The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
I n ,. hw rsitV WO R K S P R O G R E S S AD MI N I S T R A T I 0 Harry L. Hopkins, Administ r ato r Corrington Gill Assistant .Administrator Howa rd B. Myers, Director Soci a l Re search Division R E S E AR CH BUL L E T I N CH_AL'JGES I N THE RURAL P.ELIEF POPULATION THROUGH OCTOBER 1935 H- 6 January 14, 1936 Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 INTP.OIDCTION This bulletin presents information concerning the total number of rural cases receiving general relief in October 1935, their distribution among the sta tes, and their distribution between farmers and all others. The estimates by states of the October c a se loads are based upon returns on a special county schedule (Form DP.S-117A) from 331 sample counties in 33 states. These counties contained 9.1 percent of all rural families in the United States in 1930 , and 9.0 percent of all rural relief cases in October. The states represented by these counties contained 77.9 percent of all rura l families in 1930, and 77.5 percent of all rural relief cases in October. The estimates of United Sta tes tot als are ba sed on averages for the 33 states s ampled. A second method of estimation used as a check was based on the regular monthly F.E.P..A. reports from 1,417 counties having no center with 2,500 or more inhabitants in 193~. These counties, distributed among 45 states, had 30 pera:ent of all rural families in 1930. Informa tion concerning relief turnover, new and reopened cases, and the effect of the new Works Program was derived from reports on a special county schedule (Form DP.S-116A) supplemented by earlier information secured as a part of the Survey of Current Changes in the Rural Relief Population, February 1935, conducted in 138 counties representing 9 agricultural areas. (See attached lists a~d maps of the counties sampled, by areas and by states.) ---------- - Prepared by .A. P... Mangus under the supervision of T.J. Woofter, Jr. Coordinator of Rural Research -- - -- -- - --- - - - -Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 -i- SUMMARY About 1,000 ,000 rural cases received general relief in October 1935. This total was lower than that for any other month in the history of the F . E. R.A. reporting service~/except September 1933, when relief rolls had been temporarily reduced to about a million cases by seas onal agricultural employmen t,and December 1933 , when the expanding C.W.A. program also tempora rily reduc 'e d rural relief to about a million cases. The October 1935 case load was 40 percent less than tha t of October 1934 and 13 p ercent less than that of October 1933. It was 28 percent less than tha t of June 1935 when 1,403,000 rural cases received reli ef, and 48 percent less than the load in J anuary 1935 when rural relief reached an all-time peak of 1,915,000 c a ses. The October 1935 total was, however, only 3 percent less than in September 1935,the r a te of decreas e having been ab rup tly r etarded by the . decline of seas onal employment in agriculture and the appro aching winter season. Rural r eli ef c a ses in Oct ober were heavily concent r ated in c ert ain states. About 255, 000 ca ses, or more than one fourth of all rural cases, were loc a ted in four states, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Texas and We st Virginia. Five st a tes with high propo rtions of the general rural population on relief were Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Utah, each with a r elief r at e of more than 16 percent as compared with an average of 8 percent for all stat es combined. Texa s, 1/ The reporting service was inaugurated soon after the establishment of F.E.R.A. in May 1933. while having a l a r ge number of rural c ases , did not have a disproportionate number in r el a tion to its total rural populati on. The rea sons for the co~tinued intensity of rural relief in thes e sta tes in the face of a general decline are found in such factors as ( a) the depletion of soil fertility and of na tural mining and lumbering resources leaving a stranded yet increas ing popul a tion (Kentucky and West Virginia), (b) stranded popul at ions of l aborers from agriculture and from the oil fi elds (Oklahoma), (c) the after- effects of the drought of l a st year and parti al crop f a ilure this yea r (North Dakota and Oklahoma),(d) stra.