springfield (Mass), and
Springfield (O hio).
TREND OF RELIEF

The reporting o f veterans’ service has been sufficiently complete
throughout the three years., o f registration to give in Table 1 the
trend o f relief expenditures by months during 1928, 1929, and 1930
1 Annual Report o f the Director, United States Veterans’ Bureau, year ended June 30,
1930, pp. 32, 33. W ashington, 1930.
2 See Tables I and II, pp. 47, 48, fo r detailed expenditures by cities.

36

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

37

v e t e r a n s ’ a id

fo r 19 cities. This trend resembles the curve o f general family relief
for 1929 and 1930, depicted in the chart on page 10.
The fall and winter o f 1929 witnessed an abrupt upward turn of
expenditures for veterans’ relief as well as for relief in the general
family welfare field. In 1930 the figures in both fields show summer
relief at higher levels than in 1929 and fall and early winter dis­
bursements reaching record peaks. Expenditures for veterans were
55 per cent greater in 1930 than in 1929.
T a b l e 1.— M o n th ly expen d itu re fo r relie f b y agencies fo r v etera n s’ a i d 1 in 19
m etropolitan a r e a s 2 during 1928, 1929, and 1930
Expenditure for relief
Month
1928
January...
February..
March.......
April_____
M ay.........
June_____
July...........
August___
September.
October__
November.
December.

$44,539
45,679
47,154
37,626
33,157
30,450
28,120
28,302
28,391
30, 714
33,088
42,548

1929
$41, 266
41,981
44, 735
39,885
• 39,674
31,821
30, 746
33,281
33,192
34,029
40,149
53,108

1930
$55,984
54,699
57,462
46,987
44,051
44,029
47, 743
51,974
56,251
66,312
83,019
108,343

1 All agencies reporting comparable figures for the 3 years.
2 Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Dayton, Denver, Detroit, Grand Rapids, Harrisburg, Indianapolis,
Lancaster, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Richmond, Sharon, Sioux City, Springfield, 111., Springfield, Ohio,
St. Louis, Wichita.

EXPEN DITU RE PER CAPITA

As the major responsibility for the care of ex-service men and
their families is assumed by the United States, the amounts expended
per capita for relief by veterans’ organizations reported by 36 cities
were not large. In 23 communities where private agencies only were
doing this type o f relief work, the per capita expenditure for relief
was not over 1 cent in 11 cities, and in no city did it exceed 10 cents.
In Buffalo, Canton, Cleveland, Omaha, Sioux City, Springfield
(Mass.), and Des Moines the amount expended per capita exceeded
10 cents, ranging from 11 cents in Canton and Cleveland to 48 cents
in Buffalo. The disbursements o f public departments in these cities
accounted in large measure for the higher rates o f expenditure. In
computing the amount per capita expended in each area, material
relief is included but not expenses incurred in its distribution. The
rates, therefore, do not show the entire cost of service, but they
indicate, on the whole, moderate per capita expenditures.
The granting o f relief played a secondary part in the activities
o f veterans’ organizations. O f the average number o f cases active
monthly, both under care and incidental, in 28 cities only 32 per
cent were relief cases. Moreover, in the veterans’ field there was a
larger proportion o f incidental-service cases than in the general
family-welfare field. This is accounted for in part by the service
classed as incidental which is given to assist the veteran with his
claims. In these 28 cities, 63 per cent o f the cases served by vet­
erans’ organizations during an average month o f 1930 were under
care, and 37 per cent were given incidental service. The proportion
in each city is shown in the following table :

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

38

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

T able 2.— P ercen tage o f th e average nu m ber o f a ctive cases dealt w ith m onth ly
w h ich w e r e u n der care, and percentage w hich w er e given incidental service
b y agencies fo r v etera n s’ aid in 28 specified m etropolitan areas during 1980
Per cent of active
cases—

Per cent of active
cases—
Metropolitan area

Metropolitan area
Under care

Receiving |
incidental
service

62.5

37.5

46.7
86.5
67.9
83.7
79.2
90.6
72.3
54.1
36.7
66. 3
77.8
19. 9
85.4

53.3
13.5
32.1
16.3
20.8
9.4
27.7
45.9
63. 3
33.7
22.2
80.1
14.6

Newark.............................

The Oranges.................. .

Receiving
Under care incidental
service
22.3
32.2
. 16.3
50.1
10. 5
49.2
2.0
55.9
100.0
85.2
86.6
18.5
63.4
52.5
85.8

77.7
67.8
83.7
49.9
89.5
50.8
98.0
44.1
14.8
13.4
81.5
36.6
47.5
14.2

i Number of cases not reported by 1 agency.

The calculations indicate that agencies in some cities emphasized
family-welfare and relief programs with case work, and in others
for the most part gave advice, assistance with claims, and tem­
porary relief to the service or ex-service man and his dependents.
More than 50 per cent o f the monthly service was incidental in
Berkeley, Grand Rapids, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Newark, New
Haven, Omaha, the Oranges, Richmond, and St. Louis.
It is possible that some o f the variations in type o f service were
caused by differences in method o f reporting rather than by differ­
ences in practice. Agencies in the veterans’ field as in the general
family field were requested in 1930 to substitute for the classification
o f major and minor cases one which would separate under-care cases
from those receiving incidental service. The results o f the first
year’s use o f the amended classification may reflect differences in
interpretation o f where the line should be drawn between the two
types o f service. T o assist agencies in making a uniform demarca­
tion, an item has been added to the report blank for 1931 which
calls for a count under incidental-service cases o f only such claims
as require clerical service, and the instructions state that claims re­
quiring skilled technical service “ in which the agency develops
resources (financial, medical, etc.) through assuming full respon­
sibility for prosecution o f the claim ” shall be classed as under care.
DEPENDENCY RATES

The desirability and difficulties of securing statistics which will
provide dependency rates comparable for different communities have
been discussed in the report on general family welfare and relief.
In the veterans’ field problems similar to those in the family field
are faced, but duplication is not so disturbing an element because
often only one organization and seldom more than three in each city
devote their services solely to the veteran.
In the field of general family welfare, dependency rates were based
on the average number o f families receiving relief monthly. Rates

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

VETERANS

39

AID

computed on this base for the veterans’ field revealed that only 3 of
31 cities had more than 10 relief cases (under care and incidental)
per 10,000 population in an average month. Since service, rather
than relief, was the predominant factor in veterans’ aid, a measure
o f the number o f families in each community that are dependent
upon veterans’ organizations for care, financial and other, seemed
desirable. Therefore, the average number o f active cases per month
under the care o f veterans’ organizations was used in calculating
the rates shown in Table 3.
T able 3.— A v era g e n u m ber p er m o n th o f a ctive cases u nder care o f agencies fo r
vetera n s' aid and ra te p er 10,000 population in SO specified m etropolitan
areas during 19S0

Average number per
month of active cases
under care
Metropolitan area

Average number per
month of active cases
under care
Metropolitan area

Number

Rate per
10,000 popu­
lation

Number

Rate per
10,000 popu­
lation

Total—30 areas.

9,450

7.0

Sioux City.........................

60

7.6

Springfield, Ohio___
Bridgeport................
Denver_____________
Lancaster____ ______
Dayton____________
Wilkes-Barre_______
Duluth____ ____ ____
Buffalo....... ................
Cleveland...................
Springfield, 111.......... .
Springfield, Mass___
W ichita.................... .
Sharon_____________
Indianapolis...............

300
401
554
102
354
317
139
978
1,496
95
186
117
53
331

43.6
21.9
19.2
15.7
14.7
13.9
13.7
13.1
12.8
11.5
10.9
10.5
9.9
7.8

St. Paul......... ...................
Detroit.............. ................
Kansas City, M o ...........
Omaha •................. ...........
Berkeley........................
New Orleans....................
N ew ark........... ................
New H aven......................
Harrisburg_______ _____ _
The Oranges......................
Grand Rapids____ ______
St. Louis_____ __________
Minneapolis........ __..........
Richmond..........................

164
883
204
84
30
131
91
34
33
24
28
104
12
4

5.7
5.2
5.1
3.9
3.3
2.7
2.1
2.1
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.0

1 Excluding report of 1 agency.

(2)
(2)

2 Less than 1 per 10,000 population.

Incidental-service cases were not included because the extent to
which these cases represented dependency was not known in 1930.
The report on the registration of social statistics for 1929 (p. 65)
states: “ There is a broad class of service performed by the veterans’
agencies that is somewhat vaguely classified as ‘ Government paper
work.’ This work is often done for men who do not need and
might even resent any additional service from the agency.” In 1930
agencies usually reported this work as incidental service.
The American Red Cross, American Legion, Disabled American
Veterans o f the W orld War, and Veterans o f Foreign Wars are
recognized by the United States Veterans’ Bureau as agents to
present claims. Their services are free and may be sought by vet­
erans who are not in need but who prefer to deal with these accredited
agencies rather than with a pension attorney.
In the 30 communities specified in Table 3 there was a monthly
average o f 9,450 active cases under care in 1930. As would be ex­
pected, because the service is to a special class in the population and
because it is supplemental to Federal aid, the average number o f
beneficiaries per 10,000 population in each city was small. However,
in most o f the cities where the number was less than 5 per 10,000
population in an average month, the under-care service was secondary
to incidental service which was not included in the calculations.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

40

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

The rate in Springfield (Ohio) is high in comparison with other
cities. It is possible that the number o f active cases under care
monthly and the corresponding rate are overstated for Springfield
if it counted as under care, cases which other cities would count as
incidental service.
RELIEF PER CASE

Data relating to monthly relief per case are shown in Table 4.
Thirty-one cities are represented, but statistics on relief cases under
care refer to 30 cities (exclusive of Louisville where no cases were
under care), and statistics on incidental cases refer to 26 cities.
The average monthly relief per case under care given by all vet­
erans’ organizations was about $19 as compared with $24 in the field
o f general family welfare. However, the average monthly relief
expenditure per incidental case was higher in the veterans’ field
than in the general family field, $5.50 as compared with $4.47. In
16 o f the 30 cities in which relief was giveh to the beneficiaries
under care, monthly payments averaged $15 or less per case. The
average monthly grant was higher in 14 cities, ranging from about
$16 in Newark to $36 in Kichmond. Average monthly relief pay­
ments in connection with incidental service did not reach $10 in any
city.
T able 4.— T y p e o f agency, average n u m ber p er m onth o f ca se» receiving relief,
and a vera ge m o n th ly am ou n t o f relie f p er case g iven to cases under care and
to cases receivin g incidental service b y all agencies reporting vetera n s' aid in
81 specified m etropolitan areas during 1930
Cases under care

Metropolitan area

Type of agency

Average
number
receiving
relief per
month
3,716

....... do..................................
____do..................................
Public and private.. ____
....... d o ................... ............

____ d o ...................... ..........

St. Paul

Public and private_______

Public and private..........

1 Excluding report of 1 agency.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2
12
42
9
956
12
34
12
23
169
538
21
22
30
10
21
60
82
18
25
1,053
6
12
17
169
1
7
276
53
26

Average
monthly
amount
of relief
per case

Cases receiving inci­
dental sevice
Average
number
receiving
relief per
month

$18.79
35.91
34.69
32.45
31.34
31.21
30.63
28.46
27.83
27.46
26.86
19.22
18.62
17.11
16.56
15.46
15.41
14. 87
13.92
13.90
13.45
12.10
10.69
10.46
7.19
6.93
6. 92
5.95
5.92
5.55
4.86
* Less than 1.

0
0

Average
monthly
amount
of relief
per case

983

$5.50

7
8
1
3
4
5
3

6.97
8.51
3.25
7.83
6.50
3.14
4.45

6
2
1
15

1.93
5.56
1.91
1.19

99
’ 18
20

.92
3.66
5.15

87
21
440
52
3
11
4
26

.53
3.99
9.65
.29
1.08
.84
2.25
.71

42
106

3.50
1.00
3.05
3.26

VETERAN S

41

A ID

Public departments for veterans’ aid in seven cities allowed aver*
age monthly payments to cases under care as follow s:
Springfield, Mass__________________________________________$31.60
Buffalo_______________ _______________________ :____________ 31.51
Cleveland_________________________________________________ 18.77
Sioux City________________________________________________ 14.87
Chicago------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10.13
Dayton-------------------------------------------------------------------------------5.51
Springfield, Ohio______________________________________ ___
4. 82

In Omaha the public department classified all relief as incidental
service, and information was not available for other public depart­
ments in the registration area. There is no evidence from the avail­
able statistics that veterans’ relief coming from public funds (other
than Federal) was expended more liberally per case under care than
relief given by private agencies.
The relatively large monthly payments per case made by public
departments in Springfield (Mass.) and Buffalo were no higher
than corresponding grants by private agencies in several cities,
and the average monthly relief per case under care of the public
departments in Dayton and Springfield (Ohio) was less than the
average grant given by most private agencies.
Relief per case represents what is paid monthly to the soldier and
his family without deduction o f refunds. Private agencies in par­
ticular receive refunds for a considerable amount o f their disburse­
ments in behalf o f the veteran. In 1930 the repayments received by
private agencies from these clients amounted to 15 per cent o f their
total relief disbursements for the year. In specific cities refunds
were a considerable proportion of disbursements, as may be seen
from Table 5 which gives information for 30 cities where private
agencies reported the amounts repaid by clients.
T a b l e 5.— R a tio o f refu n d s to exp en d itu re fo r r elie f bp p riva te agencies fo r
v etera n s' aid in SO specified m etropolitan areas during 1930

Metropolitan area

Ratio of re­
funds to ex­
penditure
for relief
(per cent)

30 areas........................ ..........................

15.4

Richmond____ ________ ___________
Buffalo..................................................
Akron______ ______ _____ _______
Detroit___________ ______ _______
St. Louis..... .....................................
Chicago.......... ........... ...........................
Indianapolis..................................
Canton......................................... ..........
Wichita.......... ...............................
The Oranges__________________ . . .
Cleveland______ ______ ____________
Newark..________________________
Columbus_____ _____ ________ ______
Wilkes-Barre.........................................

53.5
51.1
35.3
30.7
27.8
24.3
22.8
19.2
17.4
15.4
15.1
14.6
14.2
9.9

Metropolitan area

St. Paul.................... .........................

Ratio of re­
funds to ex­
penditure
for relief
(per cent)
Q ft
¿6
ft 7
fi 7
K ft
4
4
2
3

O
ft
ft
ft
2. 7
i.i

1 Reported that no refunds were received.

CASE LOADS

Average monthly counts of the professional workers, cases under
care, active cases under -care, and incidental-service cases reported

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

42

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

by private and by public veterans’ organizations are given in Table
6. Basic data for the calculation o f case loads per worker are
available from this table.
T a b l e 6.— M o n th ly avera ges o f nu m ber o f p rofession a l w orkers, o f oa ses under
care o f p riva te and public agencies fo r v etera n s’ aid, o f a ctive ca ses under
care, and o f ca ses receivin g incidental service in S3 specified m etropolitan
areas in 1980

Metropolitan area

Average
Average
Average
number
Average
number
number
number
per
month
per month per month per month
of inci­
of profes­ of cases un­ of active
dental
cases un­
sional
service
der care
workers
der care
cases

PRIVATE AGENCIES REPORTING
Akron.......... ................................ .......................- .............
Berkeley.............................................................................
Bridgeport........................... . ........... ........... .....................
Buffalo........ .......................................................................
Canton............................. ............................. ....................
Chicago--------------------- --------- ----------------------------------Cleveland------ --------------------------------------------------------Dayton-------------------- ---------------------------------------------Denver_____ ________________________________ ______
Detroit............- ..................................................................
Duluth..............................................................................
Grand Rapids.....................................................................
Harrisburg................. ............ ..........................................
Indianapolis..........- ..................... - -------- ---------------------Kansas City, M o...............................................................
Lancaster________________ _______________ _____ ____
M inneapolis.....................................................................
Newark...............................................................................
New Haven..................... ...............................................
New Orleans....................................... ...........................
Omaha---- ---------------------------- --------------------------------The Oranges........................ ..............................................
Richmond...........................................................................
Sharon............ .......................- — ................ ..................
Springfield, 111....................................................................
Springfield, Mass--------- ------- ------- ------- -----------------Springfield, Ohio................................................................
St. Louis..... ..... ........................................... - ...................
St. Paul............................................... ...............................
Wichita_______------------- -------------------------- --------------Wilkes-Barre..... ................................................................

2
1
6
' 3
1
15
11
7
1
3
11
0

0
0
$

0
0

2
5
3
4
1
4
5
2
1
2
2
1
4
2

1

2

465
61
531
24
15
1,038
1,081
412
469
708
2,238
300
35
260
429
223
106
15
180
34
187
268
26
5
69
120
75
363
130
181
181
1,181

415
30
401
20
14
782
968
237
89
554
883
139
28
33
331
204
102
12
91
34
131
84
24
4
53
95
72
254
104
164
117
317

984
1,363
529
268

958
1,359
529
265

108
127

60
114

302
35
* 62
335
151
416
393
0
0

0

37
212
118
49
17
95
824
17
43
192
175
130
422
25
198
42
16
47
456
94
106
53

PU BL IC A G E N C IE S REPO RTIN G

Buffalo........ ............................- --------------------------- ------

Springfield, Mass------ ----------------------------------------------

9

4
4
0
0

2

127

294
35

1 Exclusive of advice and referral cases which were not reported by 1 agency.
1 Not reported.
81 worker, part time.

When the under-care group—cases for which the agencies as­
sumed responsibility for some study or treatment— is considered,
significant case loads per professional worker may be computed
for those cities in which this type o f care prevailed. The number
o f incidental-service cases per professional worker has not been
computed because in 1930 some agencies in the veterans’ field as­
signed a part or all o f the work on these cases to assistants who


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

V E T E R A N ’S

1

A ID

43

were not reported as professional case workers. In other agencies
the total load o f incidental-service cases was borne by the profes­
sional workers. Therefore the figures on the loads o f incidentalservice cases carried per professional worker did not afford a satis­
factory basis for comparison of cities. The case load has been de­
termined by dividing the average number o f active cases under
care monthly by the average number o f professional workers super­
vising the cases. Separate computations were made for the public
and the private agencies in each city.
Public departments in Dayton ¿tnd Springfield (Ohio) adminis­
tered relief without case-work service, and in Omaha the public
office had no cases under care5 its attention being devoted solely to
incidental-service cases. As veterans’ agencies in six other cities
did not report on personnel, the number o f active under-care cases
per professional worker in public offices can be computed for o n l y
five cities. O f these, Sioux City and Chicago had extremely high
case loads, 314 each. In Cleveland the case load o f the public
department for veterans was 132, and in Buffalo returns from three
public offices combined gave a case load o f 105. Springfield (Mass.)
had the most moderate case load (57) of any public department
reporting.
Case work for veterans’ families in the under-care group served
by private agencies is analogous to that given by organizations in
the general family welfare field where a case load o f 30 to 40 active
major-care cases a month was a standard used for comparison.3 The
following list shows the 22 cities in which private agencies were
carrying a monthly average o f more than 30 active under-care cases
per professional worker, arrayed according to case load.
Springfield, Ohio.
Duluth__________
A kron___________
Denver_________
W ilkes-Barre___
W ich ita_________
Indianapolis____
Sharon __________
Lancaster_______
Springfield, 111__
Dayton__________
Cleveland________
Detroit__________
Bridgeport_______
St. Paul_________
Minneapolis______
Chicago_________
Kansas City, Mo_
Omaha 4 _________
Springfield, MassColumbus________
Berkeley_________

254
208
208
185
158
117
110
106
102
90
89
89
80
68

68
50
53
51
42
34
34
30

In nine additional cities private agencies had loads o f less than
30 active under-care cases per professional worker. However, in
* Odencrantz, Louise C . : The Social Worker, p. 38.
4 Cases of 1 agency not reported.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

New York. 1929.

44

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 30

most o f these cities work on incidental service to the veterans was
emphasized by private agencies, and the number o f active under-care
cases was relatively small. This was true in Buffalo, Canton, Grand
Rapids, Newark, Richmond, and St. Louis.
On the whole both public and private organizations serving the
veteran and his family faced a heavy amount o f work in 1930 in
proportion to the number o f trained social workers on their staffs.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Appendix A.— POPULATION AN D DISTRICTS INCLUDED
IN EACH OF THE 38 SPECIFIED METROPOLITAN A RE AS
REPORTING DURING 1930

Name of area

Population
of area
Apr. 1,1930

Akron, Ohio__________

281,274

Berkeley, C a l i f . . _____
Bridgeport, Conn_____

90, 678
183, 146

Buffalo, N. Y _________

746, 546

Canton, O h i o . . ______

1 114, 054

Chicago, 111____
Cincinnati, Ohio
Cleveland, Ohio.

3, 376, 438
589, 356
1, 164, 784

Columbus, Ohio.
Dayton, Ohio__

361, 055
240, 940

Denver, C olo_____
Des Moines, Iowa.
Detroit, M ich____

287, 861
142, 559
1, 698, 390

Duluth, Minn________
Grand Rapids, M ich ...

101, 463
208, 534

Harrisburg, Pa________

200, 584

Hartford, Conn_______

229, 759

Districts included in area

Cities of Akron, Cuyahoga Falls, and
township of Tallmadge.
Cities of Berkeley and Albany.
Cities of Bridgeport, Fairfield, and Strat­
ford.
Erie County (excepting towns of Brant,
Collins, Concord, North Collins, Sar­
dinia, and 2 Indian reservations).
City of Canton and environs and village of
North Canton.
City of Chicago.
Hamilton County.
Cities of Cleveland, Cleveland Heights,
East
Cleveland,
Euclid,
Garfield
Heights, Lakewood, Maple Heights,
Parma, Rocky River, Shaker Heights,
and villages of Bay, Beachwood, Bratenahl, Brooklyn, Brooklyn Heights,
Cuyahoga Heights, Fairview, Linndale,
Lyndhurst, Mayfield Heights, Miles,
Newburgh Heights, North Randall, Parkview,
Parma
Heights,
Richmond
Heights, South Euclid, University
Heights, Warrensville Heights, and
township of Warrensville.
Franklin County.
City of Dayton, and townships of Harri­
son, Jefferson, Mad River, Madison,
and Van Burén.
Denver County.
City of Des Moines.
Cities of Detroit, Hamtramck, Highland
Park, and villages of Grosse Point,
Grosse Point Farms, Grosse Point
Park, Grosse Point Shore.
City of Duluth.
City of Grand Rapids and townships of
Alpine, Grand Rapids, Paris, Plainfield
(exclusive of Rockford), Walker, and
Wyoming.
Dauphin County, Perry County, and part
of Cumberland County, as follows:
Township of East Pennsboro, and
boroughs of New Cumberland, Lemoyne,
and Sbiremanstown.
City of Hartford and towns of Bloomfield,
East Hartford, Newington, West Hart­
ford, Wethersfield, and Windsor.

1 Population estimated for environs of city of Canton.

45

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

46

Name of area

Population
of area
Apr. 1,1930

Indianapolis, Ind___
Kansas City, M o____
Lancaster, P a . _ ______
Louisville, K y _________
Minneapolis, Minn____
Newark, N. J ___ _____
New Haven, Conn____
New Orleans, L a _____

422,
399,
64,
307,
467,
442,
162,
492,

Omaha, Nebr_______ __
The Oranges, N. J ______

214, 006
162, 697

Richmond, V a________

239, 288

Sharon, Pa______ _____

2 53, 660

Sioux City, Iow a_____
Springfield, 111____ __

666

746
827
745
494
337
655
757

79, 183
82, 367

Springfield, Mass______

171,021

Springfield, Ohio______
St. Louis, M o_________
St. Paul, Minn________
Washington, D . C _____
Wichita, Kans________
Wilkes-Barre, Pa______

68 , 743
1, 033, 553
286, 721
486, 869
111, 110
227, 442

•Population estimated for Masury, Ohio.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Districts included n area

Marion County.
Kansas City.
Lancaster city and township.
City of Louisville.
City of Minneapolis and village of Edina.
City of Newark.
City of New Haven.
Orleans Parish; St. Bernard Parish, Ward
No. 1; Jefferson Parish, Wards 1, 2, 3, 4,
7, and 8.
City of Omaha.
Cities of Orange, East Orange, town of
West Orange, village of South Orange,
and township of Maplewood.
City of Richmond and remainder of Hen­
rico County and Chesterfield County. .
City of Sharon, boroughs of Farrell,
Sharpsville, West Middlesex, and Wheatland, and Masury, Ohio.
Sioux City.
City of Springfield, townships of Springfield and Woodside.
City of Springfield and towns of Longmeadow and West Springfield.
City of Springfield.
City of St. Louis and St. Louis County.
Ramsey County.
District of Columbia.
City of Wichita.
City of Wilkes-Barre, townships of Dallas,
Hanover, Kingston, Plains, and WilkesBarre, and boroughs of Ashley, Courtdale, Dallas, Edwardsville, Forty Fort,
Kingston, Larksville, Luzerne, Plym­
outh, Pringle, Sugar Notch, Swayerville, and Warrior Run.

Appendix B.— GENERAL TABLES
T able I.

N u m b er o f agencies fro m w hich rep orts w e r e requested, num ber from
w h ich rep orts w er e received and tabulated, and am ount o f exp en d itu re f o r
each ty p e o f r e lie f in the fa m ily-w elfa re field in 88 specified m etropolitan
areas during 1980

Number of agencies
from which—
Metropolitan area

A k ron .................
Berkeley...........
Bridgeport____ _______
Buffalo.................
Canton____.___
Chicago______
Cincinnati..........
Cleveland.............
Columbus___
Dayton.................
Denver............ .
Des Moines........
Detroit..........
D uluth......... .
Grand Rapids___
Harrisburg...........
Hartford.............
Indianapolis.........
Kansas City, M o ..
Lancaster.............
Louisville..........
Minneapolis___
Newark.........
New Haven___
New Orleans__
Omaha.......
The Oranges__
Richmond_____
Sharon............
Sioux City........
Springfield, 111_____
Springfield, Mass___
Springfield, Ohio.......
St. Louis...........
St. Paul............
Washington___
Wichita..............
Wilkes-Barre____
1 Including aid for the blind.

Reports
Reports
were
were
received
requested
and
tabulated

12
15
9
16
10
10
8
13
13
6

9
8
6

12

12

g

8

h

10

8
9
g
11
11
13

2 Not reported.

11

6

9

Expenditure for relief

Total

$333,812
156,392
336,897
2, 111, 865
220,231
3,638, 798
676, 735
1,842,435
438,240
324, 534
213,243
10,146,481
(2)
220,406
91,489
535,327
266,039
47,505
229,803
504,825
250,102
63,671
217,851
(*)
130,515
(2)
88,003
102, 759
555, 780
«
561,970
440,727
342,351
102,674
344,493

General
family
relief 1

$265,552
106,241
274,079
1,433,296
162,743
2,480,644
405,905
1,220,606
223,209
353,863
210,414
130,720
8,929,194
s 37,612
116,217
53,143
461,291
635,435
238,831
32,657
165,529
302, 232
561,259
153,377
58, 865
84,136
179,302
119, 250
8 21,237
45,656
81,347
466,350
343,546
521,289
263,968
209,916
88,249
272, 661

Mothers’ Veterans’
aid
relief

$60,000
45,539
46,293
320,044
44,400
1,005,068
240,119
497,662
140, 022
64,761
99,835
60,883
1, 203,073
100, 228
96,611
37,481
54,596
15,000
24,124
14,758
60,137
198,934
(2)
84,947
73,977
(3)
9,855
11,770
31,709
20,924
35,018
17,189
36,758
171,733
119,115
11,895
65,890

3 Less than 80 per cent of total expenditures reported.

47


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

$8,260
4,612
16,525
358,525
13,088
153,086
30,711
124,167
22,396
19,616
14,285
21,640
14,214
1.575
7,578
865
19,440
1,669
3,084
90
4,137
3,659
7,106
11.778
4,806
59, 738
3,840
1,410
4,482
10,738
488
54,412
3,511
3,923
5,026
13,320
2,530
5,942

T a b l e I I .— Amount of expenditure for r e lie f by public and by private agencies in the family-welfare field in 31 specified metropolitan areas

^

during 1930
Expenditure for relief in family-welfare field
B y private agencies1

By public agencies

Metropolitan area
Total
Total

General fam­
ily relief

Mothers’
aid

Aid for the
blind

General fam- Veterans’
relief
ily relief

Veterans’
relief

$25,886,840

$19,717,345

$13,031,413

$4,806,156

$1,089,648

$790,128

$6,169,495

$5,963,127

$206,368

Akron, Ohio..... ........
Berkeley, Calif.2____
Bridgeport, Conn—
Buffalo, N. Y ______
Canton, Ohio 8_____
Chicago, 111...............
Cincinnati, Ohio____
Cleveland, Ohio____
Columbus, Ohio8___
Dayton, Ohio______
Denver, Colo______
Des Moines, Iow a...
Detroit, M ich______
Grand Rapids, Mich
Harrisburg, Pa.........
Hartford, Conn........
Indianapolis, Ind___
Kansas City, M o___
Lancaster, Pa...........
Louisville, K y_____
Minneapolis, M in n New Haven, Conn.8.
New Orleans, La___
Omaha, Nehr______
Richmond, Va_____
Sioux City, Iowa___
Springfield, 111.4____
Springfield, Mass.8. .
St. Louis. M o______
St. Paul, Minn.........
Wichita,’ Kans.8........

333,812
156,392
336,897
2, 111, 865
220,231
3,638,798
676, 735
1,842,435
385,627
438, 240
324,534
213,243
10,146,481
220,406
91,489
535,327
652,104
266,039
47,505
229,803
504,825
250,102
63,671
217,851
130, 515
88,003
102,759
555, 780
561,970
440,727
102,674

180,000
147,662
257,461
1,845, 784
87,061
2,180,244
368,765
670,611
335,025
118,588
224,498
142,231
9,928,971
192,398
56,904
361,944
502,131
94,699
14,758
98,330
341,278
159,660

101,000

13,500
16,793

5,500

14,080
31,172
394,840
57,257
65,890
68,456
. 30,040
38,135
25,605

356,109
11,489
115,519
30,148
107,059
19,230
17,043

19,035
130,302
74,713

60,000
45, 539
46,293
320,044
44,400
1,005,068
240,119
497,662
140,022
64, 761
99,835
60,883
1,203,073
96,611
37,481
54,596
15,000
24,124
14, 758
60,137
198,934
84,947

25,431
26,456
7,707
15,341
396,199
4,783
150,797
67,757

73,977
9,855
31,709
20,924
35,018
36,758
171,733
8 11,895

153,812
8,730
79,436
266,081
133,170
1,458,554
307,970
1,171,824
50,602
319,652
100,036
71,012
217,510
28,008
34,585
173,383
149,973
171,340
32, 747
131,473
163, 547
90,442
63,671
76,317
94,204
28,032
17,854
81,276
363,929
107,303
23,022

151,052
4,118
62, 911
263,665
131, 571
1, 420,987
307, 407
1,154, 716
47,436
*317,079
85,751
68,631
203,296
20,430
33,720
172,818
148,304
168,256
32,657
127,336
159,888
78,664
58,865
52,451
92,794
28,032
17,366
70,151
360,006
102,277
20,492

2,760
4,612
16,525
2,416
1,599
37,567
563
17,108
3,166
2,573
14,285
2,381
14,214
7,578
865
565
1,669
3,084
90
4,137
3,659
11,778
4,806
23,866
1,410

141,534
36,311
59,971
84,905
474,504
198,041
333,424
79,652

1 Including public funds expended b y private agencies except in Berkeley, Calif.
8All public funds were expended by a private agency but are entered according to source.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

85,330
211,168
1,155,551
664,817
41,241
107,317
6,744
86,528
36,484
8,725,898
95,787
19,423
288,473
487,131

19, 259

18,875
70,575
19,158
12,042
6,254
9,817
48,640
156,500
10,894
(«)

35,872
10, 738
43,287

488
11,125
3,923
5,026
2,530

8Expenditure not reported by 1 agency.
5Aid for the blind included with mothers aid.
4 Expenditure not reported by 2 agencies.

