View original document

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