~ded miners (Utah) and (e) a f airly gener al f a ilure of local governments in these states to provide adequate funds for the care of 11 unemployables 11 • The gen er al rural reli ef rolls declined during nine consecutive months,beginning with Februa ry 1935. The expansi on of the Rur al Rehabilit a tion Pro gram, r ain in drought a rea s, increas ed seasonal opportunities for f arm l aborers , and improved crop prices c aused a muc h more r apid decline in the rural than in the urban relief rolls. The r a te of decrease of the rural relief load wa s a r apidly accelera ting one from February through March. Beginning with July the decline continued at a decreasing r a te and came to an abrupt halt in Octo ber. The number of f arm opera tors on gener al r elief decl ined more r apidly from February to June than did the numbe r of othe r rural c as es. From July to October, however the number of non-f armers declined Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY BOC4 -ii- the more r apidly, so that in October as in February, f armers constituted ab out one third of the rural r elief load. The rural rel ief load is a constantly changing one with a high r ate of turnover . From July through October approxi matGly 62 percent as many rural cases were closed as wore r eceiving aid in June . During tho s ame period more than half a s many c as es (37 percent) were op ened or reopened , leaving a net decrease of only 25 percent. Accessions to the r elief rolls during this period includ.ed l arge numbers of new c as es in addition to old ca ses that were reopened. Of all accessions,29 pe rc ent were case s that had not p reviously received aid from tho agency acc ep ting the c a.so . This r atio was smaller, ho wovcr,than tho corr esponding ratio for the previous four-month int 8rv al (F ebruary to Jun e), during which 43 percent of all accessions were new to the reporting agencies . The Works Program became a noticeable factor affecting the rural reli ef population during September and October . During the former month it is estimated that about 31,000 rural cases, or 15 percent of all closings in that month, were closed because some member received pay for a full work period on a wo r ks p roj ect . During October the number of such closings was slightly more than double that of September, ab out 64,000 families, or 31 percent of al l closings, receiving pay for Works Program ern:ploymen t and being removed from r elief for this rea son. In addi tion a large number of other rural relief persons were employed on the Works Program during October but had not yet r eceived pay for a full working pe riod. Hence tho cases they r epr esented were not closed during that month. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 -1- CHANGES IN THE FJJP.AL P.ELIEF POPULATION THP.OUGH OCTO:BEP. 1935. , Tot~l P.ural P.elief Case Load. Oc tober 1935 . During the month of Oct ober 193~ approximately 1,000 , 000 rural c as es~ r eceived general relief~/. This number was smaller than that for any othe r mont h in the hist ory of the F.E.P..A. reporting service~ excep t Sep t emb er 1933, when seasonal employment in agriculture temporarily reduced it to around a milli on c as es, and December 1933 , when the r apidly expanding C.W.A. program effected a similar temporary reduction. Compare d with the c ase lo ads df the same month for the two preceding y ears ; it wa s found tha t the October 1935 tot al wa s 40 percen t less than that of the precedin,e October when 1,671, 000 c ase s r eceiv ed r elief , and was 13 percent less than tha t of Oc tober 1933 when 1,154, 957 r ural cases were r epor t ed by the u·,1ern~:::loymen t P.elief Census. Compa r ed with more re cent months, i t was found tha t October 1935 wa s the ninth consecutive month of decline in rural r elief cases . The tot al of 1, 000 , 000 c as es in Qct ober was 28 percent less than in June, when the number stoo d a t l,4J3, 000 , and was 48 percent less than in J anuary, the all- time peak mon th for rural r eli ef, when 1,915, 000 c a ses r eceived aid. The October total was, however, only 3 pe rcent less t han the Sep tember tot al, the r api d r a te of dec rea se having been ab rup tly r etarded by the ending of seasonal employmen t in y Ca ses include fami li es and single r esident peisons. ~/ General r el i ef includes di r ect r elief and E.R.A. wo r k progr am ear nings. ~ The reporting se r vic e was inaugur a ted so on afte r tho establishment of F.E.P..A. in May 1 933. agr iculture and by the app ro aching winter sea son (Table I). Of the l, OJ0 , 000 r ur al cases on rel ief in October about 316,~00 or 32 pe rc ent were farm ope r a tors ao determined by th e usual oc cupation of the head of th e r elief hou~ehold ( Tab le II). About 684, 000 or 68 percent, belonged to othe r rural occupational groups including f a rm l aborers. Al.though the decrease in the number of cas es since J anuary 1935 ha s been very great , the October case lo ad r emained hi gh whethe r considered with r esp ect to actual numbers or i n proportion to the total po:oul a tion. The mil lion rural cases tha t r ec eiv ed a.id du ring that month r epr esent ed 8 percen t of all rural f amili es in 1930. due l ar gely to removals of f armers from the general reli ef rolls and t o · ttlsir reclassifica tion a s rural rehabilit a tion clients , the rel i ef r a te~/for f ar mers was much lowe r than for othe r rural cases . The number of farm oper a tors on r eli ef was equal t o only 5 per cent of all f ar mers in the gener al popul a tio n, while the r a tio of all other r eli ef cases to all other rur al f amilies was 11 percent , or more than twic e a s gr eat (Table II). Distribution of c~ses by -~t a tes. Cons ideri ng actual numbers, rur al reli ef cas es in October wer e heavily c oncent r a ted in a small number of the 33 states included in this study. It is a st r iki ng f act tha t some 255, 000 ca ses, or more than one 4/ Ra tio of r eli ef c ase s of a all compar able particular month t o popul a tion fami l i es in th e gen or al in 1930. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 -2- fourth of all rural cases on relief, were found in four states, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia. The concentration of rural relief cases in the state of Texas was, however, in direct proportion to the number of rural families as reported in the 1930 Census. The situation was entirely different in the other three states where rural families were on relief far out of proportion to their numbers in the general popul ati on. The states of Kentuck7, Oklahoma, and West Virginia contained only 8 percent of all rural families in 1930, yet in October these same states had 193, 000 rural relief cases, which was fully 19 percent of all such cases in the United States. One reason for the concentration of rural r elief cases in Kentucky, Oklahoma, and West Virginia was the fact that in these states farm op er ators had been r emoved from the general relief rolls either by the Rural Rehabilitati on Program or for other reasons in far smaller prop ortions than in the majority of the other states. In Kentucky the relief r a te for farmers (21J percen t) was higher than for other rQral families (16 percent). In Oklahoma the relief r ate for farmers (17 percent) was only slightly less than for non-farmers (20 percent). In West Virginia the proportion of farm operat ors on rel ief in October was als o very great, being equal to 13 percent of all f a.r me rs in the general population as compared with only 5 p ercent in the county as a vhole. Of rrmch ~ere striking significance,however, was the fact that the p roportion of non farmers on relief in this state was almost twice as great as that of farmers, and was more than twice as great as the average for non-farmers in the United States. The number of non-farmer families on relief in West Virginia (43,200) was equal to about one fourth (25 percent) of all such families in the general population of that state in 1930. This relief load of non-farmers was made up largely of l aborers whose usual occupation was in mining and lumbering industries and who did a miniIIRllll amount of subsistence farming a s an alternate occupation. The f actors operat ing to maintain high rural relief density in these states a re of a more or less p ermanent nature . In Kentucky and West Virginia the factors are much the same . Back of the relief problem in each of these states is a story of exhaustion of natural and personal resources, of stranded yet increasing population~/ . Local financia.l resources are such that the officials consider the local ities unable to assume any considerable portion of their relief needs ; hence the majority of the "unemployables 11 have be en continued on the gener al relief rolls in many counties . In Oklahoma, a stranded surplus labor population from th e oil fields, displacement of gre at numbers of f arm laborers due to crop reduction, and the exhaustion of soil fertility are important f act ors back of the reli ef situation. Gains in private empl~yment have been inconsequential during the past months. Moreover, in many localities during this pas t 9,) See Six Rural Problem Areas, F.E.R.A, Research Monogr aph I. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 -3- season a large proportion of the cotton crop was destroyed by the 11 arrny worn: 11 or "leaf worm 11 which stri pped the cotton st 8 lks in September. In Oklahoma as in Kentucky and West Virginia attempts to transfer 11 unemployables 11 to tb,e care of local agencies have largely failed due to lack of local or stat e funds. Although the s o-called 11 unemp loyables 11 were transferred to the County Welfare Boards, a great number of these we·re allowed to return to the E.R.A. to avoid suffering. In October fiv e oth er states Michisan , Missouri, Ohio, Minnes ota , and Wi scon sin - ha d large r ural relief loads, each of these state s having mo re than 29, 000 rural cases (Tabl e II). These fiv e stat e s together with the four discu ssed ab ove contained 44 p ercen t of the total rural case load in Oct ober. The latter g roup of state s, howev'3r, with the exception of Mi chi gan and Minne sota did not have case loads which were much out of p roportion to the number of rural famil ies in the general p opulat ion. The over-representgt ion of relief cases in these two states was a reflect ion of wellknown conditions of st r anded p opulation and submargi nal farm land in the Cut-Ove r reg ions. Inten sit _Y..?l -Belief ,bi State§. When the Oct ober 1935 rural relief case loads are considered relat ive to the comparable 6 eneral population of the state s , t here are five states that stand out most st ri k i ngly. These are Kentucky, Oklanorna., Wast Virginifl, North Dakota, and Utah . Each of these states had a rural relief rate more than twice as g reat as the ave rage rural rate for the United States, In t he following table the percentages of all rural families, of a 11 families of farm op era tors, and of all rural families other th:111 farm operators on relief are shown for each of the five states with highest rural relief rate s and a s averages for t h e 33 states sampled . Table A. Relief Rates in Five Sta tes with High Rura l Re~ief In tens ity, October 1935~ Ru r a l Relief Cas-~ as a Percent of All Rural F8milies 1930 i :2a r m I All Total I Ope r- 1 -i:. l ators 1otuers Average for 33 stat e s 8. () 5. 