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

Total—31 areas

APPENDIX B.---- GENERAL TABLES

49

T a b l e III .— M o n th ly exp en d itu re fo r gen era l fa m ily r elief in 32 m etropolitan
areas 1 w h ich rep orted through th e reg istra tion service, in the sa m e areas
exclu sive o f D etr o it, and in 34 oth er large c i t i e s 2 during 1929 and 1930
Expenditure for relief—

Month

Reported through
Reported through the registration the Russell Sage
Foundation, com­
service
munity chests,
and relief agencies
32 metropolitan 31 metropolitan
areas (exclusive of
areas
Detroit)

January...
February..
March___
April.........
M ay------T
June..........
July—
.
August___
September.
October__
November.
December.

34 large cities *

1929

1930
January............................. .
February....... .....................
March............................... .
April....................................
M ay..................... ...............
June......................... ............
July.................................
August.................................
Septem ber.......... ........ .....
October___________ ______
November__________ _____
December________________

$836,140
818,018
797.290
682,422
629,950
574.290
574,833
569,519
575,823
677,592
852,893
1,189,642

$692,924
691,430
676,459
578,121
531,896
482,886
471.504
460.504
467,648
515,619
601,631
733,233

$906,530
936,741
953,123
888,294
840,080
774,097
849,730
768,190
735,539
799,368
865,578
1,182,348

1,535,777
1,559,804
1,704,080
1,590,108
1,241,385
1,048,545
1,071,361
1,162,476
1,350,873
1,825,764
2,209,243
3,378,703

901,276
913,744
903,115
796,720
727,524
699,272
686,442
707,649
782,430
909,224
1,093,349
1,628,180

1,119,518
1,210,728
1,371,946
1,329,791
1,210,288
1,230,532
1,290,406
1,195,727
1,308,498
1,412,873
1,615,619
2,834,145

1 All the areas which reported comparable monthly figures for the 2 years: Akron, Berkeley, Bridge­
port, Buffalo, Canton, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Denver, Des Moines, Detroit,
Grand Rapids, Hartford, Kansas City (M o.), Lancaster, Louisville, Minneapolis, Newark, New Haven,
New Orleans, Omaha, Richmond, Sioux City, Springfield (111.), Springfield (Mass.), St. Louis, St. Paul,
Washington, Wichita, Wilkes-Barre.
2 All cities of 100,000 or more population which reported comparable monthly figures for the 2 years:
Baltimore, Birmingham, Boston, El Paso, Erie, Fall River, Fort Wayne, Jacksonville, Knoxville, Long
Beach, Los Angeles. Lowell, Lynn, Memphis, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Bedford, New York, Norfolk,
Oakland, Portland (Oreg.), Providence, Reading, Rochester, San Diego, San Francisco, Scranton, Somer­
ville, South Bend, Toledo, Tacoma, Worcester, Yonkers, Youngstown.
8 Mothers’ aid included in 4 cities.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

50

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 30

IV .— M o n th ly a vera ge n u m ber o f cases under care o f agencies fo r
gen era l fa m ily w elfa re and relief, o f a ctive ca ses under care, o f ca ses under
care receivin g relief, and o f oa ses receivin g incidental service in 80 specified
m etropolitan areas during 1980

T able

Metropolitan area

Reports received from all important agencies:

Reports from one or more important agencies not
received:

N ot reported.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Average
number per
month of
cases under
care

Average
number per
month of
active cases
under care

Average
Average
number per number per
month of
month of
cases under cases receiv­
care receiv­ ing incidental
service
ing relief

3,466
571
5,238
1,252
7,031
3,887
1,475
26,702
1,328
2,525
2,249
647
2,969
4,133
847
1,579
935
1,263
540
1,350
4,674
2,894
1,063

2,350
447
4,761
948
5,998
2,252
1,308
21,976
1,0412,087
1,728
497
2,699
3,447
635
1,176
836
963
354
1,199
3,548
2,300
917

1,670
344
4,235
710
3,819
1,838
969
19,837
720
1,397
1,316
296
2,174
2,831
356
818
624
523
273
1,017
2,329
1,710
697

13,036
2,256
717
2,558
1,373
1,061
2,235

12,178
1,794
464
2,067
1,108
793
1,388

9,366
1,438
199
1,183
766
366
790

275
62
897
0
0

0
0
0

1,989
319
5,817
538
238
1,676
43
1,020
234
457
486
327
1,676
443
158

3,194
0)
0

67
293
88
380

51

APPENDIX B.---- GENERAL TABLES

T able V . — S u m m a ry o f ca ses u n der care o f m o th ers' aid d ep a rtm en ts in 29
specified m etropolita n areas during 1980, and in crease or decrease in num ber
o f oases D ec e m b er 8 1 ,1 9 2 9 , to D ec e m b er 81, 1980
Cases under care of mothers' aid departments

Metropolitan area
Total

St. Paul....... .............................


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Carried
forward
Dec. 31,
1929

Intake
during
1930

Closed
during
1930

Carried
forward
Dec. 31,
1930

Increase
(+ ) or de­
crease (—)
Dec. 31,
1929, to
Dec. 31,
1930

10,618

7,956

2,662

1,727

8,891

+935

108
560
138
2,074
486
1,059
192
237
361
2,212
256
281
93
106
91
35
118
506
172
314
29
27
180
81
47
75
153
470
157

80
446
106
1,610
'413
802
169
186
254
1,503
189
171
86
76
84
31
85
375
136
180
22
25
154
57
37
71
109
383
116

28
114
32
464
73
257
23
51
107
709
67
110
7
30
7
4
33
131
36
134
7
2
26
24
10
4
44
87
41

20
76
20
251
48
189
42
40
81
365
58
48
4
11
8
1
15
133
25
59
2
1
46
14
5
20
47
85
13

88
484
118
1,823
438
870
150
197
280
1,847
198
233
89
95
83
34
103
373
147
255
27
26
134
67
42
55
106
385
144

+8
+38
+12
+213
+25
+68
-1 9
+11
+26
+344
+9
+62
+3
+19
-1
+3
+18
-2
+11
+75
+5
+1
-2 0
+10
+5
-1 6
-3
+2
+28

52

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T ables V I . — S u m m a ry o f applications fo r m o th ers’ aid in 28 specified m e tro ­

politan areas during 1980

Applications for mothers’ aid
Metropolitan area
Total

Carried
forward
Dec. 31,
1929

Intake dur­ Closed dur­
ing 1930
ing 1930

Carried
forward
Dec. 31,
1930

Total—28 areas......... ..........................

7,931

2,032

5,899

5,896

2,035

Berkeley_______________________________
Buffalo-------------- ----------------------------------Canton—......... .......................... ....................
Chicago--------- --------------------------------------Cincinnati....................... ........... ................ Cleveland______________________________
Dayton................................. ...... ........... ......
Denver__________ ___________ _________Des Moines---------------- ---------------- --------Detroit------- ----------------------------------------Duluth____________________ ____ _______
Grand Rapids____ ..'____________________
Harrisburg-------------------------------------------Hartford.................... — --------- ---------------Kansas City, M o------ --------------------- -----Lancaster---------------------------------------------Louisville___________________ ______ ___
Minneapolis___ ____ ____________________
Omaha__________ ______________________

40
380
77
1,428
536
1,171
155
171
126
1,104
225
171
111
84
77
46
89
286
268
27
33
49
102
12
49
237
640
237

' 7
97
11
518
354
215
85
70
7
160
4
11
58
5
31
22
35
46
6

33
283
66
910
182
956
70
101
119
944
221
160
53
79
46
24
54
240
262
27
18
49
73
12
18
147
620
132

34
239
49
909
280
999
61
156
107
931
221
146
28
82
14
16
73
254
235
27
6
49
45
10
16
162
633
114

6
141
28
519
256
172
94
15
19
173
4
25
83
2
63
30
16
32
33

Sharon__________________ ______________
Springfield, 111____________ _____ ________
Springfield, Ohio_______________________
St. Louis_______________________________
St. Paul-------------- ------ --------- ---------------Wilkes-Barre___________________________


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

15
29
31
90
20
105

27
57
2
33
75
7
123

Appendix C.— COST OF FAM ILY RELIEF IN 100 CITIES,
1929 AND 19301
B y G l e n n S teele , U n ited S t a te s C h il d b en ’ s B u reau

The cost o f caring for families in need during 1930 in 100 American
cities may be estimated at more than $40,000,000. An actual ex­
penditure o f $39,397,480 in these metropolitan areas is shown from
reports o f public and private relief agencies assembled by the
Children’s Bureau, United States Department o f Labor, for the
President’s Emergency Committee for Employment. This amount
represents the cost o f the major portion o f the relief given in all
cities, but falls short o f the entire cost owing to the omission of
grants by agencies from which reports were not available.
The reported expenditure for 1930 is an increase o f 89 per cent
over the reported disbursements for the needy in the same area in
1929, when $20,891,726 was given in relief.
The amounts shown were paid out in direct aid to families. Sums
expended by missions, municipal lodging houses, or other agencies
providing individuals with temporary shelter or food and expendi­
tures by agencies giving relief to veterans only were not included.
Mothers’ pensions or mothers’ allowances were also excluded 2 from
the compilation requested by the Committee for Employment, as
these grants, usually given to support the children o f widows, are not
appreciably affected by seasonal or economic changes.
While the contributions from the public treasury are somewhat
understated, owing to the omission of mothers’ aid and to the fact
that some private agencies derive funds from public sources, never­
theless it was found that the major portion o f the expense of caring
for families in want was paid out o f public funds. A comparison of
relief given by public and private agencies, based on returns from 75
o f the 100 cities, shows that 72 per cent of the amount given in 1930
came from the public treasury as compared to 60 per cent in 1929.
This indicates that the public bore an even larger share o f the burden
in 1930, when costs were greater, than in the previous year.
A comparison o f the percentages o f increase in public and private
expenditures for relief is more striking. Although the exigencies of
1930 taxed the resources o f private agencies to the utmost and in
their rally to meet the need 48 per cent more money was raised and
disbursed in 1930 than in 1929, the public departments extended their
1930 relief grants to a sum 146 per cent greater than that given in the
preceding year.
1 Reprinted from the M onthly Labor Review (A pril, 1931) o f the Bureau o f Labor
S tatistics, U. S. Departm ent o f Labor.
2 E xcept fo r five cities not segregating m others’ aid from amounts reported.

53


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

54

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 30

The proportion of relief given by the public and the increase in
public expenditures in 1930 over 1929 do not loom so large when
Detroit, one o f the 75 cities in the group discussed, is omitted from
the calculations. In the Detroit area, where funds for relief are
nearly all derived from taxation, the public expenditure for relief in
1930, $8,680,017, more than equaled the combined contributions,
$8,599,459, from the public treasuries o f the 74 remaining cities.
However, i f Detroit is omitted from the group, it is still found that
the taxpayer footed the larger part o f the 1930 relief bill (56 per
cent). The increase in public expenditures during 1930 over those
o f the preceding year is sharply reduced (from 146 to 64 per cent)
when Detroit is not considered. While in a country-wide survey of
relief conditions, Detroit can not be erased from the picture o f which
it forms so important a part, group findings are greatly influenced
by the extended scale of its relief operations.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The foregoing conclusions on the amount o f the relief bill in rep­
resentative urban centers and the proportion met by tax and by pri­
vate subscription are afforded by a compilation o f relief statistics se­
cured from various sources. In the fall of 1930 the President’s
Emergency Committee for Employment requested the Children’s
Bureau to assemble information concerning the amount expended
for family relief, the number o f families aided, and the number o f
homeless or transient persons cared for, by months, during 1929
and 1930, in cities of 50,000 or more population.
As a nucleus o f the desired information, the bureau had reports
on relief beginning with July, 1930, from cities participating in its
registration o f social statistics, a service carried on in cooperation
with community chests. Previous reports from these cities were
available from the joint committee o f the National Association of
Community Chests and Councils, and the local Community Research
Committee o f the University o f Chicago, which transferred the
registration project to the Children’s Bureau July 1, 1930.
This material was supplemented by information from all other
available sources. Statistics for larger cities not included in the
bureau’s registration area were secured through the courtesy of the
Russell Sage Foundation. Reports on relief were also sought by
direct communication to community chests or to family welfare
agencies in all cities o f the 50,000 to 100,000 population class not
previously reporting to the Children’s Bureau. Beginning with a
summary for September, 1930, statistics secured from these various
sources have been compiled monthly by the Children’s Bureau for
the employment committee.
W ith the completion of the December, 1930, tabulation, a picture
was afforded o f the trend taken by relief operations over a 2-year
period. For this period data on the cost o f family relief, to which
this analysis is limited, were assembled from 60 cities o f 100,000 or
more inhabitants and 40 cities in the 50,000 to 100,000 population
class. O f wide geographic distribution, and diverse in economic and
industrial characteristics, the cities form a representative American


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

55

APPENDIX C.---- COST OF FAMILY BELIEF IN 100 CITIES

group. For each city, the figures cover the field of operation of
reporting agencies, usually more extensive than that bounded by city
limits and often including the county unit.
The aggregate expenditures in 1929 and 1980 for the group, and
for each class o f cities, with percentages to indicate the increases
for 1930, are shown in the following table:
T able 1.— E x p en d itu res fo r fa m ily r e lie f during 1929 and 1980 in 100 cities o f
50,000 o r m o re population
Belief expenditures
Class of cities

Cities with population of 100,000 or m ore.. . .
Cities with population of 50,000 to 100,000...........
Total...............................................

Per cent of
increase

1929

1930

$18,643,729
2,247,997

$35,848,141
3,549,339

92.3
57.9

20,891,726

39,397,480

88.6

B y comparing the advance in relief bills it will be seen that both
the larger cities and those o f moderate size were obliged last year to
increase greatly their care for the needy, the sums spent being,
respectively, 92 per cent and 58 per cent higher than in 1929. W ith­
out knowing whether resources have met requirements, it seems safe to
assume that, on the whole, the cities o f from 50,000 to 100,000
population experienced less severe conditions last year than the larger
industrial centers.
Further evidence to this effect was found when the cities in each
group were ranked according to the percentage o f change in relief
expenditures. The array for each class showed that one-half o f the
cities o f smaller size increased their expenditures for relief by 42 or
more per cent, whereas in one-half o f the larger cities 1930 relief
expenditures exceeded those o f 1929 by 55 or more per cent.
Monthly disbursements for relief in the group o f 100 cities are
shown for the years 1929 and 1930 in Table 2 :
T able 2.— M o n th ly exp en d itu res fo r fa m ily r e lie f during 1929 and 1980 in 100
cities o f 50,000 o r m o re population
Relief expenditures
Month

January________ _____ _
February_____ _____ _
March. I_______________
April______
M ay___________________
June................. ...........

Belief expenditures
Month

1929

1930

$1,909,005
1,911,193
1.903.255
1.702.256
1,590,425
1,464,685

$2,914,210
2,992,955
3,306,161
3,151,112
2,655,194
2,442,220

1929
July.................................
August...___________
September____________
October_____ _____ _
November__________
December........................

$1,531,708
1,441,941
1,418,523
1,596,836
1,859,455
2,562,444

1930
$2,548,072
2,539,647
2,846,061
3,423,651
4,017,189
6,561,108

T o illustrate the course taken by relief operations over the 2-year
period a graphic representation o f these figures is given in Chart I.
The graph shows that the expenditures for 1930 are on a much higher
level than those o f 1929 and that for the summer months o f 1930


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

56

relief agencies were obliged to meet monthly bills larger than those of
normal winter months, as expressed by disbursements in January and
February o f 1929.
CHART I .—T R E N D OF E X P E N D IT U R E S FOR F A M IL Y R E L IE F IN 100

C IT IE S . 1929 A N D 1930

J
/
/
/
/
1930
f

/
♦*
«
♦

t

1929

•

V
X

*500,000

C
d
Ò-

-Q
<0
&*•

c3
£

u
o-

<

b

z

<u
“D

*

“D

'oO
3
<

"S'
<0

if
o

>
o

o
<D
Q

The usual upward sweep o f relief as winter approaches is observed
for both years, but the curve for 1930 shows a much sharper ascent
than that for 1929 and culminates in a December peak, representing
an expenditure o f more than $6,500,000, as compared to the December,
1929, peak expenditure o f slightly over $2,500,000.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

57

APPENDIX C.---- COST OP FAMILY RELIEF IN 100 CITIES

T able S — E x p en d itu res fo r fa m ily r e lie f during 1929 and 1980 b y public and
p riva te agencies in 75 cities and in the sa m e cities exclu sive o f D etr o it
Relief expenditures
Group and year

By public departments
Per cent
of total

Amount
1929:
Detroit *.............
All other cities.......

$1,778,322

Total.................
1930:
Detroit»______
All otber cities.......

8’ 599,459

Total...................

By private agencies 1

Amount

Per cent
of total

Total

$96,235
4,541,561

5rl
46.4

$1,874,557
9,786,679

4,637,796

39.8

11,661,236

200,378
6,652,929

2.3
43.6

8,880,395
15,252,388

6,853,307

28.4

24,132, 783

d e lu d e public funds expended by private agencies.
2 F or revised figures see Tables I and II, pp. 47, 48.
2

As has been noted, evidence on the source o f relief funds comes
from 75 cities which classified the expenditures o f public departments
an-. o f private agencies. Table 3 shows the proportion o f aggregate
ielief ascribed to each source in 1929 and 1930. This information is
given for the group o f 75 cities and for the same group without
Detroit, to show the average experience o f cities in which the public
had not assumed so large an obligation.
The trend taken by relief expenditures o f public departments and
o f private agencies oyer the two years is traced in Chart II. Public
expenditures are indicated as well above those o f private agencies,
but for the first nine months o f 1929 the two curves show a distinct
similarity in contour. Thereafter, public expenditures mount much
more rapidly to meet the winter needs o f both 1929 and 1930 than do
the funds provided by private welfare agencies. The graphic presen­
tation is based upon Table 4 which gives a summation o f public and
private relief grants by months for the 75 cities.
T able 4. — M o n th ly exp en d itu res fo r fa m ily r e lie f during 1929 and 1980 b y
public and p riva te a gencies in 75 cities

Relief expenditures
Month

January............... ............
February................ .........
March......................
April_____________ ____
M ay................. ...... .........................
June.............. ..............................
July............................ .................
August..............................................
September..................... ............
October............................. ...........
November________________
December.......................................

B y public departments
1929'

1930

$657,187
639,702
635,996
543,506
489,755
456,520
456,063
452,381
459,965
546,123
710,267
975,975

$1,340,535
1,344,849
1,519,399
1,418,818

1 M ay include public funds expended by private agencies.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1,021,669
1,182,517
1,646,560
1,962,398
2,953,221

B y private agencies >
1929

387,153

1930

58

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

While the aggregate figures give a composite picture o f the relief
bill in 100 cities and the method of meeting it in 75 cities, there were
wide variations from city to city. Chart I I I shows the way in which
each o f 24 cities, reporting to the Children’s Bureau for its registra­
tion o f social statistics, provided the 1930 funds for its poor. From
the two bottom bars it is seen that in Washington, D. C., for which
Congress makes no appropriation to provide outdoor relief, and in
New Orleans, La., the entire burden o f caring for families in disr CHART5II.- T R E N D OF F A M IL Y R E L IE F E X P E N D IT U R E S B Y P U B L IC

D E P A R T M E N T S A N D B Y P R IV A T E A G E N C IE S IN 75 C IT IE S .
1929 A N D 1930

tress was met by private contribution. On the other hand, in Detroit
and in Springfield, Mass., represented in the two top bars, relief
funds were largely derived from public sources. Intermediate bars
show the varying practices o f other cities.
The amounts expended for the upkeep of families in financial need
have been grouped in Table 5 to show the relief bills o f 1929 and 1930
in 100 cities, by a regional classification. A comparison o f the in­
creases in the cost o f aid in each section, as represented by the
specified cities, is interesting.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

APPENDIX 0 .---- COST OF FAMILY RELIEF IN 100 CITIES

59

T able 5.— E x p en d itu res fo r fa m ily relie f during 1929 and 1930 in 100 cities o f
50,000 o r m o re population, b y geographic division
Relief expenditures
Geographic division
1929

1930

Per cent of
increase

$5,213,268
4,448,701
687,570
6,867,925
387,246
3,287,016

$7,906,519
7,085,650
843,517
18,127,848
520,885
4,913i 061

51.7
59.3
22.7
163.9
34.5
49.5

Total............ .................................................................... ...... - 20,891,726

39,397,480

88.6

Middle Atlantic

. _ _

.

____

_

North Central___________________________________ - _________

The cities included in the various geographic sections are as
follow s:
New England: Boston, Brockton, Fall River, Hartford, Holyoke, Lawrence,
Lowell, Lynn, Malden, New Bedford, New Britain, New Haven, Newton,
Portland, Providence, Springfield, Somerville, and Worcester.
Middle Atlantic: Allentown, Altoona, Bayonne, Bethlehem, Buffalo, Chester,
Erie, Harrisburg, Lancaster, New Rochelle, New York, Newark, Niagara Falls,
Reading, Rochester, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Yonkers.
South Atlantic: Asheville, Baltimore, Charleston, Greensboro, Huntington,
Jacksonville, Norfolk, Richmond, Roanoke, Washington, D. C., and WinstonSalem.
North Central: Akron, Canton, Chicago, Cicero, Cincinnati, Cleveland,
Columbus, Dayton, Des Moines, Detroit", Evanston, Fort Wayne, Grand Rapids,
Hamilton, Kansas City (M o.), Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, Minneapolis,
Oak Park, Omaha, Pontiac, Racine, Saginaw, Sioux City, St. Louis, St. Paul,
South Bend, Terre Haute, Toledo, Topeka, Wichita, and Youngstown.
South Central: Birmingham, El Paso, Knoxville, Louisville, Memphis, Mobile,
Nashville, New Orleans, and Shreveport.
Pacific and Mountain: Berkeley, Denver, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles,
Oakland, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Tacoma.

In the North Central division o f the country, where not quite
$7,000,000 had been provided for relief in 1929, more than $18,000,000
was called for in 1930, an increase o f 164 per cent. When Detroit is
eliminated from this section to obviate its weighting o f group figures,
it is found that although the increase in expenditures is reduced to
85 per cent, the advance in the 1930 relief bill is still larger than
that for any other section.
In New England, the Middle Atlantic States, and the western
section, the percentages o f increase in 1930 over 1929 were somewhat
similar— 52, 59, and 50 per cent, respectively. The South Central
division provided 35 per cent more money for its needy in 1930 than
in the previous year and expenditures for cities o f the South Atlantic
area had increased less than one-fourth (23 per cent).
While the figures assembled show the actual relief costs reported
and the increases called for during the year just passed, they can not
be interpreted as a precise measure o f relief requirements. In 1930
there may have been either less need or less money to meet the need
in those areas in which relief expenses for that year did not greatly
exceed those o f 1929. However, in some of the large cities of the
North Central division, where industry is concentrated, increases in
relief bills, varying from 100 to 400 per cent, denote an unprecedented
demand for family aid.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

60

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

A graphic illustration of the relief problem in one city o f this
section has been furnished the Children’s Bureau by the Welfare
Federation o f Cleveland, Ohio, and is reproduced on page 61.
C h a r t I I I . — P er c e n t o f t o t a l f a m il y r e l ie f 1 g iv e n b y p u b l ic d e p a r t m e n t s
AND BY PRIVATE AGENCIES DURING 1930 IN 24 LARGE CITIES 1

,

Perce rtia<5e. of
Metropolitan to ta l r e lie f
Area
¿iven b/ puN ic
ifepartments Q

Percentage
2.0.

40

60

80

100

Detroit
Springfield, Mass.

Grand Rapids
Buffalo
Newark
Columbus
Wichita
H a rtfo rd

St. Paul

Denver
New Haven
Minneapolis
Akron
Omaha
St. Louis
Kansas City, Mo.

Cincinnati
Louisville
Richmond
Canton
Dayton
Cleveland
New O rlean s
W ashington, o.C.
H I Public departm ents I

I Private agencies

The heightened relief curve for July, 1929, to January, 1931, may
be compared to a curve for July, 1920, to December, 1922, when con­
ditions also called for an advanced outlay for relief, and again to a
curve representing disbursements as calculated for a normal period.
1 E xcluding m others’ aid and veterans’ relief.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2 Revised.

APPENDIX C.— COST OP FAMILY RELIEF IN 100 CITIES

C h a r t IV .—T r e n d

61

o f f a m il y r e l ie f e x p e n d it u r e s o f t h e a s s o c ia t e d c h a r it ie s

CLEVELAND. OHIO

Thousands

oPdol I a.r\s

1Work of outdoor-relief department taken over by Associated Charities in 1923.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

62

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 193 0

The chart also permits an interesting comparison between the
amount paid out for relief during the winter o f 1930 and through
January, 1931, and the amount of money provided therefor in the
budget of the associated charities. Expenditures to meet the winter
needs had leaped to heights far beyond the budget provisions and
could be supplied only by dipping into funds reserved for the
remainder o f the year.
Additional information accompanying financial reports has come
to the Children’s Bureau from many other parts of the country.
This supplements the statistical data on the extent of relief with the
story of the problems and difficulties faced by welfare agencies during
1930 in their effort to keep urban families from privation.
o


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. N. DOAK, Secretary

C H IL D R E N ’ S BUREAU
GRACE ABBOTT. Chief

L E G A L AID
By GLENN STEELE

Separate from Publication No. 209

Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields—
Annual Report for the Registration Area for the year 1930

L I B R A S ’'

eo1

College Station,
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON s 1932

For »ale by the Superintendent of Document», Washington, D. C.

iff (L . *"j

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
& oQ
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Price 5 cents


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LEGAL AID
Under the plan to assemble dependency data from selected metro­
politan areas, initiated in 1928 by the Joint Committee for the Regis­
tration of Social Statistics,1 it was the purpose to include information
from all societies or departments that were organized “ for the pro­
tection and assistance of necessitous persons through legal means.”
In 1928, legal-aid organizations in 12 cities responded to the com­
mittee’s request for monthly reports, and in 1929 and 1930 reports
were received from 15 cities. There was some shift, however, in the
cities which participated in this field during the latter two years.
Bridgeport and Columbus, reporting on legal aid in 1929, failed to
report in 1930. To offset this defection, Harrisburg and Springfield
(Mass.) were added to the 1930 roster of cities from which reports
on legal aid were received.
The registration cities have been classified in Table 1 to show the
extent of legal-aid service as well as the status of reporting to the
Children’s Bureau during 1930:
T able

1.— Status o f legal-aid service during 19S0 in the registration area f o r social
statistics
Areas served by established legal-aid organizations
Reporting
Total—15.
Buffalo.
Chicago.
Cincinnati.
Cleveland.
Dayton.
Denver.
Detroit.
Grand Rapids.
Harrisburg.
Kansas City (M o.).
Louisville.
Minneapolis.
Omaha.
Springfield (Mass.).
St. Paul.

Not reporting
Total—9.
Berkeley.1
Bridgeport.
Columbus.
Duluth.
Hartford.
Newark.*
New Haven.
The Oranges.*
St. Louis.

Areas not served by
established legal-aid
organizations

Total—14.
Akron.
Canton.
Des Moines.
Indianapolis.*
Lancaster.
New Orleans.*
Richmond.
Sharon.
Sioux Gity.
Springfield' (111.) .*
Springfield (Ohio).
Washington.
Wichita.
Wilkes-Barre.

1 Served by Alameda County Legal Aid Society.
1 Legal aid available through legal-aid committee.
* Served by Essex County Legal Aid Society.
* State agency gave limited service only.
* Legal aid available through State service.

Of the 13 communities classified as areas not served by regular
legal-aid organizations in 1930, some had legal-aid assistance available
through committees or social agencies and others had movements on
foot for the promotion and establishment of active legal-aid service.
1 Representing the local community research committee of the University of Chicago, cooperating with
the National Association of Community Chests and Councils. This work was taken over by the Children’s
Bureau July 1,1930.

I

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 193 0

Of the 15 cities reporting, Dayton, Kansas City (M o.), and Omaha
provided legal aid at public expense through their departments of
public welfare. Chicago, Grand Rapids, Minneapolis, and St. Paul
had legal-aid bureaus conducted by family-welfare organizations.
In the 8 remaining cities legal aid was conducted by independent
private organizations.
TYPE OF LEGAL A ID REPO R TED

Legal-aid societies ordinarily handle only civil cases, and during
the three years of registration the returns have related chiefly to legal
aid of that type. Two criminal divisions of private legal-aid organi­
zations— those in Chicago and Cincinnati— have reported. In a
number of communities public defenders are employed to protect
the interests of poor persons accused of crime. This type of service
is not covered by registration statistics, although it has been estab­
lished in the following registration cities: Bridgeport, Chicago,
Columbus, Hartford, Minneapolis, New Haven, and Omaha.
Table 2 provides a general summary of the volume of legal-aid work
reported for 1930 from 15 metropolitan areas and shows that there
were more than 100,000 cases open during the year in these com­
munities, and that about 94,000 of the open cases had been accepted
within the year.
T a b l e 2.— Number o f legal-aid organizations reporting, type o f agency, number o f

cases open, and number o f cases per 1,000 population in 15 specified metropolitan
areas during 1980
Number of legal-aid cases—

Metropolitan area

Number
of organizations
reporting

Type of agency

17
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1

Private..............
....... do_ ..............
....... do__.............
....... d o _ -......... .
Public...... ..........
P rivate.............
....... d o ...............
....... do__.............
....... do__.............
Public_________
P rivate.............
....... do_ _______
Public_________
Private________
....... d o --._ .........

Open during 1930
Pending Accepted
Jan. 1,
during
Number
1930
1930
Number per 1,000
population
9,334

94,210

103,544

10.0

1,233
5,203
387
287
11
14
725
5
2
100
332
338
53
70
574

7,379
24,841
7,219
8,144
1,783
1,279
22,479
1,427
48
9,369
4,177
1,825
1,668
1,781
791

8,612
30,044
7,606
8,431
1,794
1,293
23,204
1,432
50
9,469
4,509
2,163
1,721
1,851
1,365

11.5
8.9
12.9
7.2
7.4
4.5
13.7
6.9
0.2
23.7
14.7
4.6
8.0
10.8
4.8

A combined population of 10,360,166 was served, the rate of open
cases per 1,000 population being 10. The rates for Buffalo, Cincin­
nati, Detroit, Louisville, and Springfield (Mass.) did not differ greatly,
ranging from 11 open cases per 1,000 population in Springfield (Mass.)
to 15 open cases per 1,000 population in Louisville. Kansas City
(M o.), the only community with an appreciably higher rate of service,
had 24 open cases per 1,000 population. As has been noted, the serv
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3

LEGAL AID

ice in that city is supplied by a public organization, the legal-aid
department of the board of public welfare. The remainder of the
cities have a rate of less than 9 open cases per 1,000 population. The
service in Chicago, Minneapolis, and Omaha, however, was exclusive
of cases handled by the public defenders in those cities.
In comparing the amount of legal-aid work in each city in propor­
tion to its size it must be borne in mind that community plans in the
legal field affect the type and volume of work which comes under the
auspices of legal-aid societies. For instance, where small-claims courts
and domestic-relations courts exist, many cases may be handled
through this machinery which in jurisdictions without such courts
would be apt to call for more work on the part of legal-aid offices.
Again, legal assistance in workmen’s compensation cases may be a
much more extensive service of legal-aid organizations in some cities
than in others. One agency reporting from Buffalo handled this class
of cases almost entirely. There are, moreover, some differences in
the policies of legal-aid societies as to the scope of their activities.
Therefore the volume and character of legal-aid work in any commu­
nity depends upon varied factors.
GROW TH OF LEGAL AID

In most cities there has been a steady growth in the amount of
work performed by legal-aid societies. Table 3 shows the number of
cases accepted in 1928, 1929, and 1930 in the registration cities, and
the rate of accepted cases per 1,000 population in 1930.
T a b l e 3. — Number o f cases accepted by legal-aid organizations in 15 specified

metropolitan areas during 1928 , 1929, and 1930
Number of cases accepted
1930

Metropolitan area
1928

1929
Number

Buffalo___ ________ _____ _____________ _____ ______ _______
Chicago_______________________________„__________________
Cincinnati________________________________________ _______
Cleveland___________________________________ ____ ________
Dayton_____________________________ ____ ________________
Denver..'_____________ ____ ____ _____ _______ _____ _______
Detroit_______________________________ _____ _____________
Harrisburg._____ ____ ____________________________________
Kansas City (M o.) .......... .
Minneapolis______________ ______________ ______ __________
Omaha".________________________ _____ _________ __________
Springfield (Mass.)__________ ____________________________
St. Paul.........................................................................................:

6,154
20,303
3,395
6,797
1,639
871
9,000
1,238
0
«
2,156
1,117
0
639

6,856
22,066
6,367
6,855
1,514
1,013
9|912
1,217
13O
6,444
3,858
1,807
1,562
0
952

7,379
24,841
7,219
8,144
1Ì783
1,279
22,479
l| 427
48
9,369
4,177
1,825
1,668
1,781
791

Number
per 1,000
population
9.9
7.4
12.2
7.0
7.4
4.4
13.2
6.8
0

23.4
13.6
3.9
7.8
10.4
2.8

1 Number of cases accepted during last 6 months of 1929.
1 Rate not shown because number of cases accepted was less than 50.
1 City not included in the registration area during year.

In all the cities reporting for the three years, except Minneapolis
and St. Paul, the number of cases received was considerably larger
in 1930 than in 1929. The increase in Detroit was outstanding,
22,479 cases having been accepted in 1930, as compared with 9,212 in
105737— 32— - 2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

4

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

1929. As rates of the number of legal-aid cases per estimated popu­
lations published in the reports for 1928 and 1929 are not strictly
comparable with the 1930 rates, based upon the actual enumerated
population in that year, they have not been presented in Table 3.
It is evident without such calculation that legal aid in these cities has
been extended during the three years of registration service and that,
as a rule, it has more than kept pace with population increases.
P R O M P T A C T IO N BY LEGAL A ID

The problems of delay in legal procedure confront all classes of
litigants, but especially to the person of small means the results of
prolonged waiting for legal action are often serious. Data for this
report do not afford figures for calculation of the average duration of
lawsuits or the average length of time between the acceptance and
the disposal of cases not under litigation. Such evidence as is a v a il­
able from an annual picture of open cases and the proportion disposed
of during 1930 indicates that action by legal-aid societies was prompt.
The findings in Table 4 show that for all registration cities combined,
90 per cent of more than 100,000 cases open during 1930 were disposed
of within the year.
T a b l e 4. — Average number o f persons on staff per month, number of cases open, and

number and percentage o f cases disposed o f by legal-aid organizations in 15 speci­
fied metropolitan areas during 1930

Metropolitan area

Average number on
Cases disposed of
staff per month
Number
of cases
open
Lawyers Others
Number Per cent

Total—15 areas_________________________ ;___
Buffalo__________________________________________
Chicago:
Agency No. 1—
Civil cases.......................................................
Criminal cases____________________________
Agency No. 2 ...____ ___________________ ______
Cincinnati:
Civil cases................................................................
Criminal cases_______________________________
Cleveland___________________ ___________________
Dayton____ _____ _____________________ _____ ____
Denver___________ ______________________________
Detroit__________________________________________
Grand Rapids___________________________________
Harrisburg_________ ____ ________________________ ,
Kansas City (M o.)_______________________________"
Louisville_________ _________________ ____________
Minneapolis_____________________________________
Omaha____ ______________________________________
Springfield (Mass.)......... ..............................................
St. Paul.............................. ..........................................

0
(')

(>)

43

53

103,544

93,097

89.9

6

12

8,612

7,271

84.4

8
1

12
2
7

28,870
563
611

22,894
548
487

79.3
97.3
79.7

4
1
6
1
1
6

3

5,834
1,772
8,431
1,794
1,293
23,204
1,432
50
9,469
4,509
2,163
L 721
1,851
1,365

5,569
1,772
8,273
1,763
1,280
22,266
1,382
48
9,000
4,346
1,794
1,712
1,759
933

95.5
100.0
98.1
98.3
99.0
96.0
96.5
96.0
95.0
96.4
82.9
99.5
95.0
68.4

1
(')

2
2
3
1
1

1
4
2
1
1
2

(0

2
2

1 Less than 1.

It is true that many clients are cared for through the medium of
legal advice only, and that such cases are shortly disposed of. How­
ever, other cases may require time for investigation, for preparation
of documents, for conciliation, or for litigation. Such cases accepted
toward the close of the calendar year must necessarily be carried into
the following year for final action. Yet legal-aid societies in 11 of 15
communities reported that 95 per cent or more of their cases open
during 1930 were settled within the calendar year.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

LEGAL AID

5

Calculations on an average monthly basis of the percentage of open
cases which were “ worked o n ” were made for each area that reported
the requisite data. In Springfield (Mass.) 100 per cent of all cases
open during the month received attention from the staff. In all the
other cities except St. Paul more than 50 per cent of the cases pending
in an average month were “ worked on.” Calculations on this^basis
which fall below 100 per cent, however, should not necessarily be inter­
preted as an index of adverse conditions. It is recognized that in
some instances cases must be carried over a considerable period of
time before final adjustment is possible. It might well be advantageous
to give intensive service to a certain proportion of cases on hand within
the month in order to clear them up, withholding work on more recent
acceptances. In Louisville the percentage of open cases that were
worked on during the month was 73.5, according to the average
monthly statistics for 1930. Yet 96 per cent of all cases open during
1930 were disposed of by the last day of December in that city.
STAFF M E M B E R S

In the 15 cities listed in Table 4 an average of 43 lawyers and 53
other assistants were employed during 1930 by legal-aid societies.
The number of professional staff members was not large in any city,
varying from part-time service of one attorney each in Grand Rapids,
Harrisburg, and Omaha, to full-time service of nine lawyers employed
by one social agency in Chicago. The legal-aid department of the
other social agency reporting from Chicago had no attorney on its
staff. Where counsel is required, this agency has available the serv­
ices of a volunteer counsel committee whose members act as consult­
ants and may be given actual assignments of cases for trial. The
committee chairman assigns cases to various members, who serve
without charge. The volunteer counsel staff, however, is not re­
quested to give assistance in criminal cases. In those cases the court
appoints counsel for indigent clients, and the Legal Aid Bureau offers
counsel such service by way of investigation as will assist the attorney.
The methods by which approximately 93,000 cases were disposed of
in 1930 are shown in Table 5.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T a b l e 5. — Type o f disposition o f cases by legal-aid organizations in 15 specified metropolitan areas during 1980

G>

Cases disposed of
Type of disposition
Metropolitan area

Total
number

Total—15 areas...... ................ .............
Chicago:
Agency No. 1—

Cincinnati:

Minneapolis___ ________________________
Omaha_________________________________
St. P a u l....'......... ' ........................................

Per cent Number

Per cent

Number

Investigated or
advised and case
referred

Per cent Number

Other

Per cent Number

Per cent

93,097

7,219

7.8

13,745

14.8

5,102

5.5

40,652

43.7

15,850

17.0

10,529

11.3

7,271

598

8.2

1,694

23.3

252

3.5

2,722

37.4

738

10.1

1,267

17.4

22,894
548
487

779
76
131

3.4
13.9
26.9

1,515

6.6

23

0.1

103

21.1

9

1.8

12,724
100
49

55.6
18.2
10.1

5,499
115
51

24.0
21.0
10.5

2,354
257
144

10.3
46.9
29.6

5,569
1,772
8,273
1,763
1,280
22,266
1,382
48
9,000
4,346
1,794
1,712
1,759
933

117
1,765
104
84
107
976
19
13
263
1,662
80

2.1
99.6
1.3
4.8
8.4
4.4
1.4
(0
2.9
38.2
4.5

1,400

25.1

442

7.9

10.5

62
69
41
2,508
5
2
891
423
10

0.7
3.9
3.2
11.3
0.4
(0
9.9
9.7
0.6

1,543
94
150
4,316
409
3
1,638
297
255

18.7
. 5.3
11.7
19.4
29.6
0
18.2
6.8
14.2

854
1
1,607
158
138
1,398
57
9
1,470
387
383

15.3
0.1
19.4
9.0
10.8
6.3
4.1

220
138

12.5
14.8

458
212

4.4
33.2
11.7
13.9
34.5
0
10.2
18.6
18.5
94.9
26.0
22.7

39.0
0.3
55.5
43.8
54.2
44.8
3o:o
0
42.4
17.6
40.9

583

366
585
150
3,094
477
5
919
810
332

2,173
6
4,591
773
694
9,974
415
16
3,819
767
734

351
14

20.0
1.5

609
486

34.6
52.1

112
47

6.4
5.0

9
36

1 Per cent not shown because number of cases disposed of was less than 60.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Per cent Number

Advice given

0

16.3
8.9
21.3
0.5
3.9

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

Number

Information secured
and documents
drawn

Adjusted

After litigation

LEGAL, AID

7

Aggregate figures for the 15 areas indicate that 44 per cent of the
cases were disposed of by legal advice, 17 per cent were investigated
or advised and referred, 15 per cent were adjusted, and information
was secured and documents drawn in 5 per cent of the cases during
1930. Only 8 per cent of the cases were disposed of after litigation.
However, the percentages varied greatly city by city. The criminal
division of the Cincinnati Legal Aid Society disposed of practically
all its cases after litigation. In contrast, the criminal division of one
legal-aid bureau in Chicago disposed of only 14 per cent of its cases
after litigation. Nearly 40 per cent of the criminal cases dealt with by
this division were disposed of by investigation and reference or by
advice, while “ other disposition,, was the classification given to 47
per cent of its criminal cases, indicating a need for further subdivision
of this group to determine the exact methods of disposition.
The disparity in methods of disposing of criminal cases in Chicago
and Cincinnati may be accounted for partly by differences in legalaid work in the two cities. In Cincinnati all criminal cases were
handled by a voluntary defender of the legal-aid society. There was
no public defender, and the reported information represents the full
volume of legal-aid work of this type for the city. The criminal cases
reported for Chicago do not include those handled in the office of the
public defender appointed in September, 1930.
IM P O R T A N C E

O F U N IF O R M

R E P O R T IN G

As in other fields of social service, the validity of city comparisons
of legal-aid procedure depends upon the uniformity with which agen­
cies are classifying the case information. Societies are requested to
use the classification of dispositions standardized by the National
Association of Legal Aid Organizations, and those that do not use
the standard forms are instructed to report by a similar method.
When, according to reports, the practices of cities appear to be con­
siderably different in regard to the methods by which legal-aid cases
are disposed of, there is a possibility that instructions have not been
interpreted uniformly. Omaha reported that 95 per cent of the cases
disposed of in that city during 1930 were adjusted. No cases were
reported as disposed of through “ information secured and documents
drawn,” “ advice given,” or “ investigated and referred.” This
finding is not in line with the practices indicated for other cities.
The definition of “ adjusted” called for the inclusion of cases adjusted
through conciliation and cases settled without litigation in which
either a partial or a satisfactory settlement was obtained. There
were also instructions describing the types of cases whose disposition
should be classed as “ information secured and documents drawn,”
“ advice given,” or “ investigated and referred.” However, it may
be difficult to differentiate closely these various classifications, with
the result that uniform interpretations were not made by all legal-aid
departments. In Springfield (Mass.) 20 per cent of the dispositions
were made by securing information and drawing documents, a type of
disposition much less frequent in other cities. Findings which depart
from the norm may indicate either different procedure or different
methods of classification.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

8

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 30

One of the purposes of registration is to promote uniform reporting
of social statistics, and tabulations such as these are valuable as a
foundation of study to determine wherein true differences between
communities underlie the statistics.
The committee on records of the National Association of Legal Aid
Organizations has set up standard forms for uniform reporting in this
field, and the organization has stressed the need for development of
sound statistics to show the extent of legal-aid work and the need
for its expansion. During 1931 plans were initiated for a joint com­
mittee of the National Association of Legal Aid Organizations and
the Children’s Bureau to consider the problems in the legal-aid field.
It is hoped that reporting will be developed and statistics improved
through this cooperation.
o


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. N. DOAK, Secretary

C H IL D R E N ’ S BU REAU
GRACE ABBOTT. Chief

PROTECTIVE CASE WORK FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
AND

MATERNITY HOMES

By GLENN STEELE

Separate from Publication N o. 209

Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields—
Annual Report for the Registration Area for the Year 1930

l i b r a r y

Agricultural & Mechanical Coll egp of
College Station, fe rn

\i "

UNITED STATES
Go v e r n m e n t

p r in t in g o f f ic e

WASHINGTON 1 1932

For

sale by the


b^CL.
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

S uperintendent

of documents ,

Washington ,

d. c .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROTECTIVE CASE WORK FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
Agencies that report in the field designated as Protective Case
Work for Young People have as a common objective the prevention
of delinquency. Their approach to the problem is by various methods,
both preventive and remedial, but all these agencies use the technique
o f case work in order that study and personal attention may be given
to the needs and difficulties of each boy and girl.
S O U R C E S O F IN F O R M A T IO N

Of the 69 agencies, representing 21 metropolitan areas, which sub­
mitted complete reports during 1930 to the Children’s Bureau,1 21
were associations of Big Brothers or Big Sisters. As the plan of
these associations is to assign from among their members a friend
and mentor for each child under supervision, much of the work was
performed by volunteers, but reports were accepted only from those
organizations that employed trained supervisors. The case-work
departments of eight maternity homes submitted service reports for
the year. Some of the Big Brother and Big Sister associations and
one of the maternity homes were affiliated with churches. There
were 20 other sectarian organizations that made returns for 1930.
Of these, six were family-welfare agencies having special departments
to deal with the problems of delinquency. Five public agencies re­
ported, three of which were departments conducted by policewomen.
T a b l e 1.— Number o f young persons under the care o f agencies organized for

protective case work for young people and number o f recurrent cases in 20 specified
metropolitan areas during 1930

Metropolitan area

Total
number
of differ­
ent young
persons
under
care dur­
ing year

Number
of young
persons
under
care Dec.
31, 1929

Number of young persons
received for care during
Number Number Number
year
of recur­ of young of young
persons
rent
released persons
cases
under
Never be­ Under during from care care Dec.
during
Total fore under care
year
31,
1930
prior
to
year
care
1930

Total—20 areas..

30,579

10,916

19,663

15,568

4,095

2,502

20,074

10,505

Berkeley......................
Bridgeport__________
Buffalo........ ................
Chicago °................
Cincinnati__________
Cleveland___________
Columbus___________
Dayton_____________
Denver_____________
Des Moines_________
Detroit.........................
Grand Rapids___. . . . .
Hartford____________
Kansas City (M o.)___
Newark_____________
New Haven_________
New Orleans................
St. Louis____________
St. Paul •.....................
Wilkes-Barre *_______

368
120
529
8,588
1,114
3,698
176
2,420
923
26
7,937
748
161
651
464
522
86
1,492
442
114

26
40
182
2,054
674
1,531
54
182
771
11
2,742
312
100
239
321
291
42
918
374
52

342
80
347
6,534
440
2,167
122
2,238
152
15
5,195
436
61
412
143
231
44
574
68
62

248
68
337
4,391
431
2,013
119
1,204
151
10
4,749
384
57
362
135
202
40
540
68
59

94
12
10
2,143
9
154
3
1,034
1
5
446
52
4
50
8
29
4
34

51
19
8
1,433
7
49
3
593
4
2
289
4
4
2
13
9
1
8
2
1

334
86
275
6,539
422
2,240
39
2,194
181

34
34
254
2,049
’ 692
1,458
’ 137
226
742
26
2,445
'284
96
159
366
247
60
872
265
59

3

5,492
'464
65
492
98
275
26
620
177
55

• Reports less than 80 per cent complete.
iainE
'iLv.£i!+C*:itm
Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields was begun by the bureau July 1
issumed the work of the Joint Committee for the Registration of Social Statistics, representing

c t l^ T y T h ^ T c ^ c “


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

“ 66 °f the UniV6rSity °f ° hicag0 and the

Association1Z

1

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

2

N U M B E R R E C E IV IN G P R O T E C T IV E C A S E W O R K

More than 30,500 young people were under the supervision of pro­
tective agencies during the course of the year in the 20 metropolitan
areas for which statistics are given in Table 1. Minneapolis, where
about 5,000 cases were under care during 1930, is omitted from this
table. The Minneapolis figure could not be reduced to show the
number of young persons represented, as the case count included
some children under supervision more than once during the year,
and the reopened cases could not be eliminated from the count. The
figures for Chicago, St. Paul, and Wilkes-Barre are understated owing
to omission of reports from important protective agencies in those
CltlGS

When the service on December 31, 1930, is compared with that of
December 31, 1929, for the 20 cities combined, it is found that fewer
young people were under supervision at the close of 1930 than at the
close of 1929, the counts being 10,505 and 10,916, respectively.
Service decreased in 11 cities and increased in 9, but some of the
changes denoted by the comparison of service on the particular dates
are too slight to be of significance.
In Detroit, Kansas City (M o.), and St. Paul the cases under
supervision at the close of 1930 were 75 or more below the count of
cases recorded at the end of the preceding year. Columbus is the
only city where an increase of more than 75 cases was recorded. In
this city the protective work reported was all on behalf of colored
young people and was under the auspices of Big Brother and Big
Sister associations
Upon analysis it was found that there had been a considerable
decrease in the service of a few girls’ protective associations and a
slight decrease in the case work of maternity homes. The depart­
ments of family-welfare agencies organized for special work in the
juvenile protective field had somewhat higher case loads at the close
of 1930 than at the close of the preceding year, as did the police
departments which reported.
In presenting the rates of service in this field for the purpose of
making intercity comparisons, the average number of young people
under care on the first day of the month and the population in the
age group 10 to 20 years, inclusive, for each area have been used in
calculation.
.
.
,
The rates shown in Table 2 are interesting as an indication ol the
development of this type of work in the various metropolitan areas
in proportion to the population groups of young persons. It is appar­
ent that they do not indicate the extent of delinquency in any area
but rather the extent to which each community puts forth efforts to
prevent delinquency through specialized protective case work.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3

PROTECTIVE CASE WORK FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

T a b l e 2.— N u m b e r o f agencies f r o m w hich rep orts w ere requested , n u m b er f r o m
w hich reports w ere received an d tabulated, average n u m b e r o f ca ses u n d er care o n
the first d a y o f the m on th , a n d rate per 1 0 ,0 0 0 p o p u la tio n 1 0 to 2 0 ye a rs o f age b y
a gencies org an ized f o r protective case w ork f o r y o u n g p e o p le i n 2 1 sp ecified m etro­
p olita n areas du rin g 1 9 8 0

Number of agencies Average number of
cases under care on
from which—
1st of month
Metropolitan area

D e n v e r ..._______ _____________________________________ _______
____
___
. . .
Detroit
Grand Rapids_________________________________________________
New Haven___________________________________________________
Cleveland__________ ___________________________________________
St. Louis_____ ________________________________________________
Dayton _ .
___ . . . . . .
Kansas City (M o.)......... .................................................... ...........
Newark______________________ __________________________ ______
Hartford.__________________ ____ ______________________________
Berkeley....... .
..... .
...........................
Columbus.................. .............. ............ ..................................................
Bridgeport........... .................................................................................
Des Moines___________________________________________________
New Orleans..........................................................................................
Chicago i-....... ....................... ........................................................ .......
St. Paul »..................................................................................................
M inneapolis................................. .....................................................
Wilkes-Barre1_________________________________________________

1 Reports less than 80 per cent complete.

« Not computed.

Reports
were re­
quested

Reports
were re­
ceived
and tab­
ulated

2
9
2
2
6
9
4
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
10
3
7
2

2
9
2
2
6
g
4
1
1
2
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
9
2
7

1

Rate per
10,000
popula­
Number tion 10 to
20 years
of age
757
2,660
311
237
1,573
675
897
211
253
358
104
34
221
91
42
22
46
2,048
324
«2,361
49

155.6
85.4
78.1
67.9
67.5
67.2
49.9
49.6
39.7
39.1
23.8
22.1
15.0
14.5
10.6
8.4
5.0
(2)
(!)
(»)
(*)

8 Number under care Jan. 1,1930.

Of the 17 areas for which rates were computed, Denver had the
largest number of young persons under supervision jn proportion to
its population in the selected age group. The work in Denver was
conducted wholly by Big Sister and Big Brother associations with
large volunteer staffs. In Detroit, for which the second highest
rate of service is recorded, 1 Big Brother association, 3 maternity
homes, and 4 sectarian organizations reported their case-work
services.
Grand Rapids, which also had a relatively high rate, was one of
the few cities from which a public organization reported. This or­
ganization, a girls’ guidance bureau, shared with a Big Brother
association the responsibility for protective case work for young
people in that city. The latter organization did a considerable
amount of work for transient boys, which would account for a higher
rate in Grand Rapids than in cities where there was less protective
case work for nonresident young people.
The three other cities having public service were Berkeley, Dayton, and Minneapolis. In Berkeley and Dayton all protective case
work was under the direction of policewomen. Among the seven
agencies reporting from the Minneapolis area, two were under
public auspices— a county welfare board and the women’s division
of the police department. Although the rate of service was not
computed for Minneapolis because the case count could not be
given on an average monthly basis, the combined city reports in­
dicate an extensive service for the protection of young people.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

4

AVERAGE NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE UNDER CARE ON T H E FIRST
OF T H E MONTH PER 10,000 POPULATION 10 TO 20 YEARS OF AGE: 1930

Rate o
so 40 60 eo ioo iao 140 160
i------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1------ 1
17 areas
Denver*
D etroit

54.0
155.6

85.4 B i W

I M

M

Cincinnati

■H B B H
67.9 E
SBBBSSfSBS
67.5 HBBHBBH
672 IH9SHBI

St. Louis

40.9 ■

Dayton

49.6 I

Kansas City (Mo )

39.7

Grand Rapids
New Haven
Cleveland

78.i

■

■ H 3M H

Newark

39.1

Hartford

23.8 ■
H ■

Berkeley

W B

3uf¥alo
Columbus

14.5 0

Bridgeport

10.6 H

©es Moines

a+i

New Orleans

5.0 1


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

■

5

PROTECTIVE CASE WORK FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

The chart on page 4 portrays the variation in the extent of this
service in 17 metropolitan areas. The rate for all areas combined
shows that of every 10,000 young people 10 to 20 years of age 54
were under protective care, according to an average monthly measure.
In Kansas City, the area at midpoint of the array, the rate for young
persons under care was 40.
STAFF M E M B E R S H IP

Certain types of agencies relied largely upon volunteers for their
work with young people. There were 1,465 volunteers, as compared
with 157 professional workers, on the staffs of all agencies reporting
from 20 areas, according to average monthly figures for 1930. Table
3 gives the average number of persons engaged in protective case
work for young people in each community, classified as full-time paid
workers, paid professional workers, and volunteers.
T a b l e 3.— Average number o f full-tim e paid workers and volunteers per month on

the staff o f agencies organized fo r protective case work fo r young people in 20
specified metropolitan areas during 1980
Average number on staff
per month

Metropolitan area

Full-time paid
workers

Total
Berkeley........................
Bridgeport.....................
Buffalo...........................
Chicago....... ........... ......
Cincinnati...................
Cleveland............ . ........
Columbus......................
Dayton..........................
Denver........ ..................
Des Moines...................

__

(*)

2
3
7
35
40
2
8
5
1

Profes­
sional
(i)
2
5
22
10
30
1
6
2
1

1 Less than L

Average number on staff
per month
Full-time paid
workers

Metropolitan area
Volun­
teers

11
2
6
145
229
288
55

(i)
443
(*)

Total

New Orleans................
St. Paul

Profes­
sional

50
3

38
2

5
g
7
1
17

g
5
1
13

4

3

Volun­
teers

208
<*>

* Not reported.

In 10 cities the volunteers outnumbered the paid professional
workers. With the exception of three, these were all areas where
Big Brother and Big Sister associations were the only agencies or
were among the agencies doing protective case work. In the areas
where there were few volunteers or none, reports were received from
different types of agencies, such as maternity homes, church missions,
and public agencies. However, one public department reported a
larger volunteer than paid staff. That was in Berkeley where one
policewoman, in charge of work with women and children, devoted a
part of her time to protective case work for young people and had an
average of 11 volunteers per month assisting her.
In those areas where the personnel was all or largely professional,
the average number of active cases monthly per professional worker
ranged from 13 in Wilkes-Barre to 71 in Dayton. From the fact
that the Wilkes-Barre report represented a maternity home and the
Dayton report a bureau of policewomen, it may be seen that com­
munity case loads per professional worker are not closely comparable
owing to differences in the types of service given.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

6

SOCIAL. STATISTICS, 1930

MONTHLY SUPERVISION OF CASES
The average number of cases open monthly and the average num­
ber and percentage given attention monthly are classified by cities
in Table 4. About two-thirds of the cases of young people under
supervision in an average month of 1930 were “ worked o n ” within
the month, according to findings representing all cities for the regis­
tration area. The protective association in Kansas City reported
that monthly attention was given to all cases open, indicating close
supervision. Agencies in Des Moines and Columbus reported that
on the average more than 90 per cent of their open cases received
attention monthly. Reports from Des Moines were from an insti­
tution for girls, and, as has been noted, the work in Columbus was
under the direction of Big Brother and Big Sister associations. In
only three areas— Grand Rapids, New Orleans, and St. Paul were
there more inactive than active cases within an average month.
T

4.— Average number o f cases open per month and average number and per­
centage worked on per month by agencies organized fo r protective case work for
young people in 20 specified metropolitan areas during 1980

able

Average number of cases
per month i

Average number of cases
per m onth1
Worked on

Metropolitan area
Number
open

Total—20 areas.

12,763

Berkeley................. —
Bridgeport............ .
Buffalo_____________
Chicago !....................
Cincinnati__________
Cleveland...............
Columbus..................
Dayton........... ...........
Denver_____________

66
60
246
2,712
712
1,767
101
447
770

Worked on

Metropolitan area
Number
open

Number Per cent
8.734

68.6

Des Moines________

68
44
171
1,696
616
1,267
93
394
464

87.2
87.4
69.9
62.6
72.6
72.1
92.4
88.1
60.3

Grand Rapids............
Hartford___________
Kansas City (M o .)...
Newark____________
New Haven..... .........
New Orleans_______
St. Louis..... ..............
St. Paul *....................
Wilkes-Barre *............

23
3,117
348
109
287
371
257
50
946
330
64

Number Per cent
22
2,166
162
73
287
273
189
14
682
124
40

94.2
69.6
46.4
66.9
100.0
73.6
73.6
28.7
72.1
37.6
73.4

* Totals and percentages computed on figures carried out to 3 decimal places and not on rounded averages
presented in table.
> Reports less than 80 per cent complete.