0 11. 0 West Virginia 21.0 12.9 24.8 Kentucky 18 . 8 20 .4 16. 3 Oklah:,rr.a 18,1 1 6 .6 20.2 Nor th Dakota 16.8 16 . 5 17 . 3 Utah . 16 . 13 4.2 30 . 3 I --=±- ~/ Ratios from Tabl e II. In North Dakota the conti~ued effe cts of the drought of the p reviou s seas on, t h e effect of crop destruct ion by wheat rust in s ome coW1ties,and a comparatively liberal relief policy were factors ope~ating tG IT6 intain a h igh relief i nten s ity . As in Kentucky and Oklah oma, farmers remai ne d en relief in No r th Dakota in prop ortions almost as g reat a::; all o-cher r ural familie::;. In Gtah , on t he other har.d, the re l ief problem was almost entirely one of nonfarmers, only f our per cent of all farm operators being on relief in comparison with 30 percent of all rura l housenoldc . Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 -4- Monthly Changqs in the Total Ru.rel Relief Case Load. Although the rural relief case load declined for nine consecutive months - February to October 1935, the monthly rate of decline was by no means constant. The nine months may be grouped into two periods on the basis of rate's of decline. The first period beginning with February and ending with June was one during which the rate of decrease was rapidly accelerating • .After reaching a peak load in January 1935, rural relief declined 2 percent, 3 percent, 5 percent, and n percent during February, March, April and May, respectively. In June there was a 14 percent drop, the largest recorded. The second period beginning with July was one during which the decline continued but at a decreasing rate. After the 14 percent decrease in June the rate dropped to 10 in July and remained fairly con~tant during Au.gust and September. In October, however, this rapid rate of decrease came to an abrupt nalt, the rural case load of that month being onl;r 3 percent le s s tnan that of the preceding month (Tables Band I). Table B. Percent Decrease in the Rural Relief Population by Mo~th~, February to October 1935§./ Percent Decrease From Month Preceding Month February March April 2 3 5 ll.ay 6 June July August September October 14 10 10 ~ 3 ~Computed from Table I. One important f.a ctor affecting the accelerating rate of decrease in the general rura.l relief rolls from February through June was the transfer of families to the rural rehabilitation program. In addition the transfer of so-called 11 unemployables11 from the emergency relief rolls to strictly local or state relief was a noticeable factor affecting the relief situation in a The reduction in number of states. rural relief was, therefore, accompanied by increases in the number of rehabilitation clients and in local poor relief not included in the present data. Another factor of considerable importance in some states was the reinvestigation of cases and the .removal of 11 ineligible s 11 from the rolls. In addition to the administrative factors mentioned above other important factors were operating to bring about an accelerating rate of decline in rural relief from February to June. Spring precipitation in the drought states aided in bringing about increased employment in a griculture, thus removing agricultural labor from the relief rolls in large numbers. At the same time a more favorable agricultural price situation contributed to the decline in the number of farm operators on relief. Simultaneous with the factors which resulted in the removal of many families from general relief in rural areas were other factors of a counteracting nature operating to force many families on the relief rolln. Cases removed as 11 unemployable11 were later reinstated in localities where no other provision for their support could be found. The continued exhaustion of personal resources forced · hundreds Qf new Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 -5- families to apply f or a id. After June t h e factors effecting ac ce ss ions to rural relief te nde d to gain over ti10 se eff ecting s eparations from relief, thuc retarding the r ate Ti1e se factors ha d of de crease. the ir greatest eff e ct in October in sp i t e of t he increas ing volume of Works Pro gram assignments . The numbe r of fa r m operators on general relief declined mo re ra pidly f rom February to June than did the From number of other r ural ca ses. as the June t o Octob er, h owever, Rur al Rehabilitation Pro gra m s touued ab s orbing farmer s , other rural