The variation in the proportion of open cases which are active
monthly may be due to various factors, such as pressure of work,
policy of holding cases for observation or future action without fre­
quent contact, and methods of treatment. From two cities, each
represented by one agency, statistics may be given to illustrate how
method of treatment is sometimes a factor contributing to a large
percentage of cases which are active monthly.
Berkeley and Dayton were both represented by public agencies
conducted by policewomen. In these cities the total number of
different young people under care during 1930 was more than 10
times the number under care on a given day, as, for instance, the
average for the first day of the month. So great a difference in the
two counts is not recorded for any other city, as may be seen by
reference to Tables 1 and 2. The proportion of reopened cases in
these cities was also large in comparison with other cities. This evi­
dence indicates that short-time treatment was the practice in both


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

PROTECTIVE CASE WORK FOR YOUNG PEOPLE

7

Berkeley and Dayton; that, as a rule, cases were closed promptly
and subsequently reopened if further attention was necessary. The
proportion of cases “ worked o n ” monthly (Table 4) was 87 per cent
in Berkeley and 88 per cent in Dayton. The staffs in each city! are
small, and it is rather difficult to compare them, as Berkeley had'a
s ^ ff composed largely of volunteers and Dayton had a staff almost
wholly professional. However, it seems apparent that irrespective
of staff accomplishment the relatively high record of monthly atten­
tion to open cases in these cities was influenced by the method of
handling cases with short-time care and prompt clearance.* This
conclusion, of course, relates entirely to procedure in offices of police­
women. It is possible that the policewomen refer cases to other
agencies for a continuance of supervision. The policies of other
types of agencies apparently call for treatment of longer duration.
In view of the fact that Grand Rapids ranked high in the[rate*of
young people served per population of young people, as is shownf by
the chart on page 4, it is interesting to note that but 46 per cent of
the average number of cases open monthly received attention! within
the month. As there was no evidence of short-time care in Grand
Rapids, the conclusion is reached that either the agencies there could
not give monthly attention to a number of the young people under
care or a considerable proportion of cases were held for observation
or closmg.
There is such a diversity of programs among agencies in the field
of protective case work for young people that community statistics
m which figures of various agencies are fused do not reveal tendencies
m the practice of different types of agencies.
109801— 32------ 2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MATERNITY HOMES
Monthly reports from 72 maternity homes representing 30 metro­
politan areas were received during 1930 by the Children’s Bureau.
Five more communities cooperated in 1930 than in 1929, when 60
maternity homes reported from 25 metropolitan areas. The statis­
tics for 1930 are complete for 28 areas and partially complete for 2—
Chicago and Denver. Figures for Chicago are for only five of its
eight maternity homes and do not purport to represent the volume of
service in the city. In Denver the service is only slightly understated
b y the omission of returns from one home.
Although the primary purpose of institutions in this field is to
shelter and protect unmarried mothers and their children, the homes
sometimes receive married women and legitimate infants in cases of
distress.
v
More than 8,000 girls or women and about 6,600 babies were cared
for during 1930 in the homes which reported. The status of report­
ing, the total number of women cared for during the year in each
area, and the rate of those served per 10,000 women 15 to 44 years of
age residing within the area, are shown in Table 1.
1.— Number of agencies from which reports were requested, number from
which reports were received and tabulated, number o f women cared for in maternity
homes, and rate per 10,000 female population 15 to 44 years o f age in SO specified
metropolitan areas during 19SO

T able

Number of agencies
from which—

Metropolitan area

Rate per
10,000
Reports
female
Reports
were re­
population
Number
were
and
15 to 44
requested ceived
tabulated
years of
age
76

72

8,127

1
4

1
4
2
4
2
2
2
5
4
2
1
2
6
2
2
6
3
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
5

255
927
158
682
161
170
271
481
1,408
176
152
130
252
125
75
563
321
142
107
178
357
70
45
28
97
16
40
40
45
655

2

4
2
2
3
5
4
2
1
2
6

2

St Pani

2
5
3
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
8

i Not computed because reports for Chicago were less than 80 per cent complete.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Women cared for
during 1930

(9
83.1
81.9
76.8
74.8
62.0
44.5
36.4
31.7
31.6
31.1
28.8
21.3
19.6
19.0
18.5
18.1
17.4
17.3
14.0
13.0
12.8
12.6
10.3
9.9
8.8
6.6
6.4
5.4
3.9

(9
9

10

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1 9 3 0

The rates have been based on this class of the resident population
to provide some measure of the volume of such care for intercity
comparisons, although the services in any area are not maintained
exclusively for girls or women who reside therein. An attempt in
the first year of the registration to classify inmates of maternity
homes by place of residence disclosed such procedure to be impracti­
cable at that time, as fictitious addresses were sometimes given by
applicants.
Rates that are relatively high in proportion to the population group
may reflect a territorial service which is broad. This is exemplified
by Wichita, which had the highest rate shown in Table 1. The
maternity home in that city conducts a state-wide service. Facilities
for this type of care have been developed more extensively in some
communities than in others, irrespective of area populations. The
bed capacity o f maternity homes in Wichita and Sioux City, for
instance, with rates ranking high in Table 1, exceeded the capacity
reported for a number of areas greater in size, such as Dayton, Akron,
and Newark, for which this table shows the lowest rates.
Practices in the homes in regard to the duration of care given also
have a bearing upon the number and rate of beneficiaries accommo­
dated annually. When rates of service were computed in which the
time element was considered, some changes in the ranking of cities
given in Table 1 occurred. Kansas City, ranking second in the num­
ber of women servéd in proportion to the population group, dropped
to fifth rank when the rate was calculated upon the number of days'
care given in 1930. A reason for this may be seen in Table 2, which
shows that in Kansas City the average number of days' care in 1930
per maternity patient was lower than in any other city.
T a b l e 2.— Total women cared fo r , total days’ care, and average number o f days,

care given per woman in maternity homes in 28 specified metropolitan areas during
1980

Total
Total
women days’ care
Metropolitan area cared for given dur­
ing 1930

Total — 28

Richmond________

Wichita...................
Indianapolis______

Average
number
of days’
care given
during
1930 per
woman

Metropolitan area

6,790

523,470

77

Louisville............ ...
Wilkes-Barre...___

170
45
130
28
161
125
563
40
158
271
178
255
97

23,059
5,524
14,941
3^213
18,231
14; 153
62,000
4; 333
16j 541
27; 700
16; 055
22; 709
8,621

136
123
115
115
113
113
110
108
105
102
90
89
89

Cincinnati______ _
Omaha__ .
Dayton_____ _____
Minneapolis______
Springfield (Mass.).
Grand Rapids____
St. Louis_________
Berkeley_______. . .
Detroit!____. . . ___
New Haven______
Kansas City (M o.).

Average
number
Total
Total
of days’
women days’ care care
given
cared for given dur­ during
ing 1930 1930 per
woman
142
70

10 7

321
481
176
40
252
45
152
357
16
1,408
75
927

11,958
5,787
R
24,526
36; 654
13; 249
2; 962
18,275
3,294
11,006
25, 781
1,115
89,066
3,897
30; 468

84
83
78
76
76
75
74
73
73
72
72
70
63
52
33

Although Table 2 gives for each of 28 areas the average period of
care per woman during 1930, it should not be construed as showing
average figures for the entire length of time patients are kept under
care, because for some of the 1930 patients the care began in 1929 and
for some it continued into 1931.
Des Moines and Newark were the only cities in which the average
length of time mothers were under care during 1930 exceeded four

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

11

MATERNITY HOMES

months. In 9 cities the average duration of care within the year was
from 3 to 4 months, the average for this group ranging from 90 days
in New Orleans to 115 days in Hartford. In the remaining areas less
than three months’ care per patient was given on an average during
1930.
The length of time under care is influenced somewhat by the type
of service given in the homes. Some homes provide delivery service,
and others send maternity patients to hospitals for delivery. In 13 of
the 27 areas for which information on this subject was reported, all,
or practically all, of the delivery service was given at the maternity
homes. In Akron, Dayton, and Springfield (Mass.), all mothers
under the care of the maternity homes were sent to hospitals for
delivery, and in the 11 remaining areas both home and hospital de­
liveries were reported. Of these, only Newark and New Haven re­
ported that the majority of deliveries occurred in hospitals.
MATERNITY CARE IN 1929 AND 1930 COMPARED

The extent of days’ care given to women and to babies during 1930
is compared with the corresponding service of 1929 in Table 3.
Statistics are reduced to the maternity homes in the 24 areas which
supplied the requisite information for the 2-year period. The number
of days’ care provided for women in 1930 was 486,900, an increase
of 11 per cent over the service provided in 1929.
The increase in days’ care given to babies in the reporting areas
was not so pronounced, the figures showing 346,699 days’ care in
1929 and 365,748 days’ care in 1930, an increase of 5 per cent.
T

3 . — Number o f days' care given to women and to babies in maternity homes
in 1929 and 1980, and percentage of increase or decrease in days' care given in
1980 as compared with 1929 in 24 specified metropolitan areas 1

able

Number of days’ care given—
To babies

T o women
Metropolitan area
1929

1930

Total—24 areas...................................

436,732

486,900

Akron.......... - ................ ...............................
Buffalo..........................................................
Canton............. ............................................
Chicago________________________________
Cincinnati...................................................
Cleveland................... ...................................
Columbus............... ......................................
Dayton____ _________ ________ __ _______
Denver....................................................
Des Moines....... ..........................................
Detroit..........................................................
Grand Rapids...............................................
Indianapolis___________________________
Kansas City (M o.)......................................
Louisville______________________________
Minneapolis..................................................
Newark............ .................................. ..........
New Orleans___________________________
Richmond....................................... ............
Sioux C ity....... ..................... .......................
St. Louis........................................................
St. Paul_________ —.............................. .
Wichita...................................................... —
Wilkes-Barre__________________________

4,019
27,612
2,457
14|082
37,410
55,689
14,837
2,485
23,447
22,827
72,888
7,956
9,840
18,490
12,155
15,216
5,361
14,990
10,874
11,801
16,948
8,513
20,629
6,206

4,333
24,526
3,213
14,013
36,654
62,000
15,730
2,962
27,700
23,059
89,066
11,006
8,621
22,229
11,958
18,275
5,524
16,055
14,153
16,541
22,434
8,352
22,709
5,787

1 All agencies reporting comparable figures for both years.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Per cent
of in­
crease
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)

Per cent
of in­
crease
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)

1929

1930

+11.5

346,699

365,748

+5.5

+7.8
-1 1 .2
+30.8
-.5
- 2 .0
+11.3
+ 6.0
+19.2
+18.1
+1.0

2,699
14,022
1,955
22,792
39,702
38,835
7,783
1,279
17,325
11,327
59,992
5,086
14,326
9,371
8,374
10,729
11,359
13,052
7,066
6,438
16,879
6,531
13,299
6,478

2,788
13,360
2,633
20,841
36,422
46,654
9,382
2,294
19,967
11,340
56,420
6,967
12,833
11,366
9,211
13,197
11,141
15,419
8,353
9,753
19, 591
5,771
13, 512
6,533

+3.3
-4 .7
+34.7
-8 .6
-8 .3
+20.1
+20.5
+79.4
+15.2
+• 1
-6 .0
+37.0
-1 0.4
+21.3
+10.0
+23.0
-1 .9
+18.1
+18.2
+51.5
+16.1

+ 2 2 .2

+38.3
-1 2 .4
+20.2
-1 .6
+20.1
+3.0
+7.1
+30.2
+40.2
+32.4
-1 .9
+10.1
-6 .8

- 1 1 .6

+1.6
+ .8

12

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 19 3 0

Service to mothers and to babies in 1930 increased over that given
in 1929 in 17 cities and decreased in 7. However, in a number of
cities the changes were so slight as to be negligible. The largest
increases in maternity-home service to mothers were in Sioux City,
Grand Rapids, St. Louis, Canton, and Richmond. The number of
days’ care given to babies increased considerably in Dayton, Sioux
City, Grand Rapids, Canton, and Minneapolis from 1929 to 1930.
Dayton reported a greater increase in the days’ care given to infants
(79 per cent) than any other city.
There was a decrease of 10 per cent or more in the amount of service
given to mothers in Buffalo and Indianapolis. The only cities in
which as great a reduction was indicated m service to infants were
Indianapolis and St. Paul.
As the instructions to maternity homes request them not to report
in this field infants retained and given care for more than three months
after the discharge of the mother, the statistics on days’ care relate
to young babies. If maternity homes care for infants beyond the
period reported for this field, the service is reported in the census of
dependent and neglected children, designated as field 6 -A of the
Registration of Social Statistics.
CAPACITY OF H O M E S

A different index of change between 1929 and 1930 in maternityhome service of the areas is afforded by information on capacity.
The number of beds and of bassinets available on December 31, 1929,
and on December 31, 1930, are shown in Table 4. Comparable
figures for the two dates appear for 23 areas. Of these, 9 had made
no change in bed capacity for women, 10 had provided more beds
during 1930, and 4 had made slight reductions. The number o f
bassinets remained unchanged in 10 areas, had increased in 11 areas,
and had decreased in 2 areas.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

13

MATERNITY HOMES

T a b l e 4.— Comparison of capacity of maternity homes December SI, 1929, and

December SI, 1980, and increase or decrease during 1930 in 27 specified metro­
politan areas 1
Number of beds
Metropolitan area

A kron .................. .
Buffalo....................
Canton__________
Chicago__________
Cincinnati_______
Cleveland________
Columbus..............
Dayton...................
Denver__________
Des Moines______
Detroit___________
D uluth...............
Grand Rapids____
H artford...............
Indianapolis______
Kansas City (Mo.).
Louisville________
Minneapolis______
Newark__________
New Orleans_____
Richmond________
Sioux C ity..............
Springfield (Mass.).
St. Louis_________
St. Paul__________
Wichita...................
Wilkes-Barre_____

Dee. 31,
1929a

Dec. 31,
1930

12
107
14
67
153
193
58
14
78
85
259
040
(»)
45
63
36
63
49
51
38
59
0
75
30
55
20

12
111
14
62
153
192
50
14
89
85
292
59
40
54
39
77
36
71
55
61
48
59
15
103
0)

60
20

Number of bassinets

Increase
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)

Dec. 31,
1929 »

12
59
9
81
113
138
41
7
43
50
187

+4
-5
-1
-8
+11
+33
0

0

0

0

-6
+14

+8
+6
+10
+10
0
+28
0
+5

1All agencies reporting comparable figures for both dates.
1 Registration of Social Statistics for the Year 1929, Table 16g-29, p. 239.
by Cincinnati was revised.)
s City not included in the registration area during 1929.
* Not reported.

Dec. 31,
1930

0

12
56
9
81
115
156
35
7
44]
50
229
41
25
54
56
48
28
72
17
55
45
29
6
82

25
56
40
28
55
12
43
35
29
63
24
27
22

0

27
25

Increase
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)

-3
+2
+18
-6
+1
+42
0
0
+8
+17
+12
+10
0

+19

(0
+3

(Number of bassinets reported

STAFF M E M B E R S H IP

The character of reporting from maternity homes was excellent
except on the inquiry as to staff membership. Only 20 of 30 areas
supplied information on this subject.
One difficulty in reporting staff was that encountered by homes
which cared for children beyond the period of infancy. These homes
were obliged to estimate the portion of the staff which could be prop­
erly related to maternity and infancy service, a problem not solved
by some homes. The staff count for each home included the total
number of workers engaged in maintaining the institution, exclusive
of beneficiaries who assisted. Volunteer workers were counted if
their withdrawal would have necessitated a replacement by paid
workers, and members of religious orders who worked without salaries
were included.
In 1930 no request was made to the homes for a separation of staff
count into those engaged in administrative, clerical, and maintenance
service as distinguished from those giving direct care to mothers and
babies. Reports showing this segregation would be valuable and
have been planned for future use. In the absence of such information
for 1930 no attempt was made to calculate case loads. Table 5,
however, shows the average number of workers per month engaged in
all occupations in maternity homes of the 20 areas which reported
on staff, and the number of mothers and babies under care in 30 areas
according to the average enumeration on the first day of the month.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 193 0

14

T a b l e 5.— Average number o f workers on the staff per month and average number

o f mothers and o f babies in maternity homes on the first day of the month in SO
specified metropolitan areas during 19S0

Metropolitan area

Average Average number under care
on first day of month
number of
workers
Total

month
2
0

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

23
4
41
36
1
13
14
11

11
12
6
10
7
6
4
31
10
4

20
4
98
ir
236
205
317
84
15
132
88
398
68
48
72
59
97
69
89
43
19
89
56
60
69
16
131
50
75
34

Mothers
12
3
64
9
124
101
180
51
9
77
60
249
50
29
43
24
65
34
52
14
11
46
37
38
45
11
71
30
47
16

Babies
8
1
35
7
112
104
136
33
7
56
28
149
18
19
29
35
32
26
38
29
8
44
19
23
24
6
61
20
27
18

1 Less than 1 worker.
>Reports less than 80 per cent complete.
* Not reported.

The vital statistics of maternity homes are shown for 27 areas in
Table 6. In 18 cities no deaths occurred among the women while
under care during 1930, and no infant deaths were recorded by homes
in 5 cities. For a number of reasons it is impossible to calculate rates
of mortality for the maternity-home group that would be comparable
with standard infant and maternal mortality rates such as those
calculated from statistics of cities. The fact that in 18 areas 1,450
live births occurred without the loss of a mother while under maternityhome care appears to indicate that medical and nursing service was
of high standard. Cleveland had a record of 266 live births, with no
maternal deaths reported for the period mothers were under care.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

MATERNITY HOMES
T

15

6 . — Number o f live births and stillbirths, and number o f deaths o f infants
and women reported by maternity homes in 27 specified metropolitan areas during

able

Deaths of—
Metropolitan area

Live
births

Still­
births
Infants

Total—27 areas.

4,202

Akron______________
Berkeley___________
Buffalo_____________
Canton_____________
Chicago1___________
Cincinnati.................
Cleveland....... ..........
Dayton____ ________
Denver_____________
Des Moines________
Detroit........................
Grand Rapids........ .
Hartford___________
Kansas City (M o.)__
Louisville...................
Minneapolis________
Newark____________
New Haven............ .
New Orleans________
Omaha________ ____
Richmond__________
Sioux City..............
Springfield (Mass.)__
St. Louis___________
St. Paul.................... .
Wichita_____________
Wilkes-Barre________

22

11
169
20
313
278
266
25
171
88
847
91
80
780
80
122
40
18
109
108
72
90
23
176
42
121
40

123

Women

163

18

7

2

2

7
10
8

11

1

2

2
23
4

1
29
1
4
1
1

11
9
6
2

32
7
10

5

22

3

3
6

1
1

2
3

12
4
2
6

4

5

6

1
5
1

1

3

1

1
1

1

1

7
3

1 Reports less than 80 per cent complete.

In the absence of information as to how long the infants stayed in
maternity homes subsequent to birth, no definite conclusions regard­
ing the relative extent of infant mortality can be drawn. Some
homes attempt to keep both the mother and her child during the
six months succeeding birth in order that the infant may be nursed,
but placements of younger infants in boarding homes and foster
homes may be made. Irrespective of the length of time a baby may
actually be under maternity-home care during the year, reporting of
the baby as a case under care in this field automatically stops three
months subsequent to the mother’s discharge, according to registra­
tion ruling. The case is then reported in the field designated as a
census of dependent and neglected children under care outside their
own homes. Therefore, if a mother is separated from a maternity
home shortly after her baby is born, the infant’s case is not reportable
for even a six months’ period. The problem of duration of care and
other technical points prohibit an evaluation of the extent of infant
mortality in maternity homes, during 1930, at any age period. All
the live-born babies in Akron, Berkeley, Canton, Dayton, and St.
Paul survived during the reported period of their care in maternity
homes of those cities.
Summaries of the volume of service and the movement of popula­
tion in maternity homes during 1930 as related to the women and to
the babies cared for are presented in Tables 7 and 8.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

16

SOCIAL. STATISTICS, 19 30

T a b l e 7.— Summary: Women cared fo r in maternity homes in SO specified metro­

politan areas during 1980 __________________________
Women cared for in maternity homes
Metropolitan area

dtulng
year

Total—30 areas........ . ......................... .
Akron__________________________________
Berkeley____________ ________ - .............. Buffalo_________________________________
Canton-----------------------------------------------Chicago1.......................................................
Cincinnati_____________________________
Cleveland______________________________
Columbus...................................... - ........—
Dayton______ _____ —.................................
Denver________________________________
Des Moines____________________________
Detroit_________________________________
Duluth________________________________
Grand Rapids..............................................
Hartford........................................................
Indianapolis___________________________
Kansas City (M o.).......................................
Louisville........ ................- ..........................
Minneapolis____________________________
Newark__________________________ ____ New Haven-------------- . . -----------------New Orleans...............................................
Omaha...........................................................
Richmond_____________________________
Sioux City..............—................ - ................
Springfield (Mass.).......................................
St. Louis.....................................- ................
St. Paul.................................................. ......
Wichita________________________________
Wilkes-Barre---- -------------------- --------------1 Reports less than 80 per cent complete.

8,127
40
16
321
28
655
481
563
682
40
271
170
1,408
161
152
130
97
927
142
252
45
75
178
176
125
158
45
357
107
255
70

Under
care
Dec. 31,
1929
1,509
12
3
63
6
124
93
186
44
13
72
51
204
50
33
40
20
87
40
44
11
8
42
39
33
34
11
51
29
48
18

Received
for care
during
year
6,618
28
13
258
22
531
388
377
638
27
199
119
1,204
111
119
90
77
840
102
208
34
67
136
137
92
124
34
306
78
207
52

Separated
from care
during
year

Under
care
Dec. 31,
1930
1,550
11
3
62
5
105
97
156
45
3
73
61
236
47
34
40
22
88
30
55
23
10
41
32
38
36
9
85
40
46
17

6,577
29
13
259
23
550
384
407
637
37
198
109
1,172
114
118
90
75
839
112
197
22
65
137
144
87
122
36
272
67
209
53

T a b l e 8 . — Summary:. Babies cared fo r in maternity homes in SO specified metro­

politan areas during 1980 __________________________
Babies cared for in maternity hpmes
Metropolitan area

Total—30 areas.
Akron..!____________
Berkeley....................
Buffalo_____________
Canton____________
Chicago1....................
Cincinnati...... ...........
Cleveland__________
Columbus__________
Dayton____________
Denver____________
Des Mo(nes.............. .
Detroit____________
Duluth____________
Grand Rapids--------Hartford_____ ____ Indianapolis........
Kansas City (M o.)._
Louisville__________
Minneapolis.............
Newark..__________
New Haven________
New Orleans_______
Omaha..... ........... —
Richmond_________
Sioux C i t y ............ .
Springfield (M ass.)..
St. Louis__________
St. Paul....................
Wichita___________
Wilkes-Barre______
1 Reports less than 80 per cent complete.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Total
during
year
6,606
32
12
212
25
549
412
441
630
33
229
120
1,101
78
123
108
112
805
117
202
71
37
158
120
94
131
32
294
85
169
74

Under
care
Dec. 31,
1929
1,043
6
1
33
4
119
103
123
22
7
45
21
141
16
17
24
30
32
27
34
28
7
33
24
17
13
5
47
20
26
18

Received
for care
during
year
5,563
26
11
179
21
430
309
318
608
26
184
99
960
62
106
84
82
773
90
168
43
30
125
96
77
118
27
247
65
143
56

Separated
from care
during
year
5,483
26
12
175
21
453
323
322
602
31
173
89
959
62
97
81
80
753
93
168
30
31
118
103
68
101
27
230
59
143
53

Under
care
Dec. 31,
1930
1,123
6
37
4
96
89
119
28
2
56
31
142
16
26
27
32
52
24
34
41
6
40
17
26
30
5
64
26
26
21


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
W. N. DOAK, Secretary

C H IL D R E N ’ S BU REAU
GRACE ABBOTT, Chief

TEMPORARY SHELTER
FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENT PERSONS
AND

TRAVELERS AID
By GLENN STEELE

<5*
Separate from Publication No. 209

Social Statistics in Child Welfare and Related Fields—
Annual Report for the Registration Area for the year 1930

l i b r a

r y

Af ^cultural & Mechanical Co)l*e»> o*
College Station Fnai
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1932

For sale by the Superintendent of Document«. Washington, D . C.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Price 10 cent*


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENT
PERSONS
Statistics concerning the homeless or transient given temporary
care in urban communities are included in the data on dependency
being collected by the Children’s Bureau under the registration of
social statistics. The measure^ of service in this field, as in the field
of general family welfare, provides a useful index in the appraisal of
economic conditions. Missions, shelters, municipal lodging houses,
and religious and other organizations -caring for the homeless or
transient during 1930 in 29 metropolitan areas submitted monthly
reports to the Children’s Bureau, which were used in the following
compilations. The service was maintained chiefly by private
agencies, of which 84 furnished reports. Returns were also received
from 10 public agencies, including 4 police stations. The reports
indicate that the problem in this field is primarily that of the home­
less man, the number of women and children cared for being com­
paratively small.
N IGH T’ S LODGINGS AS A MEASURE OF SERVICE

. The information requested monthly for registration purposes
included three major counts: The number of different persons cared
for, the number of night’s lodgings provided, and the number of
meals served. A number of agencies found it difficult to determine
the number of different persons served within a month. During
periods of excessive demand, especially in large institutions, a count of
new applicants, as distinguished from reapplicants within the same
month, is hard to establish and is subject to overstatement owing to
duplications. The number of lodgings provided offers a more reliable
measurement of the extent and trend of service to the homeless or
transient. Data available from those agencies in 26 cities which
reported continuously over a 2-year period on lodging service have
been used in Table 1 to compare by months the shelter demands of
1929 with those of 1930. Owing to the seasonal influence on the
service, the average number of mght’s lodgings provided per month
during quarterly periods o f each year also has been calculated and
forms the base of the graphic illustration given on page 2.
1


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930
AVERAGE NUMBER OF NIGHT’S LODGINGS PROVIDED MONTHLY DURING EACH QUARTER
OF 1929 AND 1930
£00,000
^

180,000

1
“S

160.000

2

»4-0,000

ç9 I£0,000
‘•gSo
■

o

I
I
1929

1930

i

1930

Second
quarter

F irst

quartier

1929

1930

Third

quarter

I9 £ 9

1330

Fourth.
quarter

In the first quarter of 1929 the average number of night’s lodgings
furnished per month was slightly more than 100,000 as compared
with nearly 150,000 in 1930, an increase of 44.3 per cent. In the
milder weather from April to September the increase in the lodging
T

1 — A v era g e n u m b er o f n igh t’ s lod gin gs p rovid ed m o n th ly p er quarter and
n u m b e r provided each m on th a n d quarter b y agen cies f o r the te m p o r a r y shatter o f
hom eless o r tra n sien t p erso n s i n 2 6 m etrop o lita n a reas 1 d u rin g 1 9 2 9 a n d 1 9 3 0

able

Number of night's
lodgings provided

Number of Dight’s
lodgings provided
Quarter and month

Quarter and month
1929

1929

1930

First quarter:
Average per month----------Total.....................——-----

10S, 862
311,557

149,814
449,443 i

January.......................
February.....................
March------- --------------

108,341
97,640
105,576

146,833 1
147,688 1
154,922 1

Second quarter:
Average per month----------Total.................................

76,254
219,763

87,198
261,594

April_______________
M ay_______________
June________________

82,003
74,285
63,475

103,266
83,233
75,095

Third quarter:
Average per month.

Total_____ _____
July............
August___
September.

Fourth quarter:
Average per month.
Total____________
October___
November.
December.

1930

60,057
180,171

73,694
221,082

59,712
58,762
61,707

71,934
73,296
75,852

94, OU
282,073

19S.00S
579,010

69,878
89,400
122,795

103,783
143,218
332,009

i All aeencies reporting comparable figures in the following areas: Akron, Bridgeport, Buffalo, Canton,
O incin natL Cleveland .D a yton , Des Moines, Detroit, Grand Rapids. Harrisburg, IndianapoUs, Kansas
C ity (M o ), Lancaster, Louisville, Minneapolis, Newark, New Orleans, Omaha, Richmond, Sharon,.
Sioux City, Springfield (HI.), St. Louis, St. Paul, and Wichita.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

3

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

service from 1929 to 1930 was not so pronounced, 19 per cent for the
second quarter and 22.7 per cent for the third quarter.
The increase in service is much more striking when shelter statis­
tics for the fall and early winter of each year are compared. An
average of about 94,000 night’s lodgings were given per month during
October, November, and December, 1929. The figures for the
corresponding months of 1930 show that more than twice the number
of lodgings were provided in the latter year— an average of about
193,000 per month.
The percentages in Table 2 indicate the extent of increase in 1930
over 1929, in lodgings service in each of 22 metropolitan areas.
Agencies in 4 areas reported a decreased service in 1930.
T a b l e 2.— Percentage o f increase or decrease in the number o f night’s lodgings in

26 specified metropolitan areas 1 during 1930 as compared with 1929

Metropolitan area

Richmond_______ _
Cleveland________ ____ _
Grand Rapids.....................
Lancaster____________ . . .
Minneapolis________
Detroit....................
Sharon......................
Indianapolis____________
Dayton.... ....................
Kansas City (M o.)______
New Orleans........................
Omaha___________
Canton.......................

-----------------------------------

Per cent of
increase (+ )
or decrease
(—) in num­
ber of
night’s
lodgings

Metropolitan area

Per cent of
increase (+ )
or decrease
(—) in num­
ber of
night’s
lodgings

+185.2
+158.2
+141.5
+140.2
+96.2
+90.3
+74.0
+54.6
+51.6
+49.3
+46.3
+44.8
+42.6

+38.7
+30.4
+27.2
+27.2
+25.9
+19.1
+13.6
+13,6
+11.0
-3 .5
-4 .7
-1 6 .4
-1 9.9

■

1 All agencies reporting comparable figures fo r the 2 years.

LODGINGS PROVIDED DURING EACH M ON TH OF 1930

The results in these tables do not relate to the entire number of
of lodgings given but only those furnished by agencies submitting
comparable figures for the 2-year period. For 1930 alone statistics
which are more comprehensive, although not entirely complete, are
available from 29 urban centers representing a population of 13,975 287.
In Table 3, which represents these figures, the number of night’s lodgings
given monthly during 1930 in Canton, Chicago, Hartford, Indianapolis,
and Newark is not reported in full.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

4

T able 3 .— N um ber o f night’ s lodgings provided by agencies fo r the temporary
shelter o f homeless or transient persons in 2 9 specified metropolitan areas during
each month o f 1 9 SO

Number of night’s lodgings provided during each month of 1930
Metropolitan area
Total

January February

March

April

M ay

June

Total—29 areas.............l- 1,796,211

172,655

168,961

179,429

123,376

100,765

89,868

3,344
28,064
259,416
20,539
124,508
48,850
63,021
13,119
5,996
354,370
80,337
1,186
35,374
1,405
3,348
69,245
23,435
13,284
283,591
64,262
54,615
36,432
16,714
355
1,755
12,996
137,647
24,081
14|922

385
3,235
27,142
3,015
10,743
6,696
4,189
976
591
13,595
6,305
68
3,457
179
317
7,804
1,899
1,994
23,742
6,221
5,025
5,420
1,638
15
368
1,566
30,456
3,605
2,009

203
3,112
26,032
2,166
9,634
3,831
5,115
968
559
23,880
6,111
43
3,108
121
220
6,785
1,912
1,571
24,922
5,815
5,572
4,230
1,370
34
223
1,630
25,464
2,809
1,521

284
3,089
28,260
1,921
10,327
5,458
6,437
1,055
684
25,672
7,422
40
3,524
113
249
7,473
1,942
1,531
24,998
6,303
5,008
4,540
1,268
36
276
1,713
25,769
2,499
1,538

229
2,424
24,627
1,699
6,942
3,778
5,671
951
555
19,868
7,452
32
3,030
84
347
4,967
1,831
879
18,610
5,706
4,001
3,568
1,125
34
176
919

165
1,974
19,605
1,581
6,814
1,540
4,914
866
489
12,594
6,438
13
2,817
43
212
4,757
1,864
701
17,176
6,757
3,800
2,516
1,286
9
3
602

138
1,678
17,322
1,270
6,160
1,142
3,896
599
405
17,320
5,175
40
2,431
39
336
4,305
1,711
509
12,396
4,740
3,389
1,710
1,014
1
13
326

2,488
1,383

894
1,335

786
1,117

Bridgeport________ __________
Chicago1____________________
Cincinnati_____________ _____
Cleveland________________ __
Dayton_____________________
Duluth.____________________
Grand Rapids_______________
Harrisburg...............................
Hartford 1_______ ____ _______
Indianapolis 1________________
Kansas City (M o.)__________
Louisville___________________
Minneapolis_________________
Newark’ 1____________________
New Orleans________________
Richmond___________________
Sharon______________________
Sioux City_____________ ___ _
Springfield (111.)_____________
St. Paul............................- ........
W ichita-____ _______________

Number of night’s lodgings provided during each month
of 1930
Metropolitan area
July
84,845

Septem­
ber

October

Novem­
ber

85,811

92,180

126,889

173,564

15
297

107
1, 523
16,782
1,302
5,810
810
3,615
961
405
15,494
4,126
4
2,445
81
318
4,586
1,435
553
12,867
4,431
3; 113
1,171
1,491
2
21
437

260
1,618
16,349
1,176
5,930
1,368
3,747
1,169
391
16,544
6,198
50
2,335
72
294
4,792
1,742
581
14,335
4,581
3,644
983
1,223
3
30
555

336
2,090
20,401
1,461
7,267
3,378
5,232
1,703
520
24,791
8,443
103
2,948
94
280
6,537
2,179
1,034
19,006
6,628
4,821
2,581
1,929
7
135
1,380

802
790

1,180
741

1,406
804

1,457
1,148

74
1,400
16,087
1,209
5,920
811
3,431
599
315
18,195
4,143
25
2,213
56
282
4,072
1,490
539
11,905
4,461
3,395
1,350
969

St P a u l........................................................
Wichita________________________________

August

* Reports of 1 or more important agencies not included«
» Agency closed April to October, inclusive.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

337
2,710
21,725
1,782
9,764
8,382
6,895
1,801
475
23,226
8,394
354
3,420
164
220
6,158
2,442
1,334
28,668
4,944
6,067
3,868
1,695
111
242
1,765
22,602
2,632
1,387

Decem­
ber
397,868
826
3,311
25,084
1,957
39,197
11,656
9,879
1,471
607
143,191
10,130
414
3,646
359
273
7,009
2,988
2,058
74,966
5,675
6,780
4,495
1,706
103
253
1,806
33,356
3,523
1,149

SHELTER

7

FOR

H O M ELESS

O R T R A N S IE N T S

The total number of night’s lodgings furnished during 1930 by
the reporting agencies in 29 cities was 1,796,211. The peak of service
for the early part of the year was reached in March, when 179,429
® lodgings were provided. Although fewer lodgings were given
in February, a shorter month, the average nightly service slightly
exceeded that in March. Beginning with April the usual seasonal
recession m shelter service commenced, the number of night’s lodg­
ings being reduced to about 85,000 by July. In the upward swing in
the later part of the year the March service was not exceeded until
December, when nearly 400,000 night’s lodgings were given. When
translated in terms of the average number of persons lodged per night
in each month, the same figures show that an average of slightly more
than 6,000 persons were given beds nightly during February, 2,700
durmg July, and nearly 13,000 in December.
In each city the usual seasonal fluctuation in lodging service oc­
curred with a few exceptions. According to reported information,
Detroit provided more night’s lodgings in July than in January, and
.Newark more in Alay than in December. The number of lodgings
p v e n in January was less than the number given in M ay in Cleveland
and Duluth, while in Dayton about the same number of night’s lodg­
ings were furnished in January and in August.
AVERAGE NUMBER OF LODGINGS IN PEAK MONTH OF 1930 PER 10 000
POPULATION IN 24 CITIES

In each city it is not known how many of those seeking a place to
sleep are resident or nonresident, and it is impossible to ascertain to
what extent each community is called upon to care for the indigent
from without its gates. Therefore, the shelter given when compared
to population does not provide an index of dependency within the
community. Rates to population, however, may be used to compare
the relative extent of the shelter service given by the various com­
munities. For this purpose the total number of lodgings provided in
the peak month of 1930 and the number per 10,000 population are
shown for 24 cities in Table 4. Statistics for Canton, Chicago, Hart­
ford, Indianapolis, and Newark are omitted because incomplete.
-N u m b e r o f night’s lodgings provided by agencies fo r the tem porary shelter
o f homeless or transient persons and rate per 1 0 ,0 0 0 population in 2 A specified
metropolitan areas during the peak month 1 o f 19S 0
*
J
Night’s
lodgings
provided during
peak month
Metropolitan area
Number
Total—24 areas.
Minneapolis............
Duluth............ .......
Detroit___________
Lancaster_________
Buffalo......... ..........
St. Louis_________
Omaha....................
Springfield (HI.)___
Cincinnati.............
Kansas City (M o.).
Harrisburg________

Rate per
10,000
popula­
tion

356,998

380.2

74,966
10,130
143,191
2,988
28,260
33,356
5,420
1,806
11, 656
7,804
3,646

1,603.6
998.4
843.1
460.9
378.5
322.7
253.3
219.3
197.8
195. 2
181.8

Night’s
lodgings
provided during
peak month
Metropolitan area

Bridgeport___
Wichita______
New Orleans..
St. Paul______
Cleveland____
Richmond____
Dayton___. . . .
Louisville____
Des Moines__
Sioux City___
Akron________
Sharon_______
Grand Rapids.

1 For number of night’s lodgings during each month of 1930 see Table 3, p. 4.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Rate per
Number

3,311
2,009
6,780
3,605
9,879
1,929
1,801
2,058
684
368
826
111
414

10,000

popula­
tion
180.8
180.8
137.6
125.7
84.8
80.6
74.7
66.9
48.0
46.5
29.4
20.7
19.9

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

6

In the majority of cities December was the month of greatest need
for shelter service during 1930, but in some cities the peak of service
was reached in other months.
In accordance with its population, Minneapolis furnished a larger
number of night’s lodgings at the peak of demand than any of the
other cities listed. The number of lodgings provided in Duluth and
Detroit was also relatively high. Of cities below midpoint in the
array, Cleveland is the largest. The Welfare Federation of Cleve­
land states that the relatively limited service there was probably due
to work tests given all able-bodied applicants, to good case work, and
to a 3-day limit put upon shelter service for transients by the largest
agency in the city. In the other cities where less than 100 lodgings
per 10,000 population were given in the peak month, such definite
i n f o r m a t i o n is not available, but it can not be assumed that the lower
rates were due to lessel need for shelter service. It is possible that
the means for providing this type of aid were limited or that the social
work of the city was so planned that care was given through other
agencies than those which devote their activities solely to the care of
the homeless.
BED CAPACITY IN LODGING HOUSES
A consideration of the number of applicants in relation to beds
affords some information of the adequacy of equipment to meet the
needs for shelter in each city. Information for this comparison is
limited to that given by agencies which have sleeping quarters under
their management. There are other agencies without equipment
which pay for lodging the homeless or transient in local hotels or
rooming houses. Seventy-one agencies in 27 cities reported monthly
during 1930 on the number of beds available for use in their estab­
lishments. The number so reported for the last day of the peak
month of service is assumed to represent the bed capacity for that
month and has been compared to the average number of persons
lodged per night in these establishments during the month. In
five cities— Grand Rapids, Lancaster, Minneapolis, Richmond, and
St. Louis— the average number of persons lodged per night exceeded
the number of beds. The figures for Harrisburg, Hartford, Newark,
and Sioux City indicate that the bed capacity was just about suffi­
cient to care for the number lodged. In 18 other cities there were
beds to spare, according to the average number of applicants served
per night. However, in some of these cities all beds may have been
used on certain nights of the peak month, a fact which the average
monthly count of persons lodged would not disclose. Fluctuations
day by day within the month are not reported. It is interesting to
note that in Bridgeport, Cincinnati, Des Moines, and Omaha, where
shelter was provided by the police departments, the number of beds
reported by other establishments was larger that the average number
of occupants per night during the peak month.
SHELTER FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN
Although 12 of 94 reporting agencies operated exclusively for the
benefit of women in need of shelter and 27 others served both men and
women, the proportion of lodgings furnished women in 1930 was small.
From data on this subject reported by 24 cities it was found that only

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

7

5 per cent of the lodgings given during the year were for women.
The plan of reporting in 1930 called for a count of children served
but did not distinguish as to whether food or lodgings were provided
for them. In 22 cities the average number of children under 14 years
of age cared for per month during 1930 was reported as 432. Canton,
Chicago, and Newark figures included in the calculations were,
however, incomplete. None of the agencies reporting from Buffalo,
Harrisburg, Hartford, Lancaster, Minneapolis, Richmond, and St.
Louis gave service to children.
MEAL SERVICE

M ost of the agencies reporting for 1930 provided both lodgings and
meals for the homeless, although some reported a service of shelter
only. More than 4,000,000 meals were served during the year in
the 29 metropolitan areas. Owing to the omission of returns from
important agencies in four cities, the reported total of 4,101,445
falls short of the number of meals actually served. As may be seen
from Table 5, there is a seasonal fluctuation in the service of meals
as well as of lodgings, with a marked decline in service during the
milder months of the year. Forty-two per cent of all the meals
provided during 1930 were served in November and December.
T a b l e 5 — N um ber o f meals served by agencies fo r the temporary shelter o f homeless
or transient persons in 2 9 specified metropolitan areas during each month o f 1 9 8 0

Number of meals served during each month of 1930
Metropolitan area
Total

January February

March

April

May

June

Total— 29 areas.

4,101,445

317,748

332,219

355,688

216,801

174,871

145,796

Akron______________
Bridgeport........ .........
Buffalo_____________
Canton 1____________
Chicago1___________
Cincinnati__________
Cleveland__________
Dayton__________ _
Des Moines............. .
Detroit........................
Duluth.......................
■Grand Rapids.............
Harrisburg..................
Hartford i . . . ..............
Indianapolis >_______
Kansas City (M o .)...
Lancaster___________
Louisville........ ...........
Minneapolis_________
Newark i___________
New Orleans...... ........
Omaha_____________
Richmond__________
Sharon_____________
Sioux City...... ............
Springfield (I1J.)_.......
St. Louis »...................
St. Paul......................
Wichita____________

5,127
61,524
267,153
53,071
307,334
39,000
158,334
24,657
5,585
1,359,385
85,206
1,153
10,166
10,462
9,624
169,999
26,388
28,0S£
715,514
164,951
73,427
45,488
36,192
979
1,935
26,824
291,551
109,122
13,212

618
5,059
28,694
7,274
22,489
3, 52
12,186
1,776
537
38,925
4,774
21
684
807
976
19,963
1,665
3,78
54,078
15, 259
6,260
4,680
3,347
64
194
3,747
61,875
13, 072
1,892

268
4,511
27,939
4,736
22,375
2,556
12,068
1,616
493
75,716
4,643
12
627
657
640
17,567
1,727
2,683
55,021
14,090
6,580
4,337
2,605
68
109
3,817
52,281
10,937
1,540

362
4,706
28,378
4,180
20, 564
3,184
20,157
1,742
340
85,450
4,856
22
803
902
586
17,904
1,487
2,096
55,342
16,209
6,660
3,987
2,786
131
120
4,174
56,091
11,688
781

220
4,308
20,761
3,595
16,985
2,381
10,569
1,473
490
49,854
5,119
38
784
608
891
11,579
1,454
1,896
45,397
14,336
5,272
3,666
2,542
68
165
923

222
4,144
11,411
3,275
18,855
1,626
13,232
1,232
433
31,686
4,372
24
598
103
615
10,808
1,487
1,161
38,740
12,914
4,152
3,876
3,208
79
103
208

216
3,601
11,374
3,127
17,727
1,653
9,668
957
327
19,095
3,803
20
712
71
968
10,630
1,515
1,792
30,816
11,243
4,001
3,423
2,499
36
106
170

10,805
622

5,534
773

5,320
926

1 Reports of 1 or more important agencies not included.
Agency closed April to October, inclusive.

3

97379— 32—— 2


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

8

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T a b l e 5 — N u m ber o f meals served by agencies f o r the tem porary shelter o f homeless
or transient persons in 2 9 specified metropolitan areas during each month o f
1 9 8 0 —-Continued

Number of meals served during each month of 1930
Metropolitan area
July

August

Septem­
ber

October

Novem­
ber

Decem­
ber

Total— 29 areas___________________

150,100

179,321

193,874

319,706

505,467

1,209,854

Akron............... ..............
Bridgeport............................................
Buffalo.................... ..............
Canton •___ _____ _________
Chicago •.................... ............................
Cincinnati________________________
Cleveland....... ..........................
Dayton...................................................
Des Moines........... ..........................
Detroit............. ...............................
Duluth................................
Grand Rapids________________ .
Harrisburg...............................................
Hartford 1__________ _________ .___
Indianapolis 1............................................
Kansas City (M o.).............................. ........
Lancaster__________ .
Louisville..............................................
Minneapolis........ ...................................
Newark 1___________
New Orleans__________________
Omaha.............................. ...........
Richmond______________________
Sharon_______________
Sioux City_________•__________
Springfield (Dl.)........................................
St. Louis i_______________
St. Paul________________________
Wichita................................ ................

179
3,663
11,904
3,446
16,447
1,894
10,143
1,150
232
21,404
4,601
37
563
280
1,011
10,258
1,487
1,827
30,519
12,067
4 , 638
3, 566
2,462
32
84
191

207
3,996
14,040
4,118
17,346
2,436
8,278
1,960
330
40,295
4,897
36
765
483
928
11,935
1,412
1,728
33,002
12,640
4,526
3,776
3,495
44
71
364

440
5,209
13,838
3,218
18,247
2,434
9,922
2,384
324
54,735
7,368
48
659
372
813
11,786
1,689
2,086
28,271
12,175
4,571
2,341
2,711
39
94
542

499
6,138
18,402
3,892
21,270
2,792
12,696
3,572
625
114,179
11,806
131
912
416
808
15,381
2,836
2,306
60,756
15,908
6,211
2,817
3,638
83
131
2,466

5,381
634

5,531
682

6,66Ö
898

8,006
1,029

521
7,433
32,340
5,941
23, 554
3,385
16,467
3,727
663
201,668
12,016
344
1,279
1,338
617
14,626
4,066
2,585
79,393
13,195
9,833
4 , 019
3,228
199
165
4,304
46,190
10,896
1,475

1,375
8,756
48, 72
6,269
91,475
11,607
22,948
3,068
791
626,378
16,951
420
1,780
4,425
771
17,562
5,563
4,142
204,179
14,915
10,723
5,000
3,671
136
593
5,918
75,114
16,292
1,960

1 Reports of 1 or more important agencies not included.
1 Agency closed April to October, inclusive.

Information from 25 cities on the number of meals given men and
women during the year showed that only 8 per cent were served to
women.
FEES FOR LODGINGS

Although only such agencies as operate without profit are requested
to report in this field, 48 of the 94 reporting agencies asked a fee from
those able to pay for lodgings. The amount was as low as 10 cents
per night in two establishments in Minneapolis. Twenty-five cents
was the sum most frequently charged for one night’s lodging. Fortysix agencies reqtiired no cash payments for lodgings provided. The
majority of agencies in 26 cities reported' that labor also was given
by some beneficiaries in return for lodgings or meals. The reports
for 1930 did not call for a count of the number of persons who worked,
whereby calculations could be made of the proportion of homeless or
transient who paid for care with labor or the hours per worker given.
Data reported for 24 areas showed a total service during 1930 of
940,409 nights’ lodgings and 1,607,182 meals by all agencies— those
which gave free assistance as well as those which required returns in
cash or labor. Less than 650,000 hours of work was performed during
the year by beneficiaries of these services. No doubt the problem of
providing outside work for applicants was exceptionally difficult in


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SH ELTER

FOR

H O M ELESS

O R T R A N S IE N T S

9

1930, and work required within the various establishments would not
be sufficient to give employment to many of the large numbers
cared for.
STAFF
The staff membership as of December, 1930, reported by 88 of 94
agencies in 29 cities totaled 455. Twelve agencies in Chicago had a
total of 100 employees on their staffs. A number of other agencies
in this city were not included in the registration reports. Four of
six agencies operating in Detroit reported 53 staff members in all. In
Buffalo, Kansas City, Minneapolis, and New Orleans from 25 to 50
workers were reported, and from 10 to 20 persons were engaged in
caring for the homeless or transient in Bridgeport, Cincinnati, Cleve­
land, Duluth, Omaha, and St. Louis, as indicated by reports for
December, 1930. In each of the remaining 18 cities there were less
than 10 staff members reported for that month. These staff counts
are exclusive of the number of workers from the ranks of those
assisted.
Agencies have reported in this field only upon shelter service pro­
vided to meet the immediate necessities of homeless persons. To some
extent aid to this group was given by agencies reporting in the field of
family welfare during 1930, either under general programs or through
a specialized service. Five agencies, in Buffalo, Chicago, Minne­
apolis, Omaha, and St. Louis, submitted reports in the family-welfare
field of special activities on behalf of homeless persons. In some
instances these included payment for temporary shelter and in others
study of individual problems presented and efforts for their solution
through case work. The section of the annual report for 1930'on
travelers aid (see p. 33) covers another type of service to travelers or
transients.
It is hoped that the registration service in the shelter field may be
developed by the Children’s Bureau to throw more light on the prob­
lem of the homeless family with children; to indicate what proportion
of those receiving care pay in cash or labor; and in general to secure
more complete and accurate counts of the dependents and the units of
services for them. No satisfactory means has been established for
taking a census of dependents in this field. A number of cities are
endeavoring to secure central reporting of all homeless or transients
seeking aid, and there is prospect that this problem eventually may be
solved through their efforts.
SHELTER STATISTICS SECURED FOR THE PRESIDENT’S ORGANIZA­
TION ON UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
The statistics on the homeless or transient for 1929, 1930, and the first nine
months of 1931 secured through the registration of social statistics have been
supplemented by reports to the Children’s Bureau from cities not participating
in the registration in order to provide the President’ s Organization on Unemploy­
ment Relief with current information as comprehensive as possible for the
country.
The following tables which embody the combined statistics for 23 registration
and 35 nonregistration cities are reprinted from the bureau’s report on relief
expenditures, January-September, 1931, published in December, 1931.
Concerning shelter for the homeless and transient this report stated:
“ Further information applicable to the general relief situation duringfthe
period of depression has been received by the Children’s Bureau from missions.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

10

S O C IA L

S T A T IS T IC S , 1 9 3 0

shelters, municipal lodging houses, and other agencies which provided food and
beds for the homeless in 58 large urban centers. The volume of this assistance is
best pictured by the number of night’s lodgings provided. This number was
about 2,850,000 for the first nine months of 1931 as compared with 887,000
night’s lodgings furnished in the corresponding period of 1929. These figures
indicate an increase of 221 per cent in this service from 1929 to 1931.
“ The increase in meals served, when the nine months of 1929 and 1931 are
compared, is greater— 443 per cent. As meal service can be expanded much
more readily in time of stress than shelter service, which depends upon housing
facilities, the larger increase in the former service is not surprising. Nearly
8,000,000 meals were served in the 58 cities from January to September, 1931, as
compared to about 1,500,000 for the same period of 1929.
“ In 1931 the peak of the shelter service was reached in January when 502,000
night’s lodgings were given those needing a place to sleep. Although fewer lodg­
ings were given in February, a shorter month, the average nightly service exceeded
that in January. Shelter service began to recede in April and dropped month by
month, the number of night’s lodgings being reduced to about 155,500 by July.
In August the service advanced slightly, and in September there was a further
increase of 14 per cent over the August service, indicating a somewhat sharper
rise in early fall service than was made in 1929 or 1930. ”
The detailed tabulations on temporary shelter of homeless and transient per­
sons in 58 cities giving statistics by quarters and trends by cities during the period
from January, 1929, to September, 1931, appear in Tables I to V III.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TABom^

tmmnZ

t e r ^ ^ l S ^ M
S Z e fir r tn S tr n o m h lV fm t

Cities of 100,000 or more population

Average number of meals served per month

First
quarter

First
quarter

-------------- _______
Second
quarter

Third
quarter

276,086

64,949
85,690
149,990

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

773

880

269

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

3,777

1,941

1,732
2,922

Third
quarter

Fourth
quarter

230,282
316,608
1,288,765

120,347
154,527

97,805
138,558
359,374

176,089
613,374

454
600

429
416
1,685

291
219

321
275
1,014

584
798

905
1,311
858

1,720
2,936

3,749
5,646

593
841
5,271

543
608
1,000

2,646
11,928

1,383
1,199

1,4 7 3

1,438

2,366

1,674
3,108

1,494
2,772
2,869

1,605
3,138
2,468

2,622
3,992

2|066

2,600

1,726
1,511
1,628

2,136
2,692

4,475
4,748
8,351

3,687
4,016
5,964

4,350
4,282
3,202

4,022
7,413

% 146

23,431

14,391
16,406
19,835

17,324
22,403

26,372
28,337
55,417

12,283
14,515
41,519

8,555
13,261
47,173

14,093
32,938

$054

7,486

771
996
1,570

2,543
7,805

2,302
2,931
33,152

1,153
1,887

994
2,255
6,340

1,815
5,928

14,602

17,078

1,508
3,598
13,832

2,074
7,335

8,643
14,804
32,173

4,269
11,156
34,231

2,658
9,448
34.647

6,825
17,370

OOo

...........

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

O R T R A N S IE N T S

109,620
227,551

‘ Metropolitan areas, not limited to city proper.
Includes reports of an agency which began to provide night’s lodgings January, 1 9 3 1 .


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Second
quarter

H O M ELESS

461,’ 420

Fourth
quarter

FOR

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

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

--

Average number of night’s lodgings provided
per month

SH ELTER

Total—26 cities:
1929...............
1930......... .
1931...........
Akron, Ohio:
1929................
1930.............
1931................
Albany, N. Y .:
1929....................
1930.........
1931..................
Birmingham, Ala.:
1929...................
1930...................
1931..................
Bridgeport, Conn.:
1929..................
1930...............
1931..................
Buffalo, N. Y.:
1929....................
1930..................
1931..................
Cincinnati, Ohio:*
1929..................
1930........................
1931............................
Cleveland, Ohio:
1929.......................
1930........................
1931............................

°L n ig h l'‘ tf P n« ’ P rovided p er quarter and o f n u m b er o f m ea le served p er
P op u la tion re p o rt,n g com p a ra b le m o n th ly fig u res d u rin g W M , 19S0,

T a b l e I . — M on th ly averages o f number o f night’s lodgings provided per quarter and o f number oftm alaserved \per

to

quarter in 26 cities o f 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 or more population reporting comparable monthly figures during 1 9 2 9 , 19 8 0 ,
and the first nine months o f 19 31 — Continued
Average number of night’s lodgings provided
per month
Cities of 100,000 or more population

First
quarter

Second
quarter

Third
quarter

Fourth
quarter

Average number of meals served per month
First
quarter

Second
quarter

Third
quarter

Fourth
quarter

1,754
1,972
6,880

2,097
1,958
5,461

2,867
I , 853
4,162

2,256
3,642

5,501
5,073
19,837

4,163
4,522
11,512

3,522
4,763
8,712

3,955
10,565

1929
1930
1931

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

812
1,000
1,529

645
805
1,437

520
910
1,058

907
1,658

1,871
1,711
3,218

1,429
1,221
976

995
1,831
2,375

1,856
3,456

1929
1930
1931

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

9,517
19,944
187,639

18,559
15,272
98,296

13,693
15,402
II,

16,855
60,925
971

6,442
42,307
528,485

15,174
12,386
332,825

11,175
5,302
18,233

17,614
263,313

1929..............................
1930.............................
1931..............................

65
50
5,083

52
28
4,758

14
26
4,070

33
290

30
18
19,246

28
27
15,479

10
40
14,364

23
298

2,968
3,363
4,448

2,440
2,759
3,363

2,062
2,331
2,532

2,877
3,338

600
705
10,981

500
698
9,938

498
662
6,354

800
1,324

3,870
7,352
10,346

3,852
i 676
8,355

3,693
4,483
6,263

4,026
6,568

8,922
18,470
26,051

8,588
11,002
21,225

8,479
11,316
15,161

8,962
15,842

371
670
1,812

252
545
998

319
523
849

725
1,396

523
1,186
2,627

269
1,038
1,762

482
971
1,871

1,357
1,781

304
492
1,661

171
186
422

106
148
288

224
1,655

869
969
2,141

537
664
967

104
636
938

470
1,965

1,164
1,699
1,999

528
696
981

420
558
698

1,369
1,475

2,099
2,853
4,508

1,642
1,616
2,977

1,307
1,880
1,975

2,372
3,011

Dayton, Ohio:

Detroit, M ich .:14

Grand Rapids, Mich.: ‘

Harrisburg, Pa.: *
1929
.......
.......
1930
1931
.......
Kansas City, M o.:
1929
......
1930
......
1931
......
Knoxville, Tenn.:7
1929
___
1930
___
1931
........................................
Long Beach, Calif.:
1929
......
1930
___
1931
..... .
Louisville, Ky.:
1929
___
1930
___
1931
___


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

S T A T IS T IC S , 1 9 3 0

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

S O C IA L

1929
1930
1931

Columbus, Ohio: *

Minneapolis, Minn.: *

1929.......................
1930.......................
1931........................

11,030
16,061
40,779

9,399
13,036
38,324

12.250
40,880

42,064
54,814
216,558

28,557
38,318
121,546

25,095
30,597
97,623

33,918
114,776

3,638
5,202
7,616

2,509
3,730
6,047

2,386
3,384
5,620

3,911
5,889

4,438
6.500
13,026

3,528
4,475
7,962

3,289
4,578
8,800

5,227
8,922

6,518
6,113
4,980

5,106
5,401
5,342

5,134
4,491
5,374

5,727
5,416

14,071
16,186
14,375

10,233
12.831
14,928

10,725
12,294
13,709

13.784
14,673

3,419
4,664
5,070

1,592
2,534
3,111

896
1.090
1.091

2,297
3,594

3,373
4,256
4,865

2,287
3,081
2,905

2,894
3,854

...........
591
337
.................. .................. .................. ..................
1,425
1,142
............
2,000
1,629

2,731
3,527
3,116

209
1,228
1,466

1,274
1,777

586
2,913
3,512

264
2,750
3,375

90
2,889
3,144

2,770
3,512

New Orleans, L a.:

1929
1930
1931..

...........
...........
. . ____

Newark, N . J .: »

1929.......................
1930..
. .........
1931
...........

Omaha, N ebr.:

1929
1930
1931

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

Richmond, V a.:

1929
1930
1931

San Antonio, Tex.: •

1929
1930
1931

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

152
99
488

San Francisco, Calif.:

1929
1930
1931

St. Louis, M o.:

1929..
1930
1931

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

15,054
17,740
32,246

5,599
7,810
19,513

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

20,220
27,230
32,104

<•)
(•)

St. Paul, M inn.:

1929
1930
1931

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

Tacoma, W ash.:

1929........................
1930..
.............
1931.......................

12,720

2,396
6,806
8,571

(*)
(«)

11,641

10,329
15,784

16,956
19,177
130,196

12,849
18,653

47,441
66,749
74,471

(•)

10,389
11,020
95,637

5,969
13,420
16,183

8,938
19,800

(6)

(•)
(•)

23,594
40,435

31,624

30,303

3,719
2,971
4,295

1,062
1,389
2,618

429
1,129
1,964

2,022
2,537

19,835
11,899
15,638

7,009
7,220
11,476

4,289
6,857
7,762

9,105
11,398

3,153
4,752
8,683

807
3,095
5,455

330
2,906
4,802

1,931
5,920

6,861
10,735
19,784

1,411
5,773
12,859

384
5,100
13,008

5,754
13,831

1 or,more important agencies in this city not received.
rep0Lts ° l a new agen°y whlch began work December, 1930.
°|8 new agency which began work January, 1931.
7
reports of an agency which began to provide meals January, 1931
• 1 agincy report! t h a t ^ n ^ t r ^ n t « ® 8811-10 pr°7lde ni?ht’s lod&ings October, 1930.
•L % ice for ^
y
transients reC61Ve 88818481106 in oash ra4h<* than ™ meals or lodgings.
!

,
a

88
248

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

15,304
24,554
71,396

CO


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

I I .— Monthly averages o f number of night's lodgings provided per quarter and o f number o f meals served per
quarter in 82 cities 1 o f 50,000 to 100,000 population reporting comparable monthly figures during 1929, 1930,
and the first nine months o f 1981

T able

Average number of night’s lodgings provided
per month

Jr*

Average number of meals served per month

Cities of 50,000 to 100,000 population
First
quarter


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Third
quarter

Fourth
quarter

First
quarter

Second
quarter

Third
quarter

Fourth
quarter

11,634
16,941
28,038

7,898
11,319
19,227

6,034
9,538
15,083

10,868
21,025

17,757
30,030
92,063

11,095
20,056
52, 737

9,618
17,511
43,026

18,125
50,547

570
556
375

401
347
337

258
346
259

298
320

676
513
888

310
533
783

279
288
614

412
511

93
98
140

88
100
123

76
90
93

91
102

100
135
152

95
133
126

82
109
84

109
135

469
381
502

428
382
486

412
389
527

371
458

1,455
1,122
1,473

1,410
1,083
1,436

1,579
1,037
1,729

1,467
1,610

257
237
329

183
198
259

155
174
140

380
211

315
341
629

322
380
645

209
400
289

481
458

224
624
1,273

227
402
974

230
525
1,021

627
759

374
1,253
2,904

381
930
2,160

404
1,226
2,422

1,240
1,977

522
2,057
2,935

371
1,811
2,182

286
1,543
2,097

741
2,140

564
4,148
11,186

*430
3,491
9,239

287
3,081
8,308

1,036
4,930

274
286
934

159
212
554

138
211
441

210
567

283
289
1,960

173
210
1,003

135
306
1,286

203
958

120
160
252

107
126
264

84
101
117

137
152

27
28

26
29
4?

92
84

31
49
271

m

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Total—32 cities:
1929____ ______ ___________________ ____
1930......................... . .............. ...................
1931......... .....................................................
Asheville, N. C.:
1929................ ........... .............................
1930........... ...................................................
1931............................................. ................
Bethlehem, Pa.:
1929..................................— .......................
1930_____ _____________________________
1931........... .......................... ........................
Brockton, Mass.:
1929............................................................. .
1930.......................... ...................................
1931...............................................................
Charleston, S. C.:
1929............... .............................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Charlotte, N. C.:
1929..............................................................
1930...............................................................
1931................................. .............................
Chester, Pa.: *
1929...............................................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Greensboro, N. C.:
1929...............................................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Holyoke, Mass.:
1929...............................................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................