cases declined more ra pidly than did farm operator s . The advantageous different i a l r a. te of decrease wh ich be longed t o fa r m ope r a tor s duri ng the f irst period ~as ent irely can ce lled duri ng t h e second period. The r atio of farm opera t or s on relief t o a ll wh ile other rural relief cases, lowered in June, was app roxi mat ely the same in Oc t ober as in Februa ry, ab out one farmer to every two nonf a rmers on rur al relief. Di ffe r ential Rat e s of Decrea s e in the Relief Population . Alth ough the t ota l general relief ca s e load de clined each month after January 1935 more the rura l case s aeclined much rap idly than urba n cases. All relief ca s es, r u ral and urban, decreased 14 percent froffi Februa ry t o J une a nd 18 perce nt from June to Oct ober. Duri ng the se sa me pe r iod s the u r ba n cases in 143 \~calities decrease d 7 and 14 percentfu while t h e r u ral load decreased 25 and 29 perce nt , re spectively . Du ri ng the entire period Feb rua r y to Oc tobe r all cases decrea sed 29 percent . Ur ba n cases decrea sed 20 p ercent wh ile rural cases decre as ed 47 pe r cent (Table C). §/ These pe r cen t age s conform clo sely to t he decrea i e in t h e t otal esti~.ated urban l oad during the two peri od s . Table C. Percent Decrease in the Numbe r of Ca ses Receiving Relief under the General R~lief Program, Clas s ified by Class of Relief Pouulation and by Period of Decrea .:e. Percent Decrease by Periods Fahrua ry"""toJun e t o Cla ss of Relief Popul at ion Feb ruary t o Octobe r 1935 1935 r Octobe June 1935 I All Ca ses Rur al and Urbane.I Urban Casas 143 Urbavocal itie se./ Rura 1 Ca se s b Farm Ope r a.t ore Other Rur a l Cases §../ I I Ii 14 18 29 7 14 20 25 29 24 47 47 47 31 23 31 I I Computed fro m F. E .R.A. monthly re ports . p_/ Computa d from totals estimated f rom the Survey of Currant Changes in the R'-l ral Relief Population for February, J une and October. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 -6- Volume of Rural Relief Turnover Tne total volume of accessions to, and separations from, the rural relief rolls was enormous during the months March through June 1935 and was even g re ater during the months July through October. In nine agricultural areas, containing more than hal f of the rural relief p opulation of the United States, 5~2,000 cases were closed for various reasons or we re transferred to the Rural Rehabilitation pro gram during the MarchJune period.I7 Ha d no cases been added during those four months the 1../ Includes cases transfe rred Rural Rehabilitation, Table D. to volume of separations would have effected a 58 percent decre3se in the general relief rolls in those areas. However, more than half as many cases were opened as were closed or transferred so that the net effect was only a 27 percent decrease ( Table D). During the four months, July t o October, about 446, 000 cases were closed, a number equal to 62 percent of all rural cases receiving relief in the areas concerned in June. .A.bout 269,000 of these closings were offset by additions to t ~e relief rolls, so tnat the net effe ct was a decrease of only 25 pe rcent (Table D). Volume of Acce ssion s to, and Separations from Rural Relief Rolls during the Period March through June as Compared with the Period July through October 1935ili -===========(E==s=ti=·m=a=t=e=d=f::;:::o::::r=9====Ag==·==r=i=c=ul=t::::ur=a=l=A==re=a=s~)===========--=I Separati ons Ac ces sion s ' Ma r ch "h tp 1 July to March to July to _ Jun e QJ October 0 June October 1 I Numb~ 1 562, 000 I 446, 000 297, 000 269 , 000 II Ra te2::! 58 ;I 62 31 37 ~/ 'E../ ~/ ~/ =====±======'==== Estimated on the basis of reports from 138 samule counties. Detaile d data are on file in the Rural S0ction of the Division of Social Research. I ncludes cases transferred to Rural Rer,ab ilitation. Does not include cases transferred to Resettlement. Benaration rate: The percenta ge ratio of cases clos~d during the period to the total case load at the beginning of the ne riod. icce ssi on ra t e: The percentage ratio of cases oponed or reopened during the period to the total case load at the beginning of the period. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 -7- 11 New 11 Case~/ on Rural Reli e f Rolls. "New 11 cases continued t o come on to the relief r olls in rural areas in large numbe r s . Of the 215 ,000 relief cases opened in nine agricultural areas during March, April, May, and J une of 1935, ab out 43 out of every 100 had no t been known previ ously to the agency accepting the case 11 (Table E) . The prop ortion of new 11 cases opened during the next fourmonths int erva l, July through October, was much sma ll er, only 29 pe rc en t no t hPving p r e viously r ecei ved re lief fr om the age ncies acc ep ting them. Many of t hese new11 cases we re families who had held on t o t hei r ~independence during the depressi on but who were continually drawing on their pe r sonal r esources a nd being f or ced i nto dependence upon public r elief . Many othe rs had been d r opped fr om the lists of local public or private agencies, while others had moved or been t r ans f e rr e d to a differ ent eme r gency r e lief agency. 11 ~/ Opened cases which previously known to the agency . Tabl e E. we r e not accep ting Effect of the New Works Program. The new Works Program did not become a fact or of impo rtance in rural area s until September 1935. Reports fr om 296 sample counties in 2 3 states indicated that about 15 percent of all Sep tember clo s ings in these states consisted of families of which one member rece i ve d pay f or a full period of work perfo r med under t he Works Program. These cl osings am oun ted t o Gome 3.0 pe r cent of all cas e s r e ~eiv ing reli e f du r ing Sept ember. The volume of Works Pro gr am c l osings was doubled in October as compared with Sep t ember. Duri ng t his month 31 pe r cent of a ll cases closed wer e cl osed due t o t he Works Pr ogram, and these cl os ings were equal to 6 .0 pe rcent of t he Oc t obe r case load . Taking these counties as t ypical of the countr y as a whol e, .it is estimat ed that about 31,000 rural ca ses wer e cl osed becau se they received pay fo r wo r k in September and ab out 64 ,000 were closed f or the same r eason i n October . It may be assumed t hat many other rural pe r sons were empl oye d on the Wor ks Program i n Oc t obe r bu t had not r e- New Case s as a Percent of All Accessions t o the Rural Relief Roll s duri ng the P eriod March through J une as Compar ed with the Period July through Oc t obe r 1935a/ (Es timated f or 9 Agri cultural Areas) ====-===-========== Period I March to J une J uly t o Oc tob er §;./ 1 All Acc essions 215,000 269,000 New Numb er 92 ,000 I 78 ,000 Case s Pe rcen t 43 29 Est imates base d on r epo rt from 138 sampl3 counties . Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 - 8- ceived pay for a full period of work performed. Their households, there- for e, were not considered r eli ef cases (Table F) . closed Table F . Rural Relief Cases Clnsed Due to Works Program Employment during September and Oct ober 19359:./ (Estimated f or the United States) ·- - Month Cases I Receiving Relief Septembe r October -- ~/ 1,030,000 I 1,000 ,000 I __L Cases Closed 216,000 I 210,000 Cases Closed due to Works Program Number Percent of Pe ro3nt of All Closings All Cases ,, 131,000 64 ,000 3 6 15 31 _d The number of cases closed has been estimated on the bases of r eports fr om 296 sam~le counties in 28 states : Arkansas, California , Colorado Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mighigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York , North Carolina, North Dako t a , Ohio, Oklahoma , Oregon , South Ci3,rolina , Sou th Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah , Virginia, Washi ngton, Wisc o~s i n . These states contained 69 percent of all r u ral relief cases i n October. The stat e s i n which t he Works Program had been most effec tive in closing cases were Georgia, Arkansas. and Tennessee . Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 -9- Table I. Estimated Number of Rural Case~/ Receiving Relief under the General Relief Program, October 1934 to October 1935~/ (Continental United States) All Rural Relief Cases Percent of All Relief Cases s./ Percent of All Families 1930 Census 1934 October November December 1,671,000 1,738,000 1,838,000 36 36 36 13 14 15 1935 January February March April May June July August September October 1,915,000 1, 878 ,000 1,830,000 1,736,000 1,632,000 1,403,000 1,260,000 1,138,000 1,030,000 1,000 , 000 36 36 36 35 34 31 29 28 26 27 15 15 15 14 13 11 10 Month 9 8 8 e./ Includes families and single resident persons. ~/ Estimates for February, June, and October 1935 were made as a part of the Survey of Current Change s in the Rural Relief Population. The estimate for each of the other months is based on reports from 1,417 entirely rural counties. s./ All cases rural and urban as reported to F.E.R.A. Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Table II . Estimate d Numbe r of Rural Casesa/Receiving Re li e f unde r the Gene ral Relief Pro g r am i n 33 State s an d in the United States Octobe r 1 %5 , Clas s i f i ed by Usual Oc c upat ion of the Headb/ z I 0 ~ I All Ru r al Rel i e f Cases State ~ m l/lo --j <.O. m rt :;;o ;:::;· ------------ -------------~------!i Perc er.t Dist ribut ion 11 Fe r cent cf AJ.l Fami li e s 1 93 0 Number I ·i-Ai-1~.-----~----. Far mc/ All !1 Rural Farm I All Operakirs Othe r s!! Rel i e f Ope rators Othe rs I :1 Cases I • -- 774 , 000 ~ 500 151 8 , 50011 __100 Z ro 0.. o- I C z '< < m All States Samp l ed ~ 33 I ~7- I 34 47 76 80 75 I I I All l Rur al Far m All Reli0f Ope ra.to~s Othe rs Cases -a.a --. _s.o I 11 .~ I 16 . 3 20 . 2 16 . 6 24 . 8 15 . 6 :;;o l/l ~ Kentuc ky Oklahoma Texas West Virg i n ia Michi gan 11· 75 , 600 63 , 500 61 , 900 53 , 900 4 3 , 8 00 50 , 200 j 2s , 4ooil 33 , 700 J 2~ , 800! 14 , 800 . 47 , 100 , 10 , 700 143 , 200 1 10 , 800 33 , 0oo j 100 100 10 0 100 1 00 43 , 200 39 , 800 32 , 900 29 , 200 24 , 600 1s , 400 6 ~600 1 2 , 100 6 , 500 10 , 600 100 1 00 100 1 00 100 I I I 66 53 21 20 25 , 1 18 . 