Second
quarter

*

*

S3
w

CO

157
286
555

119
228
487

104
153
381

156
502

275
288
859

226
420
824

130
162
560

238
655

19
6
40

8
11
3

17
2
1

14
10

30
136
462

22
13
215

31
11
16

72
169

1,691
1,918
2,656

1,460
1,802
2,650

1,104
1,556
2,421

1,578
2,525

1,141
1,626
5,105

1,033
1,485
5,706

915
1,529
^ 6,072

1,748
4,155

15
42
61

6
25
55

14
10
38

34
57

42
53
53

48
24
66

19
26
64

44
82

205
239
365

105
159
221

120
161
140

248
550

507
491
1,371

352
344
1,248

331
459
1,348

580
951

668
450
1,601

583
210
499

330
101
436

549
1,050

199
160
1,831

186
100
487

166
225
417

159
741

186
277
216

114
236
248

127
154
140

223
185

362
626
522

252
514
449

230
333
295

472
441

100
159
409

135
243
485

116
184
450

147
398

31
41
823

32
44

37
127
199

29
741

700

1,307
1,740
2j773

736
763
1,377

442
656
1,177

647
2,254

4,587
4,610
8,700

2,176
2,530
3,173

1,605
2,074
3,095

1,920
5,934

17
29
166

10
24
101

18
29
67

38
69

13
25
39

7
19
32

11
26
34

366
*1,035
38

289
* 555
67

75
30
48

262
74

353
1,291
50

323
706
83

114
73
49

216
248

352
639
762

251
439
422

208
197
556

285
578

83
587
890

81
178
255

83
62
232

98
657

> Metropolitan areas, not limited to city proper.
* Reports from 1 or more important agencies in this city not received.
* Includes reports of a lodging house opened December, 1930.
*Temporarylodging houseoperated during the first 4 months of 1930 by 1 agency; closed because funds were exhausted.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

48
44

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

97379— 32

M
W
2
Y

Huntington, W . Va.:
1929...............................................................
1930________ ______ - ..................................
1931...............................................................
Kenosha, Wis.:
1929...............................................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Lancaster, Pa.:
1929...............................................................
1930..............................................................
1931........... - .................................................
Lawrence, Mass.:
1929...............................................................
1930.......................... ...................................
1931...............................................................
Little Rock, Ark.:
1929....................... .......................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Mobile, Ala.: »
1929................................. .............................
1930...............................................................
1931............. - ................................................
New Britain, Conn.:
1929............................ ..................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Niagara Falls, N . Y .:
1929...............................................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Pasadena, Calif.:
1929...............................................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Pawtucket, R . I.:
1929..............................................................
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Pontiac, Mich.:
1929...............................................................
1930........................................................... .
1931........................................................... - ,
Port Arthur, Tex.
1929.............................................................
1930............................................................. ..
1931..............................- ...............................

Oi

T a b l e l l — Monthly averages o f number o f night’ s lodgings provided per quarter and o f number o f meals‘ servedper

quarter in 82 cities o f 50,000 to 100,000 population reporting comparable monthly figures during 1929,1980,
and the first nine months o f 1981— Continued
Average number of n:ght’s lodgings provided
per month
Cities of 60,000 to 100,000 population
First
quarter

1930___________________________________
1931...............................................................
Roanoke, Va.:
1 Q2Q
______________________
1930___________________________________
1931____ _____________ ________________
Rockford, 111.:
1 Q2Q
______________________
1930.____ _____________________________
1931
_______________________
Sacramento, Calif.:
1929
_______________________
1930___________________________________
1931
________________________
Sharon, Pa.:
1929
________________________
1930___________________________________
1931_________________ _________________
Shreveport, La.:
1029
_________________________
1930-------- -------------------------------------------1931___________________________________
Sioux City, Iowa:
1930---------------------------------------------------1931...............................................................
Springfield, 111.:
1930...............................................................
1931...............................................................
Terre Haute, Ind . : 2
.... ........... ..................................
1931...............................................................

1930


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Fourth
quarter

Third
quarter

First
quarter

80

78

180

155

652
855

363
1,674
2,808

306

785

2,496

1,526

807
2,474

1,747
2,874
12,026

991

476

5,791

5,591

686

359

378

20,640

4,615

3,325

38

27

13

222

130

26
16
74

39

263
800
1,276

145
604

293
1,140
767
295
586

3,243

525
826
1,595

1,0 0 0

457
694
592

180
103
359

163
139
199

329
359

20

27

11

28
104

9
15
128

145
316
2,127

27
44
963

61
35
337

155
580

75
289
193

74
64
52

42

301

22

2 10

1,501
1,636
1,849

606
616
1,451

415
430
1,014

918
1,650

231
468
825

146
296
450

329
160
664
307
409 1...................

436
1,877

1,0 11

2

74

69

3

Third
quarter

182

41
37
65

837

Second
quarter

87

69
76
78

1,0 0 1

Average number of meals served per month

237
144

58

5,079

2,912

544

229

186

69

149

98

66

1,576
3,913
5,026

225

126

3,350

2,159

255

375

1,025

904

10 1

Fourth
quarter

10 2

94

1,534
1,681
1,772
7,675
723
6,278
49
139
225
1,909
170
296
1,572
4 229
640
1,497

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Racine, Wis.:

Second
quarter

05

I
330
325
647

294
396
608

199
165
196

207
447

783
785
1,826

596
765
1,520

418
557
657

494
918

103
58
301

61
33
480

35
55
248

82
142

147
73
674

68
32
951

61
65
491

93
132

12
21
519

10
13
281

3
30
217

2
485

100
27
1,375

55'
85
819

68
86
324

217

•

86

'
irom 1 or ™ore important agencies in this city not receiv
1 Includes reports of a new agency which began work March, 1 9 3 1 .

N u ™ber ° f eight’s lodgings provided and number o f meaj,s served by agencies for the temvoraru care
°lnJlmeleS8i °r transient Pers°ns during 1929, 1980, and the first nine months of 1981 in 58 cities 1 o f 50 000 or
more population reporting comparable monthly figures throughout the period
*

Number of night’s lodgings provided and number of meals served
Type of service and year

9 months, January to September

Total 12
months
Total
Number of night’s lodging
provided:
1929.....................
1,248,586 887,123
1930.........................
1,946,140 1,200,414
1931.............
2,849,532
Number of meals served:
1929..........
1930____________
1931_________

Oct.

Nov.

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

140,446
194,798

129,864
188,590

137,968
196,760
490,000

103,198 86,903 75,793 69,700 69,953 73,298 83,517 118,392
134,332 105,000 95,249 90,648 96,362 98,675 135,897 202,361
386,671 285,110 214,158 155,507 158,757 180,956

2,043,352 1,460,710 242,932
4,020,635 2,028,871 324,875
7,926,874 1,282,855

May

June

July

Aug.

Dec.

Sept.

159,554
407,468

251,571 249,613 158,473 125,587 110,265 109,986 103,950 108,333 128,697 196,735
257,210
338,710 373,329 212,831 168,876 142,042 141,998 160,979 165,231 309,325 515,
748 1,166,691
Qou 1,439,063 1,102,223 867,368 607,629 386,248 388,422 432,530

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

Topeka ,rKans.
1929......................
.........
1930
1931
..........
Winston-Salem, N . C
1929
..........
1930
..........
1931
..........
York, Pa.:
1929.......................
1930.....................
1931.......................

1 Metropolitan areas, not limited to city proper.

i— i


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T a b l e I V . — Percentage o f increase over the corresponding month in number o f night’ s lodgings provided by agencies

Jr*

fo r the temporary shelter of homeless or transient persons in 58 cities o f 50,000 or more population reporting
comparable monthly figures during 1929, 1980, and the first nine months o f 1981
Per cent of increase in night’s
lodgings

Per cent of increase in night’s
lodgings

Month


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

38.7
45.2
42.6
30.2
20.8
25.7

In specified In specified
month of
month of
1931 over
1931 over
correspond­ correspond­
ing month ing month
of 1929
of 1930
257.4
266.9
255.2
274.7
228.1
182.6

157.7
152.6
149.0
187.8
171.5
124.8

Month

July—....................— ..........- ........
August________________________
September......................................
October__ „____________________
November_____________________

*

In specified In specified In specified
month of
month of
month of
1931 over
1931 over
1930 over
correspond­ correspond­ correspond­
ing month ing month ing month
of 1929
of 1929
of 1930
30.1
37.8
34.6
62.7
70.9
155.4

123.1
126.9
146.9

71.6
64.8
83.4

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

JYiti©

In specified
month of
1930 over
correspond­
ing month
of 1929

V
V .— Number o f night’s lodgings provided by agencies fo r the temporary shelter o f homeless or transient persons
in 26 cities1 o f 100,000 or more population reporting comparable monthly figures fo r 1929, 19S0, and the first
nine months o f 19S1

T able

Number of night’s lodgings
9 months, January to September

Total
12

months

Oct.
Total

Jan.

Total—26 cities:
1929
.......
139,283 810,423 129,264
1930
.......
769,672 1,087,020 177.747
1931
.......
2,662,489 473.747
Akron, Ohio:
1929
.......
3,466
2,105
455
1930
____
3,344
1,845
385
1931
.......
664
5,766
Albany, N . Y .:
1929
.......
12,439
17,600
1,939
1930
.......
23,747
14,941
2,481
1931
.
19,730
4,143
Birmingham, A la.:
1929
.......
11,296
6,878
987
1930
.......
19,994
12,895
1,844
1931
.......
3.299
16,677
Bridgeport, Conn.:
1929
.......
18,211
24,620
2,134
1930
.......
19,898
27,975
3,230
1931
.......
21,285
3,050
Buffalo, N . Y .:
1929
.......
203,949 151,976
18,674
1930
.......
27,142
259,416 192,206
1931
.......
214,236
28,254
Cincinnati, Ohio: *
1929
____________________________________
18,500
26,128
4,196
1930
.......
25,434
48,850
6,696
1931
.......
81,330
18,910
Cleveland, Ohio:
1929
..................... .....................
24,404 .....................
18,183
3,683
1930
.......
63,021
41,015
4,189
1931
.......
136,537
13,004

Nov.

Dec.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

117,774
172,421
450,987

126,337
179,158
459,526

93,931 78,751 69,518 64,064 64,165 66,619 75,397 107,828
119.889 94,726 86,009 82,430 87,066 87,565 120,952 182,090
364,497 264,930 198,832 142,277 143,068 164,625

240
203
733

317
284
922

276
229
1,061

228
165
986

119
138
594

93
74
118

145
107
281

232
260
407

181
336

406
337

774
826

1,59»
2,257
3,541

1,892
2,496
3,648

1,632
1,702
2,571

1,611
1,102
1,757

1,053
970
1,496

932
1,128
1,230

816
1,138
533

966
1,667
811

1,228
2,201

1,544
3,102

2,389
3' 503

864
1,820
2,646

829
1,533
2,820

978
1,374
1,802

661
999
1,547

735
1,176
965

549
1,532
1,055

618
1,441
1,171

657
1,176
1,372

948
1,751

1,293
2; 186

2,177
3,162

2,097
3,101
2,795

2,595
3,081
3,054

2,335
2,408
2,677

1,897
1,970
2,694

1,976
1,576
2,130

1,718
1,397
1,614

1,761
1,519
1,613

1,698
1,616
1,658

1,707
2,085

2,088
2; 697

2,614
3,295

19,054
26,032
27,537

21,386
28,260
28,647

17,559 16,800 15,331 14,140 14,129 14,903 16,501 15,864
24,627 19,605 17,322 16,087 16,782 16,349 20,401 21,725
25,125 24,579 20,589 17,780 20,129 21,596

19,608
25)084

5,002
3,831
18,492

3,427
5,458
18,760

1,865
3,778
14,042

854
1,368
1,704

1,334
3,378

1,762
8,382

4,532
11,656

1,936
5,115
13,913

2,626
6,437
16,890

2,423 1,674 1,316 1,393 1,698 1,434
5,671 4,914 3,896 3,431 3,615 3,747
16,871 17,022 17,342 11,326 12; 719 17.450

1,524
5,232

1,901
6,895

2,796
9)879

May

1,033
1,540
6,506

June

664
1,142
1,910

July

717
811
1,521

Aug.

742
810
1,485

Sept.

145,635
379,610

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

Cities of 100,000 or more
population

1 Metropolitan areas, not limited to city proper.
1Includes reports of a new agency which began work January, 1931.

O

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T a b l e V . — Number o f night’s lodgings provided by agencies fo r the temporary shelter o f homeless or transient

persons in 26 cities o f 100,000 or more population reporting comparable monthly figures fo r 1929, 1930, and the
first nine months o f 1931— Continued
Number of night’s lodgings
Cities of 100,000 or more
population

Total
12
months

9 months, January to September
Oct.
Total

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Nov.

Dec.

Sept.

26,920
28i 273

20,153
17,347
49,508

1,866
1,805
5,187

1,498
1,797
7,132

l,89f
2,313
8,321

1,719
2,111
5,845

1,645
1,609
5,725

2,927
2,154
4,812

2,339
1,949
4,200

3,333
1,898
3,728

2,929
1,711
4,558

2,328
2,645

2,607
3,576

1,832
4,705

Dayton, Ohio:
1929.............................
1930...............................

8,653
13; il9

5,933
8,144
12,074

854
976
1,487

752
968
1,519

831
1,055
1,582

743
951
1,641

716
866
1,563

477
599
1,108

479
599
929

515
961
1,112

566
1,169
1,133

807
1,703

949
1,801

964
1,471

1929 .............................
1930................................

175,873
334; 627

125,307
151,853
893,717

9,839
12,305
197,668

9,021
22,929
185,353

9,692
24,597
179,897

19,969 19,305 16,403 13,279 12,991 14,808 15,174 16,425
18,680 11,062 16,075 17,077 14,567 14,561 21,859 20,421
131,260 100,160 63,467 20,286 7,427 8,199

18,967
140,494

Grand Rapids, Mich.: *
1929 .............................
1930...............................

491
1,186

391
315
41,733

94
68
4,881

66
43
4,806

44
40
6,562

93
32
4,912

56
13
4,993

7
40
4,369

12
25
4,098

14
4
4,040

15
50
4,072

18
103

46
354

36
414

31,038
35; 374

22,408
25,360
31,031

3,279
3,457
4,300

2,762
3,108
4,480

2,862
3,524
4,564

2,519
3,030
3,630

2,529
2,817
3,561

2,272
2,431
2,890

1,984
2,213
2,406

2,131
2,445
2,391

2,070
2,335
2,800

2,694
2,948

2,783
3,420

3,153
3,646

46,320
69; 235

34,243
49,532
74,893

3,910
7,801
9,975

3,893
6,783
10,301

3,806
7,471
10,762

3,801
4,966
9,415

3,822
4,757
8,893

3,933
4,304
6,758

3,702
4,072
5,715

3,719
4,586
6,230

3,657
4,792
6,844

3,917
6,536

4,038
6,158

4,122
7,009

5,003
9; 104

2,827
4,916
10,977

338
408
1,708

350
572
1,92C

42f
73C
1,807

241
470

186
613
1,098

330
544
785

259
409
724

266
657
918

431
504
905

971
1,030

562
1,648

643
1,510

1 ,1 1 2

2,418
7; 442

1,745
2,478
7,115

371
872
2,166

345
248
1,62’

197
35f
1,196

119
142
466

107
243
45(

287
173
351

156
142
288

83
137
300

80
164
278

81
304

325
1,677

267
2,983

10,443
13,284

6,335
8,858
11,038

1,146
1,994
2,160

1,427
1,573
2,032

918
1,533
1,804

729
879
1,330

463
701
968

393
509
645

381
539
613

449
553
861

429
581
620

606
1,034

1 ,0 2 1

2,481
2,058

Harrisburg, Pa.:
1090

____

1930...............................
Kansas City, M o.:
109 0

___

1930...............................
1 09 0

loan

______

Long Beach, Calif.:
109 0

1930...............................
Louisville, Ky.:
109 0

1930...............................
1931....................... ........


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

1,334

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Columbus, Ohio: *
1929..1..........................
1930..............................

143,951
283,591

107,200
160,951
451,497

16,648
23,742
75,499

13,696
24,922
69,459

15,569
24,998
69,230

37,334
54,615

25,601
36,947
57,848

3,809
5,025
7,720

3,606
5,572
7,472

3,500
5,008
7,655

2,597
4,001
7,310

2,441
3,800
5,441

2,490
3,389
5,390

2.399
3,395
5,455

2,357
3,113
5,079

2,402
3,644
6,326

3,103
4,821

3,877
6,067

4, 753
6,780

67,455
64,262

50,274
48,015
47,086

6,136
6,221
5,239

5,643
5,815
4,664

7,775
6,303
5,036

5,795
5,706
6,077

5,193
5.757
5,792

4,331
4,740
5,157

5,572
4,461
5,203

4,778
4,431
5,371

5*051
4,581
5,547

5,305
5,628

5,626
4,944

6,250
5,675

24,611
35,647

17,720
24,864
27,818

3,585
5,324
4,828

3,485
4,199
4,635

3,187
4,469
5,748

2,33b
3,512
4,537

1,476
2,445
3,534

963
1,646
1,263

788
1,267
1,026

826
1,091
1,200

1,074
911
1,047

1,096
2,530

1,930
3,811

3,865
4,442

7,234
16,714

3,411
11,384
15,287

635
1,638
2,100

617
1,370
1,543

522
1,268
2j357

402
1.125
1,665

351
1,286
1,964

257
1,014
1,259

144
969
1,689

218
1,491
1,320

265
1,223
1,390

1,057
1,929

1,376
1,695

1,390
1,706

377
684

276
337
1,470

40
90
849

42
56
226

37
29
100

41
23
60

45
17
38

31
14
33

7
42
17

14
32
54

19
34
93

22
87

34
150

45
110

100,134
144,421

69,146
97,068
180,991

15,878
21,098
27,010

13,977
16,353
33,624

15,306
15,770
36,105

9,965 4,019
9,999 7,223
34,129 17,701

2,814
6,207
6,708

2,497
5,963
6,824

2,339
8,049
9,480

2,351
6,406
9,410

2,811 13,543
7,755 18,999

14,634
20,599

99,206
137,647

60, b60
81,689
169,396

22,211
30,456
34,771

18,228
25,464
30,312

20,221
25,769
31,230

(7)
(7)
22,656

(7)
(7)
6,364

(7)
(7)
9,141

(7)
0
0
(7)
(7)
(7)
9,394 11,493 14,035

12,776
22,602

25,770
33,356

21,696
24,081

15,631
16,469
26,633

3,780
3,605
320

3,592
% 809
4,185

3,786
2,499
4,380

1,986
2,488
3,402

584
894
2,809

615
786
1,644

528
802
1,960

350
1,180
1,903

631
1,457

1,839
2,632

3,595
3,523:

2 ,0 3 0

2,777
4,895
10. 555

3,993
5,483
8,045

2,689
3,879
7,449

1,383
3,365
6,331

583
3,152
5,567

456
2,768
4,467

356
2,150
4,944

277
3,592
4,448

356
2,975
5,015

531
4,193

2,166
6,809

3,096
6,758;

18, 663
50,019

12,870
32,259
56,821

4,

14,882
12,425 11,326 9,338 9,640 9,596 8,962 10,822 11,047
18,610 17,176 12, 396 11,905 12,867 14,335 19,006 28,668 7 74,966
55,561 33,218 33,559 31,864 37,782 45,325

410
1,406

(7)
(7)

* Includes reports of a new agency which began work January, 1931.
* Reports on number of night’s lodgings given to homeless or transient persons not received from 1 o( iftore tamortant agencies in this city.
4 Includes reports of a new agency which began work December, 1930.
* Includes reports of a new agency which began work October, 1930.
* 1 agency reports that many transients receive assistance in cash rather than in meals or lodgings.
7 Service for winter months only.

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

Minneapolis, M in n .:4
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
New Orleans, La.:
1929..............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
Newark, N. J.:*
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
Omaha, Nebr.:
1929...............................
1930..........................
1931...............................
Richmond, Va.:
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
San Antonio, T ex .:8
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
San Francisco, Calif.:
1929..............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
St. Louis, Mo.:
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931..................... ..........
St. Paul, Minn.:
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
Tacoma, Wash.:
1929............................ .
1930..............................
1931........... ................-

fcO

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

V I .— Number of night’ s lodgings provided by agencies fo r the temporary shelter o f homeless or transient persons
in 82 cities 1 o f 50,000 to 100,000 population reporting comparable monthly figures fo r 1929, 1980, and the first
nine months o f 1981

T able

^

Number of night’s lodgings
Cities of 50,000 to 100,000 population

rotai v¿
months Total

0 months, January to September
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Total—32 cities:
1929............................... _.................. 109,303 76,700 11,182 12,090 11,631 9,267 8,152 6,275 5,636 5,788 6,679 .8,120 10,564 13,919
1930................................................... 176,468 113,394 17,051 16,169 17,602 14,443 10,274 9,240 8,209 9,296 11,110 14,945 20,271 27,858
1931...................................................
187,043 28,164 25,475 30,474 22,174 20,180 15,326 13,230 15,689 16,331
Asheville, N. C.:
3,688
242
282
1929...................................................
4,582
521
580
401
435
367
250
304
610
263
327
1930...................................................
3,745
641
558
309
363
514
4,704
469
368
246
277
234
418
307
1931.........................................
2,910
378
339
406
265
221
250
496
309
246
Bethlehem, Pa.:
1929...................................................
770
89
98
89
89
77
80
1,042
92
86
70
78
90
104
1930..................................................
864
94
104
89
92
113
102
103
82
85
109
1,171
96
102
1931................................................
1,068
142
99
88
99
130
156
129
92
133
Brockton, Mass.:
1929................................................
484
3,924
414
369
480
379
5,036
446
546
430
376
383
376
353
1930...................................................
437
358
4,827
3,453
432
353
357
348
360
451
357
358
477
539
1931..................................................
408
580
592
488
501
4,545
650
448
427
451
Charleston, S. C.:
1929.................................................
200
219
129
2,928
1,787
310
159
171
160
177
374
262
298
469
1930...................................................
1,829
304
210
208
198
220
254
2,463
197
189
142
161
205
175
1931.................................................
144
330
323
234
2,183
300
356
220
110
166
Charlotte, N. C.:
1929........... .......................................
3,925
2,043
273
216
196
272
282
193
183
212
216
625
597
660
1930..................... .............................
4,654
653
381
267
6,930
623
559
377
583
615
720
853
596
703
1931.................................................
9,804 1,236 1,183 1,401 - 892 1,070
960
956
914 1,192
Chester, P a.:1
1929...................................................
491
177
5,760
3,536
471
604
390
182
260
421
624
580 1,020
540
1930................................................... 22,651 16,232 1,909 2,177 2,084 2,305 1,502 1,626 1,608 1,477 1,544 1,851 1,952 2,616
1931.................................................
21,641 2,811 2,703 3,290 2,609 2,060 1,876 1,678 2,604 2,010
Greensboro, N. C.:
1929...................................................
340
101
179
158
208
264
2,342
1,712
256
225
155
147
176
133
211
1930...................................................
302
224
200
151
185
296
401
3,825
2,125
266
290
710
589
604
474
552
411
1931...................................................
5,788
730
585
361
996 1,075
Holyoke, Mass.:
1,344
934
101
144
116
106
83
96
73
183
110
1929...................................................
116
99
117
68
110
83
134
1930...................................................
1,162
119
155
206
201
86
98
154
203
1,617
104
242
315
108
140
1,901
300
319
236
1931.................................................
137

1,609
3,506

1,141
4,271

140
259
555

17,501
23,400

12,768
15,826
23,182

207
405

106
234
462

2,032
3,326

180
234
623

152
365
588

125
227
468

694

121
244
299

82
150
304

107
158
470

123
152
370

97
352

167
639

204
514

1,636
1,899
2,602

1,817
1,912
2,518

1,621
1,942
2,849

1,757
1,831
2,817

1,581
1,864
2,662

1,043
1,711
2,471

1,045
1,490
2,344

1,121
1,435
2,340

1,147
1,742
2,579

1,206
2,179

1,633
2,442

1,894
2,953

1,289
1,677
2,178

192
245
366

249
218
182

173
253
547

na

165
176
176

89
555

329
576

325
518

6,389
5,431

4,743
2,282
7,606

756
556
1,808

603
393
1,184

646
400
1,811

635
194
683

704
208
457

410
227
356

310
136
443

438
271

512
848

696
2,030

1,950
2,556

1,281
2,001
1,812

182
245
155

178
266
176

197
320
318

121

306
263

119
185
276

102
218
204

105
119
150

205
132
173

185
145

202
232

282
178

1,494
2,950

1,052
1,757
4,031

130
106
322

76
125
396

94
246
509

144
293
607

154
245
495

107
191
352

105
128
324

221

120

554

472

304

197
408

125
481

9,396
16,237

7,454
9,475
15,983

1,298
2,326
3,413

1,263
1,402
2,633

1,359
1,491
2,274

1,002
957
1,555

643
754!
1,275

564
577
1,301

501
627
807

403
553
1,220

421
788
1,505

459
1,427

620
1,979

863
3,356

249
452

135
245
1,004

2,978
5,085

2,192
4,862
459

173
112

204
84

409
27

2,001

111
212

172
10

3,288
5,560

258
325
630
4975 41,658 41,598
22
72
73

115
134
106
286
90
447

135

107
202

112
41
48 .

2,434
337
374
346
276
243
235
211
221
191
229
300
325
494
3,827
574
850
452
587
279
186
188
217
239
536
958
5,2211
840
841
606
416
349
500
545
556|
568
1 Metropolitan areas, not limited to city proper.
J Imports on number of night’s lodgings given to homeless or transient persons not received from 1 or more important agencies in this city.
4 Includes reports of a lodging house opened December, 1930.
4 Temporary lodging house operated by 1 agency closed because funds were exhausted.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

Huntington, W. Va.:
1929
..........
1930
..........
1931
..........
Kenosha, Wis.:
1929
..........
1930
..........
1931
..........
Lancaster, Pa.:
1929
..........
1930
..........
1931
..........
Lawrence, Mass.:
1929
..........
1930
..........
1931
..........
Little Rock, Ark.:
..........
1929
1930
..........
1931
..........
Mobile, Ala.: •
1929
..........
1930
...........
1931
..........
New Britain, Conn.:
1929
...........
1930
...........
1931
...........
Niagara Falls, N. Y .:
...........
1929
1930
...........
1931
.......... .
Pasadena, Calif.:
1929
...........
1930
...........
1931
...........
Pawtucket, R. I.:
1929
...........
1930
...........
1931.......................
Pontiac, Mich.:
1929
...........
1930
...........
1931
...........
Port Arthur, Tex.:
1929
...........
1930
...........
1931
............

to
^

T a b l e "VY.— Number o f night's lodgings provided by agencies for the temporary shelter o f homeless or transient persons

in 32 cities o f 50,000 to 100,000 population reporting comparable monthly figures fo r 1929, 1930, and the first
nine months o f 1931— Continued
Number of night’s lodgings
Cities of 50,000 to 100,000 population
Total 12
months


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

495
763

377
385
64S

74
84
93

55
53
53

47
90
87

42
45
57

39
19
78

41
47
60

40
9
29

22
15
41

17
23
151

25
62

21
124

72
192

4,030
10,198

2,073
7,633
9,128

211
631
1,093

241
717
1,185

307
1,053
1,547

152
605
1,089

124
522
1,192

158
684
721

150
704
717

193
1,018
854

537
1,699
730

493
702

671
976

793
887

7,391
14,689

4,971
7,267
17,515

915
1,362
3,411

781
768
2,777

815
902
3,542

659
1,154
2,022

548
902
1,635

367
422
1,128

217
355
849

333
437
1,076

336
965
1,075

559
1,548

733
2,256

1,128
3,618

3,389
3,886

2,402
2,808
3,450

336
693
579

886
1,075
571

149
314
626

230
88
428

124
84
330

187
137
318

216
135
349

111
164
103

163
118
146

240
227

227
341

520
510

204
355

170
134
903

22
15
112

22
34
92

16
36
109

12
34
128

12
9
139

4
1
116

31

30
2
59

21
3
89

6
7

59

14
111

14
103

1,167
2,926

701
1,187
10,282

219
597
1,863

186
194
1,856

30
158
2,663

20
51
1,236

26
35
1,246

36
47
408

39
45
191

56
31
269

89
29
550

39
143

150
324

277
1,272

1,474
1,755

571
1,125
745

60
368
243

97
223
125

68
276
212

90
176
113

58
3
26

73
13
16

33
15
2

24
21
4

68
30
4

141
135

253
242

509
253

10,322
12,996

7,567
8,045
12,941

1,360
1,566
1,992

1,499
1,630
1,645

1,645
1,713
1,910

830
919
1,837

599
602
1,522

389
326
994

366
297
858

379
437
1,083

500
555
1,100

548
1,380

854
1,765

1,353
1,806

2,595
5,204

1,608
3,211
5,055

249
449
728

194
440
718

249
514
1,030

183
393
644

143
284
462

111
210
245

132
258
306

186
301
410

161
362
512

187
556

381
637

419
800

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Racine, Wis.:
1929......................-..........................
1930..................................................
1931...................................................
Roanoke, Va.:
1929...................................................
1930..................................................
1931...... .............................................
Rockford, 111.:
1929...................................................
1930...................................................
1931...................................................
Sacramento, Calif.:
1929...................................................
1930...................................................
1931...................................................
Sharon, Pa.:
1929......................................... .........
1930...................................................
1931...................................................
Shreveport, La.:
1929...................................................
1930...................................................
1931...................................................
Sioux City, Iowa:
1929...................................................
1930...................................................
1931...................................................
Springfield, 111.:
1929...................................................
1930...................................................
1931...................................................
Terre Haute, In d .:2
1929-,...............................................
1930...................................................
1931...................................................

9 months, January to September
Total

«

3,090
3,998

2,468
2,658
4,054

299
290
565

419
301
522

271
383
555

342
401
602

265
380
574

276
408
649

249
268
371

199
120
133

148
107
83

136
295

243
538

243
507

843
865

598
438
3,088

85
98
230

86
39
224

138
37
450

77
37
700

45
18
484

61
44
255

42
42
188

33
62
246

31
61
311

86
77

97
76

62
274

79
1,648

74
194
3,053

19
8
427

7
30
446

9
26
685

15
6
470

12
14
356

4
19
18

35
56
247 - 369

60

191

5
1,203

35

8

Reports on number of night’s lodgings given to homeless or transient persons not received from 1 or more important agencies in this city.
* Includes reports of a new agency which began work March, 1931.

1

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

Topeka, Kans.:
1929
....................
1930
....................
1931
....................
Winston-Salem, N. C.: *
1929
......... ....
1930
..............
1931...........................
York, Pa.
1929..
1930..
1931.. .

to

Ox


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

T able V I I .— N um ber o f m eals served by agencies fo r the tem porary shelter o f homeless or transient persons in 26
cities 1 o f 100,000 or more popu lation reporting com parable m onthly figures fo r 1929, 1930, and the first n in e

^

months o f 1931
Number of meals served
Cities of 100,000 or more
population

9 months, January to September
Total 12
months

Oct.
Total

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

M ay

June

July

Aug.

Nov.

Dec.