8 18 . 1 8. 0 21.0 11. 5 / 20 . 4 16 . 6 3. J 12 . 9 6.4 ._., 0 :Missouri Ohio Minn esota Wis c o ns i n tforth Ca rolina z 0 ~ ~ mo V) ::::::!. --j lO m 3· ru z::;; eel z3 < m · 36 17 37 22 43 64 83 63 78 57 9 06 7.4 11 . 0 9. 1 5.3 6.0 3.0 6. 5 3.6 3.8 14 . 5 10 . 4 18 . 3 16 . 3 7. 6 41 16 2C 59 64 80 94 84 36 6. 4 6.0 4 .1 2.8 10 . 9 7. 7 10 . 5 5. 5 14 . 1 17 . 3 I I :;;o 21 ~s ool 33 , 200 1 1 20 , 80 0 1 22 , 700 14 , 000 1 Tenne ssee Californ ia Vir g i n ia New Yo r k Kansas No rt h Dakota 24 , 100 23 , 900 22 , 600 21 , 800 20 ~500 20 , 000 10 ~000 3 ~800 4 , 600 1 ~400 3 ~2 00 12 , 900 14 ~1 0 0 11 20 ~100 1 8 , 00 0 20 , 4 00 17 ~300 7 , 1:~0 100 Hn 100 100 100 100 6 16 64 :;;o 6. G 4.1 7. 1 16 . 8 2. 7 C. 8 1.9 16 . 5 l/l ~ (Tabl e continued on next page ) CXl 0 0 fj:::,, Tabl e II (Cont ' d . ) 1T umbe r All Ru ral Re lief Cases State z 0 ~ I ~ m l/lo --J co· m ;:;: :;;o ;:::;· zro 0.. C o- z '< < m Ar kansas Flo rida Sout h Carolina Nebraska 1 Pe r cent Di st ribution i! All I I All I' Ru ral l Farm All Othe rs Re lie f Ope r ato rs Ot _ Case s l Far m £/ Operato rs I I I Iowa 18 ~500 10 , EOO 17 , 400 · 3 ~700 16 , 400 4 , 900 15 , 000 2 , 700 12 , 800 2 , 000 I I 7-~900 12, , 700 11 , 500 1 2, 300 10, 800 l CO 100 100 100 100 10 , 300 11 ~000 5 ~700 8 , 500 4 , 600 100 100 100 100 100 j 1· I 57 21 30 18 16 · Pe r cent of all Families 1.930 All Farm All Rural Re li ef , Operator s I Others Oas_~ I -- l 43 79 70 82 84 5.5 10 . 0 5.9 6. 9 3.4 81 95 52 83 47 3.0 1 1 4.4 8. 1 6 . •1 1 1.9 3.1 2. 1 0.9 9. 7 14 . 0 6. 8 0.9 0.2 8. 9 2. 1 6. 0 7. 3 8.6 18 . 8 3. 9 :;;o l/l Geo r gi a .Ala bama Co lorado South Dakota Lo ui s i ana ~ z 0 Ut ah Washington Montana Massachusett s Connect i cut Ore gon New Hampshire 12 , 700 11 , 600 11 , 000 10 , 200 9, 800 8 , 600 7 , 700 I I 2 , 400 60~ 5 , 300 1 , 700 5 , 200 19 5 48 17 53 2. 8 8.7 7. 9 3.5 3.2 I-' I-' 6, 800 3 , 000 1 , 100 2 , 400 3 , 700 900 300 7 , 500 5 , 300 3 , 200 5 , 900 2 , 700 100 100 100 100 100 13 31 54 13 10 87 69 46 87 90 16 . 6 1 ~3 7. 7 7. 0 2. 6 4.2 3 ~5 7. 7 3.5 1. 7 30 . 3 4.9 7. 6 7. 6 2. 7 2 , 600 1 , 700 600 2 ~000 1 , 600 100 100 23 100 77 94 2.0 3.0 1. 0 0.7 2. 8 4.3 6 , 900 ~ I ~ mo V) ::::::!. 6 --j lO m ::::;· :;;o CJ z:::;; eel z3 < m :;;o l/l ~ -------- ------ - -------4f--------- 1--------+---------+f-------1-----------4------+1--------1--------- -+- - - - ---- a. ' 000 , 000 Rural Unit ed States 1316 ' 3')0 683 , 700 l DO 32 68 8. 0 5.0 11.0 I a/ I ncl ud es fam i lies and singl e r esident persons . b/ Estimates we r e made fo r each of these stat es by applying October reli e f r ate s (pe r centage rat i os of - reli ef house ho l ds in Octobe r t o all families of the same r es idence or f a r m tenure class in 1930 ) found i n the sample counties of the Survey of Curr ent Changes i n the Rura l Relief Population to: al l compa ra b l e f amilies as shovm i n the 1930 Census . The estimates fo r rural United St ates we r e made by app lying the ave ra ge r e li ef ra tes for all states sampled to the U. s. totals as given by the 1 930 Census . c/ Slightly l e ss than two percent of the.se farm operators l ive i n towns , of 2 , 500 to 5 , 000 populat i on . ro 0 0 ~ 8004 -12- COUNTIES SURVEYED AND AREAS REPRESENTED BY THE SURVEY OF CURRENT CHANGES IN THE RURAL RELIEF POPULATION EASTERN COTTON Alabama: Bullock, Calhoun, Conecuh and Winston; Arkansas: Calhoun, Craighead and Pike; Georgia: Chattooga, Dodge, Heard, Jenkins. McDuffie, Madison, Mitchell, Pike and Webster; Louisiana: Concordia, Morehouse, Natchitoches and Webster; Mississippi: Lawrence, Tippah, Washington and Winston; Missouri: Pemiscot; North Carolina: Cabarrus, and Sampson; South Carolina: Allendale, Calhoun, Fairfield and Pickens; Tennessee: Henderson. CORN BELT Illinois: Scott, Whiteside, and Woodford; Indiana: Fountain, Hancock, Morgan and Shelby; Iowa: Black Hawk, Calhoun, Guthrie, Ida, Mahaska, Page, Marshall and Washington; Kansas: Smith and Wabaunsee; Missouri: Ray and Hickory; Nebraska: Hall, Hitchcock, Johnson and Pierce; Ohio: Clinton and Putnam; South Dakota: Brookings and Hutchinson • .APPALACHIAN-OZARK (Self-Sufficing) Arkansas: Madison; Ge orgia: Lumpkin; Illinois: Franklin; Kentucky: Johnson, Knox, Lee and Muhlenberg; Missouri: Shannon; North Carolina: Jackson and Wilkes ; Tennessee : Cocke , White and Williamson; Virginia: Lee , Bedford and Page; We st Virgini a : Boone , Murion , Nicholas and Pendleton. HAY AND DAIRY Michigan: Sanilac; Minnesota: Benton, Olmstead and Otter Tail; New York: Broome, Livingston, Oneida and Washington; Ohio: Geauga and Stark; Pennsylvania: Bradford, Wayne, and Wyoming; Wisconsin: Chippewa, Sauk and Walworth. WESTERN COTTON Oklahoma: Jackson and Lincoln; Texas: Bastrop, Cass, Collin, Houston, Karnes, McLennan, Montgomery, Shelby , Terry and Wilbarger. RANCHI NG Colorado: Archuleta, Garfield and Routt; Montana: Garfield, Madison, Meagher, and Granite; Oregon: Baker and Crook; Utah: Garfield, Grand and Piute. SPRING WHEAT Montana: Chouteau; North Dakota : Ramsey; South Dakota: Corson and Edmunds . WI NTER WHEAT Colorado: Sedgwick; Kansas: and Kingfisher; Texas: Carson. Burke, Emmons, Hettinger and Pawnee and Saline; Oklahoma: Harper LAKE STATES CUT-OVER Wisconsin: Michigan: Gogebic, Oscoda and Scho olcraft; Minnesota: Forest and Sawyer. Pine; Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8)04 -13- COID"TIES SURVEYED AND STATES REPP.ESBE·l1ED BY THE SWVEY OF CURRElJT CHANGES IN THE RURAL RELIEF POPULATIO~J .AL.ABJ:.J.!A - Calhoun, Conecuh, D?le, Dallas , Marshall, Shelby, Winston A..."tUCANSAS - Calhoun, Craighead, Grant, Viadison, Marion, Miller, Phillips, Pike, Prairie, Yell C.ALIFORJ.'il'IA - Glenn, Humboldt, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera , Monterey, Uono , San Bernardino, San Jcaquin , Ventura, Yuba COLORADO - Alamosa, Archuleta, Garfield, Kiowa, Kit Carson, Routt, Sedgwick, Teller ' • CO:NNE CTICUT Fairfield, Hartford, Litchfield, Middle sex, New Haven, New London, Tolland, Windham FLORIDA - Bradford , Broward, Jefferson, Lee, Polk , Washington GEORGI£ - Chattooga, Dodge, Gre ene , Heard, Jenkins, J one s, Lumukin, Madison, McDuffie , McIntosh, Mitchell, Murray , Muscogee, Pike, Tattnall, Ware, Webster IOWA - .A.ppanoose, Black Hawk, Calhoun, Emmet, Guthrie, Ida, Mahaska, Marshall, Monona , Washington KANSAS Barb er, Ford, Gove, Gr eenwo od, Hamilton, Jefferson, Ne osho, Pawnee, Russell, Saline, Seward, Smith, WQbauns ee KENTUCKY - Boone, Hickman, J ohnson, Knox, Larue, Lee, Mercer, Metcalfe , Row[-1,n, Scott, Todd, Webster LOUISIANA - Acadia, Concordia, Morehouse, Natchitoches, Plaquemines, Point e Coupee , Tangipahoa, Terrebonne, Vernon, Webster MASSACHUSETTS - Barnstable, Be rkshire, Bristol, Du}ces, Essex, Fr anklin, Hampden , Hampshire , Middlesex, Nantucket, Norfolk , Plymouth, Worcester MICHIGAN - Barry, Berri en, Gogebic, Kalkaska, Leele..n au, Meco sta , Monroe , ~sc oda , Presque Isle, Sanilac, Schoolcraft MIN:TESOT.4). - Benton , Big Stone , Hubbard, Kittson, Olmsted, Ott er Ta il, Pennington, Pine , Pope, Redwood, Rock, Scott, St. Louis MISSOURI Ada ir, Douglas, Franklin, Hicirnry, Helt, Johns on, Mill er, Newto:1. , Pemiscot, Ralls, Ray, Sha..~non MONTANA - Chout uau , Daniels, Garfield, Granite, L':'.ke, W.n.di son, v~mgher, Prairi e , NEBRASKA - Box Butte , He.11, Hitchcock, Johnson, Mo rrill, Pi e rc e , Richards ,.:m , Sheridan , Tha~e r Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 8004 - 14 ... NEW HAMPSHIRE - Belknap, Carroll, Chesire, Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, Strafford, Sullivan NEW YORK - Broome, Livingston, Oneida, Schuyler, Washington NORTH C.AROLINA - Alamance, Cabarrus, Caldwell, Chowan, Franklin, Gates, Harnett, Jackson, Cnslow, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Stokes NORTH DAKOTA - Burke, :Einmons, Hettinger, McHenry, McKenzie, Ramsey, Richland, Stutsman OHIO - Athens, Brown, Clinton, Geauga, Hardin, Monroe, Muskingum, Ottawa, Putnam Seneca OKLAHOMA - Carter, Custer, Harper, Hughes, Jackson, Kingfisher, Lincoln, Pushmataha, Rogers OREGON - Baker, Clatsop, Crook, Josephine, Morrow, Polk SOUTH CAROLINA - Allendale, Calhoun, Colleton. Fairfield, Georgetown, Lee, Newberry, Pickens SOUTP. · DAKOTA - Brookings, Corson, Custer, Edmunds, Grant, Hand, Hutchinson, Jackson, Meade TENNESSEE - .Anderson, Cocke, Fayette, Franklin, Hawkins, Henderson, Stewart, Whit ( Williamson TEXAS - Bastrop, Bosque, Brewster, Burleson, Carson, Cass, C~llin, Colorado, Fisher, Floyd, Freeston, Frio, Hansford, Houston, Karnes, Lamb, McLennan, Montgomery, Palo Pinto, San Saba, Shelby, Starr, Sutton, Terry, _Upshur, Upton, Webb, Wilbarger UTAH - Box Elder, Garfield, Grand, Piute, Sevier, Weber VIRGINIA - illeghancy, Bedford, Charles City, King William, Lee, Mathews Mecklenburg, Page, Powhatan, Pulaski, Southampton, Stafford, Westmoreland WASHINGTON - Adams, Benton, Chelan, Cowlitz, Jefferson, Stevens WEST VIRGINIA - Boone, Marion, Nicholas, Pendleton W~SCONSIN - Calumet, Chippewa, Crawford, Forest, La Crosse, ~ortage, Sauk, ~awyer · Walworth Digitized by Original from NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AREAS REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED SURVEY OF THE RURAL z 0 RELIEF SITUATION JUNE . 1935 ~ I ~ m l/lo --l co· m rt :;;o ;:::;· Z ro 0.. o- C z '< < m :;;o l/l ~ z 0 ~ I ~ mo V) :::!. --j lO m 3· :;;o OJ z:::;; co z3 < m :;;o l/l ~ WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION SOCIAL RESEARCH DIVISION STATES REPRESENTED AND COUNTIES SAMPLED SURVE Y OF THE RURAL RELIEF SITUAT ION i:= JUNE . 1935 U1 a: LU ~ EZ 0::::, L.. ..... z ro a: C LU ·a, 1- ·c ll) Ow s :r: !:r: 0 z I I • . •• ----- • -•~••· / ■ •a •r-----= il . •• I ~ •• ■ I l/) a: ■ LU ., ~ • • ~•p >,Z - '.. - .0 ::::, a:l z -~ a: -~w -~10 LU s ♦ CO NNECTICU T, MASSACH USETTS AND NEW HAMPSHIR E SAMPLED BY TOWNSHI PS l/) :r: !:r: 0 z WORKS PROGRESS ADM INISTRATION S0OA.l RESEARCH 0IVISION Digitized by NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY Original f•om NORTHWESTER "J U'\JIVERSl"'"Y