Sept.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Total—26 cities:
1929.............................. 1,873, 568 1,345,301 225,104 233,516 232,225 145,667 114,998 100,376 100,725 94,660 98,030 116,307 179,216 232,744
1930............................. 3,666,201 1,826,079 295,201 309,871 341,751 187,667 150,095 125.820 125,967 143,721 145,986 282,109 469,477 1,088,536
7,363,394 1,190,128 1,331,550 1,344, 587 1,038,230 816,053 564,725 347,773 346,991 383,357
1931..............................
Akron, Ohio:
638
326
787
341
384
274
163
237
434
435
558
296
4,873
3,122
1929...............................
499
521
1,375
440
222
207
179
216
362
220
268
2,732
618
5,127
1930..............................
982 1,063
1,785
2,228 1,912 1,637
1,777
13,873
1,493
1931 .............................
Albany, N. Y .:
961 2,068
4,909
683
438
509
426
772
581
3,041
4,090
14,656
4,116
22,594
1929...............................
28,119
655 1,274 6,390
592
578
1,089
864
570
5,920
5,581
5,436
21,285
57,068
1930...............................
796
10,737 3,710 1,366 1,318
40,875
40,837
146,975
46,450
1931...............................
Birmingham, Ala.:
3,987
1,507
1,606 1,232 1,644 1,725 1,596 1,495 1,555 2,323
1,911
1,605
14,321
22,186
1929...............................
5,858
3,256
2,376
3,117 2,510 2,690 3,573 3,298 2,543 2,734 3,384
27,054
3,691
39,030
1930...............................
3,257 3,236 2,114 2,293 2,400 2,711
4,619
1931...............................
6,490
4,640
31,760
Bridgeport, Conn.:
4,715
4,055
4,396
3,758 3,214 4,090 4,657 4,609 3,785 3,173 4,179
37,539
4,975
49,606
1929...............................
8,717
4,283 4,170 3,595 3,656 3,990 5,199 6,122 7,409
5,045
4,505
4,695
39,138
61,386
1930...............................
6,707 6,222 4,963 3,040 3,107 3,460
8,207
9,046
7,799
52,551
1931...............................
Buffalo, N. Y .:
20,938
28,059
15,576 12,586 8,686 8,734 8,868 8,062 10,376 10,966
25,123
25,933
1929............................... 183,907 141,627
48,072
28,378
20,761 11,411 11,374 11,904 14,040 13,838 18,402 32,340
28,694
27,939
1930............................... 267,153 168,339
1931...............................
53,684
41,799 41,841 41,218 42,523 49,552 49,443
56,294
56,273
432,627
Cincinnati, Ohio:
2,122
868 1,054 1,406 1,916
842 1,059
2,095
1,588 1,029
13,347
2,511
2,301
18,791
1929...............................
11,607
3,052
3,184
2,381 1,626 1,653 1,894 2,436 2,434 2,792 3,385
2,556
21,216
39,000
1930...............................
24,562 6,011 6,003 5,586 6,546 6,888
31,528
36,607
155,051
31,320
1931...............................
Cleveland, Ohio:
6,489 6,908
7,078
5,144 4,875 2,787 3,285 1,440
7,747
11.006
•7,181
46,70S
67,184
1929...............................
12,696 16,467
22,948
20,157
12,063
10,569 13,232 9,668 10,143 8,278
12,186
1930................................ 158,334 106,223
37,639
40,123
29,572
35,719
30,582
27,464
33,329
35.727
32,999
303,154
1931...............................
Columbus, Ohio: *
4.276
4,325 4,120 4,044 3,259 3,294 4,013 3,654 3,936
5,243
6.16C
39,553
5,095
51,424
1929...............................
6,347 8,481
16,868
4,804
5,396
4,784 3,715 5,068 4,788 5,253
5,024
43,074
74,770
1930...............................
9,337,
8,171
9,168
18,044
13,909
11,291’
22,408
19,058
120,184
1931...............................

1931

...___

Louisville, Ky.:
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
Minneapolis, M in n .:3
1929...............................
1930..............................
1931

_____

New Orleans, La.:
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
Newark, N . J .: 3
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
Omaha, Nebr.:
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................

1,813
3,727

1,904
3,068

17,005 15,488 13,030 10,914 11,006 11,605 13,072 17,149
24,188 9.281 3,688 3,041 4,003 8,862 86,930 158,640
428,808 340,230 229,438 33,904 12,068 8,727

22,621
544,368

1,656
1,473
3,438

1,658
1.232
3,101

972
957
2,390

944
1,150
2,109

901
1,960
2,488

1,141
2,384
2,527

1,850
3,572

18,453
24,657

12.886
14.290
25.707

2,003
1,776
3,144

1,740
1,616
3,147

1,871
1,742
3,363

151,215
969,923

98.373
179.985
2,638,630

7,311
11.789
442,511

5,907
52,236
587,645

6,107
62.897
555,299

273
1,153

204
258
147,269

41
21
19,260

34
12
17,637

16
22
20,842

10
16
18
4
18
47
48
36
24
20
37
38
16,369 15,316 14,753 14,658 14,685 13,749

28
131

16
344

25
420

7,195
10,166

4,794
6,195
81,818

622
684
8,076

532
627
11,753

647
803
13,113

489
551
784
598
10,683 12,710

435
659
6,611

643
912

675
1,279

1,083
1,780

104.856
169,887

77,970
122,362
187,310

9,096
19,949
25,044

9,095
17,563
26,345

8,576
17.897
26,764

8,497 8,491 8,777 8,504 8,557
11,576 10,802 10,627 10,227 11,935
24,355 22,242 17,077 14,276 14,992

8,605 8,897
15*379 14,623

9,384
17,523

7,895
14,927

3,823
9,583
18,781

480
870
2,099

499
1,243
2,753

591
1,444
3,030

248
1,061
1,709

152
1,090
1,996

407
962
1,580

267
725
1,627

426
1,225
2,127

1,286
1,087

1,207
2,035

. 1,679
2,222

5,943
12,704

4,532
6,808
12,139

1,830
1,416
2 , 612

441
710
2,308

336
781
1,504

396
623
846

677
640
1,070

539
729
984

65
687
831

180
671
1,162

197
719

365
1,918

849
3,229

22,263
28,082

15,146
19,049
28i 379

2,161
3,780
4,388

2,336
2,683
i 414

1,800
2,096
4,721

1,987
1,896
3,259

1,794
1,161
3,143

1,146
1,792
2,528

1,177
1,827
2,315

1,408
1,728
2,039

1,437
2,306

1,736
2,585

3,944
4,142

388,901
715.514

287,147
371,186
1,307,184

40,221
54,078
219,014

44,167
55,021
212,515

41,805
55,342
218,146

24,515 37,524
60,756 79,393

39,715
204,179

49,446
73,427

33,765
46,660
89,362

4,325
6,260
11,810

4,459
6,580
12,487

4,531
6,660
14,780

3,720
5,272
11,484

5,271
9,833

5,694
10,723

146,433
164,951

105,087
120,933
129,037

15,053
15, 259
15,897

12,926
14,090
13,096

14,235
16,209
14,133

11,520 10,213 8,966 9,647 11,381
14,336 12,914 11,243 12,067 12,640
12,475 19,405 12,904 13,109 14,264

12,661 13,531
15,908 13,195

15,159
14; 915

33,853
44,154

25,172
32j 693
32,657

3,766
4,611
5,033

3,161
4,269
4,382

3,192
3,888
5,180

3,021
3,923

3,470
4,915

460
712
6,421

569
563
6,115

489
765
6,336

35,352 25,743 24,575 28,771 22.214
45,397 38,740 30,816 30,519 33,002
163,970 102,456 98,213 88,971 92,558

3,142
3,570
3,582

3,417
4,152
4,906

2,685
3,722
3,124

3,447
4,001
7,495

2,365
3,290
2,641

3,492
4,638
8,037

2,165
3,368
2,881

3,172
4,526
7,677

2,304
3,639
3,100

_

551

4,716
6,211

2,190
2i 723

i Metropolitan areas, not limited to city proper.
3Reports on number of meals served to homeless or transient persons not received from 1 or more important agencies in this city.
3 Includes reports of a new agency which began work December, 1930.
* Includes reports of a new agency which began work January, 1931.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

Dayton, Ohio:
1929...............................
1930..................... .........
1931...... .........................
Detroit, M ich .:33
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931................................
Grand Rapids, Mich.: *
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931...............................
Harrisburg, Pa.:
1929...............................
1930........... i . ................
1931...............................
Kansas City, Mo.:
1929...............................
1930................................
1931...............................
Knoxville, Term:
1929.............................
1930...............................
1931.............................
Long Beach, Calif.:
1929................................
1930................................

to
*<I

T

V II .— Number o f meals served by agencies fo r the temporary shelter o f homeless or transient persons in 26
cities o f 100,000 or more population reporting comparable monthly figures fo r 1929, 1930, and the first nine
months o f 1931— Continued

able

00

Number of meals served
Cities of 100,000 or more
population

9 months, January to September
Oct.
Total

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

M ay

June

July

Nov.

Dec.

Sept.

11,131
36,192

2,820
25,655
30,093

628
3,347
4,455

614
2,605
4,411

516
2,786
1,671

304
2,542
3,566

251
3,208
3,940

237
2,499
2,618

118
2,462
3,633

95
3,495
2,804

57
2,711
2,995

2,619
3,638

2,979
3,228

2,713
3,671

1,336
1,356

1,071
612
2,027

78
150
1,066

298
101
292

81
47
105

102
56
75

200
23
82

76
21
81

31
84
56

175
66
101

30
64
169

105
104

90
201

70
439

126,754
190, 251

99,941
130,852
726,050

17,163
22,032
108,273

15,664
14, 221
130, 532

18,040
21, 277
151,784

14,220 9,302 7,644 6,276 6,166 5,466 6,638 8,439
10,166 13,550 9,345 8,716 14,134 17,411 15,228 21,996
132,965 137,566 16,381 16,294 11,405 20,850

11,736
22,175

213,106
291,551

142,324
170,247
409,195

37,643
61,875
80,727

54,684
52,281
69,992

49,997
56,091
72,694

(•)
(•)
(•)
(')
(•)
(‘ )
(«)
(•)
(•)
(•)
(6)
(')
56,162 15,068 23,643 24,790 29,769 36,350

27,489
46,190

43,293
75,114

120, 715
109,122

93,400
74,928
104,628

20,787
13,072
16,480

19,341
10,937
15,368

19,377
11,688
15,065

11,167 5,455
10,805 5,534
13,451 13,122

4,740
6,660
8,089

6,203 9,007
8,006 10,896

12,105
15,292

.43,230
106,316

25,967
64,822
136,953

5,797
10,341
23,463

8,768
12,244
18,208

6,019
9,619
17,680

289
629
460
402
2,578 1,025
6Ì680 5,674 4,964 3,760 6,271 5,269
14,835 12,781 10,961 12,385 13,155 13,485

1,602 7,073
7,633 17,064

8,588
16,797

4,406
5,320
7,856

3,914
5,381
7,287

51 agency reports that many transients receive assistance in cash rather than in meals or lodgings.
•Service for winter months only.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Aug.

4,213
5,531
7,910

(•)
(#)

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Richmond, Va.:
1929....................- ..........
1930..................- ...........
1931
San Antonio, Tex.: *
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931
San Francisco, Calif.:
1929...............................
1930...............................
1931
St. Louis, Mo.:
1929.............................
1930..............................
1931
St. Paul, Minn.:
1929..............................
1930.............................
1931
Tacoma, Wash.:
1929.......... ...................
1930..............................
1931

Total
12
months

V III .— Number o f meals served by agencies for the temporary shelter o f homeless or transient persons in 82
cities 1 o f 50,000 to 100,000 population reporting comparable monthly figures fo r 1929, 1980, and the first nine
months o f 1981

T able

Number of meals served
Cities of 50,000 to 100,000 population

Total

Jan

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Total—32 cities:
1929.................................. ...........
169, 781 115,409 17,828 18,055 17,388 12,806 10,589 9,889 9,261 9,290 10,303 12,390 17,519 24,466
1930..................... ..................... ........ 354,434 202,792 29,674 28,839 31,578 25,164 18,781 16,222 16,031 17,258 19,245 27,216 46,271 78,155
1931___________________________
563,480 92,727 88,986 94|476 63,993 51,315 42,904 38,475 41,431 49,173
Asheville, N. C.:
1929.............................. .................
3,794
537
362
6,030
625
865
287
282
268
282 • 286
339
389
508
1930.____ _____ _________ ________
4,001
320
497
722
5,535
615
459
525
291
160
412
328
612
594
804
1931........................................ .........
599
872 1.193
921
6,853
623
561
757
523
Bethlehem, Pa.:
832
99
111
97
1929...................................................
91
96
93
77
1,160
75
93
114
83
131
1930___________________ _________
1,538
1,132
122
120
163
155
129
115
100
117
111
164
106
136
1931_________ ____ ______ ______
188
134
1,088
123
146
129
68
116
96
88
Brockton, Mass.:
1929.___________________________ 17,733 13,332 1,364 1,308 1,693 1,288 1,489 1,454 1,454 1,826 1,456 1,453 1,813 1,135
9,724 1,248 1,103 1,014
995 1,238 1,015 1,004 1,095 1,012 1,464 1,710 1,655
1930____ ___ _____ _________ _____ 14,553
1931________ ____ _______________
13,914 1,898 1,333 1,189 1,270 1,703 1,335 1,742 1,643 1,801
Charleston, 8. C.:
1929____________________________
3,980
2,536
368
363
213
360
309
297
206
229
191
455
357
632
1930_____ ____ __________________
267
390
411
345
4,734
3,361
366
522
383
350
327,
451
362
560
1931____ _____________________
4,690
681
577
628
520
598
262
818
237
369
Charlotte, N. C.:
1929____________________________
372
382
7,198
3,478
423
328
327
435
442
397
372 1,150 1,280 1,290
1930____________________________
16,157 10,225 1,176 1,284 1,299 1,229
945
615
853 1,317 1,508 1,517 2,388 2,027
1931 ___
...
22,458 2,928 2,875 2,908 2,264 2,481 1,736 2,190 2,204 2,872
Chester, P a .:s
1929........................ ..........................
6,952
532
3,844
495
666
646
455
190
183
260
417
735
940 1,433
1930____________________________
46,950 32,159 3,914 4,046 4,483 4,405 2,922 3,146 3,219 3,083 2,941 3,451 3,965 7,375
1931________ _____________ ______
86,200 9,937 11,213 12,407 10,932 8,899 7,887 7,729 8,902 8,294
Greensboro, N. C.:
1929____ ______________ _________
2,381
1,772
286
339
190
150
179
99
223
132
174
152
207
250
1930____________________________
274
302
224
211
5,290
2,415
290
196
145
206
567
504
984 1,387
12,747 1,934 2,389 1,557
1931____________ _______________
946 1,109
955
981 1,524 1,352
Holyoke, Mass.:
1929___ ____ ____________________
528
251
25
35
14
35
17
33
31
23
102
38
36
139
1930______ ____________ ____ ____
567
59
44
315
43
18
16
49
35
25
26
59
53
140
1931.________________________ __
182
1,312
216
415
85
102
185
38
38
51
1 Metropolitan areas, not limited to city proper.
* Reports on number of meals served to homeless or transient persons not received from 1 or more important agencies in this city.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

Total
12
months

9 months, January to September

to
SO

V III .— Number o f meals served by agencies for the temporary shelter o f homeless or transient persons in 82
cities o f 60,000 to 100,000 population reporting comparable monthly figures for 1929, 1980, and the first nine
months o f 1981— Continued

T able

£0

Number of meals served
Cities of 60,000 to 100,000 population


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Oct.
Total

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Nov.

Dec.

Sept.

i,

1,892
610
6,730

294
155
874

225
205
666

306
504
1,038

193
461
833

158
385
1,291

326
413
348

188
205
420

42
118
653

160
164
607

134
278

243
891

338
797

467
989

250
481
2,080

26
81
343

35
166
443

30
161
601

20
24
627

40
1
5

7
15
12

65
10
17

12
7
15

15
16
17

75
25

53
186

89
297

14,511
26,388

9,268
13,923
50,649

1,183
1,665
5,023

1,067
1,727
4,938

1,173
1,487
5,354

1,205
1,454
5,491

988
1,487
5,748

907
1,515
5,880

849
1,487
5,727

948
1,412
6,048

948
1,689
6,440

1,062
2,836

1,276
4,066

2,905
5,563

460
556

329
310
549

30
85
72

37
28
41

60
47
47

63
40
46

49
13
47

32
19
105

24
19
46

15
6
60

19
53
85

32
49

37
70

62
127

5,310
6,736

3,569
3,883
11,902

425
537
1,448

616
469
646

479
468
2,019

347
427
1,758

274
314
1,221

434
292
766

209
464
1,066

345
402
i, 616

440
510
1,362

353
789

756
973

632
1,091

2,131
3,678

1,653
1,456
8,207

210
251
2,084

190
120
1,386

198
110
2,024

150
53
614

80
76
507

327
172
341

158
141
326

182
251
492

158
282
433

177
275

155
227

146
1,720

3,949
5,744

2,532
4,420
3,798

337
551
374

336
610
445

413
717
746

252
659
610

212
415
305

293
468
432

201
263
336

149
450
200

339
287
350

335
324

429
571

653
429

387
2,858

301
636
5,165

26
32
653

26
29
788

42
62
1,027

22
46
1,123

38
30
862

36
55
115

43
41
138

27
92
285

41
249
174

10
572

45
772

31
878

25,103 5,404
27,641 4,942
44,903 10,814

4,438
4,668
8,770

3,918
4.221
6,515

2,639
3,200
3,436

2,019
2,363
2,916

1,871
2,026
3,167

2,003
1,955
2,958

1,396
1,888
2,659

1,415
2,378
3,668

1,248
3,097

1,901
5,966

2,610
8,738

2,607
4,576

1031

Lancaster, Pa.:
1929.................................................
1930...................................................
1931
..............................................
Lawrence, Mass.:
1929...................................................
1930..................................................
1931
.............. .......................
Little Rock, Ark.:
1929..................................................
1930...................................................
1931 .
Mobile, Ala.:*
1929..................................................
1930...................................................
1931 .................................................
New Britain, Conn.:
1929...................................................
1930...................................................
1931
Niagara Falls, N. Y .:
1929.............................................. .
1930...................................................
1931 .
Pasadena, Calif.:
1929...................................................
1930...................................................
1931......................................... .........

9 months, January to September

30.862
45,442

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

Huntington, W. Va.:
1929...................................................
1930..................................................1931 . ..............................................
Kenosha, Wis.:
1929...................................................
1930...................................................

Total
12
months

Pawtucket, R . I.:
1929
.........
1930
.........
1931
.........

237
341

92
210
315

1929
...
1930
.........
1931......................

3,017
6,955

2,370
6,210
545

Pontiac, Mich.:

Port Arthur, Tex.:

297
386
487
«1,275 « 2,186 « 1,929
58
99
74
59
297
405

65
59

65
49

395
169
94

101
314

101
275

445
156

69
157
254

82
159

71
434

141
1,378

56
70

47
82

203
130
1,902
2,015

61
154
206

108
121
147

59
109
190

320
1,294
2,699

270
1,252
3,043

328
1,620
1,747

437
1,395
785

641
2,290
1,977

1,278
1,543
1,817

1,<&3
1,337

1,616
1,692

1,312
3,625
7,164

1,022
3,197
5,739

640
1,089
Ì469

395
1,190
4,677

517
1,387
6,392

515
2,245
5,703

1,016
3,366

1,542 2,758
7,212 12,446

572
541
7,684

315
646
1,312

189
328
4,848

351
497
Ì087

365
502
376

418
439
5,613

514
679

972
683
3,898 14,257

43
151
3,219

54
61

214
906

3,939

203
165
124
333
923
4,657

259
208
3,366

84
170
2,028

117
191
1,968

85
364
2,244

332
717
1,466

217
632
1,044

215
575
565

368
628
269

482
606
798

274
671

29
83

46
199

72
136

35
468

191
749

448
4,510

99
131

150
165

262
693

639
2,466

1,454
4,304

2,624
5,918

356
1,095

810
1,586

753
1,811

’ Reports on number of meals served to homeless or transient persons not received from 1 or more important agencies in this city.
* Includes reports of a lodging house opened December, 1930.
« Temporary lodging house operated by 1 agency; closed because funds were exhausted,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SHELTER FOR HOMELESS OR TRANSIENTS

1929
.........
1,034
740
123
40
85
1930
.........
4,454
2,483
562
399
800
1931
.........
4,129
944
762
963
Racine, W is.:
1929......................
1,040
734
97
82
1930
.........
1,405
1,123
180
253
1931
.........
I,
162551
243
Roanoke, Va.:
1929
.........
8,963
4,362
236
377
475
1930
..................... ..................... .....................
19,461 14,417 1,454 1,308 2,261
1931
.........
20,492 2,342 2,715 3,367
Rockford, 111.:
1929
.........
l i 959
9,643 1,863 1,629 1,750
1930
.........
4 i 378 21,354 3,462 2,261 2,898
1931
.........
70,221 11,893 11,167 13,017
Sacramento, Calif.:
1929.
.........
i 267
6,436
875
627
655
1930.
.........
2Ì672
5,838 1,034 1,555
296
1931.......................
85,739 21,959 21,046 18,914
Sharon, Pa.:
1929
.........
383
236
1930
.........
979
661
1931
.........
1,767
Shreveport, L a.:
1929
.........
1,582
908
143
225
64
1930
.........
8,521
2,794 1,182
344
375
1931
.
25.606 3,608 5,252 6,377
Sioux City, Iowa:
1929
.........
1,964
1,453
249
228
209
1930
.........
1,935
1,046
109
194
120
1931
........
937
154
172
120
Springfield, 111.:
1929
........
10,497
5,780 1,108 2,137 1,482
1930
........
26,824 14,136 3,747 3,817 i 174
1931
........
31.607 5,627 3,897 5,555
Terre Haute, Ind.: >
........
1929
5,116
3,197
510
426
1930
........
10,999
6,507
851
929
1931
........
II,
418
2,063
1,9701

15
23

00

V III .— Number o f meals served by agencies fo r the temporary shelter o f homeless or transient persons in S3
cities o f 50,000 to 100,000 population reporting comparable monthly figures fo r 1929, 1980, and the first nine
months o f 1931 — Continued

T able

ùô

Number of meals served
Cities of 50,000 to 100,000 population

9 months, January to September
Oct.
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Nov.

Dec.

Sept.

6,872
9,073

5,391
6,320
12,008

486
708
1,839

918
765
2,102

945
882
1,536

761
768
1,676

531
693
1,447

497
833
1,437

569
787
993

362
444
472

322
440
506

314
661

536
1,140

631
952

1,107
904

828
509
6,347

133
100
453

123
79
440

184
40
1,128

84
30
1,558

78
10
936

42
56
359

42
43
252

77
71
493

65
80
728

81
89

87
68

111
238

931
1,242

672
592
7,553

83
69
1,400

134
0
1,300

84
12
1,425

56
69
1,300

40
104
436

70
81
720

51
40
10C

55
100
100

99
117
772

75
150

89
250

95
250

* Includes reports of a new agency which began work March, 1031.

SOCIAL STATISTICS,

Topeka, Kans.:
1929...................................................
1930...................................................
1931...................................................
Winston-Salem, N. C.: *
1929...................................................
1930.................................................
1931...................................................
York, Pa.;
1929...................................................
1930...................................................
1931...................................................

Total
12
months Total

CO
CO


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TRAVELERS AID
Service by travelers aid societies was maintained during 1930 in 33
of the 38 cities included in the registration area for social statistics.
Monthly reports were received by the Children’s Bureau from every
society within the area, with the result that returns in this field of
social service were complete for the year and covered 33 metropolitan
districts with a population of about 15,500,000. The number of
travelers or transients assisted in these urban centers was slightly in
excess of 350,000.
NUMBER OF PERSONS SERVED BY TRAVELERS AID

The total number of persons served by the travelers aid society in
each city during 1930, as shown in Table 1, was obtained by adding
the monthly counts of those aided as reported under the registration
plan. As in many other fields of social service, the annual count so
made has not been perfected to give a total free from duplication.
However, in this field, the effect of duplication in the count is not
serious owing to the character of the travelers aid service. Travelers
in need of information or advice only are given immediate attention,
and the problems of others served are urgent. Thus, through the
necessity for short-time care or case work, the travelers aid society
in each city handles cases so promptly that only a small proportion
are continued and hence counted from month to month.
When the statistics of cities are combined to give a total of the
number of persons served in the registration area, there is possibility
of duplication affecting the aggregate count only. <For instance, if a
traveler is aided in two registration cities during a journey, he will be
properly counted by each city as a person served, so that a duplica­
tion will result when city counts are consolidated.
T able

1.— Population and number o f persons served by travelers aid societies in S3
specified metropolitan areas during 1930

Metropolitan area

Population,
April 1,1930

Number of
persons
served
in 1930

Total—33 areas

15,496,253

352,351

Chicago.............. —
Detroit____________
Cleveland_________
St. Louis______ ____
Buffalo____ ________
Cincinnati_________
New Orleans_______
Washington_______
Minneapolis_______
Newark___________
Indianapolis_______
Kansas City (M o.)..
Columbus___ ______
Louisville_____ ;—
Denver____________
St. Paul___________

376,438
698,390
164,784
033,553
746,546
589,356
492,757
486,869
467,494
442,337
422,666
399,746
361,055
307,745
287,861
286,721

75,859
18,194
13,996
9,869
12,658
16,392
18,299
21,275
13,663
6,730
6,201
14,838
6,335
23,400
8,258
4,468

Metropolitan area

Akron____________
Dayton...................
Richmond________
Hartford_________
Wilkes-Barre_____

Omaha.................
Grand Rapids.......
Harrisburg.............
Bridgeport____ . . .
Springfield (Mass.)
New H a ven .........
Des Moines______
Canton...................
Duluth..............—
Springfield (111)___
Sioux City_______
Sharon1_________

Population,
April 1,1930

Number of
persons
served
in 1930

281,274
240,940
239,288
229,759
227,442
214,006
208,534
200,584
183,146
171,021
162,665
142,559
114,054
101,463
82,367
79,183
63,660

7,889
10,777
11,883
3,684
4,288
6,218
4,284
6,668
4,262
5,697
2,773
3,178
3,066
1,700
2,435
4,243
71

i Sharon had no regularly established travelers aid society; service was provided by a family-welfare
agency.

33

incultura! & Mechanics! u
" Collese Station, iexas


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

34

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

In Table 1 metropolitan areas have been arranged according to
population. Presumably, heavier travel to the more populous areas
or to traffic centers would result in a larger number of applicants for
aid. A larger proportion of travelers with slender resources might
also be expected to enter industrial centers where work was sought.
However, the predominant factor affecting the spread of service in
each city is the development of the local travelers-aid program.
This in turn depends upon community support, administrative
policies, and the place of travelers aid in the city plan for the care of
the traveler or transient.
CENTRALIZATION OF SERVICE FOR NONRESIDENTS

The need for centralizing the care of the nonresident needy under
the direction of one administrative agency in each city has become
increasingly apparent in recent years. Many cities have adopted
plans whereby the service to transients becomes the responsibility
of one agency, which in turn utilizes the services of other agencies
that give lodgings, food, medical care, or other needed assistance.
In a community plan for service to transient families, women, and
children, prepared by the National Association of Travelers Aid
Societies and published in 1931 by the President’s Organization on
Unemployment Relief, a coordinated central service is recommended
for every city and a program outlined which is the “ composite of the
best features of many plans of communities.” The agency to be
selected for administration under this plan will depend upon the
situation in each community, but the foregoing report states: “ An
agency is already developed in many communities with the specific
purpose of serving travelers and transients. In cities where a
community plan for transients is to be developed, the travelers aid
forms a natural channel for coordinating such specialized services.” 1
Louisville was the first of the registration cities to put into effect
a city-wide program with the travelers aid society in charge, and the
type of its service is sharply reflected in the figures shown in Table 1.
The Louisville society served 23,400 persons during 1930, more than
any other registration city in the 300,000— 500,000 population class
and more than the much larger areas of Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis,
Buffalo, and Cincinnati. These larger cities no doubt had more
travelers or transients and more needing aid, but service was not
concentrated in the travelers aid societies.
Three other cities in the registration area had adopted, by 1930,
plans for coordinated service under the administration of travelers aid
to meet the transient problem. These were Washington, Columbus,
and Grand Rapids. However, in the last-named city the plan did not
go into effect until the fall of 1930 and therefore did not appreciably
affect the figures for the year.
The city-wide count furnished by the Washington Travelers Aid
Society gives this area a rank of third in the number of persons served,
although it is eighth in size of population among reporting areas.
i A Community Plan for Service to Transients, p. 17. President’s Organization on Unemployment
Relief, U. S. Department of Commerce. 1931.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

35

TRAVELERS AID

Community-wide consideration of nonresidents led to the adoption
in August, 1930, of the following plan in Richmond, Va.
All dependent transients, with the exception of men over 18 that
had been in the city 30 days or more, were to be cared for by the
Family Service Society. All dependent transients, with the excep­
tion of men over 18 who had been in the city less than 30 days, were
to be referred to the Travelers Aid Society. All boys under 18
were to be cared for by the agency with whom they had their first
contact, this usually being the Young Men’s Christian Association,
Salvation Army, Travelers Aid Society, or Family Service Society.
The colored dependent transients were to be handled as heretofore,
principally by the Family Service Society and the Travelers Aid
Society. 2

The Richmond plan also included an agreement that the Salvation
Army would give food and shelter to men over 18 years, of age, a
service reported in the registration of social statistics under temporary
shelter for homeless or transient persons.
Though under the Richmond plan the travelers aid is not a central
clearing office, it has a large share in the city program. It is interest­
ing to note from Table 1 that the Richmond Travelers Aid Society
served 11,883 persons during 1930, more than any other metropolitan
area in its population class (200,000 to 300,000).
The Chicago Travelers Aid Society served more persons (75,859) dur­
ing 1930 than did any other registration city, as would be expected from
the size of the area and the fact that it is the terminus for more rail­
roads than any other American city. Yet St. Louis, an area with
more than a million population and also a hub of railway traffic,
served less than 10,000 persons through travelers aid, proportionately
few in comparison with other large areas. Irrespective of the amount
of travel to any center and the needs of the traveling public, the extent
of travelers-aid service will depend, of course, upon facilities, funds,
and personnel. The average monthly number of travelers-aid work­
ers in Chicago was 25 as compared with 10 in St. Louis. This may be
noted from Table 2, which gives the number of terminals covered and
the average monthly staff of the society in each of 32 metropolitan
areas. Under “ professional workers,, were included supervisors and
assistants who dealt with the traveler or transient, giving such case
work as was necessary. Stenographers and clerks were included in
the count of “ other workers.”
* Ewing, Sherrard: Unemployment and Travelers Aid, pp. 5-6.
Societies, New York City.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

National Association of Travelers Aid

36

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T a b l e 2. — Number oj terminals covered by travelers aid societies and average

monthly number oj jull-tim e paid workers on the staff oj each agency in 32
specified metropolitan areas during 1930

Metropolitan area

St. Paul

Number of Average monthly number
of full-time paid workers
railway
orbus terminals
Profes­ Other
covered
sional
by service Total

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

2
1
1
6
6
4
11
4
1
2
3
4
4
1
2
1
1
2
4
3
3
1
4
2
2
3
5
1
1
3
1
5

4
2
8
2
17
6
11
4
2
4
4
11
2
2
2
3
3
3
8
7
3
2
9
2
7
1
1
3
9
3
5
2

4
2
10
2
25
7
13
4
2
4
5
13
2
2
2
3
4
4
9
7
4
2
10
3
8
1
1
4
10
3
8
2

2
(»)

8
1
2

0)
1
2
(*)
(')

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

(*)

3

(9

1
1Average less than 1.

CHARACTER OF SERVICE

In defining the service of its organization the manual of the National
Association of Travelers Aid Societies states in part:
Travelers aid is thorough and organized assistance for travelers
who need information, counsel, material aid, or protection. It is
also a service for residents who need advice on travel problems. It
is primarily social case work and includes any traveler who presents
a social problem or is in any difficulty. In addition to its principal
function as a social case-working agency, it provides an information
service which, although incidental, is a vital part of its work. The
service involves adequate knowledge of the traveler’s needs and of
the resources suitable and available for his assistance. Travelers aid
is distinct in its field but involves cooperation with public and
private social-work organizations, commercial agencies, and other
forces in the community. This assistance and cooperation may be
required in the place where the traveler is, whence he came, or
where he is going.3

The service information reported by travelers aid societies is based
upon case counts, which differ from the counts of individuals shown
in Table 1. Under definitions used in this field a case may be a single
person, a family, or a group of persons presenting a common problem.
Thus, a family of mother and three children would constitute but one
* Travelers Aid Manual, first section, p. 17. National Association of Travelers Aid Societies, New York
City.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

37

TRAVELERS AID

case. Cases fall into two broad service classes. In one class com e
those cases handled by the information service, and in the other class
are included cases requiring adjustment of various travel or social
problems by the travelers aid or associate agencies.
The number of cases handled by travelers aid societies during 1930
and the number in each class of service are given in Table 3 for the 33
reporting areas.
T a b l e 3.— Cases served by travelers aid societies in which advice or inform ation only
was given and in which other service was given in 3 5 specified metropolitan areas
during 1 9 3 0

Metropolitan area

Total
number
of cases
served

Cases in which ad­
vice or informa­
tion only was
given
Number

C a se s in w h ich ,
other service was
given

Per cent Number Per cent

Total—33 areas___________ ...............................

253,730

110,280

43.5

143,450

56.5

Akron............ ............................... ........................
Bridgeport.................................... ...............................
Buffalo_________________________________
Canton.................................................... ......................
Chicago__ _______ ________________ _____ ____
Cincinnati.............................. ........... ......... .
Cleveland..................................... .........................
Columbus.......................................................................
Dayton....................................................................
Denver....... ........... ............................ ........................ .
Des M oines............. ...................................................
Detroit............................................................................
Duluth..................................................................
Grand Rapids................................................................
Harrisburg....................................... .....................
Hartford.................... ........................
Indianapolis._________________________________
Kansas City (M o.)...................................................... .
Louisville__________________ ____ ___________
Minneapolis__________ ______ ____ _______________
Newark........... ..............................................
New H a ven ........................ ................................... .
New Orleans...... .............. .............................
Omaha............................................................................
Richmond.......... ............................ ...................
Springfield (111.).............................................................
Springfield (Mass.)............................................... .......
St. Louis________________________________
St. Paul.....................................................................
Sharon i________ _______ __________________
Sioux City......................................................................
Washington..........................................................
Wilkes-Barre................... ........................................... .

5,283
3,522
8,701
2,393
61,720
10,440
9,990
4,143
3,928
5,527
2,439
13,815
1,079
3,213
4,698
3,170
4,566
13,616
13,989
10,159
5,803
2,148
9,716
4,422
8,346
1, 778
3,944
6,802
3,070
36
3,158
15,207
2,909

2,139
1,386
5,247
887
30, 507
2,098
4,323
1,359
1,849

40.5
39.4
60.3
37.1
49.4

3,144
2,136
3,454
1,506
31,213
8,342
5,667
2,784
2,079
2,659
1,629
5,024

59.5
60.639.7
62.9
50.6
79.9
56.7
67.2
52.9
48.1

2,868

810
8,791
2 11

997
1,264
1,389
1,206
10,244
2,632
2,609
2,702
847
5,663
1,734
1, 711
915
985
1,206
868
2
1,0 0 1

9,062
768

2 0 .1

43.3
32.8
47.1
51.9
33.2
63.6
19.6
31.0
26.9
43.8
26.4
75.2
18.8
25.7
46.6
39.4
58.3
39.2
20.5
51.5
25.0
17.7
28.3
(2)
31.7
59.6
26.4

66.8

36.4
80.4
69.0
73.1
56.2
73.6
24.881.2
74.3
53.4
60.6
41.7
60.879.5
48.5
75.0
82.3
71.7

868

2,216
3,434
1,781
3,360
3,372
11,357
7,550
3,101
1,301
4,053
2,688

6,635
863
2,959
5,596
2 ,2 0 2

34
2,157
6,145
2,141

(2)

68. 3
40.4
73.6

•Sharon had no regularly established travelers aid society; service was provided by a family-welfare
agency.
1 Per cent not shown because total number of cases served was less than 50.

Of a total of 253,730 cases 44 per cent were classified under “ advice
or information only.” It should be understood that “ information”
is interpreted to mean selective information, such as travelers-aid
workers are especially equipped to give. Information on trains,
station facilities, or city directions, although frequently given, is not
included as a service or counted in travelers-aid reports.
The proportion of cases handled through the information service
ranged from 18 per cent in St. Louis to 75 per cent in Kansas City.
The figures indicate that in some cities, as in St. Louis, activities were
centered on cases requiring treatment and adjustment. However,


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

38

in Buffalo, Denver, Detroit, Kansas City, New Orleans, Springfield
(111), and Washington more than 50 per cent of the cases served during
1930* were those in the information-service group.
IN T E R A G E N C Y C O O PERA TIO N IN D IS P O S IT IO N OF CASES

Treatment of cases other than those given information and advice
may be carried through entirely by the travelers aid; but because
workers are placed at city gates, they are confronted with the entire
gamut of difficulties which beset the traveler, and the aid of other
agencies sometimes must be enlisted.
.
, ,
When another organization is asked to give such service as is needed
for the comfort of the traveler— for instance, providing temporary
lodgings— while the travelers aid society retams the major responsi­
bility, the case is classed as “ referred” in travelers aid terminology.
When entire responsibility for a case is assigned to another organiza­
tion, either immediately or at some stage of treatment, the case is
designated as “ transferred.”
.
_
,
.
Statistics for a group [>f 30 cities reportmg pn the number of cases
referred show that an average of about 9 per cent of all cases involving
treatment were handled jointly by the travelers aid and a cooperating
agency. Since one case may be referred several times and may
finally be disposed of by transfer, an exact cleavage can not be made
between the number of cases which were referred or transferred and
the number of cases handled solely by travelers aid. However, a
division may be made between cases for which complete responsibility
was transferred to another agency and cases for which the entire or
major responsibility remained with travelers aid. Statistics from 31
cities, when so classified, show that 90 per cent of all cases requiring
adjustment belonged in the second category.
,. ,
,
That there is a changing concept of the responsibility which rests
upon the travelers aid and a growing tendency m this field to follow
through cases with which initial contacts are made is illustrated by
the experience of one registration city described m the Louisville
Experiment in Community Service to Transients. The report states:
Five years ago the travelers aid workers were meeting the trains,
assisting the old, the young, the handicapped, and the inexperienced,
giving city information, watching for runaways, and locating
relatives and friends, just as at present; but when they came upon
problem cases, such as a stranded family, or a runaway, or a young
girl who had spent her last penny to get to the city thinking work
would be awaiting her, these cases were referred to some other
organization. It was soon seen that if the worker who made the
first contact could continue with the situation much could be saved
in the matter of time on the part of the community s workers, the
time and the feelings of the client, who should not be subjected to
numerous interviews, and a saving in the time for obtaining results,
as many of the travelers aid contacts were made on bunday, at
night, on holidays, or in the early morning hours. The travelers
aid, therefore, undertook to solve its own problems and to work
out plans for those persons coming to the attention of the travelers
aid instead of referring them to some one else. Of course this did
not mean that such things as lodging and medical attention or
temporary hospital care were not requested from the organizations
providing these things, but the travelers aid assumed the responsi­
bility of getting the person home or putting through whatever plan
was to be made.4
4 Kahn, Annabel: The Louisville Experiment in Community Service to Transients, p. 1. National
Association of Travelers Aid Societies, New York City. 1929.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

39

TRAVELERS AID

Of 137,563 cases requiring adjustment in 31 areas, 10 per cent were
transferred. About one-half of the transfers were to local social
agencies and one-half to agencies in other cities. Cases transferred
to other cities included those given to the care of associated travelers
aid societies as well as to other agencies. Table 4, from which the
foregoing conclusions were drawn, presents detailed information on
the disposition of cases by transfer and shows that the Denver
Travelers Aid Society released the most and the Louisville Travelers
Aid Society the fewest cases by transfer. Less than 1 per cent of all
cases requiring adjustment were transferred to local social agencies
by the travelers aid in Louisville, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. In
Duluth, Kansas City, Louisville, and Minneapolis less than 1 per
cent of all cases were transferred to agencies in other cities.
T a b l e 4.— Cases requiring adjustment which were transferred to local agencies and
to agencies in other cities by travelers aid societies in 31 specified metropolitan
areas during 1 9 30

Cases requiring adjustment1
Cases transferred
Metropolitan area
Total

Total

Number

To local agencies

To agencies in other
cities

Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent

Total—31 areas....... .........

137,563

13,791

10 .0

6,830

5.0

6,961

5.1

Akron___________ __________
Bridgeport............................... .
Buffalo.......................................
Canton....... ..................... ...........
Chicago.......................................
Cincinnati___________________
Cleveland__________ ____ ____
Columbus____________________
Dayton........................................
Denver.._______________ _____
Des M oines.______ ___________
Duluth............-...........................
Qrand Rapids.............................
Harrisburg..................................
Hartford....................... ..............
Indianapolis................................
Kansas City (M o.).....................
Louisville....................................
Minneapolis.................. ............
Newark.............. .......................
New Haven................... .............
New Orleans...............................
Omaha................... .....................
Richmond......................... ..........
Springfield (Mass.).....................
St. Louis......................................
St. P au l........................ ............
Sharon 2.......................................
Sioux City............. .....................
Washington....... .......................
Wilkes-Barre...............................

3,144
2,136
3,454
1,506
31,213
8,342
5,667
2,784
2,079
2,659
1,629

236
207
387
193
4,839
233
1,204
250
123
802
54
31
148
290
137
602
139

7.5
9.7

96
119
75
104
2,171
72
952
83
81
771
18
29
55
105
53
249

3.1
5.6

140

2 .2

312
89

4.5
41
9.0
5.9
8.5
1.9
4.4

868

2,216
3,434
1,781
3,360
3,372
11,357
7,550
3,101
1,301
4,053
2,688

6,635
2,959
5,596
2 ,2 0 2

34
2,157
6,145
2,141

21

158
227
no

642
134
435
244
207
144
2

80
1,353
159

11.2
1 2 .8

15.5
2 .8
2 1 .2

9.0
5.9
30.2
3.3
3.6
6.7
8.4
7.7
17.9
4.1
0 .2
2 .1

7.3
8.5
15.8
5.0
6.6
8 .2

3.7
6.5

(»)

3.7
2 2 .0

7.4

6.9
7.0
0.9
16.8
3.0
3.9
29.0
1.1

3.3
2.5
3.1
3.0
7.4
3.3

110

15

0 .1

1.5

110

69
72
286
79
242
31
44
46

2 .2

5.5
7.1
2.9
3.6

1.0
0 .8
2 .1
(S)

30
614
49

1.4
10 .0

2.3

88

2,668

161
252
167
42
31
36

6 .0
2 .0
1.2
2 .2
0 .2

2

93
185
84
353
29

42
5.4
4.7
10.5
0.9

6

0 .1
0 .6

48
158
38
356
55
193
213
163
98
2

50
739
110

5.1
2.9
8 .8
2 .0

(3)

2.9
7.2
2.9
45
2.3

1 2 .0

5.1

1 All cases except those receiving advice or information only.
* Sharon had no regularly established travelers aid society; service was provided by a family-welfare
agency.
* Per cent not shown because total number of cases requiring adjustment was less than 50.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

40

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

IN T E R A G E N C Y CO O PERA TIO N IN SOURCE OF CASES

Interagency cooperation in travelers aid work, as indicated in the
disposition o f cases, is also seen when the source of cases is analyzed.
Standard reports of travelers aid societies record whether those aided
either with information and advice or more intensive service make
personal application for assistance, are offered assistance by society
employees, are referred by social agencies, or are directed to travelers
aid by transportation employees, public officials, or others. Reports
for the registration of social statistics include counts only of those
cases received from other social agencies, classified by those coming
from home agencies and those coming from travelers aid and other
agencies in many parts of the country. As would be expected, since
the entire group of cases, including those handled by information
service, are included, the preponderant proportion of cases (88 per
cent) came to travelers aid attention through other sources than social
agencies. By this method of classification only 12 per cent of the
total cases served by travelers aid were found to be referred by asso­
ciate societies or other social agencies. A larger and more significant
percentage to indicate the part played by social agencies in placing the
traveler or transient under the care of travelers aid could be calculated
if advice or information cases were eliminated from consideration.
However, under the reporting plan of 1930, statistics on source were
not shown separately for the two major groups— cases handled by
information service and cases receiving care.
Table 8 (page 45) gives the basic information on the channels through
which applicants came to travelers aid as reported by 33 metropolitan
areas during 1930. When the figures for all areas are combined, the
general indications are that of all cases received from other social
agencies, 61 per cent came from travelers aid societies in other cities,
30 per cent from other agencies in the same community, and 8 per cent
from other agencies at a distance.
DECREASE IN N U M B E R OF CASES SERVED IN 1930

Comparisons may be made between the number of cases served in
1929 and in 1930 by societies in 26 cities that reported for the 2-year
period. Combined figures for these cities show that there was a de­
crease of 10 per cent in the number of cases handled in 1930 as com­
pared with the preceding year. Only six cities, Canton, Detroit,
Harrisburg, Kansas City (M o.), Newark, and Richmond, reported an
increase in cases served.
Statistics of the Interstate Commerce Commission show that there
was a 10 per cent decrease in the number of passengers carried by all
operating railroads in 1930 as compared with 1929. Exclusive of
commutation service, the number of all passengers carried by roads
which handle 99 per cent of the traffic decreased 17 per cent from 1929
to 1930. To what extent this represents a decrease in travel or merely
a diversion of railway passenger traffic to busses and automobiles is
not known; but it is known that more than three-fourths of the
travelers aid cases in 1929 and 1930 originated in railway stations.
The decrease in travelers aid service appears to be due largely to a
falling off of railway-passenger traffic. Although the travelers aid is


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

TRAVELERS

A ID

41

being developed to serve travelers or transients in distress who do not
pass through railway stations, the service presents new and different
problems, and contacts can not be made elsewhere with the facility
possible at railway terminals.
The decrease in the number of advice or information cases and also
in the number of cases given other service corresponded to the de­
crease in total cases, 10 per cent for all cities combined. Statistics of
separate cities show wide variations. In some cities, as in Bridgeport,
the total decrease (29 per cent) was wholly due to a decrease in
“ advice and information” cases, as there was an increase in other
cases served. The reverse is true for Buffalo, where there was a
decrease of 8 per cent in all cases, but advice and information cases
increased by 28 per cent, and other cases decreased by 35 per cent.
No analysis can be given of the situation in each city, which would
account for these varying results, but the percentages of change
presented in Table 9 (page 46) give a foundation for study. It is
possible that changes in policy or in interpretation of terms from one
year to another as well as changing conditions may affect the figures.
R E L IE F A ND R EFU ND S

In travelers aid the giving of relief is supplemental to service and is
not an outstanding feature of the program, as relief cases per se
are usually referred to relief agencies. The emphasis is placed upon
connecting the indigent traveler with friends, relatives, and other
sources of help rather than with supplying financial aid. About
$25,000 was expended for relief during 1930 by societies in 31 metro­
politan areas, as is shown in Table 5. That refunds during the year
amounted to nearly 60 per cent of this sum shows the resourcefulness
of travelers aid workers in securing financial help for the distressed
traveler. In 16 of 31 cities refunds amounted to more than 50 per cent
of disbursements. In Chicago, where expenditures were largest,
refunds were 88 per cent of the amount of relief given, and in Harris­
burg and Cincinnati, 99 and 100 per cent, respectively. In Washing­
ton, where no refunds were received, the outlay for relief was negligible.
St. Louis was the only city with a considerable expenditure for relief
in which refunds were slight, amounting to only 7 per cent of
disbursements.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

42

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T a b l e 5.— Total expenditure fo r relief and percentages refunded by travelers aid
societies in 81 specified metropolitan areas during 1 9 8 0

Expenditure for relief
Refunds and repay ’
ments

Metropolitan area
Total

Total

Per cent

Total—31 areas.

$24,989.61

$14,584.34

58.4

Akron_____________
Bridgeport...............
Buffalo_____________
Canton....... ...............
Chicago.....................
Cincinnati.................
Cleveland__________
Columbus_________
Denver......................
Des Moines________
Detroit............ .........
Duluth......................
Grand Rapids......... .
Harrisburg_________
Hartford___________
Indianapolis_______
Kansas City (M o )...
L ouisville................
Minneapolis_______
Newark____________
New Haven________
New Orleans_______
Omaha____________
Richmond_________
Sioux City_________
Springfield (111.)-----Springfield (M ass.)..
St. Louis__________
St. Paul.....................
Washington-----------Wilkes-Barre_______

122.73
518.98
596.36
238.28
7.554.41
264.18
862.20
556.82
99.05
276. 51
52.97
16.87
181.88
1,272.21
713.31
436. 63
871.77
1,704. 78
148.18
181.83
526.58
257.00
35.23
859. 63
534. 22
43.21
180.10
5.415.42
255.18
140.00
73.09

34.50
412. 33
492 11
126.84
6,700.66
264.18
412.41
100.53
64.37
113. 81
6.85
2.45
61.34
1,263.15
585. 51
330.35
232.98
963.73
49.80
158.35
438.11
153.82
4.00
497. 68
457. 68
8.78
154.29
404.78
70.16

28.1
79.5
82.5
53.2
88.7

18.79

10 0 .0

47.8
18.1
65.0
41.2
12.9
14.5
33.7
99.3
82.1
75.7
26.7
56.5
33.6
87.1
83.2
59.9
11.4
57.9
85.7
20.3
85.7
7.5
27.5
25.7

Relief was advanced in only a small proportion of the cases requiring
adjustment. This finding holds true for the area and for individual
cities, as may be seen from Table 6, which gives the average number
of cases requiring adjustment and the average number and percentage
receiving relief monthly. No relief was given in Dayton and Sharon.
In other cities the proportion of relief cases ranged from 1 per cent in
Chicago and Omaha to 21 per cent in St. Louis.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

43

TRAVELERS AID

T a b l e 6 .— M on th ly averages o f number o f cases requiring adjustment and o f cases
receiving relief by travelers aid societies in 3 3 specified metropolitan areas during

Cases req uiring adjustment1
Metropolitan area

Total—33 areas......... ......................................
Akron_____________ ________________ ______
Bridgeport............................................................
Buffalo_________________________
Canton________________ ____ _______
Chicago__________________ ____ ___
Cincinnati_____________________ _____
Cleveland___________ _______ _________
Columbus..........................................................
Dayton_____________________________
Denver__________________________
Des Moines^_________________ . ______ _
Detroit_____________ ______ ________;
Duluth_________ ________ ________
Grand Rapids_________________________
Harrisburg................................. .........................
Hartford.____ ________________ _________
Indianapolis_________________
Kansas "City (M o .)............... ......................
Louisville__________________
Minneapolis___________ __________
Newark......................................................
New Haven__________ _________
New Orleans____________ ____ ___ _______ _
Omaha______________________________
Richmond............... ..........................
Sharons................. ...............................
Sioux City___ _____________ ______
Springfield (111.)_______________________
Springfield (Mass.)....... ......................................
St. Louis........................................................
St. Paul_____________________________
Washington..................................................
Wilkes-Barre______________ ______ _
.

Average
number
per
month

11,954

Average receiving
relief per month
Number

Per cent

745

6.2

24

6.1

126

17 3

13

17
47

3

72
6

184
178

1 All cases except those receiving advice or information only.
* Sharon had no regularly established travelers aid society; service was provided by a family-welfare

A D D IT IO N A L IN F O R M A T IO N ON SERVICE A FFECTIN G C H IL D R E N

The reports from travelers aid societies received during 1930 were
submitted on forms prepared and used by the National Association
of Community Chests and Councils and the local community research
committee of the University of Chicago, which transferred the project
of collecting social statistics to the Children's Bureau on July 1,1930.
In future reporting of travelers-aid activities the bureau will be inter­
ested in securing reports that amplify information on service affecting
children.
T o supplement reports received during 1930 under the registration
plan, case counts of the dependent nonresidents, the adults with small
children, the children under 16 traveling alone, the runaway children,
and the unmarried mothers cared for by travelers aid societies in 32
cities of the registration area have been made available through the
courtesy of the National Association of Travelers Aid Societies.
These counts are given in Table 7. The numbers shown in the various
columns of this table are not mutually exclusive. Thus, the number


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

44

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

of runaway children were also counted as children under 16 traveling
alone, if of that age group.
These counts occur in reports to the national association under the
classification of problems presented. That a considerable portion of
work in this field is in behalf of children is illustrated by the fact that
travelers aid societies in 32 cities of the registration area were asked
to safeguard more than 22,000 children traveling alone during 1930,
and that a group of children perhaps as large or larger was involved
in the problems of more than 11,000 mothers or other adults traveling
with small children. The cases of runaway children, unmarried
mothers, and dependent nonresidents, although not so great in num­
bers, often presented difficult problems to be solved quickly and skil­
fully by the short-time case work characteristic of travelers aid.
T a b l e 7 .— Problem s presented in cases reported to the National Association o f
Travelers A id Societies fro m 8 2 specified metropolitan areas during 1 9 3 0

Problems presented
Metropolitan area

Total—32 areas___________________________

Cbildren
Dependent Adults
with
under 16 Runaway Unmar­
nonresi­
ried
small
traveling
children mothers
dents
cbildren
alone
4,681

11,252

22,367

1,6 8 8

359

82
95
98
357
93
109
726
137
38

219
30

223
126
1,004
75
4,628
l|464
i;276
381
612
565
73
1,512
57
199
1,140
280
415
785
1,507
464
236
177
512
230
577
184
40
473
555
489
1,975
133

16

3
3
23
3
29

86
21

234
Orand Rapids

____ ______ -

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

Kansas C ity (M o.)___________ ___ ______________

New Orleans___________________________________

Springfield (Til.) .........
..............
Springfield (M is s.)
. . . ...... . . . ... ................
St. P a u l________________

__________________ _____


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

2

720
30
81
232
82
17
50
52
3
58
43
484
60
12

196
163
30
344
46

2 10

139
2,291
'769
637
107
353
76
511
166
10 2
111

42
134
215
2,136
391
35
77
302
270
474
106
108
494
268
192
141
146

21
100

53
233
61
91
16

10

18
13

8

35
4
111

5
15
85
76
85
86

60
31
38
19
28
16
61
3
7
19
28
18
185
74

23
2

3?
2
6
1

13
16
14
16
16
6
1

16
4
20

9

12

13
10

9

11

TRAVELERS AID

45

T a b l e 8.— Cases received fro m social agencies and fro m all other sources by travelers
aid societies in 8 3 specified metropolitan areas during 1 9 8 0

Cases served by travelers aid societies
Received from social agencies
Metropolitan area
Total

Total

In other cities

Number Per
cent

Local

Travel­
ers
Other
aid

Received from
all other sources

Per
Number cent

Total—33 areas.

253,730

29,060

11.5

8,835

17,786

2,439

224,670

88.5

Akron.....................
Bridgeport_________
Buffalo_____________
Canton_____ ____ _
Chicago____________
Cincinnati__________
Cleveland__________
Columbus__________
Dayton...... ........... .
Denver_____________
Des Moines________
D etroit..'__________
D u lu th ........... .........
Grand R a p id s.........
Harrisburg.......... .
Hartford...................
Indianapolis________
Kansas City (M o.)__
Louisville__________
Minneapolis________
Newark____________
New Haven............
New Orleans________
Omaha_____________
Richmond__________
Sharon 1____________
Siour City..............
Springfield (111.)........
Springfield (M ass.)..
St. Lotiis..._________
St. Paul____________
Washington...............
Wilkes-Barre..............

5,283
3,522
8,701
2,393
61,720
10,440
9,990
4,143
3,928
5,527
2,439
13,815
1,079
3,213
4,698
3,170
4,566
13,616
13,989
10,159
5,803
2,148
9,716
4,422
8,346
36
3,158
1,778
3,944
6,802
3,070
15,207
2,909

262
234
1,367
234
6,369
1,411
1,540
540
365
696

5.0

108
74
144
166
706
328
541
239
215
380
140
334

147
150
1,184
57
5,454
939
972
248

7

5,021
3,288
7|334
2,159
55,351
9,029
8,450
3,603
3,563
4,831
2,227
11,661
1,014
2,882
3; 564
2,754
3,772
12,789
12,653
9,780
Si 373
1,929
8,191
4,156
7,657
4
2,994
1,718
3,557
5,382
2,652
12,685
2,647

95.0
93.4
84.3
90.2
89.7
86.5
84.6
87.0
90.7
87.4
91.3
84.4
94.0
89.7
75.9
86.9
82.6
93.9
90.4
96.3
92.6
89.8
84.3
94.0
91.7
(*)
94.8
96.6
90.2
79.1
86.4
83.4
91.0

agency ™ 0

2 12

6 .6

15.7
9.8
10.313.5
15.4
13.0
9.3
12 .6

8.7
15.6

2,154
65
6 .0
331 10.3
1,134 24.1
416 13.1
794 17.4
827
6 .1
1,336
9.6
379
3.7
430
7.4
219 1 0 .2
1,525 15.7
266
6 .0
689
8.3
32 (»)
164
5.2
60
3.4
387
9.8
1,420 20.9
418 13.6
2,522 16.6
262 9.0

6

187
621
213
335
244
1,106
163
69
53
332
36
399
118
11

69
508
48
802
140

12 0

264
57
1,735
59
119
208
172
447
519
193
194
326
154
431
2 12

216
23
39
44
299
843
328
1,521
112

10

39
11

209
144
27
53
30
52
15
85
25
305
31
12

64
37
22

35
12

762
18
74
9
7
5
19
69
42
199
10

n° regu*ar*y established travelers aid society; service was provided by a family-welfare

1 Per cent not shown because total number of cases served was less than 50.


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

46

SOCIAL STATISTICS, 1930

T a b l e 9.— N um ber o f cases served by travelers aid societies, number in

which
advice or information only was given, and number in which other service was given
in 2 6 specified metropolitan areas during 19 2 9 and 1930, and percentage o f increase
or decrease in 1 9 3 0 as compared with 1 9 2 9

Cases served by travelers aid societies
In which advice or in­
formation only was
given

Total

In which other service
was given

Metropolitan area

1929

1930

Total—26 areas........ 239,263 215,557
5,283
6,218
3,522
4,943
9,427
8,701
1,400
2,393
66,972 61,720
11,832 10,440
9,990
12,335
4,143
4,919
3,928
7,415
5,527
6,245
2,439
3,860
12,662 13,815
3,213
3,561
4,572
4,698
4,745
4,566
Kansas City (M o.)........... 9', 739 13,616
16,283 13,989
12)163 10,159
5)734
5)803
5,445
4,422
8,346
8)253
47
36
3,158
5,100
1)778
2)421
9,491
6)802
3,070
St. Paul............................. 31481

Akron__________________
Bridgeport.........................
Buffalo_________________
Canton...............................
Chicago..............................
Cincinnati....... .................
Cleveland..........................
Columbus......... ................
Dayton..............................
Denver_________________
Des M oin es.....................
Detroit............ ...... ...........
Grand R apids......... ........
Harrisburg......................

Per cent
of in­
crease
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)

1929

-9 .9 100,891
-1 5 .0
-2 8 .7
-7 .7
+70.9
- 7 .8
-1 1 .8
-1 9 .0
-1 5 .8
-4 7 .0
-1 1 .5
-3 6 .8
+9.1
- 9 .8
+2.8
- 3 .8
+39.8
-1 4.1
-1 6 .5
+ 1.2
—18.8
+1.1
(*)
-3 8.1
—26.6
-2 8 .3
-1 1 .8

1930

91,355

2,139
2,214
3,105
1,386
5,247
4,086
532
887
31,879 30,507
2,098
2,816
4,323
5,377
1,359
1,922
4,327
1,849
2,868
3,486
1,429
810
7,373
8,791
997
2,230
1,264
1,325
1,206
1,683
5,376 10,244
4,087
2,632
3,560
2,609
3,122
2,702
2,225
1,734
1,711
1,570
2
13
2,662
1,001
1)654
'915
1,861
1,206
'868
'977

Per cent
of in­
crease
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)

1929

1930

-9 .5 138,372 124,202
-3 .4
-5 5 .4
+28.4
+66.7
-4 .3
-2 5 .5
-1 9 .6
-2 9 .3
-5 7 .3
-1 7 .7
-4 3 .3
+19.2
-5 5 .3
-4 .6
-2 8.3
+90.6
-3 5 .6
-2 6 .7
-1 3 .5
-2 2.1
+ 9.0
(»)
-6 2 .4
-4 4 .7
-3 5 .2
-1 1 .2

3,144
4,004
1,838
2,136
3,454
5,341
868
1,506
35,093 31,213
9,016
8,342
5,667
6,958
2,997
2,784
3,088
2,079
2,759
2,659
1,629
2,431
5,024
5,289
2,216
1,331
3,247
3,434'
3,062
3,360
4,363
3,372
12,196 11,357
8,603
7,550
2,612
3,101
2,688
3,220
6,635
6,683
34
34
2,157
2,438
767
863
5,596
7,630
2,504
2,202

Per cent
of in­
crease
(+ ) or
decrease
(-)
-1 0 .2
-2 1 .5
+16.2
-3 5 .3
+73.5
-1 1 .1
- 7 .5
-1 8 .6
-7 .1
-3 2 .7
- 3 .6
-3 3 .0
- 5 .0
+66.5
+ 5.8
+9.7
-2 2 .7
-6 .9
-1 2 .2
+18.7
-1 6 .5
-0 .7
(>)
-1 1 .5
+12.5
-2 6 .7
-1 2 .1

1 Sharon had no regularly established travelers aid society; service was provided by a family-welfare
Agency.
i Per cent not shown because total number of cases served was less than 50.

o


https://fraser.stlouisfed.org
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis